man being the image of god essay

How to go to Heaven

How to get right with god.

What does it mean that humanity is made in the image of God (imago dei)?

For further study, related articles, subscribe to the, question of the week.

Get our Question of the Week delivered right to your inbox!

• What does it mean to be made in God’s image?

The Christian faith and worldview is predicated on a set of nonnegotiable truths. One of these is that human life is inherently valuable. Christians have articulated and acted upon this transcendent understanding of human dignity throughout history, whether opposing infanticide and child abandonment, fighting against chattel slavery or engaging in civil disobedience to protest segregation. The powerful idea that every single person has inherent value is rooted in the image of God, a doctrine expressed in the opening chapter of Genesis.

Although “image of God” has become ubiquitous in Christian literature and conversation in recent years, it has not been robustly defined. Perhaps this is due to the lack of agreement throughout church history on what exactly constitutes image of God, which no doubt stems from the fact that Scripture declares but does not elaborate on the axiom in detail.  

But much can and should be said. The fact that human beings are created in God’s image shapes the Christian worldview and affects how we see God, the world and one another. It informs how we understand the rest of the Bible’s story and provides a theological foundation for ethics and engagement. In short, a proper understanding of the image of God should animate everything we do, and as a result, we should endeavor to define it biblically; this will enable us to then survey what issues Christians should care about.

Different understandings of the image of God

Throughout church history, there has been universal agreement that image of God is a significant theological concept. But debate has abounded regarding what the image fundamentally refers to.  

Some have argued in favor of a structural view that believes man’s ontological (the nature of being) qualities, such as rationality and cognitive capacity, constitute the image of God. These qualities distinguish man from the rest of creation. Early church leaders, such as Irenaeus and Augustine, as well as John Calvin, held variants of this view.

Another position is the relational view that stresses the importance of man’s relationships. Emil Brunner and Karl Barth advocated this approach, where being made in God’s image fundamentally entails living in relationship with God and others.

A third view is the functional or “vice-regency” position that posits man’s derivative authority to rule on behalf of God defines the image. Unlike the rest of creation, it is man that functions as God’s chief representative in the world. This view stresses the command to exercise dominion (Gen. 1:26-28).

The image of God and Ancient Near Eastern culture

It is evident in Genesis 1 that the Bible is content with simply asserting that man is somehow like God. Further elaboration is not provided. Why is this? As Bruce Ware has noted, technical terminology in speaking or writing is usually introduced and not explained in contexts where the audience is already familiar with specialized language. It seems fair to assume Moses was operating with this expectation. Therefore, considering Genesis 1 in light of the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) usage of image of God might be helpful.

A seminal study on ANE images is David J.A. Clines'  The Image of God in Man . Clines argues that ANE literature contains three commonalities in accounts that utilize image symbolism. First, a deity imputes a substance to an earthly king, enabling him to represent the divine. Second, the empowered king represents the deity by ruling as vice-regent. Third, only the king is ever given this privilege.

Applying this to Genesis, it is reasonable that Moses had this background in mind. First, God breathed into Adam the breath of life. Divine empowerment was requisite to function as God’s image. Second, man is tasked with exercising dominion and ruling as God’s vice-regent. Clines' third characteristic, however, does not apply. The Bible surprises us at this point by affirming that everyone bears God’s image. Clines' reconstruction of the ANE background is helpful and may account for why Moses did not furnish a more precise definition. His original readers would have had a framework to interpret image language and its connotations.  

Through the lens of the ANE background, it is clear that certain aspects of the structural, relational and functional perspectives provide a holistic understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God (i.e., the structural serves the purpose of the functional carried out in relationship).

The image of God, therefore, includes both who man is and what he does. Ontological capacities and functionality are inseparably tied because the human person as a created whole is the image of God.

Man is like a statue erected by an ancient king—as the statue bore the image of the king and signified rulership, man bears God’s image in the cosmic temple of the world, representing his authority and dominion. Man is the visible representation of the invisible God. If one wants to know what God looks like, simply look at man, the crowning jewel of creation and the only creature made in God’s image and likeness.

The image of God and cultural engagement

One of the tragic results of sin is that man no longer properly images God; the remnants of the image have been marred. The relationship with our Creator is broken, and redemptive history bears witness to man’s inability to obey and honor God.

But the glorious truth of the New Testament is that restoration is possible through Christ, the perfect image of God (Col. 1:15), whose redeeming work restores the image to repentant sinners and establishes them as co-heirs with Christ.  

In this light, the Biblical understanding of man’s creation in God’s image has stunning implications for Christian ethics. Not only is everyone created in God’s image, but every human being is a potential future ruler of the universe.

C.S. Lewis poignantly remarked: “It is a serious thing . . . to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.”

In the new creation, God will once again set up his image bearers. But this time, God’s vice-regents will be perfect because of their union with Christ. Paradoxically, the new creation has already begun. It was inaugurated when Jesus was raised from the dead and will be consummated when he returns.

And as Christians waiting patiently for this day, we will endeavor to treat people made in God’s image with dignity and respect irrespective of gender, race, age, nationality or economic status because we remember our King’s words that as we did for “the least of these my brothers, you did also to me” (Matt. 25:40).

Thus, we will care for those caught in the vice grip of poverty. We will fight against human trafficking. We will uphold the dignity of the elderly and disabled. We will advocate on behalf of immigrants. We will work for religious liberty and conscience freedom. We will stand for marriage. We will promote racial reconciliation. And we will fight the culture of death in all its ugly forms.

We will do all this out of love for God and concern for those that bear his sacred image.

Join us on January 18–20, 2018,  for Evangelicals for Life 2018. Keep an eye out here for more information. 

David Closson

David Closson, M.Div., serves as the Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council where he researches and writes on issues related to religious liberty, human sexuality, and the development of policy from a biblical worldview. Currently, David is completing a Ph.D. in Christian Ethics (with a … Read More

Related Resources

Explainer: how the alabama supreme court’s ruling on life affects ivf.

By Jason Thacker

Why the pro-life case is compelling

By Jason Thacker, Scott Klusendorf

Explainer: Florida Supreme Court upholds 15-week abortion ban

By ERLC Staff

Receive your Practical Guide to Answering Gender Confusion today in your inbox

Sign up for your free reminder for bringing hope to an election year, article 12: the future of ai.

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24

What Does 'Imago Dei' Mean? The Image of God in the Bible

The Image of God: 'Imago Dei'

“Imago Dei” comes from the Latin version of the Bible, translated to English as “image of God.”

"Image of God" is defined as the metaphysical expression, associated uniquely to humans, which signifies the symbolical connection between God and humanity. The phrase has its origins in Genesis 1:27 , wherein "God created man in his own image..." This biblical passage does not imply that God is in human form, but that humans are in the image of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual essence. Thus, humans reflect God's divine nature in their ability to achieve the unique characteristics with which they have been endowed. These unique qualities make humans different than all other creatures: rational understanding, creative liberty, the capacity for self-actualization, and the potential for self-transcendence.

Imago Dei Definition

This is a longer definition of “Imago Dei” as provided by pbs.org : 

The term imago Dei refers most fundamentally to two things: first, God's own self-actualization through humankind; and second, God's care for humankind. To say that humans are in the image of God is to recognize the special qualities of human nature which allow God to be made manifest in humans. In other words, for humans to have the conscious recognition of their being in the image of God means that they are the creature through whom God's plans and purposes can be made known and actualized; humans, in this way, can be seen as co-creators with God. The moral implications of the doctrine of imago Dei are apparent in the fact that if humans are to love God, then humans must love other humans, as each is an expression of God. The human's likeness to God can also be understood by contrasting it with that which does not image God, i.e., beings who, as far as we know, are without self-consciousness and the capacity for spiritual/ moral reflection and growth. Humans differ from all other creatures because of their rational structure - their capacity for deliberation and free decision-making. This freedom gives the human-centeredness and completeness which allows the possibility for self-actualization and participation in a sacred reality. However, the freedom which makes the human in God's image is the same freedom which manifests itself in estrangement from God... the Fall (Adam and Eve) exemplifies. [,,,] humans can, in their freedom, choose to deny or repress their spiritual and moral likeness to God. The ability and desire to love one's self and others, and therefore, God, can become neglected and even opposed. Striving to bring about the imago Dei in one's life can be seen as the quest for wholeness, or one's "essential" self, as pointed to in Christ's life and teachings.

Meaning and Significance

Imago Dei, or Image of God, means in likeness, or similarity, to God. Humans are created with unique abilities, absent in all other creatures of the earth, that mirror the divine nature of God.

5 Steps to Stop the Sneaky Sin of Gossip

The significance of humans being created “in the image of God” is our responsibility to recognize and understand rationality and ability to create abstract conceptions from the natural world. This gives us the capacity to create a glorious peaceful world or a fallen chaotic environment, depending upon our motives and understanding. Just as Satan fell from God, we are capable of falling from God and suffering the consequences. We must realize our dual potential (good vs evil) and act in accordance with God’s will and law to create prosperous and benevolent communities and nations.

Imago Dei (Image of God) in the Bible

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 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 )

And have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. ( Colossians 3:10 )

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. ( Genesis 9:6 )

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. ( 2 Corinthians 4:4 )

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, ( Hebrews 1:3 )

Photo Credit: Wikimedia/Creation of Adam (Michelangelo) Detail

This article is part of our Christian Terms catalog, exploring words and phrases of Christian theology and history. Here are some of our most popular articles covering Christian terms to help your journey of knowledge and faith:

The Full Armor of God The Meaning of "Selah" What Is Grace? Bible Definition and Christian Quotes What is Discernment? Bible Meaning and Importance What Is Prophecy? Bible Meaning and Examples

How Can We Prioritize What Really Matters the Most?

4 Questions to Ask Yourself When You Feel Restless but Want to Trust in God

Morning Prayers to Start Your Day with God

Is Masturbation a Sin?

The Best Birthday Prayers to Celebrate Friends and Family 

What Is the Jezebel Spirit?

35 Prayers for Healing the Sick and Hurting

God wrote His name on you when you gave your life to Jesus Christ. He has given you gifts and abilities. He has invested himself in you. That is where your value comes from. And that’s why you can make a difference.

Bible Baseball

Play now...

Saintly Millionaire

Bible Jeopardy

Bible Trivia By Category

Bible Trivia Challenge

• Navigate to any page of this site.

• In the menu, scroll to Add to Home Screen and tap it.

• In the menu, scroll past any icons and tap Add to Home Screen .

Reflections on Mormonism

Judaeo-christian parallels, truman g. madsen , editor, imago dei: man in the image of god, ernst w. benz.

Ernst W. Benz, “Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God,” in  Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels , ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1978), 201–22.

What is the meaning of the Genesis phrase that man is in the image of God? Traditionally one is told: Man is free, man is moral, man has reason. There is too the Hebraic idea that there are divine sparks within man. And there are the related theories that make man a portion—usually a finite and degenerate portion—of some cosmic totality.

Mormonism cannot say a wholehearted yes to any of these traditions. Its vision is more than that man is a little lower than the angels; he is a little lower than the gods. He has the potential to be crowned with glory and honor—or to degenerate to the condition of Satan. The “adding upon” of a body is a step which Christ himself took, not downward, but upward. For the Mormon, man may fall into two debilitating errors: the prideful claim that he is not at present in a fallen and needful state, or the blasphemous humility of considering himself a worm.

Yet in the wake of the Vatican Council more than one Catholic writer has acknowledged that the Mormon understanding of man is in “the small print” of the early Fathers. And though Protestant writers, much inclined to speak of man’s finitude and pride and depravity, tend to find the Mormon hope excessive, even Bonhoeffer, the patron saint of those who speak of the “post-Christian age,” has in his Cost of Discipleship stunning statements that refuse to see man as anything less than a potential Christ. Through such eyes, and the recent Nag Hammadi literature, theologians are looking anew at the New Testament.

Professor Benz brings Mormonism into comparison and contrast with mysticism and ends by showing that the sacred Mormon vision “as God now is, man may become” can be found in Athanasius in the second century—"God became man so that we may become God.”

He then addresses himself to how this view revolutionizes the perceptions and misperceptions of Augustine, of Schelling, and of the mystics, and traces the burden and self-sacrifice, as well as the joy, that arise from accepting fully the heritage and promises of Christ.

Our understanding of Imago Dei— Man in the Image of God—begins with Augustine, who laid the groundwork for the Christian view of man in all occidental theology through his work about the Trinity.

Augustine poses the question of how one can in an understandable manner depict the mystery of the Divine Trinity; then, after many futile attempts, discovers the following (and in his opinion only) way: Man is created in the image of God; God is triune; therefore, traces of divine trinity— ”Vestigia Trinitatis”— must be found in man as the image of God. Augustine now asks a further question: In which aspect of man can such traces be found? As a former Manichean it is obvious that for him such traces are to be found not in the realm of the body but only in the human intellect. He begins with an analysis of the human epistemological process and ascertains that even in the simple act of sensory perception there exists a trinity composed of the viewer (the “mens” ), the viewed object, and the impulse of the will which focuses the “acies mentis” on the object and triggers the act of recognition. He then sees the same trinitarian principle again in a higher form involving spiritual understanding, where the object of understanding is not a tangible object in the superficial world anymore but an abstracted idea stored in the “belly of the memory”— “venter memoriae.” The final stage, then, is the act of self-recognition in which the viewer, the mens , takes itself as its own object of understanding and discovers itself as the “Imago Dei.” And lastly, in the highest spiritual act, the mens , driven by its love of God, turns toward the divine Archetype itself.

It is not necessary to dwell here on further details; the important thing is that for this context Augustine’s entire perception of the relationship of God’s image to man’s image is based on the symbol of the mirror. The Imago Dei is a reflection of the Archetype in the human spirit. The symbol of the mirror provides many graphic possibilities: For one thing, the Archetype is only fully mirrored in the reflected likeness when the mirror is fully turned toward that Archetype, when the reflection is completely attuned to the Archetype. Further, the correlation between Archetype and reflection is extinguished or disturbed when the mirror turns from the Archetype toward other objects or when the mirror itself is darkened.

The symbol of the mirror clearly brings forth yet another thought, namely, that for Augustine there exists no essential cohesion between Archetype and reflected image. The reflected image is “a symbol, but alas, only a symbol.” It has nothing of the nature of the Archetype: it mirrors the Archetype on a fundamentally different ontological basis: it is a reflected creatura which has nothing in common with the Being of the Archetype. Ontologically there exists a total discontinuity between Archetype and reflected image. The Augustinian opinion even suggests the thought that the relationship between Archetype and reflection is totally one-sided: reflected man is dependent on the Archetype; he exists only as long as the Archetype cares to mirror itself in him. The Archetype, on the contrary, is not dependent on its reflection. Its freedom—one is even tempted to say its moods—dictates whether it reflects itself or not. Its Being is not impaired whether it is reflected.

Thus the doctrine of Imago Dei has given rise to many different theoretical reflections on the relationship between God and man. Indeed, this concept of man has accompanied the whole history of Christian theology and has been a traditional component of scholarly dogmatics.

