The Imago Dei and Human Dignity

"The concept of an 'image and likeness' plays a critical role in historic Christianity's view of humankind. The Bible reveals that all human beings are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27, NIV) and, though marred by sin, all people—believer and nonbeliever, male and female alike—reflect the image of God. This foundational biblical teaching launches the Christian view that each individual possesses inherent dignity, moral worth, and genuine value. The imago Dei (Latin: the image of God) lays the foundation for the sanctity of human life. It is this image that makes human life unrepeatable and worthy of respect." ~ Kenneth R. Samples, "Ethical Alternatives on Life and Death"

In my previous post I wrote about the Gosnell murder trial but took a little bit of a different approach. I did not discuss the Gosnell case in great detail, nor did I talk much about how the major media organizations have avoided covering the case. There are many good articles already written from this perspective (check out The Aquila Report for a good number). Instead, I asked the question, "Why or how can someone think aborting a child or murdering the newly-born child can be acceptable?" I talked briefly about how we cannot really know what would cause someone like Gosnesll (or any other abortionist) to murder a child, but we can look at the context and motivations in which those gruesome actions are taken. Then, finally, I argued that the context for abortions and infanticide is the philosophical move away from inherent value in humans (i.e. because we are made in the image of God) to functionalism. After a brief discussion of functionalism, I made the assertion that we could make abortion illegal, but no progress will be made in relieving the demand for abortions until culture starts seeing humans as made in the image of God and inherently deserving of "unalienable rights" which have been "endowed by their Creator." Now, do not get me wrong. I do hope and pray that one day abortion will be illegal (though, to be honest, I am not very optimistic), but a fundamental change in how humans are viewed is needed to lessen the demand for abortion. We need to see the inherent dignity and value in humans simply because they are made in the image of God. Any other definitions will exclude a class, race, or development stage from the category of "persons" and open the door for any number of atrocities (indeed, this has happened many times in human history). I did not, however, talk about the doctrine of the image of God (the imago Dei, in Latin) itself, and that is the subject of today's post.

Before we get into what it means for humans to be made in the image of God, it is worth making a couple of general statements about this doctrine. First, it is worthy of note that the terms "image" and "likeness" used in Ge. 1:26, et al do not indicate separate ideas or distinct ways in which man was created. They are used synonymously, not additively, and when used together or separately, they suggest that God was the archetype and man the ectype. There are several reasons for holding they are synonymous: 1) there is no waw (the Hebrew conjunction translated "and") between the terms indicating they are not two different things; 2) Ge. 1:27, 5:1, 9:6; 1 Co. 11:7; Col. 3:10; and Js. 3:9 all employ only one of the two terms to discuss man bearing God's image, which suggests that either sufficiently expresses the quality; and 3) Ge. 5:3 uses both terms but reverses the order and prepositions, again showing synonymous usage. Second, it is also worth of note that Ge. 1:26 suggests that humans do not simply "bear" or "have" the image of God but are the image of God. It is not something that was added to an otherwise complete humanity or something which applies to only part of man. It constitutes his very being. This also means it is something which may have been marred or damaged in Adam's fall but has not been lost or removed in total (cf. Ge. 9:6; Js. 3:9).

So, what does it mean to be the image of God? What constitutes God's image in man? This is something which has been debated throughout the history of the Church because Scripture contains an implicit rather than an explicit explanation of the image of God. For the purposes of this post, I am simply going to detail what I believe to be the biblical account of man as the image of God. (If you want a history of the doctrine, I would suggest Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, pp. 530-62.)

Before I get into the details about the image of God, I would like to make a quick comment about God giving of dominion over the earth to man. It has been argued that dominion over the earth is part of what it means to be made in the image of God, but Ge. 1:26-28 suggests that man stood before God as a complete image before God bestowed dominion on him. It is more accurate to say, like Bavinck, that "the image of God manifests itself in man's dominion over all of the created world (cf. Ps. 8; 1 Cor. 11:7)." (Reformed, p. 533) The exercise of dominion is what God's images do, not a part of what they inherently are. Just because a human does not have the ability to exercise dominion (e.g. an infant, an unborn child, or a person with a severe mental handicap) does not mean they are not the image of God. With that said, let us move on to several aspects of the image of God in man.

