The following essay is something I intend to include in a collection of writings I hope to publish sometime in the future, but I’m also sharing it here. It wasn’t my idea to do this, but I have sensed the presence and pressure of God’s finger in my back to not delay. It is longer than my previous postings, but I pray you will find reading it worthwhile. Blessings.

“History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new.”   – Ecclesiastes 1:9, NLT

We have all, presumably, had experiences when something was said or done that remains with us as a historical marker of personal significance, although we may not be able recognize it at the time.  I vividly recall a conversation I had with another minister while visiting a country outside of the United States 30 years ago.  He was sharing about a disagreement he was having with a local minister over what he perceived as a conflict between a biblical principle and a particular cultural practice of the country we were in.  The point of conflict was over this local minister’s plan to participate in the aforementioned practice out of respect for his national culture.  When my friend challenged him on this, this man’s response, as reported to me, was, “I was a (stated his nationality) before I was a Christian.”  This was, to be blunt, an issue of what had preeminence in the matter. 

The truth is that we were all something else before we were ever Christian (for those of us who claim that spiritual mantle).  At the very least, we were all sinners by nature and practitioners of attitudes and acts, rooted in our commitment to self-will and self-satisfaction, and therefore, lived in ways contrary to the moral code and will of God.  We also all share one other trait, and I believe that is the search for significance going as far back as our childhood years.  We all seek to define and cement our identities and it is in this effort that our felt significance (or lack thereof) tends to be found.

Think back to those early years when reading groups were formed in first and second grade and differentiations were made in the classroom by teachers.  There was psychological significance to being in the first reading group just as there was in being assigned to the second or, worse, the third.  Recall the playground games of elementary school which contributed to the establishment of social pecking orders that may have lasted years after those games were forgotten.  Think about the little clubs that were formed and who was invited to be in them.  And despite maturing in chronological age, many of the identity labels given to us when we were very young or which we bought into remained with us, even perhaps into adulthood.

Entering adulthood, the pattern continued, some of which was involuntary.  We all are impacted by other peoples’ perceptions of us and we often internalize those perceptions, reflecting our self-image back as if we were a mirror, a concept popularized as the “looking glass self” (Cooley, 152).   

 Many of our identity preferences are voluntary.  Here are some examples, entered into voluntarily (for the most part), that help to shape our identities and distinguish us from others:

• Military service
• Schools, colleges, and universities attended and level of degrees held
• The cities and towns and the sections within those cities and towns we live (lived) in 
• Degree of activity and prominence in local civic affairs
• Occupation and status within occupational ranks
• Membership in fraternal organizations 
• Where church membership is held
• Racial and ethnic “attachments” (I use this word intentionally) 
• Color of skin 
• Cultural affinities and language
• Nationality
• Political affiliation 

This is not an exhaustive list, but I think it makes the point. 

The 11^th chapter of Genesis tells the story of the Tower of Babel and God’s action to prohibit the people from coming together in the unity of their own conceit.  I’m not a Fundamentalist and accept the possibility that this story could be metaphorical as well as literal.  Ultimately, I believe the central point is not whether it is literal or metaphorical but, instead, is the core theme of the Bible: God’s saving action to prevent humanity’s tendency to self-destruct which we have been bent on from the beginning, it seems.  We must, however, acknowledge that a major symptom of this intervening saving act is the confusion that accompanied the differentiation in ethnicities, cultures, languages, religions and other attachments, particularly when concerted efforts are made to frame particular identifying characteristics as being superior to others.  Miroslav Volf has a lot to say about this last point in his book, Exclusion & Embrace, although it is certainly not light reading.  

A quick glance at human history serves as a reminder of how perceptions of identity can cause harm: Hebrew misinterpretations of being the chosen people of God, the brutality of the Assyrian and Babylonian rule, the effects of the hegemonic oppression of Roman rule, the immoral actions of the Church during the Crusades and western expansion, the genocidal impact of American Manifest Destiny, European subjugation of African nations and tribes and the slave trade, Turkish genocidal acts against Armenians, the institution of “Jim Crow” laws and legally enforced racial segregation in the U.S., the brutality of church-inspired/condoned South African apartheid, the Nazi’s holocaust against the Jews, Poles, and Roma (Gypsies) during WWII, and various “ethnic cleansings” instigated in Europe and Asia in the 20^th and 21^st centuries.

