|
Who Are We? Needs, Longings, and the Image of God in ManEdward T. Welch
Welcome to the word "need," one of the more
confusing terms in the English language. Everybody uses
it. In fact, it might be one of the first words that
children learn, being a direct descendant of
"gimme." But the word has a broad and ambiguous
field of meaning; it can express ideas that are
completely unrelated. For example, "I need a
vacation" is a cultural way of saying that you are
getting tired of the day-to-day grind of your work.
"I need my wife's respect" reveals a belief
that you will experience a psychological deficit if you
don't receive this perceived psychic necessity. "I
need water" is a way of expressing a true biological
need that, when denied, will actually lead to poor health
or death. "I need sex" typically expresses a
lustful heart, but the heart fools itself into thinking
that it is asking only for a biological necessity. Some
meanings are almost neutral: a wife says to her husband,
"We need a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread."
Other meanings are laden with complications: the husband
retorts, "I need you to get off my case." What
do we mean by "need"? Clarity on how you and others use this popular word is the first step. Further examination and biblical reflection will lead us eventually to one of the most critical topics in all of counseling: the image of God in man. As Emil Brunner said, "The doctrine of the image of God determines the fate of every theology. The whole opposition of Catholicism and Protestantism originates here." To which we might add, the differences, profound or nuanced, between various allegedly biblical counseling models also originate here. "What do people need?" can only ultimately be understood by answering, "What does it mean to be human?" In this article I will examine the language of needs as a way into the study of this most important doctrine. The Popular Use of NeedsFirst, some definitions. A common use of the word need
is as an exaggerated way to talk about desire. It
expresses the fact that you really want something, but
you know you can live without it. Within this category
you will hear comments such as "I need a chocolate
bar," "I need a vacation," or "I need
sex." Interestingly, the prerequisite for these
perceived needs is a previous acquaintance with the
desired object or activity. For example, a person will
only say "I need a chocolate bar" if he or she
has already tasted one. If you talk about a need for
chocolate with people who have never tasted chocolate,
they will not have the felt need. In a similar way,
people will say they need sex if they have had a previous
sexual relationship or have had a vicarious sexual
relationship by way of pornography. Those who have not
had a sexual relationship or been exposed to a highly
sexualized culture will not describe their sexual
anticipation as a need. Such people may look forward to
marital sexual relations, but they are less likely to
talk about sexual intercourse as a necessity. Need-as-hyperbole-for-desire is probably the most
common definition of need, but there is a range of
intended meaning even within this. At one end
"need" is a sometimes humorous way to express a
desire. At the other end the word overlaps with perceived
biological needs. Biological needs represent a much more
straightforward use of the word "need." The
satisfaction of these needs is necessary for continued
physical life. You need water and food. In most climates
you also need shelter and clothing. If these needs are
not met, you will die. This category becomes confusing
only when it is pushed closely to the needs-as-desire
category.[1] For example,
"I need a beer" has been squeezed into this
category for decades. That is, alcohol is no longer the
satisfier of a desire that results from experience,
practice, and lust; rather, the "need" is
perceived as a biological drive that is nearly
irresistible. Or consider the popular "I need
sex." When this moves from the desire category to
the biological, the assumption is that sex is a
biological need, nearly identical to food and water. The
reasoning is that since it is a biological need, sexual
self-control is unnatural; and the only option is to
practice "safe" sex. Abstinence is both
old-fashioned and biologically untenable because of our
"need." Biological necessities and exaggerated desires don't
exhaust the various ways need is defined. Psychological
needs, a third definition, are a relatively recent
innovation in the language of need. This notion comes out
of twentieth century psychology and has received, at
least in the United States, an enthusiastic reception. It
suggests that in the same way that we have certain
biological needs that must be met or we will physically
die, we have psychological needs that must be met lest we
be psychologically starved and weak. In other words, for
happiness and psychological stability, these needs must
be sated. The list of these needs can be a long one, but
it typically has to do with desires connected to the way
we evaluate ourselves or to our relationship with others:
significance, acceptance, respect, admiration, love,
belonging, meaning, self-esteem, and so on. They probably
best fit somewhere between the
needs-as-hyperbole-for-desire and
needs-as-hyperbole-for-life-sustenance. But in popular
use these are definitely an expanding category unto
themselves. There is at least one other field of meaning to the word "need." A fourth category is spiritual needs. We need Jesus. We need His redemptive and sustaining grace if we are to live. We are desperate, needy people--whether we know it or not. We are completely unable to pay back God for our sins against Him, and in ourselves we are unable to follow His commands. In fact, the essence of faith is conscious neediness and dependence on God. This distinct biblical category, like biological needs, has also been stretched. At one end of this continuum is the objective need for forgiveness of sins and other redemptive needs. At the other end of the spectrum are "psychological needs." The reason these perceived psychological needs increasingly appear in the spiritual category is because many Christians believe that these needs are as real and as important as redemptive needs. But unlike the traditional, separate category of psychological needs, these needs must be met in relationship with Christ rather than with other people. As such, the spiritual need category has redemptive needs at one end and (much debated) psychological needs on the other. A Brief History of NeedsWithin the broad field of popular meanings for the
word "need," I want to narrow my discussion to
psychological needs and their intersection with spiritual
needs. Certainly, a discussion of the increasingly fuzzy
boundary between needs-as-desires and needs-as-biological
is a critical topic for the church. But this area is
being addressed through biblical studies on alcohol abuse
and homosexuality.[2] The
area of psychological needs, however, has been neglected. It is as if this category of needs has entered into
contemporary Christian thought without any biblical
consultation. This intrusion is understandable,
considering the nearly universal experience of
psychological need. After all, what does it feel like
when a friend lets you down, or you are unfairly
criticized, or someone manipulates you? The reactions
these experiences evoke in you are seen to be
manifestations of psychological needs. But no matter how
commonplace such experiences are, the needs they are said
to reveal are hard to locate biblically. Page through the
index of any standard theological text, and psychological
needs will be absent. The only place they can be found is
in the history of secular psychology, with occasional
borrowing from medicine and biology. Medicine has a long history with the idea of need. For
example, we develop deficiency diseases when the body has
certain needs. The body has a need for food, and it also
has a need for certain types of food. Vitamin C
deficiency led to scurvy for many sailors. Calcium
deficiency can cause fragile, brittle bones. Good health
depends on meeting bodily needs. Scripture assumes this
kind of need and acknowledges it especially in Matthew
6:25-34. With regard to food and clothing, "your
heavenly Father knows that you need them." This need-deficit model, which has worked so well for
medicine, was later applied to psychology. The best known
borrower of this metaphor was Freud. His training as a
medical doctor left him with a need theory of bodily
function, and it took only a slight nudge for him to
apply it to psychological processes. Although Freud did
not specifically use these terms, in the United States he
has been considered the father of "the need for
sexual expression" and "the need for permissive
parents." The basic contours of his model
essentially reflect a need-deficit view of the person. Borrowing from Freud were early behaviorists such as
Dollard and Miller. These men took the simple
stimulus-response model of the behaviorists and
supplemented it with the notion that we have basic drives
that motivate us. These drives are especially associated
with food and sex, but these so-called
"primary" drives could be coupled with many
other internal experiences, leading to a complex series
of psychological needs that clamor for a reduction in
intensity. But the true popularizer of psychological needs was
Abraham Maslow. His self-actualization theory suggests
that we have, at birth, a hierarchy of needs. According
to Maslow the most basic needs are biological and safety
needs. When these needs are met, we are then able to
satisfy the basic psychological needs: the need for
belonging and love, the need for esteem from other
people, and the need for self-esteem.
