Identity, Ideas, the Image of God, and A Redemptive Grid
In The Identity Trap[1] Yascha Mounk provides an alternative to what he calls “the identity synthesis.”[2] His alternative is liberalism[3], grounded in a philosophy that “humans are driven by their capability to make common cause with people who have different beliefs and origins rather than their membership in specific groups.”[4] Mounk argues for “universal values and neutral rules like free speech and equal opportunity”[5] instead of an identity-based ideology that claims that “the key to understanding the world is to examine it through the prism of group identities like race, gender, and sexual orientation.”[6]
There are several things I wanted to write about after reading The Identity Trap. For example, I wanted to conduct a deeper dive into the network effects that carried forward the ideas of “postmodernism, postcolonialism, and critical race theory,”[7] and the influences of “Michel Foucalt, Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Derrick Bell, and Kimberlé Crenshaw”[8] who provided an inspiration for the core claims of the identity synthesis. I also wanted to conduct more research around the social networks of Mounk, Francis Fukuyama, Jonathan Haidt, and other authors and their institutional connections. I’ve noticed that Haidt, a key endorser of Mounk’s book, and others within Haidt’s network are promoting the University of Austin[9] in Austin, TX where Haidt serves on the Board of Advisors. Perhaps I will pursue this latter topic when we read Greg Lukianoff’s book, The Canceling of the American Mind: How Cancel Culture Undermines Trust, Destroys Institutions, and Threatens Us All, later this semester (Haidt co-authored The Coddling of The American Mind with Lukianoff in 2018).
But alas, this blog post needs to be no more than 1000 words, so I decided to limit my reflections to a more singular topic – a topic that I need to consider myself as I read books like this that promote a perspective over/against a particular world and life view. The topic? How to process ideas, even ideologies, through a redemptive grid.
Ideas and a redemptive grid
People are made in the image of God. Because people bear God’s image and are trying to make sense of their world, their ideas, as beautiful and/or broken as they might be, are nonetheless ideas that emerge from their God-given faculties. If we take the Bible’s plotline of creation, fall, and redemption, then we can approach and process ideas using questions that follow a redemptive grid.
People are created in God’s image
Instead of starting with “what is wrong,” with an idea, perhaps we can start with the question “What is right” about this idea? In light of my neighbor(s) who is/are made in God’s image, how do I approach his/her/their ideas (or their ideologies) in a way that upholds their dignity? What is right about the hopes or dreams of those who embrace what Mounk calls the identity synthesis?
Even Mounk suggests that the ideas promoted in the identity synthesis come from a desire to do good. Mounk states, “Many of these ideas are motivated by rational concerns and legitimate needs.”[10] After all, “people really have been oppressed on the basis of identity markers like race and gender.”[11] Because my neighbor is made in the image of God, I have to reflect critically and cannot immediately dismiss his/her ideas, even if I do not agree with my neighbor’s conclusions.
In a fallen world, no ideas are perfect
Good ideas, in a broken world, can easily become idolatrous ultimate ideas. In light of this reality, as we wrestle with complex socio-political ideas/ideologies, perhaps we can ask questions such as “Where do I see signs of brokenness with this idea?” “What seems to be wrong with this or that way of thinking?” Because of sin’s entrance into the Biblical plotline, humanity’s ideas, systems, structures, inventions, and ways of caring for others – including advocating/caring for people who experience injustices and marginalization at the hands of other broken and sinful people – are tainted with sin. In the case of an ideology, we can ask the question “Where do these ideas, or aspects of these ideas, seem inconsistent with who God is and what God says about people?”
In addition to presenting the questions of “what is right” and “what is wrong” to the core tenants of what Mounk describes as the identity synthesis, these same questions could be applied to Mounk’s argument (in reality, any argument) and the ideas that correspond to what he promotes as philosophical liberalism. After reading The Identity Trap, I would guess that Dr. Mounk would welcome such critique.
Christ provides a redemptive pathway forward
To follow the biblical storyline of creation-fall-redemption, a third group of questions can include questions like these: “In light of the brokenness and injustices that are indeed in the world, what is a redemptive path forward?” “With our identity rooted and grounded in Christ, what is a healing path forward, and in what ways can we, as Christians, be agents of reconciliation?”[12] “Because of Christ’s redeeming work, in what ways can we act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly (see Micah 6:8) with God in this or that situation?” “In light of the fact that my hope is found in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and NOT in the applause and approval of others, what is the most loving, differentiated way to address the ideas and the people behind such ideas, even if I am in great disagreement with them?”
I don’t know what Mounk believes personally when it comes to Christian faith, but I thought it was interesting – and a fitting end to this post – that he stated, “The New Testament…repeatedly emphasized the irrelevance of markers of group identity like race and ethnicity. (Perhaps the most prominent expression of this comes in Galatians, when the apostle Paul writes that ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.’)”[13]
[1] Yascha Mounk, The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time, New York: Penguin Press, 2023.