First, the Reformed confessions and catechisms focus particularly on the "original righteousness" aspect of the image of God in man (cf. WSC #10, #18; WLC #17,#25; WCF 4.2; BC 14; HC #6). "Original righteousness" is defined by the historic Reformed confessions as knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, to which the fall brought great damage. Man is no longer holy or righteous (Ro. 3:10) because he is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1), and his knowledge of God and creation has been seriously distorted but not completely demolished (i.e. creation makes God plain to man and man still has the sensus divitatus (Institutes, 1.3.1; cf. also Warranted, pp. 170-86) but man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, cf. Ro. 1:18-32). However, in Christ the image of God is being restored, and in particular Christ's work in this aspect of the image draws the focus of Paul (Eph. 4:21-24; Col. 3:10). Now, when thinking about how man's sin as affected this part of the image of God in man, it is helpful to make a distinction between the image of God as direction and the image of God as structure. Man as God's image was created for God and to be moving towards Him always, but man by his rebellion is now running away from God in sin, so the image of God as direction has been lost. But, man still retains the image of God as structure, though it is also marred by sin, and he still deserves the dignity due God's images (cf. Ge. 9:6; Js. 3:9). It is the image of God as structure that we will discuss next.

With the second aspect that I would like to bring out we get into the image of God as structure. As Louis Berkhof states in his classic Systematic Theology, "But the image of God is not to be restricted to the original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness which was lost by sin, but also includes elements which belong to the natural constitution of man." (p. 204) This second aspect is man's soul. When God created man He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (Ge. 2:7) The Hebrew word that the ESV translates "creature" is the word nephesh, which is literally "soul." The breath of life was breathed into man and he became a living soul. This soul is the essence of man's life, and it reflects God's spirituality, invisibility, and immortality (for though our present bodies die, our souls live on forever). With respect to the soul's relation to the body, Bavinck has these helpful words, "But man is 'soul,' because from the very beginning the spiritual component in him (unlike that of angels) is adapted to and organized for a body...." (Reformed, p. 556) The soul can exist apart from the body, for the souls of all humans who have died are either in heaven or hell, but man, who became a "living soul" when the spiritual was breathed into the physical body, is incomplete without both. The soul was designed for a body and the body for a soul. To kill a human, then, is an attack upon his very soul, and since a human cannot be without this part of the image, he always deserves the dignity due God's images while he is alive.

Mentioning the soul's relationship to the body brings us to the third aspect of the image of God in man (also under the category of the image as structure), and it is the body. When the breath of life was breathed into Adam's body, his being became a "living soul" created in God's image. Man, not merely the soul of man, was created in God's image. Man's essence is the soul, but that soul was psychically organized for a body. Therefore the body is not a prison and not without inherent value, but it is a beautiful creation of God; created to exist in harmony with the soul as man reflects God's image. To put it another way, it is not the material substance of the body that is the image of God for God has no body, but the body is the image of God in that it is organized for the soul—is an organ of the soul. As Berkhof puts it, the body was created "as the fit instrument for the self-expression of the soul." (Systematic, p. 205) Furthermore, the body may be marred by sin and susceptible to death because of sin but even it, like the soul, is destined for immortality. In the final resurrection all bodies (those of believers and non-) will be raised from the dead (Dn. 12:2; Ac. 24:15) and spend eternity in either the Lake of Fire (Re. 20:15) or the New Heavens and New Earth (2 Pt. 3:13). Therefore, the Bible presents murder as the destruction of the body (Mt. 10:28) and as the destruction of the image of God in man (Ge. 9:6). To cause the death of a human, at any stage of development, is to murder a being made in the image of God—a being that deserves the dignity due God's images. (There are obviously ethical implications here, like withdrawing care from a terminally ill human, which I do not have the time or space to discuss. For further reading on such ethical issues, I would suggest Bioethics and the Christian Life by David VanDrunen.)

