Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Peter T Chattaway

Hipster Christianity

472 posts in this topic

mrmando wrote:

: What's the correct term for how the Orthodox Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, would refer to other branches of Christianity? "Not in full communion" or something along those lines ... that's what I was trying to get at.

Ah. I guess I lost track of what the earlier "it" was referring to. Some things would "allow" for diversity (or, rather, for certain kinds of diversity, or diversity in certain areas) and some would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then this, too?:

1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."

"But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

Let's just say the question of what constitutes proper religious authority in Christianity has gotten awfully murky since the Reformation, and even murkier in the case of independent, nondenominational Protestant churches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[it's not like I'd have to cut anyone's limbs off one-by-one. All it takes is one cut, but, admittedly, it's a biggie: noting that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" appears nowhere in the Bible and is, thus, by definition, non-biblical and self-defeating.

I think that doctrine has suffered the biggest abuse of modernity. It has devolved to "solo scriptura" by many protestants, usually most of them the independent, non-denominational. I am not a big student of sola scriptura, much less Luther, but I have a feeling there is little resemblance between how many churches teach and practice sola scriptura and how Luther meant it.

And by extrapolation, if Jesus is the word made flesh, and the word is scripture, and Jesus is the head of the church, then the only thing we need is scripture.

I think Word of God=Jesus=Scripture is a big discussion to be had or at least an attempt to be understood. I know I'm wrestling with it. But I am sure that would want to be its own thread, no matter how far this thread has traveled.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, when Jesus spoke those words there was no Christian church...technically, he was not even speaking about the Orthodox/Catholic churches... "teachers of the law" referred to the people teaching the covenent Jesus was there to fulfill. So, it is murky right from the start.

Keep in mind: I didn't provide the quotation in order to suggest that we might infer from it anything about today's Christians and religious authority. I provided it to show that Jesus made a distinction between religion and hypocrisy, rather than equating the two.

Edited by mrmando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jfutral wrote:

: And by extrapolation, if Jesus is the word made flesh, and the word is scripture . . .

False premise. You could argue, as some scholars do, that the Bible is the Logos made text, just as Jesus is the Logos made flesh, but when English-speaking Christians call the Bible "the Word", they are NOT calling it "the Logos". The word "Word" designates different things, depending on the context in which it is used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jfutral wrote:

: And by extrapolation, if Jesus is the word made flesh, and the word is scripture . . .

False premise. You could argue, as some scholars do, that the Bible is the Logos made text, just as Jesus is the Logos made flesh, but when English-speaking Christians call the Bible "the Word", they are NOT calling it "the Logos". The word "Word" designates different things, depending on the context in which it is used.

Just to be clear, this is not my premise. I was just restating what I've heard argued, even from pastors. Particularly independent, non-denominational pastors.

Joe

Edited by jfutral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind: I didn't provide the quotation in order to suggest that we might infer from it anything about today's Christians and religious authority. I provided it to show that Jesus made a distinction between religion and hypocrisy, rather than equating the two.

Ah, fair point. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402179_10100558165698478_21706405_51868517_309040932_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Bethke's video has spurred conversation here as it has elsewhere.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Diana Butler Bass in HuffPost, the pejorative definition of "religion" is now the mainstream one:

In the last decade, the word "religion" has become equated with institutional or organized religion. Because of crises such as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the Roman Catholic abuse scandal, Americans now define "religion" in almost exclusively negative terms.

She also asserts:

In 1999, when survey takers asked Americans "Do you consider yourself spiritual or religious," a solid majority of 54 percent responded that they were "religious but not spiritual."

I don't quite know what to make of either statement -- particularly the second one. Does it mean 54% of survey-takers ticked one box but not the other? I have a hard time believing a majority of people would actually utter a self-contradictory and stupid-sounding phrase like "I'm religious but not spiritual."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely need to stay more current in other areas of the boards besides film. Although, in my defense, one reason I didn't go looking for a conversation on this book was because I was afraid of what I would find. After reading through some of this I am sorry to be a year late.

