Is "Authenticity" at Odds with a "Positive Outlook?"

March 31, 2011

Is "Authenticity" at Odds with a "Positive Outlook?"

In response to yesterday's post on luck, John West responded:

Hey Dave,
Interesting post. I've recently had a few conversations about luck,and perspective. I've even thought some about perspective in the story of Eden. When the humans perceive shortage (and God as stingy) actual shortage is the eventual outcome (of course there is more going on, but I think it is fascinating that they perceive God and the good garden as somehow stingy and then - post fall - the ground does actually become stingy).

I'm far from advocating the power of positive thinking, but still I do think there is something quite powerful about perspective as this Psychology Today article points out: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201005/make-your-own-luck

I think that the perspective God is with us and God is good while certainly not guaranteeing "good luck" will give us a perspective that will make us more likely to notice happy circumstances.

I'm all for choosing a positive rather than negative perspective, and I think John might have it exactly right when he says that, at the very least, that will make us more likely to notice happy circumstances. And I really like his defining of his terms--"the perspective that God is with us and God is good" as opposed to "the power of positive thinking." Seems right on to me. But, provocateurs that we are in this space, let me then talk about what John is touching on but expressly NOT talking about.

The connection of a positive outlook to faith strikes me as a uniquely American contribution to religion, if one that's now been exported widely.

There are two variants which have had their day, if I'm remembering. One is the usually-reviled-in-my-circles "prosperity gospel" which argues that, in effect, a positive outlook towards God will bring us riches. There's a strong secular version of this with books like The Secret and The Laws of Attraction which pitch that "thoughts are things" (I'm thinking we've talked about this, but who has the time to actually go back and discover if that's true?) and that, if we send positivity out into the universe, it's a universal law that positivity (and good stuff) will come back our way. Conversely, if we send out negativity, that's what we'll get back. So we need to be very, very careful about our thought life. (And, one would think, this says that if we don't like the circumstances of our lives, we're to blame. After all, this stuff is a "law," so it should always work.)

The milder--though still-related--version of this would be in the lineage of Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller and Joel Osteen. In this take, "the power of positive thinking" doesn't have quite the same oomph as a "law" and there's not such a direct link to riches (though that link does pop up on occasion). But a positive outlook most definitely is key to a good life and to connecting with God.

So I'm of two minds. Again, I agree with John that there's something there--at the very least in his far more nuanced take. You could make a case that what he's talking about would be a synonym for "faith," for believing that God is at work even when circumstances are not, at present, agreeable.

But this also seems to take us back to last week's conversation about authenticity--in that this seems like the polar opposite of authenticity. By definition. Authenticity, as discussed last week at least, relates to not denying our pain. A positive outlook at all times seems remarkably related to putting on a happy face, no matter what.

So I have a proposal that's no doubt glib in this circle. Is it possible that a crude take on positive thinking fits great in Stage 2. A crude take on the ultimate value of authenticity fits great in Stage 3. And then perhaps Stage 4 offers a kind of transcendant take on both--that God very much IS with us at all times, good and bad, and that that's great news and a source of real encouragement even as there's no need to deny what our lying eyes are telling us about our circumstances. (To explain the lying eyes reference: I believe that has roots back to an old joke. Wife catches her husband in bed with another woman. He replies: Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes? If our "lying eyes" tell us our circumstances are challenging, in Stage 4 perhaps there's a way in which we both don't need to deny that and can still connect with the very-present God in those very circumstances.)

What do you think? Can "authenticity" live in the same world as "a positive outlook" or are they sworn enemies?

Mar 31, 2011 12:49:57 PM

6 Comments

I would definitely say both can coexist quite well. I am presently taking our church through a study on the book of Philippians. I am struck by how joy-filled and upbeat Paul is in this letter even though he wrote it from a Roman prison in which he thought he might likely be executed. Not only that but he wrote of others preaching Jesus from false motives to make him miserable. What I see in Paul's writing is not someone who is in denial or idealistic but rather someone who is experiencing Jesus right in the midst of struggle. I think the more one journeys with Christ the more one learns the meaning of crazy sayings from the New Testament like "rejoice in trials and testing". I'm still not a big fan of financial hardship, sickness, or relational break downs but I have come to realize that if I stay close to Jesus I will learn something from him that I could never learn if everything was simply going great. When your faith is tested in the fires of trials and suffering whatever is left is of immeasurable worth.

Posted by: Crispin | March 31, 2011 at 02:34 PM

Yes; I love the way Stage Theory applies here. Absolutely Stage 4 seems to be when we come to a ground that positivity and authenticity can both help us at once.

Posted by: Vinceation | March 31, 2011 at 08:57 PM

I think this ties up together nicely the conversations on authenticity and praise.

I do feel that the stage-4 version of being positive while maintaining authenticity somehow tempers and brings together these two opposites. To me, it comes down to being present. And I have learned this both in the eastern-mystical tradition (Eckhart Tolle, the Power of Now) and the Christian mystical tradition (Richard Rohr, the Naked Now). A few days ago I made a comment on the other blog post saying that complaining is not authentic, and Doug replied that stuffing your emotions is unhealthy. I totally agree with Doug that stuffing your emotions is a terrible thing, I would never recommend that for anyone. What I believe in is the opposite, being present to what I'm feeling. And if someone asks me how I'm feeling, if I trust them and sense they are present, and want to know what I'm feeling, of course I'll tell them the truth. But if I sense they aren't present and they will just drag me further down, then I don't want to go into it. You know how it goes when someone asks you how your day was and you say something negative that happened to you, and then they reply "oh, that's terrible", and they validate your sad story and sympathize with you, but they really did you a disservice.

But even without this consideration, I do feel that dwelling on, or even verbalizing, negative things is not authentic for me. So again I'm dissatisfied with this definition "authenticity". Wikipedia says that "Authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character..." Of the people I think about who I admire, who I feel are authentic, dwelling on some petty problem in their life would be completely inconsistent with their personality, spirit, and character. I'm thinking of MLK or Ghandi But I don't have to go that far, back in history. Jon Stewart, Obama, Bono, Oprah (please don't judge my heroes, I could mention people here from all walks of life, republicans, stage 2, stage 3, etc). Would you consider Joel Osteen not authentic? While his ministry seems somewhat stage-2ish, and he's maybe not the coolest preacher out there, I think he's quite true to his personality, spirit, and character.

However, going the other way now I also do feel there is a place for being real about negative emotions, but I think I would do this only with trusted friends, or a trusted partner. Also, I remember now Doug in his comment made a good point about art. I think art is a great place for authenticity, i.e. really going into negative emotions. Maybe art is kind of a safe receptacle for the negative, and can even transform it into something good and beautiful. How does that work? I don't know. But I think it has something to do with God! Also I remember once hearing on the radio someone defending the value of a song that was particularly graphic (was it a song about domestic violence, was it Eminem?) They made the point that this song could help someone who was in such a relationship to bring up the topic in a safe way. There's something about saying the truth that opens the door for healing. But I think we have to go beyond the words and even beyond emotions. Maybe that's what authenticity and art provides.

Posted by: Otto | March 31, 2011 at 11:36 PM