5.4 KiB
The term "identity in Christ" is flying around in Christianity today. I do not know where it came from. The Church Fathers do not speak of it. The word "identity" does show up in the Summa Theologica, but I do really doubt it's of the same sort that this word means. I think we've co-opted the term mostly from people "identifying" as cats and dogs, and inherited all the baggage with it.
Joe Heschmeyer says: "We need to know who we are."
When I contemplate the term "Identity in Christ", I am quite blank as to what this might mean. What is my Identity in Abraham Lincoln? Or my Identity in the United States? It is who you are "to Christ", one supposes. But even then what is contained in the identity? Is not everything belonging to Christ? And so, you would have your true identity, in all things? Is this not just simply self-knowledge? What is the substance of identity anyways - is it facts about a person? At what time? Is it the Platonic Form? Is it a unique identifier (so any random number will do)?
The thing I seem to envision when I picture 'identity' is something like this: the one static rigid thing you are meant to be, irrespective of what the world is. So either your identity is very small and the world's impact very large, or vice versa. You either live up to it, or you fail. Or, this is some crazed tension of a world made by an angsty God who just loves tension.
Heschmeyer continues: "And that’s the thing, identity is the foundation of action. So if you are on a soccer field, you need to know which team you’re on. You need to know what your position is. You need to know if you’re a ref, you need to know if you’re a fan who has wandered on to the field. Because knowing that question dictates how you ought to act, it dictates how you ought to behave." (https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/christ-tells-you-who-you-are)
There is some truth here but only half of it. How do we come to know ourselves, our "identity", if not through action? Yes, one must know what shirt they are wearing to take certain actions. But we are not born with shirts on, we are born quite naked - even if we have proclivities to one skill or another, those need to be discovered so they can be decided upon.
Also, who goes up to a football player and asks for his identity? It's just a weird and clumsy term.
I probably could rest my hat here, but... I do think there is a better framing to solve this problem of trying to figure out how to act rightly in the world.
Perhaps identity is not a thing. Perhaps the better way to conceive of identity is as a phenomenon. Put more simply: identity as a verb, not a noun.
To that end I think the better way to approach the problem is to consider role: the thing one is doing. A role may be as simple as 'walker', or as grand as 'priest'. One may talk of their Role in the Body of Christ or Role in Building the Kingdom, say.
It actually wouldn't be proper to say that one has a role in the same way one has an apple. The person, the body-soul-composite, enters into a role. The body-soul is vulnerable to the effects of the role just as the object(s) are.
Roles are fundamentally interwoven and relational. One cannot be a husband in isolation. One cannot be a baker without having made bread. A role is not something that is sitting, simply waiting for the right conditions to blossom forth - it is waiting for the right person or things to blossom for.
Role is responsive. A particular plant is not just the expression of the DNA present in the seed. It is formed by the conditions surrounding it. When we are wounded, when the skin heals, a scar is formed: the body does not go back to some 'identity' stored in its DNA. Your blood and skin cells react to the situation - per their role.
Role is also negotiated, as one negotiates their place on a team. The role also alters in response to the body-soul, as a pair of tight gloves eventually loosens up in the hand with enough use. To this extent a role is not a rigid mold, but rather, something like a flexible mold, or guard rails, or a schematic, providing room for mistakes and freedom.
These are incredibly important distinctions: it means that our role is not written into our DNA, not something that is (entirely) within ourselves, but something that is recieved. This stands in stark opposition to liberal use of the word 'identity', as something that is entirely from a within, which the world stifles and tramples underfoot.
This should be cause for great joy - for if our role was one particular thing, which was non-negotiable, inflexible, and related to the world like trying to shove a square peg in a round hole, we should despair. And if role was no particular thing, which was entirely free, flexible, and bore no relation to the world, we should despair. But role is none of these things.
This way of approaching it frees from the tempation of viewing identity as a static endpoint to be discovered and then copied. It seems by and large that God does not give us the eschaton and say "here, make this happen", or "figure out how you fit into the world now". Go try having never painted something, or carved something, or done anything, and making a copy, or carrying out blueprints: good luck! His pedagogy gives us to the next action, the next role - it isn't a blueprint to measure up to at the end.
And as someone who's pretty accustomed to just being good at things, so give me the blueprint and I'll make it happen... that's some tough beans.