The Global Conversation

I wrote about this subject to my blog. It's from the point-of-view of a 18-year-old Finnish Christ-follower. Feel free to check out and comment: http://christandstuff.blogspot.fi/2013/11/what-is-our-generations-model-of. html.

I think the most significant point about the "Hipsters" is that they are evangelical Christians who are trying to reclaim their faith while repudiating the evangelical culture they were raised in. from the point of view of young people who are faithful Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, etc who were not raised in evangelical culture, the "hipsters " are trying to hard to be cool. Whether or not these congregations can draw in the unchurched in addition to the dechurched, or whether they are a way station to being unchurched is up for grabs. For now they are an extension of the youth group or college ministry the "hipsters" came from. Soon this style will pass and will seem just as outmoded as megachurch worship is to many of us who outgrew "light rock" and arena concerts by the time we turned 30.

I think this somewhat over-generalizes hipsters. And as soon as you start creating a list of things to do, you risk legalism... do what comes from the heart, and persue the hearts of others. Just be real, real with yourself, God, others, and that helps them to be real with you :)

I think McCracken is a little bit cynical in thinking that these folks are just trying to be cool and fit in. Or that this is just some sort of trend - to call it a trend is to somehow simplify it. Really, it seems to me that `hipster christianity` is nothing more than a search for authentic christianity. Good-bye plastic, mega-churches with music that doesn`t really apply to life. And good-bye programmes that seem only intended to hype people up, but not make a difference. Even good-bye to (some) traditions - ie: robes and liturgical furniture - that do not seem in keeping with authentic, life-giving, world-changing `salt and light`Christianity. Solid intellectual discussion that recognizes the complexity of life, simple faithful worship, a purpose beyond materialism, and a non-judgemental attitude is what folks are seaching for. Being real is what this is about and I for one welcome it.

A few constructive points: McCracken's assertion that Christians should be "set apart" thus hipster Christians are doing the exact opposite is weak at best. While superficially in dress and artistic taste, they may seem similar, most Christians in this situation feel wildly set apart when they actually express purpose for their life beyond these cultural boundaries. Second, McCracken brings up a much more interesting point toward the end of his article regarding church reflecting your community, yet doesn't fully explore it. All of the churches he references are in young, urban centers where this makes sense. Third, the picture of Claiborne's group shows a diverse group of believes both in age and race. How ironic to include this.

It is apparent from this article how far the "church" has moved from the Word of God. America is falling and many are too blind to see why. But the fault lies in the church and its backslidden ways! We have become so proud as a people that we can't even admit we're wrong. I'm just going to say it like it is: This whole thing is disgusting and a stanch in God's nostrils. When someone is saved, they repent which means change from their old ways. No wonder Paul said the following: "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;" 2 Thessalonians 3:1-4 KJV It is evident that we are truly in the Laodicean era and fit the description that Jesus gave of th

Ultimately, Brett McCracken's article "Hipster Faith" is just another manifestation of the narcissism the church has uncritically adopted, for the phenomenon he is analyzing, and critiquing is his own extremely small demographic of young adults who grew up in the church, went to Christian colleges, and are now disaffected with the faith they were handed down. What McCracken fails to take into account is, like good missionaries, first generation believers like Erwin McManus and Mark Driscol initially set out to start expressions of the church that would connect with the people they were relating to. What they probably never anticipated are the throngs of disillusioned Christian kids their churches would attract. What Christian Hipsters are really rebelling against is not the form of Christianity they were handed down, but the substance. Growing up in a Christian subculture and never being challenged with the realities of discipleship has its unintended consequences.

I just can't believe how bad this article is! Sloppy, illogical, collapsing all distinctions into a handy cartoon. Here's just one tiny example: in the section on the intentional use of shock, the author mentions Anglicans enjoying wine, beer and cigars. News flash: they're Anglicans, and that's not shocking. I've been reading CT since 1989, and to use an old hipster expression, you all really jumped the shark with this one.

I'm sorry, I just can't take a magazine seriously when it advocates the use of Helvetica to attract hipsters, yet doesn't seem to understand that Trebuchet MS is a web font and uses it all over their front cover. Or, well, when it implies that a god exists, but that's a secondary point.