With the fourth aspect of the image of God as structure in man we get to what we could call "human faculties." Even though the image of God in man is much more than the faculties possessed by man (as shown above), it does include the basic faculties of the heart, the mind, and the will or, as Berkhof puts it, the natural affections, the intellectual power, and moral freedom. While the soul is the essence of man's life, the Scriptures present the heart as the organ of man's life, not only in the physical sense but also in the metaphorical sense, i.e. as the ultimate source of man's emotions, desire, willing, thinking, and knowing. Indeed, as Solomon put it, from the heart flows "the springs of life." (Pro. 4:23) But, the heart of man, from which all these things flow, is organized by the mind. Bavinck explains, "The heart is the seat of all emotions, passions, urges, inclinations, attachments, desires, and decisions of the will, which have to be led by the mind...." (Reformed, p. 557) In these things, man images God by reflecting His faculties of affections, intellect, and will, and there may even be a trinitarian reflection in these faculties. Augustine saw these three as an analogy mirroring the Trinity. In his work On the Trinity, he compares God the Father being the fountainhead of the Godhead to the heart being the fountainhead of the mind and will, and he likewise argues that the mind and will are analogous to God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (respectively). While that might be reading a little too much into this aspect of the image of God, it is clear from Scripture that man images God in his unique abilities of heart, mind, and will, and, again, deserves to be treated with the dignity and respect due God's images.

The fifth and final aspect of the image of God in man (again, the image as structure) is what some have called the "covenant theology account of the image of God" or the "representative aspect." In the twentieth century a lot of research was done on the covenants of the cultures of the Ancient Near East (ANE), of which the Israelite culture was one. When those covenants were compared to the biblical covenants that God made with His people there were many striking similarities (much of this research was done and applied to biblical covenants by Meredith Kline). It should not surprise us that God would pattern His covenants after covenants that His people would know for He generally relates to us in ways we can understand. And, the covenants of Scripture (particularly the book of Deuteronomy) are patterned after a common type of covenant made between kings known as a "suzerain-vassal treaty." A suzerain was a powerful king and a vassal was a lesser king. In these treaties, the suzerain pledged to protect and establish the vassal, and the vassal pledged submission and allegiance to the suzerain. (We do not have the time or space to talk about these treaties in detail, so for more reading I recommend this essay by Kline as a good place to start and perhaps follow it up with his book Treaty of the Great King.) In such a relationship, the suzerain had an ambassador whom he would send to the far countries of his vassals to represent him, and this ambassador was called "the Image." The Image would have the authority of the suzerain among his vassals. When the Image came, it was as if the suzerain himself had come. This was the context in which Moses wrote that humans are the images of God. This historical context shows us that being the image of God means that man is God' representative here on earth and should be treated with due dignity. And, there is another important piece of information that the studies of ANE covenants have revealed. When the Egyptian Pharaohs were the suzerains (and remember, Moses was raised as the grandson of a Pharaoh, cf. Ex. 2:10), they would intentionally choose an Image who was deformed or had some other major physical flaw that would normally put them at the bottom of society. They did this to see if their vassals would treat their Image (who in himself would have been valued as less than nothing by society) with the same dignity and respect as they would treat the suzerain himself, which would be a test of their loyalty. Now, the implications for us are clear. Humans are God's images—His representatives. God puts before us the weak and vulnerable, the afflicted and handicap, and the inconvenient and burdensome as His images in the forms of unborn children, infants, the mentally handicap, and the degenerating elderly. How will we treat them? Even if a human being does not have the full or higher use of his heart, mind, and will, it does not mean he does not bear God's image. He is still God's representative. Perhaps he was put before us as a test from our Suzerain as the Pharaohs tested their vassals. Will we treat them with the same dignity and respect as is due the Suzerain of whom they are the Image?