It appears to me that the words of the Christian mystics contain reference to new questions which have suddenly made the topic of Imago Dei pertinent again, and they seem to be important to a new religious anthropology which would do justice to our modern feeling about and consciousness of the world. For the mystics are able to overcome precisely the two weaknesses which adhere to the Augustinian comprehension of Imago and his orientation toward the mirror symbol, namely, the limitation of Imago to the purely intellectual sphere, and the absence of any substantial connection between Archetype and reflected image.

The mystics’ view of man is immediately and profoundly determined by their own religious experience, by their personal encounter with the transcendental. Their view of man itself is not an abstract model based on theological premises but is an attempt to think through, to mentally order their own experiences, their overpowering, stirring, and transforming encounter with the transcendental, and to ask: “How is it possible that this kind of experience could take place within me?” Only after this point is reached can the more general reflections begin about the question: “How must man be, how must God be, so that this kind of encounter can take place? What are the spiritual and psychic presuppositions for this in the structure of man that such an outpouring of the transcendental can occur?”

Mystical theology, therefore, whose major component is a certain view of man, is the a posteriori generalization of and the subsequent attempt to logically understand an overpowering experience which was at first incomprehensible. The differences in the interpretations of the mystics depends not so much on differences in the a priori spiritual bias of each mystic given by his religious training and theological instruction, but primarily on differences in the experiences themselves. In the case of one mystic the central sphere of experience is a God mysticism, in which a unification with God is attained; in the case of another, the central experience is an experience with Christ, in which a unification with Christ, the divine Logos , the resurrected Lord, is experienced. Neither type of experience in any way excludes the other.

In the same way contact with the transcendental differs, depending on the spiritual sphere in which the encounter itself occurs. There is a characteristically intellectual mysticism, in which the encounter with the transcendental is perceived as an illumination of the mind, as a brightening of the intellect; and again there is a mysticism in which the encounter with the transcendental is perceived as a unification of the divine and the human will, as a breakthrough of a new divine impulse, as an affective harmony with the divine will, as the ecstasy of the heart, transported into divine rapture. This diversity of mystical experience (intellectual, volitional, and affective mysticism) naturally affects the intellectual interpretation of the experience itself and the conceptual exposition of each individual mystic’s view of man.

Modern theology is widely opposed to every kind of mysticism because it interprets mystical experiences from a purely psychological point of view as mere interior processes which have nothing to do with the transcendental and which, in the last analysis, simply amount to the psychological experiencing of mystical conditions of happiness. But it is simple to see that one cannot explain away the phenomenon of Christian mysticism by means of a certain psychological interpretation. The fact is that mystical experiences exist, and the fact is that these experiences have a powerful effect—in the form of a creative transformation—on the lives of the mystics. The whole history of the Christian Church shows that its very backbone is composed of such personalities, in whom the content of historical Christian revelation—transmitted through documents and mediated through the sacraments and symbols of the Church—was realized and actualized by direct personal encounter with God by having Christ dwell within and by experiencing the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. Thus they became the ones who proclaimed the gospel in the most convincing manner.

When one interprets individually these basic concepts, however, certain thoughts become noticeable in Christian mysticism which overstep the bounds of a traditional dogmatic exegesis of fundamental Christian teachings. For this reason, in the Middle Ages mystics were almost always in conflict with the Inquisition, and Protestant circles led regular disputes with Church authorities.

Of course, even the starting point for the mystical interpretation of the relationship of man to God is boldly presumptuous. The great mystics, who themselves had experienced the “unio mystica” with God, see their experience in a whole new light; they recognize with bewilderment in the encounter with the Divine Thou that God and man are dependent upon each other, that they need each other to fulfill their being. This is perhaps the most radical interpretation of the thought that man is created in the image of God.

Man finds his fulfillment in God, but on the other hand, also, God finds fulfillment for his being only in man, in the unio mystica . The longing of man for his Archetype, God, is fulfilled, as well as the longing of God for his image, man. Here the symbol of the mirror is not prime, but rather is that of God’s “self-portrayal” in man through procreation and birth. God’s “self-portrayal” ensues in the form of his self-realization in the sphere of corporeality. God as “mens manifestativum sui” actualizes himself in his highest form in his image as man by procreating and bearing his own image in man. Long before the historical birth of Jesus Christ, the creation of man already prefigures the “mysterium incarnationis.” Angelius Silesius, who gathered the most important experiences and thoughts of medieval mysticism into aphorisms of the most linguistically perfected kind—made possible no doubt by his own mystical experiences—expresses this ardent mutuality of the God-man relationship in the following epigrams from his Cherubinischen Wandersmann (“The Cherubic Pilgrim”):

God is as much on me, as I on him, dependent, His Being I help be, mine he helps be, resplendent. I know that without me, God cannot live a minute. If I should come to harm, He must give up the spirit. [1]

No mystic perceived this dual relationship between God and man more strongly than Master Eckhart. His perception can be expressed in the following simple thought: God does not want to be alone. His innermost Being is love. Love, however, can only be fulfilled in the presence of love, freely given in return. God created man in His image and gave him therewith the freedom to turn his full love toward Him and to respond to His love in return, but with this freedom also came the possibility of turning from Him. Indeed, man has misused his freedom; he has loved himself instead of directing his love toward God. But God cannot stop loving man and expecting from him the fulfillment of His love through love freely given in return. He awakens divine love in man by procreating and bearing His Son in human form. The divine, aboriginal fundus is an abyss, out of which divine love wafts before pouring into the human soul to fulfill itself therein.

In one point of the Christian mystic’s view of man, traits are found which were neglected or forgotten in traditional church teachings. These touch mainly on the Christian understanding of man in his relationship to the universe and to nature. The Reformation of the sixteenth century led to the emphasis of all religious and theological concern being shifted to the question about the nature of faith, or, as Luther formulated it, to the question, “How do I acquire a merciful God?” When the theology was confronted with this, the relationship between man and the universe was relegated more and more to the background. The fact that theology ceased to concern itself with the problem of a Christian understanding of the universe did much to emancipate the natural sciences from a theology which had lost its view. Only in the area of mystical anthropology was the old knowledge retained—that in the Creation, the Fall, and in salvation there is a real, eternal connection between man and the universe. This connection was still expressed by mystics like Master Eckhart, who treats it as clearly self-evident, and it is expressed in three ideas which occur again and again in later mysticism, as for example in Johann Arndt, the author of the Four Books on True Christianity . [2] But it is prominent also in the natural theology of Jacob Bohme and his heirs, right down to Friedrich Christoph Oetinger, until it achieved its last universal audience in the nature philosophy of Hegel and Schelling. [3]

The first idea is that there exists an inner connection between man and the universe even so far as the Creation is concerned, since man was created as the “epitome” and “quintessence” of the universe. This is the old Neoplatonic idea of man as the microcosm being resurrected within the framework of Christian Anthropology, naturally in a substantially altered form, not anymore the reflection but the quintessence, the epitome, the “extract” of the universe. In man, all the powers and forms of the universe are brought together; he is the point of intersection and the point of aggregation of all forms and developments of the universe; he is the “final creation” in an almost evolutionary sense. These are ideas that are found again in the Christian mystics among modern anthropologists and paleoanthropologists like Edgar Dacque, for whom the figure of man has always stood as an inner model and key image behind the whole range of forms of life in the plant and animal kingdoms; and, recently, Teilhard de Chardin, who also sees the evolution of life determined by a “hominization” that strives toward its future fulfillment in a greater cosmic Christ. [4]

The second idea is intimated and expressed in the words of the apostle Paul: “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the [revelation] [5] of the sons of God . . . because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. . . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain [with us] [6] together until now” (Romans 8:19, 21, 22.) Expressed here is the idea that by the revolt of man against God and by sin, not only man fell to the status of captive, but also the entire creation was pulled downward by man in the Fall and now awaits with man the day of its liberation through God. The idea in its completely natural sense is not so far removed from our thinking today, when we contemplate the devastation of t h e animal kingdom, the pollution of the waters and the atmosphere, and the destruction of nature by industrial and commercial plundering.

The third idea, however, is that God’s work of salvation is not limited to man but encompasses the whole universe. In the renewal of man, and with the restoration of the original divine image in mart, the universe is also brought back into the original order. These thoughts were expressed most clearly and powerfully by Johann Arndt in his Four Books on True Christianity . [7] Behind the title “Four Books on True Christianity” lies the idea of the fourfold self-revelation of God:

God revealed himself in man, whom he created in his image. He revealed himself in Jesus Christ, in whose person he returns to man the divine promise of salvation which man himself betrayed. God revealed himself in the holy scriptures, which expound the saving desire of God and awaken faith which leads to salvation. And he revealed himself in nature, which itself is a self-revelation of God.

The fourth book of Johann Arndt, which treats the self-revelation of God in nature, became the basis for all subsequent drafts of a theology of Nature. Nowhere else in mysticism is the unique nobility of man on the one hand, and the inner connection between the salvation of man and the salvation of the universe on the other, so clearly expressed as in Johann Arndt.

The mystical comprehension of the idea of Imago Dei , of the self-portrayal of God in man through the procreation and birth of the Son in man, leads directly, in the last analysis, to the concept of the apotheosis of man. This concept disappeared from church doctrine in the fifth and sixth centuries and never spread to the Roman Catholic Occident, even in the period of the Ancient Church, but it always remained alive in the tradition of Christian mysticism by virtue of the continuity of the mystical experience. Yet European believers who dared to speak about apotheosis in the Christian sense of the renewal of God’s image in man are not to be discussed here, but rather the representatives of an American Church, which—based on the experiences and doctrines of its visionary founder—has made the idea of deification the very foundation of its anthropology, its concept of the community, even its social structure: the Mormon Church. In examining this, of course, I break a European taboo, namely, the rule which is still widespread in European theology even after half a century of ecumenical movements— “Americana non Leguntur,” and the specific prejudice of German theology that Germans somehow have a hereditary right to theology and that American theology does not even exist.

That American theology which bases itself on a continuation of Old and New Testament revelation in the form of a further, definitive one, especially intended for America, is comprised of the teachings of the Mormons, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [8] A unique transformation of the concept of God is the basis for the teachings of Mormonism; that is to say, in the last analysis, the teachings of the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith, the founder of this church, maintained, was written on golden plates brought to him by an angel and translated by himself into English with the aid of the Urim and Thummim. This unique transformation of the idea of God led to the astounding achievements which this church has accomplished, achievements that can be demonstrated by the fact that the Church has established Zion anew in a unique cooperative effort in the middle of the Great Salt Lake Desert in the territory of the modern states of Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and California, after enduring persecutions of all kinds and overcoming obstacle after obstacle in first attempting to establish this new Zion in the state of Ohio and later in Missouri. [9]

It is unknown what spiritual tradition provided Joseph Smith (who as the son of a simple settler in Sharon, Vermont, grew up under the difficult conditions of colonization) with his new understanding of God. As a boy he heard the revival sermons of various preachers from various sects who came among the settlers. But what is characteristic about his religious development is precisely that he obeyed the angelic warning to join none of the existing sects, but to prepare himself for the imminent revelation of the eternal gospel whose herald he himself was to be. Today, historians of Christian theology might presume that he picked up by accident some half-understood bits of Schelling’s idea on theogony, the idea of a God who evolves himself in his creation, who grows with it and in it becomes more and more aware of himself—but among the settlers of the Wild West there was no such possibility.

And so the complete reinterpretation which the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes of the orthodox Christian view of God is all the more surprising. To be sure, the holy books of Mormon revelation—the Book of Mormon itself, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants—also speak in an apparently completely orthodox manner about the omnipotence and omniscience of God; they testify that he is the Lord of Creation and of salvation. But what is decisively new about Joseph Smith’s view of God is the idea that God himself participates in the fundamental law of the universe, namely, the law of eternal progression. God himself develops himself with his creations and participates in eternal progression.

Connected to this is, in Joseph Smith, the idea that God did not create the earth out of nothing—the elements of the earth are eternal and uncreated. In this eternal universe there is no dead matter. Matter is full of power and energy; even spirit is matter; spirit and energy belong to the eternal nature of the universe. The activity of God does not consist, then, of creating the universe out of nothing, but of bringing the existing universe of matter, spirit, and energy into a progressive order, to form this given universe more purely and more perfectly, to bring forth order out of chaos. In this activity he himself grows in power and glory as God. The Mormon view of God is a theology of progression and evolution.

But what was God in the beginning? The Mormons’ startling answer to this question is that in the beginning God was man. His relationship to the universe is the same as man’s relationship to the universe. He attempts to rationally form the given universe and make it useful to him. Since he is subject like man to the law of progression, this has to mean that

God must have been engaged from the beginning, and must now be engaged, in progressive development, and infinite as God is, he must have been less powerful in the past than he is today. . . . It is clear also that, as with every other being, the power of God has resulted from the exercise of his will. . . . As knowledge grew into greater knowledge, by persistent efforts of will, his recognition of universal laws became greater until he attained at last a conquest over the universe, which to our finite understanding seems absolutely complete. . . . We may be certain that, through self-effort, the inherent and innate powers of God have been developed to a God-like degree. Thus, he has become God. [10]

This naive formulation of that which Schelling made the basis of his natural theology—the doctrine of theogony—presupposes that the form in which God undertook the progressive organization of the earth was the human form.

Universally accepted among the Mormons is the idea that God has attained his present state of Godhood through his own efforts to organize the universe. In place of the God of conventional orthodox churches, who has always been complete, Mormonism knows of a God who has attained by his own activity, by progressive creative organization of the eternal, material, power-laden universe, a relative dominion over the world—a task which in no wise is complete and which needs further refining by means of more eternal progression. The universe is not yet complete; God has not yet attained the highest degree of his “Godhood.” He has accomplished a great deal since he engaged as an exalted man in the organization of the universe, but he has yet much to do. Progression is infinite.

In our age of space travel it is astonishing to see that this farm boy Joseph Smith, with his violently opposed visions, built his view of the world into a system of plurality of worlds which opens up all the possibilities of a macrocosmic theology. Each system of worlds has its God, who advances with it, who—one is tempted to say—tinkers with it, perfects it, and attempts to organize into higher forms its reluctant powers of spirit and matter, intelligence and energy. Parley P. Pratt, the great first-generation Mormon leader, said in 1855: “Gods, angels and man are all of the same species, they comprise a great family which is distributed over the whole solar system in the form of colonies, kingdoms, nations, etc. The great decisive difference between one part of this race and the other consists in the differing degrees of intelligence and purity and also in the difference of the spheres, which each of them inhabit, in a series of progressive Being.” [11]

There is, therefore, a great number of spirit beings who are all engaged in the climb toward godhood. In “worlds without number” (Moses 1:33) numerous gods, who are all subject to a “Supreme Head,” are still involved in eternal progression.

