Part I // Part III // Part IV // Part V
_____________________________
In an article entitled "The Complexity of Identity: 'Who Am I?'," Beverly Tatum of the White Privilege Conference, a racial equality coalition, expressed the problem of self-identifying in the following words:
The sexual revolution of the 1960's -- the push for "free love" and open, unrestricted sexuality -- elevated sexuality to the forefront of personal identity. The push against a conservative cultural temperature was a statement of individuality -- a rebellion against what were considered repressive social norms in an attempt to indulge sexual passions without shame. Because our culture wanted (and still wants) to exert control over their sexual practices (by "liberating" them), and simultaneously wants to feel connected to one another, they were quick to make sexual preference the key factor in self-identification. Furthermore, because sexuality involves intimacy and vulnerability, it's a voluntary type of self-exposure that we should have the right to control -- how we want, when we want. In the individual expression of sexuality, our culture wants control over personal identity. Therefore, they make their sexual preference synonymous with who they are as individuals.
In other words, we have been saved to so much more than sexual "freedoms."
Our identity is found in so much more than just our sexuality.
This conversation is perhaps most applicable to the homosexual community, who define themselves principally by their sexual preference. A good friend of mine brought to my attention how ironic it is that individuals who stand for marriage equality were willing a few months back to trade their profile pictures on Facebook for a big equals sign. It's ironic because, as the homosexual community pushes for their identity to be recognized, they are willing to hide their own faces for the cause. They are willing to cover their physical, emotional, and spiritual identities with their sexual preference. "This is who we are, get over it," is the principle sentiment of the gay community, which is as much a response to pharisaical bigotry as it is a militant front, and as much a statement of indifference to outside opinion as it is a cloak to cover the shame. Regardless of the reasoning, to say "I'm a homosexual and this is who I choose to be" is ultimately a surrendering of individual identity for the sake of picking up a banner. I understand that sexual preference is the issue that's being contested, but to wear homosexuality like a badge is to eclipse the sun with the moon. It is elevating sexual preference to the single defining feature of identity.
On one hand, the gay community's tenacious defense of their sexual liberty is admirable. On the other hand, the defensiveness that goes into their stance -- the sneer they wear to prove themselves bulletproof in their convictions -- speaks of the concealed nature of the sin in their hearts. What they refuse to recognize is that covering their sinful actions with the approving stamp of legal sanction doesn't change the fact that what they desire is biblically wrong.
That being said, I won't victimize, vilify, or vindicate the gay community. They need Jesus just like I do. Furthermore, both Christians and homosexuals alike have been at fault throughout the course of this 40+ year debate, and both have proven time and again to be more noble than the other. Would that self-proclaimed "Christians" were more adamant about the truth of Christ being proclaimed than about getting to throw the first stone. However, the root issue of homosexuality is fundamentally misunderstood by both parties involved. To the homosexual, the gay agenda is a personal application of social equality; to many Christians, the gay agenda is contrary to their sense of religious and social stability, a sin expressly condemned by the Bible, and one punishable by death in ancient Jewish culture (Lev 20.13). Both perspectives ultimately miss the mark, because the gay agenda, so much more than being an innocent quest for individuality, is really a rejection of absolute truth.
"Not true," a member of that community might say, "we just want to have sex the way we want." And maybe that's true on the surface, but the fact that they push for a new label -- a label handed down by the legal system that not only legitimizes but also promotes the homosexual lifestyle -- is an attempt to crack the shell of God's moral law. It's itemizing, sure, and doesn't seem like it should be that big of a deal, but our God deals in absolutes. The one who violates one command is guilty of violating them all (Jas 2.10). Furthermore, the one who chooses to follow Christ must leave everything behind and take up a cross of his own. There is no halfway with God, and there are no loopholes. In fact, the only loophole in the Scriptures is the one Christ Himself provided: the way of escape from sin and death, a fate to which we were absolutely condemned without Him.
