I don't find hipsters all that annoying, probably because I have some tendencies that way (my Ronnie of Pioneer Machinery shirt comes to mind), but I agree with her observation that these yuppies are taking the easy way out in trying to reach authenticity.

The follow-up question would be, however, what does the path to finding something "real" look like these days? The "Hipsters are Annoying" writer quickly writes off the question by suggesting that there is nothing authentic, nothing worth pursuing. Just be a cynical f***ing New Yorker.

But for generations now, there's been a suspicion that the most important parts of what it means to be human have been slowly drained away from our culture, that our daily lives are dichotomized from the real. Maybe part of this can be blamed on Kant's phenoumanal/noumanal disjunction, but I think it has deeper roots in the Augustinian city of God/ city of man divide. Everyone feels that day-to-day life without the sense of mission provided by the gospel... and in the process of searching for that sort of grounding, they find themselves wearing big mesh hats.

So I feel less annoyed by hipsters than sorrowful that they have so little direction in their search. And even though I have a job, and go to work (late) every day, I don't think that "getting a job" is a terribly holistic answer to a fundamentally accurate sense of longing. Might be a step in the right direction, though. I dunno.

This is the third time this week I've commented on a satirical post with a serious, even bitchy answer. Maybe I'm in a bad mood.

This is also about related comments that occur after this post, but my interest was first piqued by the suggestian of the City of God/City of Man distinction, so I'll write here. I don't think that I would recognize a hipster if I saw one, nor is such an achievement all that important to me. More to my interest has been the discussion of authenticity. It has developed along two lines: that of hipsters and that of Presbyterian bloggers. Critiques of hipster inauthenticity seem to go along the lines of clothing that is not commensurate with what they actually do, and, in many cases, not actually doing anything. However, along this line of reasoning, the Augustinian distinction becomes nothing more than a model for authenticity. It should be seen as a paradigm for the meaningfulness that comes only in Christ. I do not agree that, for the unbeliever (hipster or whoever), getting a job is a step in the right direction toward being authentic. Ecclesiastes 2:24 does not say this. Instead, Solomon is claiming that, unless you are one who pleases God, the most diligent labor is, in the end, meaningless. Therefore, encouraging a hipster to engage in such activity does little to boost their authenticity quotient. Diligent work is, indeed, a measure of authenticity; but only for Christians, that is, those who can truly reflect what they were created to be. Unbelievers, too, can be authentic- but I would be reticent to encourage it. In this case, they would not reflect their purpose in creation but their position as of the fall. The only authentic state of mind would be despair and the only authentic activity, suicide. [Camus is coming to mind.]

Now to blogger authenticity. There seems to be the question of whether the content of the blogs is accurately reflecting the Christianity of their repective authors. A lot of good things have been said. Perhaps then, what I have to add is only an exercise for my own clarification. I think there is agreement that the difference is not seen in the presence of certain words (Christian blogs say, "Jesus," and non-Christian blogs say, "Beer"). Nor can we assume that a blog by a Christian must have as its subject matter, Christianity. They can be about whatever topic is of legitimate interest to a Christian. This means that, even though there may be no religious subject matter, the authentic Christianity of the author should not be called into question. I agree with Josiah's point that the expressions of our Christian identity will be as diverse as the number of Christians. However, I do not believe that we should too easily dismiss the idea that Christian conversation should have a certain look or feel to it. It cannot be assumed that because someone is a Christian, everything he writes will glorify God. It should be this way, but, often,it is not. And it isn't as easy as asking questions about what, specifically, a God glorifying prose would look like. A specific answer, applicable to all, would destroy us as individuals. I think the answer lies in Matt's distinction between language that trumpets Christian beliefs and language that denies those beliefs; but again, this needs to be taken beyond the presence of certain buzz words.

I suggest, first of all, that Christian writing is not synonymous with evangelism. While it may sound more pious for active soul winning to be the goal behind all Christian speech before the unbeliever, such a view is actually anthropocentric. It fails to recognize that God is, and desires to be, glorified in other venues. This brings up the point that Christian writing will not necessarily be recognized as such by someone who does not know that the author is a Christian. We could, at this point, just say that the whole question of Christian authenticity in public writing is invalid. This would not be right. Josiah has suggested that the Christianity of the chattabloggers comes out in face to face conversation because many of them know each other. The things that are written assume a previously existing relationship. This is good, but it still doesn't go far enough. I still want to say that the writing itself should have a Christian quality to it. I have already conceded that this won't necessarily be evident if the reader knows nothing about the author. But then, I can't say that the reader must actually know the author. For many readers of this kind of a forum, such personal knowledge is impossible. They are reduced to having another author, whom they also don't know, saying, "Take my word for it, this guy's a Christian." This kind of a set up has the potetential to give an overabundance of license to just what can qualify as Christian content.

The readers out there who don't know us should not be expected to just believe us. The question of what makes a blog authentically Christian should considered in light of reader reaction should they discover the claim to Christianity. I speak here of an honest and well considered reflection of the body of an individual's work. Christian writing may not be a matter of being obvious, but it is a matter of being responsible. We have the obligation to write in such a way that the knowledge of our Christian faith will not come as a shock. It may well be the case that since many bloggers do not write about the most important things in their lives that their Christianity will not be blazingly apparent. However, if their Christianity is discovered, they should have written in such a way as to need no retraction. Only two reactions are possible to finding out that a writer claims to be a Christian: either, "Well, ya coulda fooled me," or, "I can see that."