Intro
Recently, Carolyn and I did something I don’t think we’ve ever done before: we went to a musical. If you know me, you’ll know that musicals are just not my jam. Not my thing. It’s kind of like how I feel about abstract art. I look at it and say, why couldn’t you just paint the thing that you saw? Like just paint it like it is, you know? I don’t know what this is, is it supposed to be a horse? A series of triangles? An imitation of a five year old’s artwork? I just don’t get it. That’s somewhat my response to musicals.. Nobody sings what they say in real life, and they generally don’t repeat it 16 times while jumping up and down and doing pirouettes. Just talk like a normal person! Some of you are looking down at me. It’s just the way I think! But this musical was awesome! It was Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat, a very modernized retelling of the Joseph story from the book of Genesis. I confess that I would even pay to see the musical again.
The point here is that there was a line in the theme song that grabbed me. For most people it was probably a quick throwaway line, but it hit me. Five simple words: you are what you feel. That’s what was sung. You are what you feel. Five simple words, but you put them together, and it is the mantra, the motto, for our contemporary world.
Those words resonated with me because I have been reading an incredible new book by Nancy Pearcey called “Love Thy Body”. She goes through all kinds of huge cultural issues like euthanasia, abortion, gender, and sex, and shows how a common thread runs through them all. Here is the thread: our culture has separated human nature into two levels, like a two story house. The “bottom level” is the physical, objective facts of our existence. Our material bodies fit in here. The “upper level” is the more subjective stuff. It’s our values and feelings and emotions and so on. And what our culture has done is to say that in terms of identity, the upper level is all that really counts. This is who you are, and the bottom level stuff has little to no say about identity. A lot of this is driven by an emphasis on radical individual freedom. We don’t want anyone or anything to tell us who we are or how we are to live. We are our own people. We don’t want to fit into the boxes our culture, or our biology, or even God Himself, imposes on us. Again, it’s all about the upper story because that’s in our power to shape.
There are a couple of issues with this, though, as far as I can see. First off, it seems to me that the idea of radical individual freedom is an illusion. That’s because you are always subject to cultural forces and influences. Here’s an example. It’s a thought experiment from the pastor and author Tim Keller. Imagine a Viking in the 11th century who has two powerful impulses: one, an impulse to kill and destroy, and two, a sexual attraction to men. In that culture, he will be encouraged to be true to the one impulse- to kill and destroy. He’s a warrior, a viking! This is what they do. But his culture will teach him to repress the second He is not to be “true” to that. Then imagine a 21st century Manhattanite with the same two impulses. In this case, his culture tells him that one impulse is the “real” him- the sexual attraction- and that he is to be true to that. However, he will be told to repress the other impulse, the impulse to kill. The point is, no matter how much we pursue freedom, cultural forces still strongly direct us to be true to some feelings and not to others. Total individual freedom is an illusion.
The other issue I see is that basing your identity on how you feel- to say “I am what I feel like I am”- is incredibly unstable. That’s because how you feel changes from day to day and even moment to moment. It’s always shifting, always changing. There’s no solid ground. We’ve all experienced some strong negative feeling one day, and the next day we think “I wasn’t thinking clearly, that wasn’t really me”. It’s no wonder so many people today are confused about who they are. It’s no wonder there’s so much anxiety in our world today, because we’ve based our identities on something so unsteady.
To repeat a theme we’ve touched on throughout this series, the lens through which we see the world in Western culture is smudged. Our culture is experiencing a crisis in all kinds of ways, including in how we think about humanity in general. This morning, let’s look at human nature through the lens of a passage in Genesis 1. What I’ve found is that the vision here is good, it’s true, and it’s compelling.
1. Created by God
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Genesis 1:26-28
There are three major affirmations here that we need to talk about. The first is that humans are created by God. In the ancient world, the idea that the divine is the source of human creation is not controversial at all. Everybody believed that.There were plenty of stories about the gods making humans. In one, a god fashions humans from clay on a potter’s wheel. In another, humans are formed from the blood of a demon god. That sounds like it could have been the plot for a great blockbuster horror movie in Mesopotamia, 3rd millennium B.C. However, in contrast to all of these, Genesis 1 says that humans were made by the one true God, the God who also made the heavens and the earth and everything in them. Those other ancient stories also said that the gods made humans essentially as a slave labor force to do the work they themselves didn’t want to do. Genesis, again, is very different. Here, God makes humans and blesses them. He cares for them. They’re not there to provide Him with stuff, because He doesn’t need anything. Instead, they are His crowning achievement. Mark Twain had a funny line. He said that God made humans at the end of his work week, when he was tired. The implication is that humans aren’t His best work. But that’s not Genesis 1. Genesis 1 has humans as the climax of God’s creating work. Genesis 1 concludes the seventh day by declaring that it wasn’t just good, it was very good. Again, some significant differences with the competing narratives of the day.
