As we continue in Genesis, we see the second big issue that we have to face for a Biblical doctrine of anthropology. (Again, I'm using "anthropology" in its theological, not scientific, definition.) Chapter 3 unfolds the saddest story in human history: the Fall. Adam and Eve were created good, in the image of God, and given just one command to obey. Yet enticed by the temptation of the serpent, first Eve, then Adam violated that command. They did get what the serpent promised, a knowledge of good and evil, but only by engaging in evil themselves.
The result of Adam's choice was the entry of sin into the world, not only for Adam and Eve but for all of humanity. Paul deals with this in 1 Corinthians 15, where he compares the arrival of sin through the first Adam with the arrival of redemption through Jesus, the "second Adam." Sin permeates all of humanity, and as a result all people are guided by a fallen, sinful, selfish nature that must be reborn to be made right with God.
Modern culture tells us that people are all basically good, and that if we only provide the right education, finances, and opportunity people will behave properly and do what is right. The inner drive of humanity, according to this view, is to be good and to do right. We are good, and only become evil when we are deprived of what we need materially, emotionally, and spiritually, so if we make the world a better place all evil will end.
Here we can rely on empirical observation. As we see the news, read the headlines, and observe our family members, colleagues, and friends, which do we see people drawn to: doing what is right or wrong? Do people, knowing that certain behavior is destructive for them physically, mentally, and relationally, then refuse to engage in that behavior? Which do you have to teach a new baby to do: be good, share, and cooperate, or be selfish, rebellious, and self-centered? If we are honest, our observations show us that people are, at their very core, evil.
That's why there are laws, rules, and governments. Evil must be restrained. Good must be promoted. We won't do the right thing unless we are taught it and sanctioned for doing the opposite. Evil somehow manages to thrive despite all attempts to restrain it, demonstrating just how ingrained it is in the human heart.
Which view you hold on this issue sways what you believe about the need for God. If we really are good and can perfect ourselves, we have no need for any god, since we are effectively god to ourselves. But if we see our own corruption and selfishness, we will recognize that we need something bigger than us, even bigger than all of humanity, to change us and make us the good we want to be.
Unfortunately, the dismissal of the divine does not tend to make people better, but worse. This aligns with what we see in human behavior. It also underscores a need to seek for something beyond us which can bring about the kind of change we need personally and societally to make the world a better place.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Monday, September 10, 2018
The first problem with modern anthropology
Let me start by saying that here I'm using "anthropology" in its theological sense, rather than as the name of a discipline. Anthropology in theology is the doctrine of man. You could argue that those without a belief in some sort of god have no theological anthropology, but every worldview has some basic belief about humanity and the nature of humankind. Therefore, we need to examine if a belief system's anthropology aligns with what we see in the world.
I've been teaching the beginning of Genesis to the children in our children's church program at my home church. Chapters 1- 3 spend time explaining the nature of humanity, and there are two points that are made. On each of these points, Biblical teaching diverges from modern thought. In each case, I believe that the Biblical view is more concordant with reality than the modern viewpoint.
The first of these is first laid out in Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; )male and female he created them." Chapter 2 fleshes out the actual creation of man and woman, and the commission given to them by God. Theologians have argued for centuries over the exact meaning of the imago Dei, but all generally agree it has to do with a qualitative difference between humanity and the rest of creation. It includes rationality, self-awareness, and moral/ethical reasoning.
Modern anthropology sees humanity as just another animal, perhaps more advanced in its cognitive function but certainly no different than the rest of the animal kingdom (at least; some argue humanity is no more significant than plants, microbes, or even non-living things). If you start from an atheistic perspective, this follows logically. If everything evolved from nothing in a completely random, undirected fashion, in which the survivors were the lucky ones who were fortuitously adapted to conditions, then humanity isn't so much advanced as just differently endowed by nature.
From that viewpoint, the concepts of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and even eugenics (of a mild or radical stripe) make perfect sense. If every person is not qualitatively distinct from animals, they don't deserve special protection and eliminating them can even be considered ethical in that those who consume resources while contributing little to society are a liability rather than an asset.
From a Christian viewpoint, if every person is created in the image of God, then everyone, no matter what their condition, is qualitatively distinct from animals. If that is the case, killing the inconvenient, the weak, and the "defective" cannot be justified. Every person deserves life, respect, and the opportunity to live life to the fullest extent possible.
