Why is there such a belittling attitude in the reformed theological community towards hipster Christianity? Actually, I can't really tell if it's belittling, just poking fun, or what, but what I do notice is that it's become, in a way, hip to talk about "hipster Christianity" these days, and that this group is usually looked unfavorably upon.
Here are some examples people talking about Hipster Christians: There's
Llamalima's post about hipsters and
another one on Revelife. There are
two articles about hipsters in Christianity Today. In another post,
an orthodox priest complains about hipsters getting orthodox theology wrong. MagisterTom re-posted a quote about hipsters on facebook:
There's even a book called
Hipster Christianity.
I'll stop there with my sampling, but what I'm getting at is the large amount of talk about hipster Christianity in the sphere of influence I find myself in -- mostly reformed theology -- most of which is very critical, even derogatory when taken in certain light.
It seems like most of this boils down to a conflict of doctrines. In my brief research, the biggest reason why hipster Christians are looked down upon is the tendency to veer into an emergent church direction; a direction where liberal theology is applied... liberally.
I'm not going to deny that emergent theology is dangerous and has all kinds of non-biblical stances. For example, I hear from many sources that Rob Bell doesn't believe in Hell, even though Jesus himself talks about it more than anyone else in the Bible -- according to Mark Driscoll. I personally know and have done Bible studies with and had debates with a few hipster/emergent Christians who believe some very unstable things about the accuracy and validity of scripture as the Word of God -- e.g. replacing Sola Scriptura with a "just ask God himself if 'it' is OK; the bible is not God" attitude.
But for some reason, all this attention to these people makes me uncomfortable and I wonder if it's not dissimilar to the publicity that
Rebecca Black has received. Yes, we all know that her music, like hipster theology, is lacking in all kinds of categories, but why then do we find ourselves fixated and dwelling on it? Internet culture and "Mainstream" (ahem) Christianity are in a traffic jam of rubberneckers.
So should we just leave hipsters alone and drive by the accident, minding our own business? I'm not sure. I feel like it would be in contest with the Great Commission if we were to not attempt to straighten out hipster theology, but to target and dwell on Hipster Christians seems too similar to the plank-in-the-eye lesson Jesus taught. A mental image of Mark Driscoll holding a plank in one hand and a toothpick in the other pops into my head.
Llamalima said on facebook that:
"Reformed people are the cranky old grandparents that sit on their front porch yelling at people to get off their lawn while waving a shotgun. And the hipster churches are the teenagers that are smoking behind the gym during lunchtimes." He's definitely right, but I still think that we could stop and think about how much we complain about hipsters invading Christianity, and instead of being the cranky old grandparents, maybe it would be at least slightly more Biblical to
invite them in for donuts and coffee and free books on Doctrine (ahem). We could be like the old man in the Sandlot who, instead of being super sketch, ends up being pretty cool.
These are just my thoughts. My only real point is that I'm tired of people complaining about hipsters, and I think it's about time we just accept that they exist and move on to the next stage, what ever it may be, of this conflict. I also feel like it causes more disunity in the body of Christ than it builds the church up. And I'm pretty sure that scripture has a few things to say about building up the church and seeking unity over division. Like it or not, emergents are our brethren in Christ.
Do you think the uproar over "hipsters" in Christianity is valid? What exactly is a hipster, and what is so wrong about them that many feel their existence in the Christian faith is an invasion? Is there any middle ground?
True
Comments (9)
I think that is the biggest part. Pastor Mark speaks often about the church being girly and effeminate. And, for that reason, men are alienated from it. I think this plays into that a bit as well.
I, for one, was not well aware of this hipster movement. I've heard of "liberal Christianity" (which, to me, isn't Christianity at all) but I did not know about hipsters. I'm glad I'm filled in now!
i find it strange when Christians criticize other Christians for applying liberal theology, when by all historical accounts the religion started off as a liberal form of Judaism. maybe in time liberal Christianity will become its own religion in time. personally, i wish Pelagianism was still around.
Good post. And I agree with the sit-down-with-coffee approach. Wish that was more common these days...
(Hope you're having a good life, by the way. =) )
Do I win? I am 3 out of 4 of the Related Posts?
Should it really surprise us that most complaints and arguments come from the neo-Reformed camp? I mean, when Rob Bells book came out, I have never in my 20+ year Christian life seen such an uproar. The word "heretic" was loosely flung around and entire treatises were written on behalf of the Reformed church calling for anathema against Bell. Sadly, I witnessed much of this mudslinging from the Reformed folks way before Bell's book came out. I am convinced that today's Reformed fundamentalist folks are yesterday's Pharisees. If you don't think like them, believe as they do, and conform to their way of living, stones are waiting to be cast.
It really is no wonder why so many people are turned off from Christianity when they see those who call themselves Christian throwing mud at each other. Do people really want to be a part of something like that? I know I wouldn't.
I think "hipster" is a lot like "emerging" - ask 10 people what the word means and you'll get 10 different responses. Even in the articles linked, people are probably defining and/or attacking a definition of hipster that differs. For some, if you're a Christian who owns a mac, and wears black rimmed glasses and flannel, you're a "Christian hipster." For others, they assume theological beliefs.
We have to define "hipster" before we can attack it. If we mean people who look a certain way, hipster Christianity is not a problem. However, if we mean people who care more about being cool than they care about Jesus, or people who don't believe that scripture has authority, it is a problem.
I think it's important to have fellowship with people of all ages, which is one reason I dislike churches made of just 20 and 30 somethings. With that being said, everybody needs a savior, and we all have our own faults. Just gotta adress them all.
@PunkRockCowboy@xanga - I think I liked your comment the best. as well as @Theophilus166@xanga - . This is the same type of thing as what was mentioned earlier about the fact that Christianity was a liberal form of Judaism, and yet it comformed to all the Jewish scriptures. We must be very careful to know WHAT these believers believe before calling them out. I had no knowledge of Rob Bell's book. I might read it if for no other reason than to be informed. But I think there are WAY too many Christians who are not exactly talking out of their mouths when beating on these "hipsters".
But we also must remember that this is not a new thing. Before the hipsters were here we beat on others who are like us. Baptists beat on Church of God, COG beat on Church of Christ, COC beat on those Christians who have musical insturments in their service, Protestants are always beating on Catholics, and vice versa.
We are Fallen Humans, and yet it is no excuse. Do we agree on the basics? If we do then fine! What does most of the other stuff really matter? Stop ignorantly throwing each other away just because there are differences!
Cowboy