SAET » The Imago Dei and Human Worth: Use It or Lose It » The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology

February 2, 2011 by Gerald Hiestand

The Imago Dei and Human Worth: Use It or Lose It

Our concept of human worth must necessarily begin in Genesis 1 with the creation of humanity in the imago dei. Athanasius has a fine quote in his On the Incarnation were he states that it would be “unfitting” of God to abandon his handiwork to dissolution, given that humanity bears the image of God. For Athanasius, God’s justice and goodness would have been called into question had he chosen not to save humanity. This is — at least in tone — the opposite of how many evangelicals talk. For many of us, particularly those of us in the Reformed tradition, God’s justice is called into question precisely because he has chosen to save humanity. How could a holy God be justified in extending mercy to worthless sinners (a la Romans 3:25-26)? Of course this more pessimistic line has merit. Sin has indeed devalued us. But sometimes this low view of humanity is pushed so far as to imply that humanity post-fall has lost all value, as though there is nothing left in us worth saving; as though God no longer values humanity and has only decided to redeem us as means of glorifying himself. Such a view has troubling sociological implications, and casts a dark pall over the way Christians interact with the non-Christian world. If not careful, we can tend to view unredeemed humanity as sub-human. But the imago dei, while in a process of dissolution, has not yet been completely undone. Note that in Genesis 9, the prohibition against murder is based upon the fact that humanity (still) exists in the image of God. Thus unredeemed humanity still retains value in the eyes of God, and must in the eyes of the Church as well.

But humanity’s value is contingent, and not intrinsic to who we are as creatures. If we forget this we can fall into a sloppy anthrocentric theology that fails to take seriously the tenuous nature of human dignity. Athanasius (again) helpfully speaks of humanity’s creation as a two-fold movement. We were first created as creatures, and only subsequently were we “given a share in the Image of the Word.” This two-fold distinction is important. The gift of the imago dei bestowed on us as creatures is a gift of grace not inherent to what we are as creatures. What’s more, if we fail to use this gift properly, it will be taken away from us.

Thus Genesis 1 cannot stand in isolation from Genesis 3. Left to run its course, sin is the undoing of the imago dei — the very source of our worth and dignity. Ultimately, the person who insists on rejecting the imprint of imago dei —who refuses to be an eikon that points to Another, and who instead strives to be self-referential—ultimately that person divests himself of the very thing that gives him worth. And it is for precisely this reason that the worth of humanity inherent in our existence in the image of God must not be taken for granted. It was given to us as a gift and can also be taken away. If we reject the imago dei — which is necessarily a rejection of God — we will be reduced to mere creature, of no more worth than a brute beast. It’s in this sense that the apostle, quoting the prophets, can say in Romans 3 that “we have all together become worthless.” (I take Paul to be speaking eschatologically here— referring to what will ultimately be true of humanity if we persist in sin. In this age, the reprobate are no more fully depraved than Christians are fully glorified.)

Thus given the corrupting reality of Gen 3, it is proper and necessary to ultimately ground human dignity not simply in the imago dei of Gen 1 (which has proven itself to be corruptible), but also in the imago christi of 1 Corinthians 15. In other words, in glorification. It’s here the Christian possess a unique worth. It is only through participation in Christ’s resurrection that we possess an impeccable value. Only in Christ do we find an incorruptible worth. We bore the glory of the first Adam and it failed us. But the glory of the Second Adam cannot fail. And herein lies our true worth.

What’s more (as Augustine teaches us) God sees us in the present as we will be at the resurrection. Who we are in our future glorification is more true of who we really are, than who we are in the present. Those whom God foreknew… he glorified. The me that God foreknew is not the me of the present, but the me of my future glorification, the me that has been perfectly conformed to the image of Christ. This new me is the real me. Thus the idea that God has to “look away” from us because of our sin, and that he only sees Christ, is not quite right, even if it’s trying (however poorly) to make an important theological point. God doesn’t look away from us in order to love us, nor does he pretend that we are something other than we are. Rather he looks squarely at who we are in the present, imputing to us the reality of who we will one day be in glory because of Christ’s redemptive work. And it’s in who we will be in glory, when at last the imago christi secures for us a unending participation in the imago dei, that we find our lasting worth.

Categories: Athanasius | General | Redemption | Soteriology
Recent Comments
- Ryan Mahoney said...
  
  Love the post; I have been teaching my economic students this very thing. I am trying to imbed into their minds their true identity as humans as opposed to what our culture, economic structures, ad agencies, powers, principalities, rulers and authorities tell them about their supposed identity (that they are merely consumers and producers).
  
