Developing an Accurate View of People Depends on Having an Accurate View of Creation

[Originally published as Bad Anthropology leads to bad Theology]

If we misunderstand God, creation, and the fall, we will misunderstand what it means to be a human (anthropology). What’s more, we will misunderstand what it means to be an image bearer of God. As I’m finalizing teachings for camp, I’m screenshotting a lot of progressive memes and comments and realizing a few things:

Logical fallacies abound this month (June). Fallacies like ‘Post Hoc ergo propter hoc, straw man, and begging the question are coming out strongly.

Progressives censor opposing views a lot: I see progressives deleting comments that challenge their positions, then brag about being about the truth. If the truth is on your side, you will refute errors while not being afraid of opposing ideas. Part of the problem is that some really think that it’s an “extreme” position to affirm that marriage is only between a man and a woman and to disagree with the view that: “Our psychology/desires do not equal our ‘true self/identity.'”

Progressives are now coming out stating that it’s literally “dangerous,” “extreme,” or “killing people” to not celebrate or affirm an LGBT identity.

The Heart of the Matter

Before we immediately question, “How could they state such obviously false things so strongly?” we need to consider that the issue lies with their anthropology and theology.

Many progressives truly believe that an LGBT identity forms the core to someone’s identity and that such things define what it means to be an image bearer of God. Thus, when liberals say “gay pride” they aren’t thinking it’s the same thing as “sinful or boastful pride” but see it as similar to someone saying “I Love that God made me black, Asian, Hispanic, etc., and I celebrate who I am.”

They think it’s “coming to terms with the core of who they are” and that’s why some LGBT apologists are so aggressive with “gay pride” — because their anthropology drives their theology. Thus many progressives would say such an LGBT identity is so core to WHO someone is that to NOT be “an ally” is psychologically damaging and that it’s not “truly welcoming others like Jesus did to those that are different.”

Progressives also like to use the (false) analogy of Jesus welcoming the Samaritan to welcoming someone who identifies as LGBT and fully affirming them. They say that, “As Jesus welcomed a woman who couldn’t control her upbringing/town, we should also welcome those who have no control over their feelings, attraction, or identity that may be different than their biology. (What a low view of the body though! Loving your body is a far more positive view of the self!)

As you can see, the cultural battle is at the core a battle over what it means to be a human. They reason that:

1. if their LGBT identity is core to who they are,
2. they are made in the image of God,
3. God loves all image bearers, then
4. anytime someone doesn’t “accept” their identity, it’s the same as them not accepting someone with a different skin color. It’s merely hate.

This leads us to another point on the development of personhood theory and orientation:

Failure to understand what the “Imago Dei” actually means

Western progressives are ironically imposing a Western liberal reading shaped by Rousseau and Freud onto the text of Scripture.

Christopher Yuan describes the evolution of anthropology this way in his book, Holy Sexuality:

Freud (1856-1939): wrote several articles on homosexuality. He viewed “homosexuality not as a sickness but as an inversion. Homosexual was just another variety of humanity. Thus, heterosexual and homosexual became new, secular categories for personhood” (ibid., pg 10). After Freud, the idea of “identity, based on feelings and behavior, blossomed in the fertile soil of burgeoning secular philosophies.
Carl Westphal (1870) was the earliest to utilize homosexuality as a way to characterize a person’s nature, not just his sexual practice.
German psychiatrist Richard Von Krafft-Ebing wrote one of the first works on sexual pathology, published in 1886. His book made the ideas of “sexual orientation — heterosexual and homosexual — more mainstream.”

This is why so many people end up talking past others. The only path for Christians to escape this trap is to go back and define our terms.

We have to be absolutely clear on what we mean when we say “ALL HUMANS” are image bearers of God. We mean (to state the obvious) that:

“All humans have inherent, value, dignity, and worth.”

So, yes, it’s a genuine affirmation from a Christian when he says “I love you as a human but I want to call you to repent of your sexual immorality and find your identity in Christ alone. The homosexual has the same need as every sinner: repent and believe the gospel and find your identity in Christ alone!”

Yet, we also need to make sure people understand that definition does not mean your feelings, behavior, actions, desires, etc are part of that definition.

Biblically speaking there are just those that are: (1) in Adam or (2) in Christ. Thus, biblically, there is no personhood category of “gay.” A person may identify as such, but as Yuan says, sexuality may be how we behave or feel but that doesn’t mean that it is who we are.

Once we grant their first premise (or don’t refute it) that a person’s core identity is defined by their sexuality, they will inevitably conclude that we are just spewing hate. So, we must back all the way up and show that, since such an identity doesn’t define us, the rest of the premises don’t logically follow.

Are you starting to see why Christians should study logic more frequently?

Bad logic hurts people.

Does the Holy Spirit Work through Logic? Absolutely. He is the Spirit of Truth. Jesus, the second person of the Triune God, is the Logic of God made flesh.

So, defining our terms on what it means to be an image bearer of God is terribly important. In fact, thinking logically is part of what it means to be an image bearer of God!