This idea has also been retained in modern Mormon theology. Apostle John A. Widtsoe writes in his book, A Rational Theology , which appeared in 1937:

Some may be approaching God in power, others may be immeasurably far from the Lord in power, nevertheless immeasurably far above us mortal men of the earth. Such intelligent beings may be as gods to us for they possess to a greater or less degree the quality of Godhood. [12]

Thus, the image of God and man join in the image of the Eternal Man. Man is an image of God because he progressively becomes more and more a god and approaches godhood. The anthropology of the Mormons is expressed in the colossal statement of Lorenzo Snow which became proverbial even in the early days of Mormonism: “As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may become.” Again, it is clear that the image of the Divine Man stands behind this concept. “Man was also in the beginning with God” (D&C 93:29). Man and God are eternal intelligences, members of a great society of eternal beings. In a certain sense, future progression is therefore inherent in the Eternal Man. “We were begotten spirits by God, who thus became our Father, and we his sons and daughters.” [13]

But this eternal man does not enter the world in a completed form; he himself has grown in the Creation of the world, has become that which he is by a gradual progression, and he is not finished by any means. Through endless ages man has risen by slow degrees to his present state. Here begins the eschatology of the Mormons: only in the kingdom of God on earth will human progress attain its highest degree. The goal of the progressive development of man is the divine man. Man is eternal and as such the possessor of “Godlike attributes,” but these must first be formed, improved, developed and perfected in a series of progressive changes, in order to arrive at the fountainhead, the standard, the climax of Divine Humanity. Man is of the same family as God and the Gods, but like God himself he must first unfold his being in an act of self-creation through eternal progression.

How is the step taken, however, from heavenly man who was with God from the beginning, or from the heavenly spirit beings, rather, the heavenly intelligences, to a concrete man of this earth? In the answer to this question, the Mormons’ decisive fundamental anthropological attitude and religious feeling for life is clearly revealed: the heavenly spirits can only develop and perfect themselves in this world of matter, energy, space and time. The spirits press for incarnation in this world of time, space, power, and matter. They receive permission from God himself to take this decisive step which directs their progressive realization of self into the sphere of the body and makes it possible.

Of course, this presupposes one thing: an insistence on the ultimacy of human freedom. The Book of Mormon states: “Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way to eternal life.” (2 Nephi 10:23.) In 1830, Joseph Smith proclaimed that the Lord has said of man: “Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself “ (D&C 29:35.)

Hence the single human individual lived free and unembodied in his heavenly homeland as a rational spirit being—"intelligence,” “acting upon its own agency”—and independent in its own sphere as all rational beings are. (See D&C 30.) On the basis of its own free choice, the heavenly spirit being comes down to this earth to test its abilities in dealing with “coarse” matter and to develop itself in the realm of the body and in mortal time and space. Heavenly man did not ignorantly throw himself into this world, driven by sheer lust—as the Gnostic myth of redemption teaches—but came in full knowledge of the difficulties awaiting him here.

For the descent of the heavenly man into this world was preceded by the “great council in heaven,” in which God taught man that it is possible to develop his power and knowledge with a full consciousness of the difficulties, including death, awaiting him here. The spirit beings who press for incarnation know that death is a condition of corporeal life in time and space, and that suffering death is one of the tasks they have to perform in this world. This great plan was laid before the free spirits for their decision. In a decision of the free will, man continues on the path of eternal progression, under that great law of increasing complexity, “the law of endless development of all the powers of man in the midst of a universe becoming increasingly complex.” [14]

Especially revealing in context with this anthropology is the reinterpretation of the devil. Satan participated in “the great council in heaven.” He proposed to God that in view of the difficulties of man’s test in this new condition of terrestrial existence his agency, his freedom of choice, be taken away, and in its place that he, Satan, be allowed to lead the human family by the “Fuhrer principle” in order to bring each and every one to perfection without allowing anyone’s wrong decisions to endanger him. But God forbade Satan to encroach upon man’s freedom and to make him subject to his will. Rebellion at this refusal of God is the reason for Satan’s fall from the presence of God (Moses 4:1–6). As a result of his expulsion from heaven Satan now attempts to thwart the great plan of God on the earth and rob man of his free will. (See D&C 93:39.) Thus man comes to this earth to continue his development in a universe which is itself still in development.

A lessening or stealing of freedom is evil. This explains why Mormons refuse all stimulants like alcohol, tea, and coffee, as well as sedatives, in most instances, so that they will not be in a condition in which their free-thinking and decision-making processes are hindered.

This anthropology represents the most radical counter-pole to the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin. Mormons do not deny the existence of sin, but they stress that sin often means the choice of wrong means of self-actualization and self-progression. Consequently there is no original sin and therefore no punishment for original sin: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” (Second Article of Faith.) The reality of death belongs to the earthly process of the perfection of man. The heavenly spirits already know in advance that death awaits them as a condition of being in the earth in space, time and corporeality, but they choose this form of progression in the full consciousness that overcoming these difficulties is a means of progression; at this point salvation through Christ begins to acquire meaning.

For this progression of man does not end in death, but continues on in life after death. This further progression, too, is dependent upon the fulfillment of God’s commandments in full freedom and clear understanding. In a revelation of the Lord to Joseph Smith we read: “For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.” (D&C 78:7.) Earthly life is a preparation for future life, a preparation which consists of keeping the commandments of God as they have been given through the revelations of the Bible and of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The mode of existence after death is also of a corporeal character. Mormons do not hold with a pure , that is, bodiless existence. “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes.” (D&C 131:7.) An immaterial being is a contradiction in terms. Immaterialness is just another word for nothingness and is the negation of all existence. Spirit is just as much matter as oxygen or hydrogen. Likewise the concept of the resurrection of the body plays an important role in Mormonism and determines in a decisive way a Mormon’s expectation of the coming kingdom of God. [15]

Mormon marriage practices are of two types—marriage for time, and marriage for time and eternity. Marriage for time binds the marriage partners until “death do you part”; this is the less desirable form of marriage. The second and preferred form of marriage is “marriage for time and all eternity.” It is based on a sacramental ordinance performed in the temple, the “sealing” of the marriage partners and their children to each other for eternity.

Historically Mormons have practiced a third form of marriage, “marriage for eternity.” This form of marriage is performed for men or women who have already died, in instances where the woman either was not married in life or had only been married “until death” and is hence marriageable again after death, that is, eligible for “marriage for eternity.”

These marriages “for time and eternity,” as well as those “for eternity,” will be continued in the next life. Marriage for eternity, therefore, provides the basis for the mutual cooperation of the partners in the infinite progression of the universe. The fathers and mothers of great families will find their fullest exaltation in the life to come and “. . . they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things. . . . ” (D&C 132:19.) Thus marriage, by which a husband is sealed into an eternal family unit, is the true path to godhood, and the way of eternal progression which best leads man above.

The theory and practice of birth control naturally finds many vigorous opponents among Latter-day Saints. “There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles. Now, what is our duty? To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can.” [16]

In no other Christian doctrine is the connection between God and man so closely conceived, the idea of man as the image of God so concretely and literally interpreted, man brought into such close proximity to God, and God, on the other hand, so strongly directed to man, as in Mormonism. The thought of apotheosis in mysticism, which expresses itself there in the idea of the spiritual divine birth in man and in the spiritual procreation of the Son in man and in the progressive deification of man, has been translated here into a theology of evolution and progression, where the path that man travels from his prehistoric to his earthly form of existence to his future corporeal mode of existence in the kingdom of heaven is understood as the path of eternal progression determined by the “Great Plan” of God, which makes possible man’s ascent to godhood. It is not the path, however, of the lonely, celibate mystic, but the way of a great and ever-growing family of Saints in whom the creative, conscious organization of the universe is perfected.

One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence. We must remember here that for the Ancient Church salvation stood in direct correlation to embodiment. Athanasius, the great Bishop of Alexandria, the head of the Church in all Egypt, summarized the Christian doctrine of salvation in the words, “God became man so that we may become God.” The goal of salvation is deification, and Athanasius invokes in this context the words of Jesus: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48.)

A study of the Bible interpretations of the Greek fathers, on which their dogmatic doctrines were based, leads to the surprising discovery that a passage of holy scripture which plays an outstanding role in the biblical foundation of anthropology has totally disappeared from occidental sermon and liturgy, namely Psalm 82:6: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” (“Ego dixi, Dii estis et filii excelsi.”)

In the Gospel according to John, this concept plays a decisive role in the understanding of man and the portrayal of the messianic self-consciousness of Jesus. In John 10:22, the discussion between Jesus and the scribes is depicted. There Jesus speaks the colossal phrase which comprises the key to his messianic self-consciousness: “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30.) This phrase appears to the assembled orthodox Jews to be such a great blasphemy that they raise stones to extract—right on the spot—the punishment prescribed by the law to the party guilty of such blasphemy:

For blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:33–36.)

Jesus takes the passage from Psalms literally as a promise spoken about mankind generally: “Ye are gods,” with a view to the fact that the Word of God came to man, to which thing Jesus clearly attributes the power of deification. Jesus specifically insists that this promise made by God to man—"ye are gods”—has and will retain its validity. The further thought process of Jesus is a conclusion which is common to rabbinic exegesis, “a minori ad Maius”: If God calls all those “god” to whom he has directed his promise, how much more then is that true for me! Jesus interprets the promise, “Ye are gods,” in the sense of salvation for everyone, a divine promise to all men. He does not dispute the universal validity of this phrase but intentionally emphasizes it and brings it out in order to then draw the conclusion about his own divine Sonship.

The theologians of the Ancient Church were not afraid of making the phrase “Dii estis et filii excelsi” the basis of their theological anthropology, nor of connecting it with their doctrine of man as the image of God. Thus Clement of Alexandria, the teacher of the Alexandrian School of Catechism, writes about the perfection of the true Gnostic:

The same occurs with us, whose archetype the Lord was: By baptism we are illuminated By illumination we receive the Sonship By Sonship we attain perfection By perfection we gain immortality. [17]

He states: “I have said: Ye are gods, and all together are sons of the most high.” The same Clement of Alexandria writes in another part of his “Miscellanies”: “This Gnosticism leads to an infinite and perfect goal.” He describes the life which is attained in this goal as a life which

is given unto us according to the will of God, in the community of the “Gods,” after we are freed of all chastisement and punishment which because of our sins, we have to endure, for the sake of our betterment, which brings salvation. After this release from punishment, praise and honor are granted us, for we shall attain perfection. . . . If we have become “of pure heart” then renewal awaits us in the form of our Lord throughout an eternal present, and such people then receive the name of “Gods,” since they are enthroned together with other “Gods” who have received the first place under their Saviour. [18]

Now, this idea of deification could give rise to a misunderstanding, namely, that it leads to a blasphemous self-aggrandizement of man. If that were the case, then mysticism would, in fact, be the most sublime, most spiritualized form of egoism. But the concept of Imago Dei , in the Christian understanding of the term, precisely does not aspire to awaken in man a consciousness of his own divinity but attempts to have him recognize the image of God in his neighbor. Here the powerful words of Jesus (Matthew 25), which the church fathers connected to Imago Dei , are appropriate. Jesus speaks here about the last judgment and describes the great surprise of those who are being judged. The judgment of the ruling Son of Man will be either acceptance into the kingdom of God or expulsion from the kingdom of God, depending on the attitude of each individual toward the Son of Man. The Son of Man says to those on his right hand:

Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

The blessed ones on his right hand are astounded by this communication, and ask:

Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

Thereupon they receive the answer:

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

And the corresponding answer is repeated for the damned at his left hand:

Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. (Matthew 25:34–40, 45.)

Hence, the concept of Imago Dei does not lead toward self-aggrandizement but toward charity as the true and actual form of God’s love, for the simple reason that in one’s neighbor the image of God, the Lord himself, confronts us, and that the love of God should be fufilled in the love towards him in whom God himself is mirrored, that is, in one’s neighbor. Thus, in the last analysis, the concept of Imago Dei is the key to the fundamental law of the gospel: “Thou shalt love God and thy neighbor as thyself,” since thou shouldst view thy neighbor with an eye to the image which God has engraven upon him and to the promise that he has given about him. This comprehension of one’s neighbor as the image of God is contained best in a phrase upon which Ernesto Buonaiuti bases one of his Eranos Lectures, the words of the Lord, not contained in the canonized Gospels but passed on to the Latin fathers of the second century, especially Tertullian. It is certainly authentic, for it represents a summary of the Lord’s words just cited from the Gospel of Matthew: “Vidisti fratrem, vidisti dominum tuum”— ”If thou hast seen thy brother, then thou hast also seen thy Lord.” [19]

[1] W. Bölsche, ed., Des Angelus Silesius Cherubinischer Wandersmann , 1675 authorized edition (Jena and Leipzig, 1905). Includes an essay: “Uber den Wert der Mystik für unsere Zeit” (“On the Worth of Mysticism for Our Time”).

[2] J. Arndt, Vier Bucher vom Wahren Christentum , 4th ed. (Berlin: Evangelischer Bücher-Verein, 1853).

[3] Ernst Benz, Schellings Theologische Geistesahnen (Wiesbaden, 1955). See also Ernst Benz, Les Sources Mystiques de la Philosophic Romantique Allemande (Paris, 1968).

[4] Ernst Benz, Schöpfungsglaube und Endzeiterwartung (Munich, 1965).

[5] Translator’s note: Here the King James and Luther Bibles differ. Luther translates Offenbarung (revelation), but the King James has manifestation.

[6] Translator’s note: Here Luther adds “mit uns,” which can only be inferred from the Greek.

[7] J. Arndt, op. cat.

[8] The Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1961).

[9] Thomas F. O’Dea, The Mormons (Chicago, 1966); Nels Anderson, Desert Saints: The Mormon Frontier in Utah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); and R. Mullen, Die Mormonen: Geschichte einer Glaubensbewegung (Weilheim, 1968).

[10] John A. Widtsoe, A Rational Theology , 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1946), pp. 24–25.

[11] Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology , 7th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1915), p.39.

[12] Widtsoe, op. tit., p. 26.

[13] Ibid., p. 32.

[14] Ibid., p. 23.

[15] Directly connected to the concept of these heavenly intelligences desiring a body out of free will and in order to be tested and perfected here on this earth, is a doctrine which was of the greatest significance to the preservation of the Mormon community but which is so strange to others that they would hardly make the connection, namely, the teaching and practicing of polygamy. Spirits press forward to earth and desire a body. The ruling system of monogamy in nowise does justice to the population pressure of the heavenly world of spirits. The problem of overpopulation is a problem for heaven, not a problem for the earth. Earth has room for all, but the process proceeds too slowly; the spirits who press for incarnation are getting impatient. Monogamy offers only modest possibilities, with the help of only one spouse, of doing justice to the spirits who desire bodies. So the establishment of polygamy makes room here, shortens the queue for those spirits waiting for incarnation. Joseph Smith had exactly the opposite concern as his contemporary, Pastor Malthus, who died in 1834, four years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and who in his alarming treatise, “Essay on the Principle of Population,” which first appeared anonymously in 1798, depicted the menacing danger of the overpopulation of the earth. Joseph Smith’s optimistic doctrine of the eternal progression and development of life in the universe would have made Malthus’s fears seem laughable to the Prophet Joseph—in the event he knew about them—because he was concerned about the overpopulation of heaven, the population pressure of the heavenly spirit beings who wished to come down to this earth to get the chance to perfect themselves, but who were hindered in their arrival on this earth by laws requiring monogamy which had been passed by apostate Christians of the first centuries in contrast to the order of polygamy of the Old Testament.