Our culture -- especially the homosexual community -- doesn't like that aspect of biblical rationality. They don't like moral absolutes or one-way-to-heaven theology, because they want to dissect the Word and enable one tiny violation. Just one can't be damning, can it? However, as the Bible attests, the way to enter heaven is through the narrow gate (Matt 12.13). Just as the rich man must leave his wealth behind because he can't carry it into heaven with him, so also the man who makes his identity his sexual preference must shed his lustful activities, because his gratification profits nothing in the light of eternity.
Maybe that sounds unfair. "I was born this way," the homosexual man would say, "I can't help it."
The truth is, we are all born in sin. We were all born that way.
Sexual sin was a struggle for me all my dating life, and it was hard to stop. However, just because it was hard to overcome the temptation doesn't mean I had the right to claim I was born that way and continue. Just because it was my flesh's inclination to pursue sex doesn't mean I was morally excused to float in my carnality instead of swimming upstream. Even if my genes predetermine my propensity to sin in a sexual manner doesn't mean that I have a get-out-of-jail-free card. I'm still held to the same standard of holiness as is the human race. We either meet that standard through the person of Jesus Christ, or we fall short of it.
What I love so much about God's mercy -- aside from the fact that He always extends mercy before exacting judgment -- is the fact that, through it, He doesn't leave us alone. He doesn't save us from sin and then leave us to fight our own uphill battles by our own strength and initiative. Christ doesn't ask us to do anything we can't accomplish in His power, or to ever fight a battle on our own (Matt 19.26; 2 Cor 13.4; 1 Cor 10.13).
So, is overcoming a sexual sin hard -- especially homosexuality? Yes. Is it impossible? No. Not with the strength God supplies.
I love the statement Phil Moser, the teaching pastor at my church, has made on a number of occasions:
That is why my identity is so much bigger than my sexuality. As believers in Christ, we shouldn't be labeling ourselves according to the type of sex we enjoy, because a). there is only one prescribed sexual practice in God's Word -- in the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman -- and b). because, frankly, sex isn't all there is to this life. When I reduce who I am to my sexual preference, all of a sudden I'm defined by my libido. I'm no longer a man of many facets, but a man who identifies principally with my own pleasure and my own selfishness. Furthermore, by that mode of thinking, what I like determines who I am -- I don't determine what I like. I'm even less in control of my identity by that rationality than I am when I choose to conform myself to the image of Christ.
Who I truly am -- who I've been saved by grace to become -- is so much bigger than my sexuality, or any other one individual factor. We can't eliminate any of the things from Tatum's list: race, geography, likes/interests, skills, and etcetera are all parts of the whole -- all contributing factors to our sum total identity. And the beauty of this list of factors is that God has given mankind plenty of opportunity to self-identify. He has given us different interests and placed us in different families with different backgrounds and heritages. We are each fearfully and wonderfully unique, handmade and hand-held by a God who values beauty and creativity (Psa 139.14).
_____________________________
The concept of identity is a complex one, shaped by individual characteristics, family dynamics, historical factors, and social and political contexts.
Who am I?
The answer depends in large part on who the world around me says I am. Who do my parents say I am? Who do my peers say I am? What message is reflected back to me in the faces and voices of my teachers, my neighbors, store clerks? What do I learn from the media about myself? How am I represented in the cultural images around me? Or am I missing from the picture altogether?
As social scientist Charles Cooley pointed out long ago, other people are the mirror in which we see ourselves. This "looking glass self" is not a flat one-dimensional reflection, but multidimensional. How one's racial identity is experienced will be mediated by other dimensions of one-self: male or female; young or old; wealthy, middle-class, or poor; gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or heterosexual; able-bodied or with disabilities; Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist.
What has my social context been? Was I surrounded by people like myself, or was I part of a minority in my community? Did I grow up speaking standard English at home or another language or dialect? Did I live in a rural county, an urban neighborhood, a sprawling suburb, or on a reservation?
