Book Review - Letter to a Christian Nation (Sam Harris)

Letter to Sam Harris

by Fr. Rand York

(a book review of Letter to a Christian Nation)

Dear Sam,

I have read your book, Letter to a Christian Nation, and I believe the lines of communication are open between us because we are both made in God’s image. I have embraced that, and I believe you are made to embrace it, as well. I hope and pray that you will. It will set you free from the burdens you are presently trying to shoulder.

It is impossible for me to provide you with a convincing argument for the faith I espouse, because Christianity is not a reasonable religion. It is a revealed religion. While many of its apologists attempt to defend Christianity based on reason, such attempts are destined ultimately to fail because the Christian faith is not “reasonable.” Indeed, this is why we call it “faith.” It is foolishness to the wise (I Corinthians 1:21-26; 2:13-15; 3:19). It is a mountain too high, an ocean too deep, a canopy too great to be apprehended by mere human reason.

Nor is the triumph of such reason brought forth in humanism a very good lens through which to construct a world view. You lament the needless suffering directly attributable to religion (p. 57), and yet fail to acknowledge the 20^th Century, the height of humanism, as the bloodiest in the history of the planet. Civilian deaths attributable to atheists attempting to stamp out religion and everything else that might ennoble the individual run into the tens of millions (Joseph Stalin: 20 million; Pol Pot: 2 million; Mao Tse Tung: 30 million; and the list goes on). World Wars I & II were not religious wars, yet together account for 60 to 90 million deaths and the introduction of both chemical and atomic warfare. Wherever humanism has triumphed, the Grim Reaper has not been far behind.

How dependable is reason alone? If time is a function of light and space, then the fact that the universe is not straight means that time cannot keep a steady beat. Reason, like time, does not exist independently, but is a function of experiences and traditions that blend to create a cultural paradigm. Experiences and traditions, like the universe, are not “straight” – they are ever-changing. And so reason, like time, cannot keep a steady beat. Those who appeal to reason as the arbiter do not, I think, understand its dynamics. Without revelation, reason becomes incoherent, and so it is revelation that takes what would otherwise be unreasonable, and illuminates and frees it to participate in rational discourse.

Sam, there are as many well-meaning interpretations of Christianity as there are of capitalism, or democracy, or even Microsoft Excel. Within the cacophony of Christian voices, we find a variety of approaches to faith, in both understanding and expression. Shall we take a look at them together? Let’s turn first to the Cognitive Propositional approach. Put simply, it means that doctrines are propositionally true. Their faith is based on informative propositions rooted in what they understand to be objective realities, and for them dogma leads to experience. Truth for them is an objective reality with one-to-one propositional correspondence. Others live their faith through an Experiential Expressive lens in which doctrines are understood as symbols that touch us, and for them experience leads to dogma. Truth for them is symbolically efficacious. Still others understand and communicate their Christian faith within a Cultural Linguistic framework, recognizing the impact cultures have in shaping and unpacking religion. Truth for them is to be found in the concrete, not the abstract, and is what orders experience. A groundbreaking work describing these three ways of understanding is George A. Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine, and the first two chapters introduce them much better than I just did.

Additionally, there are various theories of how we live with each others’ differences in society. These theories play out in different ways among different expressions of Christianity. The first of these is Political Liberalism, seen most often among Evangelicals, in which the autonomous individual is the primary unit, and society is seen as a gathering of individuals. Truth can be discovered through rational discourse in the exchange of ideas. As you might guess from the things I said earlier in my letter, I do not subscribe to this theory. Then there is the Politics of Tradition, observable in the Roman Catholic Church. Tradition is the primary unit, and society is seen as a contest of traditions. Truth unfolds over time in a socially embodied experience. The unfolding of truth implies revelation, which is a core identifier of Christianity as a religion. Truth is embedded in Christ, who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), and so truth is revealed in him. Yet another theory is that of Messianic Democracy, in which the primary unit is a liberated and open self, with society seen as a place where we come together as seekers, but never finders. In other words, truth never lands in one spot. And finally, we have the Open Community of Witness, in which the primary unit is the local community, and society is a melting pot of democracies. Because God works for the redemption of all that he has made, truth can be found through dialogue as God’s work is discerned throughout the world.

