Misunderstanding Christianity's "Negative" Anthropology

One of the stumbling blocks to accepting the gospel that I've seen quite frequently is Christianity's anthropology, meaning simply how Christianity understands what it means to be human.

In one sense, I get this.  I mean, listen to some of the basic tenets of Christian anthropology:

--everyone is born a sinner, which means that ...

--there is something fundamentally wrong with all of humanity at its core, and thus ... 

--people are inherently evil, not good, so that ...

--many of people's natural desires can't be trusted or justified, and what's worse ...

--all people will give account to the God whose moral code they violate daily by their very nature

Plus, your sin makes you smell awful!

Wow.  Where do I sign up?  No wonder Christianity gets a bad wrap for its view of human nature.  Having some issues with self-image, self-esteem, etc? Maybe we want to look somewhere else -- anywhere else? -- for our sense of value, meaning, and purpose.  

Here's the problem: that Christian anthropology you've heard? Yeah, that's not the whole picture.  In fact you've missed the beginning of the story, not to mention the end! 

Honey, let's just go in for the second half.  I'm sure we can catch up on the plot as we go.

THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY:

It might surprise you, but actually Christianity has a very high view of what it means to be human -- higher by far than secular humanism or other competing systems.  For Christians, what it fundamentally means to be human is to be an image-bearer of the Living God! Now, there's a lot of theological discussion about what exactly it means to be an image-bearer, but we can take away at least two things pretty safely: 1) to be human means to display some of the attributes of God, and 2) to be human means to be given charge over the rest of the created order.  So if you're keeping score at home, here's the minimum anthropology we've drawn out so far:

To be human means to share in the likeness of God and to serve as His representative in ruling the rest of the creation.

That's not so negative a view of what it means to be human at all, now is it? So how do we get from here to the whole "sinner" anthropology you're probably more familiar with? The Scriptures teach that human beings weren't all that satisfied.  Instead of being to content to be like God in some ways and rule on His behalf as His regents, we aimed for a better gig: we wanted be God.  In doing so, the image became cracked, and remains so to this day.  We still inherent the image of God as part of our birthright as human beings, but the image if fractured, broken, battered, and twisted.  And so are we.  And each of us reenacts the original rebellion, rejecting God's rule and our proper place as created beings in a myriad of ways.

THE END OF THE STORY

So Christian anthropology as you've probably encountered it mourns what was lost and tries to be honest about what we human beings have become.  And just believing that we started out as much more than we are now doesn't exactly get us off the hook for being negative about humanity.

We could have been contenders!  

What unmistakably makes Christian anthropology such an amazingly positive thing is the end of humanity's story.  For what we believe humanity can be -- what each human being can be -- is even more than a restoration of the original image we bore.  We believe that through the transformational power of the Spirit of God, those who believe in Jesus Christ are being made into His likeness! Humanity can be redeemed and made into something even better than it was at the beginning.  Again, this is a very high view of what it means to be human: we will be made like God (but not actually become God, part of God, or gods, mind you! That gets a little tricky for some folks.)

The issue is that part of participating in the future of humanity is to admit humanity's state in the present.  The gospel requires us to say that, yes, we are sinners; yes, we are rotten at the core (despite some good things we do); yes, this situation is utterly helpless.  When we admit that, we are free to cling to God's provision for humanity's terrible state -- salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ.  When we freely admit what we are, we begin to see the beauty and power of who He is.  And the encounter slowly changes us, despite the bumps and bruises, the slip ups and failures, until eventually we will be made like Him when He makes all things new.

So, yeah, I really do think I'm a hopeless sinner when it comes to any standard of goodness that matters.  I think you are, too.  But I see something glorious in your future -- a future in which sin does not have the last word and in which your flaws and failures don't have the final say when it comes to defining what you are.

No One Takes the Bible Literally

"No one takes the Bible literally," said a certain theology professor.  I wasn't sure what he meant.  Was he espousing a radical, liberal method of reading the Bible?  And, didn't he know just how many Fundamentalists prided themselves on their literal interpretation?