Who I am (or say I am) is a product of these and many other factors.Tatum's thesis involves a complex number of interconnected dynamics -- race, economic status, geographical location, interpersonal and familial relationships, gender, sexuality, age, and more. All of these are factors in personal identity, and the vast quantity of variables contributes to the struggle individuals undergo to figure out exactly who they are. Ironically, the vast majority of these factors are external to the individual: the so-called "looking glass self" that the environment provides is completely independent of the image we try to create for ourselves. Though we might try, we can't truly change our race, age, gender, or familial relationships. In other words, many elements of our identities are pre-determined, not options we get to pick before we spawn.
The sexual revolution of the 1960's -- the push for "free love" and open, unrestricted sexuality -- elevated sexuality to the forefront of personal identity. The push against a conservative cultural temperature was a statement of individuality -- a rebellion against what were considered repressive social norms in an attempt to indulge sexual passions without shame. Because our culture wanted (and still wants) to exert control over their sexual practices (by "liberating" them), and simultaneously wants to feel connected to one another, they were quick to make sexual preference the key factor in self-identification. Furthermore, because sexuality involves intimacy and vulnerability, it's a voluntary type of self-exposure that we should have the right to control -- how we want, when we want. In the individual expression of sexuality, our culture wants control over personal identity. Therefore, they make their sexual preference synonymous with who they are as individuals.
Unsurprisingly, that perspective is not biblical. In fact, Paul builds his argument about believers being conformed to the image of Christ -- e.g. finding their identity in Him -- in the midst of a discussion on sexual immorality. Even in the era of the early church, promiscuity and deviant sexual behaviors were a means by which people chose to identify themselves, and so Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 6 addresses the issue at its core, leaving no room for the "my sexual preference is my identity" argument to remain. In fact, Paul insists that we should "flee sexual immorality," not only because it directly violates biblical commands, but also because it is against the very character of Christ -- the image, or the identity, to which believers should be conformed. If we claim the name of Christ, then we are no longer our own -- we are bought with a price, and therefore must glorify our Father, choosing to be defined no longer by the world's parameters but by His.
If we are conformed to the image of Christ, then our behavior and our desires will look like His.
Our sexual activities should be defined by who we are in Him, not define who we are.
Paul further discusses our identity in Christ in Romans 8. There, not only does he outline the compassion of a God who understands and helps us in our weaknesses, extending to us the strength to overcome all the temptations and sufferings set before us, but he also promises the future glory of eternity with Christ. We are joint-heirs with Him, Paul reminds the believer, destined to judge angels, and redeemed (literally "bought back") from our slavery to sin and restored to a life of purity, honor, and eternal security.If we are conformed to the image of Christ, then our behavior and our desires will look like His.
Our sexual activities should be defined by who we are in Him, not define who we are.
In other words, we have been saved to so much more than sexual "freedoms."
Our identity is found in so much more than just our sexuality.
This conversation is perhaps most applicable to the homosexual community, who define themselves principally by their sexual preference. A good friend of mine brought to my attention how ironic it is that individuals who stand for marriage equality were willing a few months back to trade their profile pictures on Facebook for a big equals sign. It's ironic because, as the homosexual community pushes for their identity to be recognized, they are willing to hide their own faces for the cause. They are willing to cover their physical, emotional, and spiritual identities with their sexual preference. "This is who we are, get over it," is the principle sentiment of the gay community, which is as much a response to pharisaical bigotry as it is a militant front, and as much a statement of indifference to outside opinion as it is a cloak to cover the shame. Regardless of the reasoning, to say "I'm a homosexual and this is who I choose to be" is ultimately a surrendering of individual identity for the sake of picking up a banner. I understand that sexual preference is the issue that's being contested, but to wear homosexuality like a badge is to eclipse the sun with the moon. It is elevating sexual preference to the single defining feature of identity.On one hand, the gay community's tenacious defense of their sexual liberty is admirable. On the other hand, the defensiveness that goes into their stance -- the sneer they wear to prove themselves bulletproof in their convictions -- speaks of the concealed nature of the sin in their hearts. What they refuse to recognize is that covering their sinful actions with the approving stamp of legal sanction doesn't change the fact that what they desire is biblically wrong.
