BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW ESSAY INSTRUCTIONS The purpose of the assignment is to compare and contrast the biblical worldview with a non-biblical worldview. Millard Erickson sets forth various interpretations of humanity in Chapter 17 (a machine, an animal, a pawn of the universe). These various interpretations set the understanding of humanity into a different worldview. The issues of origin, purpose, worth and destiny are differently understood in interpretation. Set forth an alternative understanding of humanity using these various alternative theories of humanity, or others of your choosing. The biblical understanding of humanity has a special understanding of origin, purpose, worth and destiny. The Christian interpreter must be able to clearly articulate this understanding. This assignment will not only set forth the Christian understanding of humanity, but will also show how it is different/similar to other interpretations of humanity. For this assignment, you must write an 8001,000-word essay addressing the following prompt: Compare and contrast the biblical understanding of humanity with at least 2 other competing theories. Assignment Requirements: 3. Explain the biblical view of humanity and provide a comprehensive picture of the major contours of Christian thought in regard to humanity. Make sure that the Bible and influential Christian theologians are referenced in your summary. 4. Compare and contrast these alternative conceptions of humanity with the biblical conception. Reveal areas of comparsion and areas of tension or disagreement. You must include at least 1 area of agreement and 1 area of disagreement between the biblical and alternative theories. 5. Use current Turabian format (or whichever style corresponds to your degree program). Chapter 17 Images of Humankind The doctrine of humanity is a particularly opportune one for us to study and utilize in our dialogue with the non-Christian world. It is an area in which contemporary culture is perpetually asking questions to which the Christian message can offer answers. Because so many different disciplines deal with human nature, there are many different images of humankind. It will be helpful to us, in developing our Christian theological conception, to be aware of at least three of the more prevalent ones. A Machine One of these perspectives has to do with what the human is able to do. The employer, for example, is interested in the humans strength and energy, the skills or capabilities possessed. On this basis, the employer rents the employee for a certain number of hours a day. That humans are sometimes regarded as machines is particularly evident when automation results in a workers being displaced from a job. A robot, being more accurate and consistent, often performs the work better; moreover, it requires less attention, does not demand pay increases, and does not lose time because of illness. The chief concern of those who have this conception of humans will be to satisfy those needs of the person (the machine) that will keep it functioning effectively. The health of the worker is of interest not because of possible personal distress but in terms of working efficiency. If the work can be done better by a machine, or by the introduction of more advanced techniques, there will be no hesitation to adopt such measures, for the work is the primary goal and concern. In addition, the worker is paid the minimum necessary to get the task accomplished.[1] In this approach, persons are basically regarded as things, as means to ends rather than as ends in themselves. They are of value as long as they are useful. They may be moved around like chess pieces, as some large corporations do with their management personnel, manipulating them if necessary in order to accomplish the intended ends. An Animal Another view sees the human primarily as a member of the animal kingdom and derived from some of its higher forms. Humans have come into being through the same sort of process as have all other animals, and will have a similar end. There is no qualitative difference between humans and the other animals. The only difference is one of degree. This view of humanity is perhaps most fully developed in behavioristic psychology. Here human motivation is understood primarily in terms of biological drives. Knowledge of humans is gained not through introspection but by experimentation on animals.[2] Human behavior can be affected by processes similar to those used on animals. Just as Pavlovs dog learned to salivate when a bell was rung, humans can also be conditioned to react in certain ways. Positive reinforcement (reward) and, less desirably, negative reinforcement (punishment) are the means of control and training. A Pawn of the Universe Among certain existentialists particularly, but also in a broader segment of society, we find the idea that humans are at the mercy of forces in the world that control their destiny but have no real concern for them. These are seen as blind forces, forces of chance in many cases. Sometimes they are personal forces, but even then they are forces over which humans have influence, such as political superpowers. This is basically a pessimistic view that pictures people as being crushed by a world that is either hostile or at best indifferent to their welfare and needs. The result is a sense of helplessness, of futility. Albert Camus captured this general idea in his reworking of the classical myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus had died and gone to the netherworld. He had, however, been sent back to earth. When recalled to the netherworld, he refused to return, for he thoroughly enjoyed the pleasures of life. As punishment he was brought back and sentenced to push a large rock to the top of a hill. When he got it there, however, it rolled back down. He trudged his way to the bottom of the hill and again pushed the rock to the top only to have it roll back down. He was doomed to repeat this process endlessly. For all his efforts there was no permanent result.