These three major schools of thought in secular
psychology all address the experience of need. Although
they each conceptualize needs (drives) differently, they
agree on three basic points: (1) psychological needs
exist, (2) they are an essential part of being human, and
(3) unmet needs will result in some kind of personal
pathology. To these essentials can be added one further
characteristic of psychological need-deficit theories:
they are distinctly American. Need theories can thrive
only in a context where the emphasis is on the individual
rather than the community and where consumption is a way
of life. If you ask Asians or Africans about their
psychological needs, they will not even understand the
question! As these views of psychological needs moved into the
fabric of Western culture, many Christians were
immediately attracted to them. They seemed to map out
life; and, especially with Freud and Maslow, they seemed
to offer a deeper explanation for these experiences than
did the Scripture itself. For example, the suffering wife
who felt like she needed love now had her sense of need
legitimized and explained. She felt the need for love
because that was one of the deepest needs with which God
created her. We are designed, she now understood, to need
love. Furthermore, if we have not received it from
significant persons, then we will be in a deficit and
must get that love from somewhere else. Any reactive sin
and misery result from living in a deficit state from
unmet needs. Popular writers in the Christian recovery movement
have assumed these needs and helped establish them as an
interpretive guide for many. For example, Sandra Wilson,
in her book, Released from Shame, simply states
what many people feel: past hurts reveal our
psychological needs.
This vignette suggests that Sarah was sinned against
by her family and that these hurts do not leave quickly.
But did God create us with certain psychological needs
for companionship, encouragement and comfort? It feels
as if God created us this way. In fact, it feels that way
so much, we probably would not even raise the question if
it hadn't been that these critical needs were
"discovered" by psychologists who knew nothing
about God's Word. Why does it seem that Scripture is
relatively silent on these critical features of the human
condition? The Christian book, Love Gone Wrong, also
assumes these needs.
The influential Minirth and Meier Clinics agree that
there are biblically-supportable, biologically-rooted
psychological or relationship needs. Love is a Choice
unequivocally states that we have a "God-given need
to be loved that is born into every human infant. It is a
legitimate need that must be met from cradle to grave. If
children are deprived of love--if that primal need for
love is not met--they carry the scars for life."[6] They then offer a
metaphor for the person. The person, the authors state,
is actually a cup that is in various stages of fullness.
Deep inside are love cups that need to be filled. We are
cups that feel empty. The Christian community walks right in step with the
secular theorists up to this point; but then it adds a
significant twist to the secular, Maslovian view of
needs. The popular evangelical view, like the secular
view, is that problems arise out of unmet relational
needs. However, the way these needs are satisfied is
uniquely evangelical. Instead of looking for relational
needs to be met solely in another relationship or some
type of autonomous self-love, Christian theorists suggest
that we can have these needs met in Christ. Christ offers
unconditional love and a sense of personal significance;
Christ meets our need for companionship, encouragement,
and comfort. At first this has a distinctly biblical ring to it.
Christ is a friend; God is a loving Father;
Christians do experience a sense of meaningfulness
and trust in knowing God's love. It makes Christ the
answer to our problems. Yet since these needs remain
unsupported biblically, we should pause to consider
whether there may be a different biblical interpretation
for the experience of emptiness. The experience is real,
but embedding it in constitutional, psychological needs
may be wrong. Notice, for example, some of the fruit of this
psychological-evangelical model. It essentially creates
two different gospels: one for spiritual needs and one
for psychological needs. The good news for spiritual
needs is that our sins are forgiven, we are adopted as
children of God through faith, and we are given eternal
life. The good news for psychological needs is that
Christ fills us with identity, significance, personal
respect, and self-worth. He makes us feel good about
ourselves. But is that really the gospel? Doesn't the
gospel, in a very real sense, obliterate our
preoccupation with ourselves, equipping us to be
preoccupied with loving God and others? Is it possible
that looking for self-worth or significance is a
fundamentally misguided goal? Should we be asking other
questions such as, "Why am I so interested in me?" Before developing this further, there is one more
stage in the history of need theories that brings us to
the present. Currently, this popular and widely assumed
view of the person is being questioned seriously in
secular circles. The concern is that an absorption with
neediness and emptiness is "unhealthy" both
individually and culturally. For example, the popular
press has criticized need theories as the theoretical
justification for our culture's rampant selfism and
chronic victimhood. Many have observed that if we are
truly in the shape of a cup, then we are passive
recipients rather that active interpreters and
responsible actors in our world. The blame never rests
with ourselves because all pathology is a result of
deficits forged in past relationships. At least, suggests
the media, this creates chaos in the justice system.