Finally, you should be aware of the various Christian understandings of inclusion. The Christians you complain of in your book can most often be found in the Exclusivist camp. These folks see Jesus as the only way, and general revelation as sufficient to condemn but impotent to save. Only predetermined election (predestination) results in salvation. One of the simplest rejections of this perspective comes from the late Southern Baptist theology professor Dale Moody, who once said, “What kind of God is he who gives man enough knowledge to damn him, but not enough to save him?”[1] Inclusivists, on the other hand, also see Jesus as the only way, but believe God is at work in other religions also to bring people to Christ. General revelation for them can both condemn and save. Inclusivists can be universalists, but are often not. However, Inclusivists would likely agree that you cannot readily tell who is saved based on their cultural or religious background. Karl Rahner writes of the “Anonymous Christian” as someone whom God saves through Christ without complete awareness of such on the part of the recipient. And then finally, Christian Pluralists see Christianity as one religion among many, all moving to the same God. It is not so much Jesus-centered as it is God-centered. God is the Real itself and the source of everything. Salvation is seen as the human transformation from self-centeredness to re-centering in the ultimate Real.

I bring up all these considerations to encourage you in your understanding as to just where these interpretations are coming from in terms of mindset. For myself, I can be described as an Inclusivist who operates mostly within the Politics of Tradition and can perhaps best be pegged in the Cultural Linguistic mold. Having said that, I should add that labels often turn out to be well-meaning guides that can ultimately play out to be rigid and unhelpful when applied too stringently.  In this letter, my answers to your concerns come from my own perspective, portions of which are not necessarily shared by all other Christians. The important thing to remember here is that the Christian religion is far more diverse than your book implies, and you cannot just paint all Christians with the same brush. Your challenges to Christianity are certainly interesting and warrant responses that provide a fair perspective.

You challenge Christianity’s place among world religions with statements such as the following: “If you think that Christianity is the most direct and undefiled expression of love and compassion the world has ever seen, you do not know much about the world’s other religions. Take the religion of Jainism as one example…” (p. 11). There are varying expressions of “Christianity” around the world and throughout time. In terms of expressing love and compassion (undefined in this example), it is important to remember that there is much more to Christianity than that. Love and compassion (popularly understood) untempered by justice leads to a passivity that benefits no one. There is no confrontation, no exhortation, and no healing to be found there. Jesus did not say, “Blessed are the peacekeepers.” He said, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9 italics mine), and there is a big difference.

In comparing Christianity to Jainism, you imply that religions exist that may be superior to Christianity. Maybe so, but it all depends on what you want. If you want a religion that has the greatest appeal to 21^st century western culture, orthodox Christianity may not be your cup of tea. However, as a source of genuine light and life, the Christian faith is a religion without equal. As the late songwriter Rich Mullins once said, “If you want a religion that makes sense, I suggest something other than Christianity, but if you want a religion that makes life, then I think that this is the one.”[2]  It is, however, important to remember that Christianity as a whole makes no claim to be the only way. Rather, it points to Jesus, who made a bold and specific claim to be just that, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, op cit).

Can someone receive eternal life without being a Christian? Christians have hotly debated this very question amongst themselves. If by “Christian” we mean one who subscribes to traditional Nicene Christianity, then the answer to our question is most certainly “Yes,” since such subscription is impossible for infants, those with severe mental handicaps, and those who have never heard the gospel. God is not a “gotcha” sort of deity. He so loved the world that he did not withhold even his own son (John 3:16). How much more will he do everything needful to include all who will love him. In The Last Battle, the final volume of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia series, Aslan greets a Calormene named Emeth who has served the false god Tash his entire life:

"Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."[3]

While some Christians reject this as universalism, I believe it is God’s nature to be merciful and to honor the deepest desire of the human heart. There are those who will look on him and love him, while others will look on him and hate him. All will get what they truly want. God does not force salvation on anyone, but neither does he withhold it from the ignorant. There may well be some side-doors into heaven, but every one of them is opened by Jesus, and by him alone.

