Looking at Human Nature Through Spiritual Eyes

Amy Jimenez

Dr. Vic McCracken and Dr. Jaime Goff

BIBM/BMFT 696: Theological Perspectives on Human Behavior

31 May 2013

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 1

Looking at Human Nature through Spiritual Eyes

Rob Bell says that we live between two trees.1 He is referring to origin story in the book of Gen-

esis (Ge 2:9) where God created two trees, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Unable to control

the moral freedom given to them, Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge before they are

able to eat of the tree of life and live forever. Consequently, their disobedient choice led to shame, sepa-

ration, suffering and death. Contrastingly, in the book of Revelation (Rev 22:19), God allows a glimpse

of a time when He will lovingly restore the tree of life, allowing mankind to eat its fruit of eternal life.

Human beings, as souls embodied in flesh, long for this balance between knowledge and life, not only

within themselves but as they relate to others. Niebuhr calls this a conflict between creatureliness and

transcendence that results in sin.2 Jesus, God himself in human form, came to the earth to bridge the

chasm between flesh (knowledge) and Spirit (life) by sacrificing himself on a third tree, the cross. He

intentionally left his Spirit to enable human beings to be agents of reconciliation to the fallen world. As

ministers and pastoral counselors, as we consider how to engage human nature in a way to bring bal-

ance, reconciliation and peace to a conflicted world, we must lean into this powerful redemptive energy

that God has placed in human beings, created in his own image, to affect other human beings through re-

lationship.

Image of God

Genesis is a book of beginnings, answering questions of the origins of God, his creation, the cosmos,

the world, mankind, and God’s chosen people, Israel. Perhaps the most complex origin and its subsequent

1 Rob Bell, Nooma Trees 003, videos produced by Flannel, a non-profit organization producing a series of videos by Rob Bell (Grandville, MI: Flannel, 2005), DVD.

2 Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man Volume I: Human Nature (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1941), 182. Niebuhr says that “man, being both bound (a created creature) and free (a transcendent being), both limited and limitless, is anxious...Anxiety is the internal precondition of sin.”

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 2

development is the relationship between God and man, and this reflected image between human beings.

Genesis 1-11 deals extensively with the origin of mankind and his/her complex relationships.

In Genesis 1:1-2:3, an account is written in which God creates an earth that he calls good, but crowns

his creation with male and female, created in His unique image, and calls them “very good.” Genesis 1:26-

27 says, “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in

his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”3 In the ancient

Mesopotamian world, an “image” was believed to carry the essence of that which it represented. This

imagery was often used in references to kings who set up images of themselves in places where they

wanted to establish their authority.4 So a plural God creates mankind, reflecting his essence and enact-

ing his governing work (dominion over the earth.) Thus, God created two forms of a complex human

being, male and female, in order that their manifold expressions could set forth his varied, triune pres-

ence of God in this world.5

In Genesis 2:4-3:24, a further account details the intentional creation of male and female to be in

complimentary, helpful relationship to one another and in intimate relationship with God. Genesis 2:18

says that woman was a helper whom God made suitable for man and further in Genesis 2:24-25, the man

and woman were called to become one flesh, intimately naked and vulnerable before one another, with-

out shame. Genesis 3:8 paints the picture of God walking and interacting with the images of himself

that he had created.

Karl Barth, a twentieth century German theologian, set this relational nature of man as a tenet of

this understanding of God. At the core of his theology is the rejection that a human being as an isolated

3 Genesis 1:26-27 (English Standard Version). Unless otherwise noted, all Biblical references will be from this ver-sion.

4 John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 130.

5 Andreas Schuele, "Uniquely Human: The Ethics Of The Imago Dei In Genesis 1-11," Toronto Journal of Theol-ogy 27, (2011, March 1): 6.