"It will not be long, at this rate, before the
mandatory sentence for a crime of violence is a hug and a
good cry."[7] The academic press is also challenging the adoption of
the empty cup as the definition for the modern person. In
a significant article in the American Psychologist,
Philip Cushman argued that the empty self is a dangerous
product of a culture that wants to be filled, both
psychically and materially.[8]
The culprits, suggest Cushman, are the psychological
profession and the advertising industry. Both attempt to
create a sense of need in order to sell products.
Furthermore, the psychological selling of needs has led
to a generation of empty, fragile, depressed individuals. This brief historical overview of the development of need theories suggests that these theories arise more out of an amenable culture than a God-given predisposition. They can comfortably exist only in a culture that is oriented to the individual more than the group, victimhood more than responsibility, and consuming more than producing. If this is true, the task still must be to biblically explain the experience of needs, but there is no urgency to locate them in God's creative act. They are not necessarily inherent to humanness. The Emerging Theology of Needs: An Experience in Search of a Biblical CategoryWhile there have been Christian critiques of the
category of psychological needs,[9] within the Christian community the
psychological needs construct has been resilient. One
reason for this persistence is that most people feel
this sense of need, and it is hard to argue with what
people feel. Another reason is that many Christians
believe that a need theory has already been biblically
established. It has not been established by finding
"psychological needs" in a Bible concordance or
theological text. But they believe that these needs
reside in one of two prominent biblical categories: the
person-as-created-in-the-image-of-God and the
person-as-body-soul-spirit. The Person as Three Substances. The tripartite
view of the person was the first biblical category asked
to carry the freight of psychological needs. In essence,
this view states that the whole person consists of three
parts or substances: the body, soul, and spirit. The
popular thought is that the physical body has physical
needs, the soul has psychological needs, and the spirit
has spiritual needs. Accordingly, the person with
physical needs goes to a physician, the person with
psychological needs goes to a psychologist, and the
person with spiritual needs goes to a pastor. These three
categories offer a hand-in-glove fit with the popular
definitions of "needs." This basic formula, however, as simple and biblical as
it appears, is actually full of problematic implications.
It has essentially given secular psychology permission to
give shape to one-third of the person. "Soul"
becomes a blank category to be filled with psychological
constructs. As medicine has contributed many details to
the category of the body, so secular psychology can now
contribute to (or completely flesh out) our understanding
of the soul. Furthermore, there need by only cursory
biblical analysis of this data because it has already
been done "up front" by naming the category as
"soul." A question, however, is, Do we even have
a soul that is distinct from the spirit? The Image of God in Man. The other category
used as the biblical background for psychological needs
is the image of God in man. This is the core doctrine for
understanding the person. If psychological needs cannot
be found here, then they are not God-given, created
needs. The biblical theorist who has made the clearest and
most explicit connection between our sense of
psychological need and being created in the image of God
is Larry Crabb. He is keenly aware that the experience of
need, if it is to be considered as the essence of
personhood, must be embedded in a biblical understanding
of the image of God in man. Articulated most clearly in
his books, Understanding People and Inside Out,[10] Crabb indicates that the
image of God in man has to do with what is similar
between God and man. What is similar, Crabb suggests, is
that God is a person and we too are persons. To be a
person means that we have deep longings for relationship:
"We all long for what God designed us to enjoy:
tension-free relationships filled with deep, loving
acceptance and with opportunities to make a difference to
someone else."[11] Deep longings, in Crabb's model, are the defining
essence of both God and ourselves. These longings are
defined as a subjective experience that is deeper than
emotion. It is a passion for relationship. For God, this
means that He exists in joyous relationship with
himself--Father, Son, Holy Spirit. It also means that God
has a "longing for restoration of relationship with
His children."[12]
For ourselves, this longing is more passive. It means
that "each of us fervently wants someone to see us
exactly as we are, warts and all, and still accept
us."[13] To this longing for love and acceptance Crabb adds a
second basic need. We also long to make a difference in
the world. We have, according to Larry Crabb, a
"thirst for impact." This is defined as "a
desire to be adequate for a meaningful task, a desire to
know that we are capable of taking hold of our world and
doing something valuable as well."[14] It is unclear how this is similar
to God, and Crabb offers no biblical support for this.
Lacking an exegetical referent, this particular aspect of
the image of God in man tends to be less apparent in
Crabb's later theoretical work, and longing for
relationship is the sole survivor. Therefore, a summary
of the image of God in man is that persons are made for
relationship, and they long for it. Without this longing
fulfilled we are empty cups. These core longings are the ultimate explanation for
human feelings and behavior. Everything comes out of this
central essence. How will I deal with my longings?
becomes the fundamental question of human existence.