[3] Whether immersed in fearful thoughts about death, the forthcoming natural extinction of the planet, or nuclear destruction, or merely in the struggle against those who control political and economic power, all those who hold that a human is basically a pawn at the mercy of the universe are gripped by a similar sense of helplessness and resignation. The Christian View of Humanity By contrast, the Christian view of humanity is that a human is a creature of God, made in the image of God. This means, first, that humanity is to be understood as having originated not through a chance process of evolution, but through a conscious, purposeful act by an intelligent, infinite person. The reason for human existence lies in the intention of the Supreme Being. Second, the image of God is intrinsic and indispensable to humanity. Whatever sets humans apart from the rest of creation, they alone are capable of having a conscious personal relationship with the Creator and of responding to him. The human also has an eternal dimension. The finite point of beginning in time was creation by an eternal God, who gave humans an eternal future. Thus, when we ask what is the good for the human, we must not answer only in terms of temporal welfare or physical comfort. Another (and in many senses more important) dimension must be fulfilled. Yet the human, to be sure, as a part of the physical creation and the animal kingdom, has the same needs as do the other members of those groups. Our physical welfare is important. Since it is of concern to God, it should be of concern to us as well. We cannot discover our real meaning by regarding ourselves and our own happiness as the highest of all values, nor can we find happiness, fulfillment, or satisfaction by seeking it directly. Our value has been conferred on us by a higher source, and we are fulfilled only when serving and loving that higher being. Many of the questions being asked directly or implicitly by contemporary culture are answered by the Christian view of humanity. In addition, this view gives the individual a sense of identity. The image of a human as a machine, for example, leads to the feeling that we are insignificant cogs, unnoticed and unimportant. The Bible, however, indicates that everyone is valuable and is known to God: every hair of our head is numbered (Matt. 10:2831). Moreover, the Christian view accounts for the full range of human phenomena more completely and with less distortion than does any other view. And this view more than any other approach to life enables us to function in ways that are deeply satisfying in the long run. The Biblical Account of Human Creation When we speak of humanitys origin, we are referring to something more than merely its beginning, for beginning refers simply to the fact of coming into being. Theology, however, does not ask merely how humans came to be on the face of the earth, but why, or what purpose lies behind their presence here. The biblical picture is that an all-wise, all-powerful, and good God created the human race to love and serve him and to enjoy a relationship with him. Genesis contains two accounts of Gods creation of humans. The first, in 1:2627, simply records (1) Gods decision to make humans in his own image and likeness, and (2) Gods action implementing this decision. Nothing is said about the materials or method used. The first account places more emphasis on the purpose or reason for the creation of humans; namely, they were to be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the earth (v. 28). The second account, Genesis 2:7, is quite different: the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Here the emphasis seems to be on the way God created. Direct Human Creation in Scripture The biblical picture of the creation of the human race by God certainly appears to conflict sharply with the evolutionary account of humans having come into existence through the work of natural forces. In fact, the disputes that have taken place between the church and science over evolution have centered mostly on the origin of the human race. Perhaps the most pertinent issue here is the extent to which we view the creation of humans as direct. Did God directly create the entirety of Adams makeup, both physical and psychological, or did he simply take an existing higher primate and modify it, conferring on it the image of God, so that it became a living human being? This issue separates theistic evolution (in which God created the first organism and then worked within the process of evolution, occasionally intervening, however, to modify what was emerging [., infusing the human soul into a previously existent physical form]) from both fiat creationism (in which God created every species in a brief period of time) and progressive creationism (in which God directly created each of the various kinds, including humans; these separate creations constituted a series of steps over a long period of time). A major factor in determining our answer to the question of whether all of human nature was a de novo (new) creation or whether some of it was derived from the process of evolution is the hermeneutical approach that we take to the opening chapters of Genesis. One approach is to maintain that the passage does not say anything specific that would bear on scientific questions about the origin of the human. This seems unduly extreme and unwarranted. A more reasonable approach is to ask what type of literary material we are dealing with in the first three chapters of Genesis. It certainly appears that in Genesis 13 not