Within professing evangelicalism is the tendency to prefix an adjective to one’s identity as a Christian. While some may seem a bit innocuous by describing the stripe of their faith (Reformed, biblical, or born-again Christian) or their national citizenship (American Christian), others have attached an ethnic modifier (i.e., white-Christian, black-Christian, Asian-Christian, etc.). Still others have added the dubious and sinful marks of identity to their “Christianity” (LGBTQ Christian, Gay Christian, etc). There may be a myriad of reasons a person may feel compelled to affix these titles to the Christian faith; however, it raises the question of whether such modifiers are necessary or even biblical.
There are times when descriptors may be necessary. In some cases, when identifying the doctrinal beliefs under which a Christian may operate, referring to something like Reformed or Progressive Christianity is a short-hand form of telling others what you believe. Likewise, when there is a need to explain how national ideologies have impacted the Christian faith, comparing or contrasting American Christians with Middle Eastern Christians can be appropriate. In other words, adjectives can and do have uses that are helpful in discussions and in no way conflict with how Scripture describes the Christian faith. Yet, not all adjectives are created equal. Other modifiers are used specifically to center on one’s sense of identity upon which they append the Christian faith. Some seek to identify themselves solely by their sinful proclivities (gay, LGBT, trans, etc). They then attempt to legitimize their identities by forcing a connection to Christ by calling themselves Gay or LGBT-Christians. They take that which is patently sinful according to Scripture and attempt to turn it into virtue by affixing it to the name of Christ. This is blasphemous to Christ because it tries to make God, who condemns their sin, their chief cheerleader. It also demonstrates how little they understand the Christian faith as not only do they refuse repentance from sin, but they are also making themselves the center of their faith by using their personal adjective to describe Christianity rather than being transformed by Christ. Such usage is the definition of sin.
While the above examples deal with the far ends of the spectrum of adjective usage, there is a more common yet concerning issue. While it may not be quite as inherently sinful, some attempt to attach their ethnicity to Christianity, and they face a similar problem. Today, there has been a lot of debate surrounding ethnicity and whether or not it is appropriate to have churches, gatherings, or communities that are focused solely on ethnic identity. While very few professing Christians (though they do unfortunately exist) would argue it is appropriate for there to be a “whites only” church, association, or community, there are those who believe other ethnic groups should be afforded such consideration. It is not uncommon to see arguments in favor of Christians who are black, Hispanic, or Asian to be given space and have gatherings with other persons of their shared ethnic heritage. Such places, it is argued, are necessary to be safe to feel in community and separate from the alleged oppressive forces of our current culture. Thus, it is considered normal for one to use the ethnic identifying descriptors as a prefix to their professed faith. However, this places the primary focus on their personal sense of ethnic identity as opposed to their identity in Christ. And that is where the problem lies.
When writing to the Galatian church, the apostle Paul argues that their obsession with returning to the Old Covenant law signifies an abandonment of their New Covenant salvation in Christ. Paul states that their identity in Christ marks their profession of faith, an identity that comes only by faith alone in the completed work of Christ (2:15-16). The law could not save anyone; it could only reveal that every man, woman, and child is guilty of sin before God. While the law was not useless, it was an absolute necessity because it made them aware of sin and their need for Christ. It was given to them so that they might come to Christ (3:21-24). This becomes the lynchpin of Paul’s argument: because the law has led them to Christ, and they have turned to Him in faith, they have now “put on Christ” (3:27). Paul takes this one step further when he writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (3:28). In other words, their entire identity is now in Christ. It defines their very being and existence. They did not supernaturally become sexless beings lacking any ethnically identifiable traits; they still retained all the hallmarks of their humanity. Yet, those markers have become secondary, even tertiary, to their identity in Christ. They are a new people entirely, unified as one body across all nations, cultures, and times because they belong to the Savior who has redeemed them all. This is why turning back to the Old Covenant law is such an assault on Christ: it is a rejection of this new identity, a reversion to identifying themselves by their works and attempted obedience to the very law that was meant to lead them to Christ.