  One question…since we are called, in our present state in Christ, new creations is it not also true that the Father sees us presently (already) as restored images of God just not yet fully realized? So then the Father need not “pretend” or merely view “future me” as against “present me”; I am in fact, right now a new creation already but not yet?
  
  02/3/11 9:35 AM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Ryan,
  
  I think we’re pressing toward the same basic point. My only push back is that realized eschatology is still eschatology. I want to articulate these things in a way that still shows the need for the resurrection reality of 1 Cor 15.
  
  02/3/11 1:48 PM | Comment Link
- Ryan Mahoney said...
  
  Makes sense…thanks.
  
  02/3/11 7:50 PM | Comment Link
- Nate Jackson said...
  
  “If we reject the imago dei — which is necessarily a rejection of God…”
  
  I think it is important to clarify exactly what this ‘rejection’ is. In other words, what precisely would constitute a rejection of the imago dei and of God Himself? Are you stating that the imago dei is rescinded from man if he completely turns his back on God so to speak (pronounces God is dead or some other radical rejection), or if he simply leads a life of consistent disobedience? Barth asks the question somewhat perplexing question, ‘what becomes of the knowing man?’ Then, in order to effectively answer this question Barth adamantly proclaims, “Knowledge of God is obedience to God…knowledge of God as knowledge of faith is in itself and of essential necessity obedience” (CD II.I 24). According to Barth, God relates to human life by revealing Himself to us (he is the subject who makes himself an object), and it is this encounter with (or knowledge of) God that demands our COMPLETE obedience. I think that in Barth’s view, there is no other way to the knowledge of God—the only people who know God are the ones who obey him. Furthermore, the human decision to obey God is a direct correspondence to God’s gracious decision to reveal Himself to man. Does lack of COMPLETE obedience to God and his commands (sermon on the mount etc) warrant a loss of the imago dei?
  
  02/5/11 12:12 PM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Nate,
  
  A rejection of the image of God is the refusal to recognize that our lives are not self-referential, that we owe our allegiance to the one in whose image we exist. So in this sense, I think the way that Barth frames his comments about faith and obedience and the knowledge of God is consistent with how I see it. I think one can see a similar theme in Athanasius (certainly), as well as Augustine and Calvin, and likely quite a few others. Ultimately, a complete rejection of God and his commands results in a complete loss of the image of God.
  
  But I see this final, irreversible loss of the image of God taking place in the depravation of the reprobate in the final judgment. All the “destruction” talk found in Scripture is not proof-text fodder for annhilationism, but rather speaks of the destruction of that which makes us distinctly human. In the destruction of Hell, the reprobate, in his unrelenting quest for self-autonomy, is given at last the very thing he most craves, and as such he ultimately becomes a self-loop of an unfulfilled craving; a mere creature/beast. As Luther says, “the will curved back in upon itself.” Or as Lewis says, “human remains” (as in, what’s left over after one’s humanity has been destroyed).
  
  02/5/11 1:50 PM | Comment Link
- Timothy said...
  
  Did you mean “lose it” in the title? Loose is a quite different word.
  
  02/7/11 4:53 AM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Indeed. Thanks.
  
  02/7/11 7:44 AM | Comment Link
- Nate Jackson said...
  
  Thanks,
  Incurvatus in se! Makes so much sense in this context-a life lived for the self ultimately leads to literal destruction or, as you suggest, a beast-like state. However, a life/will, ‘curved outward,’ for others leads to ‘heaven’ (as misconstrued and misinterpreted as that term may be).
  
  Quick clarification, in your framework am I correct if I assert that you cannot lose the imago dei in this lifetime, but ONLY at the final judgement?
  
  The Pastor Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer has some good things to contribute to this conversation surrounding the imago dei in his book on Genesis 1-3 titled “Creation and Fall.” I encourage you to peruse it to come to a complete understanding of what he is saying, but in his exposition (which is almost poetic), Bonhoeffer contrasts the imago dei with the false promise from the serpent to be sicut deus. Then, in typical Bonhoeffer fashion, he takes us to the incarnate Christ–the agnus dei.
  
  “God against humankind sicut deus; God and humankind in the imago dei versus God and humankind sicut deus. Imago dei–humankind in the image of God in being for God and the neighbor, in its original creatureliness and limitedness; sicut deus–humankind like God knowing out of its own self about good and evil, in having no limit and acting out of its own resources, in its aseity, in its being alone. Imago dei–bound to the word of the Creator and deriving life from the Creator; sicut deus–bound to the depths of its own knowledge of God, of good and evil. Imago dei–the creature living in the unity of OBEDIENCE; sicut deus–the creator-human-being who lives on the basis of the divide between good and evil. Imago dei, sicut deus, agnus dei–the human being who is God incarnate, who was sacrificed for humankind sicut deus, in true divinity, slaying its false divinity and restoring the imago dei” (113).
  