every object is to be understood as merely that object. For example, the tree of which Adam and Eve are forbidden to eat is not merely a tree, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent appears to have been not merely a speaking serpent, but the evil one himself. Is it not therefore quite possible that the dust used to form Adam (Gen. 2:7) was something more than physical particles of earth? Could it represent or symbolize the inanimate building blocks from which organic matter and hence life came? Or could it, as theistic evolutionists sometimes suggest, represent a prehuman life form? One question that must be faced is whether the symbolism is consistent. The word dust occurs not only in Genesis 2:7 but also in 3:19. For dust you are and to dust you will return. If we understand it in 2:7 to represent an already existing creature, we are faced with two choices: either the meaning of the term must be different in 3:19 (and in 3:14 as well), or we have the rather ludicrous situation that upon death one first reverts to an animal. It should be noted that in those severe degenerative cases where a person becomes virtually subhuman, the change occurs prior to actual death. It would be better, then, to let the (clearer) reference to dust in 3:19 interpret the (less clear) reference to dust in 2:7. We are creatures of God, made in the image of God. A second problem for the theistic evolutionist is the expression and the man became a living being (Gen. 2:7). The words translated living being are also used to describe the other creatures God had made earlier (1:20, 21, 24). This seems to indicate that Adam became a living being at the point of Gods special activity in 2:7, which contradicts the theistic evolutionary view that he was already a living being (though of a different sort) prior to this time. In light of such considerations, we conclude that the biblical data favor the view that humans were directly created in their entirety by God. Direct Human Creation and Science What of the scientific data, however? How do they fit with progressive creationism? Do they preclude direct creation? We note that evolutionists have long been seeking the missing link between humans and the highest primate. Nothing has been found that can be clearly identified as such; indeed, it is unlikely that such a linkage could ever be proved. Progressive creationism, then, would seem to be the best interpretation of both the biblical and the scientific data. One frequently raised question is: Where does Adam fit on the fossil record? A Christian anthropologist used to answer this question semifacetiously, If you will tell me just exactly what Adam looked like, I will tell you. This points to the fact that we are given very little detail about the physical characteristics of Adam. It also underscores the fact that physical appearance is not the major criterion of humanity. So to answer the question, we must first ask what defines humanity, not theologically, but anthropologically. Among the suggestions as to the distinguishing mark of humanity are tool-making, burial of the dead, and the use of complex symbolism or, more specifically, language. Tool-making of an elementary fashion, however, has been found among chimpanzees. James Murk argues that burial of the dead presupposes only fear of the unknown, which in turn presupposes only imagination, not moral sense.[4] The third suggestion, the use of language, seems to have the fewest difficulties. This would correlate Adam (and thus the beginning of humanity) with a great outburst of culture about thirty thousand to forty thousand years ago, the time of Cro-Magnon man. There are some difficulties with this date, however, especially in view of Neolithic elements (., agriculture) found in Genesis 4. Since the Neolithic period began about ten thousand to eight thousand years ago, we have the problem of a gap of twenty thousand years between generations. Several possible solutions for this problem have been proposed. However, this is an area in which there are insufficient data to make any categorical statements; it will require much additional study. The Theological Meaning of Human Creation Now that we have briefly looked at the doctrine of human creation, we must determine its theological meaning. Several points need special attention and interpretation. 1. That humans are created means that they have no independent existence. They came into being because God willed that they should exist and acted to bring them into being and preserve them. This should cause us to ask the reason for our existence. Why did God put us here, and what are we to do in light of that purpose? Since we would not be alive but for God, everything we have and are derives from him. So stewardship does not mean giving God a part of what is ours, some of our time or some of our money. All of life has been entrusted to us for our use, but it still belongs to God and must be used to serve and glorify him. This also helps to establish human identity. If who we are is at least partly a function of where we have come from, the key to our identity will be found in the fact that God created us. We are not merely the offspring of human parents; neither are we the result of chance factors at work in the world. We are here as a result of an intelligent beings conscious intention and plan, and our identity is at least partially a matter of fulfilling that divine plan. 2. Humans are part of the creation. As different as they are from Gods other created beings, they are not so sharply distinguished from the rest of them as to have no relationship with them. We are part of the sequence of creation, as are the other beings. The origin of humans on one of the days of creation links us far more closely with all the other created beings than with the God