According to Crabb we answer this question in one of two
ways. People either act independently of God and look to
fill themselves with other objects or people, or people
look to Christ in dependence and find relationship
longings met in Him (see Figure 2). This is the basic
model of the image of God in man that Understanding
People teaches, and it provides the theoretical
structure for Crabb's counseling model. It is also the
theology that undergirds much of what is happening in
Christian counseling. When this model is evaluated by our experience, it can
seem to fit perfectly. Like other influential models,
this model tends to "work." However, it has a
number of implications that are not obvious at first
glance. For example, this model has made a dramatic
statement about our deepest problem: it is longings, not
sin. Followed consistently, the model would then suggest
that the gospel is, most deeply, intended to meet
psychological needs more than cleanse from sin. The
"hollow core" of longings becomes our basic
problem. Taken to its logical conclusion, Christ becomes
first a need meeter (for our deepest need) then
secondarily an exalted redeemer (for the way we react to
our deepest need). Human relationships are also affected by this
theoretical foundation. For example, marriage and
relationships become mutual need-meeting. Of course,
Crabb indicates that people are not capable in themselves
of filling what only God can fill, so the sole
responsibility of filling longings does not reside with
ourselves. Yet the basic structure for marriage is that
it consists of two psychologically needy people whose
mutual need-meeting is an expression of God's more
perfect need-meeting. This certainly seems to fit the
experience of marriage, and it also seems to square with
Scripture's view of love. People are commanded to love
because we need love. Is it possible, however, that we are called to love
not so much because the other person is empty and needs
love but because love is the way in which we imitate
Christ, reveal Him in the way we live our lives, and
bring glory to God? Is it also possible that the center
of gravity for need-based relationships is myself, and
not God, as it should be if we take seriously our
identity as bearers of God's image? Beneath the
commitment to love the other person, and beneath the
thankfulness that God is meeting needs in Christ, is a
core of desperate longings that focus primarily on me.
The natural resting point of need theories is my need,
not the perfections of God, whose image I was
created to reflect. The difference may be very subtle,
but need theories rest on the individual person rather
than God. This certainly does not mean that Crabb and
other Christian need theorists are not interested in the
glory of God. But it does mean that these theories,
because of weaknesses in their understanding of the image
of God in man, may make it a slow process for the
Christian to focus on it. The theory of image-as-relationship has very little exegetical support. Neither Understanding People nor any other evangelical discussion of this version of the image of God in man can establish a clear biblical foundation for itself. Instead, as even Crabb himself admits, this most critical theological category is developed from inferences in Scripture. On the subject of what we long for, Crabb states, "the Scriptures, however, seem quiet on the subject."[15] It is because of this lack of exegetical support that it is essential to reexamine the biblical theme of the image of God in man. A Biblical Examination of NeedsIn contrast to a trisected view of the person[16] and a need-based
understanding of the image of God in man, there are
alternatives that seem to rest on a firmer exegetical
foundation. The Person as a Duality. The tripartite view
exists because there are different shades of meaning for
spirit and soul. Like most words, these two have fuzzy
boundaries. They are not technical words such as
"electron;" but they are more like the word
"need," deriving much of their meaning from
their context. The question, however, is whether these
shades of meaning are sufficient to suggest that they are
two distinct created substances. Or, are spirit and soul
(like "heart," "mind,"
"conscience") slightly different perspectives
on the immaterial inner person (II Corinthians 4:16)? A number of passages suggest that the person is best
understood as two substances--material and
immaterial--"which belong together although they
possess the capability of separation."[17] From this vantage
point spirit and soul have different emphases, but they
are essentially interchangeable as different perspectives
on the immaterial person. For example, Matthew 10:28
suggests that the person is two substances, material body
and immaterial soul: "Don't be afraid of him who can
kill the body [material substance] but cannot kill the
soul [immaterial substance]." First Corinthians 7:34
also suggests that we are two substances--material and
immaterial--but they are referred to as body and spirit
rather than body and soul. James 2:26 is consistent with
this duality and refers to it using body and spirit:
"the body without the spirit is dead." The two passages most frequently cited for the
trichotomist view are Hebrews 4:12 and I Thessalonians
5:23. Hebrews 4:12 states, "For the word of God is
living and active. Sharper than any two-edged sword, it
penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and
marrow; it judges the thoughts and intents of the
heart." Some take this as referring to a dissection
of the parts of the person. That is the Word of God can
separate soul from spirit; therefore, they are two
separate substances that are part of the whole person.
However, if the intent of the passage is to speak
technically about the parts of the person, then there are
at least four substances that comprise the whole person:
the soul, spirit, body, and heart; and the heart would be
further divided into thoughts and intents. It is more
likely that the passage suggests that God's Word
penetrates the indivisible aspect of the person. It goes
to the very depths of the person's being. It goes within
the substance of the person, not between, slicing
it up into neat pieces. The fact that the inner person is
referred to as soul, spirit, and heart is a common poetic
means of emphasizing that the whole person is involved.
For example, Mark 12:30 indicates that we are to
"love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all your soul and with all your mind and with all your
strength." The accumulation of terms is used to
express completeness. It is a dramatic way of emphasizing
that loving God is a response of the entire person. Perhaps the most the Bible can say about the
distinction between soul and spirit is that
"soul" emphasizes the person in a weak, earthly
existence, and "spirit" highlights that our
life is derived from God. Neither term suggests that we
have morally neutral, psychological needs. Instead, they
are overlapping words that refer to the inner person, the
immaterial aspect of humanness, or the
person-who-lives-before-the Holy God. The Image of God in Man. A Biblical
understanding of the doctrine of the image of God in man
should also lead naturally to seeing that people are, at
their very root, people-who-live-before-God and
people-who-are-to-live-for-God. To establish this
on a firmer exegetical basis, consider the critical
questions posed by Crabb: "Who is God?" and
"How is man similar to God?" Image had to do
with likeness, offspring, or similarity (e.g., Genesis
5:3), so any doctrine of the image of God must travel
easily and frequently between the knowledge of God and
the knowledge of man. Only after a right understanding of
God can we begin to ask, "Who is the person?"
As John Calvin has said, "No man can take a survey
of himself, but he must immediately turn to the
contemplation of God in whom he lives and moves." Who is God and What is His Passion? God and His
kingdom are, simply put, about God. The Father is
ravished with the Son. The Son is ecstatic about the
Father and wants nothing but the Father's will. God's
greatest pleasure is Himself.[18]
This may sound strange at first, but how could we expect
God to be consumed with anything less than His own
perfect, holy being? God's goal is His own glory, and
God's glory is God Himself. He wants and intends to
magnify His great name. "For from Him and through
Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory
forever" (Romans 11:36). Notice already a difference between this and
image-as-longing (need) psychology. In need psychology
the natural way to praise God is for what He has done for
me. However, in God's self-revelation, even though
God deserves humble thankfulness because of what He has
done for me, God deserves praise simply because He is
God. The natural, "deepest" resting point
for our thoughts is not our own deep longings but the
immeasurably great "God of glory" (Acts 7:2).
