Review Reports - A Foreign People: Towards a Holistic Identity Theory within a Christian Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I really enjoyed reading this. The comments are indicative of the depth at which you made me reflect critically

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The comments and suggestions that were added to the pdf-manuscript are appreciated.

Since not all of the comments seem to be equally important and the review was generally positive, I here list the improvements made that were based on some of the suggestions in the comments:

In reference to African people that are converted, “their epistemology” was indeed changed to “a epistemology”.
Regarding the comment about “undisclosed” that should be changed. Indeed so. This will be done in the final version. References to myself were marked with “undisclosed” as per the requirement to anonymise the proposed article.
The different contexts of the three letters have been further highlighted.
Regarding the comment about who were exiled has been further clarified not to be confined to Christians.
The work of Mbuvi has been added in a footnote in reference to the “New Exodus”. Mbuvi has also been engaged elsewhere in the manuscript.
The Johannine material has been removed from the main text and added in a footnote as something to be further explored.
Changes to the anonymized manuscript have been marked with yellow highlighting.

I hope these changes are found to be in order.

Reviewer 2 Report

If I understand the author correctly, the fundamental argument of the article is that Christian identity cannot be reduced to a mere social construct, which is an inherently reductionist idea and tacitly assumes a worldview in which all such phenomenon must be explained in mundane, so-called “naturalistic” ways. I find this to be a legitimate point and worthy of exploration. The following comments are offered for consideration to strengthen the article’s argumentation.

· The article contains several grammatical and syntactical issues; these issues could be fixed by thorough copyediting.

· Although I understand that the relevant secondary literature to which the author points use the categories of “natural” and “supernatural,” in terms of biblical scholarship these categories are quite problematic, since in the general sociohistorical context of the NT, the earthly and celestial spheres were thought to overlapped and were understood more in terms of a spectrum than in a sharp dualistic fashion connoted by this terminology—as the author her/himself otherwise describes. Indeed, one might ask, if God does something, isn’t it “natural”?

· This concern also touches on the sharp distinction between “social” and “divine.” I think it is certainly fair to understand Christian identity as having both “horizontal” and “vertical” dimensions to it. But even here these categories overlap considerably since, according to a good portion of NT teaching (along with clearly that of the Hebrew Scriptures), what God requires from God’s people is inextricably connected to how God’s people related to one another and the rest of the world.

· Pointing to texts that demonstrate Christ followers are called by God and set apart from the rest of the world does not then indicate that their identity isn’t socially relevant. While the author does in fact maintain a place for the social aspects of Christian identity, I am not sure I follow the logic in an assertion that contrasts “divine” and “social” qualities of identity, since the very idea that Christ followers must remain ethically and confessionally distinct from others by virtue of their allegiance to Christ is itself a social implication of their identity.

· The author rightfully concedes that the oppositional language in the Gospel of John regarding the “world” does not indicate a wholly sectarian stance for the Christ community. However, even if it did, this would still represent a social dimension of the phenomenon of identity.

· To say that Christian identity is given by God still requires an explanation of how this identity functions within the social sphere; explanation that is provided by the biblical authors so that their auditors understand the practical implications of this identity in terms of said relationships. Lived experiences of the community would likewise contribute to the shaping of this identity. Thus, that this identity is in an important sense socially constructed does not ipso facto mean that it is therefore not given by God; an idea that the author seemingly likewise concedes.

· Because God may ultimately be responsible for something does not itself suggest that he cannot utilize human agents or other “naturalistic” forces in realizing or developing it (which would again import a dualism that is largely foreign to the biblical authors). This is where SIT and SCT become helpful in clarifying such dynamics. The use of these social psychological theories is not necessarily at the expense of recognizing the origination or vertical dimension of Christian identity in so far as, e.g., Paul understands God’s intervention vis-à-vis the Christ event and the coming of the Spirit as central to what it means to possess “in Christ” identity.

· The author needs to better recognize and distinguish scholarship that employs social theories more modestly rather than as all-encompassing, reductionist descriptions of the phenomenon of identity. Many scholars working in this area use social theory as merely one explanatory tool, much like the author seemingly does.

