I don’t see where you included the link…
[Note from Rod: I fixed it -- thanks for letting me know -- RD]

Since the quiz doesn’t sound very accurate, and I probably wouldn’t know some of the names and I don’t have much time, I’ll skip it.
BUT! I followed your link to the types of Hipster Christians. If I am one (or if I were one), I’d be the Bookish Intellectual. I’m pretty sure 75% of adult Quakers would fall into this category. ;o) It’s actually one of the things that annoys me about Quakers — how predictable we sometimes are. But I’m one of them, so what can I do except be nice to monied yuppies when they show up at worship and try not to use the word “other” to refer to groups of people? [shrug]

Rod
I think you’re missing the point. A Christian hipster as defined by Mr. McCracken is about as far from the CCM, seeker-sensitive, evangelical culture as you can get. I think you’re more of hipster than you think. Christian hipsters read Wendell Berry, use creeds and liturgies, reject smaltzy, cornball worship services and preachers, despise “Christian music” as it’s defined by pop radio and the music industry, eat organic, and consider protecting the environment a moral imperative. They love to share meals together and enjoy good food and wine. Sound familiar. Essentially, they are seeking an authenticity to their faith and their main source is the early church. They can be a little too cool for their own good, but to lump them in with Joel Osteens and the moral theraputic deists of the world is a gross misreprentation. Read McCracken’s interview…I think you’ll find alot to like about these folks.

High CHQ. You are a pretty progressive, stylish, hipster-leaning Christian, even while you could easily feel at home in a decidedly un-hip non-denominational church. You are conservative on some issues and liberal on others, and sometimes you grow weary of trendy “alt-Christianity.” But make no mistake: You are a Christian hipster to at least some degree.
Of course a lot of the questions didn’t really have any answers that I agreed with. While at times clever, it is not a very well designed “test”.

I got the same as Larry, but I too was guessing at some of the answers, like “Who best represents the future of Christianity?” where I had to just randomly click one of the four people I’d never heard of.

My Christian hipster quotient was the same as your friend’s:
Low CHQ. You probably belong to the purpose-driven, seeker-sensitive, Hawaiian shirt-wearing Christian establishment, even though you are open to some of the “rethinking Christianity” stuff. You seem to like edginess in some measure but become uneasy when your idea of Christian orthodoxy is challenged by some renegade young visionary who claims the virgin birth isn’t necessary.
Funny thing is, I don’t know where they get Hawaiian shirt-wearing in the so-called Christian establishment either. Maybe it’s from that whole Jesus Freak movement in the 70s out in California? I dunno.
When this quiz says rethinking Christianity, I think it would be better phrased as “rethinking evangelical subculture.” Because the Gospel hasn’t changed, but referring to the Creation Care movement, the Emergent “conversation,” or the symbolic nature of things like the virgin birth (without the historical basis) as “Christianity” seems misguided. To quote my church pastor, “Not at the cost of my soul.” The fact is that the gospel still has to be the main thing…the motivating factor behind taking care of the poor and the environment and all that.

Mark: Christian hipsters read Wendell Berry, use creeds and liturgies, reject smaltzy, cornball worship services and preachers, despise “Christian music” as it’s defined by pop radio and the music industry, eat organic, and consider protecting the environment a moral imperative. They love to share meals together and enjoy good food and wine. Sound familiar.
Yeah, Mark, but what strikes me as odd is that doing these things means one is avant garde. Not in my circles. What McCracken is talking about is Evangelical (or post-Evangelical) hipsterdom. So many of the things that gets one identified as a “Christian hipster” here have little or no resonance as hip or square within non-Evangelical Christian circles. Put another way, I might appear to be a “Christian hipster” to someone within mainstream Evangelicalism, but I’m probably not going to look that way to many Catholics and Orthodox. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that one is better than the other, only saying that this book’s idea of what counts as “Christian” assumes that Christianity stops at Protestantism’s edges. I’m sure he doesn’t literally believe that, but it does limit the usefulness of his analysis. Put another way, for me, it’s more interesting as a guide to cultural values and tropes within Evangelicalism than within Christianity as a whole. Still, I agree, it’s very entertaining, and maybe flattering to be thought of as “hip” when you are a middle-aged troglodyte like me.

