“… there is no trade-ff between being biblically based and socially sensitive… the two are intimately and necessarily linked: the more we draw from the unique and right resources of biblical patterns of thought, the fresher and more genuinely constructive our interventions into the debates and problems of our age.”[1] This is Benjamin Watkins talking about the doctrines of sin and judgement and their usefulness in social critique and I agree with him. In my thinking about the Image of God and society, these two uncomfortable doctrines clarify so much. It clarifies how to deal with just about every area of society in such a way that human flourishing is at its height.[2]
The doctrines of Image of God, sin, and judgement are indispensable for the Christian when doing any societal critique. To be a Christian one needs to hold to these in some way, shape, and form. The doctrine of the Image of God is clearest in 1 Genesis 26-27. The first two humans, Adam and Eve, were created in the image of God and then we see that they were to multiply and procreate something that is not lower than themselves but of equal status. Genesis 9:6 supports this idea in its use of “man” as a universal for mankind. There can be no question as to whether or not any human is not in the image of God.
The doctrine of sin and judgement can also be found in the opening pages of the Bible. Genesis 3 recounts the fall of Adam and Eve into sin and the subsequent judgement for that sin. The contemplation of the serpents temptation is not the sin but the actual defiance of God’s only negative command in the Garden. We can define sin then as a defiance, active or passive, of God’s law. Judgement then is simply a consequence of the committed sin(s). So because Adam and Eve have sinned, we now live in a world in which sin in an inherent thing. There is not one human who has not sinned or will not sin within their life time. The only one who has not sinned is Jesus of Nazareth who was truly God and truly man.[3] We have inherited the consequences of Adam and Eve and therefore we will and do sin.
This may seem completely distinct and distant from a critique of society, but it is extremely useful in our critiques. Once we have grasped and internalized thew view of every human being is made in the image of God the way we look at them and treat them drastically changes, for the better. This view of other humans allows us to afford each and every one, born and unborn, regardless of level of consciousness, with the utmost dignity and respect because they are just like us. “Love your neighbor as yourself” in Matthew 23:39 takes on a whole new meaning when the image of God for every human being is in mind. When we are critiquing society through the Christian perspective, we are automatically wanting to critique in such a way that human flourishing is the outcome. This flourishing is indeed the goal of social critique anyway so why not make sure that the critique places all humans on the same level.
Speaking of on the same level, sin and judgement must be in this view as well. When we take into consideration what was said above about Adam and Eve not being able to procreate a child that is not in the image of God and the fact that Adam and Eve sinned and were judged for it, we can rightly assume that the society we inhabit also is sinful and will be judged. If people (ourselves included) are sinful then we should rightly expect sinful things to be a part of society. It is just part of how the world is, even if it is not how it ought to be. Judgement then is just impending for all of us and that is just the fact of the matter since we are descendants of Adam and Eve.
This does not mean we shy away from addressing it. That would be anti-biblical and counter gospel. Rather, we should be addressing these things in truth and love (Ephesians 4:15). Yet when we encounter the pushback that is inevitable, we will already be in practice of loving our neighbor as ourselves and provide reasons for this belief with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
How we go about doing so is a delicate situation and must be handled as such. In critiquing society, we first and foremost need to remember the fundamental quality of each and every human: they are made in the image of God. This great leveler places the president of the United Nations, Charles Manson, and the homeless person under the bridge as equals in our societal critique. When we view each person in light of this and then incorporate the doctrine of sin into the picture, our calling out of sin becomes seasoned with salt and transforms from condemning to correction.
Contrary to what some would say, this transformation does not make light of the sin. Correcting instead of condemning the image bearers in society helps in the efforts of shifting the paradigm of thought towards the church. If we can shift the paradigm, the church becomes a force to be reckoned with in society as the critiques continue. If we do not change the current paradigm, we will be met with the onslaught of names we are used to hearing about the church. These names do not come unjustly because broadly, the church effectively treats calling out sin as condemnation. Calling out sin quickly becomes judgement and when this happens we skip the stop of correction.
Judgment then is what happens when correction is not successful yet we should not stop trying to correct. In this life we can offer a type of judgement that still affords a place for correction. Judgement is something we can offer in a corrective way as a forewarning of God’s judgement at the final resurrection. Still the emphasis is correction in an already/not yet type of way. The judgement is a “you currently stand condemned before God but that condemnation yet felt.” Yet, because of the image of God in humanity, this is true of all people until they enter into the family of God through Jesus. Those who are not adopted into the family are then dealt with accordingly and is the type of judgement that the church is seen as dealing out. Society will not change or even be willing to listen if this is how the church is viewed.
In order for the church to make a real impact on society through the extremely helpful insights found in the biblical text, the paradigm needs to shift. The image of God in every human needs to made explicitly clear and the step of corrective calling out of sin cannot be skipped over for condemnation. My suggestion is that we make sure we are clear in what we are meaning. If that means not using “biblical” language, so be it. Regardless, social critique from a biblical perspective requires the doctrines of the Image of God, Sin, and Judgement to be deeply understood by the church and clearly articulated in the public sphere. Without such depth and clarity, the paradigm will not shift.
[1] Biblical Critical Theory, 110.
[2] You may be tempted to think that I will be arguing for a theocracy and that would be dead wrong. I do not think this would be a good way to do society. Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, got it right when he said in the first part of Surah 2 verse 256 that “there is no compulsion in religion—the right way is clearly distinct from error.” Setting up society as a theocracy would be to nullify the idea Muhammad put forward and one that a Christian can and should get behind. This is idea is backed up biblically when we read in the popular John 3:16 that “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only [begotten] Son so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.”[2] In both of these, there is a type of choice that is involved in coming to faith. This choice is stripped when a theocratic society is created.
[3] Athanasian Creed. https://www.theopedia.com/chalcedonian-creed
Brewed Up Apologetics 