So, those are the aspects of the image of God in humanity: original righteousness (knowledge, righteousness, and holiness); the soul; the body; the human faculties of heart, mind, and will; and representation of God on earth. And, I believe the last one is of particular importance. The other aspects may be more or less visible; they may vary in degrees. All humans, however, represent the Great Suzerain King. Society may be tempted to look at its inconvenient and burdensome members and try to say they are "sub-human" or "non-persons," but God, our great Suzerain, has put them before as His images. Will we treat them with all the dignity and respect they are due?

There is one more loose end to tie up, and that is how sin has affected the image of God in man. As stated above, it is helpful to distinguish between the image of God as direction and the image of God as structure. Since man is fallen and dead in sin, the image of God as direction is basically lost. His original righteousness is all but gone (see above where I discuss this aspect), and he is in rebellion against God. Man, however, still retains the image of God as structure. He still has his soul, body, faculties, and representation. Now, these too have been wholly defiled because of sin (Ge. 6:5; Jer. 17:9; Ro. 3:10-12; 8:7; 1 Co. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3; Tt. 1:15), but the image of God is still there and God still commands that it be given the respect and dignity it is due (cf. Ge. 9:6; Js. 3:9).

As stated in my previous post on the Gosnell case, only returning to the biblical view of man as created in the image of God will place us in a context where abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are unacceptable. All other definitions of "human" or "person" will always exclude some class, race, or developmental stage of humanity and open the door for any number of atrocities (history has shown us this and at present such atrocities are performed every day in abortion clinics across the world). As is almost always the case: right thinking and right doctrine begets right action, and wrong thinking and wrong doctrine begets wrong action. When defending the sanctity of life, let us defend it not just because it is life but because it is life that bears God's image and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Humans, Persons, and the Context for Infanticide and Abortion

"Of course, sin ordinarily tries to bag a good of some kind: people want power or pleasure or wealth or self-esteem or happiness. Their sin consists in seeking these things in hurtful ways or excessively or preeminently or even exclusively. But as human life degenerates, as people explore deeper and deeper recesses of evil, they begin to seek pleasure not in such created goods as sex or material plenty or the exercise of dominion. They seek it instead in the very dynamics of sin.... They take satisfaction from showing who is boss, from showing that no one else will legislate for them. Or they take the vandal's pleasure in the destruction of beauty and wholeness. This contrariety, as opposed to blank carelessness, is the first ingredient of sin done 'for the hell of it.'

"People who joy in evil show that some wire has gotten crossed in them; their moral polarity has switched. Such corruption climaxes, as the Roman historian Livy says in a famous statement, in the transforming of human love from a benevolent disposition to a fatal attraction. Livy is describing the debauchery of the last century of the Roman republic, but he might just as well have been describing the hunger that makers of slasher films are trying to feed. What Livy describes is the inevitable destination of uninterrupted human evil. 'Of late years,' he says, 'wealth has made us greedy, and self indulgence has brought us, through every form of sensual excess, to be, if I may so put it, in love with death.'" ~ Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (pp. 50-1)

When my son was born, I must admit, I was not prepared for how much I would love him. I have never been a person who was fascinated by children or even had much of an interest in them. I did not hold babies, dote over them, or volunteer for the church nursery (okay, I worked it once but it was under duress). Do not get me wrong, I thought children were great, just from a distance. I actually felt guilty while Erika was pregnant because I was not as excited as I thought I should have been. Again, do not get me wrong, I was happy to know my first child was coming, but I was not nearly as excited as most other people I knew. I kept telling myself it would all change when he is born and others told me that too. And, while I knew that was true, I was still unprepared for how much I would love him and the power that love would have over me. Now, even when I go a few hours without seeing Gabriel, I want to be with him, to see his beaming smile, and to give him a hug (to all my family and friends, yes, I said it, a hug).

