Science in Christian Perspective
God's Perspective on Man
VERNON C. GROUNDS
Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary
Denver, Colorado 80210
From: JASA 28
(December 1976): 145-151.
Philosophy and science are both bafflingly inclusive in their subject-matter.
Yet each of these disciplines is essentially an attempt to answer a
simple question.
Taken in its broadest sense, science is dedicated to the task of answering that
question which perpetually haunts our minds, "How?" A simple question
indeed! But to explain how grass grows on our earth or how a machine functions
or how galaxies zoom through the vast emptiness of space has been one
of the great
enterprises of modern civilization, perhaps its greatest. On the
other hand, philosophy,
taken in its broadest sense, is also dedicated to the task of
answering a simple
question which never quits plaguing us, "Why?" Though the
why-question
like the how-question is deceptively simple, it often teases us nearly out of
thought. So, for example, a child asks innocently, "Why was
anything at all?"-and
the sages are reduced to silence.
We who are amateurs in the philosophical enterprise find ourselves bewildered
as we glance at its profusion of rival schools and listen to their
in-group jargon.
Fortunately, though, one of its most illustrious practitioners, Immanuel Kant, provides us with helpful orientation. In the Handbook
which he prepared for the students who studied with him at the
University of Koenigsburg
a century and a half ago, Kant points out that philosophy, a
disciplined attempt
to explain why, concerns itself with four key-problems.1 First, what
can we know?
Second, what ought we do? Third, what may we hope? Fourth, what is
man? In a way
that last question, "What is man?", the problem of
anthropology or the
nature of human nature, includes the other three. For man is that
curious creature
who insists on asking questions. Man is that unique animal who tirelessly cross
examines himself about himself. Man is that relentless interrogator
who probingly
wonders what he can know and what he ought to do and what he may
hope. Philosophy,
therefore, twists and turns around the person and the philosopher.
Every question
he raises is inescapably enmeshed with the question concerning himself as the
questioner, "What is man?"
The fourth key-problem in Kant's succinct outline of philosophy
echoes a recurrent
Biblical theme. In Job 7:17 that very question appears. In Psalm 8:4 that question re-emerges, and
Hebrews 2:5 repeats that same question. Thus we are not surprised
that philosophy,
which like theology is a why discipline, puts anthropology or the
problem of man
front and center. But whether we label ourselves philosophers or theologians or
scientists, every one of us is a human being who grapples with the
issue of self-identity.
Hence the question, "What is man?", concerns us individually at the
deepest levels of our existence; for that question is really the
haunting question,
"Who am I?"
Man as Garbage
Before proceeding to present God's perspective on man, which can be done only
because we presuppose that the Bible is God's Word spoken to us through human
words, let me remind you of some competing models of man that are
widely accepted
today. There is of course the purely materialistic concept which holds that man
is nothing but, as Bertrand Russell elegantly phrased it, an
accidental collocation
of atoms. This concept, though advanced with the blessing of
contemporary science,
is by no means excitingly novel. In the 18th century self-styled
iliuminati scoffed
that man is nothing but an ingenious system of portable plumbing. In preHitler
Germany an unflattering devaluation of Homo sapiens was jokingly
circulated: "The
human body contains enough fat to make 7 bars of soap, enough iron to
make a medium
sized nail, enough phosphorus for 2000 matchheads, and enough sulphur
to rid oneself
of fleas." When human bodies were later turned into soap in the
extermination
camps, the grim logic of that joke was probably being worked out to
its ultimate
conclusion.
Today, tragically, that concept, apparently certified by science, is
articulated
by a celebrated novelist like Joseph Heller. In Catch 22 he describes a battle.
Yossariau, the book's hero, discovers that Snowden, one of his
comrades, has been
mortally wounded. Hoping that none of us will be unduly nauseated by
it, I quote
this vivid passage.
