A Liberated and Secure Identity in the Gospel

The following is an excerpt from an interview with pastor Pete Nicholas on City to City’s How to Reach the West Again podcast. In the discussion, Nicholas compares and contrasts modern and postmodern thought to the gospel, showing how only a foundation in the truth can bring a liberated and secure identity.

BRANDON J. O’BRIEN: Tell us about your academic and professional background. You have degrees in philosophy, politics, economics, and industrial relations. How do those studies—together with a master's degree in theology—amount to a potentially unique preparation for the ministry you're doing?

PETE NICHOLAS: I was privileged to study at Oxford, but I wasn't a Christian at the time. I was reading philosophy, politics, and economics at university there. A big part of why I studied these subjects was because I was pretty idealistic, and I wanted answers to life's big questions. One of the great privileges of Oxford is you get to read voluminously, so I looked at many, if not most, of the world's great philosophers, and I had not found the answers. The short version of it is that by the end of my third year of studying, around the time of my final exams, I was pretty disillusioned. 

I saw the hypocrisy of philosophers and thinkers time and time again, whether it was on a personal level or the way that their own philosophical systems didn't hold together. This led, in part, to my engagement with Christianity as friends of mine who were Christians asked me to consider Christianity for answers to life’s questions. 

So, all that to say, I'm very grateful to God that I came to know the Lord, but the way that I came to know him was through asking questions and through trying to understand industrial relations and human resource management and so on. And of course, because God is true, asking questions is a great way to go about it—the truth outs. 

We run a church here in London, and both there and in my books, I try to tell people, “Please be curious. Ask your questions. If something's true, it stands up to scrutiny.” Even if it’s not true, asking good questions exposes that, so we should never be afraid of questions. Bring them to the table.

PLEASE BE CURIOUS. ASK YOUR QUESTIONS. IF SOMETHING'S TRUE, IT STANDS UP TO SCRUTINY.

BJO: In your newest book, A Place for God, you talk about a Christian critical theory that exposes the limitations of the secular narratives that pervade Western culture. What prompted that book? How did you go about deciding which questions to address and how to answer them?

PN: I'm passionate about answering people's questions, and I particularly enjoy helping people see how the gospel comes to bear on those questions—not in a simplistic way, but in a way that brings a sense of resolution. It’s interesting to me how different generations have different sets of questions. (My master's thesis was actually on the value disparities between generations and the impact that was having on our culture.)

About 10 or 15 years ago, when I started engaging more young adults in the U.K. on an apologetic level, it seemed like the cultural wind had shifted. The millennial and Gen Z generations were coming to the forefront, and they have a very different set of values—a very different set of questions—than those before them. There was no presumption of God anymore. You couldn't start with questions like “How good is good enough for God?” Someone would turn around and say, "Which god are we talking about?" or "Why are we talking about God?" 

At around the same time, TED Talks became quite popular, so I started doing my own talks around those big questions or themes: Where did we come from? Where are we going? How can we be happy? How do we make the world a better place? Is success the right thing to live for? What about identity? These talks really connected with people. And of course, these are questions that scripture deals with extensively. 

As far as what was included in the book, I was lucky to be able to piggyback off of some research that an organization called Forge Leadership was doing here in the U.K., surveying millennial leaders across different areas of life and asking them what big questions they were passionate about. This study validated which questions to draw on, and those formed the core chapters of the book.

BJO: In my adult life, we've gone from Evidence that Demands a Verdict to a sort of existential, much more deeply personal wrestling—not so much with what's out there and objectively available for examination, but with how this question or train of thought intersects with the way we understand ourselves in the world. Your approach in the book took that shift seriously and allowed for a new kind of apologetic conversation.

PN: You are perceptive. Within the generational shift, there's also been a shift away from the question, “Is it true?” The younger generations are not seeking facts to back up a claim or to see the evidence—which is not wrong. Of course, there is loads of evidence, but it's not the sum total of the way that scripture seeks to persuade us. It calls us to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. We use all these different faculties as human beings. Truth is important, but it's not the only faculty to use or the only area for us to engage in. 

