Kuyperian, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On July 24, 2013 By Kuyperian In Worship Like

Music Divides — If We Sing the Right Kind

What is it about music that makes it so intensely personal for us? Why is it that if I write a blog post discussing music in worship there will necessarily be people who are offended? Somehow, we see music as extremely personal and taste-based, so any attempt to question such a paradigm is taken as an attack on an individual’s taste. What if, however, we are wrong? Not only are we wrong to be offended by these questions and discussions, but we are also wrong to categorize music as a personal taste.

Many churches face questions of music. What type of music should we sing? Contemporary? Traditional hymns? Psalms? With or without instruments? Pianos and pipe organs or guitars and drums?

Many–although maybe not Kuyperian readers–will argue that contemporary music with praise bands is the better choice. It is inclusive of the young people who desire it. But is it? There are several problems with this line of argumentation.

First, while contemporary music may be inclusive of young people, something I’m not yet willing to grant, it is exclusive of everyone else. Why is it that contemporary music gets a free pass for the inclusivity argument, when it is excluding just as many people–if not more–as traditional music may? Why can’t traditional hymns and psalms be argued as the better choice because they are inclusive for everyone else?

Second, isn’t there a problem with the inclusivity argument from the beginning? Contemporary music is inclusive of the young–if it is–but only so long as it is actually contemporaneous to the young. Traditional hymns and psalms are timeless. They will always be inclusive for their particular class of listeners. Contemporary music will be inclusive for one generation and will follow that generation, until the newer, more contemporary music alienates them in favor of a new group of listeners.

Finally, it is worth questioning whether it is actually inclusive of the young. Most of the proponents of contemporary music are actually middle-aged adults who think young people like it. The young in America today, however, are starved for tradition and gravitas. They want high liturgy, good–in the objective sense–music, and rituals. If they wanted contemporary music, they wouldn’t come to church for it, they’d turn on the radio, attend a concert, or visit a club. The Roman Catholic Church may be worth taking a cue from on this point. The last three popes, each of whom are older popes, have been wildly popular with the young. It isn’t the cool and hip the young want from church, it is the transcendant, liturgical, and sacramental. The cool and the hip is what the middle-aged want.

Let’s try inclusivity. But let’s try it the right way. Let’s try it by singing music that is timeless and cross-cultural, dividing asunder the boundaries of age, race, socio-economic status, and gender.

<>гугл эдвардс

On July 22, 2013 By Kuyperian In Books Like

The Book of Common Prayer (2011)

This came in the mail today. It’s a recent version of the Book of Common Prayer put together for trial use by the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), two continuing Anglican bodies in North America standing for historic Anglicanism over against the deeply compromised Episcopal Church (ECUSA). [Update: Although the copyright page says “This book is for trial use by the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America for liturgical review,” I have since learned that this statement can be a bit misleading. This addition has not been approved by any church, even as a trial version, but is apparently a private project. It has no standing with either the REC or the ACNA. That said I still think it is a valuable resource for one wanting a BCP with the ESV text, particularly for private or devotional use.] One of the things that initially excited me about this edition was that it is the first and only version of the BCP that I am aware of that uses the English Standard Version of the Bible throughout. Because that is the version that I use for personal reading and study this edition frees me from having to choose between constantly switching back and forth between my Bible and a prayer book or reading texts in less familiar translations, particularly the Psalms which I find it especially helpful to routinely read in the same translation.

The binding and printing on this edition are not great and it’s just a simple hardback (no doubt because it was a small initial printing for the trial period) but if it’s ever approved and a large scale printing is done the layout itself is very nice (slightly wider margins would be a nice addition). It’s a four color printing: black for body text, purple for headings, red for instructions and green for posture and comes with a ribbon. I’d love to see a version in genuine leather with 4 or 5 ribbons, but hey this was only $11.95 +s/h.

