Identity is a very strange concept these days and something about which many people seem to be increasingly aggressive. Only recently we had the bizarre prospect of an Episcopal priest from Seattle proclaiming that she is both a Christian and a Muslim. Despite the fact that the two faiths are mutually incompatible especially about the role of Jesus, the theological problems don’t seem to trouble her at all. For her it was an identity issue: “I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 per cent both.”
According to news reports she has no interest at all in resolving the contradictions, “Why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam. “At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That’s all I need.” It’s purely a question of identity, she explained, “I could not not be a Muslim.”
Questions of identity, seem to have extra interest for minorities, especially for those who especially feel themselves to be victims. Naturally enough, white males (approaching middle age) like myself cannot understand this attachment to identity, as opposed to a common humanity. In fact, woe betide us if we attempt to question the identity of others, or criticise how they define themselves. In contrast, minorities have no problem at all in describing the so-called oppressing majority in the most uncomplimentary terms.
This is of course, not just about the lunacy of the Episcopal Church, tempting though it would be to go down that route because the syncretism, and the identity issues which this story raises, can be found across the world. In terms of the current dispute over homosexuality in the Anglican Communion, I am equally worried when I hear African leaders resorting to the line that ”˜homosexuality’ is ”˜unAfrican’ and I sense a creeping nationalism in one or two of the responses from the global south. And frankly, we’ve had our own fair share of nonsense in the Church of England with notions of ”˜institutional racism’ and priests claiming that you can be Buddhist or Hindu and Christian at the same time.
Perhaps the biggest identity crisis is to be found among Muslims these days, highlighted if ever we needed it with the 18-year controversy over Salman Rushdie. In a recent Sunday’s Observer (Why the West must stay true to itself, Sunday June 17), Will Hutton took up the theme of the crisis of identity among Muslims everywhere, and especially minorities in the West.
–The Church of England Newspaper, June 25, 2007 edition, page 4
Identity politics, no matter what side of the aisle one might find oneself concerning social, political, or theological issues, never plays well with reality.
As much as some people want to use identity politics to get their way, all that results is more division and an inability to move beyond our personal or institutional dysfunction!
I am glad to see your return, oh Bob G+!
It is heresy like that of the woman in Seattle…Spong, Robinson, and others….which go unchallenged that cause people of the world to shake their heads and laugh at us. [i]They[/i] can see the hypocrisy, why can’t we? Why aren’t these people tried for heresy and excommunicated? At one time, I was told, “Because we don’t want to give a forum to promote their views”, but with the advent of the Internet, that argument is no longer valid. I fear the true reason is our “educated theologians” and bishops who would comprise the Trial Court are just as confused and unable to articulate the tenets of Holy Scriptures.
Just imagine a Muslim saying he (or she) is both Christian and Muslim. They would be killed. And it is for the very same reason radical Islamites want to kill us.
John – work has caused me to stay away from most all blogs! Thanks for the “welcome back,” though!
RevOrganist – From the non-Christians I encounter on a regular bases, and they are from both the conservative and liberal persuasions, what I hear from most of them is that they see the hypocrisy among the reactionaries in general, and more so among the “conservatives.”
Make of that you will, but that is what I hear.
I will agree that fellow “reactionaries” no matter what religion they belong to will tend to side with other reactionaries – again whether liberal or conservative. Conservative Muslims will be more closely aligned, if possible, with conservative Christians, moderate Muslims with moderate Christians, liberals with liberals.
As I have said numerous times before, we have to be careful when we imagine what others are thinking or perceiving in our actions and words. What they see in us and what we see in ourselves often doesn’t line up very well.
And of course, this all comes back to our identity. All this in-fighting and the way we are going about our disagreements does not impress upon most people that our way of life is in fact different than the secular world’s way of life. We fight like worldlings with the weapons of this world. That’s too bad. We give Christ a bad name among the world – all of us do in our self-righteous judgmentalism and of course in our real hypocrisies. So much for our identity!
When our identity is challenged, we fight. The harder the challenge, the more likely the fight is
a l’outrance. And so it should be. We are watching TEC, which is increasingly willing to fight to the end, and the Anglican Church which is showing itself utterly unwilling to fight, piety without courage, a suety fist in a velvet glove (trimmed with lace). We should simply turn our back on TEC and say no more, for the more we waffle, back and fill, qualify, condition, vacillate, temporize, the more TEC will show its spirit and independence – and the more they are given the opportunity to show these colors, the more sympathy they will get, and the more we will show that weakness that characterizes bullies. We will – are – creating the condition of the oppressor and the underdog, and you know how America loves an under dog. Ladies and gentlemen, we are cutting our own throats. TEC, living, may lose battles, but TEC, dying, may win the war. We are defining our identity as anti-TEC, not pro anything, by who we aren’t, not by who we are. In the spiritual marketplace, TEC is the price maker and we are the price takers. Where is the courage, the energy, the vision that creates a real identity?
LM
I think Larry is quite right when he writes that the identity that has built up around the “reappraisers” has been one of “anti-TEC” (at least in the public’s mind).
The alignment of the very different groups within the reappraiser camp generally have one big thing in common – their hatred for the Episcopal Church as it currently is (or at least hatred for the leadership as it is currently assembled). Once the common enemy is gone, I think these very different groups will dissolve into their own conflict the division (Anglo-Catholics opposite Evangelical Charismatics, pro-women’s ordination opposite anti-women’s ordination, etc.).
The path to the next division will have already been set through the rhetoric and divisiveness that will lead to the original split from TEC, and it won’t end there.
Who wants to join something new that defines itself as being against something else?
How do you identify yourself?
What did Jesus say to Peter?
His question rings true today.
[blockquote][b]Who do you say that I, the Son of Man, am?[/b][/blockquote]
In an ultimate sense, how anyone else identifies him/herself is irrelevant.
All that matters is, when we go before the Throne of Judgment, do we go to the right hand, or the left? What is the judgment to be made on our life and our work?
Nobody else is going to be there with me. It will be just me and my Lord. Former ABC Carey will not be there. Current PB Schori will not be there. ++Akinola will not be there.
So there will not be a question of our appraisal or reappraisal of TEc or of the Anglican Communion. Both are secondary.
The question will be our appraisal of Jesus of Nazareth, shown to be the Son of God by being raised from the dead. What do we say of Him?