Rightly seen and understood, this glory is all-consuming.
The Israelites did not break out into song because of met
longings; they exalted God simply because He is exalted
(Exodus 15:11): "Who among gods is like you, O Lord?
Who is like you--majestic in holiness, awesome in glory,
working wonders?" Look for a moment at this glory. It is utterly
overwhelming. See it in His greatness over all the
greatest and most powerful kings of the earth. See it in
His wondrous signs to Pharaoh and His control over even
the sanity of Nebuchadnezzar. His throne is above them.
Isaiah fell down as dead before this great glory (Isaiah
6). And the visions of His glory recorded by Ezekiel
(Ezekiel 1) and the Apostle John (Revelation 4) are
astonishing almost beyond description. Whenever God
appears to His people, He is glorious. In fact, His
glory, His divine splendor, fills the whole earth
(Numbers 14:21). Even creation echoes the heavenly cry of
"glory" (Psalm 8, 148, 150). When the Lord
appeared to the grumbling Israelites, "there was the
glory of the Lord appearing in the cloud" (Exodus
16:10), a brilliance that was fierce like fire yet
life-giving like the sun. When the tabernacle was
completed, "Moses could not enter the Tent of
Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it, and the
glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." Now, as
this tabernacle has taken a human form in the person of
Christ, and as we reflect that glory, God's greatest
desire is that His glory be known throughout the entire
world. There are a number of words that are used almost
interchangeably with glory, such as holiness, honor,
radiance, His great name, beauty, splendor, and majesty.
Preferred among these is holiness. God's glory-holiness
is the summary of Himself. The Most Holy Place was the
place of His presence. The book of Leviticus is a book of
holiness, and it summarizes man's covenant-keeping task
as "Be holy as I am holy" (Leviticus 11:44,45).
Glimpses into the throne room are inevitably accompanied
by resounding choruses of "Holy, holy, holy is the
Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of His glory"
(Isaiah 6:3). This awesome glory-holiness certainly expresses the
transcendent nature of God. It makes it obvious that He
is unique and without peer, and it seems to emphasize
that He is untouchable and separate from His creatures
and creation. His transcendent "otherness" does
not completely capture His glory-holiness, however.
Although it is true that God is the matchless one who is
to be feared, His glory-holiness is manifested in mighty
acts of intimate involvement with His people. Concretely,
the two dominant expressions of this close day-to-day
involvement of God with His people are His love and
justice.[19] God is the
compassionate and gracious one who is slow to anger and
abounding in love, but He also does not leave the guilty
unpunished (Exodus 34:6,7). The New Testament is the
story of incarnational love, but Jesus also claimed to
have a ministry of justice and judgment. As such, we are
implored to "consider the kindness and sternness of
God" (Romans 11:22). Now look again at God's glory-holiness. Not only is it
expressed by awesome throne scenes, it is also
communicated by more familiar pictures. For example, He
is the loving bridegroom who expects a spotless bride. He
is the feast-giver who invites everyone to the feast but
expects that attendees will wear the garment given to
them. He is a redeemer who redeems Zion with justice
(Isaiah 1:27). He is the judge over all the earth, yet
His own Son becomes the advocate for His inglorious
people. He is the father, mother, submissive son,
suffering servant, friend, shepherd, potter, and so on.
Indeed, images or pictures of God are everywhere in the
Bible, and each picture is an expression of His
glory-holiness. These concrete "snap shots" that God gives
us of Himself are much more than God accommodating
Himself to human language. God isn't using our
understanding of servants to suggest that He is like a
servant. No, God is the servant, the
husband, the father, the brother, and the
friend. Any resemblance in the created world is simply
God's glory spilling into creation and creatures.
Whenever you see these albeit distorted images in other
people, they are a faint reflection of the original. I am
a father because God is a father. I am a worker because
God is the original worker (see Figure 3). Who is the Person? Armed with an understanding
of God, the question, "Who is the person?"
becomes fairly straightforward. How are people similar to
the Creator-God? The object of God's greatest affections
is God Himself: the Father, Son, and Spirit. As a result
of this great love for Himself, God wants nothing more
than His glory filling the earth. People are similar to
God in that the object of our affection is Himself.
People should delight in God, as He does in Himself. This
is expressed in a passion to proclaim His glory. We are
to make His name famous or hallowed throughout the world;
we are to declare the coming of His glorious kingdom. As
the Westminster Catechism says, the chief end of man is
to glorify God and enjoy Him (or delight in Him) forever. Instead of a love cup or a hollow core of longings,
the image is more accurately that of Moses literally
reflecting the glory of God (Exodus 34:29-32). Moses was
radiant because he was invited into the presence of the
Lord and both witnessed God's glory-holiness and was
protected from it. As marvelous as this seems, God has
made His renewed image-bearers even more glorious than
Moses. Indeed, God's people still must have His presence
to be His image-bearers. However, His presence is no
longer given by way of occasional theophanies nor is it
dependent on the functioning tabernacle. The way God's
people come into His presence is by faith. By faith we
have the indwelling glory of the Spirit; and, as a
result, we can grow to be even more radiant rather than
fade. "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect
the Lord's glory, are being transformed into His likeness
with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the
Spirit" (II Corinthians 3:18). This means that the essence of the image of God in man
is that we rejoice in God's presence, love Him above all
else, and live for God's glory, not our own. The center
of gravity in the universe is God and His glory-holiness,
not our longings; and the most basic question of human
existence becomes "How can I bring glory to
God?," not "How will I meet my longings?"