When you said in your PBS interview[4] that, “We don’t have a word for not believing in Zeus,” you are implicitly asking for additional and far more specific words to be added to the English language. Are such words really necessary? Of course there is not a word for disbelieving in Zeus. There is also no specific word for disbelieving in Buddhism, or in Islam, or in Jainism, or in Wicca. But there is one for disbelieving in all deities and religions, and that is “atheism,” which banner you proudly wear, though you view it as unnecessary.

The discussion in the Afterward of blood sacrifice does indeed point to a common underpinning among the world’s religions throughout history of human recognition of the necessity of some kind of appeasement of deity. However, your comment that, “The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a ‘loving’ God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history” (p. 96) really does miss the point. Christianity is the one religion in which God himself provides the sacrifice – indeed he is the sacrifice. There is no other story like this.

You are careful not to reveal much about your upbringing, although your Jewish mother and Quaker father never discussed God in your home. Did this void spur your interest in religious belief?

You condemn “cherry-picking,” (p. 18) and yet rely on that very practice throughout your book. You submit that the U.S. Constitution’s silence on matters theological somehow demonstrates that our nation was not really founded on Judeo-Christian principles (p. 19). You conveniently overlook an older document that actually established the United States as a nation, the Declaration of Independence, the preamble of which is filled with theological assertions.

In another example of cherry-picking, you note that, “Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth…they are also the healthiest…” (p. 43). With the exception of Japan, all of these societies have a long Christian history, with Christian values deeply embedded in their culture. But your list, once again, has been cherry-picked. It does not include less flattering examples of societies where religion was all but stamped out: Democratic Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge), North Korea, the USSR, etc.

You even manage to cherry-pick the ratios of CEO salaries to employee salaries (p. 44), by implying the United States ratio of 475:1 somehow is connected with America’s fondness for religion. In fact, when the United States was more overtly Judeo-Christian (1960’s – 1970’s), the ratio was anywhere from 24:1 (1965) to 35:1 (1975). The spike occurred during the U.S. economic boom of the mid-1990’s.[5] Religion is just not salient to this topic, and that is the main point here. Nor is it true that 475:1 is a ratio commonly agreed to by economists – that ratio itself was cherry-picked from a 2005 study by a single economist named Mark Kroll who places his range from 301:1 to 475:1. The Economic Policy Institute’s estimate of 300:1 is quite high enough to serve your purposes, without reaching for such an outlier as Kroll offers. It is also worth noting that confiscatory tax rates in Europe force more compensation off the books than do the tax rates here in the United States.

I can debate with you day and night and yet come no nearer to persuading you than you have come to persuading me. Indeed, the point of my objections and clarifications is not to persuade you of the truth, but to show you perhaps why your own essay may have less of an impact than you might wish. Perhaps, with your Ph.D. in Neuroscience, you really are more of an intellectual heavyweight than your writings might suggest, but I will readily admit that I am no Dinesh D’Souza. And so, our debate would fail on two counts: 1) We could never convince each other, and 2) We could never bring to the table adequate academic arguments to support our respective positions. With respect to your understandable concern regarding sin and hypocrisy, I would refer you first to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s book Feathers of the Skylark: Compulsion, Sin, and Our Need for a Messiah, which is a fascinating look at the brain, beliefs, and healing.

If you are looking for a debate, there are plenty of outstanding Christian apologists you may engage. But I think you are, in your heart of hearts, really looking for something more. Something that goes beyond the give and take of argument, and cuts to the chase. This you can find only in Jesus. You may freely engage him, but it is dangerous. Facing Jesus can unmake your entire world. Facing Jesus will mean facing yourself as you never have before.