Mormon polygamy, which later was repealed under the pressure of United States legislation and after a highly brutal campaign of federal police against Mormon polygamist families, was taken from the earth but kept intact by Mormons for the coming paradise in heaven—one can today as a Mormon take more than one wife from among those who are deceased. Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with sexual debauchery but is tied to a strict patriarchal system of family order and demonstrates in the relationship of the husband to his individual wives all the ethical traits of a Christian, monogamous marriage. It is completely focused on bearing children and rearing them in the bosom of the family and the Mormon community. Actually, it has a very great measure of selflessness, willingness to sacrifice, and sense of duty.

The purpose of polygamous marriages is not fulfilled only on this earth. Polygamous marriage is an essential part of the process of perfection and eternal progress and reaches beyond this earth into eternity; at least the true, religious marriage does.

[16] Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses , vol. 4, p. 56.

[17] Clemens von Alexandrien, Werke , ed. O. Stählin, in the series Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte (1905–1936).

[19] E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in Deutscher Ubersetzung. Vol. 1, Evangelien (Tübingen, 1959); Vol. 2, Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes (Tübingen, 1964).

Contact the RSC

185 Heber J. Grant Building Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 801-422-6975

Helpful Links

Religious Education

BYU Studies

Maxwell Institute

Articulos en español

Artigos em português

Connect with Us

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

'Honour the Image of God': The Incarnation and Early Christian Philanthropy

Gary Ferngren

• X (formerly Twitter)

Early Christian philanthropy was deeply informed by the theological concept of the imago Dei , that humans were created in the image of God - a belief that Christianity had taken over from Judaism.

In Jewish religious practice, Yahweh could not be visibly represented in any form (see Deuteronomy 4:15-19). Hence Jews were prohibited from making images, which were characteristic of polytheistic worship. The nature of Yahweh was represented not by pictorial representation, but by the human race. Humans alone could be called the image of Yahweh because in their nature and being they reflected their Creator. The locus classicus of the concept of the imago Dei is Genesis 1:26-7:

"Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth'. So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

The belief that the image of God in humans had implications for the protection of human life in Judaism is suggested in Genesis 9:6, where Yahweh tells Noah, "Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind."

According to the Hebrew concept of the person, humans were viewed as a unity rather than in dualistic terms. There were two elements in a person's nature: the "soul" ( nephesh ) and the "flesh" ( basar ). The soul was not made to exist apart from the flesh. To destroy the human body was to destroy the human personality, and as such it was an affront to the dignity of Yahweh, whose image (and therefore worth) humans bear. Hence, in Hebrew thought human life possessed intrinsic value by virtue of its divine endowment, in contrast to classical Graeco-Roman thought.

The concept of the imago Dei provided the basis for human value that was to become central to Jewish concepts of personhood. As a result features that were common to ancient society (child-sacrifice, exposure of infants, infanticide and emasculation) were not common in Israel.

The Hebrew concept of the imago Dei was carried over to the New Testament. It is found without change, for example, in such passages as James 3:9 and 1 Corinthians 11:7. But the emphasis of the New Testament is soteriological and eschatological - it is concerned with the salvation and ultimate destiny of the fallen human race. In this regard, the doctrine of the Incarnation is the major contribution of the New Testament to the concept of the imago Dei : "And the Word ( logos ) became flesh ( sarx ) and lived among us" (John 1:14).

Philanthropia was not a word frequently used by early Christian writers. It is found twice in the New Testament (Acts 28:2; Titus 3:4) - in both instances, it means "kindness." The early Christians preferred a different word with a very different meaning: agape , a previously little-used and rather colourless word before it was given specific Christian content.

In the New Testament the concept of agape is rooted in the nature of God: "God is love ( agape )," writes the Apostle John (1 John 4:8). It was God's love for humankind that brought about the Incarnation (John 3:16). It was Christ's self-sacrificing love that led to his death on the cross as a ransom for humankind's redemption. And this love ( agape ) was expected to characterize those who professed his name. Hence any response to God was a response to his prevenient love: "We love because first he loved us" (1 John 4:19). In this Christian redefinition, agape was unlimited, freely given, sacrificial and not dependent on the character of its object.

The Christian understanding of the imago Dei , viewed in the light of the doctrine of the Incarnation, was to have four important consequences for practical ethics that became increasingly apparent as Christianity began to penetrate the world of the Roman Empire. Together they represent a radical departure from the social ethics of classical paganism.

The first was the impetus that the doctrine gave to Christian charity and philanthropy. The classical world had no religious or ethical impulse for individual charity. Personal concern for the poor and needy was an important theme in the Hebrew Scriptures, which gave rise to the insistence in later Judaism that almsgiving is a duty and even the highest virtue.

This emphasis was appropriated by Christianity and is mentioned often in the pages of the New Testament, where charity is represented as an outgrowth of agape , which is rooted in the nature of God. Just as God loved humans, so they were expected to respond to divine love by extending love to his brother, who bore the image of God (John 13:34-35). Love of God and devotion to Christ provided the motivation for love of others that had its practical outworking in charity (Matthew 25:34-40). Compassion was regarded as a manifestation of Christian love (Colossians 3:12; 1 John 3:17) and an essential element of the Christian's obligation to all people. This is succinctly expressed in the Clementine Homilies, which were written sometime before AD 380:

"Ye are the image of the invisible God. Whence let not those who would be pious say that idols are images of God, and therefore that it is right to worship them. For the image of God is man. He who wishes to be pious towards God does good to man, because the body of man bears the image of God. But all do not as yet bear his likeness, but the pure mind of the good soul does. However, as we know that man was made after the image and after the likeness of God, we tell you to be pious towards him, that the favour may be accounted as done to God, whose image he is. Therefore it behooves you to give honour to the image of God, which is man--in this wise: food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, care to the sick, shelter to the stranger, and visiting him who is in prison, to help him as you can. And not to speak at length, whatever good things any one wishes for himself, so let him afford to another in need, and then a good reward can be reckoned to him as being pious towards the image of God. And by like reason, if he will not undertake to do these things, he shall be punished as neglecting the image."

The classical concept of philanthropia was not merely insufficient to provide the motivation for private charity, it actively discouraged it. In the Graeco-Roman world, beneficence took the form of civic philanthropy on behalf of the community at large. Christianity, on the other hand, insisted that the love of God required the spontaneous manifestation of personal charity towards one's brothers. So, one could not claim to love God without loving one's brother (1 John 4:20-21); and "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God" is defined in part as caring for "orphans and widows in their distress" (James 1:27).

Yet Christian love was not to be extended merely to fellow Christians, but to neighbours and even enemies. When Jesus was asked, "And who is my neighbour?" he responded by relating the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke10:25-37). When a Jewish man lay on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, having been attacked by highwaymen and needing medical attention, a Levite and a priest each passed him by and refused to give him assistance, thereby disgracing their own moral standards, which required them to care for their own. While Jews tended to look down on Samaritans, it was a Samaritan who showed himself to be a neighbour in the sense that the wounded man's own countrymen had failed to be: by giving him medical aid.

Glanville Downey maintains that the concept of agape that underlies Jesus's parable marked a radical innovation if we compare it to classical responses that would have been given to the question that was posed by Jesus. In place of a Stoic doctrine of human brotherhood or a definition of the nature of man, it grounded philanthropy in a theological conception that saw human love as reflecting divine love. But it also went beyond Jewish concepts of charity, which was directed inward to one's own community.

The novelty of Jesus's teaching was that beneficence extends beyond one's own community. His command was, "Go and do likewise." In several passages in the Gospels Jesus enunciates the pattern of personal charity that was to be incumbent on his followers.

"[F]or I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick, and you took care of me (epeskepsasthe ), I was in prison and you visited me ... [J]ust as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." (Matthew 25:35-36, 45)

The verb epeskepsasthe (from episkopein ), used in this passage for taking care of the sick is sometimes employed in late classical Greek to describe a physician's visiting a patient.

It is not difficult to see the gap that existed between the classical concept of philanthropia and the Christian idea of agape as an ethical dynamic. Nor is it surprising that philanthropy has been called a peculiarly Christian product. While Christian philanthropy had its roots in Judaism, the concept of agape led to a broadening and deepening of the Jewish impulse, especially in its not being limited to the believing community. By the end of the second century, philanthropia began to appear frequently in the Christian vocabulary, perhaps because it was a word (unlike agape ) that pagans could readily understand. It is often used by the church Fathers to describe God's love for humanity as shown in the Incarnation. By the fourth century it came to be used as a synonym for agape in the liturgies of the Greek church.

A second consequence of the doctrine of the imago Dei was that it provided the basis for the belief that every human life has absolute intrinsic value as a bearer of God's image and as an eternal soul for whose redemption Christ died. This belief led to a stern and uncompromising condemnation of pagan morality in all its aspects. Christians viewed its tolerance of the elimination of unwanted human life and of the cruelty shown to those whom society had condemned or abandoned as an indication that Roman society was incurably wicked. They attacked abortion, infanticide, the gladiatorial games and suicide in the strongest possible terms.

Early Christians showed special concern for the protection of unborn and newborn life. Abortion, though occasionally condemned in classical antiquity, was widely practiced, and the foetus, being regarded as part of its mother, enjoyed no legal protection or absolute value until the third century, when it was penalized by a rescript issued under the emperors Septimius Severus and Caracalla between 198 and 211. As early as the second century we find abortion condemned in Christian writings for violating God's handiwork. In the Didache , the aborted foetus is called a "moulded image ( plasma ) [of God]." In the second-century Apocalypse of Peter abortion is said to corrupt "the work of God who created" it. This theme is reiterated in the numerous examples of denunciation of abortion that are found in the Fathers.

The difference in Christian and pagan attitudes towards abortion reflected a difference in how the foetus was perceived. Pagans considered the victims insignificant; Seneca thought that to drown a newborn was an act of reason, not of anger. To Christians, however, the foetus was not only human but an eternal soul. Abortion was regarded by some as worse than murder. Tertullian explicitly calls abortion homicide:

"For us, indeed, as homicide is forbidden, it is not lawful to destroy what is conceived in the womb while the blood is still being formed into a man. To prevent being born is to accelerate homicide, nor does it make a difference whether you snatch away a soul which is born or destroy one being born. He who is man-to-be is man, as all fruit is now in the seed."

The exposure (or abandonment) of newborn children was also condemned in early Christian writings. Whether or not it was forbidden by law under the Empire - and this is disputed - it was not punished and it was widely practiced and viewed with general indifference. Exposure was attacked by Christians, who viewed it as a crime.

Christians also emphatically condemned suicide, which had been idealized in classical antiquity as a noble means of death. Believing that they ought to endure suffering with the help of God's grace rather than to seek to put an end to their lives, Christians regarded suicide as self-murder. Augustine discusses the matter at length in his City of God , for the most part summarizing the views of early Christian writers. The only serious debate over the propriety of suicide involved cases in which a woman's chastity was in danger, on which Augustine differed from earlier writers. His condemnation of suicide (on the ground that it is homicide and precludes the possibility of repentance) proved to be authoritative in the early church.

A third consequence of the doctrine of the imago Dei was in providing early Christians with a new perception of the body, and indeed of the human personality. Late pagan proponents of asceticism went beyond the earlier Greek concept of askesis , or training of the body. They expressed no admiration or concern for the body - indeed, they were ashamed of it. They looked forward to the day when at death the soul would free itself from matter, which they regarded as evil.

The Greek dualism of the body/soul dichotomy was taken over by Gnostics, who wished (like pagan ascetics) to free themselves from their own bodies. But orthodox Christians did not adopt Gnostic or Manichean dualism. Christians generally viewed asceticism as a means of strengthening the body in the struggle against demonic forces, not of mortifying it. It was just at this point that Christian ascetics differentiated themselves from the familiar type of the pagan ascetic.

The dichotomy between the material body and the spiritual soul provided the philosophical basis for the pagan rejection of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation: How could a spiritual being (God) take on corruptible flesh? For the Christian the Incarnation provided the ground for salvation: the eternal God had become man in order to save the human race through his death and resurrection. By his death the human race gained redemption, by his resurrection eternal life.

A new perception of the body led to the formulation of a novel concept of personhood that provided the theological basis for integrating body and soul in a manner that was unknown to either Platonists or Stoics. Christ served as the exemplar of this integrated personality, combining within himself the two natures of God and man. The Christian conception of Jesus as perfect man contributed to raising the body to a status that it had never enjoyed in paganism. Docetism (the view that Jesus's humanity was apparent rather than real) was an attempt by Gnostics and others to escape the idea, which was repugnant from a traditional pagan or a Gnostic point of view, of a material body being absorbed into the spiritual Godhead, as orthodox theologians posited. In their rejection of Docetism, orthodox Christians insisted that the body was not evil; if the Son of God had assumed a true body ("truly God and truly man") then it must be, like all the material cosmos, good.

In place of the dualism of Greek philosophy Christian doctrine posited a new divide: between the old humanity, in which both body and soul were tinctured by original sin, and redeemed humanity, in which both body and soul were cleansed of sin, and the divine image that had been implanted in them was restored. It was to save the body that Christ took on flesh in the Incarnation. Not only the soul, which in traditional pagan thought was eternal, but the composite of body and soul, which constituted man, was to be resurrected - an idea that was as repellent to pagans as the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Classical philosophers envisioned a continuum between the soul and God and a divine immanence that pervaded the cosmos. In marked contrast Augustine saw a chasm between the soul and God that could only be bridged by the incarnate Christ, who had at a particular moment entered the temporal dimension, an idea that was itself disturbing to pagans.

The divine compassion is mirrored in a human compassion for others, which becomes the basis of ethics and a means of reclaiming the imago Dei in man. Hence, the Christian understanding of personhood became the foundation for a new series of relationships, in which the Christian community ( civitas Dei ) would come to supplant the classical polis ( civitas terrena ) as the focus of human activity. This community, the larger metaphorical "body of Christ," consisted of all believers - Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female (Galatians 3:28) - who formed a unified body in Christ and as such were members of one another (1 Corinthians 12:5).

Here, indeed, was a unique concept of the human personality - a psychosomatic unity, a composite of body and soul - which created new boundaries that transcended traditional political and social divisions.

A fourth consequence was that the doctrine of the imago Dei led to a redefinition of the poor. The human body in all its parts shared in the divine image. This was true, not merely of the bodies of Christians, but of all men. It was true particularly of the poor, who acquired a new definition in Christian thought: those who had true worth because they bore the face ( prosopon ) of Christ.

The theology that lay behind the new prominence that Christians accorded the poor was specifically Nicene, rather than Arian. The Cappadocian Fathers constructed an identity of the poor based on the belief that Jesus was the incarnate God, a belief that imparted a redemptive nature to early Christian relief efforts. As human beings they shared, in the words of Gregory of Nyssa, a common nature. Even the diseased body of a leper had importance. Like Lazarus, with whom lepers were frequently compared by the Cappadocians, they are sanctified because they bear the image of their Saviour. No longer repulsive, they bring holiness and healing from spiritual diseases to those who touch them in order to assist them:

"By taking the lepers' flesh in hand, those who minister to them participate in the divine immanence of creation that proceeds from the incarnate Son's essential sharing in both deity and cosmos."

