CONTOURS OF IMAGO DEI

CONTOURS OF IMAGO DEI
THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF
HAVING BEEN MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

by: Shane Morgan

"Calvinism was bound . . . not to rest until both politically and socially every man, simply because he is man, should be recognized, respected and dealt with as a creature created after the Divine likeness" (Kuyper, Abraham, Lectures on Calvinism. pg. 27). When Abraham Kuyper made this statement in his first Stone lecture at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1898, he was expressing in seed form the political and social implications of having been made in the image of God. The task now falls to us to delineate in greater detail, just what these implications are in order to trace the contours of imago Dei.

There are, of course, various different angles from which one may approach a subject of such intrinsic complexity. The angle which we shall adopt in the present analysis will be to trace the contours of imago Dei by fleshing out the essence of three main propositions. The first proposition to which we will give analysis is that man was created imago Dei. Second, we will focus our attention upon the proposition, which states, man is the subject of moral agency. And third, we will examine the undeniable proposition that man is inherently social.

First, to say that man was created imago Dei is to espouse one of the most foundational truths taught in Scripture: "God created man in His own image . . ." (Gen. 1:27). Undeniably, there are certain fundamental differences between human beings and the other creatures with which we cohabit our planet, contra the claims of various animal rights activist groups. There is an intrinsic value and dignity possessed by human beings that by far outweighs that of every other creature. But humans are not only unique in contrast to animals; they are also individually unique in comparison to other human beings. Humans possess the capacity to think for themselves; they have different likes and dislikes, different emotional and psychological needs, different goals and ambitions. And these various combinations of uniquenesses coalesce in each individual constituting an independent being.

In recognition of these truths, it is understandable that the framers of the Declaration of Independence would include among the basic rights of human beings, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The value and dignity of the human person demands these freedoms. People all throughout history have been willing to die for the cause of liberty. Indeed, "[m]an, it would seem, is destined to want to be free" (Samuel, Gregg, On Ordered Liberty. pg. 29). Liberty, however, is not as easily achieved as it is espoused once we realize that there are other persons with whom we must cohabit, who also have the right to freedom. This immediately means that each person’s freedom must be limited by perimeters, which prohibit any free acts that would impinge upon the liberty of another. This then, is the paradox of freedom - that in order to ensure liberty for all who deserve it, liberty itself must be constrained by certain limitations. In the end, "the value of liberty depends upon its being used well," (Ibid. pg. 47) which requires the ability to make choices that are ethically and morally charitable toward all human beings who have been created in the image of God.

Second, to say that man was created imago Dei, is to imply also that man is the subject of moral agency. God, Himself is the supreme moral agent and therefore those created in His image are the subjects of moral agency as well. He tells us in no uncertain terms, "you shall be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. 11:45). Furthermore, "God . . . imprints in men a natural law or rational command that is written in their hearts" (Piedra, Alberto, Natural Law. pg. 10). He preserves an element of freedom within the human person, however, which renders each person free to choose the way in which they will respond to this natural law. This leaves us in a difficult position, because although man is a rational being, the results of the fall render our natural reasoning faculties insufficient to exercise our moral agency in a way that consistently honors the freedom and dignity of others. Even a casual reading of the daily news will prove this to be the case.

As we come to terms with this truth, it becomes evident that if we are to govern ourselves in a way that is mutually beneficial, we simply must appeal to divine revelation. There is no other way. The enlightenment philosophers attempted to circumvent this truth, but in the end they ultimately "failed to provide a public rational justification for a morality void of teleological foundation" (Ibid. pg. 28). With reasoning faculties, which through sin have been rendered insufficient to respond to natural law, and without the corrective influence of divine revelation, every person becomes a law unto themselves with anarchy as the inevitable result. (Sorry Dem's, your self-deluded pipe dream of a world in which your personal autonomy is the highest priority of government simply won't work!) We see this truth in vivid colors when we survey the moral landscape within our post-modern context. Indeed, it is a sad indictment upon any society when a person can at the same time approve of partial-birth abortion and the boycott of KFC because of it’s mistreatment of chickens! Can any thinking person really believe the ACLU is not a living, breathing oxymoron? When truth and morality are divorced from the solid grounding of natural law and divine revelation, they are effectively reduced to nothing more than personally subjective opinions. The so-called "age of reason" has thus nullified the very concepts of truth and morality so as to render human beings all the more incompetent to function as the subjects of moral agency within society. This implies the absolute necessity of human government, whose main purpose is to constrain through force, those who without such constraint, would commit acts which impinge upon the freedom and dignity of others.

Third, that man is inherently social is a principle that permeates and underscores all that we have said hitherto. Human beings are not constituted in such a way as to comfortably live a life of radical autonomy devoid of close relationships. Indeed, God tells us, "it is not good that man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18). This implies the inevitability of human societies, which in turn demands some form of government. It is our task then, as freedom loving people, to create a form of government that is consistent with the dignity and freedom of all persons made in the image of God.

Throughout the history of human existence, man has experimented with many different forms of government ranging from totalitarian rule on one end of the spectrum to utopianism on the other. These experiments have shown democracy to be the one form of government, which takes most seriously both the dignity and the freedom of the human subject. But what form of democracy shall we have? We must keep in mind that "The value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes" (Pell, George, Is There Only Secular Democracy?. pg. 324). Indeed, Cardinal George Pell asks, "Is there only secular democracy?" (Ibid. pg. 321). Listening to the anti-Christian voices within our post-modern context, one might conclude that there is no other form of democracy. And yet secular democracy is failing miserably to maintain a proper balance between the freedom and dignity of human persons! Instead, secular democracy upholds freedom as the greatest good to the detriment of intrinsic dignity, which is possessed by all who have been created imago Dei. This is seen most vividly in the current abortion epidemic, where people uphold freedom of choice while ignoring the dignity and value of the human fetus. It is also seen in the degradation of human personhood through pornography and the breakdown of the family which leaves countless children emotionally and psychologically damaged. Could any sincere Christian support a political party, which not only endorses but celebrates these moral evils?! If secular democracy continues to win the day and freedom continues to be elevated as the greatest good over against the dignity of human personhood, our very form of government is destined to collapse in on itself. So what is the answer?

What we need, contends Cardinal Pell, is a form of democracy "founded on the transcendent dignity of the human person" (Ibid. pg. 326). But if this sort of democracy is ever to materialize, once again, it is clear that we must embrace the dictates of divine revelation. There is no other way. The moral consciousness of Christianity alone holds the dignity and freedom of the human person in perfect balance and thus forms the basis for a form of democracy, which could rescue secular democracy from its trajectory toward total bankruptcy. We would do well to listen to the likes of Robert Kraynak who spells this out well when he says, "modern democracy needs the faith and morals of Christianity to sustain its deepest assumptions about responsible freedom and human dignity" (Kraynak, Robert P., Christian Faith and Modern Democracy. pg. xiii).

In conclusion, the political and social implications of having been created in the image of God are far-reaching indeed. We must recognize the intrinsic value and dignity of every person who has been created in the image of God and seek to preserve for all the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the end, we must seek to bring the theology of imago Dei to bear upon all things - not upon ourselves only, but upon others as well. We must bring the theology of imago Dei to bear upon society, culture and ultimately even upon government itself to the end that all things might redound to our good and to God’s greater glory. One can only hope we haven't slid down the slope of moral compromise so far that recovery is impossible.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Shane Morgan