Bioethical Consequences of the Imago Dei

How to think ethically about abortion, euthanasia, and the sanctity of life.

Questions and qualities of what defines a human person are highly debated, and answers are not as straightforward as one may initially think. Deontological ethics, however, provide a satisfactory answer to these questions. In contrast to utilitarian forms, Christian theology holds that a definition of human life is inextricably connected to the imago Dei (the image of God). This connection informs primary principles for understanding the nature of bioethical matters, specifically abortion and euthanasia. If one would divorce bioethics from a proper understanding of personhood and its foundation in the Scriptures, disastrous consequences would result. Human life across the spectrum from conception to death is to be valued as sacred because human identity is founded upon being made in the image of God.

What is a Human Person?

A claim about human life being founded upon the image of some deity begs the question: how does one define a human person? The determining factor in one’s definition is whether it is operational or substantive, whether it depends on how the thing operates or what its substance is most fundamentally. Operational definitions are taken by many pro-choice advocates. They assign characteristics to human persons, such as feeling pain, reasoning, activity, intellectual communication, and self-awareness, and those who do not possess those things are not persons.[1] Although these criteria might be founded on characteristics unique to humans, they are by nature still arbitrary. There are other characteristics humans have that other beings do not, and other creatures feel pain, not just humans. In theory, one could add or remove anything from the definition to fit their agenda. “If one can stipulate any definition whatsoever, then why not alternative definitions that grant personhood to the fetus or at least take a more sympathetic view toward it?”[2] Operational definitions leave one wanting, so one must use a substantive definition.

Deontological ethics provide a proper grounding for a substantive definition, for anything teleological or virtue-based relies more on the outcome than the substance. If one uses teleological means to define personhood, then it ultimately leads back to an operational definition. For example, one could say that the consequence of being human is that we are relational, rational creatures; therefore, to be human is to be relational and rational. If one uses virtue ethics to define personhood where select virtues would be the basis for a definition, then the virtue of humanity becomes the basis for defining it. The consequences humanity produces are far too wide and varied to use in defining personhood. One must seek grounding for his definition of personhood in an objective, external source. As evangelical Christians, using the word of God as revealed in the Bible provides such a basis for a proper deontological and substantive definition. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”[3] The basis for defining humankind is found in the imago Dei, being made in the image of God.

The Imago Dei

Although it might sound good to be made in the image of God, what exactly does it mean? Because mankind has qualities distinct from the rest of creation and alike to God, one could infer that those things are what make man made in the image of God. Qualities of this nature are things like one’s rational soul, ability to reason, dominion over creation, relations to others, and virtues.[4] Although one might think it is qualities such as these that tie us to the image of God, looking to them still brings him back to an operational definition, but this time of the imago Dei. If the question of human personhood is answered in the imago Dei, a substantive method of defining must be maintained; therefore, the reality of being made in the image of God is deeper than mere characteristics. It relies on the substance of humanity.

According to Genesis, God has created mankind “in his own image” and likeness, not just Adam. Adam was named what he was because his name means “A human being (an individual or the species, mankind).”[5] Further, the word for man and Adam used in Gen. 1:26 and 2:20 (אָדָם, adām) is the same as the word for all mankind in 7:21 during the account of the flood. When God says “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” it is the equivalent of saying “Let us make mankind in our image.” Here, Peterson helps explain further: “Genesis 1:26-28 does not appear to limit the imago Dei to one aspect of humanity. Rather, in Genesis 1:26, God determines that an image of God will be created and the human creature, as a whole, is the result.”[6] From this one can infer that all mankind, from Adam to the rest of humanity, is made in the image of God.

Mankind being made in the image of God means that the very identity of the human species is tied to his maker. From a proper understanding of Genesis 1:26-27 flows that it is the very humanity residing at the core of mankind that qualifies him as made in the image of God, not the characteristics he has as a human being. Peterson writes, “The imago Dei is humanity’s identity, and this identity is basic to all human existence. God created humanity to establish an earthly image of God in the world.”[7] A substantive definition of being a human person must be grounded in being made in the image of God. In other words, the sum and substance of mankind is the imago Dei.

Bioethical Implications of the Imago Dei

Since human personhood is inextricably interwoven with the imago Dei, what are the bioethical implications of this for mankind? Consider the abortion and euthanasia debates. Many advocates for these issues believe that an embryo is not yet fully human or that an elderly person who has deteriorated mentally has lost his or herr humanity. Regardless of issues such as size, level of development, location, and functionality, Christians hold that all human life is made in God’s image, relying on the fact that God has authored all human life.[8] Mark Cherry helps us extrapolate the bioethical implications of the imago Dei:

…human embryos cannot be produced and destroyed for the sake of research, nor tested and discarded in the name of assisted reproduc­tion; that we should not limit access to lifesaving treatment simply because individuals are older or disabled; and that individuals may not be killed whether through assisted suicide or euthanasia.[9]

Clearly, dismantling the image of God to the point where it turns into something else is factually impossible.[10] This fact should move one to acknowledge the horror of things like abortion and euthanasia, for they are always a direct attack upon the imago Dei. Further, it reminds man that he has an obligation to protect those stumbling to slaughter, whether old or young (see Prov. 24:11-12), and to care for suffering people with compassion. One cannot simply be content with being against abortion or euthanasia; he must be an advocate for what is right and push for reform in the medical and ethical spaces.[11]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the image of God is paramount to deciding bioethical matters related to the sanctity of human life. The discussion must begin with personhood. Who is a human person? We have argued that human personhood is rooted in a foundational understanding of the imago Dei and must be defined substantively rather than operationally. The imago Dei is the core feature of all mankind, identifying him first and foremost as a creature modeled after his creator. He is not made in the image of God because of his characteristics, but because of the nature of his being. Thus, human personhood is, in substance, tied to the imago Dei. Finally, the bioethical implications of this are quite stark. Because the image of God cannot be changed or destroyed, no one is permitted the right of needlessly taking life at will, whether just after conception, when approaching death, or anywhere in between. Human life is intrinsically valuable before its creator, and it is the undeniable duty of mankind to respect it as such.

_________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cherry, Mark J. “Created in the image of God: bioethical implications of the imago Dei.” Christian Bioethics 23, no. 3 (December 2017): 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbx009.

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. Ethics for a Brave New World, 2nd Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010.

Fisher, Brian. Deliver Us From Abortion: Awakening the Church to End the Killing of America’s Children. Dallas: Brown Christian Press, 2015.

Peterson, Ryan. The Imago Dei as Human Identity: A Theological Interpretation. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2016.

Strong, James. Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary of the Bible. Chicago: Miklal Software Solutions, 2011. Kindle.

FOOTNOTES

[1] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 85.

[2] Ibid., 86.

[3] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are from the English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).

[4] Ryan Peterson, The Imago Dei as Human Identity: A Theological Interpretation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 1–2.

[5] James Strong, Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary of the Bible (Chicago: Miklal Software Solutions, 2011), 120, Kindle.

[6] Peterson, The Imago Dei as Human Identity, 2.

[7] Ibid., 1.

[8] Brian Fisher, Deliver Us From Abortion: Awakening the Church to End the Killing of America’s Children (Dallas: Brown Christian Press, 2015), 76.

[9] Mark J. Cherry, “Created in the image of God: bioethical implications of the imago Dei,” Christian Bioethics 23, no. 3 (December 2017): 227, https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/ cbx009.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

___________

Image source: istockphoto