Yossarian ripped open the soaps of Snowden's flack suit and heard
himself scream
wildly as Snowden's insides slithered down to the floor in a soggy
pile and just
kept dripping out. A chunk of flack more than three inches big had
shot into his
other side just underneath the arm and blasted all the way through,
drawing whole
mottled quarts of Snowden along with it through the gigantic hole it
made in his
ribs as it blasted out. Yossarian screamed a second time and squeezed
both hands
over his eyes. His teeth were chattering in horror. He forced himself to look
again. Here was God's plenty all right, he thought bitterly as he stared-liver,
lungs, kidneys, ribs, stomach and hits of the stewed tomatoes Snowden had eaten
that day for lunch. Yossarian . . . turned away dizzily and began to
vomit, clutching
his burning throat
"I'm cold," Snowden whimpered. "I'm cold."
"There, there," Yossarian mumbled mechanically in a voice too low to
he heard. "There, there."
Yossarian was cold ton, and shivering uncontrollably. lie felt goose
pimples clacking
all over him as he gazed down despondently at the grim secret
Snnsvden had spilled
all over the messy floor. It was easy to read the message in his entrails. Man
was matter, that was Snowden's secret, Drop him out a window and he'd fall. Set
fire to him and he'll horn. Bury him and he'll rot like other kinds of garbage.
The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowdeo's secret.2
Mao is garbage. That, crudely stated, is a common view of human nature today.
In the end, man is garbage-an accidental collocation of atoms, destined, sooner or later, to rot
and decay.
To guard against any misunderstanding, let me say emphatically that
from one perspective
man is indeed garbage or will be. That appraisal is incontestably
valid, provided
man is not viewed as garbage and nothing but that. Man has other dimensions to
his being which no full-orbed anthropology can ignore.
Man as Machine
A second concept, apparently endorsed by science, holds that man is essentially
a machine, an incredibly complicated machine, no doubt, yet in the end nothing
but a sort of mechanism. Typical is the opinion of Cambridge astronomer, Fred
Hoyle, who writes in The Nature of the Universe:
Only the biological processes of mutation and natural selection are needed to
produce living creatures as we know them. Such creatures are no more
than ingenious
machines that have evolved as strange by-products in an odd corner of
the universe
. , . Most people object to this argument for the not very good
reason that they
do not like to think of themselves as machines.3
Like it or not, however, Hoyle insists, that is the fact. What is
man? An ingenious machinewell, a whole complex of machines. R. Buekminster Fuller, whose genius
seems to belie the truth of reductive mechanism, pictures man as
a self-balancing, 28 jointed, adapter-based biped, an
electro-chemical reduction
plant, integral with the segregated storages of special energy
extracts in storage
batteries, for the subsequent actuation of thousands of hydraulic and pneumatic
pumps, with motors attached; 62,000 miles of capillaries, millions of warring
signals, railroad and conveyor systems; crushers and cranes
and a universally distributed telephone system needing no service for seventy
years if well managed; the whole extraordinary complex mechanism
guided with exquisite
precision from a turret in which are located telescopic and
microscopic self-registering
and recording range finders, a spectroscope, et cetera.4
That man from one perspective is a complex of exquisitely synchronized machines
cannot he denied and need not be, provided human beings are not
exhaustively reduced
to that, and nothing but that. Man has other dimensions to his being which no
full-orbed anthropology can ignore.
Man as Animal
Still another current concept of man holds that he is essentially an
animal. Loren Eiseley, a distinguished scientist whose prose often reads like
poetry, eloquently
sets forth this model of humanity in his 1974 Encyclopedia Brittarsica article,
"The Cosmic Orphan." What is man? lie is a cosmic orphan, a primate
which has evolved into a self-conscious, reflective, symbolusing animal. Man is
a cosmic orphan, a person aware that he has been produced, unawares
and unintentionally,
by an impersonal process. Thus when this cosmic orphan inquires, "Who am
I?", science gives him its definitive answer.
You are a changeling, You are linked by a genetic chain to all the vertebrates.
The thing that is you bears the still-aching wounds of evolution in body and in
brain. Your hands are made-over fins, your lungs come from a swamp, your femur
has been twisted upright. Your foot is a reworked climbing pad. You are a rag
dull resewn from the skins of extinct animals. Lung ago, 2 million years perhaps, you were smaller; your brain was not so large. We arc
not confident
that you could speak. Seventy million years before that you were an
even smaller
climbing creature known as a tupaiid. You were the size of a rat. You
ate insects.
