Ranting to /dev/null

I don't think that not holding down a job is a neccessary condition for being a "hipster". I wear trucker hats, cowboy shirts, and electrician shirts as a way of expressing a need to get back to reality. These kind of jobs have a certain tangible quality to them. On the other hand the jobs presented to my upper middle class self are seen as incredibally soul-less and empty, working at a desk, in a suit, for a white-collar corporation.
While myself, and most hipsters for that matter, completely lack the chops to hold down a job as a truck driver, or a cowboy, and other jobs like it, we want to emulate and admire the visceral reality of it.

Well, Matt, that just shows that you aren't a "true" hipster, at least not according to the obviously accurate "Hipster Handbook" I linked to earlier. Sure, it's tongue-in-cheek, but there's something to it.

But I'm completely at a loss as to how wearing clothes from jobs one has never even considered attempting brings one any closer to "visceral reality." To me, that looks a lot more like a step away from reality, as it's basically pretending to be something you're not. If I were a working class high-school dropout, you can be pretty sure I'd dress like it, because I couldn't afford not to. If I'm a fairly well-to-do urban professional (okay, gimme a few years on that one), what's so bad about dressing like that? Again, yuppies are better than hipsters. At least the yuppies aren't deluding themselves.

My question is this: if being a trucker, cowboy, electrician, gas station attendant, etc. is really so great, why not go for it? It's not like you don't have the knowledge or resources to do so, seeing as it requires none of the former and you've got the latter. I think there are two reasons. First, it would mean work, something to which most hipsters - and bums of all stripes - seem to be opposed. But second and more importantly, holding down one of those kind of jobs would mean an end to their lifestyle. You don't have time to listen to Yo La Tengo, read Derrida, and go to shows if you've got 700 miles to drive today. You don't have time to think about whether or not you're being authentic - you're too busy being it. But I'm convinced that it's more the appearance than the reality that is attractive to these people.

4 Questions for Ryan:

1. Who are you talking about (beyond a fiction created by "The Hipster Handbook," or an angry person's weblog)?

2. Do you have any personal interaction with someone that you would classify as a "hipster"?

3. Do you think that anyone "hipsters" read your blog? (I admit that a "hipster" reading your blog might be an oxymoron.)

4. If the answers to 2 and/or 3 are "no," or some variation thereof, why do you keep fuming about "hipsters"?

I suspect that one reason to "fume" about hipsters is the phony notion that they know anything about "reality" or how one might approximate reality in his or her life because they are hipsters. Hipsters seem prototypical of folks who believe that clothing choices (gas station attendant uniforms or three piece power suits), or the casual use of profanity (as evidenced in the covenantblogs), or having a certain type of job (working class or professional) or lifestyle (urban sophistocate or suburban or whatever), are emblematic of being in touch with some deeper truth. But clothes, profane speech, jobs, lifestyles, like most externals, generally signify precious little about authenticity or reality. These things, it seems to me, have more to do with culturally defined "coolness" than with satisfying responses to the existential crisis. There may well be people whose grasp of the "real" is profound and authentic who wear working class clothes and baseball caps or custom suits with $200 silk ties or both in different venues, but their authenticity flows out of some deeper well of meaning and significance.

I suspect that the most interesting aspect of the various covenantblogs is how so much can be said about finding community, the merits of different styles of music, attitudes and poses, smoking and getting drunk at wedding receptions, the quality of relationships, and wondering who has the best handle on authenticity and reality, in the near absence of words that would identify the bloggers as in any way Christian.

But I am moved to wonder as I page through this stuff what is the truth:

(1) Does the near absence of Jesus in these pages signify nothing because you don't bother to reveal anything important about yourselves or your activities or your thought lives here? or

(2) Does the near absence of Jesus in these pages signify the near absence of Jesus in yourselves or your activities or your thought lives?

I'd like to think that we talk about all those things, in particular the community & relationship stuff, because Christ is present in our lives. Christ gives life meaning and value, so well, we can value things.

We're presbyterians, it's not in our tradition or nature to gush about ourselves and the deeper things in our souls, we save that for face to face conversations, or as is becoming more frequent, with our spouses. A blog is not a good format for deep, personal revelations about our spiritual selves.

Now maybe we do need to add a little bit more "Jesus" in our talk, but neither the presence nor the absence of it in a blog should be used to conclude the presence or the absence of it in somebodies heart.

That's the sorta stuff CCM does.

Josiah:

Do I think that Covenantblogs should be filled with christianspeak-happytalk? Not at all. But if I visited a sportsblog that never got around to chatting about sports, I would wonder. If I visited a politicalblog that never got around to mentioning candidates, or issues or elections, I would wonder. You suggest that Presbyterian constraint forbids gushing about deeply personal things, and that is fair enough. But Presbyterians also believe that Jesus is not a category of life--the spiritual part--He is Lord of every aspect of life.

Please note that my earlier comment posed two possibilities; you suggest you opt for the first: that the blog's silence on Jesus reveals nothing because you don't reveal anything important about yourselves, your activities or your thoughts. I'm just uncertain how it is possible to discuss community, relationships, reality and authenticity and suggest that "the deeper things in our souls" just don't come up.
There is a basic NT proposition that the content of one's speech reflects the character of his heart. I'm wondering how all of these things fit together.

If you wish to engage reality, to know and experience abundant life, to reside in true community, to work in jobs that make a meaningful difference and to resist the seduction of the soullessness and emptiness of suburban middle-class, plastic, secular American culture, I applaud you. I'm hoping that in your rejection of things that have proved meaningless, you don't settle for cynical coolness rather than articulate, intelligent discipleship.