That being said, I won't victimize, vilify, or vindicate the gay community. They need Jesus just like I do. Furthermore, both Christians and homosexuals alike have been at fault throughout the course of this 40+ year debate, and both have proven time and again to be more noble than the other. Would that self-proclaimed "Christians" were more adamant about the truth of Christ being proclaimed than about getting to throw the first stone. However, the root issue of homosexuality is fundamentally misunderstood by both parties involved. To the homosexual, the gay agenda is a personal application of social equality; to many Christians, the gay agenda is contrary to their sense of religious and social stability, a sin expressly condemned by the Bible, and one punishable by death in ancient Jewish culture (Lev 20.13). Both perspectives ultimately miss the mark, because the gay agenda, so much more than being an innocent quest for individuality, is really a rejection of absolute truth.
"Not true," a member of that community might say, "we just want to have sex the way we want." And maybe that's true on the surface, but the fact that they push for a new label -- a label handed down by the legal system that not only legitimizes but also promotes the homosexual lifestyle -- is an attempt to crack the shell of God's moral law. It's itemizing, sure, and doesn't seem like it should be that big of a deal, but our God deals in absolutes. The one who violates one command is guilty of violating them all (Jas 2.10). Furthermore, the one who chooses to follow Christ must leave everything behind and take up a cross of his own. There is no halfway with God, and there are no loopholes. In fact, the only loophole in the Scriptures is the one Christ Himself provided: the way of escape from sin and death, a fate to which we were absolutely condemned without Him.
Our culture -- especially the homosexual community -- doesn't like that aspect of biblical rationality. They don't like moral absolutes or one-way-to-heaven theology, because they want to dissect the Word and enable one tiny violation. Just one can't be damning, can it? However, as the Bible attests, the way to enter heaven is through the narrow gate (Matt 12.13). Just as the rich man must leave his wealth behind because he can't carry it into heaven with him, so also the man who makes his identity his sexual preference must shed his lustful activities, because his gratification profits nothing in the light of eternity.
Maybe that sounds unfair. "I was born this way," the homosexual man would say, "I can't help it."
The truth is, we are all born in sin. We were all born that way.
Sexual sin was a struggle for me all my dating life, and it was hard to stop. However, just because it was hard to overcome the temptation doesn't mean I had the right to claim I was born that way and continue. Just because it was my flesh's inclination to pursue sex doesn't mean I was morally excused to float in my carnality instead of swimming upstream. Even if my genes predetermine my propensity to sin in a sexual manner doesn't mean that I have a get-out-of-jail-free card. I'm still held to the same standard of holiness as is the human race. We either meet that standard through the person of Jesus Christ, or we fall short of it.
What I love so much about God's mercy -- aside from the fact that He always extends mercy before exacting judgment -- is the fact that, through it, He doesn't leave us alone. He doesn't save us from sin and then leave us to fight our own uphill battles by our own strength and initiative. Christ doesn't ask us to do anything we can't accomplish in His power, or to ever fight a battle on our own (Matt 19.26; 2 Cor 13.4; 1 Cor 10.13).
So, is overcoming a sexual sin hard -- especially homosexuality? Yes. Is it impossible? No. Not with the strength God supplies.
I love the statement Phil Moser, the teaching pastor at my church, has made on a number of occasions:
"God will not protect you from something He can perfect you through."The God of this universe certainly welcomes all to come to Him -- just as they are. But He is a holy God who commands holiness from His followers. Therefore, though He welcomes you in your brokenness, He is not content to leave you that way. If you truly give Him your life, He will begin working on it -- shaping you into the identity of a joint-heir with His Son, a redeemed and justified follower of Jesus. However, that requires humility on our part, and -- above all -- obedience through the difficult tasks that are required of us. God might not protect us from a temptation to which we are prone, because He wants us to learn to value Him more than we value that sinful craving. He might not remove a painful trial from your life, because He wants you to consciously rely more upon Him -- instead of merely living on autopilot. The world lives on autopilot, doing what seems right and navigating unconsciously by the way they feel. We, however, are no longer conformed to the way this world operates, Paul attests, but transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12.2). Every day, the true believer is transformed to be a little less like the world and a little more like Christ.
