Thursday, June 3, 2010

The ZigZag Café

We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.

For today:

How should we come to our conclusions about what is fake?


Living Spiritual Rhythms For Today


reneamac said...

No bites on this one, huh? I do think it's harder now than ever to discern what's true. The amount of information alone makes it more difficult, never mind the lack of journalistic integrity. It's overwhelming.

Greg said...

Thanks. I agree. So many call things or this or that person "fake", but I'm never quite sure what they mean by the term.

reneamac said...

Oh, I see. I think people mean inauthentic, but you're right; I generally feel as though the use of the term fake or inauthentic is subjective and arbitrary, and highly presumptuous. For example, many in my generation consider the worship through song of the older generations inauthentic because they don't express themselves as freely (emotionally) as younger people (this is in the white community of course). Based on this the younger generation then writes off the entire faith of the older persons off. Says a lot about what we value. I dare anyone to consider the prayer life of a seasoned believer and call his or her faith inauthentic.

So it seems to me that at least one definition of fake is unemotional(ly expressive). Which makes the definition of real rather feelings oriented.

People also use the word fake when they feel as though others 'never' talk about difficult things. And while this can be true, it is most often unfair and narrow, deriving from a lopsided definition of fake and real.

Good question, Greg. I'd like to see it pop up again to see what others say.

Greg said...

That would be another question: what is authentic?

Excellent example and assessment of the way "fake" is being used nowadays. Ambiguous. The criteria is very subjective or not even considered. So many people label others as "fake" w/o any concern that this label may fit the labeler as well.

My suggestion would be something like this: the better way of concluding what is "fake" has to be connected to valid criteria for what is real. And feelings or subjectivity are only part of this criteria. Scripture, others, and the world also have to come into play.