A Theology for Hipsters (Part 10): The Evolution of Cool (Part 6)

Last week we discussed the nature of individualism in Hipster Christianity. The other theme which we need to discuss in relation to the modern evolution of the “hipster” is rebellion. Rebellion or countercultural movements have existed since the dawn of civilization, or so it seems. Plato was an early proponent of a countercultural movement. The supposed Trial of Socrates from 399 B.C. gives support to the existence of the ancient practice of rebellion and countercultural movements. With many of the pre-hipster movements we see this theme popping up as well. Whether it was the Bohemians or the dandies, the Jazz clubs or the Hippies, we see rebellion infused in their identity. The evolution of this concept of rebellion in the modern century has been an interesting one. The Sixties started off with a bang of focused counterculture (particularly with the Free Speech Movement at Berkley), but this focus spread thin over the remaining decade until it shifted from focused counterculture to amorphous rebellion. Today’s youthful rebellion is less about a specific cause and more about a state of independence from authority. Carl F. Henry saw this trend happening several decades ago when he wrote God, Revelation, and Authority. Dr. Henry writing in 1976 observed that there were various reasons why the counterculture of the Sixties failed, including a lack of focused rebellion. He writes:

Modern social critics and historians have cited various reasons for the seeming failure of the countercultural protest to achieve any basic restructuring of society. For one thing, its own inner aspirations were divided; while alienated young whites repudiated the spirit of affluence engulfing their parents, alienated blacks longed for the so-called white privileges that they had not experienced. Personal survival needs, moreover, curtailed the number of those who voiced their discontents by addiction to drugs, and forced still others to find work within the very industrial-economic structures that they deplored…The prime reason, however, that the protest movements could not hope to achieve an effective cultural alternative lay, as noted earlier, in a lack of doctrinal logic and of resources adequate to cope with human unregeneracy.[1]

More pointedly, perhaps, he writes:

To be sure, the countercultural revolt was in some respects an ambiguous phenomenon with an unsure identity; it wore a coat of many colors. One could assess it in terms of its recent genealogy or its current affiliates or, as time passed, even of double dropouts from culture and counterculture alike. Doubtless many of the disaffiliated young were victims of a generation lacking a sure sense of ultimate authority and nurtured on permissive self-expression. Given over to self-indulgent and undisciplined adolescence, they asserted their personal freedom and pleasure first against their parents, then against college authorities, next against government, and finally also against technological conformity. Hence the countercultural revolt is indeed, as Theodore Roszark remarks, “much more a flight from than toward.” Adrift from the larger claims of reason, it was vulnerable to counterfeit infinities and sham divinities.[2]

What resulted was not an abandonment of rebellion, then, but rather a rebellion against all forms of authority. We can see this same trend continuing today.

David F. Wells has well noted the breakdown of society. He states that society has historically been held together by three elements: tradition, authority, and power. Of those three only power remains. Contemporary Western culture has long since abandoned the collective wisdom of the past. Wells states, “We have, in other words, extrapolated from our experience in the areas of science and technology and concluded that what was judged true and wise in yesterday must now be passé, that anything on the cutting edge must necessarily be superior.”[3] Wells then briefly summarizes the shift away from the “Christian theism on which Western societies were built” to an authority of the self.[4] There is then, today, no respect for those who cling to this antiquated concept of external and universal authority. Rebellion is the general rule of the day. But here, as with the theme of individualism, there must be a warning against overreaction. Not all rebellion is a sinful rejection of authority.

Much at the heart of the Christian faith is itself a rebellion of sorts. It is a rebellion against this world order and this world’s values. Even McCracken acknowledges this when he concludes, towards the end of his book, that rebellion for rebellion’s sake is not acceptable, while rebellion for the sake of authentic Biblical counterculture is right.[5] All in all McCracken could have said this rather obvious statement in far fewer pages and with far less confusion than his work contained. Nonetheless it is important that we address some of the important aspects of rebellion as genuine Biblical counterculture.

The world’s value system is not God’s value system, and there is a very real sense in which Christians are called to rebel against this world’s value system. Jesus makes this point in his parable about the seed when he states that the cares of this world choke out the seed of the gospel (Mark 4:19). Jesus teaches us that the world cannot receive the Spirit (John 14:17); Galatians 4:3 tells us that outside of Christ we were enslaved to the principles of this world; Paul also tells us we who are believers are dead to this world’s draw (Galatians 6:14; see also Colossians 2:20); Ephesians 2 teaches that the course of this world is that which is at work in the sons of disobedience (2:2). The list could go on: the apostle James says we are to keep ourselves unstained from the world (James 1:27); perhaps even more pointedly James says that while the world values riches God has chosen the poor to be the heirs of the Kingdom (James 2:5); finally John tells us in a series of statements not to love this world system (1 John 2:15-17). The Bible teaches, then, that a certain degree of rebellion against the thinking of this world is required. Jesus was a rebel, Paul was a rebel (consider how he turned an entire economy upside down by denying the right to buy idols), and the early Christians were rebels (they faced death for refusing to worship the emperor). Christianity overall is a rebellion religion, and therefore not all rebellion can be bad.[6]

In light of these two recurring themes in the 21^st century and their mixed-bag of both positive and negative implications it would serve us well to consider carefully the nature of the modern Christian Hipster. How did he come to be and what does he look like today? That is where our focus turns next week.