· Notwithstanding the work of Johnson Hodge, Kimber Buell, and others concerning ethnic reasoning in the development of Christian identity, that this identity ultimately transcends ethnic affiliations and is not to be equated with one is a standard observation made by many scholars working in social identity. That is, in the view of many such scholars, “in Christ” identity is not understood by the biblical authors in terms of an ethnicity or a “third race,” even if members of the Christ movement also possess salient, however subordinate, ethnic affiliations.

· In terms of epistemology, regardless of whether scholars themselves affirm the theological realities surrounding Christian identity, I believe most hold that the biblical authors did so and that this is quite relevant for how these authors understood this identity. What then is the practical difference? In my view, that wasn’t satisfactorily explained in the article.

· The author seems to assume a certain dualism pertaining to Christ followers’ relationship to heaven and earth, ostensibly presuming that references to this “world” in the texts cited have to do with the physical world itself, rather than the present state of it (cf. Gal 1:4). This is ironic, given the author’s eschewing of Western epistemic sensibilities being imposed on the biblical text. Such dualistic reasoning, a common feature of Western thought, seems to pervade much of the article (as noted above and further below).

· The idea of heavenly citizenship has, in my view, nothing to do with Christ followers leaving or rejecting earth for a better place (i.e., heaven), but anticipating, rather, the age to come, in which God’s kingdom (along with God’s king) comes from heaven to earth (Matt 6:10).

· There also seems to be here an assumption that nothing survives the transition from the present age to the age to come, and thus that one’s Christian identity is all that matters. I would humbly push back on this assumption and suggest that for the biblical writers, all that accords with God’s good purposes in the original creation is preserved, and thus that many other subordinate identities (e.g., ethnicity, gender) remain relevant both now and eternally for Christ followers.

· In other words, it is sin and death that is eradicated in the age to come, but not fundamentally the many other aspects of the world in which Christ followers necessarily live; indeed, the renewal of the imago dei in Christ would indicate that human beings can, in the age to come, finally live in the way God intended on a renewed earth where God’s purposes are finally restored. In any case, such arguments have been made in the relevant scholarship, and the author would do well to engage them.

· Though it is perhaps a more minor point, some recent scholarship suggests that politeuma refers to a social network and doesn’t necessarily contain political implications (see esp. R. Korner, Ekklesia [2017).

· The author makes several claims regarding Philippians that have been challenged in recent scholarship. I would recommend that s/he consult C. Zoccali, Reading Philippians [2017], and/or the 2023 article by the same author published in Religions that is an abbreviated form of the argument of that book.

· Since Paul clearly does not disavow honor seeking (e.g., Rom 5:2; Phil 2:16, etc.) but rather redefines how it is gained, it is difficult to sympathize with the author’s claim that Christians’ heavenly citizenship precludes the longing for honor on earth.

· The author would also do well to consult L. Windsor’s 2017 work on Ephesians.

· The article does not touch in any significant way on how the language of being called by God and being separate from the “world” is not a new concept but is grounded in the similar calling of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures. This may further complicate the divide between God-given and socially-constructed identities.

The article contains several grammatical issues that require correction.

Author Response

The critical comments and implied suggestions are much appreciated.

Since many of the remarks were general in nature and not necessarily confined to specific points (although some were), the response here will mostly be general, aiming to address the gist of most of the critique. If I correctly understand the latter, it mainly lies on the level of (1) the divide between naturalism and supernaturalism and (2) the idea that the Christian identity would not involve a social dimension.