In our modern Western world, the competing narrative is not that other gods created humans. Instead, the competing narrative is that nobody created humans. Humans are just an accident. Their lives have no real meaning or purpose. That’s the outcome of an evolutionary worldview. Here’s the quote from Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg: “it is almost irresistible (although false) for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes” (quoted in Christian Smith, Atheist Overreach, 92). Or similar, from famous director Woody Allen: “We live in a random universe and you’re living a meaningless life, and everything you create in your life or do is going to vanish, and the Earth will vanish and the sun will burn out and the universe will be gone.” I mean, isn’t that just the best news you’ve ever heard? Shout it out from the rooftops! You are a farcical outcome of a chain of accidents! Nothing you do matters! Just so lifegiving, you know? What’s interesting, though, is that there is an appeal in this to some people. If we’re just accidents, there is no meaning and purpose in life, and that means you can do whatever you want to do. There’s no divine accountability and no lasting consequences. It appeals to the desire for autonomy. But most of us, as Wienberg himself alludes to, have this basic sense that our lives should mean something. We want to know that we matter. We want to know that there is a direction our lives are supposed to take. People might not know what that is, but that’s what makes it even more frustrating for them. They just know it’s there, somewhere.
Genesis 1 is good news! It is compelling because it tells us that there is an Almighty God, a God of blessing, who made us. That means that we are loved, that we exist for a reason, and that He has made us with a certain intent and purpose. Our longing for meaning is based right here. God made us.
Now, we should touch on one other thing, something I mentioned in the first sermon in this series. I’ve said that the one God made us, but verse 26 has all these plurals. Let “us” make mankind in “our” image, in “our” likeness. Are we back to plural gods? No. As I said weeks ago, the Bible speaks of something like a heavenly court, an assembly of supernatural, spiritual beings who confer with God and carry out His decrees (eg. Psalm 82). It’s only God who can create, these other beings can’t do that. It seems that this image or likeness idea makes humans distinct from other creatures on earth, but it is shared by humans and these supernatural beings. Why? What is this image that joins humans and angels but not humans and creatures? That is affirmation number two.
2. In the Image of God
We read in Genesis 1:27 that God created humans in His image. This is the key. This is the essence of what it means to be human. However, people have disagreed about what this actually is. Many have believed that the image is some capability that humans have. For example, maybe it’s our ability to think rationally- which, judging by the way many people drive their vehicles, actually rules out most of humanity. Maybe it’s our ability to communicate with each other. Maybe it’s our free will, our ability to make decisions counter to our base impulses. Maybe it’s our capacity for relationship with God that sets us apart.
But think about that. If our status and worth is based on something we can do, what about humans who can’t do that thing? Michael Heiser, an Old Testament scholar, says if image-bearing is about some ability, like cognitive competence or capacity for communication, Bible-believing Christians should have no issue with ending a fetus’ life (Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 40-41). This is exactly the reasoning advanced by many advocates for abortion.
For example, Francis Crick might be a familiar name to you because he’s one of the scientists who discovered the double helix in DNA. He says “no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to life” (quoted in Nancy Pearcey, Love Thy Body, 54). An infant is not truly a human with rights and dignity unless it has certain endowments, unless it can pass certain tests. Peter Singer is the bioethics prof at Princeton University. Princeton, as in one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. He says that “the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal”. He recommends using humans instead of animals in medical experiments if animals have higher cognitive capacities (Pearcey, 103). Did I mention that he’s the bioethics prof from Princeton, not some dude blogging his rambling incoherent thoughts in his mom’s basement?
The basis for this thinking goes back to that two-storey view of humanity we talked about before. The lower story- the biological, objective facts- are deemed irrelevant to who we really are. It’s the upper story stuff- the cognitive abilities, the feelings and emotions, the values that we hold- that determines who we really are. If you don’t have those, you’re not really human. You don’t have the same value as those who do.
However, to go back to Genesis 1, the text doesn’t specify any ability connected with the image of God. That’s why people debate about it. And that’s because the image of God is not an ability, it is an identity. It is a status that is conferred on all human beings, without exception. Every human being, just by nature of being a human, has been created in the image of God. I love how Nancy Pearcey puts it:
“The pro-choice position is exclusive. It says that some people don’t measure up. They don’t make the cut. They don’t qualify for the rights of personhood…the pro-life position is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re in.”
Nancy Pearcey, Love Thy Body, 64
Do you value inclusivity? Believing that all humans are created in the image of God and have value and dignity because of it is as inclusive as it gets.
This has everything to do, by the way, with the concept of human rights. This is something that most people apparently believe. It’s enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, after all. But where does it come from? Where does this idea that all humans, everywhere, have equal dignity originate? Here’s Richard Rorty, an atheist who is not exactly a fan of Christian faith:
“Christianity gave rise to the concept of universal rights, derived from the conviction ‘that all human beings are created in the image of God.”