And now, here we are in the 3^rd decade of the 21^st century with the Ukrainian/Russian, the Israeli/Palestinian, and lesser discussed conflicts such as in Sudan and Myanmar (Burma).  Add to these the strong growth of anti-immigrant, far-right politics in western Europe and the U.S. (with the emblematic chaos of the current U.S. presidential administration), and we have a set of macro-dynamics that are reminiscent of the song Ball of Confusion, made popular by the Temptations in 1970 (Whitfield).  

A manifestation of this confusion is the cacophony of voices which serve as a contemporary Babel.  Issues of identity and ideology are prominent in this world of Babel and while they may have distinctive definitions in a vacuum, identity and ideology are inseparable in reality.  Our sense of identity fuels our ideologies, that is, the commonly held beliefs and doctrines held by different groups that are the basis for some type of system, e.g. political, economic, religious or other.  Similarly, our ideologies help to cement our sense of identity.  

A cursory scanning of American society reveals multiple identity types feeding various ideologies (and vice versa): 

• Political (such as neo-conservatives, nationalists, internationalists, liberals, centrists, fascists); 
• Economic (including capitalism, socialism, communism); 
• Class (wealthy, upper, mid and lower middle class, working poor, dependent poor) 
• Sexual identity (both traditional binary and non-traditional with the multiple components of LGBTQ+) 
• Sexual politics (including feminist and hyper-masculinity movements)
• Religious (including the different branches, denominations, and orientations of Christianity, and similar divisions in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism etc.)
• Ethnic and Racial (emphasizing heritage, distinctiveness, and sometimes the elevation of some and the denigration of others) 
• Color (a subset of racial identity in which human value is artificially assigned to individuals according to a caste-like system using skin tone as the value determinant.  An example of this kind of illusory truth is based on the Jim Crow structures of the 20^th century U.S. South and is found in the song by Big Bill Broonzy: 

“If you is white, you’s alright, 
if you’s brown, stick around,
but if you’s black, hmm, hmm, brother, 
get back, get back, get back.” (Burnett)

Historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt says that an ideology is the “logic” behind an idea.  This so-called logic need not be logical in the form of absolute truth, only that it be expressed.  She goes on to say that “ideologies pretend to know…the secrets of the past, the intricacies of the present, and the uncertainties of the future, because of the [alleged] logic inherent in their respective ideas (Arendt, 469).  

Conflict arises when ideologies (with their attendant logic) and associated identity models clash.  We see that daily in our national discourse and the absence of unity is striking, much like we might imagine it was when humanity was separated by the different languages at the biblical tower event discussed in Genesis.  The irony lies in God’s expressed desire for ultimate unity found only in Him.  One need only read (or re-read) the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-5) and Jesus’ high priestly prayer (John 17) to grasp the importance the Divine places on unity.  

One of the reasons why identity matters is because it gives guidance to how people are to think and the things people do and don’t do: “Because I’m this, I should do that,” a dynamic referred to by Kwame Anthony Appiah as “normative significance.”  In other words, my identity has meaning for practical life (Appiah, 10).  But what happens when normative significance results in the exclusion and rejection of others in direct and indirect ways, in ways subtle and not-so-subtle.  This would call into question one’s commitment to or even interest in loving their neighbor as themselves because their neighbor doesn’t and perhaps can’t share their identity (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19, 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:25-37; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8).  

There is meaning in this for the professing Christian whose strong attachment to a particular identity causes them to uphold an ideology that subverts their attachment to Christ.  Their ideology either competes with their Christian profession or results in their practical theology (i.e. faith practice) being secondary to their other proclaimed identity.  In simpler terms and to borrow an often-used phrase, their profession of Christ is not matched by their possession of Christ (or more aptly, His possession of them).  This is a simple matter of lordship; who or what has supremacy in one’s life.  

A popular teaching based in Buddhism is apropos, “What you think, you become, what you feel, you attract, and what you imagine, you create” (a paraphrase of The Dhammapada, Pairs 1-2).  This thought parallels the theme of Proverbs 23:7, “For as [a person] thinks in [their] heart, so [are they].”  If it is true that the things we think and talk about the most are actually the things we care about the most, then does the thoughts and speech of one who claims Christ as Lord refer to Him more than anything else or are other things including identity attachments more prominent?  If it is the latter, we must ask ourselves if these attachments have become idols, contemporary versions of the ancient golden calf and Asherah poles which reflected the diluted faith of Old Testament Israelites and which now hold our allegiance and attention in ways that Jesus Christ and His interests do not.