Regarding the comment about the overlap between the natural and the supernatural: This contrast has been qualified in a less antithetical way, especially in the section about the epistemologies of naturalism and supernaturalism. This qualification is also intended to addresses a later comment about God using natural forces, by implication. Although not argued in the article itself, my frame of reference is on the level of the ontological distinction between God and people (over against pantheism or panentheism), which implies that the human/social sphere is distinct from the divine sphere, although they interact and stand in a certain relationship. I do acknowledge, however, that I might differ in some respects about the nature of the worldview of the biblical writers.
Regarding the comment about the connection of God’s requirements from people with how people relate to one another: This comment is well taken and further highlighted in the manuscript, especially in the conclusion. I am not arguing against a social dimension in the Christian identity, but against an identity that is confined to the social realm. I added a statement at the end of the section on Ephesians 2 that highlights the intricate relationship between divine and social aspects of the Christian identity.
I also attempted to clarify how the Christian identity relates to the social domain, especially in the conclusion.
I did emphasise the notion that there are scholars who indeed use SIT or SICT as explanatory tools while acknowledging a divine aspect in identity. I also added a statement in the conclusion in which I state that scholars using social identity theories do accommodate a divine aspect of identity.
I did clarify and explain Keown’s interpretation of his statement about citizenship that precludes the longing for honour. I also added in a footnote that Paul does encourage boasting and qualified how he perceives boasting.
I appreciate the suggestions of looking into Scholars such as Zocalli and Windsor who advance the idea of a superordinate social identity, an idea that I engage elsewhere in other publications.
I entirely reworked the last part of my conclusion to hopefully address most of the concerns.
Changes to the anonymized manuscript have been marked with yellow highlighting.

I hope these improvements are found to be in order.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the article “A Foreign People: Towards a Holistic Identity Theory Within a

Christian Context,” the author argues that social identity complexity theories (SICT) may not fully account for the identity formation of the Christian communities by NT authors. Categorising Christian identity as social is inadequate to account for the Christian identity formation witnessed in the NT (p.2, 8). Through his exegesis of some verses in 1 Peter, Philippians and Ephesians, the author argues that there are some divine elements in the supernaturalistic epistemology on which NT authors constructed Christian identity, and these elements go beyond the social sphere and so cannot be fully described merely by SIT and SICT. In his words, probably the central thesis of this article,

The idea of being foreigners to society, which is especially evident in 1 Peter 1:1 and 2:11, can be interpreted as a sense of identity that is not constructed in relation to the social structures of society but an identity that is received from being born into God’s family, which in fact stands in opposition to both the structures (e.g., Roman citizenship) and the moral values of society. (p.8)

The author’s thesis is intriguing. There are several areas, however, that make me deem the thesis unconvincing:

1. The thesis concerning social VS supernatural may be a false dichotomy regarding SIT or SICT studies. Though classified as social psychology, modern SIT also inquires about religious identities and took beliefs and divine elements that the religious community upholds into consideration. The modern study includes the religious identity dynamics of Christians, Jews and Muslims in Europe, particularly how their sacred texts shape their identity. Social identity analysis does not preclude divine elements of the belief systems of a religious group in their identity formation. See the works on religious groups of Daniel Bar-Tal.

2. Concerning NT contexts: as the author rightly pointed out, supernaturalistic epistemologies are part of 1^st-century cultures, like African cultures (p.2). Then it implies that the social analysis of religious groups, including Christ-following communities, also includes divine elements as in other gods-worshipping associations in antiquity. The author needs to point out the difference between “identity as gifts from God” in NT and the religious group identity of gods worship in antiquity. Do other religious groups never appeal to terms like ‘foreign or alien identity in heavens’ comparable with the NT texts that the author engages?

3. Concerning NT exegesis, coming to the reading of the several selected texts, I expect to find a specific biblical interpretation approach that supports his arguments from Greek exegesis: historical? Socio-rhetorical? Literary? Postcolonial? Etc. The present works sound like “scholars say so” lecture notes and do not show adequate reasons why the author himself concurs with those scholars’ interpretations. For instance, in interpreting Phil 3.20 with an honor-shame framework ( it is social analysis!), the author claims that in Phil. 3 “Paul’s statement here can be seen as ‘deeply offensive and ironical.” (p.6) Why is the first audience be shamed instead of being encouraged by Paul by utilising their cultural honour values to do good-to-best rhetoric of pursuing spiritual things? What are the author’s reasonings for this ‘shame’ conclusion?

4. The author’s conclusion on NT exegesis somewhat disprove his thesis. He shows that supernatural elements overlap with social identity formation as a social comparison of differentiating them from surrounding social norms (e.g., the end of section 3.1). The exegesis on Eph 2.11 in section 3.3 also shows the social constitution of Christ-following identity rather than some identity formation rhetoric beyond social analysis’s limits. Section 3.4 is a proof-text quote of other NT texts, without argument, to support the author’s notion.

