Personal Identity not Normative

[Afterthought]

Frequently, I've heard people in reality or in fiction or in music talk about "being oneself," or needing to be "who one is," or wondering when one will find out "who one is inside or deep down inside," or that one cannot help doing something because that is "who one is" (and this last sometimes has the addendum: "and I shouldn't change that because that's the way God created me"). All of these seem to assume there is something "normative" about being oneself: one should seek to find out who one is; if one knows who one is, one shouldn't change it; and if one performs actions, one cannot and should not stop them if they are simply part of who one is.

I wonder whether this sort of thinking is actually false? That personal identity not only can change, but it can change with one's volition and is by no means normative? Indeed, I wonder whether it actually can be normative to not be who one is. If one is a sinner, being oneself would mean being evil. I'm not sure how this works for the Christian, who is a new creature (and so has a different personal identity) but nevertheless has indwelling sin?

To back up this opinion, it seems the Scriptures (and if moral evil is suspected to be a part of one's identity, this would be a source we should look at?) speak about thought being at the center of one's identity. One is what one thinks in one's heart (and so one is what one believes?). Transformation for the Christian occurs by renewing our minds. So it would seem that how one thinks affects, changes, and transforms who one is? And so one could will one's personality to be different? And then there are the Scriptures that speak of being a new creation and a new man, and in reference to the "old man," we hear "and such were some of you." So it would seem a change in who one is has occurred: the Christian being different by nature now identifies with Christ instead of his or her old ways. This seems to be further supported by Paul in Romans 7:20, in which he describes sin not as his own personal action (i.e., not something he personally identifies with) but as "sin that dwelleth in me" (and elsewhere in the chapter, evil action is spoken of as what "he would not").


Am I on the right trail here? Any comments, corrections, or answers to the questions posed?

 

[MW]

I think you are on the right track, Raymond. Of course, identity is complex. It is not just what we think about ourselves. We bear relations to other people which identify us to some degree. What we do is also part of it. But there is an ultimate thing we identify ourselves by. And the teaching of being "in Christ" becomes a fundamental identity marker for a believer which initiates a radical transformation on his attitudes, aims, and actions.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Raymond. Personally I fight against myself, the "who I am, being who I am" as the world calls it every single day. The Christian that I am is a world away from the me that is in me. Seriously, the fight that goes on inside me every single day is an exhaustive war that at times almost wears me out. Thanks be to God that its won each and every day, though often single battles get lost. The old me that was before I was saved is still there right this minute, I tried to change it, eradicate it, bury it but its never gone. I now keep it on a big chain. I shudder to think of what I might be now if I was not saved and listen to the "be who you are" crowd. I would imagine they might say to me "no, no definitely don't be what you are". Then they would write books and songs that tell people to be something else Seriously though, they are short sighted and blind to say those things, get them to do a night ride with most police in just about any major city in the world and they will see people being who they are and what they are everywhere, killing others, bashing them, raping, stealing. Or send them and the people who wrote the song with the lyrics "do what you want to do be what you want to be yeah" to countries like places in Africa where armed gangs terrorise and mass murder villagers, where those who do it are, doing what they want to do and are being what they want to be , yeah. They would soon change their tune real quick.

 

[Caroline]

I think it entirely depends on what one means by "being oneself." If the question is, "Should I do as I please all the time?" then obviously, the answer is no. And I have definitely known some people who have serious anger issues and seem to feel justified in taking them out on other people by saying, "I'm just a plain-speaking person who says what I think," to which I say, "Don't say what you think. That is why God didn't give us the ability to read minds. The pause between the thought and the speaking of it gives us time to reflect and decide whether it actually ought to be said."

On the other hand, there are such things as personalities, and I think if we are honest, we love the personalities of those we love best, and we would not change them even though sometimes we find their behavior annoying. Just because something is annoying doesn't necessarily mean it is a sin. My husband complains that I leave damp towels on the bed. I don't mean to--I just forget them. I resolve to do better... and in resolving to do better, I make an attempt to change who I am naturally. However, if I forget next week, I think my husband would grit his teeth and say, "She's just a forgetful person. She isn't doing it on purpose." Some allowances are made for personality. My best friend has an annoying habit of speaking vaguely. "We ought to go to that place and to get that thing I mentioned in that email the other day." Sometimes it makes me want to smack my friend over the head with a dictionary in the hope that a few more specific words absorb, but it's just personality, and so I reel it in and say for the thousandth time, "Go where? Get what? Let's start from the beginning--which email?"

And finally, of course, some "being ourselves" can be good. When my husband is himself, he loves to cook, and we all enjoy the results of his favorite hobby. And I (doing what I love most) painted a cabinet, wrote a chapter for a book, and brought raspberry tea to my friend today--which are all good things.