Then, he asked me to hand over my car keys so he could have my car.  Was he serious?  I wasn't giving him my keys.  Then, he reminded me that Jesus taught his followers to let people have things if they ask for them.  Am I not bound by the Scriptures to hand over my possessions when asked for them?

Well, of course not.  Jesus wasn't asking his followers to give their stuff away to any jerk who asks for it; interpreting the Bible isn't so simple.  So, in this little way, Christians have all agreed not to completely take the Bible literally, but, in doing so, are interpreting it as correctly as possible. There are plenty of other examples.  Jesus called Herod a "fox," but that doesn't mean that the history books are in error for not describing Herod as a small mammal.  Paul tells Timothy to drink wine to help his sick stomach, but we don't dash out and get bottles of cabernet sauvignon whenever a church member has indigestion.

But, where does it stop?  Did Jesus really rise from the dead?  I've met people in church who didn't think so - that part of the Bible was not to be taken literally, they said.  And anyone who disagrees with some point in your theology is likely to simply interpret that section of Scripture as a metaphor in order to get around any thorny moral issues that a literal interpretation could bring about.

So, here's how we can approach our understanding of the Bible (this applies to Believers, and non-Believers, alike) knowing that interpretation is largely a matter of deciding how literal something was intended.

Ask yourself if you know why you do, or don't, take a certain Bible passage literally.  Did you decide after much investigation and research?  Or are you merely parroting the teachings you grew up with?  Search each issue out and decide if your tradition is correct, or if it's just the status quo.  Find out what the theologians from different traditions have said and consider their arguments.

Also, are you being fair?  Are you interpreting parts of the Bible figuratively only so you can get away with something?  Or to sidestep a difficult issue?   (Or to win an argument?)

Is proper Bible study a lot of work?  You bet it is.  But the Bible is a large collection of books from ancient times, and no one should think that understanding a book like that easy.

Interview with a gay Christian

This week I ran across a blog entry from September (kind of old in blog time, I know) from the blog of Rachel Held Evans, in which a Christian man who happens to be gay answers questions from readers about his life, faith, and sexuality. It's an interesting and challenging discussion, and I encourage you to read it, if for no other reason than to hear a perspective that is frequently missing in our conversations about this topic. It is a long article, but even a cursory perusal provides, I think, some important thinking and talking points. Here's one of the more interesting passages:

I don't believe that the standards for sexual behavior should be any different for gay Christians than they are for straight Christians. I grew up believing that sex is something you save for marriage, so even after I realized I was gay and came to a gay-affirming conclusion from the Bible, I still decided I would wait until I met the right person and got married before having sex. Not all Christians (gay or straight) believe in waiting until marriage, and studies show that even those who do believe in it, usually fail to live up to their own standards. But my point is that the standards ought to be the same.

 Read the rest here: http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-a-gay-christian-response

Why I Don't Agree With People Who Have a "Coexist" Bumper Sticker (Probably)

Most of you probably know what I'm talking about when I mention the "coexist" bumper stickers, but in case you don't, I included a picture on the right.  As you can see, the gimmick is that the word coexist has been formed using symbols from major religions or philosophies -- with a call for harmony between the sexes thrown in for good measure.  The underlying message is that we shouldn't be fighting over issues of religion (and again sexual equality tossed in, I guess because no religion has embrace the letter "E" sufficiently), but rather should strive to live with each other despite these issues and differences.


AND YOU "PROBABLY" DISAGREE WITH THIS SENTIMENT???
On the one hand, I am all for not fighting or killing people over issues of religion.  We are completely on the same page there! What concerns me is not the cry for coexistence, but the potential rationale behind it.  If you say to me, "We should tolerate people with different religious views and strive to live alongside them because ..." -- well,  you and I are still in complete agreement at that point.  The potential disagreement comes from what folks who display this bumper sticker put after the "because."  I think the rationale for coexistence is usually one of two things, which I'll discuss below.  Since I am generalizing and certainly cannot know what each individual means by the bumper sticker, I included the "probably."