I say all that to attempt to demonstrate why I do not want to write this blog post right now. I do not want to think about Kermit Gosnell. I do not want to think about the atrocities he performed. I did not want to think about the atrocities performed in abortion clinics all over the world in the name of "women's rights" or "family planning" or "women's health." I have avoided writing about the Gosnell case because it hurts too much to think about someone killing my son right after he was born. Thinking about it makes my chest physically hurt, and I cannot help but think about it whenever I hear about this murderous rampage. I think about babies born, crying and terrified of this new, cold world, and then I think about someone taking that helpless human and killing them. I think about babies who need immediate care, just like my son needed immediate care when he was born, and their cries bringing instruments of death instead of nurturing love. I think, "What if that were my son?" and "How can someone be so cold and cruel to helpless, needy babies?" It hurts, and I have avoided writing about it because I want to avoid thinking about it. It is easier to avoid thinking about it. However, if I stick my head in the sand, then I am no better than the cowards in the majority of mainstream media who have avoided reporting this story. Fortunately, social media (one of its few redeeming uses) has spread this case across the Internet, even though many media outlets have been avoiding it like the plague (here, here, and here are few who have the courage to report it).

In my unwilling but persistent thoughts about this case, I have often come back to the question of why or how someone can think aborting a child or murdering the newly-born child can be acceptable. Murder is always atrocious but when it is a helpless child that needs the world to nurture it (not kill it), that question becomes even more acute. What would cause someone to take a crying, helpless baby and severe its spinal cord? What would cause someone not to feel remorse when they hear a baby's cries immediately stop and their body go limp because of an action they took? What would cause them to do it over and over again? As Plantinga says in the above quote, when unchecked, the corruption of sin eventually leads to pleasure sought in the very dynamics of sin. It led to the Roman citizens to become "in love with death," and one could say the exact same thing about America. Sure, we do not have gladiator battles anymore, but we have legalized abortion, sanctioned the death of over 40 million babies, and continue to defend it under the guise of "women's health" or "family planning." But, why is America in love with death? Why would Gosnell casually murder babies "precipitated" (i.e. born) in his office? What is the cause? I have not been able to come up with an answer. And, Plantinga is helpful here too:

Inquiring into the causes of sin takes us back, again and again, to the intractable human will and to the heart's desire that stiffens the will against all competing considerations. Like a neurotic and therapeutically shelf-worn little god, the human heart keeps ending discussions by insisting that it wants what it wants.

The trouble is that this is only a re-description of human sin, not an explanation of it--let alone a defense of it. Our core problem, says St. Augustine, is that the human heart, ignoring God, turns in on itself, tries to lift itself, wants to please itself, and ends up debasing itself... the person who curves in on himself, who wants God's gifts with God, who wants to satisfy the desires of a divided heart, ends up sagging and contracting into a little wad....

Moreover, even when we have sorted and classified the motives of a sin, we still haven't fully explained it. Why not? The reason is that to identify a motive is to discern only what pushes a person in the direction of some act, not why he actually commits it. We still do not know why a person succumbs to the motive. After all, lots of people feel motivated to steal others people's possessions but manage to avoid giving in to these motives.... The fact is that we know more contexts than motives of human evil, and we know more motives than causes, we almost never know all three... Only God knows the percentages in these matters. Only God knows the human heart. (pp. 62-3)

Only God knows the deep, dark recesses of Gosnell and other abortionists' hearts. We can identify motives and contexts in which these people might make their decisions, but why they choose to act when others do not is a mystery. Even Paul admits this, calling it the "mystery of lawlessness." (And, if I am honest, I have to admit that it is only by God's grace that I have not moved in the same direction as Gosnell or any of the others. God knew my deep, dark sin--indeed, He still knows it--and replaced the stone I mistakenly called a heart with the true thing. One thing I need to remember in my rage is that Gosnell is not beyond the power of the gospel. If God could move my heart, He can move his.)