For young adults, they're particularly passionate about the existential dynamic—how they're moved. Brands focus on this. Films focus on this. Art focuses on this. Consider the aesthetics of something: how does it feel? Is it beautiful? Is it attractive? Likewise, the attractiveness of a system of thought is hugely important, along with the lived experience of that system. How does it work out? Does it make a difference in our lives? I think it's hard for Christians to realize that we've got real cultural blinders on in this area. We may think, "Isn't it truth that persuades people?" If you look back in the Bible, you see the importance of living life well.

THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT IS HUGELY IMPORTANT, ALONG WITH THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF THAT SYSTEM. HOW DOES IT WORK OUT? DOES IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR LIVES?

This is what discipleship was all about. The disciples saw Jesus live life well. It was as much caught as taught, as some would say. Augustine would often talk about Scientia—knowledge of truth—and Sapientia, wisdom. And he would always argue that Scientia, or knowledge of objective truth, was subordinate to Sapientia, living life well to the glory of God. We flipped that around and even completely lost Sapientia; wisdom today is about a few pithy phrases and not much more. So, I think it’s a good thing this generation is asking what difference a system of thought makes in one’s life. Asking if it is attractive or beautiful. I think that's a really positive move. It makes the way you conduct the conversation very important. This should be something the church embraces and gets excited about.

BJO: You mention in your book that sometimes when we're decluttering our lives, we toss out too many things. We over-declutter and end up discarding something we should have kept. You say modernity and the Enlightenment provided some good cleaning up, but the premise of the book is that there was negative cleaning up, too. There was a discarding of God, essentially, from the modern secular mind. Let's talk first about the good things. What do you perceive as beneficial cleaning up that came with the Enlightenment?

PN: Methodologically, I think one of the really important areas was a phrase that came up first in the Reformation: ad fontes, which was "back to the sources" but was key to Renaissance thinking. Religiously and theologically, that referred to getting back to the Bible, but it wasn't only that. It was also the scientific sense of testing a hypothesis, not just taking it on faith or blindly believing the authorities. And science took huge leaps forward as a result. Then, take the arts. Getting to the primary sources for them was not just reading a commentary on something but reading the primary sources. If you're doing something on Descartes, read Descartes, and you'll find the brilliance of reading him. 

Ad fontes has been a huge methodological point which we've benefited from massively; we can also look at personhood in light of this. The understanding or recapturing of personhood—not just letting people be defined by the collective institution, by the nationalist and traditionalist societies generally—but the individual actually living into their identity as being made in the image of God is extremely significant. And personhood has led to equality as well. It leads to social change in vital areas like greater equality of sexes, greater equality of races, and greater equality of education, for example. 

So, the positives overall have been the growth of human rights, individuality, and so on. Now we may be into the excesses of individualism, but we wouldn't want to go back to only the collective or the nation-state being the only thing that matters with the person not mattering at all.

BJO: There's a line in the introduction of your book that says, “We find ourselves with a dull ache of regret, looking around for something that we need but can no longer find." Despite the gains, what do you feel like have been the losses of that Enlightenment project or the way it has developed for the last couple hundred years?

PN: Well, the big-picture hypothesis of the book is that we've thrown out God. Of course, we can't actually throw him out—he's God. But in terms of the way that we treat the world of ideas, the way that we respond as human beings, we've thrown out God. We see this in the foundations of what we hold dear. In the West, we care passionately—and rightly so—about people's rights. However, there's no sense of truly understanding rights. If you don't hold the same foundation for what rights are, it becomes less obvious. Instead, the question becomes “Why is it right to say that every human being is equal?"

IN TERMS OF THE WAY THAT WE TREAT THE WORLD OF IDEAS, THE WAY THAT WE RESPOND AS HUMAN BEINGS, WE'VE THROWN OUT GOD.

Truly, why is that? That is not the case in most aspects of society. For instance, sports teams are graded on ability—professional athletes are paid more if they're better. So why is that not the way that we should value people at birth? If this is the standard, why is it so abhorrent to say that a person who's disabled and therefore lacks abilities in certain areas is not less valuable? Of course, as a Christian, I believe that's because they're made in the image of God. They're deeply precious, regardless of their particular disability or impairment. But from a secular point of view, why do we find that so abhorrent? Where does that come from? Not everyone even agrees on that.