For the most part from what I can tell this version is similar to other editions of the BCP (i.e 1928, 1979, etc.), but there are a few things that I particularly like. For one thing, the editors have chosen to include a service for Compline. Despite the fact that Cranmer original simplified the numerous services of the Hours down to just Morning and Evening Prayer the editors note that Compline has remained an important part of the lives and piety of many people, and that for many it provides a fitting close to the day, sealing it with prayer. So they have included that form which has not traditionally been in the prayer books intended for the United States (although some of the editions for the Anglican Church of Canada included it). I personally like the Compline service and anticipate rotating between that and Evening Prayer from time to time during family devotions.

Additionally this prayer book makes it quite easy to pray through the 30 day cycle of the Psalms (well, easy in that it’s clear which ones to pray each day although some of us may not find it easy to pray through five Psalms a day, at least at first). More generally the instructions are easy to follow, there are a lot of occasional prayers provided for different life circumstances, and the rites and prayers for things like marriage, end of life, etc. seem very good and pastorally useful on first impression.

Some will dislike anglo-catholic elements (i.e. referring to marriage and ordination as sacraments, listing the Apocrypha as among what may be read for the first lesson, etc.), but I can’t see that these elements particularly effect the usefulness of the book. Particularly if one is just using it personally, for family and private devotions, or for occasional pastoral ministry (i.e. weddings, funerals, visiting the sick) there is nothing that I think would be problematic for evangelicals or those of a more low-church persuasion. The forms themselves seem to me, at least on first blush, to be very traditional, very thoughtful, and very ecumenical (in the good sense). I look forward to using it.

You can order a copy here.

This Book of Common Prayer (2011) embodies the ancient tradition of two thousand years of Christians who have prayed together. This book incorporates the common prayer from the historic prayer books of the Anglican Church as received in North America. The first Book of Common Prayer (1549) is the standard framework for this prayer book, incorporating additions from later prayer books of the Anglican Communion.

Come with your grace and heavenly aid,
And fill the hearts which you have made.

Vene Creator Spiritus (from the front page)

<>інтернет pr турфирмы

On July 20, 2013 By Kuyperian In Theology Like

Of Creeds and Fleeting Speculation

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

+++

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

+++

If these two creeds–known as the Apostles’ and the Nicene–be examined as to their place in comparative religious ideas and literature, it will be at once apparent that the faith that they proclaim is not Greek, speculative, philosophical, but historical, biblical, Semitic, eschatological, a faith that does not make general propositions about the nature of God, but that looks back to certain events in history wherein God has acted and that looks forward to God’s own consummation of these acts “for us men and for our salvation.” In the light of early Christian history the character of the Creeds is indeed very striking. Christianity has entered the Hellenic atmosphere, it has used the Greek tongue, its theologians have largely been Greeks–and yet its Creeds show that it has baptized its Greek adherents into a Messianic faith in a God who reveals Himself through acts in history. The biblical Gospel has overcome the speculative mind. And the simple, pictorial language of “he came down,” “he ascended,” is not the language of a time or of a school of thought, but the inescapable language of the human race and of common life. Language less “mythological” in form is less permanent. A creed that substituted for these pictorial phrases the language of “modern thought” or of any scheme of thought would be the Creed of an ephemeral scholasticism , and not the Creed of a Gospel before which all scholasticisms must bow.

The Gospel and the Catholic Church by Michael Ramsey<>for mobile

On July 18, 2013 By Kuyperian In Politics Like

Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and Police Brutality

One of the most distressing things to me in considering the Trayvon Martin case is the sobering reality that had George Zimmerman had a badge we likely never would have even heard of Trayvon Martin. His life, in all likelihood, would have passed unremarked outside of maybe a few local news stories and a small protest or candle light vigil attended by family and friends.

Why do I think this? Because it happens all the time. Police brutality, which goes hand in hand with the militarization of the police, is a pervasive reality. Consider these three videos.

http://youtu.be/NETF7lhp0r0

There are a few things to note about these videos. The first is that I didn’t have to search to find them. I just picked three, but if you look at the links that come up when you watch these it’s easy to see that there are countless similar videos, some too disturbing to even watch. Likewise with a few Google searches you can find numerous websites that track these things. They are generally taken about as seriously and receive about as much attention as your average conspiracy theory website.