Richard Rorty, in Pearcey, Love Thy Body, 101
Thanks Richard, that was helpful! Why should I care, really, about atrocities on the other side of the world? They don’t impact me in any immediate way. Why should I do something about it? Why should I care about people who are not part of my family or my tribe? Many people, of course, do care, even if they’ve never heard of Genesis 1. But what’s the basis? Genesis 1 is the basis, and the confirmation of what many people intuitively sense: that to be human, in and of itself, is to have value and worth.
But there’s still a question here: what does it mean to be in the image of God, besides having value? Let’s talk about what the word image means in Hebrew. The basic meaning is a statue. As in, a wooden or stone statue, what we might call an idol. An image of a god in the ancient world was a statue that was a representative of that god. It was not a representation. It’s not that the statue was a snapshot of the god. It’s not that this was how the god physically looked. When we say that we are in the image of God, it doesn’t mean that God basically looks like a human being, only a lot bigger and more muscular and with a really long white beard- like a jacked up Santa Claus. An image is not a representation, but a representative of the god’s presence. Think about how an ambassador is a representative of the prime minister or president who sends them- that’s the idea. The statue was also believed to have the essence of the god in it. In some sense it had the life of that god within it. And it also meant- and this is the key piece- that the image, as a representative of the god, functioned as a ruler on behalf of that god.
This last piece, especially, is why there was a particular kind of person who could be referred to as an image of god in the ancient world: the king! The king in ancient times was sometimes referred to as the image of the god that he served. The king had an identity and function that nobody else had. He had a unique relationship with the god and represented the god to his people. So do you see what Genesis 1 does with this? Do you see the revolutionary thought? If it’s not just the king who is the image of god, but every human being, then every human being is granted the function to rule and act on behalf of the god. Humans, by their very nature, are kings and queens!
That’s exactly what we see in Genesis 1:28, and we talked about this in the creation care sermon. God makes humans in His image and tells them to subdue the earth and rule over its creatures. The idea is not that they get to do whatever they want, but that they are called to rule as God’s representatives, in line with His good character, blessing creation as kings and queens just as God blesses the earth as its Creator. This is what the angels do in the spiritual realm: they exercise authority and rule as God’s representatives. And it’s what humans do in the earthly realm: they exercise authority and rule as God’s representatives.
That means that the capabilities we have, including the cognitive reasoning, the communication, the free will, and the relationship with God, it all enables us to do what we’re called to do. So, to recap, the image of God is given to the entire human race. It’s an identity and status that everyone receives, no matter what. The identity comes with a particular function, which is to rule. And God gives us capabilities to enable us to do it. But if a human is missing some of those capabilities, or if they don’t have them yet, or if they lose them, that doesn’t decrease their dignity or worth in any way.
Look at our world. It says that human nature is all up here, in the subjective second-story stuff, and that if you don’t have this, you’re out. But look at Genesis 1 and what it implies about the high value and status of every human being. I’m taking Genesis 1 every time.
3. Male and Female
There’s one more affirmation in verse 27: not only has God created us, and created us in His image, but He has created us male and female. We’ve just talked about how the concept of the image of God is stretched in Genesis 1 far beyond what we find in ancient times. It’s not just a king, it’s all of humanity. This last phrase makes that explicit. Someone might have said, “oh, ok, it’s not just a king, but we know that men reflect God’s character much better than women.” But Genesis 1 says that male and female alike are created in God’s image and that both are equal in dignity and status because of it. That was revolutionary in the ancient world. That was radical! We take it for granted now. The idea that men and women are equal in value and worth is widespread today in the modern West, even if people have never heard Genesis 1 before. But there’s something in this verse that the ancients would have taken for granted. Actually, most of humanity would have taken this for granted throughout history. However, suddenly and very recently, this idea has become radical and revolutionary. What I’m talking about is the idea that God has created humanity in two categories: male and female.
I need to point out that this distinction between male and female in the Bible has nothing to do with someone’s interests or hobbies or personality. It has nothing to do with conformity to cultural gender stereotypes. Think about Jacob and Esau, twin brothers we meet later on in Genesis. Esau is your stereotypically masculine male, hairy and rugged, who likes to hunt down his own food. Jacob likes to hang out at home with Mom and cook. However, there’s no indication that Jacob is anything other than a male. Or take Deborah, a judge over Israel. She’s a strong woman, a leader, a warrior who takes her people into battle. Those are stereotypically male traits, but there’s no suggestion she’s anything other than a woman. In the Bible, maleness and femaleness also have nothing to do with some mystical internal sense that might indicate someone is something other than what their body says they are. In the Bible, maleness and femaleness is simply a given in creation. It’s who you are, regardless of how you feel or act.