When it comes down to race, as well, it's not at all prima facie obvious that people of different colors, from different ethnic backgrounds, are equal. They're obviously different in various ways. So why does that mean all races are equal in value? Again, as a Christian, I know they're equal in value because they all bear the same image of God. They're all equally valuable and precious. The same goes for the sexes. But that's not at all obvious, and for the rest of the world, and throughout most of history, that hasn't been obvious or agreed upon.

We know what happens when you shake something without foundations—it sinks. And I think that's the sinking feeling we're getting existentially. When we disregard God and the truth of all people being made in his image, we lose our essential foundation. Why are we so naive as to think that we're not going to revert back to where most of the world has been without Christianity for most of history? The world has operated under the understanding that “No, we are not equal; some are better than others." So, I'm passionate about proclaiming that God has made the world in such a way that when you shake it without him, it doesn't stand up. We need to have those foundations back in place.

BJO: You've identified the hypothesis here of what's been removed and that the faulty foundations of the larger secular project are exposed in these moments of crisis. Then, you also use the image of helping people understand the waters that they swim in, so to speak. How do you personally wrap your head around the context that you're part of while still maintaining some amount of critical distance to see it for what it is?

PN: That's a really good question. I mean, we all struggle, and I think the first thing is realizing that blind spots are blind spots. Any person that claims to have no blind spot has the biggest blind spot of all. So, I think of epistemic humility, the humility of knowing the limitations of what I can know. This is all part of being human; my own culture, the things that are closest to me, are always going to be my biggest blind spots. Being aware of that is really helpful.

As I've gotten a bit older, I think this has led me to be a better listener. Preachers, generally, are good speakers, but that usually makes them bad listeners. To counterbalance this, I deliberately try to go out of my way to spend time with people who are genuinely different from me. That's a great thrill of being in a global city like London; there are so many people here from very different backgrounds and ethnicities and life experiences, and seeing that is a really good thing. 

Traveling and seeing different cultures is another way to practice listening. I spent quite a lot of time in Africa and the Middle East. That's been hugely formative for me. I have particularly good friendships with brothers and sisters in Africa who have lived very different experiences, but we're united in Christ. I'm an avid reader, as well. If you can't travel, then read. It’s its own form of traveling, I often think. Reading thoughts from different areas helps to give you a different lens of seeing things like you never would have in the West. So, those are all ways of saying the same thing, but being humble and listening is key.

And it’s important to listen well. I think there can be quite a tendency to say "gotcha” and move on. As we listen, we must recognize common grace. All truth is God's truth, and he's not afraid of truth. What’s more, falsehood and wrongdoing are distortions of truth or distortions of the good. If we understand that, we can find the good in every situation and affirm that part.

AS WE LISTEN, WE MUST RECOGNIZE COMMON GRACE.

BJO: I'd like to look at a specific example from your book. One chapter on a relevant topic is a chapter on identity in light of the modern and postmodern projects. What is the good that these projects are trying to excavate, and how do we meet those projects?

PN: I believe the difference between these narratives of identity is really important to understand. The modern narrative says to be true to yourself, look within yourself, or go away on a holiday to find yourself. In all of that framing, it assumes that there's a coherent “you” deep down that you have to find, often masked, hidden, or obscured by society or culture or people around you. So, this leads to the coming-out narrative: “For years and years, I wasn't allowed to be myself, but then I finally built up the courage to be myself." And that assumes that there is a “you,” and once you dig down enough and find “the you,” then you've got to be true to that.

But then the late-modern or postmodern narrative says, "Whoa, hang on. If you assume there's still a ‘you’ to be true to, that ‘you’ is a social construct. And you're still ultimately enslaved because that's been imposed upon you; you just don't realize it. There is no ‘you;’ you're a blank canvas. You can be whoever you want to be. Don't be constrained." It holds complete liberty as the highest truth.