66/120. And that was only after answering some questions where I had to guess, because I had no idea what they were talking about. My guess is that I tracked your Anglican friend who considers himself an evangelical because the same — with some “Reformed Catholic” footnotes — is true of me.

Interesting. I stopped refering to myself as an Evangelical Christian about the time it came to mean: far-right Republican, gay-bashing, free-will denying (especially for women), anti-stewardship of this world God gave us to cherish, pro-torture…
Christianity has been hijacked to serve as a battle ground for the culture wars. I don’t write too often on your blog, Rod, because I have noticed I fall squarely in the range of readers whom you and your most prominent (did not say favorite) are not fond of. This, though, surprised me, and I think it surprised me in the same manner in which your results surprised you.
What did Ronald Reagan say – no, not the scariest words in the language, the one about …if we agree on 70%, we’re on the same side?
It’s a real shame, but the more time I spend here, the less I believe there’s any chance of breeching that 30% gap. This silly little “quiz” pretty much confirmed it for me. Funny, because that 70% might as well be zip.
Your Christian Hipster Quotient:
77 / 120
High CHQ. You are a pretty progressive, stylish, hipster-leaning Christian, even while you could easily feel at home in a decidedly un-hip non-denominational church. You are conservative on some issues and liberal on others, and sometimes you grow weary of trendy “alt-Christianity.” But make no mistake: You are a Christian hipster to at least some degree.
reCaptcha: new avast
Goodness.

Christianity stops at a lot of religious edges. Edges is a good way to talk about Christianity. Tillich showed that the borderline situation is the proper view of “justification by faith.”
This was the main concept which drove the reformers from the “catholic” faith. It’s also interesting that many modern evangelicals have paradoxically turned justification into a law, the exact opposite of its intention. The concept is well nigh unintelligible to modern people.
Rather than being hip, being out on the edge today means disengaging. Turning off the TV, radio, computer, cell phone. Removing oneself from the pressures of being like others that starts with youth at elementary ages. I’m exagerating for emphasis, but the point is clear. You are unique, and God can and will alter situations for you, if you will give that freedom. It’s very liberating. It’s also ironic in many aspects. Those who lose their life, gain it. Those who are most narcisstic cozy up to churches and are the best at getting others be like them.
As an older hipster duffice, lets go for more ecumenicism of the trenches.
Captcha: tibetan gas

I enjoyed the quiz and scored quite high so I guess I have some credibility in commenting? I am firmly in the evangelical camp (but as a good hipster, I hate the label). I read blogs like this one and the First Things to understand Catholic/Orthodox thought though I still find that I personally agree with the Reformers of yore. I would love to hear some of the Catholic/Orthodox readers on this blog read/listen to Tim Keller. He was mentioned in the quiz as one of the defining leaders of Christianity of the future. I find that he is asking and answering the questions that most of my under 50 crowd is asking ie “Arent all religions just a path to the same God” and “Isnt the concept of hell a relic of the past?” amongst others. Does his approach appeal to all, Catholic and Protestant alike? I tend to think so, but again I may be mired in my own church culture.

Your Christian Hipster Quotient:
77 / 120
High CHQ. You are a pretty progressive, stylish, hipster-leaning Christian, even while you could easily feel at home in a decidedly un-hip non-denominational church. You are conservative on some issues and liberal on others, and sometimes you grow weary of trendy “alt-Christianity.” But make no mistake: You are a Christian hipster to at least some degree.
I think I’m going to be sick now. All this because I knew who Ray Boltz was. Sheesh!!