But again, in our culture, that has suddenly and dramatically shifted. What has happened is what we’ve been referring to throughout, which is that human nature has been split into two. The lower story- the biological, objective, factual stuff- has been deemed irrelevant. In the meantime, the upper story- the more subjective, feelings-based stuff- has been deemed your “true self”. This is why you’ll hear transgender activists talking about who someone “really” is. The implication is that the body has very little say in someone’s true identity. You’ll hear transgender advocates talk about how biology just has to do with genitals and has little bearing on anything else in life. The lower story has been dismissed. Biological sex and gender have been separated. As a result, it’s not just maleness and femaleness that are on offer. A few years ago, the City of New York released a list of 31 separate gender identities, and there’s no reason that number couldn’t continue to go up, since it’s not based on any objective reality but instead on how someone feels.
What all of this does is fracture the human self. There’s a concept used in some school curricula called the “Gender Unicorn” which separates humans into gender identity, gender expression, sex “assigned at birth” (not even acknowledging that biological sex is grounded in fact, but an arbitrary assignment), physical attraction and emotional attraction. There’s no reason, in this view, for any of these elements to line up with each other. Humanity has been fractured, and the body is seen as mostly irrelevant. Nuriddeen Knight, a feminist Muslim author, asks why we don’t “encourage people to love the body they’re in? We tell women to love their curves and love their age and love the skin they’re in, but we won’t tell them (and men) to love the sex of their bodies” (Pearcey, 200). Our culture is profoundly anti-body in so many ways.
And I would suggest again that behind this huge change in worldview is a desire not to have any identity or reality imposed on us from anyone, including God Himself. Nancy Pearcey puts it this way:
“the sovereign self will not tolerate having its options limited by anything it did not choose- not even its own body.”
Nancy Pearcey, Love Thy Body, 210
John Mark Comer, who I quoted a bunch last week, says that ”we live in a culture that wants to transgress all limitations, not accept them” (Comer, The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry, 64). As we’ll see in a few weeks, that’s a Genesis 3 mindset. That’s how humanity goes wrong. What we’re talking about today is getting back to Genesis 1, which is understanding what human nature is meant to be. That, in turn, is all about the intent with which God created us.
Obviously, some of you are going to disagree with this. There are many people in our culture who would disagree with me and actually say that this is a bigoted, hateful point of view. A couple of things about that. First, I don’t deny in any way that there are people who experience a disconnect between their body and some internal sense of who they are. Gender dysphoria is real. For some people it is extremely persistent, and I can only imagine how difficult that would be. What I am suggesting is that the Christian worldview suggests a different way to understand that struggle. Here’s a question: why is that in this disconnect, to alter your perfectly healthy physical body in order to conform with a different identity is heroic and liberating and progressive? However, why is suggesting that conforming your self-perceived identity to the biological reality of your body seen as hateful and bigoted? Both approaches suggest change. One is heroic, the other is bigoted. Why?
The second thing is that in regards to what I’m saying here, I have no desire to impose on others. I am simply saying what I believe to be the biblical worldview about our identity. And so I hold it out as an option, an option I believe is compelling and good and true. Genesis 1, in contrast to our cultural moment, is incredibly pro-body. It treats the human self as a unified being, created by God with a purpose and intent, created with dignity and status. A dignity, by the way, that every human has, whatever their approach to gender might be. I hold this out as water for the thirsty, for those who are looking for something that is more substantial, more positive about the created world than our culture currently is. I hold it out as a way to anchor your identity in something solid, something unchanging, a foundation that is not based on cultural whims or thoughts or feelings. God created us in His image, male and female He created them.
Conclusion
This idea of anchoring our identity as humans in something solid reminds me of a passage in Galatians 2. Paul writes this letter and is wrestling with the identity of being a Jew in a Gentile world, and all the intricacies of that. But here’s what he concludes:
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Galatians 2:20
What’s Paul saying? He’s saying that his identity, in the end, is based on who Jesus is and what Jesus has done for him. His status before God is not based on how he feels or what he’s done, but it is much more solid than that. It’s based on what Christ has done for him at the cross. Christ loved him so much that he gave his life for Paul. That doesn’t change. That’s rock solid.
You are loved. God made you in His image. He’s given you purpose and meaning in your life. And even when you messed up, He loved you so much that He came in the person of Jesus and died for you. Your status and identity are not based on how you feel or what you’ve done, but on what He’s done for you. That’s good news. I want to base my life on that.
*Biblical insights mainly gleaned from three commentaries: Bruce Waltke (Genesis, 2001), John Walton (NIV Application Commentary, 2001), and Victor Hamilton (New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 1990), as well as Iain Provan (Seriously Dangerous Religion, 2014)