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 3

thinking individual. He says that as male and female in the image of God, sociability is the most essen-

tial characteristic of human nature.6 He describes the essence of human nature as a dynamic relation of

soul and body to one another as well as in relation of self to others.7 Similarly, Dietrich Bonheoffer,

another twentieth century German theologian, hinged his theology of mankind in the image of God, as a

relational being, defining man’s nature only as he relates God in others. He says, “Every human being

is raised by God, so to speak, to the status of nobility as His creation, as a child of God, and lives in a

personal relationship with God. The basic social category is that of the I-you relationship. The ‘You’ of

the other human being is the divine ‘You.’8 John Calvin adds that “a mirror cannot reflect something

unless it is in relationship with it.”9 Thus God is reflected in proportion to man and woman’s relation-

ship with him and with each other.

A final element of the image of God in which human nature is created and established in

mankind’s capacity to change and grow. Not only is the image of God present in man and woman in

their ability to reason and their freedom to make choices, but capacity, calling and relationship converge

to enable human beings to make choices as God would.10 In Colossians 1:15, Paul declares that Jesus

Christ was the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” Human beings are not static.

In the reflective image of God, humans are constantly being transformed as a function of the glory of the

6 Daniel J. Price, Karl Barth's Anthropology in Light of Modern Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 2002), 13.

7 Ibid, 21-22.

8 Dietrich Bonheoffer, Dietrich Bonheoffer Werke, Volume 1, Sanctorum Communio: A Dogmatic Inquiry into the Sociology of the Church, ed. Eberhard Bethge Et Al, trans. Daniel Bloeschard and James Burtness (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 33.

9 Douglas John Hall, Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 104.

10 James C. Peterson, Changing Human Nature: Ecology, Ethics, Genes, and God (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 2010), 19.

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 4

Lord that they are able to behold. (2 Cor 3:17-18) Theology studies God as its object: the triune God

who reveals himself as a living subject, mankind.

The Fall and Sin

In Genesis 3, separation between God and his created man and woman is introduced. Adam and

Eve willfully choose to eat what is forbidden, fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The

serpent is introduced as an external representation of evil who psychologically and physically tempts the

woman to disregard the authority of God, appealing to God given capacity to be wise. Disobedience

was not performed in isolation; it involved Eve’s relationship to God (disobeying his directive), to the

serpent (acknowledging his persistent and persuasive voice,), and to Adam enticing him to lessen the

burden of disobedience by sharing it with her. As a result of this action in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve’s

“eyes were opened” and they knew that they were naked. A new instinctive response of human beings

to hide and conceal the truth was born.

Swift punishment from God included suffering, enmity, physical toil and labor, and eventual

physical death for the serpent, woman, and man, but specifically in their relationship to each other. In

Genesis 3:22, the Lord God said, “Behold the man has become like one of us in knowing good and

evil.” This enhanced element of God-likeness extended man’s freedom of choice to overstep its

bounds, creating inequity before God. The result was banishment by God from Eden and restriction be-

tween the tree of life and mankind. Although God graciously covered them with clothing and continued

to communicate with mankind outside the Garden, the intimacy of these God- man, and man-woman re-

lationships were now complicated and marred by the effects of sin in the world. These same barriers

both define and limit human behaviors today.

C.S. Lewis, renowned academic philosopher, one time atheist, and influential Christian apolo-

gist, identified a fundamental truth about human nature and the world in which we live. He said, “All

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 5

human beings, across all cultures, have a curious idea that they/others ought to behave in a certain way

and can’t really get rid of it. At the same time, they do not behave that way.”11 He asserts that the fact

that the thing that judges between the impulse to help others and the impulse of self-preservation, itself

cannot be one of the two basic impulses and must be moral law, or the “law of human nature.” This

law suggests that there is a Power beyond our basic impulses, inside ourselves trying to get us to behave

in a certain way. “When one recognizes themselves as wrong with that Power, (God) the Christian mes-

sage of reconciliation between God and man beings to talk.”12

The primeval history of man in Genesis 1-11 details the extreme limits of this “mistaken, defi-