These differences yield very different tugs on our
hearts: one constantly pulls us outward toward God, the
other first pulls inward. A more obvious difference between the image-as-needs
(relationship) and image-as-reflecting-glory is where you
find this actual image. The needs view suggests that the
image is a place inside you. It is a location--a hollow
core--that is passive and easily damaged. The
image-as-actively-bringing-glory-to-God is found in how
we live. It suggests that our hearts are active in either
bringing glory to God or self. In this sense, the image
of God in man is a verb. Faith, the means by which we
image, is expressed in the way we live (though not a
work), as are its many synonyms such as imitating God
(Ephesians 5:1), representing God (II Corinthians 5:20),
or mirroring or reflecting the glory of God (Exodus
34:29-35), loving God, and living according to His will.
Whenever these action words are found in Scripture, the
doctrine of the image of God in man is behind it. When image-bearing is the way we live more than what
we have, it leads directly and naturally to the heart of
the Scripture, "faith expressing itself in
love" (Galatians 5:6). Image-bearing is expressed in
simple acts of obedience, seemingly small obediences that
have eternal implications. Imaging is loving God and
loving your neighbor. And this is exactly what you should
expect. God's glory is manifested in concrete acts of
love and justice, and we are to mimic God in love and
justice. How is this love and justice expressed? By imitating,
in the name of Christ, the various images of God provided
for us in Scripture. Therefore, a father who, because of
Christ, plays soccer with his children is imaging the God
who spends time with His people. A child who sets the
table or cleans the dinner dishes out of obedience to
Christ is imaging the servant-God and thus glorifying
God. Or a worker who does mundane work with the desire to
serve Christ is imaging the Son who has worked on our
behalf. With this biblical understanding of what it means to
image God, the image of God in man now appears everywhere
in Scripture. The Bible becomes a story of the image of
God defaced and then renewed. In Genesis 1 man is called
to bring glory to God, or represent Him, by imaging Him
in caring for the subhuman kingdom and reproducing. His
chief need was to delight in the presence of God and love
or glorify Him. This love was expressed in care for His
creation, reproducing, and obedience to Him by not eating
from the forbidden tree. But imaging could not be done
alone. The image of God is corporate in that we all share
in it. The image of God is not complete in any one
non-divine person. In a very practical sense, God's
command to reproduce, as a way to bring Him glory, is
impossible by an individual. Therefore, God created male
and female as His image-bearers. This means that we do need each other but not
because we need to fill our psychological deficits. We
need others because of the command to reproduce and
subdue; and its New Testament companion, the Great
Commission, cannot be carried out by any one person.
God's glory is displayed in a corporate body more fully
than it is in individuals. You need missionaries,
mothers, fathers, pastors, Sunday School teachers, and
janitors if the church is to function as God intended (I
Corinthians 12:12-27). Image-bearers are not lone
rangers. The story of Scripture moves quickly from the
image-as-corporate to the image-as-fallen. Although
people remained image-bearers, Adam's disobedience
brought fundamental changes. The direction of the human
heart became oriented not toward God but toward self. In
the garden man began repeating a mantra that will persist
until Jesus returns. Adam said, "I WANT."
"I want glory for myself rather than to give all
glory to God." "I will love my own desires
rather than love God." This came to be known as
idolatry, and it was defined as an insane transaction: we
give up our image-bearing status and exchange it for
images from creation such as animals or other people
(Jeremiah 2:11, Hosea 4:7, Romans 1:21-25). Up to this point in the discussion, the Bible has been
relatively silent on the experience of psychological
needs. It indicates that we are dependent on God for all
things, but it is silent on yearnings for love and
significance. Is it possible that the "I WANT"
of Adam is the first expression of psychological needs?
Is it possible that psychological yearnings come when we
refuse to love God and receive His love? Wasn't it with
Adam that the momentum of human life started moving
inward, toward the desires of the self, rather than
outward, toward a desire to know and do the will of God?
This is not to say that taking delight in being loved was
the original sin. Certainly not. And it does not mean
that deep hurt from rejection by others is somehow wrong.
It is not. Enjoying the love of another and having
satisfaction when a job is done are good gifts, and being
hurt when we are sinned against by others is one way we should
react. But, like all idolatry, the question is not so
much what we desire but how much we desire it and why. Longings have much in common with lust. To elevate our
desire for love, impact, and other pleasures to the point
where they are "needs" is to yell out, "I
WANT. I must have. My desires are the basic building
blocks of my world." These longings would not exist
if we had been willing to love God and not ourselves. A
biblical response to these lusts is to repent rather than
to look for satisfaction, even if temporary satisfaction
is found in Christ ("temporary" because lusts
can never be fully sated). The cup of psychological needs
should be broken rather than filled. When a Christian
movie once said that a teenager could be wooed to Christ
by holding out the carrot of better grades upon
conversion, wasn't that just appealing to lusts rather
than offering forgiveness for those lusts? Israelite
evangelism never suggested that neighboring idolaters
start worshipping the true God because Yahweh would give
better crops than their idols. Instead, people were, and
are, called to turn from their idols because idolatry is
against God. Yet even though people since Adam have sought to find
satisfaction for their own desires rather than obey God,
God still intends to bring glory to Himself, and that is
exactly what He did in the Old Testament. Man's attempt
to cast off his image-bearing status would actually
result in greater glory to God. God reestablished the
ruins as He called people to Himself, people who called
on His name, such as Seth, Noah, and Abraham. From these
men came a nation that was called to represent God. Their
task was to be the heart of image-bearing: "Be holy
as I am holy" (Leviticus 19:2). As a taste of what was to come, God called out priests
from among the people who were to represent Him in a
unique way as they served before God's tabernacle. The
problem, however, was that, like Adam and Eve, the
priests were naked and ashamed before God. They needed
His covering to minister in His presence. Therefore, God
made them garments that were nothing short of royal
robes. These garments gave the wearer "dignity and
honor" (Exodus 28:2), and they included, among other
items that imaged God, seals that were worn on the turban
that said, "HOLY TO THE LORD" (Exodus 28:36). In the New Testament, because of Christ, these
garments are available to everyone. They are given freely
but must be worn. They are essential for giving glory to
God. Wrapping every person of faith, they constitute
God's people as "a chosen people, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to
God" (I Peter 2:9). They even double as the
beautiful wedding garment that God's people wear at the
consummation when God completes the image renewal
process. In the New Testament the books that rely heavily on
the doctrine of the image of God are Romans and
Ephesians. Romans 1:18-23 is the classic New Testament
text that summarizes the defacing of the image. It
indicates that, at our core, all people--believers and
nonbelievers--know God (1:21). We know God's divine
nature and righteous decrees, but we follow idols rather
than live for God's glory. The result is that all
image-bearers fall short of the glory that we have when
we trust in God alone (3:23). Against this backdrop the
Apostle Paul goes on to place the life-giving grace of
God in bold relief. The result is that we are once again
similar to God. We become, as we were intended to be, His
offspring (8:16). The book of Ephesians is also filled with this rich
doctrine. It indicates that we are adopted "to the
praise of His glorious grace" (1:5). We are
"God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do
good works" (2:10). We mirror Christ most clearly
when there is unity among God's people (2:19-22). We are
God's offspring (3:14). We can walk either in darkness,
where we live for ourselves and there is no glory, or we
can walk in the light (4:17ff.). God is creating in us a
"new self, created to be like God in true
righteousness and holiness." How does this happen?
