Seeking the hipster antithesis

Christopher Kerzich is preparing to permanently embrace a truly retro, timeless look. The basics – black jacket, black pants and black shirt – will be stark and radical, providing a kind of "this is who I am" vibe. Black fedoras, scarves and long overcoats are optional. For accessories, he'll have a silver cross and a white collar.

In other words, Kerzich is a seminarian at the North American College in Rome, preparing for his 2014 ordination as Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago.

Although this wardrobe will stand out in almost any crowd, the last thing Kerzich expects to be is "hip." If anything, he hopes people his age and younger will see him as the antithesis of hip, which he believes will help him relate to the masses of fashionable young people known as "hipsters."

"If you are going to try to reach out to hipsters, the main thing you have to be is authentic. You have to be real. You have to be rooted in your faith," said the 28-year-old seminarian, during a recent home visit. "The one thing you cannot try to be is hip. You can't try to be something you're not. That would be a fatal mistake."

Defining the term "hipster" is a task that has baffled researchers – from advertising executives to the college administrators. Kerzich finds it interesting that whenever he types a word like "hipsterdom" into his computer, the software underlines the term with the red, squiggly line that suggests this is not a real word.

The problem is that the hipsters do exist and their culture is real and it's growing. If religious leaders want to understand what is happening, he said, they must realize that there is more to the hipster ethos than Rat Pack hats, '50s dresses, plaid blazers, skinny ties, skinny jeans, rumpled hair, flashy accessories and occasional flashes of androgyny.

In his book, "Hipster Christianity," the evangelical writer Brett McCracken noted: "The only real requisite to being a hipster is a commitment to total freedom from labels, norms and imposed constraints of any kind. And this attitude must be very public, which is why hipsters are fairly easy to spot. ... The hardest part of the whole endeavor is also the most crucial: they must look like they don't care how they look."

There is more to this stance than mere appearances, he stressed. While there is no hipster creed, there are common attitudes.

"Chief among them is the instinct to be better than anyone else," noted McCracken. "Hipsters view any sort of prescribed system or hierarchy as absurd. ... They project themselves as being totally independent of any controlling influence, and masters over their own life and meaning."

The result is a brand of fierce individualism "verging on or leading to apathy," said Kerzich. At the same time, however, many hipsters see themselves as true originals, seekers and deep thinkers who want to escape the shallow, mundane, ordinary world of mass culture. For some, the radical demands of an ancient faith may actually seem countercultural – not boring.

Thus, in an online essay on evangelizing hipsters, he urged pastors and youth workers to start frequenting places that hipsters tend to congregate, such as coffee shops, pubs and bookstores. Yes, a minister wearing a clerical collar is sure to be greeted with skepticism in such a setting. However, before long some of the locals will start asking tough, honest questions – if the minister is truly accessible.

Also, more religious leaders are going to have to dive into social media, said Kerzich. It is no longer optional for faith groups to have a presence on YouTube or for bishops and other leaders to dialogue with critics, seekers and the faithful through Twitter and Facebook.

Once again, being "hip" is not the goal. The goal is to be available.

"No one likes someone who tries to belong to a group unnaturally," wrote Kerzich. Those attempting to reach "hipsters do not need to act like a member of their subculture. This movement focuses on being 'original' and 'different.' Thus, one should communicate how the message of Christianity is different than the messages emanating from society.

"For priests and seminarians remember your ministry is different, so confidently accept this reality. … One key to evangelizing this group is to become accepted by them without trying to become one of them."

Young, gay and faithfully Catholic

Gay activist Dan Savage went straight for the jugular in his recent remarks on bullying at a national conference for high-school journalists. The problem, he said, is the Bible.

To state the matter in terms that can be used in family newspapers, the sex-advice columnist repeatedly proclaimed that the Bible contains far too much bovine excrement.

"People often point out that they can't help ... with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong," said Savage, in an Internet clip that went viral.

The key is to ignore the bovine excrement in the Bible "about gay people," he said, the "same way we have learned to ignore ... the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore ... the Bible about all sorts of things."

For serious Christians, it's hard to list all the errors and unfair accusations in Savage's broadside, according to Joshua Gonnerman, a doctoral student in historical theology at the Catholic University of America. For starters, it's impossible to dismiss the "prime document of the Christian faith," which is "inspired by the Holy Spirit."

Christians must insist, he added, that Savage was "no less wrong to dismiss traditional sexual morality. On this point, scripture and tradition always have spoken with one voice, and the churches cannot, in good conscience, reject that voice. The traditional sexual ethic is the only possible antidote to the rampant commodification of human persons in contemporary culture."