Now you fly to the moon.
Science, when pressed, admits that its explanation is a fairy tale.
But immediately
science adds:
That is what makes it true. Life is indefinite departure. That is why
we are all
orphans. That is why you must find your own way. Life is not stable. Everything
alive is slipping through cracks and crevices in time, changing as it
goes. Other
creatures, however, have instincts that provide for them, holes in
which to hide.
They cannot ask questions. A fox is a fox, a wolf is a wolf, even if this, too,
is illusion. You have learned to ask questions. That is why you are an orphan.
You ore the only creation to the universe who knows what it has been. Now you
most go on asking questions while all the time you are changing. You will ask
what you are to become. The world will no longer satisfy you. You
most find your
way, your own true self. "But how can I?" wept the Orphan, hiding his
head. "This is magic. I do not know what I am. I have been too
many things."
"You have indeed," said all the scientists together.
Something still more must he appended, though, science insists as it explains
man to himself.
Your body and your nerves have been dragged about and twisted in the
long effort
of your ancestors to stay alive, hot now, small orphan that you are, you must
know a secret, a secret magic that nature has given you. No other creature on
the planet possesses it. You use language. You are a symbol-shifter. All this
is hidden in your brain and transmitted from one generation to another. You are
a time-binder; in your head the symbols that mean things in the world outside
can fly about ontrammeled. You can combine them differently into a new world of
thought, or you can also hold them tenaciously throughout a life-time and pass
them on to others.5
Expressed in Eiseley's semi-poetic prose, this concept, while
confessedly a fairy
tale, has about it an aura of not only plausibility but nobility as
well. Sadly,
however, when man is reduced to an animal and nothing but an animal, the aura
of nobility vanishes and bestiality starts to push humanity into the
background.
Think of man as portrayed in contemporary art and literature and drama. Take,
illustratively, the anthropology which underlies the work of a
popular playwright
like Tennessee Williams, What is the Good News preached by this evangelist, as
he calls himself? His Gospel, interpreted by Robert Fitch, is this:
Man is a beast. The only difference between man and the other beasts
is that man
is n beast that knows he will die. The only honest man is the
unabashed egotist.
This honest man pours contempt upon the mendacity, the lies, the hypocrisy of
those who will not acknowledge their egotism. The one irreducible
valise is life,
which you must cling to as you can and use for the pursuit of pleasure and of
power. The specific ends of life are sex and money. The great passions are lost
and rapacity. So the human comedy is an outrageous medley of lechery,
alcoholism,
homosexuality, blasphemy, greed, brutality, hatred, obscenity. It is
not a tragedy
because it has not the dignity of a tragedy. The man who plays his role in it
has on himself the marks of a total depravity. And as for the ultimate and irreducible value, life, that in the
end is also
a lie.6
These, then, are three contemporary models of man, all of them rooted
in a philosophy
of reductive naturalism. First, man is nothing but matter en route to becoming
garbage. Second, man is nothing but a complex
Man is garbage, machine, animal-and image of God. God's model of
authentic personhood
is Jesus Christ.
of exquisitely synchronized machines.
Third, man is nothing but an
animal, a mutation
aware that, as a cosmic orphan, it lives and dies in melancholy loneliness.
Man as God's Creature
Now over against these views let us look at man from God's
perspective, unabashedly
drawing our anthropology from the Bible. As we d0 so, please bear in mind that
we are not disputing those valid insights into the nature of human nature which
are derived from philosophy, no less than science. Suppose, too, we
take for granted
that psychology and sociology are properly included within the
scientific orbit.
In other words, we are assuming that man is multidimensional and that
anthropology
therefore requires God's input if it is to give us a fullorbed picture of its
subject.
To begin with, then, the Bible asserts that man is God's creature, So
in Genesis
2:7 this statement is made: "The Lord God formed man of dust
from the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a
living soul."
Exactly how God formed man Genesis does not tell us; it does tell us, though,
that man is not an accident, a happenstance, a personal mutation ground out by
an impersonal process. On the contrary, Genesis tells us explicitly
that man owes
his existence to God's limitless power, wisdom, and love. It tells us
explicitly
that man-dust inbreathed by deity-cannot be explained except in terms
of creaturchood.