cient, lacking, at fault, or missing a specific mark13 behavior (sin) to which all mankind is capable of in

relation to God’s moral law. Each account deals with mankind’s struggle to accept or reject relationship

with God and cohesive relationship with fellow man. The successive episodes of human transgression

include fratricide, (Ge 4:1-16) illicit sexual practices with divine creatures, (Ge 6:1-4) pandemic societal

violence (Ge 6:11-12) where every thought of man was evil all the time, and finally assault of heaven it-

self in the building of the Tower of Babel. (Ge 11:1-10) These examples exemplify sin, further defined

by Cover, as “conscious and responsible action, against the unconditional authority of God in order to

decide for himself what way he should take, and to make God’s gifts serve his own ego.”14

Niebuhr defines sin as a result of the anxiety of man born out of the tension between his natural

desires and his God-like image. Because man has the capacity to make his own decision and to choose

between good and evil, this freedom often results in the overstepping of the boundaries set by God. He

11 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1952), 18-19.

12 Ibid, 35.

13 Robin C. Cover and E.P. Sanders, Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 Si-Z ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Dou-bleday, 1992), 31-47. Cover identifies this definition of the Hebrew word most often used for sin in the Old Testament, used over 595 times describing mankind’s behavior in relation to God.

14 Ibid, 36.

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 6

defines pride as the natural result of man trying to control the world around him as only God can. Our

God-like image combined with the freedom afforded us and our subsequent knowledge of good and evil,

tempts man to consider him/herself as God. Pride leads to utter self concern and self-indulgence, mani-

festing itself in idolatry and sensualities of all forms and practices.15

James, a Jewish leader in the early church, gives more insight to the continuum of the psychol-

ogy of sin when he says “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God

cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured

and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is

fully grown brings forth death.”16 His theology is in line with Niebuhr, in that he defines pride (self-cen-

tered desire) as the locus of temptation. He highlights the steady building of thought processes that give

birth to action and lead to death. Noteworthy, however is the truth that sin is born intrapersonally but

gives birth to action and death like consequences only in interpersonal relationships to other people.

Agents of Redemption

Paul exhorts Christians to be ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:17-20), imploring mankind “on

Christ’s behalf to be reconciled to God!” Vocational ministers, informed by theology, address the spiri-

tual, mental, and physical needs of people, as ambassadors for God, imparting his desire to redeem

mankind from sin and restore right relationship with Him and others through Jesus Christ. Modern psy-

chology, with or without theological perspective, also recognizes a great need to restore healthy mental

functioning and dysfunctional human systems of relationship to one another through the professional

fields of mental health counseling, psychiatry, and psychology (empirical research and development of

theories to better understand, engage, and change human behavior.) Healthy dialogue and integration

15 Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man Volume I: Human Nature (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1941), 178-219.

16 James 1:13-17.

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 7

between the fields of theology and psychology are helpful from a Christian perspective, to indentify the

dynamic systems at play both within a person and between people and to uncover the necessary condi-

tions, removing barriers, to enable openness to the power of God to change human thought and behav-

ior.17

Two modern psychological theories yield helpful insights to the field of Pastoral Counseling and

compliment the theological framework presented in Scripture related to mankind, created in the image

of God but subject to sin and its consequences. First, Bowen theorized a system of family interactions

utilizing differentiation to deal with anxiety within the system. The interpersonal capacity of differentia-

tion refers to balancing forces of separation and togetherness, taking responsibility for one’s experience,

initiating and receiving intimacy voluntarily, and establishing clear boundaries. Intrapersonal differenti-

ation refers to defining and attending to the ideas and experiences within oneself in the face of anxiety,

to enable self-control and balanced reactivity. Isolating patterns of triangulation in this model, where a

person dysfunctionally brings in a third person to avoid conflict, minimize responsibility, or pit one per-

son against another, is particularly helpful in this model to gain awareness and engage in concrete ways

of relating differently to each person within the system.18

God dealt with Cain in a similar way in Genesis 4:6-7, when he graciously spoke to him before

he decided to kill his brother Abel. “Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your

face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin

is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” God isolated Cain’s trian-