I can't tell if I was laughing so hard because this guy is stereotyping the heck out of a generational subculture or because it is so true in quite a few ways. And what does a hipster hate more than anything? Being stereotyped. Quick one liners about lectio divina and Helvetica were priceless. In fact, this article is so over the top in its systematic line-by-line analysis of hipsterdom, I think it morphs over into slight satire (maybe?) or irony (at the very least) -- which, I submit to you, that hipsters would love even more.

Listen, can somebody make sure my comment shows up in Helvetica? I'm worried the young people won't be able to read it otherwise. I hate to say it, but the lack of any real voices–and by that I mean interviews with these so-called Christian Hipsters–leads me to a place of detachment. Mr. McCracken has constructed a stereotype (a bogeyman, even) with whom few, if any, Christians will identify and of whom even more Christians will now be afraid. Its usefulness as a stereotype is therefore highly suspect.

It's a really well done article. He's practically spot on. He also should have quoted himself for it: this is perfect- "Why listen to more Third Day albums if Radiohead could provide me with something even more holy and transcendent?" that's it. although no one wants to be labeled a (christian) hipster. on the critique side, why did he have to use the word AUDIENCE? really? audience? people who gather to love and praise God and enjoy community are members of an audience? that word could have been avoided and should have been.

Half a decade or so late on these useless sociological stereotypes. Journalism?

an additional coment: The enemy uses devices and coercion to control people whereas God uses the awesome power of His Love to tranform us. Jesus said: "By this shall all men [the world] know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another." Jn.13:35 Is this not where our main focus should be? We do not have this unconditional love without Jesus! It is all grace! Only what is truly of the Lord will remain all else will fail. I have often said that if all the organized Christian churches disappeared my faith would stand because my faith is in nothing and no other, save my Lord Redeemer and Best friend Jesus the only Christ!

Personally speaking I think organized Christianity has to evangelize and be in the world but not of it. This article begs the question: are we over compromising to fit in the world? We are called be God's instruments of transforming the world through the Gospel with the power of the Holy Spirit: the only true power able to redeem humankind through the once and for all sacrifice and victory of our Lord Jesus! Regardless of where or how we worship we need Jesus for without Him we are truly nothing! We the church body gather for fellowship (as we should) at various places and in various ways, but it is Jesus who must be obeyed, worshiped and loved above all. He must permeate everything we are and do!!! Nothing should supersede or be esteemed higher than His presence! It will be how we truly love Him enough to really be His friends that should define our faith more than where or how we gather for worship. We must beable to worship Him privately as much as corporately!

...the Apostle Peter clearly exhorts every Christian to holiness of life and conversation: God’s children ought to be holy because God Himself is holy! I am of the opinion that New Testament Christians do not have the privilege of ignoring such injunctions. There is something basically wrong with our Christianity and our spirituality if we can carelessly presume that if we do not like a biblical doctrine and choose to ignore it, there is no harm done. God has never instructed us that we should weigh His desires for us and His commandments to us in the balance of our own judgments—and then decide what we want to do about them. -A.W. Tozer

A Lower Level O God, You have taught me from my youth Psalm 71:17 There are leaders within the Christianity of our day who will surely answer for their failure to apply the disciplines of the New Testament to the present generation of young people. Much of Christianity today does not hold to the necessity for disciplines in the Christian life...of professing Christian young people. It is not my calling to assess blame, [but] to proclaim the fact that no one, young or old, has the right to come to Jesus Christ and stake out their own conditions and terms. Segments of Christianity have made every possible concession in efforts to win young people to Christ; but instead of converting them to Christ, they have “converted” Christianity to them. Too often they have come down to the modern level—playing, teasing, coaxing, entertaining. In essence, they have been saying to them, “We will do everything as you want it,” instead of Christ’s insistent word, “Take up your cross!” -A.W. Tozer