  02/7/11 2:03 PM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Nate,
  
  Quick clarification, in your framework am I correct if I assert that you cannot lose the imago dei in this lifetime, but ONLY at the final judgement?
  
  Yes, that’s how I’m seeing it. Hell is the final eschatological destruction of the imago dei. It is the consummation of the trajectory Paul outlines in Romans 2–”and so he gave them over…” They refused to be image bearers and so have, at last, been granted their wish.
  
  And thanks much for the Bonhoeffer reference. This is a topic of much interest to me, and I look forward to reading Bonhoeffer’s treatment.
  
  best…
  
  02/7/11 5:39 PM | Comment Link
- Matthew Mason said...
  
  Gerald, I’m only getting to this now. It’s wonderful, and to my mind (almost!) exactly right. I was pondering a few of these themes, particularly the eschatological nature of human identity and dignity, as I walked home from work this evening.
  
  The point where I’m nervous is Athanasius’ two-fold movement in the creation of humanity. I fear it might run in the direction of a nature/supernature or nature/grace distinction (not saying you’re doing that here). I think you can get at the same point – the contingent nature of human dignity simply by acknowledging that the image can be effaced through sin. I suppose exegetically, the place one might look to support Athanasius’ view is Gen 2:7 and 3:19 – created from dust before life is breathed in, and returning to dust under the curse. But, this wouldn’t suggest humanity created as an animal, and then the image implanted, not least because animals also have the breath of life in them. It seems to me that the imago dei is intrinsic to humanity from the get go, which makes its loss all the more horrific. Truly one is dehumanized.
  
  02/7/11 10:18 PM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  Matthew,
  
  A fair point about Athanasius’ two-fold movement. It’s more theologically interesting than exegetically grounded.
  
  I think the important theological point is that the creature that is called “human being” can exist independent of the image of God; and that this post-image existence is a post-human existence. That which separated us from the beasts has been taken away and we are no longer human. Sin is dehumanizing, as you say.
  
  So while Athanasius is not exegetically correct, the way he frames it helps to highlight the looming danger of a post-human existence for sin-cursed humans.
  
  02/8/11 7:11 PM | Comment Link
- Matthew Mason said...
  
  Gerald,
  
  I definitely agree your second paragraph here. I’m just troubled by the move that seeks to find an existence independent of the image of God prior to receipt of the image. I don’t like the nature/grace distinction. And I think we can affirm the reality of post-image existence of ex-humans without it. Paradoxical as it may sound, I think we need to affirm that we are, by nature, bearers of the image of the Word, and yet, tragically, can continue in existence even when our true nature has been destroyed.
  
  02/8/11 10:16 PM | Comment Link
- Gerald Hiestand said...
  
  When we get together in June you can tell me what you don’t like about the nature/grace distinction. I don’t have strong thoughts on that yet, but I do think there is something to be said for the nature/grace distinction that is lost in a mere sin/grace distinction. But perhaps we are not using these terms in the same way…
  
  02/9/11 2:50 PM | Comment Link
Leave A Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published)

Website

About the SAET Blog

Welcome to the SAET blog. Herein you will find the theological/pastoral ramblings of the Rev. Matthew Mason, the good Doctor Jason Hood, and Pastor Gerald Hiestand. All three write under the premise that theology and the pastorate belong together, and that (at least some) pastors must once again function as writing theologians for the wider church, for the ecclesial renewal of theology and the theological renewal of the church.

Contributors

Gerald Hiestand
Gerald has served as the SAET board president since 2006. He has been in pastoral ministry since 1999, and serves currently as the Senior Associate Pastor of Calvary Memorial Church in Oak Park, IL. He is pursuing a PhD in Classical Studies from the University of Kent, Canterbury.

Jason Hood
Jason is a graduate of Rhodes College, Reformed Theological Seminary, Highland Theological College and the Univ. of Aberdeen. Jason works as Scholar-in-Residence and director of Christ College Residency Program at Christ UMC. He's trying to figure out the twitter thing, @jasonbhood, and sometimes writes for ChristianityToday.com.

Matthew Mason
Matthew earned an MTh at Oak Hill College, London. He is an Assistant Pastor at Church of the Resurrection, Washington D. C. (Anglican Province of Rwanda).

The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesiological Theology

The Imago Dei and Human Worth: Use It or Lose It

Recent Comments

Leave A Comment

About the SAET Blog

Contributors

SAET Blogs

Blog Categories