Grievance Based Identity

Grievance Based Identity in a Void

Rick Plasterer on March 11, 2022

An earlier article reviewed presentations at the recent L’Abri Conference concerning the shrinking foundation of identity in the modern world. It was pointed out that people cannot find a secure identity in contingent things like our feeling or our vocation – our only secure identity has to be rooted in God, who is self-sufficient. In another lecture, Douglas Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary, expanded on the contemporary effort to find identity in race and gender identity.

Groothuis observed that in the twentieth century Wilhelm Reich coined the term “sexual revolution,” and proposed sexual issues as a new arena of conflict for Marxists to take up. He proposed that “identity is determined by one’s sexual desires, with almost no limits.” Alfred Kinsey was also important in the early stages of the revolution. He “wore the coat of a scientist.” He was a biologist, and his basic contention was that “the world is a lot more complicated sexually than we think.” Such behaviors as “male homosexuality and even bestiality are actually fairly common.” His research, however, has since been discredited. It was based in significant measure on data gained from sex offenders in prison. He was also less than a disinterested researcher; his ideal was sexual anarchy. But Groothuis urged that the actual occurrence of sexual activities that deviate from the accepted norm does not establish their righteousness. In Kinsey’s day, however, the prestige of science gave his work enormous credibility.

Groothuis said that the conclusion of the viewpoint of Reich and Kinsey “is that the self is untethered from God, from history, and community.” This viewpoint was detailed in Carl Trueman’s Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. The basic idea of that book is that “as the West has been decoupled from the sacred order, and has been thrown back on its own resources, without any sense of teleology, purpose, [or] any intrinsic value or norms for the human being, that the only thing left is the expression of the untrammeled self.” If we have no connection with transcendent reality, “then one of the most powerful engines is sexual appetite.” The sexual revolution in general, and the LGBTQI revolution in particular, cannot be understood “apart from this idea of expressive individualism,” Groothuis said. Transgenderism, in which one can claim to be a member of the opposite sex, and have that accepted by the wider society, shows that “the self is now dominant, and it’s a dominant self in the void.” It is a self with no grounding in reality. One’s “identity” can also change “from day to day.”

Thus, the sexual revolution has resulted in “the erasure of human nature.” One’s community or the history of one’s people do not “set the agenda” for one’s life. The modern self is thus “the shrunken self, divorced from the creator and the redeemer.” But in this untrammeled self, it is the sexual aspect which is dominant. “What is essential” (one’s sex) “is made inessential and arbitrary.” Groothuis referred to Francis Schaeffer’s comment on what Schaeffer called “philosophical homosexuality.” This is a homosexual orientation based on a denial of absolutes, and thus a denial of the reality of maleness and femaleness as real categories. The denial, of course, is much broader than sex, and is a war against God and all of his created order.

The only exception, Groothuis said, to the dissolution of social categories in the contemporary world is the category of race. This is held to be real, and determinative of much of one’s life. Indeed, some Critical Race Theory writers hold that one’s race is more important than one’s humanity. Thus in contemporary Critical Theory, and its untethering of selfhood from reality, what is essential about human beings, namely their humanity and sex, are made inessential, while what is inessential, namely race, is made essential. It is held that race is a common and constant factor, and racism “is basically everywhere.” This “systemic, common, perennial racism requires what’s called ‘equity.’” This is not “the civil rights vision of equality,” but “equal outcomes in areas of achievement regardless of merit.” This is to be done “through the coercion of the state.”

In reality, people have “a unique and incommensurable value in this world because we are made in the image and likeness of God.” This is why violence, such as murder or slander, are especially grave offenses. It is our alienation from God which is the source of systemic problems. The crisis of identity and alienation from fellow humans, whether as individuals or groups, stems from this. For a Biblical response to the identity crisis, Groothuis quoted Schaeffer saying that “Christ brings substantial healing to every area of life.”

Groothuis related the story of Sylvester Jacobs, who at mid-twentieth century wrote a book entitled “Born Black.” Through his encounter with the L’Abri Fellowship, he learned God’s love, and that his love of photography could be a truly godly calling. Since he was treated with “respect and dignity,” because he was “made in the image and likeness of God” his life was turned to righteousness.

Again citing Schaeffer, Groothuis said that those who are redeemed know who they are, children of God made in the image of God who live before the face of God. He said that “we need Biblical community more and more as society tears itself from God … and then tears itself apart and goes after the sane ones.” Christians will increasingly be considered “abnormal” and “strange” in the wider world.

Groothuis noted that there is relatively little concern in the Bible with race. “There is one human race, [and] all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Sin indeed manifests itself differently with different individuals, “but it’s not distributed on the basis of skin color.” We need Scripture to determine where sin has affected our life. The Christian identity is “multi-racial and multi-ethnic.” It is concerned centrally with Christ and his redemption of us. While an individual’s experiences may differ based on his or her identity as part of a particular race, we must not concede that people think fundamentally differently based on race. Thinking correctly based on logic and evidence transcends racial categories, Groothuis said.

