The Righterzpen
Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm
- Feb 9, 2019
- 3,480
- 1,392
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Well the problem here is the word "identity". People propose the concept of "accepting people for who they are". Well my question is; why and when has a series of behavioral constructs become an "identity"? (Like behavior is immutable aspect of self?)
That presents its own psychological problem in so many ways. How does "a criminal" not be a criminal, or "an alcoholic", or "a domestic abuser"; not be those labels? These are all "behavior applications" that carry "moral weight", as well as consequences both for the individuals and society as a whole. And the "behavioral construct model" also applies to all LGBTQ+++ "identities". Which all of these "identities" are behavioral constructs with psychological components to them; (which applies also to "criminal", "alcoholic" and "domestic abuser" labels; still all being behavioral constructs with psychological components).
The issue of "self" comes up a lot in mental health circles. What one thinks or feels about "self" (i.e. "self esteem").
And here's where I think psychology has failed to adequately serve the human race. What should "Identity" be?
This is something that's been kicking around in my head for the past couple of months. I'm a participant in a mental health program at the VA and the question of identity has come up in a couple of our classes. For example; several people made comments about how being in the military was / had been "their identity" at one point. (Now they feel "lost" being out of the military = "Who am I now?"
And I said: "I never saw the military as part of my identity; it was a job that I did." (Subsequently this made one fellow quite upset.) Then he tired to insist that my "identity" was that I was a care giver of my son. And I replied: "No, that is not my identity either. That is simply a role I play in his life right now." And he couldn't seem to separate the concept of "self" from "do".
I'd made the comment in a later group that we are human beings, not human doings. Which ultimately is an existential question: what does it mean to "be" (human). Or more fundamentally, what does my existence mean to me?
Personally, I still haven't come up with a prescriptive perimeter I could put around that question. I actually don't know what my "identity" is; because it seems far more of a broader existential question than a job I had, a task I perform, a behavioral construct, or even life circumstances that become integrated into part of our personal psyches. (I.E. "mom", "combat veteran", "abuse survivor" "Adult child of....") And I suppose we could throw philosophical ideas in here too. (Stoic, philanthropist, volunteer...)
Or even ethnic, national or political affiliations; being some of this is where we might get into more immutable characteristics of "self" being related to birth place, race, and even "biological male" and "biological female". (It seems odd to me that now we have to make even those distinctions too. The meaning of "male" and "female" are now "fluid" yet it's not "politically correct" to "identify" as another culture or race? (Of any of those choices, culture and race is certainly more "fluid" than birth sex.) And this is how we KNOW we're dealing with an ideology that has its own agenda. (Just like ALL political ideologies have agendas too.)
Now "religious affiliation" maybe comes closest to "meaning of identity" because its conceptions are closer tied to the question of "the meaning of life". Religious affiliation tries to answer the issue of human relationship to God; (or in the least "cosmic something bigger than self"). An attempt to answer the question of "what is the meaning of my life" / "why am I here"? (Which none of these other "identity labels" can ever satisfy. Even immutable characteristics of self as living beings; (such as race, ethnicity, birth place, biological sex) don't fully fill the question of the meaning of life and why am I here?
I believe Jesus Christ paid for my sin. I believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation. I believe in God's omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, immortality, holiness and moral supremacy. My "religious affiliation" would be "reformed protestant Christian". And my "job" in the Kingdom is to proclaim the gospel, pray and obey God by believing in the effectual atonement Christ provided and repenting of my sin. Thus I come to the conclusion that my "identity" is wrapped up in eternity. Despite I frequently feel like I don't do a very good "job" of any of this. Thus my "psychological self assessment of self" isn't particularly bolstered by my beliefs; except in the fact that I'm grateful God has had mercy on me; because of the atonement Christ provided. Other than that; I suppose I could say: I don't have very good "self esteem"; and though I try to balance "wise as serpents innocent as doves" admittedly I'm not always "nice" either!
So there's my deeper psychological assessment of what's going on in all of this "agenda" arguments.
Now of course this doesn't mean these ideas don't impact my life. My son "identifies" as "asexual". Which his disinterest in sex doesn't raise any obvious moral issues. (Yes, he can survive his whole life as a celibate male.) "What would Jesus do?" Well.... there ya go!
The thing I question; (and I've asked him this too). I don't understand the "need" of those who profess to be Christians, to... basically "defend sin" and... attempt to shield people from the consequences of something that's basically a behavioral construct. Not denying that it's a difficult sin to be enslaved to; and people wishing to overcome this need compassion and solid truthful counsel.
Yet, In the greater running of society; I don't need to know what consenting adults do with other consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes. If I hire you to work at my company; so long as you do your job, I don't care if you're gay. Keep that to yourself.
Though I do acknowledge the moral obligation here to protect those who can't protect themselves. (For example: those utilizing public institutions such as schools for non-adults.) Which of course gets into the American constitutional question of "government reach" Though Scripture does say that God's given purpose for government is to protect society against the sinful actions of others.
Upvote
0