17 David N. Entwistle, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010), 5. Entwistle proposes that integration is possible between the fields of psychology and theology as a practicing psy-chotherapist and academian with a Christian worldview. He proposes models of integration that use information from both fields, defined by boundaries and parameters of worldview, to either correlate findings between respective fields or to inte-grate findings to support theoretical implications in practice as either a professional counselor or pastoral counselor.

18 Katie M. Heiden Rootes, Peter J. Jankowski, and Steven Sandage, "Bowen Family Systems Theory And Spiritu-ality; Experiencing Relationship Between Triangulation And Religious Questing," Contemporary Family Therapy: An Inter-national Jouranl 32, (2010, June 1): 89-101.

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 8

gulation as he attempted to avoid the anger and rejection he felt toward and from God by reacting in

jealously and rage toward his brother, Abel. God also pointed out the intrapersonal anxiety that was

threatening the internal balance of Cain’s psychological and spiritual health. The Bowen’s Family Sys-

tems Theory has been proven to be empirically effective in engaging people in religious questing, as an

individual experiences and expresses his or her orientation to toward the sacred.19 This is a model that

complements a spiritual friendship between a pastoral counselor and a struggling individual, seeking to

orient themselves to God both internally and externally in their particular context.

Internal Family Systems Therapy (IFS) is another theorized model of human behavior and inter-

vention that is informed by a theological perspective. A basic premise of IFS is that “instead of lacking

resources, people are seen as being constrained from using innate strengths by polarized relationships

both within themselves and with the people around them. The model is designed to help people release

these constraints, thereby releasing their resources. The model embraces the multiplicity of the normal,

functional mind, categorized into four basic personality types, that work together in balanced coordina-

tion to enable healthy thinking and behavior patterns. The Self is the integrative nature that keeps the

other three personality patterns, the Manager, the Exile, and the Firefighter in balance, so that the whole

self is able to interact with others in a healthy way.20 This is congruous with the relational aspect of the

image of God in which human beings were created. In Ephesians 4, Paul admonishes Christians to “

with regard to your former way of life, put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful de-

sires;  to be made new in the attitude of your minds;  and to put on the new self, created to be like God in

true righteousness and holiness.” This new self, created to be like God, does have the resources it needs

to renew the attitude of the mind, a concept embraced by the IFS therapy model. As a pastoral coun-

selor, utilizing the manager, exile, and firefighter metaphors to understand human intrapersonal and in-

19 Ibid, 90.

20 Richard C. Schwartz, Internal Family Systems Theory (New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 1998), 9-16.

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 9

terpersonal patterns of thought and relational behavior, can help a pastor to better understand people as

they seek to submit these patterns to the Lordship of Christ, and to be made new in the attitude of their

mind. IFS seeks to restore balance, harmony, leadership and development to the complexity of human

thought and behavior21

Finally, spiritual direction can be a valuable approach from a pastoral perspective to enable one

to align their self image with their God image. May says, “the image we have of ourselves – one com-

ponent of “identity” – deeply affects how we meet the world and the attitudes with which we encounter

images of God. We are at core endlessly mysterious, and our self-images are simply expedient symbols

of who we really are. This is, of course, also true for our images of God.” 22 Barth asserts that due to the

extent of human sin and brokenness, and its sociological and spiritual implications in the world, the

“real man” can be known only as the human reality is revealed by God. He claims that sin has dis-

torted the human character to such an extent that we cannot clearly perceive ourselves without the light

of grace to illuminate one’s sin. Thus, the “true nature behind our corrupted nature, is not concealed but

revealed in the person of Jesus, and in his nature, we recognize our own, and that of every man.”23 Per-

haps, there are elements to uncovering one’s true self that are beyond the realms of predictable systems

and human rational thought. The discipline of spiritual direction involves entering into focused, inten-

tional, and often open-ended contemplative prayer and listening on the behalf of a person, to allow God

to reveal a person’s identity in Christ and through spiritual formation.24 If this is beyond one’s scope as