After my 30 years of ministry, I am amazed how much effort modern movements put into trends (from the most fundamentalist to the most liberal) to attract their target groups. Sadly, most ignored is the desire of Jesus Himself to have a church which is known for its love of one another & its obedience to Him personally. Without a "gimmick," churches who love one another & Christ struggle. A simple examination of the early church, however, indicates that it did not "reach out" or even "care about" the poor - it clearly was poor! It did not seek political power or social approval - it sought to be obedient to Christ. It was a society of slaves & free people (owned by the economic conditions of its day) whose connections to the world around them were only a means to introduce the non-believers to an eternal world in the dimension of God's kingdom. They dealt with both physical & spiritual reality from the viewpoint & lifestyle of Jesus; the no. 1 failure of all "trendy" movements.

Thanks for the article. I see a lot of people denigrating it in the comments. One wonders if they've had any contact with Hipster Christianity at all. I'm an ancient-hymn singing, Sufjan listening, home-brewing, liturgically worshipping graduate student and the majority of my friends would be described (though not self described) as "hipster Christians." My entire church (we are a mission/church plant) goes out for decent brews after the evening service). Brett has the lot of us pretty much pegged, down to the tattoos and tobacco. The challenges to our faith, that Brett sheds light on, are certainly real challenges and anyone who identifies with this sort of emerging Christianity should take note (I certainly am). Also, Susan, I think you should reread the article more carefully. Nowhere in the exposition is there any bitterness for not being hip (that is almost a laughable complaint, having carefully read the whole thing). Brett gives a completely fair account of this current trend.

So 20-something Christians like the same things as 20-something non-christians. Well, so what? Middle aged Christians drive the same cars, wear the same clothes, and like the same music as the middle aged non-christians around them. And the worship style at their churches was new once too. Let the young be young.

One thing that Brett did not address is how widespread is this movement? Is this much ado about nothing?

Josh Kelley, Pabst is king of hipster beers, fyi... I read the similar article in Relevant Magazine and was left just as unimpressed by this. Maybe I'm too close to "hipster Christianity" myself, but this article seems way too gimmicky and throws around so many labels and generalizations that sound so seemingly out of the norm because American Christianity has been so co-opted by conservative politics and lifestyles that are so far out of sync with the heart of the Scripture that anything different is new and trendy. I hope the book this is based on has a lot more to offer than stereotypes and reactionary judgments. But questions of the impact of such movements within the Church in regards to race and class are certainly interesting and of value to discuss. And yikes, I sure wouldn't want to be lumped together with Mars Hill under the banner of "Christian hipster."

Fair assessment on most parts. What I find the most interesting phenomenon in non-Hoosier churches is the utter dismissal of it as shallow and not centered enough on theology. Perhaps the rejection of the traditional American church is as much an indictment on a perceived hot and tittle christianity as anything.

An interesting assessment of what the rest of relevant church leaders more commonly refer to some brand of postmodernism. (as opposed to the vintage term 'hipster') I hesitate to comment on an article which is obvious attempt at sensationalism, but I have a hard time accepting the idea that all of Christendom should be homogenized into the same culture. Jesus said at the end of Matthew to 'go into all the world' not the let the world come into our pointy evangelical suburban stockades. Fads come and go, but the message remains the same: Jesus is for the broken. (even if they are evil enough to listen to Rob Bell and Sufjan Stephens or use Twitter) remember when Luther brought the organ from the Pub to the Church (not to mention a tune or two?) I would invite the author to become a part of a world in which real people live, rather than stand at a distance and ridicule adiaphora at the detriment of the beloved bride of Christ.

I'm so hip, I have absolutely no interest in this article.

"One of hipsterdom's positive values is its concern for justice—whether it be sweatshops or sex trafficking, water wells or finance reform. Hipsters almost always champion the cause of the underdog (immigrants, the poor, minorities) over those with power and privilege." I do not think that statement is always true. Hipsters seem to mostly champion causes that are popular in the secular media (opposition to the Iraq War and "Islamophobia"; support for amnesty for illegal aliens, gay/lesbian marriage, global warming, etc.). Far from being rebels, hipsters generally seem fairly docile and obedient when it comes to challenging the assumptions and beliefs of the secular culture they seem eager to follow. Apart from some quirky features (such as graphic sermons on sex) these hipster churches do not see very different from a lot of mainline denominations that are dying away.