The new image of the poor did not reflect a Christian romanticizing of their condition. But it did constitute a challenge to the rich and powerful, who had traditionally claimed to merit a special relation with the gods in their role as patrons of the community. Sermonic literature depicts Jesus as having chosen in his Incarnation to identify himself with the poor rather than with the rich, since the former could boast of no advantages that gave them a claim to his favour.

But the image that lay behind the doctrine of the Incarnation went beyond a mere class-division between the rich and the poor. Christ had united in his own body a wider chasm, which separated the high state of God and the abject poverty of the human condition. The mystery of the Incarnation united heaven and earth and formed the basis of a "new language of solidarity," the solidarity of members of "the body of Christ." Participation in the Eucharist allowed every Christian to share in the Saviour's divine flesh and provided a means for incorporating humanity into the larger mystery of his spiritual body - the church. Just as God demonstrated in the Incarnation his solidarity with those who suffer, so the members of his "body" must demonstrate their solidarity with the suffering poor.

The social implications of theological formulations were very much a part of the Christological disputes that arose regarding how best to express the relation between the human and the divine in the person of Christ. The Monophysites claimed that Christ possessed a single nature that merged the divine and the human, while the Chalcedonians held that he possessed two separate natures, divine and human. The Monophysite party arose after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which declared the doctrine of the two natures the orthodox one.

In the debates each party saw the other's formulation as endangering the importance of God's compassion for the wretched poor, whose flesh Christ shared, and for whom his spiritual body on Earth ought to care by acts of mercy. The language inherent in these formulations, and in the sermons that drew their inspiration from them, reflected an underlying theology that saw the Incarnation as the basis for compassionate care of those in need.

Gary Ferngren is Professor of Greek and Roman History at Oregon State University, and the author of Medicine and Religion: A Historical Introduction and Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity .

“Man Becomes the Image of God…” by John Paul II

The following work illustrates the ways in which the narrative of Genesis defines both the unity and duality of man. The unity is made distinct by the human nature of people, while the duality represents masculinity and femininity. It also depicts that man was created not only with a particular value for God and himself. Man’s original unity can be defined as masculinity and femininity overcoming solitude while being an affirmation of what constitutes a man in solitude. For instance, the Biblical narrative suggests that solitude will lead to unity, which can also be labeled as ‘communio personarum.’ Man’s original solitude provides him with the acquisition of personal consciousness that makes him distinct from all other living beings.

Within the Yahwist narrative, besides being the initial discovery of transcendence in relation to the person, it also indicates the discovery of a relationship to a person. This can also be referred to as an opening or expectation of the ‘communion of persons.’ Though the term ‘community’ is also applicable, ‘communio’ is more appropriate as it expresses the concept of a person standing ‘beside’ a person with more precision. Within the Biblical narrative, this becomes a direct representation of the relationship of a person ‘for’ another person, which is even present in the original solitude of man. Communion can only be formulated with the two-sides solitude of man and woman, as their transcendence, which elevated them from the world of other living beings, offers them the possibility of the reciprocated relationship outside the original solitude. Self-knowledge and self-determination are characteristics that are indispensable in this communion as well. In the initial chapter, the creation of man is confirmed to have been done in the image of God for both male and female individuals. While the image of God does not appear in the second chapter directly, there are aspects that suggest that the reaction of man was done in order to express the ‘communio personarum’ of man and woman.

On the other hand, deriving from Yahwist texts, the concept of the image of God suggests that man was made to be the likeness of God not only through humanity but also through the communion of persons. Essentially, it illustrates the concept that the image of oneself should reflect the model and reproduce one’s own prototype. The Trinitarian concept also allows another insight into the image of God, which is formed on the basis of male and female in the body and unity. It links the blessing of fertility and human procreation within the Biblical context. Within Genesis 2:23, direct reference is made to concepts of the body with the terms “bones of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” (John Paul II, 1979). This idea suggests that upon first only upon first sight of a woman, traits that are visibly similar became obvious and parallelly manifested humanity. This can be applied to the analysis of all the other ‘bodies,’ other living creatures, that man encountered that were not “flesh of his flesh.” As such, the body is the revelation of the man and is by default similar to God. Essentially, masculinity and femininity are an expression of the dual aspect of the somatic constitution of man, which is able to formulate a conscious perception of one’s own body. This sense is the basis of mutual enrichment through the humanity that is established through the communion of persons.

John Paul II. Man Becomes the Image of God by Communion of Persons. EWTN , 1979.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2023, January 31). “Man Becomes the Image of God…” by John Paul II. https://studycorgi.com/man-becomes-the-image-of-god-by-john-paul-ii/

"“Man Becomes the Image of God…” by John Paul II." StudyCorgi , 31 Jan. 2023, studycorgi.com/man-becomes-the-image-of-god-by-john-paul-ii/.

StudyCorgi . (2023) '“Man Becomes the Image of God…” by John Paul II'. 31 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "“Man Becomes the Image of God…” by John Paul II." January 31, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/man-becomes-the-image-of-god-by-john-paul-ii/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "“Man Becomes the Image of God…” by John Paul II." January 31, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/man-becomes-the-image-of-god-by-john-paul-ii/.

StudyCorgi . 2023. "“Man Becomes the Image of God…” by John Paul II." January 31, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/man-becomes-the-image-of-god-by-john-paul-ii/.

This paper, ““Man Becomes the Image of God…” by John Paul II”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 31, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Thesis: CREATIVITY: UNDERSTANDING MAN AS THE IMAGE OF GOD

Related Papers

jomar Castañeda

Wojciech Pikor

In the biblical perspective, stories about the creation of the world in Gen 1-2 remain to be the basis to a discussion about human creativity. The premise of the text-creation of man "in the image of God"-makes us assume that, according to the Bible, creativity of man is to be the image of God's creativity. Verification of this thesis goes from presenting history of interpretation of the biblical idea, namely creation of man "in the image of God, " then points to the need of analyzing the narrative of this phrase. Since the image of God presented in Gen 1 is not descriptive, the second part of the paper examines the way God reveals himself in this text through his creative action. The key to God's creativity is his word of creation which he uses to differentiate created beings and establish relationships among them in order to build harmony in the newly founded world. The final part of the paper focuses on the analysis of verbs which in Gen 1-2 refer to human creativity; those verbs also point to their possible association with words as instruments for creating, organizing and arranging reality shaped by man. Following that comes the conclusion that God's creativity is extended into creativity of man who was made "in the image of God."

Byron Spradlin

An evaluation of two key Hebrew concepts -- To imagine/Imagination & Craftsman -- that begin to form a foundation for understanding the importance of 'imaginal intelligence' and the role of artistic expression in human life, and Christian ministry

FELIX-KINGSLEY OBIALO

OF PROJECT The Transformative Power of Deliberate Creativity: Reflections of a Priest Creativity Practitioner The idea of creativity continues to gain global currency as the tool for growth and development especially in our contemporary world. There is an emerging universal paradigm shift that promotes creativity as something that could be structured and deliberate as against the erstwhile belief that it is restricted and by chance. Nevertheless, some individuals, groups and climes are yet to fully embrace creativity in all its ramifications. Creativity practice is one of the means to foster and sustain creativity in persons and groups. Consequently, nurturing creativity continues to impact people and contexts. Through four case studies, this project presents a fortuitous journey of an unlikely party which begins from without and ends on a personal discovery which transforms both the subject-facilitator and the various contexts in which deliberate creativity practice is facilitated....

Patrick Beldio

This article critically examines the dangerous, or “troubling,” aspects of the creative process that relate primarily to subjective experiences of limitation and limitlessness with a theological reflection on Biblical stories that exhibit a “troubling” theme of growth fueled by opposition. Sculpting my masterpiece "The New Being" is the case study for this analysis. In keeping with the theme of this issue of Intégrité, the general focus is: What can the creative process teach us about God? The thesis is that the creative process is an effective way to negotiate oppositions for the purposes of psychological and/or spiritual growth and mastery, which shines a light on the important theme of opposition and growth in the stories of the Bible. This theme highlights the Biblical nature of creativity, that it is through adversity that God creates the universe, his nation Israel, and now, accomplishes his supreme task of re-creation or salvation, which he promises will manifest his kingdom by creating a new world culture that advances integral human development, a “new humanity” in a “new creation.”

Filosofija. Sociologija

Živilė Sederevičiūtė-Pačiauskienė

The article analyses the development of creativity concepts. Notions of creativity transformed historically from uncontrolled divine inspiration and non-reflected artistic inspiration to the targeted work resulting in commercially successful creative products. The analysis begins with Plato’s discussion that a poet should be overtaken by divine inspiration, that human beings do not create by themselves, they are dictated to by the Muses. Renaissance, Rationalism and Romanticism are analysed including their reflections in recognised artists of 20th century. Today’s notions of creativity are reviewed including ones important for creative industries and consumer society.

Interpretation-a Journal of Bible and Theology

Wesley J Wildman

Religion & Theology

karen buckenham

RELATED PAPERS

Alberto Veira

Journal of Research …

Mahshid Kaviani

Journal of Membrane Science

Akon Higuchi

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Hakan Kinik

European Heart Journal

J. Stepinska

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy

Ana de Luis

Edward T . H . Wu

Revista Pesquisa em Fisioterapia

Asir J O H N Samuel

The Annals of Family Medicine

S. Brungardt

ETD - Educação Temática Digital

Andreia Osti

Proceedings of the second Australasian conference on Computer science education - ACSE '97

Michael Turk

Globalization and the Effects of Information Technologies

Raymond Anthony

Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A

Luis Alberto Santos

Open Journal of Social Sciences

Mona Aeysha khalid

Mashriq & Mahjar Journal of Middle East and North African Migration Studies

Claire Beaugrand

Vascular Specialist International

Konstantinos Filis

Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation

Milos Zefran

Cognitive Linguistics

Marlies Jansegers

Uncertain Supply Chain Management

mukhlis yunus

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)

Patrick Gibel

Journal of Power Sources

Farid Golnaraghi

Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones)

Gregory McGuire

Melanie Barwick

PENSER L’ECOLE ET LA CONSTRUCTION DES SAVOIRS : Etude menée auprès d’adolescents cancéreuxau Brésil

Sandra Maia

Molecular Cytogenetics

María Teresa Magaña Torres

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
• Faithfulness of God
• Saving Grace
• Adoption by God

Most Popular

• Gender Identity
• Trusting God
• The Holiness of God
• See All Essays

• Conference Media
• Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
• Death of Christ
• Resurrection of Jesus
• Church and State
• Sovereignty of God
• Faith and Works
• The Carson Center
• The Keller Center
• New City Catechism
• Publications
• Read the Bible

U.S. Edition

• Arts & Culture
• Bible & Theology
• Christian Living
• Current Events
• Faith & Work
• As In Heaven
• Gospelbound
• Post-Christianity?
• TGC Podcast
• You're Not Crazy
• Churches Planting Churches
• Help Me Teach The Bible
• Word Of The Week
• Upcoming Events
• Past Conference Media
• Foundation Documents
• Church Directory
• Global Resourcing
• Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

The True Meaning of Being Made in God’s Image

More Episodes

This episode of The Gospel Coalition Podcast is brought to you by Crossway, publisher of Weep with Me: How Lament Opens a Door for Racial Reconciliation by Mark Vroegop. Discover the meaning of Romans 12:15 that calls us to “weep with those who weep” as Mark seeks to bridge the canyon of misunderstanding, insensitivity, and hurt through the biblical practice of lament. Each chapter closes with a prayer of lament from a Christian leader, such as Trillia Newbell, Thabiti Anyabwile, Jarvis Williams, Danny Akin, and more. For 30 percent off this book and all other books and Bibles at Crossway, sign up for a free Crossway+ account at crossway.org/TGC .

Mike Cosper delivered a message during a breakout at The Gospel Coalition’s 2019 National Conference titled “Made in the Image of God for the Good of the World.” During the session, he discussed God’s image and many of the characteristics of our Creator that people are meant to reflect. Cosper then detailed three ways that reflecting the image of God is meant to bring about good in the world around us.    

The following is an uncorrected transcript generated by a transcription service. Before quoting in print, please check the corresponding audio for accuracy.

Mike Cosper: My name is Mike Cosper. I’m excited to be here to talk about this.

Actually, worked with LifeWay on a longish Bible study, specifically on the topic of the image of God. And it really covers the image of God from a variety of angles, far more than I can get into today. For me, what’s been interesting to me to think about over the last few weeks, as I prepared for this was to think about how can we think about the image of God situated in the culture that we live in now, situated in our particular cultural situation?

Why does the image of God matter to our ongoing cultural conversations? What does it have to say about how we live with a faithful presence in the modern world? And when I think about the image of God, I always think about this story, this friend of mine, this guy named Bert. When he was a kid, his stepdad ran a pawn shop.

And one day this guy comes into the pawn shop with a bunch of stuff to sell, amongst them an acoustic guitar, and he sells this thing. And his stepdad felt bad for this guy. So, he went ahead and bought the guitar, even though the guitar looked like a piece of junk. And he thought, you know what, I’ll take it home, I’ll give it to my stepson. So, he does.

And Bert has this thing for the next several years, he learns to play guitar on it, he was just always sitting in the corner of his bedroom, in the corner of his living room. He’ll pick it up and strum on it. Doesn’t think much about it. And one of the years later, he becomes a pretty well-established musician in our city, and he was saving up money to buy a guitar amp.

And so, he decided to see if he could sell this thing, and get maybe a couple hundred bucks for it to apply towards his amp. So, he goes to this place called Guitar Emporium, a real famous vintage guitar shop in Louisville. And another friend of mine is this old banjo player, a guy named Steve Cooley. Steve was behind the counter that day. And he brought in a few things to sell.

And he’s handed to the guy, and he goes, “Yeah, and I got this old guitar. It’s probably a piece of junk. But I thought I’d have you take a look at it.” And my friend Steve takes a look at it, and does one of these, and immediately goes, “Where’d you steal this?” And Bert was like, “I know what you’re talking about, man. This is my guitar. I’ve had it forever, tells him the story.”

And he goes, “Wait right here.” Steve goes, “Wait right here.” And he goes across the street to a barbershop. And out of the barbershop, comes the owner of the guitar store with the aprons still around him, and his hair half cut, and he’s rushing across the street. He comes in, and he looks at the thing. And he goes, “You stole this, didn’t you?” And he’s like, “No, dude, I didn’t steel it.”

He tells him the story over again. He’s like, looks it over, and he goes, “Okay, I’ll give you $5,000 for it.” And my friend Bert, probably stupidly, my friend Bert goes, “I’ll take it.” Because it turns out this thing was a pre-war Martin Guitar. And if you know anything about vintage guitars, these are the most treasured acoustic guitars in the whole world. There’s a very rare, this thing was probably worth $30,000 or $40,000.

