I was recently listening to a prominent evangelical preacher on the great biblical doctrine of total depravity. He used Luther to say, essentially, that we cannot come to Christ until we hate ourselves. He then went on for at least ten minutes (I got a little bored after that) about how in and of ourselves we are nothing - we are despicable, sinful, worthless. I tried to put myself into someone’s shoes who had never heard the gospel and how they would respond to a message like this. Granted, I’m sure this preacher went on to speak of how we are remade in Christ. But, I also wonder how much of speaking of depravity, specifically in this way, is necessary.

I’m not at all denying the doctrine of total depravity. But, to me, this particular way of presenting this doctrine came off more like “utter depravity” - like every single human is as wicked as they could possibly be. But, that is not what the doctrine teaches. Total depravity means that every aspect of who we are has been distorted by sin - heart, will, mind, etc. Although I do think Tim Keller’s frequent statement that “we are far more wicked than we want to admit, but in Christ we are far more loved than we can imagine” is a great balance to this. Here’s where my thinking is heading…

What of the image of God? Total depravity implies that though we were created to reflect God to the world, because of sin we can no long do so faithfully. Every attempt to do so is tainted, distorted. We sin because we are essentially sinners. But, when we speak of “nature” I think a distinction must be made. The world God created (original nature) was harmony. Humans were placed into that harmony, but the original nature of things has been screwed up. However, the Image of God inherent in every human being is not totally lost. Rather, every aspect of every person has been damaged. So, in a sense, being renewed/reborn in Christ is the beginning of the restoration of the original nature of humanity. Jesus was the only perfect image of God, the perfect representative of God on earth - the only truly perfect human. As we are “in Him” we are transformed gradually into His image (while never neglecting the idea that we will not be fully “as He is” until the presence and effects of sin have been eliminated).

But, to follow the biblical structure of the story, should we not first emphasize the fact that, originally, we were created in God’s image? Should we start at the point of sin (like one system does), or at the point of creation? If we start with sin and its effects, then I don’t think we even get the full weight of how bad things truly are. But, if we start with a beautiful, harmonious creation in which heaven and earth were one and God Himself “walked” in harmony with all of creation, then we can begin to understand what we so desperately long for - the thing which the first human and all subsequent humans have lost.

How does this relate to “hating ourselves”? I think there must be an aspect of this, especially since in our culture to love yourself is what we think being human is all about. We live in a culture of narcissism. But, we also must emphasize that in Christ we have been given a “new self.” We should not hate the new self, because the new self is being renewed, but also we should not simply “love ourselves” because we still remain sinful. This is similar to the whole “self esteem” debate within Christian circles - what should we be esteeming? (I personally don’t prefer to use terminology like “self esteem” because I think it’s been highly abused and misunderstood.) We should hate the “flesh” we war against, but obviously not the Jesus in us. To use another Keller cliche, “The gospel causes us not to think less of ourselves, but rather to think of ourselves less.”

So, I think we can go wrong in these two directions. The reason we treat others with respect and dignity is not based on if they have a “renewed self” in Christ (for the simple reason that we cannot truly know if someone else is in Christ or not), but rather on the basis that all humans have been created in God’s image. This is what James point out in the context of “blessing and cursing” others with our mouths - “With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God” (3:9).

I really think this has massive implications. We cannot ignore the reality of our own or anyone else’s sinfulness, but we cannot also neglect to speak of the inherent goodness in the original creation of humanity (Gen. 1:31). This also leads to the promises we have been given about the future, which were present in Jesus himself (which are meant to inspire faithfulness in the present rather than apathy). When Jesus returns and fully and finally eliminates sin, He will not simply destroy this present earth (which would essentially leave Satan and sin and death as the victors over God’s good creation), but rather He will refine/purify/restore/renew the entire creation to the way things are supposed to be. (Therefore, the prayer “Come quickly, Lord Jesus” is not the prayer of a hermit with a lot of canned foods in his basement, but rather one who is striving to be fully and faithfully engaged with his responsibilities in the present age.)

I think another implication is the relationship between saving grace and common grace. Those who tend to overemphasize our wickedness also tend to deemphasize the reality that God showers His blessings on the righteous and the wicked. But, if we overemphasize that reality and underemphasize sin, then those who hear our gospel message will think they can simply appeal to the Image of God as a basis of being “in the right” with God. No, our righteousness is and only can be on the basis of Christ’s righteousness on our behalf. To neglect that truth is to essentially neglect the gospel. God doesn’t choose people because they are worthy of his choosing, but rather He pours out His saving love on those who don’t deserve to be rescued. (Election is in spite of sin, not because of worth.)