Which means what? As creature, man is qualitatively different from God, utterly
dependent upon God, and ultimately determined by His creator. It is
God Who determines
man's nature and determines, likewise, the laws and limits of human
existence.
Obviously, the implications of this Creator-creature relationship are enormous.
Few reductive naturalists have perceived them as penetratingly as
Jean-Paul Sartre,
the foremost spokesman for atheistic existentialism now living. Realizing what
follows if indeed man has been made by God, Sartre repudiates the very notion
of creation. Understandably so! If there is no Creator, then there is no fixed
human nature, and mass has unbounded freedom. He can decide who he will be and
what he will do. That is why Sartre postulates atheism without
stopping to argue
for it.
Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, states that it God does not exist,
there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists
before he can he defined by any concept, and that this being is man,
or, as tleideggcr
says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence
precedes essence?
It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and,
only afterwards, defines himself. It man, as the existentialist conceives him,
is indefinable, it is because at first lie is nothing. Only afterward will he
he something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no
human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man
what lie conceives
himself to be, hot he is also only what be wills himself to be after
this thrust
toward existence . . . . If existence really does precede essence, there is no
explaining things away by reference to a fixed and given human nature. In other
words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand,
if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which
legitimize
our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse
behind us, nor
justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses.7
Thus in Sartre's opinion only if man is not a creature can he be
genuinely free,
free to shape his own nature, free to run his own life, free to pick and choose
his own values. And Sartre is right. Grant that man is a creature, and you must
grant that he can never sign a declaration of independence, cutting
himself free
from God. He is inseparably related to God, finding fulfillment and obedience
to his Maker's will. Hence Paul Tillich, in tacit agreement with Sartre, argues
that the modern repudiation of God springs from man's fierce desire to renounce
his creaturely status. In Tillich's own words:
God as a subject makes me into an object which is nothing more than an object.
He deprives me of my subjectivity because he is all-powerful and all-knowing.
I revolt and try to make him into an object, but the revolt fails and becomes
desperate. God appears as the invincible tyrant, the being in
contrast with whom
all other beings are without freedom and subjectivity. He is equated with the
recent tyrants who with the help of terror try to transform everything into a
mere object, a thing among things, a cog in the machine they control.
He becomes
the model of every thing against which Existentialism revolted. This is the God
Nietzsche said had to be killed because nobody can tolerate being made into a
mere object of absolute knowledge and absolute control. This is the
deepest root
of atheism.8
Tillich, alas, grossly misconceives the Creator-creature relationship; but one
thing he profoundly apprehends. Man as God's creature can never sign
a declaration
of independence from his Creator. That is the basic fact of human
existence.
Man as God's Image
In the next place, the Bible asserts that man is God's image. Genesis
1:26 announces
this second momentous fact of human existence rather undramatically. "And
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." To interpret
the full significance of the intriguing phase, the image of God, is
plainly beyond
my competence. But its central thrust is undebatable. Man was created not only
by God and for God but also like God. He was created a finite person reflecting
the being of infinite Personhood. Qualitatively different from God
and absolutely
dependent upon his Creator, man was endowed with the capacity of responding to
the divine Person in love and obedience and trust, enjoying a
fellowship of unimaginable
beatitude.
My purpose is not to defend the audacious claim that the unimpressive
biped whom
Desmond Mcrris labels the naked ape is indeed God's image. But that audacious
claim loses at least some of its initial incredibility when one takes
into account
man's extraordinary characteristics. These have been succinctly summarized by
Mortimer J. Adler in that study, The Difference of Man and the
Difference It Makes,
which challenges reductive naturalism to rethink its inadequate
anthropology.
1. Only man employs a propositional language, only man uses verbal
symbols, only
man makes sentences; i.e., only man is a discursive animal.
2. Only man makes tools, builds fires, erects shelters, fabricates clothings;
i.e., only man is a technological animal.
3. Only man enacts laws or sets up his own rules of behavior and
thereby constitutes
his social life, organizing his association with his fellows in a
variety of different
ways; i.e., only man is a political, not just a gregarious, animal.
