I was just looking at the web site. Good graphics, but it seems to be more ChristianAntiCulture than ‘counter’. By that i mean the thrust seems to be about non-patriotism, pulling out of media, withdrawing from secular agencies, rather than seeking the prosperity of our nations, while staying unstained by the world’s influences. By and large, I would hope the counter culture is seeking a holistic lifestyle in accordance with God’s law, one that addresses the deficiencies of the modern culture, rather than a renewed modern dualistic approach to life and spirituality.
Maybe i need to read their manifesto again or look deeper into their site. Any thoughts?


Andrew Jones launched his first internet space in 1997 and has been teaching on related issues for the past 20 years. He travels all the time but lives between Wellington, San Francisco and a hobbit home in Prague.


  • I read their manifesto. They are *so close*, but that doesn’t count when you are making things an all or nothing proposition as they have. I wondered if perhaps they didn’t start at just slightly the wrong place. Consider these words from the ‘How has this happened’ section: “In an effort to be influential, Christians have been trying to buy their own legitimacy…”
    From my perspective the Church (at least the American Church) has been more concerned with power than influence. In other words, how can I get you to act externally the way I want? The natural result of this attitude is the artificial culture that they critique. But I think it is wrong to say that the sub-culture came about because the Church had a desire to influence.
    I also wonder about their extreme focus on the word “truth.” It seems to me that we might be better served emphasizing relationships. That is the ultimate answer to the “WWJD?” question.

  • “This is the time to show a generation which thinks that the concept of truth is unthinkable that we do take truth seriously. This will only happen if Christian’s are living out what they confess to believe with integrity — what the Apostle John called, walking in the truth. 2 John 4”
    But who defines that truth? I see a real unwillingness, or maybe inability, for people to come to consensus on the “truth” in scripture. The proliferation of denominations is proof enough of that.
    Sounds like this group has put themselves in the position of “a voice crying out in the wilderness” as lovers of “truth”. No where in the manifesto is truth defined , nor are we told how this revelation of truth was come upon or by what authority the group feels the right to define truth. Are they Calvinist or Armenian concerning grace? What about predestination vs. freewill? Do they believe in one baptism to receive the Holy Spirit or is being “baptized in the Spirit” something different or does one have to be baptized to be saved? Do they sprinkle or dunk? Are they pre-, mid- or post- tribulation millennialists? What is their “truth” and how is this truth going to unify the body?
    One more question, where is the love? Not once in the manifesto is the love of God or the love of the believer mentioned… not even mentioned. If truth for truth’s sake is enough to unify Christ’s body then what of 1st Corinthians chapter 13?
    “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”

  • I am afraid, Mark did not read to the very end. The “truth” question was clearly too disturbing :-).
    At the very end (maybe not quite as bold as it should be), the manifesto reads:

    We must demonstrate love. The world has a right to judge whether we are Chrsitians or not on the basis of how we manifest substantive love to each other as Christians – and to all people, because they are created in God’s image, deserving dignity and honor.

    Well, truth is really a desirable thing, but quite a tricky subject. On the other hand, we humans, as complex as we are, are able to live with truth without exhaustive knowledge of it. Some things shouldn’t be compromised though (Apostles’ Creed?).

  • r u guys finished???
    hey thanks again – a friend was asking about it and i said that the group behind the site seems pretty sound – they link to some good people and they seem trustworthy, although they do tend to focus on the negative/ascetic rather than the positive/missional.
    i appreciate your opinions – thanks

  • I’ve run across this site before. They are very, very calvinistic, and everything they’re doing has to be understood through that lens.

  • I’ve run across this site before. They are very, very calvinistic, and everything they’re doing has to be understood through that lens.

  • it’s same ole stuff, new packaging. it’s “emerging” counterculture for the hyper-reformed with all the eggs in the “justification by faith” basket.
    i’ll pass thank you. i’ve taken that train as far as it’ll go & am nodding respectfully as it pulls off the platform.

Leave a Reply