Secondly, let’s consider who the victims are in these videos. In the first one we have a young black male being brutally beaten by a white cop, and then tazed multiple times while incapacitated as other white male cops stand around. In the second we see a black male officer beating another black male senseless with his baton, while a white or Latino male officer stands by as backup. Finally, in the third we see a white male officer savagely kick a white female who was handcuffed, seated, and intoxicated in the head. So police brutality is not merely a racial thing (although I don’t doubt that a strong case could be made that black males are on the receiving end more than any one other group).

No, police brutality is a power thing. It is the result of a culture that says that some are above the law. A culture of intimidation that views officers not as the agents of the people, hired to protect and serve, but as the hired thugs of the state, free to use whatever means necessary or preferred to carry out the will of the state, usually motivated by a financial incentive (i.e. traffic stops, the war on drugs, etc.). The kind of men we see in the videos above are not just a few bad apples, and they didn’t just have a moment. As mentioned above these kinds of events happen routinely, and it is not uncommon for those who engage in such brutality to keep their jobs or be hired by another force. Further, the ability to carry out the sustained beating of an unarmed person, to hear bones cracking, screams, pleas for help, to witness the body of a teenage boy convulsing under electrical shock when he is already incapacitated, the willingness to kick a woman in the face for a minor offense—these are not typical human capacities. I’m not saying that humans are not naturally capable of great evil—we surely are. But most of us simply would not do these kinds of thing. This kind of behavior is developed. It requires de-sensitization. It is developed by an internal culture that winks at violence and corruption, that begins to find a thrill in violent encounters, that finds its self-worth bolstered by being outfitted with greater and greater authority and more militaristic equipment and assignments. Permanent SWAT teams create police-soldiers.

But perhaps more disconcerting than the internal culture prevalent within so many law enforcement agencies is the external culture that tolerates and even celebrates it. I watched in horror a few months ago as the city of Boston was literally taken over and shut down by the military-police complex in a search for two (and then one) teenage boys. Armored vehicles with gun turrets drove through the streets aiming at anyone they pleased. The right against unreasonable search and seizure was wholly suspended as families were forced out of their homes at gunpoint—women and children with military rifles pointed at them simply because they were there, in their homes. Businesses were forced to close as citizens were told to stay in their homes. And despite the fact that all of this proved wholly ineffective and the suspect was found by a regular citizen just outside the militarized perimeter moments after the lock-down was lifted, the nation celebrated all of this. We took a sort of perverse pride in the lengths that the state would go to to “keep us safe,” never noting the irony that our safety came at the expense of the law, at the expense of any semblance of liberty, and at the end of a gun barrel. Nevertheless we lauded the effort as nothing but heroism and congratulated ourselves on a job well done.

Similarly, when it came out that an armed and violent criminal was eventually just burned to death in a cabin because it was taking too long to try and capture him there was no outrage. Once again we cheered. We got the bad guy. But at what cost? Of course Dorner was an evil man, and of course it’s hard to have much sympathy for him, but this isn’t about sympathy. It’s about precedent. It’s about a police department that shot two innocent people in a moving vehicle and then essentially said, “oops sorry about that.” It’s about a police department that decided it was up to them when to just kill someone rather than make every effort to capture him and put him to justice via a trial.

These and countless other examples from Waco and Ruby Ridge to the purveyors of raw milk who routinely have their homes invaded and property destroyed, to the kids walking down the street who don’t look right and end up the victim of an armed man’s god complex tell a story of a growing lawlessness in our culture. If the politicians aren’t bound by the law (and we know that’s been the case for a long time), and their armed enforcement personnel aren’t bound by the law, the law has effectively ceased to function. It is now just another tool for the manipulation and coercion of the populace, to be used as a pretext for abusing those already in a position of relative weakness, those who are already at a power deficit, while the powerful, the elite remain impervious to its strictures.