Low CHQ, no surprise. My husband, who enjoys some Christian music, would probably do better (though I don’t think he’s fond of any of the bands listed, but I’m so clueless about any music after about the late 1800s that I can’t say for sure).
Rod, slightly off topic, but have you seen this? Pretty funny:
http://vimeo.com/11501569
It’s clear from the “anatomy” section that this quiz and the descriptions are aimed at the mid-30s and younger crowd. I think that starting in my mid-thirties I stopped caring so much about which little box of Catholicism I fit into (e.g., Trad vs. small-t traditional, small-o orthodox, etc.) and started trying to be a better Catholic and Christian wherever God put me, and even if my parish church and its members don’t quite measure up to things I once cared a lot about–e.g., if the aesthetics and the music at the parish leave a lot to be desired, or if the parishioners are the sort who got disappointed during swine flu season when reminded not to hold hands during the Our Father, etc. Don’t get me wrong; I haven’t stopped thinking that solid doctrine, reverent liturgy, and good catechesis are important; I’m just more willing to work within the framework of what is, instead of spending all my time searching for some unattainable ideal of perfection in these areas.
I mention this because of the age group at which this quiz/site seems to be aimed; I think that it’s probably true for other Christians that there comes a time when you stop focusing so much on the question “Am I this or that sort of a Christian?” and start focusing on the question, “Am I a Christian?”

Your Christian Hipster Quotient:
78 / 120
High CHQ. You are a pretty progressive, stylish, hipster-leaning Christian, even while you could easily feel at home in a decidedly un-hip non-denominational church. You are conservative on some issues and liberal on others, and sometimes you grow weary of trendy “alt-Christianity.” But make no mistake: You are a Christian hipster to at least some degree.
I didn’t know who Rob Bell, Tim Keller, Erwin McManus or Mark Driscoll are. So I picked one at random. My type was represented by some really badly dressed guy with a yucky beard.
I hated this so much.
captcha: economic recopies

Remember that many in the “Christian hipster” movement are seeking different worship experiences, but these lead to non-denominational churches where, in some cases, anything goes theologically. That’s not to say some of these people aren’t true believers, or haven’t accepted Christ, but it is _the_ distinguishing factor between them and the RC/Orthodox church. Many of these churches don’t want any structures of authority between themselves and God.
It’s avant-garde as a marketing tactic, perhaps?

“Your Christian Hipster Quotient:
92 / 120
Extremely High CHQ. Congratulations! You are a grade A, Sufjan-caliber Christian hipster! You probably like Thomas Merton, hookah, and lectio divina. You’re not above self-critique and meta theory, and thus should definitely read Hipster Christianity.”
Sadly all of that is true . . . except for the hookah part. Smoking is gross!

I scored a 62 – very low. I am a traditionalist in my music – but not in doctrine. I was raised a Catholic, first believed in a Southern Baptist Church and I am sorely disappointed with churches that place more importance on a relationship with a church instead of a relationship with God.

Thinking about this further, it occurs to me that while I know both Catholics and Orthodox believers I would say are more or less hipsters, I don’t know any who conceive of their hipsterdom as in some sense related to their religious identity. They are hipsters who happen to be Catholic/Orthodox. Yet I also have to say that I can think of at least two Evangelicals I know of whose hipster way of dressing and thinking about themselves and their identities really is tied to their religion (both attend “emergent” churches). Is this your impression too? Is there such a thing as a Catholic or an Orthodox hipster, in the same sense as the author of this book has identified Evangelical hipsters? I don’t think so, but maybe I’m just not thinking hard enough. How would you identify a Catholic or Orthodox hipster? If it’s not possible to, and the “Christian hipster” designation really only says something about Evangelical culture, then why is it only a manifestation of Evangelical culture? IOW, what does it say about Evangelical culture and the way its constituted?
Mind you, I’m not asking from a judgmental point of view; I really want to understand. I intuit that it must have something to do with the strong sense many American Evangelicals have of inhabiting a subculture, and it perhaps has to do with a sense of rebellion against the identity they’ve been handed — something that non-Evangelical Christians of the current generation don’t have much experience of. Again, if one were a hipster and a Catholic, it’s my sense that nobody within the Catholic community would think one had anything to do with the other, because it would be hard to see hipster intellectual or sartorial fashion as being a reaction against any kind of ideal that’s seen as central to what it means to be Catholic. The “Christian hipster” identity for Evangelicals suggests that there are within Evangelical culture some pretty strong models in terms of fashion, behavior, tastes (intellectual and otherwise) that one is expected to adopt to prove one’s membership in the tribe — and it’s those that “Christian hipsters” are rebelling against. But look, I dunno, I’m just an outsider who’s speculating. You tell me.