I was looking forward to this book and when it came out I found it difficult to engage with on a serious level. I love cultural studies especially when focused on marginal cultures and the hangers-on but this satirical, editorial had no foundation. There was no background developed for understanding counter-culture or hipster-ism. If the bibliography indicates a preparation for the book then I find it completely lacking substantive articles or books. In the end, I just could not grasp the thought process articulated within. One question that left me scratching my head from the very beginning was, "is this book actually saying anything?" Like so many people here have said, I guess everyone aligning with Christianity is a hipster.

I would have really enjoyed a book discussing how the church uses the idea of hipster values for evangelizing or how the hipster mentality has affected the church by posing as Jesus followers. The book talked very little about the affects of "when the church and cool collide."

I was sad to see some of the endorsements on this book, some of whose judgment I have trusted for some time.

This is such a rich topic for discussion and I did not walk away enriched. Actually, I walked away thinking the opportunity for some critical thinking was lost in this book all in an effort to write something hip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little late to the game, and at the risk of dredging Bethke back up...

6ec3c1ac.jpg

I also saw one that said "...if I told you I love Babe Ruth but hate baseball." That one made me chuckle. But I think the "Rhyming makes it relevant," line is a cute bit of alliteration.

Edited by Pair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rachel Shteir reviews R. Jay Magill, Jr's Sincerity. I'm putting it here because of this paragraph:

Magill is right to explain the Millennials’ embrace of hipsterism as a sincerity-desiring defense for a generation that has “grown up in the shadow of a culture that values economics and consumption over the values of humanism and artistic enterprise.” In other words, as the Recession narrowed young peoples’ choices, they began to flail around for anything not connected to a dead-end job—even if the real thing thing they settled on was ultimately fake. (Wearing a wifebeater does not make you James Dean.) And yet Magill’s analysis of hipsterism is ultimately dissatisfying, putting into relief how anemic—even how ironic—hipsterism is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans so over hipsters

Just 16% of Americans have a favorable opinion of hipsters, a new PPP poll on the much-discussed subculture shows. 42% have an unfavorable opinion of hipsters, and 43% aren’t sure. Democrats (18% favorable, 34% unfav) are twice as likely as Republicans (9% fav, 48% unfav) to have a favorable opinion. Voters age 18-29 have a favorable opinion of them (43% fav-29% unfav), but very few voters over age 65 do (6% fav -37% unfav).

Just 10% of voters say they consider themselves to be hipsters – and almost all of those are younger voters. Half of all voters aged 18-29 consider themselves hipsters; every other age group is 5% or less.

Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCracken's second book, Gray Matters: Navigating the Space Between Legalism & Liberty, came out earlier this year.

 

I've been wrestling with some of the ideas in it, and the result is turning into a three part book review.  Here's Part One (where I discuss what I liked about it), but the real theological questioning & wrestling starts in Part Two.  I'm finishing up the third and final part in the next week.

 

Also, I can't remember if it was here or on Facebook, but I could have sworn that I saw that another A&F'er had either written or was planning to write a review of Gray Matters too.  At the moment, I can't remember who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the comment from Arcade Fire's Win Butler:

 

If you think our band are hipsters, then… whatever. I do like a good cup of coffee, whatever that makes me…

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad this is getting a little more press. As I stated a while back (posted above), this book had a lot of potential for a really good cultural analysis or perspective. Instead, it falls extremely short and it lies in the definition and understanding of "hipster" or "hipsterdom". The discussion of how hipster(ism) engages or incorporates into Christian culture because of the premise it is based on. If you're a hipster than you don't know it. If you "know you're a hipster" then you are probably a poseur. Okay, maybe that is a bit harsh but waddagonnado..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillip Yancey weighs in, sorta.

 

 

 

As I look back on the pile of books I read in 2013, a number of them seem to fall into a new genre. "Christian hip," I'll call it. Move over John Stott, Chuck Colson, and Max Lucado. These books circle around faith matters in a decidedly non-traditional way. Many of the authors came out of a strict evangelical or fundamentalist background, and they write about their spiritual detours in a loose, memoir-type style with a few obligatory bad words sprinkled in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0