Last week I continued sharing some applications that Kevin DeYoung of The Gospel Coalition recently wrote about “Thinking Theologically about Race Relations: The Image of God.” Today, he shares with us his 6^th application.

1. The image of God speaks to the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. 

2. If the image of God reminds us who we are, it also directs us to what we ought to be. 

3. We would do well to start with what we have in common rather than with what separates 

            us. 

4. As image bearers, we are free moral agents, responsible before God for our choices. 

5. We should seek to understand our fellow image bearers as whole people, not as 

            truncated versions of the worst parts of their life and character. 

Sixth, we should be slow to attribute to individual image bearers the unfavorable characteristics associated with a broader group identity—especially when that broader group identity was not freely chosen or the broader group denounces those unfavorable characteristics. 

            This last point requires the most nuance, but it may also be the most important. Go back to the passage where James instructs the believer to tame the tongue because we should not “curse people who are made in the likeness of God” (James 3:9). The warning against cursing is not identical with “attributing unfavorable characteristics.” I understand James is making a more serious charge, but the underlying logic is instructive. According to James, the person you are about to curse stands before you irreducibly as someone made in the likeness of God. Whatever else you might think about him or want to say about him, no matter what sins he has committed, you must first reckon with him as an individual who is in the image of the Creator before he is anything else.

            There will be little hope for healing in our land until we refuse to tear people down and shut people up based on the worst examples of their broader group identity. And lest you (or I) think this is someone else’s problem, consider:

            – When 9/11 happened, did you think, “That’s what Muslims are like,” or did it worry 

               you that Muslims would be unfairly singled out because of the actions of a few Islamic 

               extremists?

            – When someone points out that COVID-19 originated in China and that Chinese officials

               lied about what was going on, do you want to make sure that Asians in general are not 

               mistreated?

            – When Christians are derided in the mainstream press, do you figure it was the result of a 

               bad journalist or symptomatic of a profession that disdains religious conservatives?

            – If an actual noose had been placed in Bubba Wallace’s garage—and the perpetrator was 

              white—would you see this as an illustration of systemic white supremacy or the action 

              of a single racist?

            – When a white police officer shoots an unarmed black man, are you likely to conclude 

              that the officer was a bad apple or that this is just one more example of police bias 

              against blacks?

            I could go on and draw up scenarios involving almost any racial, religious, or ethnic group (and quite a few professions too). The fact is, we all hear news of certain bad guys and quickly think, “Yup, that’s what those people are like,” while we hear news of other bad guys and want to say, “Hold on a minute. Most of those people are not like that.” We could do with a dose of healthy individualism—not the lone ranger kind, but the kind that allows a fellow image bearer to stand before us as an individual before he is defined by or deemed representative of some broader group. I know individualism can be problematic (aren’t most isms?)—and maybe “individual agency”—is a better expression, but let us not forget that it was Christianity that taught the West to prize the individual. After all, God did not first create a community; he made a single man, and we will stand before him as an individual man or woman (Heb. 9:27). Rightly construed, there is biblical warrant for treating people as individuals.

            I know this is easier said than done. As an absolute practice, it’s impossible. We can’t help but generalize based on some external factors and draw broader conclusions from anecdotal evidence. The clothes I wear, the way I talk, the job I have, the place I’m from, the color of my skin—they all give meaningful information about me. The goal is not to pretend we don’t make generalizations and extrapolations. The goal is to do our best not to assume the worst and to let people belonging to broader groups—and that’s everyone—surprise us with their individuality. Even if we cannot avoid powerful first impressions, we can hold these assessments provisionally, with an open hand and with an open heart.

            Furthermore, to say we should be slow to attribute unfavorable characteristics to individuals based on group affiliation is not to say we must be slow to confront bad ideas, bad policies, and bad history that may exist in those groups. We can ask questions about the nature of policing, or the nature of Islam, or the nature of evangelical Christianity without imputing the worst examples to every police officer, Muslim, or Christian.