We know that "authentic" means, basically, "real." So modern psychology might be excused for latching onto the term in their perceptions of therapy. "What," they might ask, "does it take to be truly happy? You need to be authentic."
Authenticity in this sense means to be yourself. And that can be difficult. If the "self" that you truly are is something that others may not like as much as you do (or even, perhaps, don't), you might not want to be that. So the task in being authentic is to get you to have sufficient self-esteem in who you really are ("authentic") in order to allow you to express who you really are and be proud of it. That is, you need to learn not to be concerned about what others think of you and just be yourself. Authentic.
Notice the premise here. The underlying premise is "Whatever you are, it's good." There is no room for a less-than-wonderful value judgment here. This stands starkly against the biblical perspective. What is the "authentic" natural human being like? Natural humans suffer from universal heart problems. They are deceitful and wicked (Jer 17:9). Natural humans have a massive religious problem. They are all hostile to God (Rom 8:7). Natural humans have impaired mental abilities. It's not that they will not understand the things of God; it's that they cannot (1 Cor 2:14). Natural humans have the horrible condition of being dead while alive. They are physically alive but spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-3). The biblical list of the basic condition of Natural Man is a description of a diseased, dead, and dying person. If the Scriptures are true, in what possible sense would we urge natural humans to be "authentic"? Authentic would be lying, wicked, hostile to God, unable to understand, spiritually dead ... and loving it.
There is something better than "authentic." If the natural condition of the human being is one of sin (Rom 3:23), then it doesn't seem like a good idea to be authentic in that sense. But if humans are made, as the Bible says they are, in the image of God (Gen 1:27; Gen 9:6), and if God's aim is to conform His own to the image of Christ (Rom 8:28-29), then perhaps that is the "authentic" we should seek to achieve. It's only available, of course, to those who die to self, who surrender to Christ, who are "buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:4). That "authentic" would be a better choice than being true to self. The "true to self" kind of authentic is eternally fatal. Perhaps we should aim for something higher.
5 comments:
Are you talking authentic biologically or metaphysically?
My primary concern is spiritually. Don't be what we are at our cores, which is sinful. And I think that would logically carry itself out to biologically (since the nonbinary gender thing isn't rational and, therefore, authentic).
Gotcha. In a world where hard science is allegedly the sole arbiter of Truth, it’s strange to see biology get thrown under the bus to serve a political agenda.
Love Thy Body does an excellent job dealing with these sorts of topics.
"Authenticity in this sense means to be yourself."
What first leapt to mind was the response Bill Cosby gave someone who was trying to explain their use of cocaine..."It makes you more of what you are", he was told. Cosby responded, "Well, what if you're an a**hole?"
And really, isn't that true of all of us? For as you say, at our cores, we're sinful. That is our "authentic" selves. Spiritually or in shrinkland, I would expect that it is the duty of each of us to be better than our "authentic" selves, to whatever extent we can. The rest is why we have Jesus.
Exactly my point, Marshal. We do not want to be authentic. We want to be a reflection of Christ.
Post a Comment