And so we return to Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. I am convinced that neither I nor most of the rest of the population have enough knowledge to really understand fully all the rights and wrongs of the way things ended up. But two things do stand out to me.

One is that Zimmerman behaved foolishly by following Martin after he was told not to. At some level his behavior seems to have been provocative. But more than that, as others have noted, Zimmerman may well have been acting and thinking as he thought a cop would. He evidently greatly admired the police and aspired toward law enforcement himself. Could it be that his aggressive behavior, his unwillingness to let it go and to leave the situation alone, came down to his perception of what it meant to be involved in law enforcement? Provoking and then responding with overwhelming force? I don’t know, but it seems like a real possibility.

The second thing that stands out is what I started with. If Zimmerman had actually been a cop I have a hard time believing we would have heard about this story. Yet in a sane world, had he been a cop he should have been held to an even higher standard. Police are given training to defuse tense and violent situations, and invested with a veritable monopoly on the use of force in public society. They ought to be held to the strictest levels of accountability in the use of violence precisely because they are naturally in a position that without that kind of oversight lends itself to the abuse of power and corruption. Yet what we see today is just the opposite. A citizen who at least was able to make a case that he killed in self-defense (albeit perhaps preceded by foolish and provocative behavior) is being crucified in the media, in pop-culture, even by the federal government. And yet story can be piled on top of story of abuse and even murder by law enforcement officers just over the period of time since Trayvon’s death and it goes unremarked on by the media and unnoticed by the population.<>

On July 13, 2013 By Kuyperian In Politics Like

Do You See it? It’s Beautiful!

1.618…Does that number ring a bell? Here’s an illustration of it:

Beautiful, right? I knew you’d think so. If you’re not convinced, here’s another picture of it:

Still not convinced? Too bad, it’s beautiful whether you like it or not.

Okay, maybe third time’s a charm:

Ah, that’s better. Now everyone agrees. It’s beautiful.

1.618… to 1 is a ratio. A “Golden Ratio.” Even more than that, it’s a proportion, and it’s beautiful. I know so, because God has filled his creation with it, and He doesn’t make junk. From the minutest DNA double-helix, to the most grandiose, spiral galaxy imaginable, God has knit His universe with a stitch that is just over 1.618 times as wide as it is long.

That’s another cool thing about it. It’s not 1.618 exactly. God shows us glorious things, but He also helps us remember that we are but clay. It’s an “irrational number”, meaning that it’s not the ratio of two integers. It’s like π. You know, the circumference of a circle divided by it’s diameter, which equals 3.14 et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It’s also like the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two, 1 unit legs. What could be simpler than that, right? What could be simpler than the square root of a little, bitty number like 2?

The Golden Ratio, Pi, and the square root of two are all infinitely incommensurate gaps in an infinitely dense number line. Go figure. We’re not God. We will never reach the end of His spoken world, nor ever plumb its depths. After all,

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements—surely you know!

Or who stretched the line upon it?

On what were its bases sunk,

or who laid its cornerstone,

when the morning stars sang together

and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

At the same time, man, created in God’s image, was able to blast a tube of metal into the heavens with living people inside, intersect the orbit of the moon, enter its orbit, land on that great, big hunk of cheese, go for a stroll, ride a very heavy dune buggy, collect some rocks, then re-launch to make their return trip to earth, and survive. That’s beautiful. How did we do that with all these irrational numbers floating around?

We can do great and beautiful things because we, and everything in creation, were created by the God who is One and Three. One God, Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is the One and the Many. He is Unity and Diversity. He is Universal and Particular. He likes to count, so He made us counters. He likes to measure, so He made us measurers. He likes beautiful things, so He made us beautiful, and He made us beautifiers.