My suggestions:

1. I suggest the author do more comprehensive research on SIT that handles non-social or supernatural elements, such as spatial theory and how it encompasses “heavens” ,“other-worldly” or “ascension” etc divine / God’s gift elements in NT as social identity rhetoric. It may start first with Eric Stewart’s (2012) article “New Testament Sace/Spatiality” and Matthew Sleeman’s book (2009) Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts (SNTSMS 146). Furthermore, John Barclay’s work Paul and the Gift, Paul’s language of the gift of God, or other God talks, should be understood in light of the ancient notions of gift or patron-client giver-receiver social dynamic.

2. Pointing out the inadequacy of SI commentary (like 2 Corinthians by Philip Esler or Romans by William Campbell) in handling God-talk or supernatural gifts of God in Christian identity textual discourse may help more in building up your notion: limits of social identity analysis in explaining Christian identity formation.

3. Check formats in References, which must be at least one italic in each citation for book or journal names. For instance, #8, 10, and 17 book names should be italicised.

Author Response

The critical comments and implied suggestions are much appreciated.

Regarding the four points of critique:

I have further clarified that I am not arguing against a social dimension in the Christian identity, but against a perception of identity that is confined to the social realm. I added a statement at the end of the section on Ephesians 2 that highlights the intricate relationship between divine and social aspects of the Christian identity as well as other statements that the Christian identity indeed involves a social aspect of identity. I also tried to clarify how the Christian identity relates to the social domain, especially in the conclusion. I did emphasise the notion that there are scholars who indeed use SIT or SICT as explanatory tools while acknowledging a divine aspect in identity. I also added a statement in the conclusion to this effect. Most of the latter part of my conclusion was reworked to hopefully address most of the concerns here.
When mentioning identity in African cultures, I added as statement that a perceived divine element in identity is not confined to the Christian identity.
If I understand the critique correctly here, the critique lies on the level of methodology in that I seem to critique SIT/SICT yet use the social sciences myself in my interpretation. Since I have highlighted that there are scholars who use SIT do acknowledge a divine element in identity and that I am not arguing against SIT/SICT per se, I believe that I indirectly addressed the concern here. In other words, I do not argue against to use of social sciences in interpretation, including myself. Regarding the remark about the shame conclusion, I have further elaborated and qualified what is understood by the shame in Phil 3.
I have highlighted the social aspect of the Christian identity and in fact added a statement at the end of my discussion of Ephesians 2 that this passage exemplifies the intricate relation between social and divine aspects of identity. I am not arguing against the social aspects of the Christan identity, but approaches that see identity (solely) as a social construction of the biblical author. I did remove the section about the Johannine literature and moved it to a footnote in abbreviated form as something to be “further explored.”

Regarding the suggestions:

I have further accentuated the idea that scholars using social identity theories would accommodate a divine elements/aspects in identity, especially in the conclusion. The suggested works here are appreciated as background information.
Point well taken. The suggested sources are appreciated. I have incorporated these works of Esler and Campbell here, especially in terms of their view that Paul constructed a social identity and acted as social entrepreneur. In my view, they do, in fact, strengthen my argument.
Yes indeed. I see that they were italicized in the original version but somehow were de-italicized in the pdf that was created on site.

Changes to the anonymized manuscript have been marked with yellow highlighting.

I hope these changes are found to be in order.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the author has satisfactorily revised the article for publication.

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for valuable input.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable input once again.

The sections on 1 Peter 2:11 and Phil 3:20 have substantially been reworked or further qualified. I hope these changes are satisfactory.

Regarding the numbering, I did check again. The numbering looks right as it stands. There is no 3.1.1. It is 3.1, but it looks like 3.1.1., because 3.1. is followed by "1 Peter".

New changes are again highlighted in yellow.

I hope that the changes are in order.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Good revisions in terms of the author's own exegesis of the text and are confirmed by other recent scholars' works.

Minor English changes in p.8 "idea of heavenly citizenship if most if not all of them....."