Both of these rather popular narratives compete with each other. For example, within the LGBT community, this fundamental difference of identity has caused massive rifts. This is because a great number of people who champion gay rights are women who have been very vocal advocates for it, but they’re also uneasy with the idea that there's nothing ultimately inherent to being a woman if one can choose to identify as female—that their experiences under patriarchy and growing up in a body that menstruates and all the rest don’t mean anything. It invalidates the struggle and lived experience of someone born a woman to say you understand that. You would never do that in the civil rights area. A white person should never say to a black person, “I know your struggle.” That would be outrageous. That’s not to say that every transgender person buys into the postmodern narrative. It's just saying that tension comes from trying to live by two different narratives.

Pointing out that they are mutually exclusive shows they don't hold together. It can't both be true that there is a “you” you've got to be true to and at the same time true that there is no fundamental “you” at all, that you're a blank canvas. It’s helpful to gently push people a bit on the applications of it. If you say that you can be whoever you want to be, and there's no “you,” does that mean there's nothing to you as identity, only what you choose? So when it's all stripped away, what's left? It feels liberating, but it’s quite chilling at the same time. 

WE NEED TO FIND HOW THE GOSPEL GIVES ONE THAT—HOW RECEIVING AN IDENTITY FROM CHRIST, NOT PREDICATED ON SOMETHING I DO OR SOMETHING I'VE CHOSEN BUT ON WHO HE HAS MADE ME, IS WONDERFULLY LIBERATING.

On the other hand, if you try to look within yourself and just find “you," well, where are you looking to? Our emotions, our desires, they change. Are they healthy? Are they good? How do I know whether that part that I'm finding is good, bad, or indifferent? 

Drawing out the implications in the book, I tried to explore that a bit, but not in an attacking way. And then, from a fair bit of study and reflection, I tried to identify what I think are the two dominant values that people are searching for. What's the good that they're after?

One is liberty; the other one is security. And, really, the interplay between those two late-modern and postmodern identity narratives are about the interplay between those two values. We want a source of identity that is liberating, not constrained. And we want a source of identity that gives us the security and foundations to navigate a challenging world. I believe these are God-given desires, liberty and security, because that's part of what our identity is in Christ. But in my book, I explore the way that those narratives seek after these values but don't ultimately achieve them.

Finally, we need to find how the gospel gives one that—how receiving an identity from Christ, not predicated on something I do or something I've chosen but on who he has made me, is wonderfully liberating. It's not the straitjacket that a lot of people, even Christians, think it is. But it also gives us marvelous security because it can't be taken away. If my name is written in heaven and secure, it can't be affected by things of this world. It can't be undone by something I do. And it gives me that thing that I'm really longing for. The gospel fulfills the desires of my identity.

BJO: It's easy to think the modern era was then, and the post-modern era is now. But what I hear you saying is that both of these traditions or trajectories are still operating in culture. That's part of the challenge of living in society at the moment—there are multiple and conflicting pressures and currents to wade through. As we're finding certain “currents” wanting, it's possible that others are finding our Christian current wanting as well. How do we engage this reality without being confrontational? 

PN: I think we should welcome it. Part of what should define the church community is a renewal dynamic—we should be doing it every day in our own personal walk with the Lord and every Sunday as we gather together. We first look to God and see how wonderful he is, and immediately we have a sense of our own humility and fallenness and sinfulness. We confess that and receive forgiveness. We receive the gospel that renews us and helps us change. If that's the dynamic on a micro level, then what's going on here is the culture may well be pointing out sins, idolatries, and dispositions that need to be repented of—that's got to be welcomed and encouraged, not defended.

PART OF WHAT SHOULD DEFINE THE CHURCH COMMUNITY IS A RENEWAL DYNAMIC—WE SHOULD BE DOING IT EVERY DAY IN OUR OWN PERSONAL WALK WITH THE LORD AND EVERY SUNDAY AS WE GATHER TOGETHER.

It doesn't mean that everything the culture says is true and accepted. It just means our disposition ought to be where we say, "I want to start by listening to you and seeing what's good about that, what's right, and where I might need to change." 