In my life, I want to take baby steps towards God’s masterpiece, but I want my sons and daughters to take bigger steps, maybe even run toward God’s masterpiece. Not because they’re in any hurry, but because the breeze feels so nice on their faces. I want them to mature and bear fruit, so I’m endeavoring to teach them to recognize beauty when they see it, hear it, taste, smell, and touch it. Then later, perhaps even without measuring they will incorporate proportions in their lives that mirror God’s objective beauty. Godly proportions in their character and service, as well as their artifacts. I want them to recognize beauty even when it looks like this:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144…

Here’s my son, Seth, presenting his math memory work, which doubles as his primer in aesthetics:

Here’s some links to help explain the many, many things I left unsaid in this brief post:

http://www.biblicalchristianworldview.net/documents/IncommensuratesFibonacci.pdf

http://www.biblicalchristianworldview.net/documents/ringAesthetics.pdf

<>it аутсорсинг спб продвижение а в топ 3

On July 5, 2013 By Kuyperian In Worship Like

An Exhortation on the Supreme Court Decision

Guest Post by Alan Stout

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision to not deny federal benefits to homosexuals that enter into a false marriage covenant. I thought I would address this issue.

In small ways and great, we have given in to false teaching and false gods. We are timid before the gods of tolerance, sensuality, entertainment and comfort. We became ensconced behind our Church walls, boldly proclaiming our outrage over sin, other people’s sin, in closed meetings of other like-minded Christians. We have proclaimed “a different path” to those already walking that direction and rejoice that prophetic ministry has found such receptive ears.

The Church of Christ bares much responsibility for the woeful state of marriage in our nation. It is not because we have not spoken out against sodomy or homosexual relationships, we have, but because we have done so while leaving out the biblical purposes of marriage, making it an idol to be added to our shrine.

In and of itself, these in-house conversations are not sinful. Going to a conference on marriage in order to build yours up is not a bad thing. The problem is this: in practice, we as the Church have undercut the very foundations we purport to love. The result of this erosion is adultery, no fault divorce, and now the Federal tearing down of marriage itself (See Antonin Scalia’s dissent as the Supreme Court over-turned the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA).

The Church owns this sin and here is where we bought it. We have so divorced marriage from the original purpose given by God that we have turned it into a covenant of shortsighted selfishness, failing to think generationally about what God has joined together. From creation one of the chief purposes of holy matrimony (marriage) has been the procreation of children. The Church has traditionally recognized this and proclaimed it during the wedding ceremony. For example the 1609 Book of Common Prayer, after which many of our American Christian weddings have been patterned, declares three reasons marriage was given to man. Here is how wedding ceremonies in the West[1] have traditionally opened:

At the day and time appointed for solemnization of Matrimony, the persons to be married shall come into the Body of the Church with their friends and neighbours: and there standing together, the Man on the right hand, and the Woman on the left, the Priest shall say,

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

Modern Sample Call to Worship

Dear friends and family, with great affection for ___ and ___ we have gathered together to witness and bless their union in marriage. To this sacred moment they bring the fullness of their hearts as a treasure and a gift from God to share with one another. They bring the dreams which bind them together in an eternal commitment. They bring their gifts and talents, their unique personalities and spirits, which God will unite together into one being as they build their life together. We rejoice with them in thankfulness to the Lord for creating this union of hearts, built on friendship, respect and love.

Our President, Barack Obama, tweeted out immediately after the decision, “love is love.” Mr. President, the Church has been saying that for years… to our shame. May we repent, may we go forward to the garden-city, may we say with our Lord to those who marry today, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” That is a significant part of marriage and unless providentially hindered, children are mandated by God. This needs to be embraced and extolled in every marriage and in the Church.

The culture of sodomy is, in the end, death. There is no future in the sexual activity of homosexuals, their homes die with them. What a shame that the Church has bought into this same culture.

I propose that we do a few things to counter this trend:

1. Pastors, teach and fight the anti-family trend in this war. Extol the cultural mandate, think generationally, preach from Psalm 127 and 128 and do not undercut the force of the blessing of children with stupid statements like, “some men’s quivers are smaller than others and they hold only one or two arrows (127:5).” Teach that it is a real blessing to have a table surrounded by little olive plants (128:3).

