I've been reading John Leland's book Hip: The History. It is an interesting cultural history with an interesting thesis. One of the things I've noticed is that Leland's descriptions of hip often converge on descriptions I'd like to claim for the church. That is, given Leland's definitions and descriptions I keep seeing the church as hip, even cool, but mostly hip.

Of course, hip and Christianity don't overlap completely. I don't think anyone would find that surprising. There are aspects of hip that don't apply to the church and aspects of the church that are not hip. And yet, I think the two converge enough for us to speak of a "hip Christianity." These posts are devoted to test that hypothesis.

To begin, what is hip? Let's start with word-origins. Linguists believe the word hip comes from the Wolof verbs hepi or hipi meaning, respectively, "to see" or "to open one's eyes." Thus, Leland concludes that hip is, in essence, a form of enlightenment (p. 5). This is a fruitful beginning for our purposes as it suggests that hip can be taken as a theological or religious construct.

Leland contends that the origins of hip, as a place of enlightenment, emerged out of the intermingling of black and white cultures in America. Hip began as the edge between black and white cultures. Consequently, hip tends to mark the boundary between culture and counter-culture. Between establishment and rebellion. Majority and minority. Further, the mainstream culture often pursues hip, attempting to co-opt it. Theft is a large part of hip's history. Elvis stole the blues. Designer jeans are made to look old and ripped. Constantine stole the church.

So hip is always moving. Staying out in front of a mass-market culture trying to sell rebellion and cool to a bunch of squares. Consequently, a large part of the enlightenment of hip is knowing what is truly hip versus simply a fad or a trend. Being hip is knowing what is authentic and real. And the masses are no guide. For the minute hip is popular it is no longer hip.

I expect you can see how this core notion of hip is a nice metaphor for the Christian experience. First, the church's location in relation to culture places it in the space of hip. In its counter-cultural stance the church is in a mode of rebellion. And as with hip the church is constantly struggling to stay a moving target. Trying to remain hip rather than being co-opted by the mass-market culture. When can we know when a church becomes co-opted? Well, it's a question, to use the categories of hip, of separating the squares from the truly hip. This is hip's "ability to see." It's the apostle Paul's discerning the spirits.

The applications are obvious. When we enter a church are we encountering a truly hip experience? Is the life we find in that place organic, authentic and counter-cultural? Or has the hipness and coolness of the church been merely purchased? Has the veneer of hip been plastered onto the church? That is, might this church look counter-cultural and rebellious but, at root, be wholly co-opted by the mainstream culture? And finally, if the history of hip is any guide to discernment, a truly hip church wouldn't be very large or popular.

In short, the history of hip suggests that hip has always been seeking a counter-cultural life that has spiritual integrity. For most of hip's history this integrity has been found in rejecting consumptive existence and narrating life around artistic or intellectual values. Hip is the story of coffee-shop philosophers, beat poets, bohemians, and jazz musicians. And much of this seems to parallel the heart of the church where consumptive existence is eschewed in favor of a common spiritual life. If so, then perhaps hip and Christianity go together quite nicely.