I want to point out three different ways the world plays identity politics. These three ways are through the rejection of the universal masculine, through the acceptance of nomenclature like “non-straight” Christians, and finally through acceptance of gender-neutral pronouns to refer to individuals.  The first is an older issue.  In the minds of many that particular cause is a lost cause. It’s beginnings were prominent in the last century.  This is the movement away from the use of any type of universal masculine.  To use the universal masculine is to use “man” as a placeholder for both men and women This is a legitimate use of the word “man” in the English language. In its stead, men have used gender-neutral words like “people” or “they.”

Through feminism and individualism, along with the rise of leftism in universities the universal masculine is no longer used.  Feminism argued for equality of men and women in absolutely every respect.  They did not exclude pronouns.  Radical individualism resisted any type of collectivism even in language.  The few who refuse to bend to the dominant grammar are relegated to the sidelines.  This is particularly true in Bible translation.  Yet God chooses to identify man, as a whole, in masculine terms.  He defines man and women, as man, in Genesis 1.  This is not demeaning to women, this is merely because man was created first.

Arguably, this is the beginning of identity politics; a demand for respect for the individuality of members of a group.  There was no room for definition in relation to a whole, the individual, in this case, the individual woman, demands respect. The speaker must recognize her gender.

This is where the insanity began.  For this reason, I choose to be regulated to the sidelines with a couple of others.  I choose to join the dinosaurs. There is a chance to persuade me that God might not appreciate this stand. God wants us to relate to our own society.  We speak in a different language than the Hebrews. We think in a different way than the Hebrews. It’s possible that I sin.   If I do, I do so in ignorance. However, I believe that God will honor this decision. I believe that there is more continuity between Hebrew culture and our own than we like to believe.

My reason: scripture should teach me how to think about gender.   It is not the main goal of scripture.  The main goal of scripture is to teach me about Christ.  but scripture does teach me about my identity and the identity I receive in Christ.

The second way of identity politics is a little more recent. It is the new understanding of the word “homosexual.”  The word used to refer to a condition, a desire or an action, not necessarily a biological identity equivalent to our identity as a man or a woman, or possibly our identity as tall or short. Unfortunately, the evangelical world has begun to talk about “homosexual Christians” as if that is a real possibility. They have accepted the “fact” that the identity of “homosexuality” is equivalent to a gene for tallness or a predisposition to cancer.

But God offers a new identity. That is why it is particularly repugnant to call a Christian a “homosexual” Christian.  We wouldn’t want to call a brother in Christ a Christian “murderer.”  We don’t even need to give into the world on the old identity we have in Adam.  Yes “homosexuality” can be an identity, but it is an identity in the way “miser” or “murderer” or “drunk” is an identity.  It is a problem; a problem that people seriously struggle with, sometimes throughout their whole lives.  But this identity is not grounded in creation.  The identities we gain through the curse and through our sinful desires are no longer ours in Christ.

The final example of identity politics is the most recent.  These are the gender-neutral pronouns, which Jordan Peterson is dealing with. This is also the most extreme case of identity politics.  My comments on this will only repeat what I have already said.  I would only add that this is the clearest and unambiguous case we have so far.  The attempts to nuance this issue fail.