4. Only man has developed, in the course of generations, a cumulative cultural
tradition, the transmission of which constitutes human history; i.e., only man
is a historical animal.
5. Only man engages in magical and ritualistic practices; i.e., only man is a
religious animal.
6. Only man has a moral conscience, a sense of right and wrong, and of values;
i.e., only man is an ethical animal.
7. Only man decorates or adorns himself or his artifacts, and makes pictures or
statues for the non-utilitarian purpose of enjoyment; i.e., only man
is an aesthetic animal.9
Man, the animal who is discursive, technological, political,
historical, religious,
ethical, and aesthetic, certainly seems unique enough to lend some plausibility
to the Biblical claim that he was created in God's image. That audacious claim,
which does not impress Adler as preposterous, also receives powerful
endorsement
from the well-known physicist, William G. Pollard, How better, he inquires, can
man he designated than the image of God? His cogent argument for this position
cannot now be rehearsed; but his conclusion, it seems to me, deserves
to be heard
even by those of us who are anti-evolutionists:
Starting from the perspective of the mid-twentieth century, we are able to see
two very fundamental aspects of the phenomenon of ma:) which would
not have been
evident before. One of these is the conversion of the biosphere into
the noosphere.
The other is the miraculous correspondence between the fabrications
of man's mind
and the inner design of nature, as evidenced by the applicability of abstract
mathematical systems to the laws of nature in physics. Both of these quite new
perspectives strongly support the contention that man is after all made in the
image of God. What we have come to realize is that there is no
scientific reason
why God cannot create an element of nature from other elements of
nature by working
within the chances and accidents which provide nature with her indeteraiioism
and her freedom. We also see in a new way that the fact that man is indeed an
integral part of nature in no way precludes his bearing the image of
the designer
of nature. Or to put it another way, there is nothing to prevent God
from making
in His image an entity which is at the same time an integral part of nature.10
Regardless of how persuasive or unpersuasive we may judge Pollard's argument to
he, the belief that man is God's image supplies the only solid ground for that
much-praised, much-prized value of Western civilization-man's inherent dignity.
For what is it that imbues man with dignity? If he is nothing but garbage or a
complex mechanism or an over-specialized animal, why ascribe to him a
worth that
is literally incalculable? Why follow the teaching of Jesus Christ and impute
to human beings a dignity which is best articulated by the phrase,
the sacredness
of personality? That Jesus Christ does impute so high a dignity to human beings
is indisputable in the light of the Gospel. Indeed, He imputes to human beings
a dignity so high as to dichotomize nature. On the one side, Jesus Christ puts
the whole of created reality; on the other, He puts man; and axiologically, or
in terms of his worth, man outweighs nature. Thus in Matthew 6:28-30 our Lord
as they toil not, neither do
they spin: And
yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one
of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is,
and tomorrow is east into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, 0 ye of
little faith?" But why is man, if merely one more emergent in
the evolutionary
process, valued above and beyond rarest roses or exotic orchids?
Again, in Matthew 10:29-31 our Lord imputes to man a worth above and beyond the
whole avian order. "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of
them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very
hairs of your
head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value
than many sparrows."
But why is man valued above and beyond parakeets and falcons?
Once more, in Matthew 12:12 our Lord imputes to man a worth above and
beyond the
whole zoological order as He exclaims, "How much more valuable is a person
than a sheep!" Come to Denver for the National Western Stock
Show held annually
in January, and you will be astonished at the fabulous prices paid for champion
steers, as much as $52,000. Remember by contrast that an average person even in
today's inflated economy is worth about one dollar chemically. Then why is man
valued above and beyond blue-ribbon steers?
Furthermore, in Matthew 16:26 our Lord imputes to man a worth above and beyond
the whole sweep of created reality. "What shall it profit a man
if he gains
the whole world and loses his own soul? Or what shall a man give in
exchange for
his soul?" Why does Jesus Christ value man above the entire
planet and beyond
all the cosmos? Why? Man is unique because he alone is God's image-bearer; and
as such he possesses inherent dignity and incalculable worth. As finite person
reflecting the inexhaustible realities and mysteries of infinite Personhood, he
cannot be valued too highly.