God makes us alive in Christ and then we imitate Christ
(5:1) by steps of faithful, daily obedience, such as
speaking truthfully, working diligently at our jobs,
speaking edifying words, loving wives, submitting to
husbands, and obeying parents. Needs Revisited. So what do we really need?
Does the Scripture say anywhere that we need
relationships in order to be filled? Does it say that we
have a God-given longing for significance and
worth in a meaningless world? No. The Scripture indicates
that we need God, but we need Him as the image we are to
reflect, we need Him because we have spiritual needs, and
we need Him for life itself. The Scripture also indicates
that we need each other, but we don't need each other to
fill a created emptiness. Instead, we need each other in
order to reflect God's glory. His commission to His
people must be carried out corporately. Then why is it that many people feel so empty? From
where do these felt needs come? There are a number of
biblical possibilities. The most obvious biblical
restructuring of the popular view of needs is that
longings or needs, especially psychological needs, can be
a euphemism for lusts or idolatry. Longings may reveal an
excessive preoccupation with the self and its desires. It is also possible that emptiness and a sense of
psychological neediness are the distant rumblings of the
knowledge of God. That is, we truly are empty before God;
but since that truth is so horrifying, it can be
suppressed and experienced as a need in our relationship
with people (psychological need) rather than our
relationship with God (spiritual need). After all, Romans
1 indicates that everyone knows God and His holiness, and
this knowledge will inevitably seep out into the fabric
of life. From this perspective concerns for low
self-worth are most accurately a distant echo of the law
of God that says that, in ourselves, we cannot measure up
to the law of God. There are other explanations for emptiness that arise
out of the fact that we are living in a sinful world
where we are sinned against, and we are living in a world
that is under the curse. For example, when a spouse dies,
emptiness is an appropriate, biblical reaction. Something
beautiful has been removed from life (need-as-desire).
There is a great sense of loss. This emptiness, however,
is the result of the curse and death etching themselves
on our psyche and not the result of being created with
psychological longings. What about the common belief that we have a God-shaped
heart that can be filled by God alone? This is indeed
true. But this emptiness is an expression of the fact
that we need God's righteousness to replace our
spiritually destitute condition. Even more, the emptiness
reminds us that we are without any ability to atone for
our own sins. We can find nothing in ourselves that
measures up to God's righteousness. When we turn away
from sin and turn to Christ, however, there is a sense of
divine filling that leaves us overflowing--more than
filled--with the love of Christ. What do we really need?
We need to be smitten with the glory of God, ravished by
His love, and faithful as we walk in obedience to Him,
even in our suffering. Counseling Image-BearersHow does this doctrine of the
image-as-actively-bringing-glory-to-God make a
difference? In child-rearing it will mean that you
address the child's conscience (the innate knowledge of
God and knowledge of right and wrong) more than his or
her sense of felt longings. When you call your children
to obedience, you will want to speak to the depths of the
heart and remind them that they are serving Christ, not
themselves. With teenagers, you evangelize by pointing
them to the greatness of God and their spiritual need
more than how Jesus will satisfy their lust for
significance. In counseling, you take people on a path of
needing less and loving more. Instead of getting in touch
with longings and hoping that Christ will satisfy them
all, some of those longings may have to be put to death. Consider Nancy, a 25-year-old wife and mother of two.
Having grown up with a father who was often drunk and a
mother who ignored Nancy's pleas for help when her father
was cruel, Nancy grew up feeling worthless and empty. She
came for counseling because she felt that her husband
wasn't meeting her needs; and as a result, she alternated
between anger and depression. Without question, it is tragic to have a history of
cruelty and neglect in your family; and Nancy may need to
understand what God says to people who have been hurt by
others. But if Nancy's sense of worthlessness and
emptiness are revealing an internal shape of a leaky love
cup, then she also will need to be reforged into a
different kind of vessel. This approach will be faithful
to Scripture, and it will also relieve much of her
internal desperation. One reason Christians respond positively to a need
psychology is because it takes people's pain seriously.
However, this new view of the person can actually make
pain worse. It compounds pain by suggesting that not only
did the sins of others hurt deeply, but the sins of
others also deprived you of a need--a right, something
you were owed--that is necessary for life. Being deeply
hurt by others is hard enough; but when we believe that
their sin was a near-lethal blow that damaged the core of
our being, the hurt is intensified. For example, if
someone robs us of precious jewels, it is very troubling;
but if these jewels were the only financial resource for
upcoming retirement, then the felt loss is much greater.