In addition to the comments I made earlier, each culture has what it considers 'sin'. In many countries tatoos, for example, are not considered sinful in need of repentance by the wearer. I know a young man who did not fit in with mainstream school, church, or culture. He WAS a Christian who hung with tatooed people who were struggling to find their spiritual place, but most mainstream 'Christians' rejected them, saying 'surely they cannot be one of us'. He took his life, due to depression that was related to his rejection by the church. If the mainstream, biblical church accepted people like my friend, then there would not need to be a fad or movement for hip people to follow. BTW, I am VERY HIP and COOL (for my age, lol), and I have a hard time fitting in with mainstream Christians, but I love the mainstream church in its doctrine and practice. And, more importantly, I love the Christ who came to accept us all.

What comes across very clearly in this article is that it's hip to be against being hip, which makes his lack of hipness actually hip. Furthermore, his article is about as well researched as a Barna statistic (ohh, let's survey 100 people and make sweeping claims about the church- that's a good idea). Would really like to see this kind of garbage stop getting printed. Christians are notoriously hard on themselves and will often twist statistics to be so. BTW, don't people have anything better to do with their life than bash Mark Driscoll? Seriously, its like the Christian national pastime. I'd like to see one article that objectively explores what Driscoll is doing in Seattle, with thousands not only coming to Christ, but being more doctrinally sound than the average baptist!

If we are the body of Christ, then why are there such things such as the 'they occasionally drop the f-bomb', and also engage in behavior that can be seen as worldly and conforming to the world. I heard a lot about God but where is Jesus Christ the Savior? Where is the mention of salvation? Or is it just a group that uses Christianity as a means to gather numbers? Such as a political agenda party? We are to be set apart, while it is hard to live in this world and do that, we should at least have respect for our faith, and try to reach people for Christ, we can empathize, we can understand, but for instance,I go and volunteer at a drug rehab to have church services.We (my dad and I), read scriptures to encourage the people, they might share stories, events, but we don't go out and drink because they do. (My dad was an alcoholic).We don't go out into the bar and find these people. I've passed out gospel tracks OUTSIDE a bar during a parade. I think it's just a fad. But only God knows.

As I did some browsing through the internet I found that Hipsters (Mostly secular versions) are not liked very much and are made fun of frequently. They are often are deemed to be lazy and arrogant and demand much conformity from those who are in their subculture. If Christian Hipsters can do anything they can help to mend this attitude of arrogance and strict conformity by being counter-counter-cultural. If not they will gain very little respect and will be a very short lived movement.

Great article Brett. Here are some of my own observations 1. Hipster Christianity is no doubt diverse. What is true of one group is not necessarily true of another. 2. I can't help but see it as a subculture. In either a spoken or non-spoken way there are expectations for those inside. What you wear, what music you listen to how you talk, what you read, your political affiliation ect. 3. Hipsters are too age oriented. What happens when you turn 40? 4. They seem too sectarian as a result of their rebellion against mainstream Evangelicalism. Can these churches work well with other non-hipster Christians? 5. The movement (If indeed it is a movement) has two possible futures. Either it grows and becomes institutionalized or it will dissolve since it will be unable to pass on its values to the next generation.

I don't like "church as entertainment" as a rule. I find that the depth of relationship with Christ isn't fostered so much as is the instant gratification needs of an increasingly impersonal techonolgy dependant society. That being said, I do at times attend a hipster church because I know the worship leader personally and know that his testimony is anything but hipster. The most important "ingredient" of any church is Jesus Christ. If He is truly alive and well in the congregation, nothing is impossible. And a relationship with Him is progressive, not instant. It's ofter difficult as we're clay in His potter's hands. It's not always "feel good" and it's not a smorgosboard of variety to entice us. It's about Him.