The twist is that he made these arguments in a First Things essay entitled, "Why Dan Savage Was Right." In it, Gonnerman identifies himself as a "Christian who is committed to chastity," who embraces Catholic teachings on sexuality and who happens to be gay.

The point Savage got right, he said, is his claim that church leaders rarely offer serious responses to gay community concerns, such as the bullying of young gays or people who are perceived to be gay. Most religious leaders act as if they want gay people – including believers – to simply go way.

"The whole issue is constantly talked about in a culture wars context, instead of in a pastoral context," said Gonnerman, in a recent interview. "Instead of being a pastoral issue in the lives of real people, homosexuality is handled as an us versus them issue. ... Gay people must be treated as members of the family – not just pushed aside."

It is widely known, and often discussed, that the Catholic catechism teaches that homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity," "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law. ... Under no circumstances can they be approved."

While Gonnerman accepts these teachings, he is convinced that pastors also need to underline the catechism statement that gays are "called to fulfill God's will in their lives." Through chastity, true friendship, prayer and the sacraments they can "gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."

Part of the problem, he said, is that in "far too many parishes there hasn't been a sermon on Catholic social ethics since the Second Vatican Council." It's time for people in the pews to "hear more about divorce, premarital sex, infidelity and contraceptives. ... Homosexuality isn't the only issue we face these days."

Meanwhile, many pastors assume the primary goal of ministry is to fill giant parish parking lots with minivans. While families are important, said Gonnerman, one reason so many Catholic leaders can't "find something to say to gays other than 'no' is because they don't know what they want to say to single people – period."

Rather than seeking anonymity in large churches, Gonnerman thinks many singles – gay and straight – should join smaller parishes. In that setting, a higher percentage of the faithful will know who they are, as individuals, and thus learn more about their lives, beliefs and struggles.

Most of all, someone must be willing to help Catholics singles wrestle with questions about what God wants them to do with their lives, he said.

"You can't just tell people to carry their cross," said Gonnerman. "You can't have a vocation that's defined as 'no,' and that's it. There has to be more to life than not getting married and not having sex. At some point, the church must help us ask, 'What are your gifts? What is your calling?' "

Evolving conflicts over religious liberty

The ratification of the 18th Amendment banning the manufacture, transportation or sale of alcoholic beverages had obvious implications for Catholic priests and Jewish rabbis, as well as for tavern owners. Thus, legislators wrote an exemption into the bill that defined the Prohibition era allowing the sacramental or medicinal use of alcoholic beverages. The wine on Catholic altars and Jewish Seder tables remained real – thanks to the Volstead Act's fine print.

"If the act had failed to exempt wine for sacramental purposes there would have been both a political firestorm and a First Amendment challenge," noted William Galston of the Brookings Institute, at a recent religious-liberty conference in Washington, D.C.

This is not dusty history, in a year loaded with tense clashes between religious groups and the government. Thus, Galston said it's important for politicians and clergy to remember 1919 and to ask, "Would that challenge have succeeded? This is not a peripheral issue. The use of sacramental wine lies at the heart of more than one religion."

Truth is, the timeline of American history is dotted with similar conflicts. While the First Amendment offers strong protections, politicians and judges have frequently tweaked the boundaries on the religious-liberty map.

Several church-state fires are currently burning, including intense debates linked to health care as well as to same-sex marriage.

Many speakers during the conference, which was sponsored by the American Religious Freedom Program of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, focused on conservative concerns about the impact of new Health and Human Services regulations. The key is that these mandates require the health-insurance plans offered by most religious institutions to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved forms of contraception, including "morning-after pills" – even when this violates ancient doctrines.

As a former domestic policy adviser for President Bill Clinton, Galston knew that he wasn't "preaching to the choir" when telling conservatives that today's conflicts are not unprecedented and have been inflamed by the "overwrought polemics" of contemporary politics.

No matter what the headlines say, Galston said he believes Catholic bishops are not "conducting a war on women and the Obama administration is not conducting a war on religion. There is, instead, a genuine disagreement over the respective roles of religious obligation and civil law. This disagreement takes place against the backdrop of an enduring fact – there is no guarantee that the requirements of citizenship and of faith will prove fully compatible in a religiously diverse and non-theocratic society."

In addition to the Prohibition Era conflict, it's easy to spot similar clashes in American life – past and present.