With respect to sex (or “gender”) Groothuis said that Christians must adhere to the Bible, which says that “we were created male and female in the created order.” We also know from Scripture, as well as much extra-Biblical evidence, that opposite sex monogamy “is the norm.” Polygamy did exist in Biblical times, “but we see the norm in Genesis, and that is re-affirmed” with Jesus in the New Testament. Anything outside of this norm “hurts us, and actually angers a righteous God.” God is the “source of authority, goodness, and truth beyond ourselves … So the answer to expressive individualism is obedience to the God who has created us.”

Quoting C.S. Lewis, Groothuis observed that “chastity is the most unpopular of Christians virtues. There is no getting away from it. The old Christian rule is either complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” This, he said, “does cut against our fallen nature.” God defines marriage, and he defines it as opposite sex monogamy. To define marriage as anything else “is simply false. It’s like defining a triangle as having four sides.”

But because of the fall, there is “existential confusion,” and “physical abnormality.” The first involves someone who denies the sex of his or her body as their true identity, the second involves a physical abnormality in which the body is not clearly male or female. In the latter category, some people may suffer gender confusion because parents or doctors ordered treatment to direct that individual to one sex, but they feel they properly belong to the other. But the true intersex condition, which is physical, afflicts a tiny minority of the population, and does not establish that sex is arbitrary.

In an increasingly insane world, in which normalcy “is seen as hateful,” we need to “stick together, we need to listen to one another, and to support one another., and we need communities of sanity and goodness when our culture is becoming increasingly disordered and deranged.”

Groothuis said that in a recent apologetics book, he included a chapter on “the independence of the church.” This is because in the age of expressive individualism, in which “people don’t want to join and commit to anything beyond themselves, defending the church was [is] absolutely vital.”

Again citing a Scripture verse that Schaeffer commonly used, he said that through Christians “‘speaking the truth in love,’ by that people will know that we serve a risen Savior … we can be legitimately loving and tolerant and still have Biblical absolutes in place.” In the current day of identity confusion, Christians should “seek the welfare of the city.” (Jer. 29:7)

A questioner asked about N.T. Wright’s comment that “transgenderism is a form of Gnosticism.” Groothuis agreed that it is gnostic in rejecting “the normativity and goodness of the body.” It is certainly a rejection of the human nature God has created, and the created order. All people are left with is expressive individualism, a bare psyche, and sexual pleasure. He said that “restraint is the price of civilization.”

Another questioner asked if Christians should use “preferred pronouns.” The questioner felt that “this crosses a Biblical line.” Groothuis said that this problem is somewhat similar to the issue of attending a “gay wedding.” He believed that it is not a simple question, but was against state mandates. However, this writer would comment that both of these situations (using “preferred pronouns” or attending a “gay wedding”) clearly involve complicity in sin, and should be avoided by Christians (Matt. 18:7-9). Groothuis did suggest avoiding the use of pronouns if possible, but conceded that this may not always be possible.

We must realize, Groothuis said, that while we can affirm LGBT identifying persons as human beings, Christians must adhere to Biblical definitions of sex and marriage, and “what the world deems acceptable is hateful to God.” The world may heap shame on Christians for not affirming LGBT inclination and behavior, but “we haven’t done anything wrong.”

This understanding will be crucial for faithful Christians in the coming years. As this writer argued in a previous article concerning the Left’s effort to exclude from religious freedom whatever it finds unacceptable, neither the government nor society is competent to evaluate religious doctrine. Christian commitment cannot bend to the shifting winds of identity politics, or anything else outside of God’s Word.

  1. Comment by David on March 11, 2022 at 3:43 pm

    “All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes. Thus, this gene is singularly important in inducing testis development. The production of testosterone at about 9 weeks of gestation results in the development of the reproductive tract and the masculinization (the normal development of male sex characteristics) of the brain and genitalia. In contrast to the role of the fetal testis in differentiation of a male genital tract and external genitalia in utero, fetal ovarian secretions are not required for female sex differentiation.”

    Thus, we are not created as male and female, but rather as female, and subsequent changes create males. There are other occurrences that affect gender. We had a sad case where a married woman came to our lab to have chromosomes examined because of infertility. “She” turned out to be an XY male with insensitivity to male hormones. It was thought best not to inform her of this, but rather that she was infertile and would require surgery to remove testicular material that might become cancerous.

    I never understood why a person would want to undergo medical treatments to change gender. We live in a society where one can pursue the interests associated with the opposite sex. I suspect clothing and hairstyles are the attraction. Differences in male and female brains are real, but is there a need to have medical intervention?

  2. Comment by Larry Collins on March 14, 2022 at 11:32 am

    I disagree the assertion we are all created female and then become male. If the zygote has both XY chromosomes, then the DNA is male at conception. The genitalia are a blank slate, not female. The manner or schedule
    on which the baby boy develops does not belie it’s underlying maleness. It is the progression designed by the Creator.

  3. Comment by David on March 14, 2022 at 1:24 pm

    Having dealt with genetic defects for 40 years, the work of the Creator is well known to me. “By the fruit, you will know the tree.”

  4. Comment by Jeff on March 17, 2022 at 3:34 am

    David sez: “Having dealt with genetic defects for 40 years, the work of the Creator is well known to me. ”

    Ah, an “appeal to authority’ — one of the most frequently used logical fallacies.

    Try again, David? Maybe this time base upon the merits of the argument?

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.