I am neither unsympathetic nor so objective on this issue that I fail to see and feel the attraction.  I acknowledge that the desire to legitimize a layer or two of identity on top of my Christian profession is near constant because doing so would seem to offer a cocoon of comfort by more closely joining myself (my allegiance, my time, and my energies) to those who look like me, who share a common historical and cultural experience with me, and have similar views as I.  This attraction offers a perceived emotional and psychological defense against a macro-environment that has been stressful and threatening and is increasingly chaotic.         

I think, however, doing so is a shell game in which I would con myself because this kind of search for sufficiency would deny the promise that God’s grace alone is sufficient for my needs (ref. 2 Corinthians 12:9).  In other words, this is an issue of faith.  Trusting exclusively in God’s grace is walking by faith.  Seeking and relying on other identity attachments to gain and maintain a strong sense of well-being is “walking by sight” (ref. 2 Corinthians 5:7), something incongruous with Christian faith.  Trying to hold on to both simultaneously strikes me as being akin to trying to serve two masters which Jesus said cannot be done; one will always be made secondary to the other (ref. Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13).  It would be an attempt to find another way in addition to or in place of Jesus who claims to be the way, the truth and the life (ref. John 14:6). 

A corollary to identity attachments serving as defense mechanisms is the use of them as a weapon against those who do not share those identities, using what we might call the tactics of exclusion, the aim of which is to make competing identities powerless.  Professor Volf suggests three ways exclusion has been practiced historically: assimilation in which particularly identities are “swallowed up” by others, domination by subjugating them and exploiting them using systems of power, and finally, abandonment where those same power systems are used to jettison unwanted identities (and their values and interests) from view and influence (Volf, 75)  The genocidal movements across the historical spectrum are examples of the latter.

The tactics of exclusion, however, are not limited to those with access to the resources of power.  Certainly, Jesus lived in a world subjugated by harsh Roman rule, but even the singular Garden of Gethsemane event in which Peter used a sword to slice off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant, reveals the scorn he had for this servant of power and those he obeyed (ref. John 18:10).  This individualized act was one of exclusion just as much as that committed on an institutional level against a broad population.  We need not look far to see examples of exclusionary behavior, whether institutional, such as the practice of red-lining by financial institutions, or individual, like insisting that a medical provider be of a certain race or ethnicity.  These acts are frequently followed by a reactionary response that amounts to returning “evil for evil” (ref. Matt 4:44; Luke 6:27; Romans 12:17; 2 Thess. 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9).  In the words of Howard Thurman, commenting on the emphasis Jesus placed on the radical change needed in the inner attitude of people, “To revile because one has been reviled—this is the real evil because it is the evil of the soul itself” (Thurman, 11).   An identity attachment insisting on a socio-cultural homogeneity that subverts unity in and through Jesus Christ is a human construct and an evil.  It is darkness masquerading as light. 

Each of us can say that we were something else before we became a Christian, much like the example shared at the beginning of this essay.  The central question becomes whether we took on Christ such that a new creation was born (ref. 2 Corinthians 5:17), leaving the old behind or whether we took on the moniker of Christ without actually being in Christ in the way described in the New Testament.  I believe the answer to this question determines if our faith and its practice is orthodox or if it is pseudo-Christian.                                                             

We live in a world where Babel is very prominent and powerful.  Jesus said His followers are not of the world (John 17:16).  We have been given Jesus.  He has given all of Himself to us.  Have we given all of ourselves to Him?  Given these things, is there any good reason why you shouldn’t offer your life to Jesus?       

Works Cited

Appiah, Kwame Anthony.  The Lies That Bind, Rethinking Identity.  New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018.

Arendt, Hannah.  The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, 1968. 

Burnett, Bob. “If You’re Black, Get Back,” HuffPost. May 25, 2011.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/if-youre-black-get-back_b_21426

Cooley, Charles H. Human Nature and the Social Order. Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1902. 

The Dhammapadda, The Buddha’s Path to Wisdom. Trans. Acharya Buddharakkhita. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 30 November 2013,  

 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.intro.budd.html .

Thurman, Howard. Jesus and the Disinherited. Boston: Beacon Press, 1976. 

Volf, Miroslav.  Exclusion & Embrace, A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and

      Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.1996.

Whitfield, Norman and Barrett Strong. “Ball of Confusion” Lyrics. Gordy. 1970. 

© Byron L. Hannon, 2025.  All rights reserved.