One of the powerful and, at the same time, irritating traits of evangelical Christianity is our need for and tendency towards critique. If the self examined life is worth more, then the life of evangelical Christianity is worth a fortune. This is good. But I found this article in the irritating category. McCraken tosses off sacastic criticism without giving any real credance to how or why these pracitces or ideas formed. He simply says those who participate in the hippster movement are wanting to be cool, that coolness is their driving motivation. And I am not convinced. He gives little credence to the real problems many in and out of the hippseter movement have with past cultrually bound expressions of Chrisianity. It's like he woke from a dream he did not like but is unwilling to look back to the meal he ate before bed that induced it. He never seems to recognize that a similar article could be written about what the church looked like in every other time in history.

Interesting... I can see John Pond's point. This article is a little inconsistent, despite some interesting points here and there. One thing that completely threw me off was the comment about gluten-free communion bread. What the heck does having an allergy have to do with being hipster? Some of the things mentioned in this article (like food allergies) are simply universally more common and not specific to any sort of hipster subculture. I did like the pro/con analysis, but there seemed to be an inconsistent voice over all, jumping back and forth between subjective and objective analysis and never acknowledging when either was being used. I think he is right when he says that hipster subculture is similar to suburban megachurch subculture in some ways because it is also trying to be "relevant" and sometimes taking it too far. On the other hand, some of these things are simply matters of taste. David is right to suggest that it doesn't matter as long as Christ is the focus.

I know very few "Christian hipsters" who would engage in vices simply for the motive of being missional. Seems to me that these questions are irrelevant. Christian hipster or not, Christianity is founded on the principle that Christ was sent by God, lived a perfect life, was crucified for our sins, and resurrected... all in historical reality on earth. In the end, Christian hipster or not, our focus should never be on whether or not we're hipsters or not hipsters, that's not the point. In Christ, there is no division. It's time to focus again on the cross of Christ, which is what makes us Christian. Oddly enough, however, at least in my experience, the Christian hipster seems to typically appear to the world as the "alternative" kids from five years ago, not modern and relevant. Our idea of what is and is not relevant is still defined by those who already claim to be Christians. Who are we trying to reach anyways?

How cool that young people are finding Jesus Christ and prophetically calling out us older Christians for our hypocrisies (even if they invent some of their own along the way). Let's rejoice with the angels in heaven! We can trust the Holy Spirit to work throughout their individual lives, just as he continually works like a sculptor painstakingly chipping away what is not needed to transform all of us Christians into the image of Christ.

Interesting article in a painfully self-conscious, "hip" sort of way. What it describes appears to be one big yawn. If anyone can help me with this, I once read that G.K. Chesterton said that "relevance is boring," though I am not sure of this. But the expression seems to have currency here. The "hipster" church seems to be but another expression of most all modern, market-driven churches, albeit with its own quaint nuances. To be sure, I do kind of enjoy the Theological Six Packs I have attended.

I think the author is just jealous because his church doesn't use Helvetica font. I don't go to a church like the one described. It's all ironic, it's all kitsch. But it's also all we (the kids) are. I'd much rather go to hipster church than most churches. But then, it's difficult because I'd RATHER rather just not go. It's funny, because any "hipster Christ-follower" you describe would read this article and agree with you. That's the pain of it all: everything is available for ridicule, including one's own way of doing things. Relevant to the discussion is this video: http://vimeo.com/11501569 It could be mocking the trend, except that the video was made by North Point Media, for a church that runs basically JUST like what you see in the video. Now that's what I call "growtivation." Mind you that video isn't hipster-church; it's white suburban mega-church in a semi-progressive area. But you get the point.

Very informative and very depressing. Let's be hip while our culture, our country and our world still burn. The race to be hip, rebellious, unconventional is in itself a way of conforming. Tattoos and cigars are a distraction. True radical Christians strive with every ounce of their being to get as close to Christ as possible. Christ then will be in you and control you and these distractions will fall away. You'll be radical and cool not because of something easy like a tattoo but because of something hard - exercising the spiritual disciplines til it hurts. Then you'll focus on a real faith that stands out and impacts those around you. How about being a great husband or wife and having a huge family that you can train to follow Christ with all their heart. Sounds like hipsters will be to busy tasting wine to die to self.