Therefore, one task in counseling is to begin to separate
the real hurt from the pain that is amplified by our own
lusts and longings. The result will be simple, godly
grief.[20] While considering with Nancy what God says to those
who suffer, a question or homework assignment could be,
"What do you need?" In the context of Nancy's
life, the answer will most likely be, "I need my
husband to listen to me and meet my emotional
needs." This can be followed by a related question
and observation: "Nancy, have you ever noticed that
we tend to be controlled by the things we need?"
Maybe we could ask the question, "What do you
need?" a different way. We could say, "What
controls you?" or even, "Where do you put your
trust?" Gradually, as Nancy sees that the question is one of
whom she will trust, her need for her husband can be
reconfigured into what the Bible calls fear of man. Like
so many Christians, people have become the
controlling point of Nancy's life. She holds others in
awe. She puts her hope in them. Furthermore, like all
fear of man, there is ultimately a self-concern
that drives it. She relies on others because they are
perceived as having the power to give her what she wants.
Here again is the subtlety of need psychology. It takes
you back to yourself. You need people because of what you
want. You fear man because you have hoped that others
would fill you. Fear of man does not come out of a response to
created, in-born needs. Fear of man comes out of our own
sin. It is worshipping others for our own purposes. Given
this core, the answer is more than simply turning to
Christ to meet this need. That would be to make Jesus our
personal idol who serves our purposes. The answer is to
first allow God to break our selfish desires and to teach
us what it means to fear Him alone. So the question is
not, "Where can I find my worth?" but "Why
am I so concerned about myself?" The question is
not, "How can God fill my needs?"; it is
"How can Christ be seen as so glorious that I forget
about my perceived needs?" At this point a passage such as Jeremiah 17:5-10 may
capture Nancy's experience. It indicates that fear of man
is a curse that leaves us feeling destitute or empty. The
alternative, trust in God, is a blessing that leads to
life and fullness. The cause of this emptiness, however,
is that "the heart is deceitful above all
things" (17:9) rather than "the heart is needy
and must be filled." The task then becomes learning the fear of the Lord.
Reveal to Nancy that her husband, although he may have
truly hurt her, is also one of her gods. He has been so
designated to meet her desires. The answer is to turn
away from these selfish desires and know that God is so
much bigger than any god we could make. The answer is to
look for images of God in the Bible until we are nearly
overwhelmed with His majesty. Do you have any favorite passages that just talk about
God? Consider using passages such as Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1,
or the book of Revelation. You could ask Nancy to begin
reading Scripture with one question in mind: "How
have you seen the great glory of God in the Bible?"
Perhaps good devotional books would be helpful. Even
books like C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia
could refresh Nancy with a clearer knowledge of God.
Sometimes finding our deepest needs by studying and
praying the prayers of Scripture can also exalt Christ
and extinguish a sense of psychological need. For
example, the Lord's prayer begins by asking that God's
name would be glorious and hallowed. It indicates that
our deepest need is to be consumed with God's kingdom.
Perhaps Nancy could make a habit of simply praying this
and other prayers from Scripture. Along with developing a more brilliant "scrap
book" with pictures of God, Nancy also needs to
understand her true shape. The leaky love cup is
on its way out, even though it will probably emerge many
more times, and it must be replaced with God-given
pictures of image-bearers. There are dozens of these in
the Scripture including friend, wise man, prophet,
priest, king, and spouse. Some might fit better than
others, but there are a handful of images repeated
throughout Scripture that immediately tell us something
about ourselves, our task, and our God. Foremost might be
"Christian." This is shorthand for "child
of God." A Christian has given up his or her own
name and has taken the name of Christ. Now your identity
and purpose are intimately tied to those of Jesus
Himself. Your purpose is to make His name famous. (This
was the purpose of Roman adoption.) As His adopted
offspring who bear His name, there is no reason to take
pride in yourself, but there is every reason to take
pride in and find great joy in the initiating love of the
One who gave you the name. A less popular picture, though equally prevalent in
Scripture, is "servant" or "slave."
Though free in Christ, God's people are His bond
servants. Our freedom is that we are no longer in bondage
to Satan and our out-of-control desires; now we are free
to serve God. The helpful feature of this picture is that
it can simplify a life that has been complicated by being
need-driven. The question is, "What is my duty
before the God who has loved me?" For Nancy, her
duty may mean a number of things. Under the heading of
love, she might speak out to her husband if she is being
hurt, she might look for the log in her own eye for a few
weeks before she talks to her husband about his specks,
or she might simply obey God by enjoying the
companionship of her husband. Whatever expression her
loving service may take, Nancy will do it with one eye on
the One who served her (John 13:1-17). Finally, one of the great privileges of counseling
Nancy is that you can bless her in the name of Christ by
telling her that "God has poured out His love into
our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom He has given us"
(Romans 5:5). This may sound strange considering the
rejection of a need-based, love cup view. It sounds as if
Scripture is saying that we are love cups after all.
However, it is inaccurate to impose psychological needs
on this teaching. Instead, although the metaphor of a cup
is in plain view, it is a cup that is spiritually, not
psychologically, needy. The context clarifies the exact
nature of this love: "While we were still sinners,
Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). When we recognize
that people come to God in the shape of desperately needy
sinners in need of God's grace, we as counselors should
seek to deluge the counselee with the love of Christ. As
a counselor, this should be your greatest joy: to pour
and pour God's love over those who are spiritually
parched. This, after all, will bring great glory to the
name of Christ. "Whatever you do, do it all for the
glory of Christ" (I Corinthians 10:31). Endnotes[ 1 ]Or when
it is absolutized and replaces our relationship with God:
Matthew 6:32-33, 10:28. We might call this definition
need-as-hyperbole-for-life-sustenance. Ed Welch is Director of Counseling at CCEF, Glenside, Pennsylvania. This Issue /
Index / CAPO
|