An effect of an imbalance between sin & the image of God
April 18, 2009
A few months ago, I spent some time reflecting on how we can do damage to each other as human beings when we fail to stress both the goodness of God’s creation of humanity in the first place and the fact that “in Adam” we all fall short of God’s glory.
One danger is in over-emphasizing the reality that God created us, in his image, out of his own goodness, and that we, inherently, bear a degree of God’s “likeness” simply because we exist. In reality, this is who we are “by nature,” before sin entered the world and devastated everything. But, if we don’t balance this with our propensity to sin because we are sinners, then the “good news” (gospel) that Jesus entered into the world to fix the problem of humanity, makes no sense. If there is no problem, then the world (and we as part of the world) doesn’t need Jesus. He came simply as another human example of goodness (the height of which none of us will ever rise to).
But, the opposite danger is in over-emphasizing sin at the expense of the image of God – which is not simply a “trait” that humans possess, but rather is stamped on us (in us?) as part of our identity. This can easily result in speaking in ways of other human beings that is truly dehumanizing. This, I believe, is the root of a lot of the judgmentalism that has come to define certain groups of Christians in the West. It’s a quickness to point out the faults in others while not so quickly admitting our own. “Total depravity” thus means primarily “you suck” rather than meaning what the doctrine originally meant, that everything has been distorted by the power of sin.
What got me thinking about this again are the different ways that people in general (and Christians, in particular) respond to others whom a society has deemed the “lower class” (the poor, the sick, etc.).
This is a great sermon from Tim Keller on how the Jewish & Christian belief about the image of God led to contemporary ideas about human rights: “In the Image of God”
I’m sure this is generalizing, but it seems to me that those who tend to stress much more often that we are sinners are those who tend to put less emphasis on our treatment of “the poor”; each individual is responsible for himself. So, if someone is in a desperate situation, they did something to deserve it (or, even if there is no direct correlation, they’re still a sinner), so they need to get themselves out of it. We don’t deserve anything good from anyone anyway, so they’re just feeling the effects of the fall.
On the flipside, those who put a lot more stress on the image of God are those who believe that we all, in some sense, bear responsibility for each other. But, the extreme here is a form of socialism, where we each end up losing our sense of individuality/uniqueness and dignity. (These categories could fall into “left” and “right,” or “conservative” and “liberal,” but I’m sure the labeling is not truly getting to the heart of the issue.)
For me, this very convicting to consider. I have to ask myself questions like, “When I see someone different than me, in a ‘worse’ situation than I am in, what is my response?” “Do I get angry that someone, who bears some likeness to the God that I say I love, asks me for my help?” “Can I look someone in the eye and degrade them and still say I follow Jesus, who gave his life for those who hated him?” Or, “Do I feel burdened by thinking that I am the solution to all of the problems in the world?” “Do I think that I am anyone’s savior?”
This really is a gospel question. If we “get” the gospel, what does that do to how we treat all people, regardless of social or economic status, race, etc.? Are we afraid that people will walk all over us? What of the flipside, if our response to those in need is one of anger or belittling, do we actually get the gospel?
How do we lovingly balance these two seemingly contradictory ideas? We all know the dangers of both extremes, but what does it look like to take up our cross and follow the Suffering Servant, Jesus the Christ?
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Mt. 25:35-40)
April 20, 2009 at 3:35 am
My problem is where is the boundary where empathizing and helping others carry their cross become being used and taken advantage of? And would Jesus distinguish the two? Would he set boundaries?
April 21, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I think there is also another question to ask here: Am I an American who loves money and hard work more than mercy? I think our evangelical outlook on the poor is not only because of our flawed anthropology. It may also be because of our greedy hearts and underlying belief that God rewards those who word reeeeeeally hard.