[2] Mounk writes, “The identity synthesis is concerned with many different kinds of groups, including (but not limited to) those based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability. It is the product of a rich set of intellectual influences, including postmodernism, postcolonialism, and critical race theory. It can be pressed into the service of diverse political causes from a radical rejection of capitalism to a tacit alliance with corporate America.” (Mounk, 9)
[3] Mounk clarifies that liberalism, from his perspective, “is based on the rejection of natural hierarchy. Rather than believing that some people have a right to rule over others by virtue of their noble birth or their spiritual enlightenment, liberals are convinced that we are born equal.” (Mounk, 240) Mounk expounds on philosophical liberalism by stating, “Liberals recognize that human beings differ in speed and strength, in intelligence and moral character. But they insist that no such difference is sufficiently stark or apparent to justify one person or group runling over everybody else. The best foundation of a legitimate political order, liberals claim, is not some supposedly natural hierarchy—but the recognition that in matters of politics, we are all ‘created equal.’” (Mounk, 256)
[4] Mounk, 262.
[5] Ibid., 11.
[6] Ibid., 243.
[7] Ibid., 9.
[8] Ibid., 76.
[9] In response to what the founders of the University of Austin believe to be troubling in universities around the country, they have created an alternative educational institution. Stated on UATX’s website: “UATX will renew the mission of the university, and serve as a model for institutions of higher education, by safeguarding academic freedom and promoting intellectual pluralism.” (see https://www.uaustin.org/our-principles)
[10] Mounk, 131.
[11] Ibid., 245.
[12] I first heard the question “What is a healing path forward?,” including questions similar to those I’ve outlined in this blog, in a conversation with Dr. Michael Goheen and several others in a gathering in Vancouver, BC in 2012.”
[13] Mounk, 279.
About the Author
Travis Vaughn
12 responses to “Identity, Ideas, the Image of God, and A Redemptive Grid”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Travis,
You asked the following question:
“In light of the fact that my hope is found in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and NOT in the applause and approval of others, what is the most loving, differentiated way to address the ideas and the people behind such ideas, even if I am in great disagreement with them?”
My first thought is the Sermon on the Mount which is counter cultural to what is happening in our world right now. My question for you is how have you disagreed with people who differ from your idealogical ways up until now?
Pam, I have a two-fold answer. One, to the extent that “ideological ways” = idolatrous ways (ideas becoming ultimate and unhealthy ideas that can cause a host of problems), I’ve got to have the posture of Luther…”all of life is repentance.” When good ideas, or any ideas, really, become all-consuming in my life, I need God to continuously realign my heart and mind, and I need his grace to help me admit that I am wrong, repent, rejoice in Christ, and show the fruit of repentance. Second –“how have I disagreed with people who differ…up until now,” that’s a longer answer, and probably too long for this response, so I’ll shorten it: I can think of people, including members of my own family, who I have disagreed with where I have most certainly NOT used the redemptive grid I outlined, sadly, when we’ve disagreed. However, I have found myself using this sort of grid from time to time for a number of years now. There’s a conversation that immediately came to mind with your question — a conversation I had on the phone in the parking lot of a Starbucks in 2020 at a time when several folks were either accusing our church or our church’s leadership as too “woke” or “Marxist”, etc….a conversation I had with a friend who I do not see eye-to-eye with (well, at least not anymore). I walked through the grid for my take on a topic he brought up, and we found there were some things we agreed on, but there were some conclusions that we came to that have played out quite differently since then. I think we were able to make the friendship “work” even though we fell into a couple of different “camps.” Alas, we have not talked much since 2022.
Hi Travis, I so enjoy reading your blogposts.
In your blogpost, “In light of the fact that my hope is found in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and NOT in the applause and approval of others, what is the most loving, differentiated way to address the ideas and the people behind such ideas, even if I am in great disagreement with them?”
I take this thought into my immigration topic. TWO groups, one definitely against, one definitely for. Dr. Clarks paper talked about a THIRD SPACE. A space that the church should inhabit.
How do we look at tough current issues through a biblical lens/through a God lens.
How do we impact politics with “unconditional love” rather than being impacted for the political debate of the time.
Sigh…still wondering.
Shalom….Shalom…
Thank you, Russell.
With immigration as your topic, what parts of what Mounk described as “the identity synthesis” seem to play out the MOST in your conversations? I would imagine you have run into roadblocks from time to time, especially among evangelicals in the U.S., among people who have great difficulty making “common cause with people who have different beliefs.” If and when that has happened, how have you (or those you work with) helped to create bridges for cooperation? Do you have any case studies, with evangelicals or others moving from indifference (even antagonism?) to cooperation/collaboration?
HI Travis,
You asked, If and when that has happened, how have you (or those you work with) helped to create bridges for cooperation?
I have one example, during the COVID crisis, I was working with World Relief and we took on the USAID Farmers to Family Food Program. Texas Churches who normally had nothing to do with refugees worked hand in hand with Spanish, Swahili, Burmese and Chinese speaking refugees in order to receive, box and distribute food. We fed 288,000 people in the Dallas Fort Worth Area.
Perhaps this example answers your next question. Do you have any case studies, with evangelicals or others moving from indifference (even antagonism?) to cooperation/collaboration?
Immigration is the polarizing political topic that I will have to wrestle with. Dr. Stu Cocanougher (an alumni and one of my informal advisors) suggested that I focus on the those churches who are on the fence rather than those who are openly hostile.