I work with children, teens, and young adults with various special needs. To the world, these people are expendable. Some of my students will never leave a wheelchair; some will never communicate with other people; some exhibit behaviors that are societally disruptive. The way we handle those like my students reflects our view of humanity, both theirs and ours. My greatest fear is that someday bioethicists like Peter Singer will find a society conducive to their thought, and children like my students will be "allowed to die with dignity" without any choice on their part. (Don't dismiss this lightly; it's already happened, if only to a limited extent, in places like Nazi Germany and Communist China.)
Most people recoil from such thinking. There is something, I believe something innate, that tells us to value the weak, the sick, the poor, and the "special." Most of us hold to some form of belief in the uniqueness of humanity, even to some form of imago Dei, that prevents us from wanting to harm or kill those who are less than perfectly able to adapt to society. In our hearts and minds, we recognize that the Biblical view of humanity is closer to reality than the modern view; even if we don't believe the Bible itself, we recognize it holds wisdom on this issue.
A belief in the uniqueness of humanity is an "expensive" belief. It doesn't just cost us in money, but in time, effort, and resources to meet the needs of those who cannot fend for themselves. Yet to hold to the opposite belief is also expensive; it costs us our own uniqueness and place in the university, as well as disturbing our instinctive altruism. It also keeps a question alive in our minds: "What happens when society no longer values me?" (Those who propose the elimination of those who lack "quality of life" often assume that they themselves have enough to warrant continued existence.) In the end, the question is what price we as people want to pay for our belief in the nature of our own humanity, and the Biblical view more closely aligns with what we believe about our own selves.
I've been teaching the beginning of Genesis to the children in our children's church program at my home church. Chapters 1- 3 spend time explaining the nature of humanity, and there are two points that are made. On each of these points, Biblical teaching diverges from modern thought. In each case, I believe that the Biblical view is more concordant with reality than the modern viewpoint.
The first of these is first laid out in Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; )male and female he created them." Chapter 2 fleshes out the actual creation of man and woman, and the commission given to them by God. Theologians have argued for centuries over the exact meaning of the imago Dei, but all generally agree it has to do with a qualitative difference between humanity and the rest of creation. It includes rationality, self-awareness, and moral/ethical reasoning.
Modern anthropology sees humanity as just another animal, perhaps more advanced in its cognitive function but certainly no different than the rest of the animal kingdom (at least; some argue humanity is no more significant than plants, microbes, or even non-living things). If you start from an atheistic perspective, this follows logically. If everything evolved from nothing in a completely random, undirected fashion, in which the survivors were the lucky ones who were fortuitously adapted to conditions, then humanity isn't so much advanced as just differently endowed by nature.
From that viewpoint, the concepts of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and even eugenics (of a mild or radical stripe) make perfect sense. If every person is not qualitatively distinct from animals, they don't deserve special protection and eliminating them can even be considered ethical in that those who consume resources while contributing little to society are a liability rather than an asset.
From a Christian viewpoint, if every person is created in the image of God, then everyone, no matter what their condition, is qualitatively distinct from animals. If that is the case, killing the inconvenient, the weak, and the "defective" cannot be justified. Every person deserves life, respect, and the opportunity to live life to the fullest extent possible.
I work with children, teens, and young adults with various special needs. To the world, these people are expendable. Some of my students will never leave a wheelchair; some will never communicate with other people; some exhibit behaviors that are societally disruptive. The way we handle those like my students reflects our view of humanity, both theirs and ours. My greatest fear is that someday bioethicists like Peter Singer will find a society conducive to their thought, and children like my students will be "allowed to die with dignity" without any choice on their part. (Don't dismiss this lightly; it's already happened, if only to a limited extent, in places like Nazi Germany and Communist China.)
Most people recoil from such thinking. There is something, I believe something innate, that tells us to value the weak, the sick, the poor, and the "special." Most of us hold to some form of belief in the uniqueness of humanity, even to some form of imago Dei, that prevents us from wanting to harm or kill those who are less than perfectly able to adapt to society. In our hearts and minds, we recognize that the Biblical view of humanity is closer to reality than the modern view; even if we don't believe the Bible itself, we recognize it holds wisdom on this issue.
A belief in the uniqueness of humanity is an "expensive" belief. It doesn't just cost us in money, but in time, effort, and resources to meet the needs of those who cannot fend for themselves. Yet to hold to the opposite belief is also expensive; it costs us our own uniqueness and place in the university, as well as disturbing our instinctive altruism. It also keeps a question alive in our minds: "What happens when society no longer values me?" (Those who propose the elimination of those who lack "quality of life" often assume that they themselves have enough to warrant continued existence.) In the end, the question is what price we as people want to pay for our belief in the nature of our own humanity, and the Biblical view more closely aligns with what we believe about our own selves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)