Perhaps a little Sunday afternoon discussion on the language of “identity” will help us think through some of the “gay Christian”/“Christian with same-sex desires” semantic dispute. Warning: this long thread will involve a little metaphysics and theological anthropology. /1
Part of the problem with the cultural moment is that our “identity” language is notoriously fuzzy. People on all sides of this debate are using the term “identity” differently, causing them to pass one another like ships in the night. /2
Because Western individualism runs through our veins, we often give greater weight to how we define our own identities than how they have been defined by others (including God). I see four broad uses. /3
First, “identity” simply refers to any identifying marks. A person can be identified by his or her appearance or discernible attributes. You can identify me by my good looks. /4
Second, identity language can simply be a subjective way of associating with a group. When I say “I’m a Braves fan,” I am identifying with a group of baseball fans used to having their postseason hopes squashed. /5
Second, identity language can be tied to what a person does. “I’m a theologian” is simply a way of describing what I DO: reading books, thinking about God, teaching my students, and writing notoriously long Twitter threads. /6
So, when I say “I am a sinner,” I am doing three things: identifying one of my attributes, acknowledging I am part of fallen humanity (group association) and admitting my propensity to disobey God (what I do). /7
Now allow me some doublespeak to illustrate the problem. I am a good-looking sinner, a theologian, and a Braves fan. These things are all part of who I am, but they do not make me what I am. They do not constitute my identity in another, more important sense. /8
The fourth (and most significant) way of using the term “identity” is referring to the essence of a thing metaphysically. /9
Aristotle made a helpful distinction between a thing’s essence and its accidents. Its essence or essential attributes are the things that constitute its most fundamental identity as the thing it is. /10
“Attributes” are simply a way of describing a thing. Without attributes, we could not speak or think about things. /11
Essential attributes, which make a thing what it is, cannot be added or taken away from without changing what a thing is. /12
A triangle has a few key essential attributes. 1. It is a geometric shape. 2. It has three sides. 3. It has three angles. 4. The sum of its interior angles is 180 degrees. /13
I repeat: one cannot add an essential attribute to a thing or take it away without changing its core metaphysical identity. All essential attributes are necessary. /14
If you were to “add” a side to the triangle, it would no longer be a triangle but some other polygon. If you were to “take away” a line, it would go from being a triangle to being an angle. /15
By contrast, accidental attributes are non-essential things that can be added or taken away from a thing without changing its fundamental identity. /16
A triangle of a different size or color is still a triangle. If you change its color, it is still a triangle. Its essential attributes cannot change, but its accidental attributes certainly can. /17
Applied to a human being: a person with red hair can dye his hair to a different color and still be a human being. Even the baldies without hair are still essentially human, even if their accidental attribute of having hair has changed. /18
If @ostrachan were to say, “I identify as 6’4” and 225 lbs,” anyone who has ever met him would know that proposition would be untrue. But his height and weight are not his essential attributes. /19
He could take a super steroid that brought him to that height and weight—changing his accidental attributes—without changing his essential essence as Owen. /20
The essence of a human being (i.e., his metaphysical identity) is not tied to his hair or even the number of fingers and toes he has. /21
What essential attributes make a human being a human being? That is a very complicated issue I will not try to answer in detail here. It gets muddy with questions like is a body necessary to be human? /22
Genesis 1:27 lists two essential attributes of human beings: (1) we were created in God’s image, and (2) we were created male and female. These cannot be taken away from us. /23
Other accidental attributes may be added: height, weight, sports affiliation, and the like. But these marks—though we may be identified with them in one sense—do not constitute our most basic human identity. /24
Our essential attributes are what we are created to be. They are permanent and necessary attributes. Other attributes about us come and go, but our essential humanity is eternal. /25
So, speaking to the issue of “same-sex attraction,” I think it is safe to say that the way most Christians who claim SSA take “identity” in that first, second, and third senses (identifying marks, group identity, things people do). /26
They do not see it as defining them in the essential/necessary or metaphysical sense. They know they were NOT created with these desires or for these desires but see them as desires broken by sin and a fallen world. /27
The concern of those who oppose “gay Christian” or SSA identity language usually stems from those who understand identity in the fourth, metaphysical sense. /28
They are concerned to defend the holiness of God and the standard of his Word—that God did not create people with same-sex lust/temptation as an essential part of who they are. /29
When @ostrachan says,
“0.0%.
The percentage of sin in the identity of the born-again Christian.”
I understand him to mean “identity” completely in the metaphysical sense. Not the sense of identifying attributes, group association, or things we do. /30
“0.0%.
The percentage of sin in the identity of the born-again Christian.”
I understand him to mean “identity” completely in the metaphysical sense. Not the sense of identifying attributes, group association, or things we do. /30
.@lukestamps then raised an appropriate question about Luther’s maxim “Simul Justus et Peccator” (at once justified and sinner). /31
I do not think Luther meant we are ESSENTIALLY sinners, but that we can be identified as sinners by our attributes, our association with fallen humanity, and our sinful actions. /32
We can be identified as sinners in the first three senses, but sin does not constitute our essential, metaphysical identity. /33
I can say I am a Christian (my new, metaphysical identity as a regenerate human being) and a sinner (because of identifiable traits and group association). /34
But—and this is important—the sinful attributes I currently wrestle with are ACCIDENTAL attributes, not essential attributes. They can be taken away—and will be taken away when I am glorified—and I will still be the same essential human being. /35
A person can be a believer in an unchanging sense and still struggle with sin in a temporary sense. One identity is permanent and the other is a temporary marker. /36
I am particularly wary of the name “gay Christian,” as I would be with “adulterous Christian” or “alcoholic Christian” that seems to equate a sinful behavior or disordered desire with God’s essential design for me as a human being. /37
The language of “sexual orientation” may be construed in the third sense of identity, but it is often communicated in the fourth sense, which makes it unhelpful and unbiblical. /38
People often confuse orientation with temptation. /39
I may have identifiable attributes I am not proud of.
I may be identified with groups I wish I weren’t identified with.
I may be identified by things I have done I hate. /40
I may be identified with groups I wish I weren’t identified with.
I may be identified by things I have done I hate. /40
But my essential identity, from which I draw my ultimate self-worth, comes from God’s creation, revelation, and saving activity in Christ. /41
Point of clarification needed because of some sloppy wording here: Sin is an accidental, not essential attribute to human nature. Otherwise God would have created us as sinners, and we would not be human after glorification. /42