Christians today face a similar issue. When Christians seek to add the modification of their biological identity to Christ, they reject the idea that they are defined as a new people or a new creation. When they seek to find community based on the ethnic prefix, they are saying that there is more in common with someone who has common ancestral attributes than with someone who shares their faith in Christ yet lacks similar DNA. The Galatians were called foolish because they were turning from their identity in Christ and were placing their trust in a shared sense of working and earning merit from God. This community was being built upon a false premise that they could be accepted by what they did rather than their common faith in Christ. Likewise, those who argue for adjective-based Christianity seek to establish common ground on what can be seen by the naked eye (ethnic appearance) and like-minded ideologies (i.e., “if you have this particular ethnicity, you must think and act this way”). This is a rejection of the Scriptural truth that our identity is solely defined by our common saving faith in Christ. It is a turning away from Christ and turning back to the works of the world.
Interestingly, when Paul writes to the Galatians about their common identity, he identifies three particular groups: ethnic, sex, and slave/master relationships. Of the three, Scripture only gives us commands for two regarding the roles each must fulfill. Wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to love their wives (Ephesians 5:22-33). Slaves are to obey their masters and masters are to treat slaves fairly without threatening them (Ephesians 6:5-9). There are no such commands for those who are Jew or Gentile. However, Paul does address relationships between the two in Romans 11:17-24. He had written of his love for the Jewish people and their rebellion against God, teaching that their removal from their place and the subsequent grafting in of the Gentiles was to provoke them to jealousy that they might one day return. It was here that Paul commanded the Roman believers not to be arrogant, thinking their own inclusion made them better than the Jews. For, just as the Jews were removed and themselves added, they could be removed and the Jews added back. In other words, the ethnic identities of either group meant absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. It was their faith in Christ and their commitment to living in obedience to Him that mattered above all. The only command was not to be haughty about one’s ethnic identity and not to mistreat the other for their own. This is such a blow to the idea that we should ever be concerned with ethnically based adjective Christianity.
The use of adjectives has its place, even within the Christian church, but that use is limited in its scope. We are identified by our union with Christ alone. And, within that union, we are united as one new people (Gal. 3:28), we are commanded to come together regularly to celebrate our union in Christ (Heb. 10:25), and we are given gifts to serve and build one another up in Christ (see 1 Cor. 12). God calls us to be a people unique and set apart from the world, brought together to be the visible example of the gospel at work in this life. When we seek to divide ourselves along these lines of personal identity and add modifiers to our Christianity, we make ourselves the focus, and not Christ. This ought not to be. Let us reject the world’s means of declaring our identity, let us reject divisive descriptors, and let us embrace our one true identity in Christ alone. Let this identify us and drive us to the good works that God has set before us.
Note: This article was also published at X.com.
I was fortunate to be part of the Launch Team for Owen Strachan’s new book, “Christianity and Wokeness.” As such, I was able to read an early edition of the book sent out to all Launch Team members to read and review prior to the release of the book. I must say that this text is not only an excellent treatment of the subject, but does a fantastic job of equipping Christians and Churches to respond biblically to “Wokeness.”
In his letter to the Colossians, Paul repeatedly urges his readers to grow in faith, maturity, and knowledge. And from that growth, he calls on them to live in such a manner as they honor and obey God. It is precisely because Christ has redeemed them and made them new creations that the Colossians are not only able but expected to grow and live in this manner. Throughout his writings, Paul makes it clear that unsaved people are unable to honor and obey God. They are dead in their sins and cannot be pleasing to God unless they are made holy in Christ. Yet, to Christians, Paul gives repeated commands to demonstrate holiness and obedience to God. Followers of Christ are to reject the ways of the world and cling tightly to the commands of our sovereign Lord.
The Old Covenant could never bring about salvation because it was intended to be a schoolmaster, pointing the Jews to the fact they never would be able to earn merit with God as they were dead in trespasses and sins. It was a signpost pointing to the coming Christ who fulfilled the law in its entirety and who was the perfect sacrificial lamb who would take away the sins of the world. For the Colossians, Paul was warning them against any argument which would take them back under the law. They had the sure word of God in all of Scripture revealing to them that Jesus was the promised Messiah and it was He alone who was the substance of these things. They did not need to listen to those who were outside of Christ and who rejected the revelation He was their promised deliverer. To go back under the law was to reject the revealed Word of the one whose prophets foretold of Christ’s coming. It may have sounded plausible, but in truth, it was a complete rejection of the revealed Word.
Recent Comments