For example, take identity again. I think for a long time the church has confused the gospel identity—which is liberating and secure—with a traditional identity—which is straitjacketed. So, what a lot of people have experienced in this vital area of identity is constraint, and they're rebelling against that. I think we need to own that, acknowledge it, and apologize for it. But you can only arrive at that place if you've looked in the mirror and actually listened to the culture—listened to what they've been saying about you and had the humility to take it. That renewal dynamic is key, rather than taking a fighting stance.

BJO: How can pastors improve the ways they carry these discussions and disciple the people in their care?

PN: One general way is that we should be the local church and therefore listen to people in the locality—spend some time in your community, listen to them. I think sometimes these cultural debates about critical theory or racial justice are at such a macro level, they can be too big and intimidating. Who can engage with that? But if it's just starting a conversation with your neighbors and your community about how it impacts them, we can all do that. I think it’s opening up your doors, opening up your homes, having those conversations, and fostering listening. 

I think the other thing is to recognize not every pastor has to be an apologist. I wrote A Place for God primarily for people who aren't Christians. I also wrote it for Christians to give to people who aren't Christians. I also wrote it partly for Christians and pastors to help them in conversations with non-Christians. It’s supposed to be an aid and a help to people, just as I've been aided and helped by others.

BJO: It seems like there could be a risk in high-level cultural analysis that informs our preaching and discipleship if the analysis is appropriate to a global city but not to a nearby smaller city. Those in the latter situation may think, “I need to engage these major cultural trends,” but those trends may not be the ones that are primarily influential where they serve. 

PN: You're right. The listening I’ve been talking about primarily needs to happen in concentric circles. Listen locally, and then have an idea of what's going on regionally and nationally. Global cities like London or New York are often ahead of the curve, but our modern world is so interconnected, those ideas are coming down the pipe for smaller cities. Hopefully, seeing it play out in larger, global cities provides a sort of preparation. So, I think one of the privileges of ministering in a city like London is I can write a book like A Place for God that has resonance in other large cities but may take a couple of years to have resonance in non-urban contexts. 

LISTEN LOCALLY, AND THEN HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT'S GOING ON REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY.

What’s more, reflecting on a wider cultural problem or idea can give you a particular insight into your own situation precisely because it's different. If I'm thinking about identity, and I'm not hearing people in my village talk about just wanting to find themselves or wanting to be whatever they want to be, it might cause me to recognize that what I am hearing is more traditional and that it's an identity narrative as well. The same gospel applies to both situations. It's the same liberating, secure gospel that speaks to and challenges and redeems that as well. 

BJO: Speaking from the U.S. perspective, there is a tendency to reject secular scholarship about human behavior or cognitive development because it is a secular project. But I wonder to what extent it could be helpful to think of it as an effort to read or exegete the book of creation—the book of nature. What are your thoughts on that?

PN: That’s a helpful point. I think the secular project is a lot closer to the Christian project than we care to admit, largely because it contains a lot of things like humanism. Humanism is a Christian concept; it’s the idea that humanity is extremely important and dignified and has reasonable faculties that can make huge progress. Well, that's Christianity, right? 

Then it gets unmoored or divorced from its foundations, and it flies off and becomes a distorted thing. But it originally comes from Christian thinking. You can think of words like Renaissance—rebirth. It sounds very Christian to me, and when you dig into it, you see Christian dynamics. Those dynamics remain, they're just secularized. So, there's a lot of similarity and crossover. 

Also, the idea of looking carefully at creation and discerning truth from it that can be applied to life is Christian. So, again, I think all truth is God's truth. We don't need to be threatened by that. But all truth that's not received directly from the revelation of scripture also needs to be looked at carefully and evaluated and tested and renewed. There will be no area of thought outside of the Bible that is perfect.

This is something I’m really passionate about: helping the gospel renew all areas of life. I think that's a really important conversation for us to have. When people see that type of conversation going on, it excites their interest that Christianity has got something that makes a real difference in their lives. It becomes attractive and adorns the gospel.

(This post first appeared on the Redeemer City to City website)