who did the creating. This means that there should be harmony between us and the rest of the creatures. When taken seriously, our kinship with the rest of creation has a definite impact. The word ecology derives from the Greek oikos, which means house, thus pointing to the idea that there is one great household. What the human does to one part of it affects other parts as well, a truth that is becoming clearer as we find pollution harming human lives and the destruction of certain natural predators leaving pests a relatively unhampered opportunity. By virtue of our origin, we have a kinship with the rest of Gods creation, and in particular with the entire human race. 3. The human, however, has a unique place in the creation. Despite our created status, there is an element that makes us distinct from the rest of the creatures. On the one hand, all creatures are said to be made according to their kind. The human, on the other hand, is described as made in the image and likeness of God. Humans are placed over the rest of the creation, to have dominion over it. This means that humans are not fulfilled when all of their animal needs have been satisfied. The transcendent element designated by the unique way in which the human is described and thus distinguished from the various other creatures must be kept in mind. 4. There is a kinship among humans. The doctrine of creation and of the descent of the entire human race from one original pair means that we are all related to one another. The negative side of our common descent is that in the natural state, all persons are rebellious children of the heavenly Father and thus are estranged from him and from one another. We are all like the prodigal son. But if the truth of the unity of humanity is fully understood and acted on, it should produce a concern and empathy for other people. We will rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep (Rom. 12:15), even if they are not fellow Christians. 5. There are definite limitations on humanity. As creatures, humans have the limitations that go with being finite. Our finiteness means that our knowledge will always be incomplete and subject to error. This should impart a certain sense of humility to all our judgments, as we realize that we might be wrong, no matter how impressive our fund of facts may seem. Finiteness also pertains to our lives. Humanity is not inherently immortal. And, as presently constituted, we must face death (Heb. 9:27). Even in the human races original state, any possibility of living forever depended on God. Only God is inherently eternal; all else dies. Finiteness means that there are practical limitations to all of our accomplishments. While humanity has made great progress in physical feats, the progress is not unlimited. A human may now execute a high jump of eight feet, but it is unlikely that anyone will, within our atmosphere, ever jump a thousand feet without the aid of artificial propulsion. Other areas of accomplishment, whether intellectual, physical, or whatever, have similar practical limitations on them. 6. Limitation is not inherently bad. There is a tendency to bemoan the fact of human finiteness. Some, indeed, maintain that this is the cause of human sin. If we were not limited, we would always know what is right, and would do it. But the Bible indicates that having made the human with the limitations that go with creaturehood, God looked at the creation and pronounced it very good (Gen. 1:31). Finiteness may well lead to sin if we fail to accept our limitation and live accordingly. But the mere fact of our limitation does not inevitably produce sin. Rather, improper responses to that limitation either constitute or result in sin. Some feel that human sinfulness is a carryover from earlier stages of our evolution but is gradually being left behind. As our knowledge and ability increase, we will become less sinful. That, however, does not prove true. In actual practice, increases in sophistication seem instead to give humans opportunity for more ingenious means of sinning. One might think that the tremendous growth in computer technology, for example, would result in solutions to many basic human problems and thus in a more righteous human being. While such technology is indeed often used for beneficial purposes, human greed has also led to new and ingenious forms of theft both of money and information, and other forms of exploitation by the use of the computer. Reduction of our limitations, then, does not inevitably lead to better human beings. Human limitations are not evil in themselves. 7. Humanity is, nonetheless, something wonderful. Although humans are creatures, we are the highest among them, the only ones made in the image of God. We are not simply a chance production of a blind mechanism, or a by-product or scraps thrown off in the process of making something better, but an expressly designed product of God. Sometimes Christians have felt it necessary to minimize human ability and accomplishments in order to give greater glory to God. To be sure, we must put human achievements in their proper context relative to God. But it is not necessary to protect God against competition from his highest creature. Human greatness can glorify God the more. Humans are great, but what makes them great is that God has created them. The name Stradivari speaks of quality in a violin; its maker was the best. Even as we admire the instrument, we are admiring all the more the giftedness of the maker. The human has been made by the best and wisest of all beings, God. A God who could make such a wondrous creature is a great God indeed. Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture. Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name. For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations. (Ps. 100:35)
