“Authentic living” has become one of the most encouraging yet risky trends in church youth movements today. This hippie hearkening cultural shift has a decisive post modern flare, and it is characterized by simplicity, downward mobility, a reactionary stance to consumerism, a renewed fascination with social justice, and an emphasis on communal living vs individualism (among many other things). In church communities where this trend is embraced, I have observed that such a gravitation towards authenticity becomes an ultimate rudder, guiding individual attitudes and behavior into some surprising new territory.

This is certainly a logical shift. The culture of our parents is clearly one of fragmentation and dichotomies: public and private, facts and values, spirituality and physicality, professional and personal, etc. But, as the hippie movement of the sixties well illustrated, the apple pie and picket fences that were the material fruit of such life management practices were far from satisfying to the core of humanity’s needs. The weight of such dichotomies created a separation of life(s) that was far from authentic living, laborious to maintain and ultimately dishonest. Today, there is certainly a mainstream fascination with this shift. Television shows like Mad Men (6 Emmy awards and 3 Golden Globes), movies like American Beauty (5 Oscars) and even the election of political officials who with cheery personal admission embrace their youthful experimentation with drugs and “alternative lifestyles”, colloquial speech and advocacy of multi family urban living over and above suburban sprawl illustrates that the dissatisfaction that spurned the personal expression in the 1960′s is only continuing to grow.

That some Christians are embracing a cultural shift away from such dissatisfying dichotomies, in my view, is almost a breath of fresh air, and nearly brings hope to my own disillusionment with the modern enculturation of the western church. To such a great degree, the church has become syncretised with Americana, and as such has become grievously limited. The Americanization of the church has effectively exchanged the understanding of suffering (so characteristic of the ancient church), the hope of ultimate redemption and the scriptural emphasis on community for the lust for personal property, comfort, security, and the rest of the American dream, whatever that may be (which in these harsh economic and socio-political times has started to resemble more of a nightmare). The Americanization of the church has encouraged an extremely cornered bias on most issues that face the Global church, and because of it we (the church in America) share little in the suffering and unique world views of our brothers and sisters from different cultural/national backgrounds.

However, I have become concerned with the trend towards authenticity which is pervading the more culturally hip edges of the church. Recently, after a conversation with some friends about the appropriateness of sharing deep personal experiences in a public context, I reflected on the idea of “my life as an open book”. In the trajectory of this culture of authentic living, such a philosophy of personal sharing is somewhat en vogue. I must, however, criticize this type of expression. The biggest reason for my criticism of this open book approach is because many pages of the story that my life is creating are shared by others. Their personal involvement with me is part of my story, but I cannot assume that they view their lives as open books as well, and sharing about certain aspects of relationship, especially in regards to romantic involvement, could betray their trust, their struggles and possibly their shame as well. This is far from the self sacrificing, gracious and protective love that Christ advocated.

Secondly, the trend towards authenticity may in fact hurt those who have different ideas about morality. If I consume alcohol, eat meat or experiment with certain controversial practices “authentically”, I run the risk of abandoning those who struggle with the morality that I accept. It is likely that at some point an alcoholic, whose life I have touched, may be stumbled into the indulgence of addiction. It is quite possible that the vegetarian, who for moral and/or religious reasons does not consume meat, is offended and pushed away from relationship by my consumption of meat. The trend towards authenticity certainly advocates “being yourself”, and why should anyone be anything else? But if the self is the ultimate gauge for conduct and relationship, then once again, we abandon the love born sacrifices that Jesus advocated in His ministry, His life and His death.

This is why authenticity as a comprehensive lifestyle is bankrupt according to the requirements of love. Love does not demand that one lie about the self, but rather that one sacrifice and limit the self based on the needs, struggles and/or weaknesses of others. Jesus followers can’t just say “I am going to live my life and if some one else has a problem with my conduct that is their problem.” I hear Christians advocating this attitude all the time, and frankly it hurts. We can justify so much based on the liberties Jesus has given those who follow him, but we do the ministry of the cross great disservice if we make our lives about justification rather than love. Romans chapter 14 speaks to this issue, and specifically verse 15: “If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died”.

What we do we do within a community. Authentic living should certainly be an emphasis, but without love, it runs the risk of turning into another mechanism of selfishness and fragmentation: selfishness because the self becomes the point of calibration for attitude and behavior, and fragmentation because of the division that may be caused as we assert who we are without the sensitivity and sacrifice of pursuing the needs of those who are in community with us.