Anyway, that’s how I see it. And my eyesight isn’t even all that good. “For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face” (I Corinthians 13:12). I don’t know how close to the real mark I actually come on these things, but this much I do know: We will all stand before our Maker on the Last Day, and those willing to have eyes that see will say, “I see it now. All my questions are answered.” Do you remember the movie It’s a Wonderful Life, when Clarence could not see?  “You haven’t got your wings yet,” explains Joseph, “When you get your wings, you’ll be able to see all by yourself.” My prayer for you is that on that day, you will be able to see and to believe. And beyond this is beyond the both of us.

God bless you.


©2011 Rand York

---

[1] Southern Baptist Theological Seminary http://archives.sbts.edu/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID325566_CHID717902_CIID1988686,00.html

[2] Rich Mullins at a concert in South Bend, Indiana, 1997.

[3] From the chapter “Further Up and Further In” of the book The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis.

[4] Sam Harris 2005. “Interview: Sam Harris” www.pbs.org

[5] Economic Policy Institute, 2006.

Imago Dei

Imago Dei

Fr. Rand York

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
 So God created man in his own image,
   in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

(Genesis 1:26-27)

Imago Dei, the image of God. What does it mean? Those who complain that the phrase is simply presented without explanation seem not to have read beyond the first page of the story. The imago Dei in us is foundational to the Great Story, and so it comes first and is unpacked as the story unfolds. One way to understand the phrase is found in the definition offered by Wayne Grudem: “The nature of man such that he is like God and represents God.”[1] We will call this the Unitary stance, and it is the understanding of most in the West and of many in the East. But there is also a differentiation to which many of the Eastern fathers subscribe, which we will call the Binary stance, in which image and likeness are distinguished from each other. For these fathers, “The image…denotes man’s potentiality for life in God, the likeness his realization of that potentiality.”[2] This is in close kinship with the anthropology of the Middle Ages, which held that, “the image of God is a natural gift, which is ours by virtue of creation and belongs to our essential nature…The likeness of God, in contrast, is a supernatural gift…In the fall, Adam lost this likeness to God, this supernatural gift.”[3] And so for all mankind the image remains, though the likeness has been lost. Stanley Grenz calls this the “Structural View.”[4]

For those who by contrast hold the Unitary stance equating image and likeness, there is still more than one way to discover the meaning of it, for the Hebrew words used in Genesis 1:26, tselem (“image”) and demût (“likeness”) both refer to similarity, but tselem also has a representative aspect to it.[5] In this way, mankind is not only like God, but acts as God’s representative to creation, to cause to be accomplished those things for which creation was made. In other words, mankind was made in God’s image in order to, “fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”[6]

However, that is but the application of the underlying purpose. Both East and West are in agreement as to God’s purpose in creating us in his own image. For the East, Panagiotes Chrestou says, “This purpose is none other than reaching the point where they will glorify God worthily and will partake of his blessings abundantly.”[7] I was taught this very same answer when I was eight years old in confirmation class at Lookout Mountain Presbyterian Church: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.”[8]

The Reformers developed the Unitary stance that is reflected in Grudem’s definition and which Grenz refers to as the “Relational View.” Martin Luther taught (and John Calvin agreed) that what the scholastics regarded as divine likeness is really the original righteousness included in the divine image at the beginning. Without this righteousness, the image itself is “frightfully deformed.”[9] And the damage to the divine image may be deepened still. Leanne Payne contends that, since we are made worshiping beings, we will worship, and there are only two alternatives: to worship the creator or to worship the creature. Then, says Payne, “when we worship the creature, the self, we are given over to all manner of uncreative and destructive behavior. We further mar and diminish the image of Elohim in us; we lose our identity as sons of God. We are no longer God-conscious, but self-conscious.”[10]

The other side to this story, however, is what Grenz refers to as the “Dynamic View,” and is related to what the Orthodox call theosis or deification. Luther suggested that the imago Dei, “can be restored through the Word and the Holy Spirit,” and Calvin expanded on this by saying that this restoration happens progressively.[11] In this, the Reformers were rediscovering what the Eastern church never lost. Whether from a Unitary stance of restoring the image, or a Binary stance of restoring the likeness, this progressive restoration is what is known in the East as the “deification of man.” It was St. Athanasius who said, “He was made man that we might be made god,” and St. Basil the Great insists that becoming god is what we were made for and what we have been ordered to do.[12] This is made possible through Christ, but does not happen all at once. Indeed, a proper Orthodox answer to the question, “Are you a Christian?” is, “No, but by God’s grace I am becoming one.”