So yes, we ought not to be ourselves when we have sinful inclinations, and we ought to strive not to be ourselves when we are annoying (but not necessarily sinful), but God made a variety of personalities, and He seems to enjoy giving talents and interests and quirks to various people--and we love them sometimes more for how they are different from us than for how they are the same. There is a certain inherent self-centered attitude about those who suppose that there is only one "right" personality and that everyone should have it--it usually happens to be the one that they themselves possess. We ought to let introverts be introvert and extroverts be extroverts and so on without guilt for being so, as long as they are not sinful in how they apply it.

 

[a mere housewife]

'And so one could will one's personality to be different?'

I think you would have to more carefully define your usage of 'personality', which in context seems entirely predicated on either sin or righteousness. But that does not seem to be the case in people's characteristic gifts and ways of interacting, either saved or unsaved. Some people have the struggles and virtues associated with a more naturally restrained temperament, some with a more naturally impulsive one, etc. In neither case is the temperament itself either sinful or righteous, any more than a rabbit's ears are more righteous than a goat's. It's a created difference, perhaps reinforced in providential circumstances. The expectation that the individual could simply alter those things would be playing God, refusing to recognise limitations of individuality, or receive what we are both genetically and formatively from His hands. It is important in life to accept these things, both as they providentially hinder us in some things and equip us for others.

It may be especially important for Christian parents to make that distinction. It is too easy to perceive personality traits as moral issues, and to discipline for shyness or a need for privacy as selfishness or disrespect, etc. It is also easy in conflicts within the church to assume that other people, who may simply have a different way of functioning than ourselves, are being sinful because they are handling things in a way that we wouldn't. We aren't called to be the Stepford Wives of Christ. 'Among God's Israel there is to be found a great variety of dispositions, contrary to each other, yet all contributing to the beauty and strength of the body . . . Let not those of different tempers and gifts, envy and censure one another, any more than those of different stature and complexion.' Matthew Henry-Thomas Scott on Genesis 49:13-21.

PS. I was thinking that it seems possible to be ungrateful and impious on both extremes -- not recognising the moral bounds God has fixed around us, or not recognising that we are not self willed beings in seeking to live to Him. Neither morally or temperamentally are we self determined and able to be whatever we choose to be. We receive what we are from God and render it back to Him -- even our particular struggles and particular reliance on grace are what He chose. He calls such particularity into being in goodness and love. I do think we need to see one another (and ourselves) in this light, and cherish the individuals He made. We lose something so sweet and joyful in our relationships when we don't.

 

[MW]

Personality and temperament are psychological terms and their definition will tend to differ from one system to another. The concepts themselves can be stifling to personal development, especially something like the ancient Greek medical view of four temperaments. Once people self-identify with such descriptions they tend to self-fulfil and perpetuate the stereotype. Besides the fact that medical science has no place for "humours," the temperament-theory tends to be fatalistic and leave no room for divine grace and providence.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks! I had forgotten about the identifying of self with respect to relations with other people and of actions also making a contribution to identity. I wonder though: since the will follows the intellect and since one's relations with other people would only contribute to one's identity insofar as one self-identifies with them (I don't know if this last part is true?), might the identity ultimately reduce to thoughts and beliefs anyway?

For personality, I sometimes think we "give up" on changing it, thinking it to be a matter of "nature" when it could simply be a rigid habit enforced and produced by one's thoughts about things, preferences, and development. And in fact, as we grow and develop, it seems those aspects of personality we once thought could not be changed and gave up on changing in fact do change, which is why we hear the expression, "I am not the same person as I once was." One example presented about talking vaguely seems to me something that could theoretically be changed with practice (To be clear, I say such while in full agreement with this: "So yes, we ought not to be ourselves when we have sinful inclinations, and we ought to strive not to be ourselves when we are annoying (but not necessarily sinful),"). Maybe it could be more or less difficult for particular persons and that is where the core of "unchanging personality" can lie.

(Does "unchanging personality" exist? I wonder that if we can change our moral personality and avoid doing "annoying" things, what makes this "unchanging personality" so different that it cannot be changed? If we are "moral rational" beings such that our will follows our intellect and that we are not trapped by our desires, might there be reasons of preference and morality behind all aspects of our personality, as well as actions? I speak as one who might be classified as "introverted" by others, but I choose not to label myself as that or "extroverted," and so self-identify with neither. Of course, in all this, I speak of the essential will, rather than the will in relation to the state of sin it is in.)

It does seem to me rather dangerous to define precisely what those "unchanging" things are, although it might be equally dangerous to not acknowledge they exist. (In terms of practice, it might simply be best to deal with a person's actions and the reasons for them rather than figuring out whether it is part of a person's "unchanging personality" or not?) I think Rev. Winzer brings up a good point about stifling personal development through self-identifying with descriptions.

It may be best to leave "personality" out of the thread, or for "personality" (as I intended it in the OP) to mean those aspects of one's personality that one can change; those aspects of "who one is"--one's self-identity. Perhaps even, it may be good (to borrow the category presented above) to speak of "fundamental identity" because that's what it seems people mean when they speak (in a deep context, rather than a casual one) about "that's just who they are" or "changing X changes who a person is." It is fundamentally who a person is.

 

[MW]

might the identity ultimately reduce to thoughts and beliefs anyway?