Even though an actual cause may beyond my ability to assess, I think I can give the context, or at least part of the context, in which these decisions take place. In short, it is the philosophical move away from inherent value in humans (i.e. because we are made in the image of God) to functionalism. Functionalism is the idea that rights come from a set of criteria that a human (or something else like dolphins) has to meet in order to be considered a person. The argument proceeds like so: First, the assertion is made that persons (not humans) deserve rights. Second, a distinction is drawn between "humans" and "persons" based on a set of criteria (e.g. rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness), which is, of course, debatable and largely determined by the opinions of a few. Finally, if the human (or something else) meets the set of criteria, then they are said to be a person and deserve rights. If they do not, then they have no rights (or at least no rights equal to the rights of persons). This distinction between "human" and "person" based on a set of criteria gives us the context for abortion. One can (and indeed our culture has) narrow the criteria for personhood to exclude the unborn. When something is a "fetus" and not a "baby" (which suggests personhood), then the rights of the person (the mother) trump the rights of the non-person (the baby) and it becomes okay to "terminate" the pregnancy. As Mary Elizabeth Williams (about whom I have written in the past) has argued, "...a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always." (Emphasis added) She calls the unborn baby a "human life" but did you catch the adjective at the end (I hope so; I italicized it)? The "non-autonomous entity" does not have the same rights as the mother. Why? Because of the distinction drawn by functionalism. Being human is not enough.

Unfortunately, functionalism does not stop at the general abortions pro-life advocates are used to protesting. This road leads right to Gosnell and beyond. Peter Singer (professor of bioethics at Princeton!) has argued that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood and, therefore, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person." Singer is not the only one. A few Australian ethicists have argued for "after-birth abortions" on the basis of functionalism and newborns lacking personhood. This, of course, is the logical extension of pre-birth abortions because there is no moral or personal distinction between the unborn child and the newly-born child. Moving down the birth canal does not change the personhood of the baby. (Of course, this logical extension should lead our culture to realize killing the unborn is wrong, but we are a culture "in love with death.") According to functionalism, babies still lack the criteria necessary for personhood. They are, at best, "potential persons."

If you make a distinction between "person" and "human" and then set up a (arbitrary) set of criteria to qualify as a person, then you end up with Gosnell, Singer, and others like them. And, do not make the mistake of thinking these ideas are simply in the "high academic" circles. Planned Parenthood has argued that the fate a baby born in a botched abortion (i.e. breathing, crying, and fighting for life just like the ones Gosnell murdered) should be determined by the mother and physician. "Personhood" is a linguistic sleight-of-hand used to exclude some humans from the protected class, and it does not stop with infants. When a list of criteria has to be met and that criteria is determined by society, then anyone is in danger (especially the inconvenient, like the mentally handicap and degenerating elderly). This move has been done in the past and has been used to defend genocide, slavery, sex-trafficking, and all other sorts of human atrocities. The Nazis had a word for it: Untermensch, "sub-human." And, it leads cultures into downward spirals, like Plantinga describes above, which eventually end with a people who are "in love with death." Only a philosophical and presuppositional commitment to the inherent rights of a human because they are made in the image of God will place us in a context where abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are unacceptable. Oh sure, we could make abortion illegal, but no progress will be made in relieving the demand for abortions until culture starts seeing humans as made in the image of God and inherently deserving of "unalienable rights" which have been "endowed by their Creator."

Now, about now you might be thinking, "What exactly does it mean for a human to be 'made in the image of God?'" That is a good question and it is one that I will address next week, for this post is already too long.