The Eastern church, however, teaches that theosis, while the prescriptive cure for our fallen condition, is also “our original and unique call.”[13] In other words, it is not predicated on the Fall. That which we were called to do from the beginning remains our calling in spite of the Fall, only now it also brings healing. Indeed, it was this calling that prompted the temptation in the Garden of Eden. We are made to be like God, and so Satan would try to make us look like himself.

C.S. Lewis contends, “It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations.”[14] These two destinations are the places where we either become fully human, or by contrast lose our humanity altogether. The devil seeks the latter destination for us, and according to St. Philotheos of Sinai, “Forcing his way into our intellect, our enemy tries to compel us – created in God’s image though we are – to eat the dust and to creep on our bellies as he does. This is why God says: ‘I will put enmity between you and him.’”[15] Vladimir Lossky concludes, “Thus the image – which is inalienable – can become similar or dissimilar, to the extreme limits: that of union with God, when deified man shows in himself by grace what God is by nature, according to the expression of St. Maximus; or indeed that of the extremity of falling-away which Plotinus called ‘the place of dissimilarity’ (τόποζ τηζ άνομοιώ-τητοζ), placing it in the gloomy abyss of Hades.”[16]

From the vantage point of obedience, St. Antony the Great says, “A man is in the image of God when he lives rightly and in a way that conforms to God.”[17] From the vantage point of grace, a person is truly human to the extent that he or she partakes of the divine nature, and, “Man created ‘in the image’ is the person capable of manifesting God in the extent to which his nature allows itself to be penetrated by the deifying grace.”[18]

When God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” to whom was he referring? Who is the “us” in this passage? Is it God and the angels? Is it the Holy Trinity? In whose image are we actually made? Those who subscribe to what Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy term as the “Fundamental View”[19] see the answer as God and the angels, because the Trinity is understood to be a New Testament concept. But on something so fundamental, does it really matter if Moses understood what he was writing? God either said this or he didn’t, and what we are trying to discern is God’s meaning behind his own words, not Moses’ understanding of what God said. The key to the meaning of God’s own words is not to be found in the experience of the historiographer. And so we cannot conclude that just because Moses did not know about the Trinity, God could not have been referring to his triune self. Perhaps indeed, “Moses was communicating more than he understood.”[20] For that matter, we cannot conclude that the author of the Pentateuch did not know about the Trinity, given his inclusion of the theophany at the Oaks of Mamre.[21]

But simpler than this is the observation that after God decided to make man “in our image,” he fulfilled it by making man, “in his own image, in the image of God.”[22] Note that it is in his own image, not in their own image. No, the “us” in Genesis 1:26 is most likely to refer to the one God, the Holy Trinity, as expounded in the “Relational View” presented by Boyd and Eddy.[23] The Roman Catholic church sees a “foreshadowing of the Trinity” in this passage.[24]

And so, mankind is created to be in relationship, for the Trinity is the source of all relationship and the fountainhead of love. “It is not good for man to be alone.”[25] Indeed, man in isolation is not man in the image of God. The beginning of human interrelationship is the relationship between the sexes, for God’s first choice of a companion for Adam was Eve, not Steve.[26] “Male and female he created them.”[27]

Finally, what was the actual temptation that resulted in the damage to image or the loss of likeness? Daniel Migliore notes that Adam and Eve were, “Driven to disobedience by their desire to be gods or ‘like God.’”[28] It is ironic that the temptation to which our ancestors yielded was the very thing they already had. They were already like God (or becoming like God) in every way except knowing good and evil. In obtaining the knowledge of good and evil, they gave up their likeness to God in every other way, an impossibly high cost that could ultimately be paid only by God himself through Jesus Christ.