I DISAGREE IF ... YOU MEAN THAT QUESTIONS OF RELIGION AREN'T IMPORTANT 
One of the arguments I encounter all the time is that questions of religion just aren't important enough for us to allow them to divide us (you may have noticed I've just given up on trying to include the "E" at all at this point).  While I don't think that questions of religion have to divide us, I don't think it's because they are somehow frivolous or maybe just so peripheral to the human experience as to not be worth the time and effort it would take to thoroughly explore them.  Let everyone believe whatever they want when it comes to religion, and let's focus on what really matters.

Look, you're saying that "time" is just a big loop of infinitely repeating events, and you're saying that we have ten seconds before the bombs explodes, killing all of us.  Are these really the sorts of disagreements that we're going to allow to come between us?

However, in my opinion, the questions that religion raises are of the utmost importance.  In fact, there may not be any questions more important.  The ramifications for the existence of the Divine are astronomical.  If indeed there is a creator deity, then human existence is suddenly defined by such questions as: Why did he/she/it create? What does he/she/it expect of us? What does it mean to be human?  If we decide there is no Divine, then that decision also makes us answer some very important questions: Where does human value come? What is the good and how do we best pursue it, since there is no deity answering these questions for us? Of course these are only the tip of the iceberg type questions.

Don't dismiss religious concerns.  How you conceive of God and how you understand what it means to be human are probably the things that define you more than anything else.  They are questions well worth considering and considering thoughtfully.  


I ALSO DISAGREE IF ... YOU MEAN THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME, SO WHY WOULD THEY FIGHT EACH OTHER
I once had a friend define religion as an attempt to approach the Divine.  For the sake of a blog entry (and not a philosophical or theological treatise), I think that will do.  Certainly if you view religion this way, there are many broad generalizations you can make about how religions are similar.  I get that.  However, the differences between religious systems become quite clear when we start moving away from generalizations such as "religions are just ways of approaching the Divine" and start defining terms.

For example, let's say we all claim to be friends with a guy named "Bob." We start talking about all the great times we've had with Bob, when suddenly a stranger who doesn't know Bob pops into the room and asks what Bob looks like.  See, he's about to go pick up Bob from the airport, but he's never met him.  One person says, "Oh Bob, is this tall African-American basketball player.  You'll recognize him right away."  You say, "Um, no, Bob is actually a short Hispanic woman.  Here real name is Roberta, and we call her Bob for fun."  Then I say, "What are you talking about? Bob is that magical gnome who lives behind my fridge and tells me that I really am special!"  The stranger isn't going to say, "Okay, got it.  You're all basically describing the same person.  I can figure it out from here.

"Bob is dead." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

When we actually stop to define who or what we are trying to approach, we find that the differences become apparent very quickly.  For example, the Christian God

*intentionally created the world

*is actively involved in bringing human history toward a certain end

*chose to reveal Himself specifically through the Scriptures and ultimately through the person of Jesus Christ, who Himself is both fully human and fully divine

*exists eternally as the Triune God

Of course, there are other ways of describing the Christian God, but these four are all essential, non-negotiable aspects of the Christian understanding of the Divine.  And even at the end of this short list, Christianity is already distinct from every other religions system in history in how it conceives of the Divine

Now the stranger asks for directions to the airport.  You tell him to take a certain highway, then a certain exit, etc.   I tell him to take a rocket straight to the moon then spin around in circles until the airport appears.   Our means of approaching the airport are not going to lead the stranger to the same place.  Similarly, various religions make very different claims about how the Divine wants to be approached.  For Christianity, God has made it clear that He only desires to be approached through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Um, we may have missed our exit ...

So, yes, I do agree that we should learn to coexist, but "probably" not for the same reasons that many of the people who have these bumper stickers do.  For me, I believe we should coexist because my religion teaches me that every single human being has infinite value as someone who bears the image of God.  I believe that God loves my fellow human beings and expects me to display that same love when I interact with them ... regardless of their intentions toward me.  

So, what does this all mean? It means that the cry for coexistence is a great start, but it's only a start.  It's not a sufficient statement regarding our differences.

It means there's still a lot of dialog to be had.

And that's one of the reasons why this website exists.