I suppose so, but I would beware of a rationalist view of this which depersonalises beliefs and turns everything into a propositional analysis. There is a divine mystery to life which biologists will never penetrate, and the same applies to human psychology. Self-knowledge has its place but there comes a point where one can peel back too many layers and leave oneself without a core. There must be a self to know self. When one begins to doubt and scrutinise basic psychological functions it can be destructive. It is enough for a believer that God searches and knows him. And the temptation to be like God in self-knowledge is evident here as in in other realms of human experience, and must be resisted by resignation and submission to the Sustainer of life.

 

[a mere housewife]

Raymond, I think some people draw the line between the changing and the unchanging differently. And I don't think it's a very clear one. Since I can't draw it with any clarity myself, I won't comment further than this?

Rev. Winzer, I understand what you said, I think. I have thought about how we tend to inhabit the perception we and others have of us and the danger there is of these templates. Yet there are limitations to our ability to live up to a false template. A very minor instance: no matter how much I have been encouraged to go to parties, and had it held up to me that I have liked going to them, I have always found them difficult. It was a relief when I was able to read some material that explained that some people just don't like parties. It can become a sin issue, but isn't one necessarily. Trying to ignore and override the limitations of another individual's personality or temperament or characteristics (I don't know what word is best) backfires, as much as it does in the realm of the physical. We tend to become more hobbled and helpless when there is no recognition of the things we cannot achieve in self re-creation by any exertion. There is as great and stifling a danger in not recognising this. Would the psychological typing not fall in the general realm of theories or tools that are useful, but shouldn't be employed as more absolute?

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks, Mr. Winzer! I think I can see what you mean by turning a person into merely propositions. I'm not sure what that "something" is that makes a person a person, but at a first glance, mere propositions do seem to fall a bit "cold" as a definition, and "person" does seem to be something beyond our understanding, in the end. I'm not sure I could argue that persons are more than propositions with a rationalist, but I also haven't had much preparation in this area.

Raymond, I think some people draw the line between the changing and the unchanging differently. And I don't think it's a very clear one. Since I can't draw it with any clarity myself, I won't comment further than this?

Sounds good to me.

 

[MW]

Would the psychological typing not fall in the general realm of theories or tools that are useful, but shouldn't be employed as more absolute?

I understand that we all engage in typology to some extent, and we would like to find a good use for it, but the reality is it serves no other purpose but "management" at best, and can easily become manipulative. The Christian is under new management (sorry for the cliche) and the attempt to exercise management in this area is always going to be a hindrance rather than a help to Christian growth. A person does not know what grace and providence will do with him or with another. John 21:22.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

All of us, regenerate and unregenerate, are human and have a human nature. The unregenerate person is totally depraved (under the power of death in every part of his being), though retaining, at least in the broader sense, the image of God in which he was created (e.g., reflected in personality, spirituality, rationality, morality, authority and creativity). This is to say that the effect of sin, even in the unregenerate, is ethical and not ontological: he remains fully human though not able not to sin. Unregenerate men still have a human nature, albeit one dominated by sin.

In the unregenerate, sin so mars every part of this one created in the image of God that it reflects itself in all that he is and does. Because sin is alien to what it means to be created in the image of God, this means that the unregenerate, in slavery to his sin, is less able to express his humanity than was Adam before the Fall or even than the regenerate person is (and certainly will be at last). The unregenerate is no less human than the regenerate but because he is enslaved to sin he is less able properly to manifest and express his humanity, captive as he is to that which is alien to humanity (sin).

The regenerate has been made anew, and though he has remaining sin, is also able not to sin. Because he is not under the dominion of sin, the believer is able more fully to express his humanity. In that sense, he is able properly to be "who he is" because who we are as humans in the image of God is a beautiful thing; it's sin, that which is alien to our creation in imago dei that mars everything and holds us back in the true, proper, and full expression of our humanity. When we enter that last estate--glorification--and are not able to sin, we will be most fully and truly human in all the wonder and diversity that humanity created in the image of God entails.

Sanctification now, as Heidi aptly says, does not make us spiritual "Stepford Wives" but must truly and fully human. So, yes, there is a real and proper sense in which the mortification and vivification of sanctification involves our becoming who we truly are. Unbelievers are alienated from their true humanity whereas we are enriched in and able to develop in our true humanity: this is what it means to become who we are in Christ and to reflect Him in our lives. To grow in grace is to become more like him, to grow in the manifestation of the narrower image (true righteousness, holiness and knowledge), and to become who we are in our truest selves.

Perhaps all this is to say, then, in response to the OP, the unbeliever is most alienated from his own humanity and his attempt to be his truest self in his sin will only increase his sin and alienation. Only those who are renewed in Christ began to reconnect with what it means to be renewed in one's humanity and thus to develop with respect to that in Christ.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks, Dr. Strange. That is very helpful. I had been wondering for some time about what to think of some I know who like to use the phrase "becoming better versions of themselves," but the last addendum to your post answers my question regarding that.