I couldn’t answer more than half the questions of the quiz as, for the most part, except for The Imitation of Christ, I didn’t know who or what was being referred to. I still remember the first time my husband and I were asked by an Evangelical if we liked Christian music. It was only in being asked the question that we began to get us the idea that it might be a genre, though we had no idea what it was; we replied that, yes, we liked Bach–than whom there is possibly no composer more Christian (though in terms of music in general I would say that both Gregorian and Byzantine chant are more essentially Christian).

“IOW, what does it say about Evangelical culture and the way its constituted?”
Evangelicals experience Christ in the present, not through liturgy and bells/smells. Christ is everywhere and the Scriptures–instead of apologetics–are the defining characteristic. They don’t have to read Chesterton to understand their faith, they find it in the scriptures and in their every day lives.
So you can be a hipster and have Christ at the center of your life. You aren’t self-conscious of it. You aren’t just chanting like a drone, but experiencing the faith and the word whether you are wearing ironic eyeglasses and a goatee, or whether you are a nerd.
There are hipster Catholics, but they are busy doing social justice activities, living in urban intentional communities, feeding the homeless. Spend some time with young people under 30 doing social justice work and you’ll meet Catholic hipsters (and Orthodox ones, I imagine).

>>Your Christian Hipster Quotient:
78 / 120
High CHQ. You are a pretty progressive, stylish, hipster-leaning Christian, even while you could easily feel at home in a decidedly un-hip non-denominational church. You are conservative on some issues and liberal on others, and sometimes you grow weary of trendy “alt-Christianity.” But make no mistake: You are a Christian hipster to at least some degree.<<
This is a, though vague, fairly accurate description of where I am. Which is kind of funny. I’ve been a “hipster-leaning Christian” for years but it was only recently that I realized who I was was at odds with the labels I was still wearing…the ones with which I had identified because they were the “right” labels in my circles. At any rate, fun quiz. That anatomy section is brilliant (I’m some kind of artistic/bookish hybrid haha).

I took a look. I think it’s just another one of those silly “online quizes” that uses some cheaply thrown-together algorithm to classify people into whatever buzzword categories that happen to be a current fad… it’s good for entertainment, like reading a tabloid horoscope, and not to be taken seriously. And it just happens to be an advertisement tool for Jonathan Acuff to promote his upcoming book.
Captcha: nonsense blithering

Correction: I mean Brett McCracken’s book.
Captcha: walk argument

As an Evangelical who scored an abysmal (triumphant?) 43/120 on the quiz, it’s not hard for me to realize why just Evangelicals tie their hipsterism so closely to their faith.
Back at the turn of the 20th century, there was the move to modernism in the Protestant churches inspired by Kant’s philosophy that finally percolated into the theology taught in the seminaries. Modernism in effect put a barrier between faith and reason such that whatever does not come from reason is not knowledge. Thus, the truths that Scripture teaches that are beyond the reach of reason to prove (such as the Trinity and the Incarnation) are considered irrational and not knowledge. Modernism posed powerful objections to the inspiration of Scripture, the veracity of miracles, and, ultimately, the exclusivity of Christianity’s truth claims that, because of the prevailing philosophical commitments Christian leaders unknowingly accepted, they had no way to effectively counter.
The reaction among the conservative believers was to rally behind the fundamentals of the faith and retreat from what they saw as an increasingly corrupt group of mainline denominations, seminaries, and universities. In other words, conservative Protestants chose to give up their influence in culture to guarantee their own survival. So they created their own schools in the Bible school movement and, eventually, their own cultural and entertainment outlets. True, the fundamentalists (those who originally held to the fundamentals in the old modernist controversy) reacted rather strongly to the parallel culture that conservative Protestants (at first termed neo-Evangelicals by the Fundamentalists). Now ‘Evangelical’ refers not to a monolithic group of believers as the term ‘Fundamentalist’ once did. Rather, ‘Evangelical’ is a catch term for all those Protestants who do not identify with liberal mainline denominations. Evangelicals span the theological terrain from liberal emergent church types to very strict (and legalistic) separatists. The common ground comes from their roots in the side that retreated from mainline Protestantism and the culture at large.
What we see now are efforts by some Evangelicals to reassert themselves into the culture again, and this is healthy. However, in order to avoid the pitfalls of the past and the, in my estimation, great intellectual damage the retreat has caused Evangelicals, there must be an adherence to the perennial philosophy rooted in reality that can answer Kant, correct the theological and practical errors that have crept in over the decades, and participate in the larger culture with an intellectually robust light.
That is why I love the Christian heritage handed down through the ages to me and why I loathe the trendiness within Evangelicalism that does nothing to prepare believers to deal with the state our families, communities, and world is in.