And I have no idea what "CCM" is.

SK

Scott I've pointed often and in my SIP that I feel that computer mediated communication is a weak and incomplete form of communication that cannot substitute for face to face communication.

Given that assumption, and given that it's the assumption of nearly every chattablogger, one might think that people aren't going into this blogging thing expecting a full taste of who each of the individuals are, especially desires and motivations on the deepest register.

You do make an interesting point that if one goes to ESPN.com and they never hear any sports there might be something wrong...

But of course, no blogger on chattablogs has, to my knowledge, ever professed to be a one-trick pony. Let me explain...

Each Chattablogger has a particular interest in their blogs, particular issues they want to throw out there to discuss. In actuality I think they hold back some of the more important discussions for a fuller, more healthy communication medium (like face to face). Doing this, they usually focus their blog to a particular style and/or tone. Matt likes books, indie-music, and the occasional discussion about community and his reflections on the New England. Mesh likes to talk about current events, film and art reviews, and occasionally a piece on recent experience.

But despite these "intentions" behind their blogs, NONE of them have a clearly defined purpose like ESPN. Now yes, you could throw out some trite thing like "All of us have the purpose to show Christ, to reflect His grace" etc. etc. etc. But what on earth, specifically, would that kindof blog look like?

I suggest that it'd look just like the blogs of Matt, Ryan, Mesh, DP, Lang, Christin, and so on and so on. Why? Because how Christ is reflected, shown, born witness to, etc. etc. is as multifaceted as there are believers in the world. Given that each are believers, it is a fact that each ones fundamental desire and motivation in the world is to glorify Christ. We not only believe that Christ saved us, but part and parcel with our faith is a belief that the Holy Spirit is working, here and now, in the lives of our brothers and sisters! They can't help but show Christ.

The kicker though, is that given this week form of communication that blogging is, it's sometimes hard to tell how that deepest of motivation is governing a blogger and his blogs.

Thankfully, I know most of the chattabloggers in person. I know why, for the most part, Matt & Mesh care about what they blog about. I also know how many of the things they care about have at one point or another been idols, or themselves have arisen out of some kindof other sin. It's because I know them in person, something that can't ever be fully communicated across a blog.

So when I do see Christ in the stuff written about and discussed, because I know them as people and trust that even when I don't, the Lord is working there. And even if I DO see some sinful thing posted (i.e. mass group drunkness), thankfully we have a Savior who works through sin. If we didn't, we'd be in alot of trouble.

And finally (Gosh this is long), ya, we're a buncha cynical jerks. It's our sin that we all seem to share in common. And we know it about oursleves and each other deeper than anyone just reading these blogs will ever know. But I'm fairly certain the best way to deal with that sin isn't to let all the cynics in the world know that Christ isn't with them, or if He is, they certainly aren't showing it. It assumes a knowledge of the people and situation that is inapropriate.

Good thoughts, Josiah. I really liked your conclusion. I'm really not trying to be that cynical on my blog, though. I'm hoping for earnest and good-natured observation for the most part, although my personality probably won't allow too much of that.

It's funny: I scrolled back through my blogersations about community and hipsters, and realized that on at least two or three of the posts, I was engaged in a very religious conversation (say, suggesting that Ryan engage in chapel and other communities) without using religious words. I'm really uncomfortable with name-dropping Jesus, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it feels like putting a big red stamp of authority on my words. I think this might be a reaction against my fundamentalist background, where God was used as ammunition for a fight. I don't want to use Christ in that way.

Maybe that shows my immaturity in the faith. I know it's true that God still seems like a malliable abstraction to me, not a friend, and so bringing Him up feels like a move of arrogance or ostentation on my part.

I think back on my wedding post, and realize that at least part of the point I was trying to make was that in an unpleasant town, I saw a group of guys demonstrating the love of Christ to one another. (Did displaying that love come part and parcel with partaking in tobacco and alcohol. Yep. Does that bother me? Not at all. Will it bother other people? It already has.) But my reluctance to talk in a "spiritual" manner caused at least one person to think the whole piece was a celebration of debauchary. And that makes me frustrated with my own writing, and my own ability to experience and communicate grace (writing and grace go hand in hand for me.)

I don't think I've always been this reticent to "talk God" in writing. I certainly did it a good bit in my SIP. Maybe I'm just feeling more distant from Him in recent months, and the more abstract He seems, the more He feels like a rhetorical tool and the less I want to mention Jesus in writing.

I'm not really looking for advice here, by the way. I'm just confessing a bit.

Mesh, I know you and I have talked a good bit about this in person, but I'm amazed that you and I have ended up in roughly the same position.

I know that I have this "baggage" of sorts with my austere German Reformed upbringing of this God who is sovereign, cold, and distant. We're all miserable sinners who just need to repent and get our posteriors in line. And now there's this internal tension because recent past experiences and current authorities tell me that Christ is this immanent person, friend, savior, etc. right there in everything everywhere (gosh, that sounded a big neo-Hegelian, trust me, I'm orthodox). So those two sides seem to war at times...

But Mesh, it's odd since you had such a lively pentecostel upbringing. Maybe coming to Covenant made you cynical about all that schlack. I dunno.

It's just interesting that we kinda ended up in the same place, and I do feel this need to be more open in my talk about Jesus. But it's hard when its something you value so much, you don't want it to be trite. Ah...now I'm probably being a wimp eh?

Without hope, the rest is nothing.