21 Ibid, 21.

22 Gerald G. May and M.D., Care of Mind Care of Spirit (New York, NY: Harperone, 1992), 66.

23 Daniel J. Price, Karl Barth's Anthropology in Light of Modern Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerd-man's Publishing Company, 2002), 116-117.

24 May, 7-8.

JIMENEZ: HUMAN NATURE 10

pastoral counselor, referring someone to a person trained in spiritual direction can be a useful tool to in-

tegrating theological with psychological perspectives to effect thought and behavior.

Conclusion

If life is lived between two trees, one might ask why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

was placed in the center of the garden to begin with. Why tempt man to break the intimacy with

mankind that God so earnestly desired? Bonheoffer postulates that the tree of the knowledge of good

and evil was placed in the center of the Garden of Eden, not as a malicious trap intended to entice

mankind to disobey his directive, but as a representation of where God belongs in our lives.25 Only

from the center of our lives, he suggests, can we choose to obey God in a way that will govern every as-

pect of life. God’s definition of good and evil, his infinite wisdom, and his grace and mercy in Jesus, re-

side in who God is, not who we think he should be. Unfortunately, since creation, human beings have

been subject to the earthly consequences of sin in the world. We are no longer free to fully and freely

obey, to live in a world with nothing wrong with it, to be people with nothing wrong with us because of

the nature of sin.26 However, access to the tree of life is made possible through Jesus Christ. Full, abun-

dant, mentally healthy, and relationally rich eternal life is possible as a disciple of his, a redeemed child

(image) of God.

25 Dietrich Bonheoffer, Dietrich Bonheoffer Werke, Volume 3, Creation and Fall ed. Eberhard Bethge Et Al, trans. Daniel Bloeschard and James Burtness (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996)

26 Marguerite Shuster, "The Mystery of Original Sin," Christianity Today (2013, April 1): 41.

WORKS CITED

Bell, Rob. Nooma Trees 003. DVD. Videos produced by Flannel, a non-profit organiza-tion producing a series of videos by Rob Bell. Grandville, MI: Flannel, 2005.

Bonheoffer, Dietrich. Dietrich Bonheoffer Werke, Volume 1. Edited by Eberhard Bethge Et Al. Translated by Daniel Bloeschard and James Burtness. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996.

Cover, Robin C., and E.P. Sanders. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 Si-Z ed. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Dramm, Sabine. Dietrich Bonheoffer: an introduction to his thought. Peabody, MA: Hen-drickson Publishers, 2007.

Entwistle, David N.. Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010.

Hall, Douglas John. Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-mans, 1986.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1952.

May, Gerald G., and M.D. Care of Mind Care of Spirit. New York, NY: Harperone, 1992.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Nature and Destiny of Man Volume I: Human Nature. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1941.

Peterson, James C.. Changing Human Nature: Ecology, Ethics, Genes, and God. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 2010.

Price, Daniel J. Karl Barth's Anthropology in Light of Modern Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 2002.

Rootes, Katie M. Heiden, Peter J. Jankowski, and Steven Sandage. "Bowen Family Sys-tems Theory and Spirituality; Experiencing Relationship Between Triangulation And Religious Questioning." Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Jouranl. 32, (2010, June 1): 89-101.

Schuele, Andreas. "Uniquely Human: The Ethics Of The Imago Dei In Genesis 1-11." Toronto Journal of Theology. 27, (2011, March 1): 5-16.

Schwartz, Richard C. Internal Family Systems Theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 1998.

Shuster, Marguerite. "The Mystery of Original Sin." Christianity Today. (2013, April 1): 39-41.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder-van, 2001.