Worldview, Anthropology, and Gender: A Call to Broaden the Parameters of the Discussion

For years, evangelicals have been able to assume enough common ground with their interlocutors that they could focus on stating clearly their arguments concerning gender roles, and tracing out the implications. With Christian interlocutors, one could assume quite a bit of common ground (imago Dei, many moral issues, etc.); and, even with non-Christians, one could often assume a residue of basic Judeo-Christian views on humanity and morality.

But it seems that, because of shifting cultural winds, there is an increasing need to articulate a biblical view of the nature of humanity, of man himself, as a matter prior to discussing gender roles and relationships. As the United States becomes more multicultural, both factually and ideologically, the challenges to a Christian view of man increase exponentially. We must be prepared to converse with Hindu and Buddhist pantheists, Muslim theists, New Agers, militant pluralists, and even more importantly, confused and syncretistic Christians.

An example of the need to articulate a biblical anthropology is the re-emergence of atheism in the public eye. In 2006, three bestselling books were Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, and Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation.¹  All three were written by atheists committed to overthrowing Christian belief and any of its cultural remainder.

While it is not at all clear that there is an actual resurgence of atheism in the United States, one notices that prominent atheists are turning up the volume and are receiving increased media exposure. As such, Christians should seek to articulate the biblical view of humanity as created in the image of God, and flesh out the implications thereof in a manner that is intelligent, winsome, and persuasive.

The problem with atheism, as with other worldviews, is that it is not able to account for the unique nature, capacities, and ends of human existence. Inevitably, it tends toward either an enthronement or a denigration of humanity, unable to strike a proper balance.

At times, atheists tend toward the enthronement of humanity. This might seem an obvious move; if one chooses not to worship God on his throne, the next best thing would be to enthrone oneself. This can be seen in Humanist Manifesto II, which states, "At the present juncture of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable."²  

At other times (or ironically, at the same time), atheists denigrate humanity. The glittering example of this is, of course, Peter Singer, of Princeton University's Center for Human Values. Singer, like Nietzche and others, realizes what a radical revisioning of mankind must take place. For him this means that we cannot base our ethics on the imago Dei or argue that our immortal soul distinguishes us from the animals. "By 2040," he writes, "it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct."³

For Singer, the moral status of a human being is defined, not by his being created in the image of God, but by his consciousness and ability to function. Those humans who are most conscious and functional have more worth and moral status than those who are less conscious and functional. Healthy teenagers and middle-aged folks, then, are worth more than babies and old people, and certainly more than the mentally and physically handicapped.

For this reason, certain non-human animals have higher moral status than certain human animals. A donkey or a dog will often have superior consciousness and function than a defective human baby. It is for this reason that he believes one might find instances when infanticide is acceptable; sometimes, he thinks, it would be more wrong to take the life of an animal than to take the life of a defective baby.⁴

Furthermore, since Singer does not hold to the imago Dei, which gives a clear line of delineation between humans and animals, he has no problem suggesting that inter-species sexual activity is sometimes acceptable. In some instances, sex between a man and an animal might be mutually satisfying and, therefore, not problematic. He hurries to say, however, that with small animals such as chickens or ferrets, sexual activity might be painful for the animal and would, therefore, be problematic.⁵ 

Singer's re-definition of humanity finds company even in popular culture. Take, for example, the movie Bicentennial Man (1999). In this movie Robin Williams is a robot who is on a two-century journey toward becoming "human." At one point in the movie, he begins to use the word "I," signifying that he has now become self-conscious. He is now every bit as "conscious" as human beings, and the implication, it seems, is that he has, therefore, achieved humanness.

But it is not only Singer and the atheists who cannot understand humanity. Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim accounts of humanity are likewise defective. Many Hindus and Buddhists are pantheistic monists: they believe that all is One, that the universe is one substance. Man is part of the soul of the cosmos; if he thinks that he is actually separate from the cosmos, he is under illusion. Essentially, human beings are impersonal—they are merely part of the World Soul, that great ocean of being that includes all that exists. This view that humans are impersonal might explain the quietism and inaction of many Buddhist and Hindu cultures; one thinks of India's untouchables and Southeast Asia's rampant child prostitution.

Muslims, likewise, lack a doctrine of humanity rooted in the imago Dei. As such, they have difficulty making sense of the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, and this is probably seen most clearly in the Qur'anic teaching that men are ontologically superior to women. The outworking of this doctrine can be seen in such practices as wife-beating, disdain for female babies, male polygamy, and female circumcision.⁶

Worldviews other than Christian theism, whether atheism, pantheism, or Islamic monotheism, cannot make proper sense of mankind—they will tend either toward the enthronement or the denigration of humanity. The imago Dei is essential for understanding humanity. It makes sense of who we are; indeed, it renders coherent the socio-cultural activities that surround us and pervade our lives. As we image forth God through our capacities for spirituality, morality, rationality, relationality, and imagination, we are able to live distinctively human lives. Our work in the sciences is possible because of our ability to reason. In the arts, we may participate because of our imaginative and creative capacities. In the public square, we may hold forth because God made us not only rational but relational beings.

As theologians, this robust Christian anthropology is our foundation; an understanding of the essence of humanity is what allows us to think through intrinsically related ideas such as biblical manhood and womanhood. And for our broader American audience, an apprehension of the imago Dei and its implications will likewise enable them to comprehend our exposition of biblical teaching on gender roles and related issues.