So, what does it mean to be like God? Migliore highlights a number of implications, none of which are meant to be exclusive, from physical resemblance to rational nature to dominion over the earth to human freedom to human life in relationship.[29] Ultimately, though, it is our calling to be a reflection of God, and Migliore does not miss this point. We are to reflect God in such a way that we become the answer to our own petition in the Lord’s Prayer: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”[30] So that any time someone wants to know what is going on in heaven, they have only to look at us. Any time someone wants to see Jesus, they have only to look at us. As the Moon reflects the Sun and brings light in the darkness, so are we to reflect the Son, who is the light of the world.[31]

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared;

but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

(I John 3:2)

Bibliography

Boyd, G. A. and P. R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum : Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Chrestou, Panagiotes C. Partakers of God. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1984.

Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Hardon, John A., S.J. The Catholic Catechism. New York: Doubleday, 1981 (Nihil Obstat).

Hughes, R. Kent. Genesis: Beginning and Blessing. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.

Lewis, C.S. The Weight of Glory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

Mantzaridis, Georgios I. The Deification of Man. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984.

Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004.

Palmer, G.E.H., Philip Sherrard, & +Kallistos Ware (eds.). The Philokalia: The Complete Text, Volume One. London: Faber & Faber, 1979.

Palmer, G.E.H., Philip Sherrard, & +Kallistos Ware (eds.). The Philokalia: The Complete Text, Volume Three. London: Faber & Faber, 1984.

Payne, Leanne. The Broken Image. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1981.

Stavropoulos, Christoforos. Partakers of the Divine Nature. Minneapolis: Light & Life, 1976.

Ware, +Kallistos. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986.

©2011 Rand York

---

[1] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 1244.

[2] +Kallistos Ware. The Orthodox Way. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986) 66.

[3] Stanley J. Grenz. Theology for the Community of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 170.

[4] Grenz Op. cit. 169

[5] Grudem Op. cit. 442.

[6] Genesis 1:28

[7] Panagiotes C. Chrestou. Partakers of God. (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1984) 16.

[8] Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 1.

[9] Grenz Op. cit. 170-171.

[10] Leanne Payne. The Broken Image. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1981) 141.

[11] Grenz Op. cit. 172.

[12] Georgios I. Mantzaridis. The Deification of Man. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984) 7. Please note the small “g” in “god.”

[13] Christoforos Stavropoulos. Partakers of the Divine Nature. (Minneapolis: Light & Life, 1976) 25.

[14] C.S. Lewis. The Weight of Glory. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 14-15.

[15] G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, & +Kallistos Ware (eds.). The Philokalia: The Complete Text, Volume Three. (London: Faber & Faber, 1984) 27.

[16] Vladimir Lossky. In the Image and Likeness of God. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985) 139.

[17] G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, & +Kallistos Ware (eds.). The Philokalia: The Complete Text, Volume One. (London: Faber & Faber, 1979) 343.

[18] Lossky Op. cit. 139.

[19] Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum : Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009) 102-106.

[20] Boyd and Eddy Op. cit. 109.

[21] Genesis 18 (entire chapter).

[22] Genesis 1:27

[23] Boyd and Eddy Op. cit. 106-109.

[24]  John A. Hardon, S.J. The Catholic Catechism. (New York: Doubleday, 1981 Nihil Obstat) 66.

[25]  Genesis 2:18. This is in specific reference to the creation of Eve and the establishment of male-female relationship, but Adam was not only without a woman – he was in isolation from any other human contact.

[26] R. Kent Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004) 63.

[27] Genesis 1:27

[28] Daniel L. Migliore. Faith Seeking Understanding. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004) 150. See Genesis 3:5.

[29] Migliore Op. cit. 140-141.

[30] Matthew 6:10

[31] John 8:12