One of the greatest dividing lines today in terms of social and political visions is corporate vs individual identity. Should we judge individuals as individuals (e.g., judge each man by his own actions and character)? Or should we judge individuals as members of groups (e.g., the characteristics of the racial, national, gender, etc, categories to which they belong)? In other words, which is predominant — the one or the many? The group/class or the individual?
Martin Luther King, Jr. wanted men to be judged as individuals, not as members of a group — that is, look at his character, not the color of his skin. At the same time, he was fully given to a kind of identity politics, advocating for his own racial group. So, again, which should be predominant: individual politics or identity-group politics?
On the one hand, justice certainly requires us to do justice to the personal responsibility of the individual. People are responsible for their own actions. On the other hand, pattern recognition and generalization is a key aspect of wisdom; we cannot navigate life without it. Paul was no doubt right that first century Cretans were in general liars and gluttons — but no doubt there could have been and likely were individual exceptions. The generalization was true and yet it had to make allowance for stereotype breaking cases.
Taken to extremes, both visions for society can become problematic. For example, focusing only on group identity gives us slogans like “Believe all women” — which has resulted in great injustices towards men. What hope can there be for a just society if legal matters are determined by group identity rather than the facts of the case? For example, do we want black (or white) jury members to assert racial power in rendering a verdict or do we want them to seek justice in rendering a verdict? Obviously, the goal should be justice. On the other hand, focusing only on the individual risks deracination — treating all humans as interchangeable, fungible, economic units, which has resulted in the disaster of a dehumanizing globalism. Obviously our elites would like this because it serves their power-seeking interests. But it has already done incalculable damage to once great Western nations.
A Trinitarian assessment would show us that we really cannot choose between these possibilities because we need both. Individuality is real and should be acknowledged. Group identity also matters and cannot be eradicated. As Cornelius Van Til (and his disciple, R. J. Rushdoony) pointed out, the Trinity resolves the problem of the one and the many through equal ultimacy. God’s threeness is no greater than his oneness, and his oneness does not swallow up his threeness. In the same way, a wise and biblical sociology and political theology will incorporate features of both individualism and corporatism. It will give place for individual freedom and and individual rights, while also insisting that personal identity is enmeshed in larger, corporate identities. We need a politics of personal responsibility. We also need a proper place for group identity politics.
Partiality is a great test case. Torah and the book of James both forbid partiality. At the same time, we know that in daily life and social interaction, partiality is inescapable. There is no sin in having an in-group preference in itself. I am partial to my own children, e.g., I provide for them in ways I do not provide for anyone else’s children (1 Tim. 5:8). I have obligations to them that I do not have to other children. The same could be said for my city, state, and nation. I am perfectly justified in seeking what I think is best (in lawful ways) for each of these groups I am a part of. But in other contexts partiality really is evil. Torah forbids judges from showing socioeconomic partiality (Lev. 19:15). Judges are not to side with the rich just because they are rich (e.g., hoping to ingratiate themselves to the powerful) nor are they to side with the poor just because they are poor (e.g., through some kind of misguided empathy). There is a sense in which justice is blind to factors that are extrinsic to the matter at hand. God is an impartial judge (Luke 20:21, Acts 10:34) and civil judges should be impartial as well.
—
I’m not advocating a “social Trinitarianism” that would try to reproduce every aspect of the divine life in human society. Just provide a kind of analogy. We interact with each of the three persons and with the three-person we God. Likewise in human society, we deal with individuals and groups. But it is true that human individuals and human groups are not identical to divine individuals and the divine unity.
TPC Pastor's Page 