And here it had been in just almost like a decoration in the corner of his living room for all these years, not knowing what it was, or what it was worth. And I love this as an analog for the Imago Dei because I think the Imago Dei is something that it’s a reality for every human being on this earth. And it imbues us with a unique dignity, unique glory amongst all of creation.

And yet, it’s something that is glossed over, forgotten about barely paid attention to, distorted by sin, and dimmed by sin and suffering. So, I think what I want to talk about today, and as we dig into this is what is the image of God? I want to talk a little bit about what are some of the characteristics that I believe we are meant to reflect from our Creator?

And what are some of the things that stand in the way of us being able to do that effectively? To give just a little foundation for this, you can really see this in the book of Genesis. There’s an emphasis on man being made in the image of God throughout the book of Genesis. Obviously, Genesis chapter one starts, then God said, let us make man in our image according to our likeness.

They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, the whole Earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth. So, God created man in His own image. He created them in the image of God. He created them male and female. Then, Genesis 5:1-3, talking about the birth of Adam’s son, Seth. It says this, on the day that God created man, He made Him in the likeness of God.

He made them male and female. When they were created, He blessed them and called them mankind. Adam was 130 years old when he fathered a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. And so, from this, you see, there’s an interconnected meaning between being made in the image of God, and being born the child of someone. Seth was made in Adam’s image, just as Adam was made in the image of God.

So, there’s something, and throughout the scriptures, you see almost interchangeably, this language of child of God and image of God. These are very common ideas. And then, once more from the book of Genesis, after the flood, God warns the people about murder, and does so reflecting on drawing the value of human life out of the fact that they’re made in God’s image.

Genesis 9:6, he says whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image. Psalm 8 talks about the worthiness, and the glory of humanity, and says that we’re a little less than God. Starting in verse three, in Psalm 8, it says, when I observe your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon, and the stars, which you set in place, what is a human being that you remember him.

A son of man that you look after him. You made him a little less than God, and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him the ruler over the works of your hands, you put everything under your feet. So, it’s a remarkable thing. And it’s something that again, the scriptures emphasize that there’s something unique about humanity amongst all of creation that were made in God’s image.

And that language is startling. That Psalm 8 would say that he made us a little less than God. C.S. Lewis has this great quote from The Weight of Glory, where he says that if you ever saw a human being in their full glory of their full worthiness, it would be a creature that you would be tempted to worship. And that’s why, because we were made in God’s image.

Now, with all that said, we’re also left much to ourselves to flesh out what being an image bearer actually means. Because the scriptures don’t give us an exhaustive list of the features of being an image bearer. They really don’t go into a whole lot of detail regarding what image bearing means. The emphasis primarily, is in terms of human dignity, and perhaps most importantly, and that we are able to, and appointed to imitate God in some particular ways.

Some of this is innate. And this is an important thing to keep in mind is that we can’t help, but being image bearers. There are ways that we’ll get into here in a moment where you can think about this. And you can see this at work that, for instance, with regard to creativity, every human being has a creative side. It’s something that as children, we can’t help but express.

So, there’s something innate about being human that we are going to reflect God’s image whether we intend to or not. But of course, again, since and suffering, distort the capacity, and diminish our ability to imitate Him. For our discussion today, I’m going to mention three ways that we bear God’s image and talk about how we can seek to do that intentionally.

And as the title of the session indicates, I want us to talk about how we can do this for the good of the world. Those three ways are, number one, our capacity for relationships. Number two, our capacity for culture making. And number three, our capacity for wielding power. So, that’s relationships, culture making, and wielding power. And in God, we can see all of these characteristics.

We see all of this at work. We see it in God as Trinity, God is creator, and God is Lord. And let me flesh that out a little bit. In the Trinity, we must remember that God is three persons, and that these three persons live in relationship with one another. Throughout the Bible, you see that for instance, in the Old Testament, God is bringing glory to himself.

But is through the prophets, promising this glory to come, this goodness to come when the Son of Man comes, when God’s Son is going to be made incarnate and come. At Jesus’s baptism, God shows up, and says this is my son with whom I’m well pleased. He glorifies the son. The son throughout his ministry is giving glory to the Father, and talking about how his whole life is meant to display the glory of the Father.

Paul talks about that, how the glory of the Father is on display in the face of Jesus Christ. And then, the Holy Spirit as well. You see in the words of Jesus at the end of the book of John, when he’s foretelling about the coming of the Holy Spirit. He’s glory sharing. He’s saying that a greater glory is coming through the Spirit. I love the way J.I. Packer talks about the ministry of the Spirit.

He tells a story and keeping in separate the spirit about going out for a walk one night, and walking past this church that was lit up by floodlights. And he thought about the floodlights, and recognize that the floodlights don’t exist for their own glory. You don’t see floodlights, and go, “Wow, that’s a beautiful floodlight.” You see whatever it is that they’re illuminating.

And that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is like a floodlight. It is meant to shine light and shine glory on the Father and the Son. The Church fathers would refer to this as perichoresis, this idea of glory sharing. It doesn’t mean dance. People will say that it means some dance of the Trinity. That’s goofy. And it’s not actually what it means. But it does mean glory sharing.

And it means that there’s this exchange of glory, this exchange of love, this exchange of praise that takes place between the members of the Trinity. And that relationship is the relationship that we’re meant for. If you think about the way we want to bless those that we love, our friends, our family, that thing, there is a glory sharing that happens. We want to celebrate them.

We want the best for them. That’s a reflection of being made in God’s image. Second of all, we see God is creator. In humanity, there’s this capacity for culture making that has its roots, and God is creator. And there’s an interesting pattern that you see in Genesis one and two with regard to this. The first is that in Genesis 1, God makes everything from nothing.

He simply speaks it all into being. But in Genesis, chapter two, He takes the dirt, and He forms it, and breathe life into it, and it becomes Adam. He takes a rib, and He forms it, and it becomes Eve. And in that, you see the pattern I believe that God has given to us for how our own creative work is supposed to be done. We don’t make anything from nothing. We don’t have that capability.

But we can take creation, we can work with it, we can, in a sense, breathe life into it, and it becomes something different. So, you cut down a tree, and you cut down a tree in a forest, and you carve it into a violin, or you take all of these weird industrial elements, and you combine them together, and you have an iPhone.

At some point, somebody discovered that if you pluck a string a certain way, you can change the pitches of it. And the next thing you know, you have this evolution of music. God makes by remaking, and that’s how we make. We make by remaking. In fact, the gospel itself is an act of creation, and that God has taken something that was broken, and dead, and breathe new life into it, and it becomes something new.

Ephesians 2:10 says, for we are His workmanship, and that word workmanship has beautiful meaning that doesn’t quite translate in English. It’s a beautiful work. It’s a compelling work. It’s meaningful. It’s a meaningful work. And then, third, with regard to power, we see that God is our Lord. That He uses His power to make, and to sustain the world.

His power reveals his kindness in His care for His creatures. We’ll talk more about this towards the end here. But you see that God does not discriminate between the good, and the evil, and the way that He blesses the world. And also, his power reveals His concern for justice. You see, God concerned for orphans, and for widows, and for sojourners, and strangers throughout the scriptures.

And this concern is an expression of power that the powerful should be concerned for those who are endangered, for those who are powerless. Now, what I think is really helpful in thinking through this is actually, turning this into a series of negations. And looking at what God is not, as a way to start understand how the image of God in us gets distorted, and where we need to be doing some of our work in order to be serving the world around us.

So, with regard to the Trinity, we can see that God is not alone. God is not isolated. God does not put himself first. The various members of the Trinity are busily at work exchanging glory with one another, praising one another, celebrating one another. God is creator. God isn’t passive. God works. He makes. While in judgment, He can destroy. In redemptive history, He’s primarily constructive, and busy with making and remaking things.

And then, finally, with God as Lord, He’s not a cosmic bully. But on a cosmic calendar, He doesn’t tolerate bullies either. God uses His gifts for love and care for those who are in the most need. So, from here, it’s easy to see how as image bearers, we’re meant to reflect God’s character in similar ways. We’re meant in our capacity for relationships to live self-sacrificing and outward lives.

In our capacity for culture making, we’re to be constructive to work, to make things, to leave the world better than we found it. And third, in our capacity for wielding power, we’re meant to care for the weak and the vulnerable. We’re meant to steward well, the power that we have. Now, we can take any aspect of this and press down into it for a while talking about relationships, culture, making your power.

You could also just go and read Andy Crouch’s recent books, which I actually would highly recommend that you do. But for today, I want to ask what keeps us from fully living as image bearers? And what are some of the cultural conditions that are pushing us against our design as God’s image bearers? And this brings me back to these negations. I think these are key features in our culture.

So, for instance, in relationships, we’re meant to live in relationship towards one another. We’re meant to live outward lives reaching out to those who are like us and unlike us. But the gravity of our culture is towards tribalism and towards isolation. Tribe tribalism is, it may sound at first blush like it’s in some way connected to relationships. But at the at its heart, it’s distrustful of relationship.

Tribalism is about distrust of the stranger. In his book, Suicide of the West, Jonah Goldberg talks about this in great detail. And what Jonah talks about is he says, there’s this unique phenomenon that happened around the time of the Enlightenment, that liberal democracy, and capitalism came into the world. And the way Jonah makes the argument, and I think I have a bone to pick with a few elements of his argument.

But what Jonah is essentially saying is essentially, he’s saying that liberal democracy, and capitalism had this way of leveling out the hierarchies of the world. So that if you were born poor, you had the opportunity to advance yourself, or if you were born rich, you weren’t guaranteed that you were going to be okay. Or if you were born of this tribe, it didn’t mean that you couldn’t shift identities, or connect with people of different tribes.

Because what happened is people who had money, people who had resources wanted to find ways to exchange them with one another. And so, suddenly, you had to build bridges with people who are different than you because they had something you wanted, or you might have something that they wanted. And the exchange, the financial exchange that took place for to level the playing field, and started to bring people together.

And so, you saw a leveling out of society. I think Jonah is more optimistic about how successful this was than I would be, necessarily. Particularly, when you think about racial justice, or gender equality in our culture. But nonetheless, I think you can see that the general gist of the argument, there was this movement towards a leveling off a movement away from tribalism.

And what he argues is tribalism was the way of the world up until this point, that you just trusted outsiders, that you cloistered yourself, you protected your community. And what he begins to argue with in the book is that we’re seeing a shift in the last decade back towards a tribalism, back towards a distrust of the stranger, back towards an attitude towards people who are different from us, defining them in hard boundaries of either you’re in or you’re out.

So, for instance, on the right, we see this in the rise of white nationalism. That’s a tribalism. That’s a tribal identity that people are holding on to, with a sense of pride, with a sense of identity, with a sense of hostility towards people who are not like us. But that’s not a standalone phenomenon. Because on the left, you see the whole world of identity politics, which again, is a tribalism.

We’re going to band together with people who are just like us. And we’re going to, in a sense, declare war on those who are different from us. And what being made in the image of God says is nobody is really that different from you. At your heart, at your core, what matters most about you is that you’re made in the image of God.

And so, these identity barriers that we like to throw up and say, this makes you different from me, this makes you in, this makes you out. You’re a star bellied snitch, and I’m a regular snitch, if you read Dr. Seuss. Those distinctions, those differences are insignificant. And it’s up to us, I believe, as the church to bear witness to the fact that those differences aren’t significant.

That those differences aren’t the defining matters for who we are, and aren’t defining matters for how our culture is going to live, and operate, and focus. Both of these together, nationalism and identity politics are attack on the doctrine of the Imago Dei. They both emphasize what makes us different over and against what we have in common.

A second, I believe attack, on the Imago Dei is a growing phenomenon of isolation. And in particular, technological isolation. Sherry Turkle puts it like this in her book, Alone Together. She says technology is seductive when what it offers meets our human vulnerabilities. And as it turns out, we are very vulnerable indeed. We are lonely, but fearful of intimacy.

Digital connections, and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. Our network life shows us to hide from each other, even as we are tethered to one another. We’d rather text than talk. Someone just the other day said to me, “Man, don’t you hate it when somebody responds to a text with a phone call?”

And what’s funny is I’m that guy. I’m always the guy that’s like, “I’m just going to call you back rather than have to fiddle with my phone.” Part of it is because my vision is so bad, I can never see what I’m typing. But I think this is a really common phenomenon. We become more and more comfortable with mediated interactions, where there’s a device that separates us from somebody else, and mediates the way that we connect.

Because what social media offers us is the ability to curate our lives. We can take our best moments, our most beautiful moments, and we can put them online for the world to see. And so, what happens is I go online, and I see your curated life, and it looks beautiful. And I look at my life, and I see all of the mess of it. And I think, “Man, that’s despairing.” And that’s the phenomenon, social media does lead to greater depression, greater use of social media leads through higher rates of depression and despair.

Because you see the curated lives of others that look beautiful, and you see the mess of your own life. And what real relationships do, and what they require is that we press into one another’s mess. You experience the fallenness, and the suffering of others when you’re in real community with them. And what technology does is it allows you not to have to participate in that.

It’s amazing to me as a pastor, to see the way people use social media, and how, because I’m a pastor, and because I’m involved, behind the scenes in some of these people’s lives, how blatant, and how false their online personalities are. There’s one example that just gets me every time I see a post. There’s a couple who will post these just blushing praises of one another, of how this is the best husband in the world, I’m so in love, I can’t believe, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and vice versa.

It’s a back and forth between these two online, it’s a huge love fest on Instagram. It’ll make your stomach turn. Because behind the scenes, they’re a mess. It’s a disaster. And every pastor in the church has, at some point, gotten a 2:00 AM phone call from this couple going, “I don’t know how we’re going to make it.” And this will be on the same day that there’s some loving screed to one another online.

And even with the way some people approach their online personalities, whether they appear really vulnerable. Even that is something that is very much under control. Laura Turner wrote an article about this, and she referred to it as curated imperfection. I think that is a great term, curated imperfection, I’m in control of how much of my mess that I see because I look brave when I show you certain aspects of that.

A couple of other phenomenon technologically that are driving us towards isolation that I just think are interesting and worth noting. One is the rise of technology in religion. Now, you see this in some very overt ways in Christianity with things like online church and all of that. And I think there’s interesting debates to be had about that.

I think there’s ways that that serves the church because you can serve shut-ins and people who can’t make it otherwise, et cetera, et cetera. So, I don’t want to throw that baby out with the bathwater. But let me throw these two out. The first is that there’s a 400-year-old Buddhist temple in Kyoto that recently installed a million-dollar robot. That’s a priest that gives sermons and interacts with worshipers.

And what’s interesting is with Buddhism, this almost makes sense because of the role that idols play in Buddhist worship. That something that’s not sentient would have more of a powerful place in an act of worship. But nonetheless, it’s the replacement of a priest with a robot. And before Christians get too proud, there’s a robot called SanTO, San, capital T, capital O. And it’s like Google Home, but it’s a little priest.

And you can confess your sins to it, and it will absolve you. And if you express anxiety or sadness to it, it will read you comforting scripture verses. And this is a little startup that’s expected to make millions of dollars and probably will. And then, the last place where I think technological isolation is really significant and easy to see is in the world of sex.

