Truth in the Face of “Christian” Identity Politics

For those that subscribe to Left-Wing Identity Politics, I meet all the requirements for disregard based on the imaginary metrics of “privilege”, as a Christian, and especially as a “straight, white, male”.

God forbid I ever disregard the contribution or intellectual endeavor of my fellow human being on such grounds as their religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.

I make this statement at the outset not as a “gotchya” or tu quoque, but to give an example of Identity Politics in application. The crosshairs of Identity Politics do not care who is in the scope, it’s only aim is to pull the trigger. To undermine, invalidate, deconstruct. It is ignorant to presume this perspective provides a pathway to the egalitarian future. Anyone familiar with Kurt Vonnegut’s fine short story Harrison Bergeron or Rush’s composition The Trees understands the true impact of positing ill-defined equality is a primary value. Even from the perspective of the alleviation of oppression, historically the external imposition of egalitarianism has produced resentment and revolution, bloody and violent.

At the outset it is helpful to define terms so, what do I mean by “Christian” and what do I mean by “Identity Politics”?

What does it mean to be “Christian?”

For the sake of discussion, I will be defining “Christian” as theologically and philosophically deriving truth from the Judeo-Christian worldview. American political foundations are structured on a Judeo-Christian axiological framework (in tandem with much of Greek philosophy and Roman legal and political thought). To trace the logic of the Founding here: the statement of “Inalienable Rights” is built on the idea of Lex Naturalis (natural law, John Locke), that an objective principle (i.e. God) governs the responsibility of every participant in society. The concept of Natural Law owing its foundations to the theological concept of Imago Dei, endowing every human being with inherent and immutable value as “made in the image of God.”

What is “Identity Politics”?

Identity Politics has become a bit of a buzzword lately but has been in use since the 1960’s, defined as “the tendency for particular people sharing specific identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in broad-based party politics.” This perspective found support in the modern neomarxist political and philosophical movements of the last 30 years. To observe and engage individuals at the level of group identity has its historical roots in the Marxist conception of “Social Consciousness”.

“The mode of production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” — Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)

This deterministic conception of man as defined by his social relationships stands in stark opposition to the biblical view of humanity. Man is a uniquely formed creature with the inherent ability to both understand and emulate God’s character, and endowed with this unique capacity that sets him distinctly apart, affording him the rights upon which, to a greater or lesser degree, Western culture has based much of its legal and moral systems . Given as well that God judges Man by his individual merits and the content of his heart (See 1 Samuel 16:7, Revelation 22:12), as a Christian it is improper to support a social constructionist perspective of human ontology such as Marx proposes.

Response to the Undermining of the Individual

The Marxist conception of defining individuals by their group identity immediately creates a gap between human beings that must be bridged by acknowledging cultural differences, a focus on the supposed obstacles that stand in the way of understanding each other. This is a major detraction from the mission of the Church in “reaching all έθνη.” If our mission is to light the world in sharing Christ’s message it is fundamentally illogical to create barriers to understanding and communication based on human constructions of ethnicity, race, social class, religious affiliation, or any other manner of quantifying individuals by a “group identity.” We should be acknowledging mankind’s individuality, stressing the importance of Salvation by personal choice, and teaching the Gospel in the context of our responsibility before God, who judges the heart of man, to act in a manner that reflects the love of Christ within us.

Imago Dei Defined and Compared

In Genesis 1:26&27 we see Man as “made in God’s image”, and in observing God’s character throughout Scripture we see multiple attributes, among them His classical attributes; Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and His manifestation as purely non-physical, or Spirit (Westminster Catechism). His communicable attributes, those shared with mankind, are defined by Wisdom, Intelligence, Creativity, Righteousness, Mercy, Faithfulness, and Love to name a few. Some of these attributes are character traits, others are values, others still are dispositions. However, I have heard the claim from American Christians today that ethnicity is an intrinsic attribute of God. This idea is biblically antithetical. Ethnicity is a human conception, defined by Merriam-Webster as “the fact of belonging to a social group that has a common cultural identity.” Culture is defined as “the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.” I also personally like to define Culture in a broader philosophical and theological context as “the results of Man’s Free Will enacted on the world, the direct product of human endeavor (therefore imperfect and fallen).”

What strikes me as most pernicious about this perspective is how detrimental the presupposition is in reverse. Should you ascribe Ethnicity as an immutable characteristic of God you make a foundational framework for a theocratic claim of Ethnic superiority, a wholly un-Biblical, reprehensible perspective on humankind.

Christians are called to be part of “a chosen nation, a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), this royal priesthood finds its identity in its status as redeemed by the blood of Christ, something external and separate from our ability to affect. Christians are not defined by their homogeneous religious practices either, nor their affiliation with one theological, philosophical, or political opinion or another (i.e. group identity, denominational or otherwise). It is the unique, merciful, and unmerited gift of Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross that gives the Christian his status as part of the royal priesthood, no action of his or her own.

A philosophical and theological critique of the Postmodern Conception of Truth

The other fundamental presupposition of Identity Politics is that subjective, experiential, narrative truth is an objective fact. This too stands in the direct opposition to the Christian faith, which places Truth in the external, objective principle that is an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Being.

The Postmodern conception of truth destroys the avenues in which genuine communication and understanding can take place by removing any pretense of objectivity for both participants. Subjectivity of experience represents a truly regressive ontology. If we presume that all perception is radically subjective and truth is relative there stands no common ground for any individual on which to form relationships other than shared experience, which in and of itself can only be discussed, and not with any certitude. As humans are relational creatures, this perspective does nothing to refute the pernicious tribalism that has been a consistent defining element of human society, it simply sets the line of who is “In” vs. who is “Out” at the limit of shared experience. No real victory has been made in the effort to unify humankind.

For followers of Christ, God is that objective, unifying principle. Human beings are equal before God, the great and only equalizer. There is an external, objective principle we are all beholden to. It is supremely necessary to find common ground in the revealed truth of God’s Word, revealed Truth in Nature, and revealed Truth in our capacity for intelligence and reasoning (an aspect of Imago Dei) to make biblically informed, morally right decisions in how we interact with our fellow man. I, for one, would rather choose an ontology that provides for true understanding between me and my fellow man.

Conclusion

To be a Christian in today’s world has come to be defined as “attending a Christian church”, or “identifying as one who believes the Bible”, statements of group affiliation rather than behaviors, values, and beliefs that identify a Christian. This mistaken identity has skewed what it means to be a Christian thanks to the modern confusion of Identity Politics. In many ways, the Christian faith has become political as it has been reinterpreted to represent just one more “group identity” vying for the power of majority rule in an endless landscape of socially driven power games. Whether or not America continues down the slippery slope that is Identity Politics, it is my hope that Christians across the country continue to define themselves not by their mere social identity as belonging to the religious affiliation that is “Christianity”, but more importantly by the life altering gift that is Salvation through Jesus Christ and beliefs, values, and behaviors that this understanding instills.

In writing this article, it is my hope that anyone not familiar with the Christian faith will garner a better understanding of what it means to believe in the Bible in application to today’s cultural context. My goal is to give people, Christian and non-Christian alike, an idea of what the Bible actually claims as Truth in opposition to these developments in the American cultural narrative.

I hope you found this article insightful. If you like what you read, please leave a clap. Don’t like what you read? Leave a response. Thanks for spending your intellectual and emotional energy engaging with my thoughts, I hope it proved fruitful.

-Andrew