God’s Image Bearers

By David Shumate | July 29, 2020

Loving Our Neighbors in a Fallen World

I recently ran across The Third Option (Simon and Schuster, 2018) by San Diego pastor Miles McPherson. The Third Option is an examination of race and racism informed by McPherson’s experiences as a self-described mixed-race individual who identifies as black, who has placed his faith in Jesus Christ, and who has been actively involved in seeking racial reconciliation. The heart of McPherson’s book is that instead of choosing sides in the current racial divide we must choose a third option: to honor and love our fellow human beings as image bearers of God.

What follows is not a review of The Third Option1 but rather a meditation on its central thesis, that our attitudes and behavior toward our fellow human beings must take full account of the fact that they were created in God’s image. This realization can help us respond in a Christlike way not only to issues of race but also to many of the other contentious and divisive issues that plague our society.

In God’s Image

McPherson asserts that the main reason racism is wrong is that it denies a fundamental reality of the Creation, that all people of whatever background or social group are made in God’s image.

When we allow racism into our hearts and society, we minimize the priceless value of God’s image in others, which limits our ability to honor, love, and serve them the way God calls us to.2

In other words, racism as a practice is evil because racism as a concept is heretical. Human beings retain the image both before and after the Fall (Gen. 1:26–28; 5:1–3; 9:6; James 3:9). Acts 17:26 states that God made all people of one blood, and James condemns respect of persons (2:1), pointing out the hypocrisy of blessing God and cursing people who are made in His likeness (3:9). Loving and honoring people, even though they are fallen, is like cherishing a loved one’s picture, even though it may be smudged and torn. This does not mean endorsing evil and error. Neither does it mean that people are exempt from accountability.3 Recognizing the image of God in people does mean, however, that we respect their human dignity and individuality and seek to share God’s truth and love with them.

McPherson argues that racism reflects a universal human tendency to implicitly sort people into various categories depending on how much like us they seem. This sorting can be based on things such as race, religion, gender, or profession, and one of its manifestations is applying double standards based on group membership. For example, we are more likely to appreciate the individuality of those within our group than those outside of it. We are more likely to empathize with them and to give them the benefit of the doubt as to their motives. On the other hand, we are more likely to view outsiders through preconceived notions or stereotypes, and we are less likely to think of them and treat them as individuals. We are quicker to take offense at what they do or say and are more likely to judge their motives.4

Proactively Demonstrating

Apart from racism, one can observe group bias all around, from cliques in school, to double standards in political discourse, to class or professional snobbery. Although frequently manifesting itself in hostile and demeaning words and deeds, it more often affects people, including believers, in a more subtle way. As McPherson puts it, “[Not many] people could honestly conclude that they proactively demonstrate honor to others.”5

In other words, it is not enough for me simply to avoid purposefully harming others. I am obliged affirmatively to show God’s love to them. Passing by on the other side will not do.

When we allow our mistaken beliefs about other ethnicities to prevent us from loving them, a different [i.e. non-overt] form of racism causes us to withhold His love from those God created us to love. In other words, racism is as much a sin of omission—not doing what we are called to do—as a sin of commission.6

McPherson’s fundamental prescription is that we make regular, conscious choices to show honor and love to others, “choosing to apply our in-group bias to those in our outgroups.”7 This is an extension of the command to love our neighbor as ourselves. It means examining how we view and interact with groups and individuals and choosing to change where necessary to be more like Christ.

The need for such a shift in thinking in our Christian lives should be obvious. What pastor does not grieve when he sees church members huddled together with their friends while a visitor stands around awkwardly looking for a friendly face? Or cringe when a well-meaning usher or greeter makes an insensitive remark that hurts that visitor’s feelings? How many times do believers’ interactions on social media reflect the pervasive dishonoring of people commonly associated with online discourse? How many believers are intimidated by someone’s appearance or apparent group affiliation, assuming he or she will not want to listen to the gospel?

“A Sin of the Heart”

Of course, change is much harder to implement than to talk about. We are not only image-bearers but fallen imagebearers. As McPherson points out,

Racism is a sin of the heart, and Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. All means all: Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Middle Easterners, and everyone in between. Racism is an equal opportunity offender, a human condition that affects all people.8

We must understand that sin in the human heart is inherent and intractable. Absent the power of the gospel, no genuine progress can be made against it.9 Law and society can and should do things to suppress vice. However, without a heart transformation our efforts will have only limited success. We suppress one manifestation of sin and selfishness only to find another popping up somewhere else, or we drive sin underground, making people defensive and hypocritical. Because of the reality and pervasiveness of human sin, we must insist even more on the purity and priority of the gospel. As desirable as mitigating racism or other social ills may be, if we allow any social or political goal to dilute the gospel or add to the Great Commission, we hinder both the Great Commission and our social actions and goals.

We must also be realistic about human depravity even as we seek to honor and love the image of God in people. First, even if we are born again, we cannot grow to love the way Christ loves without engaging daily in the spiritual battle of progressive sanctification. Second, in a fallen world, sowing biblical truth in love sometimes brings a harvest of hatred. While it often is the case that a soft answer will turn away wrath, people are still alienated from God, and the truth may offend them despite our best efforts to show them Christ’s love.

Nevertheless, seeking to honor the image of God in people is necessary for us to be effective in the Great Commission. Christ sought out and ate with publicans and sinners. Paul insisted on becoming a servant to both the Jews and the Gentiles so that he might win them to Christ. We are to do good to all people, especially to those of the household of faith and to live in a way that the gospel will not be hindered. We can all learn how to be better ambassadors for Christ. The question is, how important is it to us?

David Shumate is the General Director of Mexican Gospel Mission, International, in Phoenix, Arizona.

 

(Originally published in FrontLine • May/June 2020. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)

Editor’s Note: We normally don’t republish our FrontLine articles until at least 12 months after original publication. Since this article is particularly pertinent to current events, we thought it worthwhile to break our own rule on this occasion.

  1. Although I have reservations about some of its exegetical points and theological emphases, I found the book challenging and helpful and its point of view refreshing. [↩]
  2. The Third Option, Introduction. [↩]
  3. On the contrary, being properly accountable to God and others for how I live is an affirmation of my moral significance as an image bearer. [↩]
  4. The Third Option, 19–23. [↩]
  5. Ibid., 25. [↩]
  6. Ibid., 15. I found this statement personally convicting. [↩]
  7. Ibid., 23 [↩]
  8. Ibid., 16. [↩]
  9. The following line of thinking, while not contradicting the book, is not drawn from it. [↩]
Posted in Blog and tagged , ,