I would love to hear some of the Catholic/Orthodox readers on this blog read/listen to Tim Keller. Does his approach appeal to all, Catholic and Protestant alike?
Yes, Keller appeals to Catholics. They can read him and find that he’s clear and careful. He doesn’t compromise his side … he keeps his integrity … Catholics know where he’s coming from even if they don’t agree with him. He comes across as seeking to edify as many readers as possible. For the record, I’m participating in his study of Acts at a PCA church nearby.
I’m not sure the video is very funny as it could portray – rather accurately – a church plant I’ve visited. It reminds me of when I was a kid: my neighbor friend sent away every summer for a Muscular Dystrophy carnival kit. It came with everything needed to hold a backyard carnival and the proceeds benefitted MDA.
Of course, churches oughtn’t reinvent the wheel each time they set up but cookie cutter isn’t appealing either.

As one of those nutty evangelical-types, allow me to enlighten you: we don’t give a tinker’s damn about online quizzes whether they’re from Christianity Today, First Things, or Cosmo. We don’t measure our faith by some ridiculous metric designed for entertainment.
Upon my soul, I don’t know anyone who would willingly allow themselves to be categorized as a ‘hipster’. Good. Grief.
P.S. You can’t be all that informed about Christianity in America without knowing at least a little bit about Rick Warren. He often (almost always?) preaches in a Hawaiian shirt.

I recall this post being made around a year ago. It was fascinating even then after reading Robert Inchausti’s “Subversive Orthodoxy”, in which he shows how many of the ideas behind the Sixties have their origins in traditional (mainly Catholic) Christianity. Those who doubt (rightly) how radical the Sixties really was should read Inchausti’s book, especially the section on Dorothy Day, rather than Jonathan Leaf’s poor “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Sixties”.

Richard, calm down. Nobody here is disparaging Evangelicals. We’re trying to understand a cultural phenomenon within the broader Evangelical culture. You may not experience it, but the “emergent” sensibility is a fact. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to understand it.
P.S. You can’t be all that informed about Christianity in America without knowing at least a little bit about Rick Warren. He often (almost always?) preaches in a Hawaiian shirt.
Yeah, I know. Why do you assume I don’t know about Rick Warren and his Hawaiian shirts? I still find it interesting that Rick Warren, who sartorially and otherwise is very much a cultural outlier from my perspective, is seen by this book as an exemplar of the old establishment against which hipster Christians rebel.
BTW, I was thinking more about this last night, and wondered if the “hipster Christians” in a Catholic context would have been the guitar Mass crowd in the Sixties and Seventies. Those people have more or less become the Establishment now, and there are some serious young Catholics who rebel against the tired old guitar-banging tropes. Nothing ages faster or less gracefully than avant-gardism.
BTW.2, Julien Peter Benney is onto something, recommending Inchausti’s book as a guide to true hipsterism (though “hipster” is a trivial term) among Christian thinkers, Prot, Cath and Ortho alike.

Ah, so now I know the outcome of those kitchy youth ministry programs where kids are encouraged to learn about God through pop music and culture…instead of actually learning about God. Those kids grow up to be hipster Christians! Poor dears.