2. Pastors again, let me urge you to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony unless the reasons for marriage are clearly articulated, we must preach the whole counsel of God in this situation.

3. Saints of almighty God, do not neglect the clear teaching of Scripture. Embrace the mandate to be fruitful and multiply, to deny this is death – in effect the same death the sodomite revels in. You too think generationally, long to see your children’s children (Psalm 128:6).

——————————————-

[1] The Eastern Church also contains a blessing that asks that the couple “multiply” like unto Jacob and Rachael.

Alan Stout is the Associate Pastor of Providence Church in Pensacola, Fl.<>dlya-vzloma гугла

On July 3, 2013 By Kuyperian In Politics Like

Baby Steps Toward the Masterpiece

by Marc Hays

Thanks to a blue-light special at the Kindle store, I recently acquired an e-copy of N. T. Wright’s Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense. The first section addresses humanity’s struggle with justice, spirituality, relationship and beauty. His questions are honest and piercing. His logic is so seamless, that I find it hard to decide on a pull quote without doing a great injustice to the surrounding material as well as the quote itself, but, having said all that, here’s a portion that is exceptionally tasty. It is from chapter 4, For the Beauty of the Earth,

What we must notice at this stage is that both in the Old Testament and the New, the present suffering of the world–about which the biblical writers knew every bit as much as we do–never makes them falter in their claim that the created world really is the good creation of a good God. They live with the tension. And they don’t do it by imagining that the present created order is a shabby, second-rate kind of thing, perhaps (as in some kinds of Platonism) made by a shabby second-rate sort of god. They do it by telling a story of what the one creator God has been doing to rescue his beautiful world and put it to rights. And the story they tell, which we shall explore further in due course, indicates that the present world really is a signpost to a larger beauty, a deeper truth. It really is the authentic manuscript of one part of a masterpiece. The question is, What is the whole masterpiece like, and how can we begin to hear the music in that way it was intended? (more…)

On July 1, 2013 By Kuyperian In Books Like

Aaron’s Rod Swallowed Their Rods

by Marc Hays

Christian, do you feel as though the enemy has won a victory? Is your pessimillenialism lingering just under the surface ready to burst through with eschatological doom and cliches about polishing the brass on a sinking ship?

If so, C. H. Spurgeon offers sage advice in his devotional, Mornings and Evenings. (more…)

On June 26, 2013 By Kuyperian In Books Like

Book Review – The Authenticity Hoax

reviewed by Justin Dillehay

Organic food. Samuel Adams. Mud-floors. Vintage Levi’s. What do they all have in common? According to philosopher Andrew Potter: authenticity. People eat, imbibe, walk on, and wear these things in an effort to be “real.” Potter views this so-called authenticity as a reaction to modernity, describing it as a “rejection of the various tributaries of mass society’s current, including the media, marketing, fast food, party politics, the Internet, and—above all—the program of free markets and economic integration usually derided as ‘globalization’” (8). In the space of 273 fascinating and often hilarious pages, Potter analyzes the history, meaning, and manifestations of authenticity, ranging from Jean Jacques Rousseau in the 18^th century to Oprah Winfrey in the 21^st. Through it all, Potter concludes that authenticity is a hoax; a “dopey nostalgia for a non-existent past, a one-sided suspicion of the modern world, and stagnant and reactionary politics masquerading as something personally meaningful and socially progressive” (270).

For me, Potter’s most helpful (and entertaining) insight is that authenticity is a form of one-upmanship and status-seeking; an effort not to be real, but to be different. If everyone starts listening to the Avett Brothers, the truly authentic will drop them like last month’s YouTube sensation (they must be sell-outs anyway). If Wal-Mart starts placing organic food within the financial reach of the hoi polloi, this is cause—not for rejoicing—but for anti-capitalist consternation (129). Once indie bands and organic food lose their ability to distinguish the authentic from the rabble, the truly authentic move on in search of substitutes, like locally grown food. All this and more in a chapter entitled “Conspicuous Authenticity,” a term Potter adapts from economist Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class. (more…)