By His Grace,
Taylor

A Tragic Option

"Make no mistake, the problem of evil is not just a problem for Christianity--it is a problem for all worldviews because evil is fundamental to our human experience. If any worldview is to be considered plausible it must provide us with the intellectual and existential resources to deal with this issue." ~ Brett Kunkle from Stand to Reason

Yesterday Americans saw another example of the problem of evil up-close and personal with the bombing of the Boston Marathon. When things like this happen, often people will ask, "Where was God?" or some equivalent question. I do not at all mind the question; in fact, it is a good question. I have briefly written about this myself in past posts, and of course many wiser men have addressed this question (here is a good, short example and for a fuller treatment check out The Problem of Pain for pastoral help or God, Freedom, and Evil for a philosophical treatment). I do not bring up the subject today, however, to address the "problem" itself but talk a little about something I read on Facebook yesterday. Obviously Facebook was full of comments about this tragedy. Like most major events that hit the Facebook newsfeed, comments were across the board, and I was encouraged by some, discouraged by one or two, impressed by several, and perplexed by a few. One in particular stood out, and I wanted to share it as well as a comment (a tragic option) that was added to my friend's post.

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday:

Playing off what Steve Childers said:
Our Options When Tragedy Strikes:
Option One: A sovereign God who is not loving. He doesn't care about our suffering.
Option Two: A loving God who is not sovereign. He cares but he's not in control.
Option Three: The all-sovereign, all-loving God, whose ways are often beyond our ability to fully comprehend (Isaiah 55:8-9). The sinfulness of man is far worse than we could imagine. The only hope we have for what happened in Boston is Jesus Christ changing people.
Only He can bring us comfort in the face of tragedy.

I completely agree with my friend's post. In fact, I do not bring it up because I want to add or subtract anything to what he has said. I bring it up because a comment was made on the post that presents a truly tragic option. The individual commented: "Option #4 - There is no God." That is what I want to address briefly.

The simple statement came with no further explanation as to the motive or mindset of this individual, but I think we can assume that this individual added this option because they endorse it. Perhaps they think it deals with the problem of evil and pain (which we all experience) better than any theistic explanation. But, does it? In my option it does not because this tragic fourth option has an important corollary that most do not consider. Most who accept this option do not follow it to its natural, logical end. They exist in a state of inconsistency that attempts to hold that life still has meaning and purpose and yet there is no god. There are a few, however, who have been honest about it. Ablert Camus, for example, rejected the idea of God (following the "God is dead" movement of Nietzsche) and determined that because of this life is absurd:

So long as the mind keeps silent in the motionless world of its hopes, everything is reflected and arranged in the unity of nostalgia. But with its first move this world cracks and tumbles: an infinite number of shimmering fragments is offered to the understanding. We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart.... If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be the history of successive regrets and its impotences. (The Myth of Sisyphus, p. 18, emphasis added)

Without God bringing, giving meaning to the universe, we must despair of ever being able to find any meaning in anything ourselves. In fact, according to Camus' honest look at life without God, it is man's very search for meaning that creates the absurdity of this life:

This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart. The absurd depends as much on man as on the world. For the moment it is all that links them together. It binds them one to the other as only hatred can weld two creatures together.... This is all I can discern clearly in this meaningless universe... (ibid, p. 21, emphasis added)

So, Camus, who cannot give any comfort to the "longing for clarity" that "echoes in the human heart," is forced to conclude:

Hence the intelligence, too, tells me in its way that this world is absurd. Its contrary, blind reason, may well claim that all is clear; I was waiting for proof and longing for it to be right. But despite so many pretentious centuries and over the heads of so many eloquent and persuasive men, I know that is false. (ibid. pp. 20-21)

Without God this world is absurd. The necessary corollary to "option #4" is life is absurd, the problem of evil is unsolvable, and man's search for meaning, unity, and clarity is utterly futile. So, what does Camus, in his honest look at life without God, believe should be our response to this? He tells us that there are really two intelligent options: suicide or "fate surmounted by scorn." (ibid. p. 121) Your only options are to kill yourself or live life with hatred of the absurdity, scorn of this universe, and enough pride and defiance so as never to let the futility beat you. According to Camus, only dogged hate and pride will get one through this life.