That is why my identity is so much bigger than my sexuality. As believers in Christ, we shouldn't be labeling ourselves according to the type of sex we enjoy, because a). there is only one prescribed sexual practice in God's Word -- in the confines of a marriage between one man and one woman -- and b). because, frankly, sex isn't all there is to this life. When I reduce who I am to my sexual preference, all of a sudden I'm defined by my libido. I'm no longer a man of many facets, but a man who identifies principally with my own pleasure and my own selfishness. Furthermore, by that mode of thinking, what I like determines who I am -- I don't determine what I like. I'm even less in control of my identity by that rationality than I am when I choose to conform myself to the image of Christ.
Who I truly am -- who I've been saved by grace to become -- is so much bigger than my sexuality, or any other one individual factor. We can't eliminate any of the things from Tatum's list: race, geography, likes/interests, skills, and etcetera are all parts of the whole -- all contributing factors to our sum total identity. And the beauty of this list of factors is that God has given mankind plenty of opportunity to self-identify. He has given us different interests and placed us in different families with different backgrounds and heritages. We are each fearfully and wonderfully unique, handmade and hand-held by a God who values beauty and creativity (Psa 139.14).
The notion that personal identity should rightly be fluid seems more problematic than freeing to me. Sure, my roles throughout my lifetime will change, and maybe my interests, pastimes, and preferences will change, but that doesn't necessarily mean the composite whole of who I am needs to radically shift. I don't want to go through life wondering when the next set of circumstances will alter how I look at myself. The core of who I am should be the independent component of personal identity. The peripheral things should be the leaves and branches on the tree, not the trunk or the roots. Important, yes; vital, certainly; but not irreplaceable should they change. I lose who I am if I allow the peripheral elements of my identity to define the core.
 |
| I know that's supposed to be an opera singer on the end... but I still choose to believe I'll have the opportunity to be a viking someday. |
In its pursuit-based lifestyle of always desiring more, better, and different, our culture envies the chameleon his ability to change skin. Americans want to reserve the right to alter who they are -- to be free to redefine themselves on a whim. And to some extent, adaptivity isn't necessarily a bad wish. Biblical redemption itself is all about personal change. Broadening and shaping ourselves via the guidance of Scripture is essential for the same reason pruning is necessary to the health of the tree. The bottom line, however, is that my comprehensive identity should remain stable even if my circumstances change. Just because I lose my job or hit my thirtieth birthday shouldn't mean I begin to doubt who I am.
My identity in Christ should be unshakeable, informing the peripheral details of who I choose to be -- not the other way around.
I love verse 11 from Psalm 86, which says, "Teach me your way, O LORD, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name." The Bible speaks into the fact that we have so many divided loyalties in this world -- so many different factors pulling us in so many directions that we often feel torn as to who we are and what we're supposed to be doing. It can make us feel hopeless. That's why the psalmist prays to God, "Unite my heart," recognizing that He alone is the One capable of consolidating all the messy, complicated pieces of our messy, complicated lives. He unites the hearts of His followers upon one singular, wholehearted pursuit.
To me, that's worthy of a sigh of relief. The fact that God is in control of all the details means that I don't have to be. If I can be content to allow Him to perform His work as the Master Potter, shaping me into the identity He desires for me, then my path is clear and my purpose is undivided. Maybe the work set before me is not "easy," but I do know that it is far easier than continuing to drag around the burden of my own sinfulness (Matt 11.29), and that living for Christ is more fruitful and fulfilling than an empty and never-ending pursuit of temporary happiness (Ecc 1.17).
"Come to me, all who are weary and burdened," Christ says, knowing firsthand the weight of living in a world of constant motion, bereavement, and crushing frustration. Find your identity, your hope, and your value in me, He promises, "And I will give you rest."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thoughts? Comments? General gripes?