Yet of what practical significance is this evaluation of man, grounded in his
dignity as the image of God? Is not this belief just one more element
in an outmoded
theology? Let Leslie Newbigin answer.
During World War II, Hitler sent men to the famous Bethel Hospital to
inform Pastor Bodelschwingh, its director, that the State could no longer afford to maintain
hundreds of epileptics who were useless to society and only constituted a drain
on scarce resources, and that orders were being issued to have them destroyed.
Bodelschwingh confronted them in his room at the entrance to the Hospital and
fought a spiritual battle which eventually sent them away without having done
what they were sent to do. He had no other weapon for the battle than
the simple
affirmation that these were men and women made in the image of God and that to
destroy them was to commit a sin against God whic'i would surely be punished.
What other argument could he have used.11
Yes, and what other argument was needed? Abandon belief in man as God's image,
and in the long run you abandon belief in human dignity.
Man as God's Prodigal
In the third place, the Bible asserts that man is God's prodigal.
Plants, birds,
animals are instinctually programmed. They move in a predictable
course from birth to death. But man is that peculiar creature who, possessing intelligence
and freedom, may choose to behave in ways that are self-frustrating
and self-destructive.
The Spanish philosopher, Ortega Y. Gassett, remarks that, "While the tiger
cannot cease being a tiger, cannot be detigered, man lives in a perpetual risk
of being dehumanized. "12 Why, though, is man always in danger of failing
to become what he potentially could be? Why does he, as a matter of fact, live
in a state of ambivalence and contradiction, the animal whose nature it is to
act contrary to his nature? Back in 1962 Dr. Paul MacLean suggested,
some of you
may recall, the theory of schizophysiology, speculating that man is radically
self-divided because he has inherited three brains which are now required
to function
in unity. The oldest of these is reptilian; the second is derived
from the lower
animals; the third and most recent is the source of man's higher
mental characteristics.
Hence the brain of Homo sapiens is the scene of unceasing tension. Why wonder,
therefore, if unlike other animals he is erratically unpredictable?
Arthur Koestler, too, has indulged in speculation as to why man finds himself
in a constant state of selfcontradition. In his 1968 book, The Ghost
in the Machine,
he advances a novel theory.
When one contemplates the streak of insanity running through human history, it
appears highly probably that homo sopiena is a biological freak . . .
the result
of some remarkable mistake in the evolutionary process Somewhere along the line
of his ascent, something has gone wrong.13
I will not stop to consider Koestler's suggestion that with the help
of psychopharmocology
the evolutionary mistake which is man may hopefully be corrected. I
simply inquire
as to what has gone wrong. Koesfler has his own conjecture, but I
prefer to accept
the explanation advanced in Scripture. Man, instead of living in a
self-fulfilling
fellowship with God, a fellowship of trust and obedience and love, misused his
freedom. He did as the younger brother did in our Lord's parable of
the prodigal
son: he turned away from his Father in the name of freedom. Man chose
in an aboriginal
catastrophe to transgress the laws and limits established by his
Creator. He bqeame
a rebel. Thus God cries out in Isaiah 1:2, "I hbve brought up children and
they have rebelled against me," a lament which echoes beyond the
Jewish nation
ahd reverberates over the whole human family. A planetary prodigal, man is thus
in self-willed alienation from God, an exile wandering East of Eden,
squandering
his patrimony (think of our problems of pollution and starvation),
living in misery
and frustration, unable to be what he ought to he and to do what he
ought to do,
self-divided and selfdestructive. The Biblical view of man as God's image who
is now God's prodigal, a rebel and a sinner, impresses many of our
contemporaries
as incredibly mythological. Yet it impresses some of us as more congruent with
the realities of history, psychology, and sociology that any of its
secular rivals.
Man as God's Problem
In the fourth place, the Bible, which we believe gives us God's perspective on
man, asserts that man, God's creature, God's image, God's prodigal, has become
God's problem through the aboriginal catastrophe of
self-chosen alienation, Joseph Wood Kruteh, a noted student of literature who
retired to Arizona and there devoted himself to the study of nature,
sat one day
on a mountain pondering a wild idea. What if in the creative process
God has stopped
after the fifth day? What if there had been no sixth day which saw the advent
of man? Would that have been a wiser course for infinite wisdom to
follow? After
all, we read in Genesis 6:5,6 that God indulged in some sober second thoughts
about man, His own image turned into a prodigal. "And God saw
that the wickedness
of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his
heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." One might
interpret the judgment
of the flood as a sort of huge eraser which God used to rub out His
mistake!