As my quote from Brett Kunkle (above) points out, atheists must deal with the problem of evil just as theists must, and for their philosophical world-view to be acceptable, it must give us the resources necessary to deal with this issue and others like it. Does it? With the tragic option #4, what are we going to say to the victims of the bombing of the Boston Marathon? Perhaps: "In the grand scheme of the universe your suffering is utterly meaningless--life and all that comes with it has no transcendent meaning or value," "Take heart, you will soon cease to exist forever and your suffering will be over," or, as Bertrand Russell said, "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system..." so who cares, right? Option #4 cannot deal with the problem of evil, at least not in a way that man's soul will find acceptable. Option #4 cannot offer any hope to the victims of this tragedy or a world living in fear of similar things happening to their loved ones. Option #4 cannot give us any resources for handling the problem of evil other than Camus' two options. Option #4 can only say, "This tragedy is absurd. Life is absurd. The bombing of the Boston Marathon only reminds us that we must either kill ourselves and get it over with or buckle down, hate this universe, live with defiance, and never let the world win." Is that really palatable? Is that anything less than tragic?

Now, do not get me wrong. I do not believe God exists, the Bible is true, and Jesus is the only hope for the world because it is the most palatable option. I believe it because it is true. I believe it because the Hound of Heaven relentlessly pursued me through my rejection of Him and brought me to the point where I could not deny His truth and my desperate need of Him. However, it is also the most palatable option, and I believe that is precisely because it is true, because it is the only world-view that can make sense of everything in the universe. As C. S. Lewis states, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." (The Weight of Glory, p. 140) Only option #3 (i.e. orthodox Christianity) can shed light on pain, suffering, and the universe itself and allow us to understand their meaning.

By His Grace,
Taylor

In Christ You Can Be Completely Honest

"In this solemn confession, it is pleasing to observe that David plainly names his sin. He does not call it manslaughter, nor speak of it as an imprudence by which an unfortunate accident occurred to a worthy man, but he calls it by its true name, bloodguiltiness. He did not actually kill the husband of Bathsheba; but still it was planned in David’s heart that Uriah should be slain, and he was before the Lord his murderer. Learn in confession to be honest with God. Do not give fair names to foul sins; call them what you will, they will smell no sweeter. What God sees them to be, that do you labour to feel them to be; and with all openness of heart acknowledge their real character." ~ Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, evening April 7

In this devotion, Spurgeon was referring to David's confession in Ps. 51, where he brought his sin of murder before God. If I might be so bold as to add to Spurgeon's statement: for in Christ you will always find forgiveness. Before the throne of God we must always be honest about our sin and not try to "soft petal" anything, for He knows the truth whether we try to hide it or not. Yet, that is not a labor, for we know that before the throne of God in Christ--on the basis of His sacrifice and clothed in His righteousness--is the only place where we can be completely honest and still be accepted. Our closest friends and family my reject us, eventually. They might grow tired of our depravity. They might find our sin too heinous to be forgiven. They might never be able to look at us the same way again. But, the Christian has no such worry before God in Christ. We cannot expect to stand before the throne of God without Christ, but in Him we cannot be unaccepted for any sin. There are no stipulations on His promise: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 Jn. 1:9) There is no time when our Advocate (1 Jn. 2:1) is not before the throne defending us against any and all condemnation. That is why Paul can say, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Ro. 8:1)

Christian, you can be completely honest before God with your sin. You can pour it out in repentance with all candor. You are free to go to Him not matter how dirty you may be, and He will not reject you. He will not unaccept you. He will not be angry. You can cry out, "Wretched man that I am!" (Ro. 7:24), and He will not look at you any differently, for when He sees you, He sees Christ (2 Co. 5:21). You are safe, in Christ. Never forget that, and go to God always as you are.

By His Grace,
Taylor