Rod, the emergent sensibility has nothing to do with evangelicalism. What Rick Warren or Andy Stanley have in common with, say, Brian McLaren (a prominent emergent church type) is, well, not much. There isn’t much of any of the creeds that we (or C.S. Lewis) would agree define orthodox Christian belief that Brian McLaren and his ilk wouldn’t give away in a heartbeat for some trope about social justice.
More to the point: you can disparage evangelicals til your eyes bubble and that’s fine with me. I don’t think you or anyone on the thread is peeing on evangelicals. But the idea that you can understand evangelicalism through some asinine quiz is insulting. It’s like approaching Catholicism by first answering “Do you think the Holy Father is hot?” It’s disrespectful and not at all serious.
Katy was the one wondering about Hawaiian shirts, BTW.
If you want to better understand the cultural phenomena of evangelicals, look to their thinkers and writers, not the hipster doofus in their midst.

Rod: “Nobody here is disparaging Evangelicals.”
Well, I for one didn’t at all think you were out to disparage evangelicals. I just thought this discussion was simply a waste of time pursuing categorical “tricksy lights” and other swamp gassy verbal distinctions (e.g. “hipster”). It’s kind of fun, I guess, but I find it hard to take seriously.
Captcha: that vacate

Somewhere in James Thurber’s book “The Years with Ross” he speaks of Wolcott Gibbs’ admonishment to not refer to people as if they were mantel ornaments. I sometimes think you have a tendency to do just that about. Sorry if I was unnecessarily defensive.

The Catholic Underground (a cutltural apostolate of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal) is pretty hip. Sort of a mix of orthodox and edgy-cool.
[..It is a direct response to a call that began with Pope John Paul II, and is continued by Pope Benedict XVI. JPII said that because the Gospel lives in conversation with culture, we must be fearless in crossing the cultural threshold of the communication and information revolution now taking place. The first part of the evening is Eucharistic adoration, and begins with Vespers (Evening Prayer). This is the universal prayer of the Church - prayed by the Catholics throughout the world in every time zone and in every language. After Vespers, there is a time of simple praise. This provides a window for each person to personally encounter Jesus Christ.
The beauty of the darkened Church illumined by candles helps us enter the mystery of our Lord's presence in the Eucharist. The holy hour ends with solemn Benediction. The second part showcases Catholic artists. Here we experience the “new evangelization”. The Underground includes music, poetry, visual art, dancers, film, drama, etc. We end our evening as we began. With the prayer of the Church. Compline (Night Prayer) is simple and beautiful. It concludes with a hymn to Our Lady, Daughter Zion. Mother of the New Jerusalem.]
http://www.catholicunderground.net/what.html

Nobody here is disparaging Evangelicals.
Yeah, you kind of are. You view Evangelicals as if you are studying gorillas in the mist, which is interesting since you lived in the Evangelical Vatican . . . Dallas. Why are they so foreign to you, since you lived among them for so long? Discussion of Evangelicals here tends to be very smug and condescending or “my, aren’t those odd people in that megachurch over there. What’s going on with those odd people.”

Those people have more or less become the Establishment now, and there are some serious young Catholics who rebel against the tired old guitar-banging tropes.
Maybe, but they probably aren’t joining Opus Dei or organizing Latin Liturgy task forces. Again, get to a food pantry, homeless shelter, immigrant rights group. Talk to the young people there. That’s where the “hipsters” are, at least in my experience.

Took the quiz. I’m mostly an old fuddy-duddy, too. Whatever.
Mostly off-topic random personal trivia: I grew up in the same town as Rob Bell (Okemos, MI), who graduated a year ahead of me. Okemos is like the Plano of the Lansing area (for you D/FW-ers): the pricey elite suburb where the General Motors and Michigan State University elite settle down to raise a family. But when you grew up in Okemos, you usually envied East Lansing next door (where Michigan State is). It’s infinitely hipper, by virtue of its College Town status, even though it pales next to Ann Arbor or Madison, WI. Places like Okemos spawn a lot of hipster envy and cannon fodder.