Moreover, the Bible does not hesitate to say that man, God's image
and God's prodigal,
has become God's heartache. Yes, unhesitatingly, the Bible describes the divine
reaction to human sin as a reaction of intensest grief. So in the prophecy of
Hosea 11 we come across a text which, granting that the language is
anthropopathic
or attributing human emotions to God, portrays a heartbroken Creator:
When Israel was a child I loved him as a son and brought him out of Egypt. But
the more I called to him, the more he rebelled, sacrificing to Baal and horning
incense to idols. I trained him from infancy, I taught him to walk, I held him
in my arms. But he doesn't know or even care that it was I who raised him. As
a man would lead his favorite ox, so I led Israel with my ropes of
love. I loosened
his muzzle so he could eat. I myself have stopped and fed him . . . . Oh, how
can I give you up, my Ephrains? How can I let you go? How can I
forsake you like
Adam and Zehniim? My heart cries out within me; how I long to help you!
Listening to that pathetic outpouring over the people of Israel and
by extension
over people everywhere, we turn back in memory to the day in the first century
when God incarnate looked upon the city of Jerusalem and wept.
God's creature and God's image, self-constituted at God's prodigal, man is not
only God's heartache but also God's problem. What can the Creator do with the
creature who has rebelliously prostituted his Godbestowed capacities?
Should God
admit failure? Should God destroy man as a tragic blunder? Should He send this
sinful creature into eternal exile? God, if I may he allowed an
anthropomorphism
no more crude than those the Bible uses, has a God-sized problem on His hands.
In His holiness He cannot wink at sin, pretending it does not matter. He cannot
lightly pardon man's guilty disobedience. No, His justice requires
that the sinner
be punished; and yet to send man into eternal exile would mean the frustration
of God's very purpose in creating this creature. For as best we can infer from
the Bible, God Who is love was motivated by love to expand the orbit
of beatitude
by sharing His own joyful experience of love with finite persons who
could respond
to His love with their love. So what can God do? Blot out His blunder and stand
forever baffled in the fulfillment of His desire by the will of a
mere creature?
God's dilemma is brought to a sharp focus in Romans 3:25, where the
apostle Paul
writes that God must he just while at the same time somehow justifying the sinner. God must remain loyal to the demands of His holiness and
justice, yet forgive man, cleanse him, transform him, and only then welcome him
into the eternal fellowship of holy love. This is certainly a
God-sized problem,
a dilemma which might seem to baffle even the resources of Deity.
But the Gospel is Good News precisely because of the amazing strategy by which
God resolves His own God-sized dilemma. And that strategy is the
amazing strategy
of the Cross. Incarnate in Jesus Christ, a Man at once truly divine and truly
human, God dies on the cross bearing the full burden of the punshment human sin
deserves. But in His Easter victory He breaks the power of the grave. And now
He offers forgiveness, cleansing, transformation, and eternal fellowship with
Himself to any man, who magnetized by Calvary love, will respond to the Gospel
in repentance and faith. This, most hastily sketched, is God's solution to the
problem of man. What a costly solution! Its cost, not even a
sextillion of computers
could ever compute!
I am one of those rather weakminded people who find chess too
exhausting for their
feeble brains. But I admire those intelligences of higher order who
can play that
intricate game with ease and pleasure. Paul Morphy, in his day a world champion
chessman, stopped at an art gallery in England to inspect a painting of which
he had often heard, "Checkmate!" The title explained the picture. On
one side of the chessboard sat a leering devil; opposite him was a young man in
despair. For the artist had so arranged the pieces that the young
man's king was
trapped. "Checkmate!" Intrigued and challenged, Morphy
carefully studied
the location of the pieces. Finally he exclaimed, "Bring me a chess board.
