"Gay": Identity, or Description?

Adjectives don’t define us; they describe us. And accurate self-description is very important to the Christian life.

One aspect of the “celibate, gay Christian” debate that I haven’t yet discussed is the idea that using the adjective “gay” treats it as part of one’s identity, and therefore a Christian should not “identify as gay.” This objection concerns language specifically, rather than the psychology of sexual orientation, which has been my focus.

But my response to this claim about gay identity flows directly from my defense of the category of sexual orientation. “Gay” is an accurate description for people whose sexual orientation is homosexual. To describe oneself or another as “gay” is not to create an “identity” but merely to accurately describe one feature of a person.

In this matter, it is the theological conservatives who have compromised with worldly categories, in this case, the categories of self-ascribed identities and “identifying as.” The conservatives have gone full postmodern here: It is all a matter of how you identify.

Conservatives Are Postmodern?

Yes. The theological conservatives in this debate describe same-sex attracted people as “identifying as gay.” For instance, a recent debate between James White and Greg Coles was framed this way: “Is ‘Gay Christian’ a Biblically Acceptable Identity for a Member of Christ's Church?” Presbyterian minister Daniel Schrock says the same in this Christ the Center clip. Becket Cook says that being gay was who we was, and now it’s not. Here’s the ex-gay movement guy, Joe Dallas of Restored Hope Network, doing it. And a Catholic priest does it as well.

Others, including some on Side B, fall into this trap as well. For example, at the beginning of this interview, of a Side A and a Side B Christian, Justin Brierley describes theologian David Bennett as having “identified as” gay since a young age, to which Bennett nods his head.

We all know what they mean, but the language is misleading. The point isn’t whether Bennett “identified as” gay, that is, called himself “gay,” but whether he was gay and knew this about himself.

“Identifying As”?

This is a point on which I think both Side B and Side Y sometimes err, in adopting the language of “identify as.” I would guess that this idiom is quite new. (I have read the same about “identity” and “identity in Christ.”) A Google Ngram word search verifies it.

The standard use of “identify” is more closely related to recognizing something, determining what it is. I might look at a leaf on the ground and attempt to identify it as the leaf of a maple, a sycamore, or an oak.

To identify something as something is to determine that it is of a certain kind or exhibits a certain trait.

In modern parlance, or rather, “postmodern parlance,” to “identify as” something is to be infallible or incorrigible about it, having no possibility of being corrected or verified: Self-verifying.

But importantly, our identifications of things, including ourselves, are always fallible. If I identify myself as having the common cold, my feelings do not automatically lead to perfect self-diagnosis.

A clear source of this is the conflation of “gay” and “trans,” something that happens on both sides. These are all “sexual identities.” People “identify as gay” or “identify as trans.” In fact, there is a crucial disanalogy between a homosexual person recognizing himself as such and a gender dysphoric woman desiring to be perceived as a man. The sexual orientation and the gender dysphoria are all quite real. Identifying as gay is not like identifying as a member of the opposite sex, because one might actually be gay. This means, instead, that discovering that one is homosexual is more like discovering that one is gender dysphoric.

If we dropped talk of “identities,” a lot would be solved. Instead, we should adopt talk of various sexual, psychological, and physiological conditions, empirically identified.

If there is a point where Christians accidentally adopt corrupt categories, it is not the use of the words “gay,” or “sexual orientation.” It is the adoption of the idiom, “identify as.”

“Finding Your Identity In”

Now, the more theological objection comes from the conflation of “identify as” with another popular contemporary idiom involving the same morpheme: “Find your identity in.” The objection is that Christians shouldn’t “identify as” gay because Christians should only “find their identity in Christ.”

Now, formally, this doesn’t even work. “Identify as” is not “find your identity in.” If Christians should only “find their identity in Christ,” then it follows that they should not find their identity in their sexual orientation. But it does not follow that they are not allowed to discover, i.e., identify, what their sexual orientation is.

Am I not allowed to identify any of my features, lest I “find my identity in” them? “It sure looks in the mirror like I’m brown-haired, but if God wants to change me…”

Celibate, gay Christians sure seem not to be finding their identity in their gayness, hence, the Christianity and the celibacy. We can only conclude that people shouldn’t find their identity in their gayness, on which everyone agrees.

Description, Not Identity

But…are they gay? If so, it’s not only fine but moral for them to admit this, step into the light, and know the grace of Christ, preferably through the grace and kindness of his people, rather than in spite of their rejection by other Christians.

If you’re gay, then you should describe yourself as gay. In Christian contexts, pairing that with one’s Christian faith and celibacy (or chastity, including mixed-orientation marriages) is prudent, hence, “celibate, gay Christian.”

In the objection to self-description, there is an exalted view of adjectives as giving us identities or defining us. But people don’t have definitions. Only words do. It’s a category-error.

Adjectives don’t provide us with identities, nor do they define us. They describe us. And I would argue that accurate self-description is very important to the Christian life.

Yet, contemporary Christian sub-culture actually militates against accurate self-description, in its antipathy not only to sexual orientation but to psychology more generally and empirical sources of information about people. Biblically-sourced theological anthropology is important, but it does not preclude or replace empirical psychology and anthropology.

I would urge that Christians stop debating about identity and begin to study up on accurate, empirical description of the human condition.