I’m the author of this book and creator of the website/quiz/anatomy of a Christian hipster. I’ve enjoyed the discussion here and want to comment on a few points:
1) Rod- you’re absolutely right to point out the “strictly-evangelical” nature of this project. I definitely don’t define “Christian” with the assumption that Christianity stops at Protestantism’s edges… but for the sake of the book, my focus was on evangelicalism, for the very reasons that you pick up on: that for Catholics and Orthodox and even some mainline Protestant denominations, there is not as much of a clearly defined subculture heritage beckoning to be rebelled against. “Hipster Christianity” as I describe in the book is notable and interesting because it is so reactionary and such a pendulum swing from where evangelicalism was 100 or even 50 years ago.
2)I think what Mike touches on in his comment (i.e. the modernist/fundamentalist split) has a lot to do with why “hipster Christianity” is such a curious anomaly and an arguably problematic one. For the last 4 decades or so (think back to the Jesus movement and the birth of Christian rock in the 70s), evangelicalism has been wrestling with how best to re-enter culture and establish for itself a more culturally ‘relevant’ identity. Unfortunately this often manifests itself in terms of an unhealthy trendiness, an ahistorical appropriation of church history/tradition, or a haphazard embrace of secular models of marketing/consumer-driven identity. All of this deserves to be thoughtfully considered and critiqued, which is why I wrote the book.
3) The “Sunday’s Coming” video presents an interesting case-in-point for what I am arguing as a definition of hipster Christianity. Clearly the video hit home with many evangelicals, because it so aptly captured the decidedly un-cool/formulaic/lame nature of the average evangelical “wannabe cool” church today. Evangelicals laughed and passed it around because they could collectively identity and purge their shame of having been associated with such ridiculousness. It allowed people to point a critical finger at something both familiar and “other,” while simultaneously allowing them to derive a satisfied sense of “we have moved on from that now” elitist amusement. “Hipster Christianity” is similarly self-aware and “we are beyond that” elitist, reacting against the evangelical tendencies to try so hard to be cool. They are NATURALLY cool, they will argue, denying “hipster Christian” labels at all cost because to be implicated as such is to be called out as just the most recent manifestation of evangelical Christianity’s long and sordid search for cultural relevance or “cool.”
So in the case of “Sunday’s Coming,” it’s not the subject matter of the video that represents hipster Christianity (quite the opposite actually), but rather the way in which the video was consumed, passed along, and processed by young Christians (mostly evangelicals) desperate to distance themselves from stodgy megachurch/mainstream Christianity. Christian hipster evangelicals are leaving the “Sunday’s Coming” type churches and going to Presbyterian, Anglican, Orthodox, or even Catholic churches… looking for something older and stable and less susceptible to fickle trendiness — a place where “hipster” identity doesn’t conflict or have any bearing on “Christian” identity, to go back to some of Rod’s points about Catholic and Orthodox hipsters having a strict separation between their religious and sartorial identities.
But I’m not so sure a strict separation of this sort actually works, because I think identity in Christ often and sometimes glaringly conflicts with one’s “hip/cool/fashionable” identity. I’m not sure we can or should compartmentalize them (though this is the solution the current crop of Christian hipsters are seeking). And that’s one of the overarching questions of my book. Going beyond questions of evangelical cultural history, I want to know whether or not “cool” and “Christian” can ever live together in harmony.

The quiz didn’t work well for me… probably half the questions didn’t have any answer I could agree with. I don’t have any problem being identified as an evangelical, but a lot of my friends are definitely hipsters. I think I would tend to say there are two major poles of hipsterism: At one end is someone who wants to be cool and reacts against anything the culture stereotypes as uncool, or connected with their parents (which may be the same thing). But their behavior is driven by what they don’t want to be. The other pole, which we would probably all like to think we are, is the one who doesn’t really care what others think is cool. They just want to do the authentic, true thing because that is who they are.
I know a lot more hipster wanna-bees than authentics. Most of both are folks who are at least 30. Younger than 30 hardly anyone in my university town seems to know enough about tradition to react against it as a personal thing–but they know our cultural trend-setters are against it and follow them.