Christianity and Identity

One of the striking things about Christianity is that it makes all human and natural identities relative (as opposed to absolute). This became an issue for the early church as it tried to come to grips with the different identities of early believers—Jews and non-Jews or Gentiles. Christianity started out as a development of Judaism, but even during the time of Jesus’s ministry it proved attractive to non-Jews. It also became a bone of contention as Jesus tried to proclaim good news to the Jews themselves (see Luke 4:16-29).

The book of Acts emphasizes that the early Christians soon found themselves dealing with Gentile believers—first Samaritans, then proselytes such as Cornelius the Roman Centurion, and then finally Gentiles, people who had no connection with Judaism at all. This forced them to come to grips with the question of what the essence of Christian identity was.

Initially there was a strong movement that argued that Gentile Christians must be circumcised, effectively making them Jews. They would also be required to obey the Jewish laws regarding diet and so on. But the debate that arose over this was settled as the church leaders made it clear that that Gentiles could be full-fledged Christians without having to become Jews.

Paul worked out the “theory” behind this. In Ephesians 2 he argued that Christ had died to break down the “wall of hostility” between Jews and Gentiles and, in place of two kinds of human beings (Jews, God’s chosen, and Gentiles) to make “one new [humanity].”

He went further to say in Galatians 3:28 that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” He reiterated that statement in Colossians 3:11: “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”

Paul applied this in practical terms as he ministered; in 1 Corinthians 9 he illustrated how he sat loosely on his ethnic identity and even his spiritual standing. In 1 Corinthians 9:22 he said, “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.”

Taking the above into account it becomes clear that part of what it means to become a Christian is to abandon our distinctive human identity. This is part of what it means to be “crucified with Christ.”

This does not mean that we deny our human background. But it does mean that we no longer cling to our human identity. In personal terms, I can no longer view myself as a white male Christian. Instead, I have to see myself as a Christian with certain human qualities, including being a Caucasian and being male.

I was really impressed by an example I saw of this some years ago. Tony Dungy, who coached the Indianapolis Colts to a Super Bowl victory, was asked afterwards if he was proud of the fact that this was the first Super Bowl with two African-American head coaches. He replied that he was more proud of the fact that it was a Super Bowl that had two Christian head coaches.

Now clearly this did not mean that Tony Dungy repudiated being an African-American. Rather, it showed that he no longer considered his identity as an African-American as the most important thing about him. There was something more important—his connection with Christ. I was amazed and humbled by his faithfulness to Christ.

In general the principle we see at work is our oneness in Christ. All our human identities divide us, but in Christ we are one. It is therefore necessary for us no longer to consider ourselves in the light of those human identities, because they will destroy the unity of the Body.

To put it more bluntly, an Asian-American cannot see himself as an “Asian-American Christian.” Instead, he is a Christian. And he has, among other things, the quality of being Asian-American.

Historically, this has been a big problem as Christians from different cultures interact. It is inevitable that our interactions, the forms of our structures and institutions and so on, will be affected and even characterized by our backgrounds and our human qualities. We must operate in concrete ways.

But the moment those structures and forms become more important than our oneness in Christ, the moment they prevent us from “discerning the Body,” as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 11:29, we bring judgment on ourselves. We fail to live in a manner worthy of the sacrifice Christ made for us.

The particular example in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 shows a church dividing along socio-economic lines—and that particular problem is mentioned several times in the New Testament (see also James 2 and 1 John 3:16-18). But divisions along cultural and racial lines are probably more pervasive.

I am not saying that our forms should not reflect our culture. But our tendency is to identify Christianity with our culture, and to judge Christians from other cultures as they depart from our cultural norms. Paul’s desire to be “all things to all men” for the sake of the gospel should be our ambition as well. Leave aside all the trappings of our culture when they divide us from other Christians.

I admit that I am not making concrete suggestions here. Every situation will be different. But there are plenty of historical examples we can look at, such as Hudson Taylor’s work in China. Roland Allen, in his book Missionary Methods, St. Paul’s or Ours?, pioneered the idea that missionaries should foster indigenous leadership and not apply purely cultural criteria from their home culture to decide if someone can be a leader. These ideas can be applied in our local churches as well.

One of the contentious areas where this issue comes up is the issue of sexual identity. While I accept the Christian teaching about human sexuality, I believe it is often applied in a way that is poorly articulated and legalistic.

One of the things I believe characterizes many homosexuals is that they see their “identity” as tied up with homosexuality. Thus to really be “accepted” they must be accepted as homosexuals. Most of society, at least among opinion-shapers, has embraced this notion.

As a result Christians feel threatened. For Christians to affirm homosexual marriage, for example, means they would have to abandon the clear teachings of Jesus (e.g. Matthew 19). But there is pressure both societal and legal to make them do this. What’s more, the capture of the educational system by those with a progressive agenda makes Christians fear for their children. It is increasingly common to find that children of Christian families now accept the progressive view of sexual identity.

How can we navigate this explosive mine field? I believe that the ideas about identity that I outlined above are helpful.

First, nobody can become part of the Kingdom of God without leaving behind their old identity. Some of the statements Jesus made are quite radical. He speaks of rejecting one’s closest family members for the sake of following him. The good news of salvation is not that our worldly attachments are baptized. They are done away with. Failure to teach and practice this makes the message of salvation unclear. Death is part of salvation. Baptism itself is a symbol of death—dying with Jesus.

This is not a counsel of perfection. But we cannot ask homosexuals to abandon their identity of homosexual if we are not willing to abandon all the things that constitute our identity. Paul, in Philippians 3, calls these things “excrement” and says that he has counted them all as loss for the sake of knowing Christ.

We are all in the same boat. The fullness of our faith asks us to leave behind our identities to take on the new identity as a child of God. We die to our human life so we can have a new “resurrected life” with God.

Second, even “straight” sexual identity is not ultimate. Yes, marriage between a man and a woman is how God created us and how he intends us to express sexuality—that sexuality being oriented toward having children (see especially Malachi 2:15). But Jesus also says that “in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This somewhat enigmatic statement reflects the fact that even our natural human sexual identities are not ultimate.

In light of all the above, I believe that we must accept believing people who have homosexual tendencies the way we would accept anyone else. As fellow believers, we support them and love them the way we would want to be loved. But we do not love them as “homosexuals”. We love them as believers who have that particular quality.

Because the teaching of the Bible is so clear about fornication and about the nature of marriage, we cannot affirm homosexual expression either in or out of a “committed” relationship. This would be “baptizing sin.”

At the same time there are few of us who do not struggle with our own expression of sexuality, even if we are heterosexual. We trust the Holy Spirit to work effectually in our individual lives over time; we must do so with all of our fellow believers in whatever areas they struggle. The key insight is to see that the desires and tendencies we have are not who we are. Even our sexual identities are temporary and will be redeemed by Christ in ways we cannot now imagine.