Data shows that people, recent study that just came out last couple of weeks, lots of people are talking about it online, that people under the age of 30 are having sex less than ever before. Why is that? Well, I think pornography is definitely a factor, but also is just the general lack of authentic human connection. Notably, one thing that is on the rise is the rise of sex dolls and sex robots.

Those are getting used more, and more, and more. I think once you start looking at our culture, and looking at these two factors, tribalism, you’re in or you’re out, and isolationism, you won’t stop seeing it. You’ll see it everywhere. You can see how also the kingdom of God invites us to a very different ethic. Because the church is made up of all tribes, tongues, and nations. And they’re made into one new man, as Paul puts it.

Likewise, I want to just stress the difference between solitude and isolation. This is just a pet concept for me. Because I care so much about spiritual disciplines, that when we talk about isolation, we’re talking about loneliness. We’re talking about separating ourselves from others for the sake of ourselves, for the comfort of our own heads and hearts, the comfort of our own anxieties. But one of the things that you see in scriptures is the importance of solitude.

And you see this particularly in the life of Jesus, who would regularly withdraw to pray. And something I’m fond of saying is that Jesus withdrew because he was perfect. Jesus withdrew because he was perfectly human. And to be perfectly human, we need a certain amount of solitude in our lives in order to be able to engage well with others, in order to be able to love them, in order to be able to live with them, in order to be able to listen to them.

And so, solitude is an important core discipline that enables us to be with others. It enables us for relationships. It’s something that we were made to do. It’s a rhythm we’re meant to live with. The second way, I believe our culture is pushing against the Imago Dei is in culture making. The gravity of our culture is moving away from meaningful and culture making work.

I think it’s probably easy for all of us to contrast the ways that work that’s meaningful, and fulfilling was work that’s dehumanizing, or disassociated work. What I mean by that, disassociated work, is work where the outcomes are far, far removed from the day-to-day grind of our actual jobs. And it’s interesting, if you look at industrial design, as a phenomenon, there’s a tremendous amount of effort for somebody like the Ford company.

Puts a tremendous amount of effort into making sure that there are employees who might spend eight hours of shift, driving one bolt into one door on one car, enabling them to be able to see the finished products of their work. Because if you get disconnected from the that finished product. If you begin to feel like you’re a cog in a machine, it’s soul destroying.

And the reality is that, yes, there are organizations that are very sensitive to this, but most of the world is not. Most of the world works in a condition of significant misery. And there’s all kinds of evil related to work, and evil in the form of human trafficking, human slavery. I would say even issues like wage inequality, reveal the fallenness of our culture of work.

More subtly, I think there’s a tendency in the world after the fall, and in our particular age, to be more destructive than constructive. It’s easier to be critical than to make things. It’s easier to make fun of someone’s creative work than it is to put your own creative work in the world. I have specific ideas as to why that is, and we’ll get to that in a minute.

Finally, power. And here, I’m just going to cave in all together and just let Andy Crouch speak a little bit. It’s not hard to see the power in our world is corrupted. And you can look at this on almost any aspect of our society. You can see the way that power has become twisted and inverted. We live in a world full of bullies. This is how Andy Crouch describes it.

He says power at its worst is the unmaker of humanity, breeding in humanity in the hearts of those who wield power, denying and denouncing the humanity of the ones who suffer under power. This is the power exercised by the moneylender, by the police who ignore and protect him, by the officials who would rather not confront him.

This power ultimately will put everything around it to death rather than share abundant life with another. It is also the power of feigned or forced ignorance, the power of complacency and self-satisfaction with our small fiefdoms of comfort. Power, the truest servant of love can also be its most implacable enemy. I think that’s absolutely true.

But the big mistake that we tend to make around power that Christians can often make around power is they can see the evils of power and go, “Well, we just need to give it up. We just need to relinquish power. We need to embrace weakness.” But Andy writes this to counter that. He says, “Remove power and you cut off life, the possibility of creating something new, and better in this rich, and recalcitrant world.

Life is power, power is life, and flourishing power leads to flourishing life. Of course, like life itself, power is nothing or worse than nothing without love. But love without power is less than it was meant to be. Love without the capacity to make something of the world without the ability to respond to and make room for the beloved’s flourishing is frustrated love.

This is why the love that is the heartbeat of the Christian story, the Father’s love for the son, and through the son, the world. It’s not simply a sentimental feeling or a distant ethereal theological truth, but has been signed and sealed by the most audacious act of power in the history of the world, the resurrection of the Son from the dead.

Power at its best is resurrection to full life to full humanity. Whenever human beings become what they were meant to be, when even death cannot finally hold its prisoners, then we can truly speak of power.” So, with all of that in mind, how can we as individuals in the church begin to redeem these aspects of image bearing, and work for the good of the world?

I think the answer to that in comes in two words, two ideas. And that is to embrace shame, or sorry, to face our shame and to embrace vulnerability. And I know those are super-hot buzzwords right now. A lot of you are probably groaning going, “Okay, here comes the Brené Brown nonsense. My friend Chuck DeGroat, has actually written a really great book on this from a Christian perspective, it’s called Wholeheartedness.

I really highly recommend that book. And as much as I hate cliches and buzzwords, personally, I can’t get past these two ideas when I think about what it takes to live with faithful presence in our world. I think when you look at the challenge of image bearing, it’s the challenge of dealing with shame and dealing with vulnerability. So, why shame?

Well, first off, shame is the first, and primary emotion that comes in the aftermath of sin. Adam and Eve found themselves naked and ashamed when they were caught. Shame makes us withdraw from relationships, and want to protect ourselves. Shame builds up in relationships, and drives wedges between people. And only by regularly exposing our weakness to each other, can we maintain intimacy.

So, think about this in marriage. In our marriages, we sin against one another, we burden each other, we fall short, we fail each other, we disappoint one another. And if we don’t expose those realities to each other, “Hey, you’ve wounded me,” we don’t expose that to one another, then intimacy gets broken. It drives a wedge between us. And that’s true of every relationship.

And the fact is as fallen creatures, we are going to burn bridges. We are going to hurt one another. We’re going to wound one another. In our society at a grand scale, you see this, and again, these tribal identities, wounding one another, sinning against one another, hurting each other. And what we’re invited into as Christians is to be people who can expose that shame, bring it to light, and bring one another back together in confession and in repentance.

Shame also causes us to fear others because we’re unsure of who we are. If we don’t deal with our shame, if I don’t deal with my shame, and my brokenness, then I’m going to be insecure, because my identity is fragile. I become reactive to every perceived threat. Immigrants and strangers are scary because I’m afraid they might destroy my already fragile foundations of my personal identity, and my understanding of the culture around me.

Shame keeps us from risking rejection, and putting good work out in the world. This brings us to culture making, and how shame hinders culture making. When we’re kids, it’s easy to be creative. I mentioned this earlier. When you’re a kid, you can’t help be creative. But over time, you experience rejection for the creative work you do. You get a bad grade on something.

Your art project falls short of what you imagined it to be. Your musical skills aren’t what you hoped they would be. You can fall on the list. We all have a story like this. There’s some moment in our lives when we began to discover that we were not as gifted, not as wonderful, not as beautiful as we thought we were when we were five years old.

And so, with that, with that experience, we begin to hold back. We begin to learn to restrain ourselves, particularly creatively. We’re afraid of that rejection that’s going to come from whatever it is that we might have wanted to make, we might have wanted to share otherwise. So, we hold back. And this is something that artists deal with a lot, and talk about a lot.

I think almost every successful artist and entrepreneur I’ve known, or who I’ve heard speak in biographies and interviews, talk about the work that has to be done, just to overcome the basic insecurity of putting your stuff out in the world. Anne Lamott describes it like this. She’s a writer. And she says that when you sit down to write, all of your anxieties show up like a herd of cats.

And they gather around your computer, and they just stare at you until you learn to deal with them. You look at the lives of successful creative people who are making culture. And you’ll always find people, Christians and non-Christians, who either through prayer, or meditation, or journaling, or exercise, or some other tool are finding ways to deal with anxiety, and shame around their work.

Thirdly, shame leads to the other emotions that cause us to abuse power. And that might sound strange because we might go, “Well, how is shame behind this abuse of power?” It seems like we’re in a place of extraordinarily shamelessness. But one of the things that you see, and one of the things psychologists talk about, is that there’s such a thing as secondary and primary emotions.

And your primary emotions are things like fear, shame, and sadness. And what happens is when you experience those primary emotions, when you experience fear, shame, and sadness, your tendency is going to be to react to those things in a way that tries to cover them up. And one of the best tools on the planet, for covering up shame, covering up fear is anger.

If you look around, and look how angry our culture is, and you begin to recognize anger is a secondary emotion, anger is a Band-Aid, anger is something that’s laying on top of something deeper and sadder, it really exposes how sad and broken the world truly is. Think about how much easier it is to respond to someone with anger than it is to expose our vulnerability and express shame.

And again, I’ll just come back to marriage, come back to that core relationship. How much easier is it when your spouse calls you out? How much easier is it to get angry in response than to go, “Oh, my gosh, I’m broken, I failed, I hurt you?” It’s much more difficult to do the latter. So, to summarize, shame has the power to dim our light as image bearers because it causes us to withdraw from others, withhold our creative capacity, and abuse our power.

And as Christians, we have the greatest answer to shame in the history of the world at the cross. But it demands that we embrace vulnerability. At the heart of the gospel message, to borrow Tim Keller’s phrase, is the news that we’re way worse off than we think. And if we don’t embrace that core message, that first premise of the gospel, we will continually struggle with all we’re talking about here.

But if we recognize what a wreck we are, we can also recognize what a wreck everyone around us is. And then, we realize that there’s nothing left to lose. So, we can embrace vulnerability, which is an act of courage. And we can press into the world, and press into our identity as relational culture making, and power wielding image bearers.

This is particularly important for us to think about now, in a culture that’s as hostile as ours is towards Christianity. Christians in a secular age face more potential for shame and rejection than we have at many other points in history. And we have to, in a sense, be prepared for it. Be prepared for rejection. If we haven’t dealt with our shame, and we experience hostility and rejection from the world, our response is going to be to run to anger.

And we see a ton of angry Christians in the world right now. They run discernment blocks, they have toxic Twitter accounts, they rage tweet, they rage post thinking they’re being faithful. And actually, again, if you think about it, they’re exposing that shame. They’re exposing that insecurity. They’re exposing that sadness. By contrast, we’re called to love our enemies, and bless those who persecute us.

Listen to the passage, listen to Jesus teaching from the Sermon on the Mount. Starting in chapter six, verse 43, he says you have heard that it was said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, so that you can bear his image.

For He causes the sun to rise on the evil, and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Now, we might not think of it this way, uh-oh, I can switch to ghost stories if you want. We might not think of it this way. But God, the Creator, who sends rain on the righteous, and the unrighteous is actually engaged in an act of vulnerability.

He’s showing loving care for creatures who can and will reject Him. Jesus goes on, and He says for if you love those who love you, what reward will you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what are you doing out of the ordinary? Don’t even Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And that last line is a really interesting punctuation mark on the whole thread there, be perfect as your Father is perfect. Jonathan Pennington talks about it in his book, the Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing, a book I would highly recommend as well. And what he goes into is that the word that’s translated as perfect there is a Greek word, téleios.

And there really isn’t a great English equivalent for téleios. It’s often used as perfection, but that it’s not about moral perfection. He’s not saying be as perfect as God is, be as holy as God is, be a sinless as God is. Rather, it’s talking about a wholeness, you could read it as be whole as the Father is whole, or be wholehearted as the Father is wholehearted.

And that makes sense in the context of the whole passage. We have to have a certain wholeness, or wholeheartedness to love your enemies, and to make yourself vulnerable. We need to not need something, not need the validation of the world around us in a feedback loop in order to be able to love our enemies, and give our lives away to the world around us.

And in doing this, as Jesus says, in doing this, that’s how we live as children of God. That’s how we bear God’s image to the world. So, I think if we want to be image bearers that make a difference in God’s world, we have to go on a personal redemptive journey. It’s a journey with an odd contrast. We have to press into our shame. We have to expose ourselves and be vulnerable.

We have to experience, and understand our brokenness and sinfulness. And we have to make a certain peace with that. Not in don’t hear me that I’m being antinomian, not that we have to live with that forever. Not that we have to be content with being sinful. And not that we don’t want to put sin to death. But we want to be realistic, and honest about who we are, and where we are in our brokenness.

And know that by God’s grace, we are okay. He’s got us. That’s the starting place of the gospel. And it’s a place we never fully moved past from. That’s the redemptive journey that we go on. We press into our brokenness. We press into our weakness. We expose our shame. And then, we can press back into the world in relationships, culture making, and power wielding in redemptive ways.

We become whole by acknowledging that we’re broken. And yet, out of that brokenness, through vulnerability, by pressing into the world around us, we can reflect the image of the most glorious being in the cosmos. Think about that. In our brokenness, by pressing into the shameful parts of our lives, that’s the pathway to reflecting the glory of God to the world.

By God’s grace, I hope that the church can go on that journey. And that’s my prayer for each of you. If you want, we have a few minutes left, we can transition to some questions. People have questions, feedback. Yeah.

Speaker 3: In your creative process, is there a way when you’re creating content or thinking about trying to make the cat scatter? [inaudible].

Mike Cosper: Yeah. That’s a great question. The question was in my own personal process, creative process, do I have a routine, or ways that I try to make the cats go away? Yeah, for sure. I do my best creative work when I’m at my most disciplined with my life as a whole. So, for me, that means getting up really early in the morning.

It means trying to exercise regularly, which I’m not doing at the moment. But it means there’s a practice called morning pages. It comes from a book called The Artist’s Way. This is a great book. It’s not by a believer. But she deals a lot with shame and fear around creativity. And it’s really meant to unlock and help you understand the ways.

Again, this is for folks who are thinking about living a creative life, or doing creative work. How to unlock, and unblock yourself, and get at the reasons why you’re afraid to do that work. And anyway, she has a number of practices in there, but one of them is this practice called morning pages, where you write out, you free thought, free handwritten pages every morning just to get the words going, and get the thoughts moving, and get some of the blocked-up insecurities knocked loose.

So, that’s really significant for me, as a part of the process, and then the rest of rhythms of life. I think, again, looking at the lives of artists, and entrepreneurs, and somewhere I’ve spent a lot of time on in the last few years. And it really is consistent, every one of these people, some of them, they have just crazy routines of ice baths, and all this crazy stuff that they’re doing, just to try and go, “I got to get past all this emotion that will prevent me from doing my best work.” Yeah, that’s a great question. Yeah.

Speaker 4: I think one of the best ways for us to grow in our community is to learn how to enjoy what is created by God and other people. What would you say are some of the best ways for us to learn how to enjoy simply receiving creation?

Mike Cosper: So, one of the questions was, in order to do good creative work, we have to expose ourselves to other good creative work, whether it’s by other people or in creation itself. I totally agree with that. One of my primary outlets is writing, and writing lives or dies by reading well. And so, I think exposing yourself to good work in the field that you’re trying to do, again, whether that’s entrepreneurship, or business, or in the marketplace in some form, or if you’re trying to live as an artist.

