 the_creation_of_adam.jpg)
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness"…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:26,27).
In part 1 of this post, we wrestled with varied and diverse concepts of what it means to be human.
From whence does human difference and uniqueness, worth and dignity, our identity and character, originate?
For the most part in that 1st piece we observed what distinguishes mankind physically, and examined what we are as defined by what we do.
But what about the cognitive piece?
Does the essential difference in what it means to be human merely lie in superior intellectual horsepower when compared to other earthly creatures?
Is homo sapiens to be uniquely categorized simply based on the size of our brains and the unparalleled human ability to think abstractly and at a more complex level?
Is our humanity merely a function of greater cerebral aptitude - the ability to think deeply and creatively?
To analyze? To dispense wisdom? To reason and to contemplate and to think abstractly?
Or, can human distinctiveness be reduced specifically to the ability to make choices, select and determine preferences, to reason through a menu of options?
In short, is humanity primarily differentiated as homo-volens - the creature who analyzes, evaluates and deploys her will to achieve her ends?
After all, Friedrich Nietzsche (19th century) proclaimed that the man who makes his own choices, determines his own existence.
Back to our question: what is it to be human?
And what role, if any, does God play?
From its first sentence, the Bible assumes the existence of God.
And although a comprehensive understanding of life in His world is built verse-by-verse and chapter-by-chapter, the Bible chronicles human history as possessing sufficient scope to select our own worldview. With that comes our capacity for personal - even individual - definition of meaning, purpose and ethical principles.
And, consequently our license to ignore His commands; to ultimately reject Him.
That's seen by many as entirely appropriate.
Mankind's intellectual capacity, they assert - constantly evolving, refining, and increasing in enlightenment - has outgrown and thereby surpassed its need for God.
Of course, that's nothing new.
Closely juxtaposed in terms of current human behavioural theory is an ancient Greek metaphysical narrative.
Bible teacher R.C. Sproul who died in 2017, saw in recent decades an unmistakable echo of the philosophy of pre-Socratic Greek thinker Protagoras (5th century BC).
Here's the connection: contemporary humanism, he noted, is patterned after the motto: homo mensura, or mankind is the measure of all things.
Therefore, mankind is not only autonomous, but definitive. And in the first quarter of 21st century, that worldview has evolved to man being ultimate, possessing maximum authority.
Consequently, man's law is authoritative, definitive, final, absolute.
Without the inconvenient baggage - now jettisoned - of accountability to the Judeo-Christian God, the humanist dream is to rid the world of pain and suffering. This will occur, we are told, through technology, science, industry, but all is founded principally on education, the primary tool by which to eliminate negative attitudes, destructive life and worldviews, and inappropriate behaviour.
But one is compelled to ask, if history is in fact the best method by which to predict the future, is the humanist projection in any way rational? Does anyone truly believe a better world is just around the corner?
So, who gets to define what it is to be human?
The biblical worldview is compelling, in part, because it remains unchanged for 35 centuries. The Genesis creation account, too often lost in the conversation about human definition and dignity, is powerful, unique, credible. It has far-reaching explanatory scope.
Mankind's uniqueness and value comes from God's decision to create man - male and female - in His likeness and image.
This is what theologians call imago dei.
The Scripture does not precisely define what that feature - imago dei - means.
However, our ability to be creative simply for the sake of constructing beauty to be enjoyed; our intellectual capacity for metacognition (to think about thinking); and our ability to make ethical decisions based on an innate sense of right and wrong - even when not directly playing to our own advantage - are evidences of that unparalleled and glorious distinctive.
So, how does a thinking Christ-follower untangle the myriad opinions and philosophies of what we are, how we're measured, and what it means to be human?
The 20th century French existentialist philosopher J.P. Sartre quickly surfaces in such conversations about human existence and value. (CAUTIONARY NOTE: Some have concluded his ideas unworkable, for near the end of the Second World War, Sartre declared of France, "We were never more free than during the German occupation." Really?)
However, Sartre believed man is haunted by a vision of completion, but even in that moment of consummation, Satre diminished man to a "useless passion".
Takeaway: Diametrically opposed to Sartre's nihilistic skepticism, the Bible affirms from Genesis to Revelation that man's completion - because mankind is fashioned in the Creator's image and likeness - is found only in a relationship with God.
And that eternal bond with the Triune God is transactioned through faith in Jesus Christ.
Thereby results eternal life - understood biblically to describe the quality (abundant life) and the quantity (eternal life).
The immortal words of Jesus reverberate through the corridors of history, a declarative promise to every person made in God's image: I came that they may have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10).
~graphic from faithmag.com