I can still save him." He had hit on one adroit move which
changed the situation
and rescued the young man from his predicament. That is what God has done for
all of us in Jesus Christ. By the mind-stunning maneuver of the Christ-event He
has provided salvation from the consequences of our sin. He has opened up the
way for His prodigals in their self-imposed exile to return home,
forgiven, restored,
welcomed unconditionally into the Father's loving fellowship.
Man's Possibility
Having discussed man's origin, and nature-man as God's creature,
image, prodigal,
and problem-may I merely mention man's possibility as Biblically disclosed? For
Scripture asserts that by repentance and faith man may enter into a
new relationship
with God, becoming God's child, God's friend, God's colaborer, and so
being God's
glory in this world and the world beyond time and space.
Instead of existing as Eiseley's cosmic orphan, man can enter into a
filial relationship
of obedient love with the Heavenly Father. Instead of existing in
hostile estrangement
from God, man can enter into a relationship with his Creator which is akin to
the intimacy of mature friendship on its highest plane. Instead of existing in
frustration, feeling that all his labor is a futile business of drawing water
in a sieve, man can enter into a relationship of cooperative
creativity with God;
he can find fulfillment as he develops the potentials of our planet
and eventually
perhaps those of outer space. He can find fulfillment, too, functioning in his
society as salt and light and yeast. He can also find fulfillment as he follows
the law of neighbor love, sharing what ever good he may have, and sharing especially the Good News that God
in love longs
for the human family to he coextensive with His divine family.
Instead of anticipating
blank nonentity after he has died, man can enter into a relationship with God
which will last through death and on through eternity as a conscious union of
finite persons with infinite Person.
What a magnificent model of man this is! What a gulf stretches between it and
those models of man proposed by reductive naturalism! So I close by voicing my
agreement with that perceptive Jewish scholar, Abraham Heschel.
It is an accepted fact that the Bible has given the world a new concept of God.
What is not realized is the fact that the Bible has given the world a
new vision
of man. The Bible is not a book about God; it is a book about man.
From the perspective of the Bible:
Who is man? A being in travail with God's dreams and
designs, with God's dream of a world redeemed, of reconciliation of heaven and
earth, of a mankind which is truly His image, reflecting His wisdom,
justice and
compassion. God's dream is not to be alone, to have mankind as a partner in the
drama of continuous creation.14
I agree with that enthusiastically-except that in my opinion the
Gospel of Jesus
Christ adds to Hesehel's statement heights and depths which Old
Testament anthropology
only intimates.
In all of our work, then, whether in science or any
any other vocation, may we strive to see man from God's
perspective, remembering that God's model of authentic
personhood is Jesus Christ. May our anthropology be
more than a theoretical conviction. May it serve as a
dynamic which shapes our own lives.
REFERENCES
1Cf. Martin Buber, Between Man and Man (London: Kegao Paul, 1947), p. 119.
2Joseph Heller, Catch 22 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1961), pp.
429-430.
3Quoted in Denis Alexander, Beyond Science (Philadelphia: A. J.
Holman Co., 1972),
p. 108.
4Quoted in Lewis Mumford, The Myth of the Machine (New York: Harcourt Brace and
World, 1970), p. 56.
5Loren Riseley, "The Cosmic Orphan: Reflections on Mao's
Uncompleted Journey
Through Time," SR/World, February 23, 1974, pp. 16-19.
6Robert E. Fitch, "Secular Images of Mao in Contemporary Literature,"
Religious Education, LIII, p. 87.
7Quoted in Norbert 0. Schedler, Philosophy of Religion (New York:
Macmillan Publishing
Co., Inc., 1974), pp. 125-129.
8Quoted in ibid., pp. 183-184.
9Mortimer J. Adler, The Difference in Man and the Difference
Makes (New York: Halt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967), p. 286.
10William Pollard, Man on a Spaceship (The Claremont Colleges,
Clareosout, California,
1967), pp. 50-51.
11Quoted in Cohn Chapman, Christianity on Trial (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House
Publishers, 1975), p. 226.
12Quoted in Raymond Van Over, Unfinished Man (New York: World
Publishing, 1972),
p. 25.
13Quoted in Denis Alexander, op. cit., p. 129.
14Abrahaos J. Hechel, Who Is Man? (Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press,
1973), p. 119.