Previous Post – Adoption Thank You
In 2000, Molson Canadian put out a commercial for their beer. Instead of promoting their drink, however, they created the now famous “Rant”. What started as a funny exploration of Canadian identity went on to become one of the most successful commercial in Canada’s history. Why? In no small part due to the sense of pride & identification Canadians felt while watching it. For those who haven’t seen it, check it out here:
What stands out in this commercial is the fact that Canadians significantly define ourselves by what (or who) we are not. It is hard to miss the fact that, namely, we are very passionate about not being American. As a dual citizen of Canada & the US, I always found this tension a difficult but constant reality. In fairness, this is a generalization and Canadians have many, many positive identity factors that we draw from. However, this telling ad gives us all something of a warning.
It is all too common to define ourselves by what we are not, particularly around issues or experiences that have hurt us or made us angry. A prime example in the church today are some who strongly declare, “I am NOT an Evangelical!” Far too often, those who say this were once part of what they define as “Evangelical”, but were wounded or rejected by that community. And all too often, their anger & hurt represent legitimate wrongs done to them by other Christians.
What anti-identities do you hold on to? Where do they come from?
One of the dangers of primarily defining our identity by what we are not (or by what we are against) is that it quickly contributes to bitterness, poisoning our lives with its far-reaching effects. Even when advocating for prophetic issues of justice, our efforts become tainted and compromised by our woundedness. This why Scripture reminds us:
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” – Eph. 4:31-32
There is something critical here that we need to understand about forgiveness. It has become popular for people to embrace the idea that forgiving others is not about the person who hurt you, but about your own healing and growth. While there are aspects of this idea that are true, Jesus doesn’t let us off that easily. Our own forgiveness by Him is absolutely undeserved, but very much for our sake- for His love for us. It is not enough, then, for us to forgive others for our own sense of closure, because it allows us the illusion that they are still worse than we are. Forgiveness is be an act of grace, love and compassion, borne out of that which we received from Christ.
Take some time to consider how you might be allowing bitterness and/or anti-identity to define who and what you are. What will you do to repent of this dynamic?
Tags: Forgiveness, identity, Missional
This question becomes interesting still when we consider minorities who have no choice in how they define themselves, greater society identifies a few absolute distinctives to define who they are…
i.e. the aboriginal male is no doubt aboriginal, but is his identity greater and does society allow his identity to be greater
i.e. LGBTQ community, is this community forced to define themselves by only their sexuality? I would say that their identity is greater than sexuality. It is the interplay of all the beautiful things that make us human and created in God’s image.
Interesting stuff Jamie. Thanks.
Chris, interesting questions. I resist the idea that someone (or a group) is forced to define themselves in any particular way. You are right that societal pressures make it difficult for some groups. The issue of how others define us (and how that impacts our identity) is significant. Tough questions.
great words jamie. i can think of a few anti-identitities i claim. your thoughts on forgiveness touch on something i’ve been thinking about – restitution.
i love when forgiveness is not focused on ‘me’, but on ‘us’ – and i especially love what can happen between ‘us’ when its present (mindful of what we are robbed of when it is absent.) I get confused or tripped up when there is so often only one party genuinely interested in jesus-style reconciliation.
Thanks Kelly. I wonder how things would change if we made the best for the other the primary impulse in our choice to forgive.
I think there is something pretty important to bear in mind here. The rise of ‘minority identities’ seems to be, in large part, a response to the ubiquity of the ‘Western norm’. So while we saw the rise of specialized studies (i.e. feminist philosophy, black liberation theology, post-colonial theory, etc.) what they shed light on was the reality that things like philosophy, theology, sociology (etc.) were primarily white, male philosophy, theology, sociology, etc. And so these expressions took aim at this ‘ubiquitous normal’ which really is just a powerful and pervasive specialization that was squeezing out deviance.
So while I have some sympathy Chris with your statement about identity being something greater I would be hesitant because this something ‘greater’ is again often just another more powerful specialization that we place on people. This holds true with how the church needs to think through its notion of identity.
Excellent point, David. That is why I think it is important to frame this discussion on primacy- that is, that we are careful what is our primary identifier. There is still an essential prophetic place for the anti-identity up and against the dominating forces such as patriarchy, colonialism, etc.
A friend and more experienced church planter than myself told me once “if you go about building the anti-church, you will end up being the anti-Christ.” That conversation has always weighed with me. How many of us have been drawn to church planting because of our experiences of the church and a discontent with it. I’ve been more convinced lately that our role is not to separate ourselves from that completely but to be aware of how that is also a part of our story and our identity.
A great quote & a good reminder. Thanks BD.
I suppose I don’t view those examples as ‘anti-identities’. They might characterized as such by claims to ‘primacy’ which I am beginning to think may be an illusion or at least an unhelpful or coercive way of going about it. I suspect the appeal to a primacy ‘in Christ’ is too abstract and would lend itself easily to whatever construct has the most power or influence. What is left then is the ongoing navigation of the particulars so that, as you point out, the work of overcoming the divisions based on hurt are able to be restored.
David, I agree that “in Christ” can come off as abstract. However, I did not articulate what that means in the post. I do not think it easy by any stretch. My point is not that the identities you listed are anti-identities, but that they have to identify over and against the powerful. For example, black liberation theology is positive in describing context, but white theology is just called “theology”. I am not suggesting we get rid of these categories, only that when they become identities that are primarily about confronting others, we run into problems.
[...] Previous Post – Resisting the Anti-Identity [...]
I guess I don’t see the problem in an identity that ‘confronts others’. There are, of course, many forms of confrontation. In any event my comment on the abstraction of being ‘in Christ’ was not directed at your particular formation so much as my own reflection. Any past posts where you outline that in greater detail in terms of identity?
David, I think this is where we are not connecting- I don’t see the problem in an identity that “confronts others” either. My concern is only when that becomes the primary identity, because in a way it is still empowering the person/group/etc that one is confronting to determine identity.
David, as to your question about other posts: I touch on it indirectly a lot, but I am working on a new blog post that should be going live soon. Thanks for pushing in on this!