As I stated in my earlier post, authenticity is good. It’s much better than being “inauthentic” or “dishonest” or lying or keep up appearances.
But to suggest that authenticity is a sufficient criterion for determining what is right is to over-empower it. Or, to put it in a way that gets at the heart of what follows: arguing for action based on “authenticity” represents an over-realized eschatology. For now we are not yet what we shall one day be. Until that happens, “who we are” is no clear indicator of what we should be doing.
There are several important angles for approaching the question of authenticity. One of these is what we discussed last time: being authentic about our struggles, shortcomings, sins, and other messy moments conduces to a healthy community of faith (and healthy witness to those who don’t have any faith). It stems the pretension that can lead to charges of hypocrisy and sets us on firmer footing with one another.
Another important angle for approaching the question of authenticity is the poly-cultural embodiment of the gospel. When we see the good news of Jesus crossing from Jewish into Gentile worlds, the church determines quickly that the religious, and cultural trappings of Judaism cannot be imposed on the Gentiles as a requirement to be received into the people of God. Parallels might be brought into the discussion from our modern context: each culture is permitted to create worship forms that are authentic expressions of honor and thankfulness to God.
But at the narrative dynamic of the Christian message is not simply that God wants us to be honest, or that God wants to create a multi-cultural people glorifying him with one voice. More fundamental than either of these is that we are redeemed from an old way of life, by the death of Jesus, and into a new way of life, empowered by Jesus’ resurrection.
The truth-telling to which we are called is an expression of our new identity “in Christ,” where God is our father. The new multi-cultural community is one in which Christ has accepted us to the glory of God–precisely by redeeming us from our sinful ways that left us short of the glory of God.
In other words, Christianity is about redemption, not mere affirmation. This means it is about transformation.
And if our story is about transformation, then we will always have to weigh what we want to do, what feels right for us to do against the very real possibility that our desire is an expression of the old humanity rather than the new.
We live between the times. This means that the new identity which is ours in Christ is something we are living into. We must still actively pursue a life which is “walking by the Spirit,” because the “flesh sets its desire against the Spirit.” As a people in the process of being transformed from our conformity to the patterns of one way of life into the new way of life made available to those who have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires,” there is always the distinct possibility that we will want what we are being redeemed from rather than that into which we are being transformed and to which we are being called.
One day we will simply be living full new life in Christ, such that all we authentically are and desire will be pleasing in the sight of God.
But until then, we are called to “put to death the deeds of the flesh” which are the integral and therefore authentic ways of being outside of Christ.
What on earth does this have to do with anything? As any good biblical scholar would, I put off specific point of application. But only until tomorrow or so. Stay tuned!
Good stuff. Glad you are blogging about this.
Hi, Daniel,
Thanks for this thought evoking post.
Authenticity you say is good, but for one measure of so called goodness is two portions of darkness–“the bad” and the “ugly” as reflected in some churches, Christian relationships, etc.
The biblical narrative dynamic is judiciary.
One judicial component is the law of the Spirit (Rom. 8:2). Authenticity, on the other hand, is like sin or the law of sin so it has the power to deceive when “… we are not yet what we shall one day be.” If we are blinded within this: “we are not yet what we shall one day be” then it is necessary to have a means by which (like the law…but not the law) we can recognize whether we are deceived into living the dead life in the old self or whether we are living the Spirit empowered life of the resurrection.
For “determining what is right”….”arguing for action based on” authenticity is insufficient in God’s judicial economy because it isn’t based on the law and power of the Spirit (Rom. 8). Authenticity is based on the law of the flesh or human effort—the old self (7:15ff).
The means by which we are able to recognize and determine what is right must stem from actions based on the Spirit’s power. And that power is the mind of Christ (as his life, death, resurrection, and ascension demonstrated). The mind of the crucified Christ mirrored complete devotion to God. It was that devotion/action that aroused dialogue and instigated economic reversal and redemption. Since, Jesus was able to fulfill the righteous component of the law in us we are called to have his mind (Rom 7:25;
thereby,reflecting his actions (Rom 12: 1-2; 1 Thes. 4) in our redeemed life now.
So, I’m thinking because of actions based on authenticity that we end-up living not the redeemed life but life in the old self by means of deception.
Looking forward to your part 3.
Hi, Angela,
Just lost a reply to this. Will try to reconstruct my thoughts!
First, I think that you and I largely agree as to the (potential) dangers of authenticity. It can be a tool of self-deception. But as I tried to lay out in my first post, especially, there is an important role for authenticity especially in contrast to deception of others our ourselves.
I’m not quite as sanguine as you about the use of judiciary and law in all this, and would not call the bible’s narrative dynamic “judicial” (see “Story of the Universe” posts). But where I would agree that the law is of inestimable value is (1) giving us a picture of what a life pleasing to God might look like; and (2) showing us that we are pretty darn well incapable of figuring out “1″ on our own. Point 2, especially, should give us great caution in thinking that being “true to ourselves” is the road to pleasing the God who calls us to both love him with all we are and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
A third possible place where judicial imagery might help us is its insistence that there is a necessary condemnation for those who are in the flesh. This is helpful insofar as it leads us to the cross and causes us to recognize more acutely that our calling is one of cruciform obedience: we must live into our identity as those who have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. We must realize that the old self stands under judgment, and that it is only through that way of judgment and death that we find the newness of life that is ours in the resurrected Christ.
So I wouldn’t say authenticity is necessarily bad, but as a rule for life it is dramatically insufficient.
The smiley icon was suppose to be Rom. 8. It was suppose to read: (Rom. 7:25; 8 ) My computer turned it into a smiley. Sorry about that.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your post here. I am wondering how the hot-button issue (at least in the Lutheran church) of homosexuality might fit into what you’ve said here. I have my own thoughts. I am wondering (if you dare!) to venture some thoughts on this. Specifically, I am thinking about the claim made that homosexuals are simply “being who they are”–as I heard one person put it recently. Another claim is the common one that “God does not make mistakes”; how can (some) Christians then justify saying that their ‘naure’ as homosexuals is wrong? Just curious as to how you might work these perspectives into what you have said here…. You can always e-mail me also with your thoughts if you don’t want to post them here. I have no agenda….I teach adjunct in New Testament at Luther seminary and attend the same congregation as (and am friends with) Steve Turnbull, one of your ‘old’ classmates. (Not that it makes much difference!)
Thanks,
Kyle Fever
Kyle, I’ll answer your question but only if you swear on your scout’s honor to call me “Daniel” rather than “Dan”.
I just posted the first part of the “practical application” question. I’m going to put off the sexuality question until dead last in hopes that God will call me home before I get to it! Otherwise, I’m going to talk about forgiveness in the next post and sexuality after that. But I think you can see where I might raise some questions about the role that authenticity to oneself plays in this debate.
Thanks, DanIEL.
I suspect where you’re thoughts and theology go on this. I just did not know if you were going to write on it, and look forward to the voiced perspective of another NT scholar-for-the-sake-of-the-church. Also, a lot of what you said in your previous posts on “Story of the Universe” remind me of a book called “The Drama of Scripture” by Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen. Familiar with it?
Kyle
Kyle, it should be coming soon. On other things right now. I’m familiar with the book you mention. I thought it was a fine start, but that they were a little too “continuous” in their understanding of the relationship between OT and NT. In my experience, the NT introduces more “reinterpretation”/”rereading” of the OT than they seem to acknowledge. But I think we’re thinking about the Bible from some shared points of view.
Luther seems like a great place. I got to know your colleague there, Eric Barreto, a little at SBL this year. Great guy.