Page 27 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 12

Kevin Eames

Comment to Kevin J. Eames

“Religious identity, holds the Ph.D. in
Counseling Psy-
when compared to other chology from Ge-
orgia State Uni-
identities“ versity. He serves
as professor of
Professor Jaworski’s wisely places religious psychology, chair
identity at the core of what it means to be hu- of the psychology
man through his presentation of two essential department, and
questions: “Who am I to people, to the world director of institutional effectiveness at Co-
of nature and culture” and “Who am I to God.” venant College in Lookout Mountain, GA,
This is reminiscent of Johnson’s two-fold pri- USA. His scholarly interests include human
mary goal for Christians interested in human sexuality and the psychology of religion. His
beings: to understand human nature as it is and book The Cognitive Psychology of Religion
the way God does (1997, 14). It is the latter goal was published by Waveland Press in 2016.
that must be addressed before any other psycho-
logical enterprise is undertaken. The question
“Who am I to God” is the foundation for theo-
logical anthropology. In the reformed tradition, mans, John Stott (2001) notes that several com-
such questions may be addressed using a crea- mentators note the impersonal nature of God’s
tion-fall-redemption-consummation frame- wrath to which Paul refers in Romans 1, rather
work. The framework parallels human nature than God’s personal pique against individual
in its fourfold state as described by the Scottish sins. C. H. Dodd calls it “an inevitable process
theologian Thomas Boston (1676-1732). Boston of cause and effect in a moral universe” (1932,
(1964) describes humans as being (1) in a state 23), while A. T. Hanson (2010) maintains that
of innocence before the fall, (2) a natural state God’s wrath is the “inevitable process of sin
of sinfulness, misery, and corruption of the will, working itself out in history.” Another aspect of
(3) the state of grace, and (4) the eternal state. the natural state noted by Boston is our inability
to act on our own behalf to free ourselves from
These states provide the parameters by which the state of wrath under which we find oursel-
we understand who we are to God. As docu- ves because of our share in original sin. Paul
mented in Genesis 1-2, we were created to bear tells us we are dead in our trespasses and sins
the image of God, to resemble him, to represent (Ephesians 2:1, NASB). It is only through rege-
him in our stewardship of creation, and in re- neration by the Holy Spirit of God that moves
lationship with him and with our complemen- us from a state of wrath to a state of grace. This
tary partners. Stewardship and relationship are regeneration is not a mere discarding of old
aspects of the image of God that have endured religious beliefs and adopting of new religious
despite the fall, though they have become tho- beliefs, but a thorough reconstitution of our
roughly corrupted in their application. In our creatureliness. In Christ, we are new creatures
natural state, our religious identity is that of op- (2 Cor. 5:17), we are united with Christ in the
position to God, whether in the worship of idols likeness of his death (Romans 6:5), and, in what
and the suppression of the truth in unrighteous- must serve as an essential assertion of religious
ness (Romans 1:18-22, NASB), or the denial of identity, “I have been crucified with Christ; and
the existence of God (Psalm 14:1, NASB). As a it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me;
consequence of such rebellion against God, our and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by
religious identity must also include the experi- faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave
ence of God’s wrath. In his commentary on Ro- Himself up for me” (Galatians 2:20, NASB).

26