I may use Mounks six steps as my guide.
1) Claim the Moral High Ground – Deuteronomy 10:18 (Orphans, Widows and the foreigner amongst us) remains one of the key verses that shape a biblical response to refugees/newcomers.
2) Don’t vilify those who disagree – The symposium is being conducted in Texas, where a fair degree of voters are anti-immigration. On the public stage, the Governor of Texas is bussing and flying immigrants to “sanctuary” cities. This has become a focal point for the immigration discussion in the state. Be quick to listen, slow to speak are nice guide rails for the discussion.
3) Remember that today’s adversaries can become tomorrow’s allies. How can we empower the churches to influence politics on immigration rather than the other way around?
4) Appeal to the Reasonable Majority. Dr. Stu Cocanougher Pastor at the Southcliff Baptist church warned me about confronting churches hostile to immigration. Instead he argued that there large majority of churches who need to be informed and empowered to reach out to newcomers.
5) Make common cause with other opponents of identity synthesis. Although there are 10 U.S. Refugee Resettlement Agencies most have distanced themselves from their religious roots. Nonetheless, it is important to engage with these agencies as they actively are involved in resettling the newcomer.
6) But don’t become a reactionary. Social media has enabled people to become anonymously HOSTILE to everything. Conflict fuels adrenalin and allowing the dialogue to continue in polarization does not serve the newcomer.
Sorry for the long answer.
Shalom.
Travis, your idea of a redemptive grid is really insightful. I went back and read through it a couple of times and it’s like a threshold concept – now that I’ve seen it I can’t unsee it. I think it’s a really powerful tool. I look forward to using it and also to seeing how you apply it in the rest of this semester’s difficult readings.
My question is how do we use the redemptive grid to affect change in systems, beyond just arguing for or against ideologies? How could a Christian’s “redemptive path forward” lead to tangible change in the midst of injustice? Or maybe a better question is, what examples have you seen?
Kim, I’m glad you found it helpful. Even as I posted my thoughts, I started to get nervous, thinking that I was just posting a “how-to” that may have not taken into account all of the complexities of the subject Mounk addressed.
At any rate, you ask some great questions.
Regarding how to use it in affecting change in systems, I would suggest that there are elements of appreciative inquiry — what Tim pointed out in his response to my post — used in asset-based community development that start with assets and not problems when it comes to seeking change (at least in communities/organizations). I actually first started wresting with this sort of “redemptive grid” many years ago when I was thinking, not about “ideas” or “ideology,” but about how to help people in business, healthcare, education (those three sectors are where most of the people in our particular church work), and more…navigate / think redemptively about their work and the projects in their daily work lives. We created a “Gospel at Work Day” (that’s probably not the best way to describe the project) initiative in our church where we paired pastors with workers in each of those three (and other?) groups to tackle a project in the workers’ companies and places of work, together, where possible. I can tell you more about that in D.C. if you are interested.
In 2012, there were a group of people who met in Vancouver, BC (I reference this in the notes) to talk about this topic of a redemptive grid, or reading the Bible from a redemptive-historical perspective, and a number of related issues.
But regarding community (or system) change, I’ve found the tools from the Stanford Social Review around Collective Impact to be quite helpful: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact.
Travis you said, “In light of my neighbor(s) who is/are made in God’s image, how do I approach his/her/their ideas (or their ideologies) in a way that upholds their dignity?”
That’s such a powerful question. Using appreciative inquiry we look for what’s right about something before we identify what’s wrong about it. I’ve done this in organizational leadership but not as often in personal theological or philosophical arguments.
So I can affirm the humanity and the pain and experience of someone, as well as some of their conclusions about how to address those things, without totally buying into all of their solutions.
The challenge can come because our culture has become so binary: Many think if you don’t uncritically accept the whole package that you must be rejecting it all.
In that case, do you have any thoughts about how to “address the ideas and the people behind such ideas, even if I am in great disagreement with them?”
Tim, you point out something that has become so very real — the binary zero-sum way our culture handles these topics. My short answer is that I think people partly work through these differences when their relationships — even among those they disagree with — are built on trust and the rules of communication/engagement are clear. There’s a book that I was referred to in 2022 — a book I included in the annotated bibliography of my Design Workshop Report that you might check out. It’s a book by Tim Muehlhoff and Richard Langer called Winsome Conviction: Disagreeing Without Dividing the Church.
Thanks for the book recommend.. I’ll put that on my list of books to check out. I’m sure I’ll need it in 2024!!!
Travis-
I really appreciate you modeling of the “redemptive grid” for us. I think I have heard you reference it before, but seeing it in practice is a game-changer. I, like Kim, am now wanting to see how we can apply it in new areas.
Thanks!
You are kind, Jen. Thank you. However, as I told Pam in my response to her comments/question above, there are plenty of times I have NOT modeled / applied that grid in areas of disagreement, including with members of my own family.
That grid probably could include other elements…elements that might make it more agile for addressing not only conversations around ideas/ideology, but also for addressing systems (see Kim’s question in her comments above). How would you tweak it? What would you add or remove?