Lately, I thought a lot about Karen Swallow Prior’s book, On Reading Well, which is a really helpful book on really, reading as virtue formation. But it’s also just a good book on reading and thinking. So, I think that’s a great resource. You have to make time for this stuff. And it’s one of the things that to do our best work, to do our best culture making work, you have to make time to cultivate your curiosity, and cultivate your imagination.

And it’s easy for that to be one of the first things to go. Usually, that goes first. And then, spiritual disciplines, and habits, and routines that you’re doing to cultivate the creative stuff within you. That’s the second thing to go when we’re busy. And so, what you end up with is you end up with a culture full of people going, “I don’t have time to immerse myself in creative work.

I don’t have time to nurture my own creative side. And so, I’m just busy, and tired, and I’m frustrated, because I wish I were doing something else with my life.” So, yeah, it’s essential that self-care is way overrated in a lot of ways. But cultivating the imagination is, I think, essential to living well, and living joyfully. Yeah.

Speaker 5: Going back to how our culture is moving us away from meaningful culture making, what are some practical ways you can push back when you’re causing say, meaningless work that you’re working with just one piece of a cause, and you don’t see the whole picture?

Mike Cosper: Yeah. This is one of those points where the speaker has to go, “I don’t have all the answers.” Because it’s difficult, because I recognize that a lot of what I have to say in this talk comes from a place of privilege. Even for somebody who’s stuck in a factory job, who’s working 40 hours a week.

My friend Brian Koppelman talks about this, that there is the opportunity to find some outlet for yourself, even if it’s 30 minutes a day, or 20 minutes a day, or something like that, to find some time to do something creative that you think is going to make the world a better place. But even at that, that’s a place of privilege because there are people in the world who live in sweatshops, and are trapped in human slavery of various forms, and don’t have that opportunity.

And so, it’s one of the aspects of our condition of fallenness that not everyone’s going to get to live fully and freely as God intended them to. And that’s something that should make us weep. And make us pray for organizations that are working to fight against that, for sure. Yeah.

Speaker 6: [inaudible] you say, what are the things church can do to cultivate better image [inaudible]?

Mike Cosper: Yeah. I think it starts with Sabbath. I think it starts with a posture of rest, where people can begin to learn to slow their own hearts down, and begin to pay attention to some of that desire that’s internal. And again, I think one of the experiences a friend of mine, who’s a pastor in New York City talks about is that everybody in New York City says, “I’m working 50, 60 hours a week, and I’m exhausted, and I’m just not.”

But people find time for Netflix. We find time for the escapes. Everybody finds time to escape. Because in some ways, you have to in order to be sane. And so, I think pushback on the narrative sum is important. But I think the first invitation for a lot of people who are exhausted, and who are at the end of their rope is an invitation to try to find rest and Sabbath. Yeah.

Speaker 7: Do you ever feel in your creative pursuits selfish? And if so, how do you bring back this [inaudible] relationship, right? Because in here, that’s what we’re called to do. So, in your current pursuits, how do you invite-

Mike Cosper: Yeah. That’s a great question. That’s a great question. Do you ever feel selfish in your creative pursuits? And if so, how do you push back in relationship? I think this is where I’d come back to this idea of wholeheartedness is so important. Because if we’re living in a wholehearted way, we’re not abandoning one for the sake of the other, for sure.

Brian Koppelman, again, I think he’s got a great podcast called The Moment, where he talks a lot about these kinds of things. And he’s not a believer, he’s a very rigid atheist, but I think very helpful on culture making creativity in particular. And one of the things he talks about is when his son was born, he recognized that he was on a career path that was going to burn him out, and make him miserable, and make him a worse father.

And so, he had to take the risk of becoming an artist. He believed he had to take the risk of becoming an artist in order to be able to be a whole person so that he could love his son, and love his family well, in the aftermath. So, I think that’s a helpful framework to just recognize that workaholism is not wholehearted living. And yet, if we’re not expressing the creative working side of our hearts, that’s not wholehearted living as well. Yeah.

Speaker 8: Going back to what he was talking about, when did you [inaudible] as a pastor in your experience do you begin to press back on those that you don’t [inaudible]? How do you begin to engage that conversation with the concept of Sabbath?

Mike Cosper: Yeah. So, the question is, how do you press back on folks who are perhaps hostile or resistant to the idea of rest and Sabbath? I served as a pastor for about 15 years before I got into what I’m doing now. And as the longer I pastored, the more I realized that with issues like that, in particular, it’s really difficult to break through to people.

I tend to think people almost have to come to the end of themselves on their own. They have to come to a place of brokenness where they recognize that within them self, and are able to acknowledge their need on their own. That’s right. That’s right. That’s right.

And then, pastorally, we’re present when they reach those broken spaces, and not with an I told you so, but with, “Hey, I think God has an invitation for you here.” So, well, I thank you, everybody, for coming. I’ll be around for a few more minutes for questions if… thank you.

Is there enough evidence for us to believe the Gospels?

Mike Cosper is the founder of Harbor Media in Louisville, Kentucky and serves as the director of podcasting for Christianity Today and is the host of Cultivated: A Podcast about Faith and Work. He is the author of Faith Among the Faithless: Learning from Esther How to Live in a World Gone Mad (Thomas Nelson, 2018), R ecapturing the Wonder: Transcendent Faith in a Disenchanted World​ (IVP Books, 2017), The Stories We Tell: How TV and Movies Long for and Echo the Truth (Crossway, 2014), and Rhythms of Grace: How the Church’s Worship Tells the Story of the Gospel (Crossway, 2013). Mike lives in Louisville, Kentucky with his wife, Sarah, and their two daughters. You can follow him on Twitter .

Now Trending

1 can i tell an unbeliever ‘jesus died for you’, 2 the faqs: southern baptists debate designation of women in ministry, 3 7 recommendations from my book stack, 4 artemis can’t undermine complementarianism, 5 ‘girls state’ highlights abortion’s role in growing gender divide.

The 11 Beliefs You Should Know about Jehovah’s Witnesses When They Knock at the Door

Here are the key beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses—and what the Bible really teaches instead.

8 Edifying Films to Watch This Spring

Easter Week in Real Time

Resurrected Saints and Matthew’s Weirdest Passage

I Believe in the Death of Julius Caesar and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Does 1 Peter 3:19 Teach That Jesus Preached in Hell?

The Plays C. S. Lewis Read Every Year for Holy Week

Latest Episodes

Lessons on evangelism from an unlikely evangelist.

Welcome and Witness: How to Reach Out in a Secular Age

How to Build Gospel Culture: A Q&A Conversation

Examining the Current and Future State of the Global Church

Trevin Wax on Reconstructing Faith

Gaming Alone: Helping the Generation of Young Men Captivated and Isolated by Video Games

Raise your kids to know their true identity.

Faith & Work: How Do I Glorify God Even When My Work Seems Meaningless?

Let’s Talk (Live): Growing in Gratitude

Getting Rid of Your Fear of the Book of Revelation

Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places: A Sermon from Julius Kim

Introducing The Acts 29 Podcast

Max Azzarello, man who set himself on fire outside Trump trial court, dies

Police had earlier said the Florida man was being viewed as ‘sort of a conspiracy theorist’.

A man who set himself on fire outside the New York court where former United States President Donald Trump is on trial has died after suffering serious injuries, police said.

On Saturday, the New York City police department said the man, identified as Max Azzarello of St Augustine, Florida, was declared dead at a local hospital where he was taken for treatment after the incident on Friday.

Keep reading

Three key takeaways from donald trump’s iowa town hall, donald trump’s claim of absolute immunity rejected: what next, what is donald trump’s ‘hush money’ trial all about, how the world reacted to trump’s arraignment.

Police said the man, who was born in 1987, did not appear to be targeting Trump or others involved in the trial.

During the incident, which took place on Friday, the fourth day of Trump’s trial on criminal charges of falsifying business records, Azzarello threw pamphlets in the air before using an alcohol-based cleaning substance to douse himself and light the fire.

Police had said earlier that he was being viewed “as sort of a conspiracy theorist”.

Trump, the first former US president to face criminal charges, is on trial in connection with hush-money payments he allegedly made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Many police officers were present at the scene on Friday as part of the extensive security precautions to ensure the safety of the trial.

Journalists from across the world were also waiting outside the court, and some were live on air when Azzarello self-immolated.

Police had said the man had not breached any security checkpoints to access the park across from the court, and that he had recently travelled from Florida to New York.

Authorities said following the incident that they are reviewing security protocols and considering shutting down access to the park where Azzarello set himself ablaze. The side street where Trump enters and leaves the building is off-limits to everyone.

Advertisement

Man Sets Himself on Fire Near Courthouse Where Trump Is on Trial

Onlookers screamed as fire engulfed the man, who had thrown pamphlets in the air before he set himself aflame. He was taken to a hospital and died hours later.

• Share full article

By Nate Schweber and Matthew Haag

• April 19, 2024

A man set himself on fire on Friday afternoon near the Lower Manhattan courthouse where jurors were being chosen for the criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump.

The man, who had lingered outside the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse earlier this week, doused himself with accelerant at around 1:35 p.m. in Collect Pond Park, across the street from the building. Onlookers screamed and started to run, and soon, bright orange flames engulfed the man. He threw leaflets espousing anti-government conspiracy theories into the air before setting himself on fire.

People rushed and tried to put out the flames, but the intensity of the heat could be felt from some distance.

After a minute or two, dozens of police officers arrived, running around and climbing over barricades to extinguish the blaze. The man was loaded into an ambulance and rushed to a hospital burn unit. He died on Friday night.

The New York Times

City officials identified the man as Max Azzarello, 37, of St. Augustine, Fla. Mr. Azzarello had appeared outside the courthouse on Thursday, holding a sign displaying the address of a website where the same pamphlets were uploaded. The top post of the website says, “I have set myself on fire outside the Trump Trial.”

Mr. Azzarello walked around Lower Manhattan earlier in the week, holding a sign on Wednesday critical of New York University at Washington Square Park before moving on Thursday to Collect Pond Park.

At the park on Thursday, Mr. Azzarello had held up various signs and at one point shouted toward a group of reporters gathered there, “Biggest scoop of your life or your money back!” One of his signs claimed that Mr. Trump and President Biden were “about to fascist coup us.”

In an interview that day, he said his critical views of the American government were shaped by his research into Peter Thiel, the technology billionaire and political provocateur who is a major campaign donor, and into cryptocurrency.

Mr. Azzarello said he had relocated from Washington Square Park because with the cold weather, he thought more people would be outside the courthouse.

“Trump’s in on it,” Mr. Azzarello said on Thursday. “It’s a secret kleptocracy, and it can only lead to an apocalyptic fascist coup.”

Mr. Azzarello arrived in New York City sometime after April 13, the police said, and his family in St. Augustine did not know about his whereabouts until after the incident. While Mr. Azzarello was recently in Florida, he had connections to the New York City area and worked for Representative Tom Suozzi during his 2013 campaign for Nassau County executive on Long Island.

A man at a Brooklyn address associated with a possible relative of Mr. Azarello’s declined to comment on Thursday.

Over the past year, however, Mr. Azzarello’s behavior appeared to become more erratic. He was arrested three times in 2023 on misdemeanor charges in Florida, and he posted online in August that he had just spent three days in a psychiatric hospital.

Later that month, while dining at the Casa Monica Hotel in St. Augustine, he threw a glass of wine at a framed autograph of former President Bill Clinton. He showed up to the hotel again, two days later on Aug. 21, stripped to his underwear and shouted profanities at guests while blasting music from a speaker.

Three days later, police arrested him for defacing and breaking signs belonging to several businesses. He took a pest control sign from the yard of one business that had warned passers-by to keep children and pets away for their safety. In comments to the police, he said that “the pest control company was there to exterminate children and dogs.”

His mug shot shows Mr. Azzarello sticking his tongue out.

In addition to his website, Mr. Azzarello was also active on social media, promoting anti-government literature on Instagram. Most of his online posts before the spring of 2022 were of his travels and his family, and he noted that his mother died in April 2022 from complications of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

About a year later, he posted a photo of what appeared to be his Covid-19 vaccination card — defaced with the words “Super Ponzi” and the symbol for Bitcoin.

People who witnessed the fire said they were in disbelief as they saw Mr. Azzarello, who was in an area of the park reserved for supporters of Mr. Trump, toss the pamphlets into the air and then flames shoot toward the sky. Mr. Azzarello, who was wearing jeans and dark gray T-shirt, fell to the ground amid the fire.

Some of the pamphlets referred to New York University as a “mob front” and also mentioned former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Al Gore and the lawyer David Boies, who represented Mr. Gore in the 2000 presidential election recount. Another pamphlet contained anti-government conspiracy theories, though they did not point in a discernible political direction.

Most officers who responded to the fire on Thursday ran from the direction of the courthouse, which is a couple of hundred feet across the street; some struggled to immediately reach Mr. Azzarello because of steel barricades in the park.

Al Baker, a spokesman for the court system, said the trial schedule would not be affected, though one court officer had been taken to hospital because of the effects of smoke inhalation.

Fred Gates, 60, said he had been riding his bike through the park when he stopped to watch the Trump supporters and saw Mr. Azzarello getting ready to light himself on fire. Mr. Gates said he thought it was a prank or a performance until he saw the flames.

Another witness, Gideon Oliver, a civil rights lawyer, said he saw smoke rising from the park and a court officer rushing from a building carrying a fire extinguisher.

“When I saw and smelled the smoke I thought someone, I assumed one of the pro-Trump protesters, had lit a fire in the park,” Mr. Oliver said. “When I saw police and court officers running, I then thought it might have been a bomb.”

Mr. Azzarello stood tall as he poured the accelerant on himself and then held a flame at chest level. As people nearest him fled, others cried out as they realized what he was about to do.

Screams and shouts — though not from him — filled the air as the flames consumed him and he slowly collapsed.

If you are having thoughts of suicide, you can call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources.

Wesley Parnell , Alan Feuer , Chelsia Rose Marcius , Jan Ransom , Maria Cramer , Stefanos Chen , Nicholas Fandos and Dana Rubinstein contributed reporting.

Matthew Haag writes about the intersection of real estate and politics in the New York region. He has been a journalist for two decades. More about Matthew Haag

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

News and Analysis

Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan took a startling turn when two jurors were abruptly excused , demonstrating the challenge of picking citizens to determine the fate of a former president.

Prosecutors argued in court that with a steady stream of social media posts, Trump had violated the gag order  imposed on him seven times, urging the judge overseeing the trial to hold him in contempt.

Our reporter joined “The Daily” to explain what happened during the opening days  of the trial against Donald Trump.

More on Trump’s Legal Troubles

Key Inquiries: Trump faces several investigations  at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers.

Case Tracker:  Keep track of the developments in the criminal cases  involving the former president.

What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s presidential campaign? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know .

Trump on Trial Newsletter: Sign up here  to get the latest news and analysis  on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.