For example, noted Galston, the U.S. government "mercilessly hounded" the Mormon Church for decades and in the early 20th century anti-Catholic forces made serious attempts to outlaw parochial schools. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans could be denied the right – required by centuries of tradition – to use the drug Peyote in religious ceremonies.

There's more. During his White House years, Galston said he often had to inform delegations of Christian Scientists that "federal laws on child abuse and neglect trumped their conscientious beliefs as to the form of medical care that their children should receive."

The U.S. Supreme Court has proclaimed that religious groups are not allowed to violate "common community conscience" on racial issues, even when acting for doctrinal reasons. Thus, Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in 1983 because of what it then proclaimed were Bible-based policies forbidding interracial dating.

A key issue today is whether this civil-rights standard will soon be applied to gay rights, noted Galston.

"Many religious organizations take the position that opposing same-sex adoption cannot be equated with opposing comparable interracial activities," he said. "In law, that is mostly correct – for now. But some states have already moved to settle the issue in favor of same-sex couples and more ... are likely to follow."

Can this conflict be resolved? History says there is no easy answer to that question, said Galston.

"There is no guarantee that public opinion will converge on what justice requires. The conscience of the community has often erred and will continue to do so," he said. "There are compelling reasons within modern states to carve out protected spaces for dissenting moral voices. But in the end, the tension between the laws of the state and the demands of faith cannot be fully resolved – it can only be managed."

Freedom of "worship" vs. "religion" – again

With the sounds of protests echoing across the campus, President Barack Obama knew his 2009 commencement address at the University of Notre Dame would have to mention the religious issues that divided his listeners. "The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt," he said. "It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us."

With this sweeping statement Obama essentially argued that religious faith contains no rational content and, thus, offers no concrete guidance for public actions, noted Thomas Farr, director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University. This would shock America's founding fathers or anyone else who has used religious doctrines and arguments in favor of human equality or in opposition to tyranny.

The president's views were even more troubling when combined with remarks weeks earlier at Georgetown by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said Farr, during a conference sponsored by the American Religious Freedom Program of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. The daylong event drew a variety of scholars and activists including Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Jews, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Mormons and others.

Clinton's speech contained repeated references to freedom of "worship," but none to freedom of "religion." She also argued that "people must be ... free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose."

Thus, the secretary of state raised sexual liberation to the status of religion and other central human rights, said Farr. This evolving political doctrine is now shaping decisions in some U.S. courts.

"Powerful members of our political class are arguing," he noted, "that there is no rational content of religion; that religious freedom means the right to gather in worship, but not to bring religiously informed moral judgments into political life; that religious freedom must be balanced by the right to love as one chooses, and that to make religious arguments against that purported right is unconstitutional."

In other words, argued Farr and other speakers, there is more to America's current debates about religious liberty than clashes between religious groups and the Obama White House over Health and Human Services regulations that require most religious institutions to offer health-insurance plans that cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved forms of contraception, including so-called "morning-after pills."

The larger civic argument, however, focuses on whether government officials can decree that "freedom of worship" is more worthy of protection than "freedom of religion," a much broader constitutional concept.

After all, the HHS mandate recognizes the conscience rights of a religious employer only if it has the "inculcation of religious values as its purpose," "primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets" and "primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets."

In other words, "freedom of worship" protects a nun when she prays for people with AIDS, but she may not be protected by "freedom of religion" when caring for non-Catholics with AIDS in a ministry that hires non-Catholics.

"The mandate ... covers houses of worship, but leaves out the manifold ministries of charity that flow directly from that worship," stressed Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, in the conference's keynote address. "This is the first time that the federal government has compelled religious institutions to facilitate and fund a product contrary to their moral teaching."

Thus, on May 21, 43 Catholic dioceses and other organizations – including universities and institutions that don't fit the narrow HHS exemption – filed a wave of lawsuits against the federal government in 12 jurisdictions nationwide. A dozen or more Catholic and evangelical Protestant organizations had already filed similar lawsuits.

Many bishops have warned that, if the lawsuits fail, Catholic schools, hospitals and charities may need to close. The New York Times editorial page responded by calling the lawsuits "a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air."

Nevertheless, Lori said the nation's bishops have decided to make another dramatic move – asking all Catholic churches to ring their bells at noon on June 21st and July 4th. The hope is that other houses of worship will join in.

"As Americans," he said, "we must learn about the legacy of the founding fathers. ... As people of faith, we must mine our own religious traditions on religious freedom and share the treasures we find – not only with our own communities – but with society at large."