AUTHENIC

"When established identities outworn or unfurnished ones threaten to remain incomplete, special crises compel men to wage holy wars, by the cruelest means, against those who seem to question or threaten their unsafe ideological bases." (Erik Erikson)

Postmodernism is inherently theological, but for those in the church that are shaping the postmodern church culture there seems to be a disconnect between the philosophical precepts of deconstruction and narrative meaning with the institutional church’s ideologies. Postmodernism in the institutional church appears to be driven by catch phrases that may reflect generational values, selected postmodern terminology, and marketing strategies. This is not true for all churches obviously. True emerging communities are birthed out of genuine movements within the congregation or culture. But as contemporary churches watch these emerging communities succeed and look cool doing it they attempt to replicate it. The replicated church has little true emerging values since it wasn’t birthed out of anything more than the desire to succeed. In the process of replicating the emerging church, terminology is developed. As I reflect on the core terminology of the replicated church there is one term that stands out to me: “authentic”. This is amusing since the term is supposed to be reproducible for churches that want to appear more emergent. Most of these churches are anything but authentic since they are birthed out of institutional goals of success and growth. Other terms can be heard in the hallways of postmodern churches: community, intimacy, and purpose are but a few. There is nothing wrong with these words, but again, the problem is not in their meaning, but in their application. However, there are three words that shape the authentic goals of the church that seem to have the greatest impact on church programming: Relational, Relevant, and Real. The replicated church’s desire to act out ministry that is relational, relevant, and real holds the potential for the reconciliation ministry of Christ for those who have been so hurt by the world and church. But despite the strong impetus on practicing authenticity, I worry that the individual understanding of these elements of authenticity make the community practice of authenticity impotent.

However, being relational, relevant, and real are complex issues with various stages of developmental importance. For each person, each term means something unique. To overlie these concepts into a church doctrine when each holds so little understanding for the members of the community then, despite its potential for creating an enthusiasm for the church, accomplishes very little in how people are able to translate the same values to personal spiritual formation. What inevitably happens in these cases is that the members of the church pervert their understanding of what authentic means. Each element of authentic then is devalued. Let’s look at a church that utilizes small group ministry and informal corporate worship to meet the relational aspect of authenticity. Obviously relationship are born out of these experiences, but with little guidance for how to relate to one another, the de facto response is little more than intentional social gatherings with the pressure to appear relational creating deeper feelings of isolation and loneliness for many (myself included). These gatherings have value, but are not the same thing as relational connection. When a church utilizes popular culture or popular Christian sub-culture to demonstrate its relevancy then it is in danger of actually separating individuals from the real world by creating an image of the church that cannot be incorporated into daily life. Being relevant is a dangerous doctrine in and of itself. The intention of the church is to connect with the real life experiences of people, but the danger is when the integrity of the gospel is compromised in order to do so. And finally, when the church claims that it is real then, well I don’t even know because I don’t know what this means for the church. Does it mean presenting the real gospel? Or not putting up pretenses? Or being transparent in its administration? I am afraid that this is a term that sounds better than actually having any “real” meaning. However, I can say that being real means something different to every person. Reality is not an absolute, but an understanding regarding the absolute. For example, every person may respond differently to a traumatic event. Each response is very real and each perspective to that event is very real. The event is a constant, but the individual realities that represent the understanding of that constant are variable.

I also want to be authentic in my relationship with Christ and in my Christian ministry. Assuming still that authentic means relational, relevant, and real, then I must understand what these terms mean to me. As I grow in my understanding of what these mean to me and how Christ is revealing them to me then I will be better prepared to impart these values into the lives of others. So then, what do these terms mean to me? I will spend the next few entries trying to define these words.