In a contemporary landscape often defined by shifting linguistic norms, the vocabulary used to describe human vulnerability has become a significant point of contention. Recently, during a presentation titled “Dignity in a Posthuman World” delivered within a church setting, an exchange occurred that highlighted a deep-seated philosophical rift regarding the nature of the human person. The discussion centered on how secular culture views human dignity versus how biblically grounded Christians ought to perceive it. This interaction serves as a vital case study in understanding the difference between attributed dignity and intrinsic dignity and why the language we use to describe disability matters profoundly for a biblical worldview.
The Secular Performance View versus the Biblical Endowment View
To understand the debate over terminology, one must first recognize the two competing frameworks of human value. The secular culture predominantly adopts a performance view of human value. Within this framework, dignity is grounded in specific performance traits, such as cognitive abilities, self-awareness, the capacity to have desires, or having aims and aspirations for the future. Philosophers like Peter Singer and Michael Tooley are notable proponents of this view, arguing that human dignity and value are tied to traits that are not shared equally among all people and which may fluctuate or disappear throughout a lifetime.
In contrast, the biblical perspective offers an endowment view. On this view, human value is not something earned through performance or mental capacity; rather, it is grounded in whose image a person bears. This creates a fundamental distinction between attributed and intrinsic dignity. We may correctly grant attributed dignity to individuals based on their accomplishments—such as a university professor finding a cure for cancer—because their actions contribute significantly to human flourishing. However, that professor possesses no more intrinsic dignity than a “beach bum” who might be perceived as wasting his life. While we may regret a lack of flourishing in the latter, their fundamental value as an image-bearer remains identical to that of the most accomplished scholar.
The Linguistic Conflict: Person-First Language
The tension between these views came to the forefront when the term “disabled persons” was used to describe those struggling with cognitive or physical impairments. The use of this phrase prompted an immediate and heated objection from a parent of a child with special needs, who argued that the term was “dehumanizing”. She insisted on the use of “person-first” language, specifically the phrase “persons with disabilities,” claiming that a failure to use this rhetoric stripped the individual of their humanity.
While such objections are often rooted in a sincere desire to protect the dignity of loved ones, a deeper analysis reveals that this linguistic shift often relies on secular, rather than biblical, premises. After careful reflection, it becomes clear that yielding to the request for person-first language may inadvertently validate a worldview known as body-self dualism.
The Danger of Body-Self Dualism
Body-self dualism is a secular concept that separates the “real self” from the physical body. It posits that the true identity of a person is found in their thoughts, aims, and cognitive processes, while the body is viewed as mere matter. By insisting on the phrase “person with a disability,” the speaker attempts to separate the disability from the person’s identity, as if the disability is an external attachment rather than an intrinsic part of the individual’s physical reality.
Biblically, however, the human person is a dynamic union of body and soul. We are not mere spirits trapped in husks of matter; our bodies are essential to who we are as image-bearers and they matter deeply to God. Attempting to separate the truth of a person’s bodily condition from their identity is a Gnostic tendency that denies the biblical narrative. A person who is paralyzed or cognitively impaired does not need to deny the reality of their body to claim equal value. Their dignity does not rest on what their body can or cannot do, but on the fact that they are human beings created in the image of God.
This perspective is shared by many within the disability community who find “people-first” language problematic. For example, a disabled attorney who became a quadriplegic following a diving accident expressed frustration with those who pushed him to deny his body’s reality. He argued that the Bible does not permit such a separation, as our physical conditions are part of our lived identity as image-bearers.
Theological Consistency and the Identity of the Sinner
The biblical precedent for linking physical or spiritual conditions to identity is found in how Scripture addresses humanity’s moral state. Jesus and the biblical authors consistently refer to fallen humanity as “sinners,” not as “people with sin”. By linking the condition of sin directly to identity, the Bible tells the objective truth about our spiritual state.
If it is appropriate and theologically accurate to tell the truth about our spiritual condition by calling ourselves sinners, it follows that it is not dehumanizing to tell the truth about our bodily condition. Whether a person is physically, mentally, or cognitively disabled, acknowledging that fact does not diminish their status as an image-bearer. In fact, insisting on “person-first” language can become a form of “sloppy language” that assumes the premises of critics who wish to dehumanize based on performance traits. We must be careful not to absorb non-biblical worldviews in our attempt to be compassionate.
The Image of God: An Absolute Status
A common error in defining the image of God (Imago Dei) is attempting to tie it to specific functions, such as the ability to commune with God or possess a moral compass. If the image of God is defined by these capabilities, then those who lack them would logically be “less” of an image-bearer. This would turn the image of God into a performative trait rather than an inherent endowment.
Scripture does not provide a list of functions that constitute the image of God; instead, it simply affirms that all humans possess it by virtue of being human. Scholars such as John Kilner, in his work Dignity and Destiny, argue that this status is universal and applies to all bioethical issues, including abortion and euthanasia. We are not more dignified than a person with a cognitive impairment; we are simply different in our performance abilities.
Equipping the Believer for Persuasive Defense
Understanding the intrinsic dignity of all human beings is the necessary foundation for pro-life advocacy. To effectively protect the vulnerable, believers must be equipped to defend these views persuasively in a culture that increasingly favors the performance view of human value. This defense can be structured into three clear steps:
- State the Case with a Syllogism: Clearly establish that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being and that abortion (or any act that targets the innocent) does exactly that.
- Defend with Science and Philosophy: Use science to show that the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Use philosophy—specifically the SLED acronym (Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency)—to show there is no essential difference between an embryo and an adult that justifies killing the former.
- Answer Objections: Invite questions and handle them with the logic of the pro-life view, ensuring the focus remains on the humanity of the victim.
It is also important for advocates to have realizable expectations. Arguments are rarely won in the heat of the moment. Rather, they are often won weeks later in the quiet of a person’s own thoughts, as the rational weight of a well-presented argument forces them to “rearrange their mental furniture”.
The Call to Rescue
The responsibility to speak for the disabled and the unborn is not based on a subjective “private revelation” or a personal “call”. Instead, it is an objective command found in Scripture, such as in Proverbs 24, which instructs believers to “rescue those being led away to death”. We cannot plead ignorance of the dehumanizing strategies used by the culture to justify the destruction of innocent life.
Furthermore, the confidence to engage in this work does not come from our own righteousness. Every believer must acknowledge their own status as a “wretch” or a “sinner” who falls short of God’s requirements. Our value to the Kingdom is found in our identity as children of Christ, and our work is an act of gratitude for the favor God has already bestowed through the sinless Savior.
Conclusion
The debate over whether to use the term “disabled persons” or “persons with disabilities” is more than a mere squabble over semantics; it is a conflict between two fundamentally different views of what it means to be human. By embracing the term “disabled persons,” we acknowledge the biblical truth that our bodies—in whatever state of strength or weakness—are inseparable from our identity as image-bearers.
We must reject the secular impulse to separate the self from the body, as this dualism ultimately undermines the intrinsic dignity of all people. Instead, we should find confidence in the endowment view, recognizing that our value is not performative but is a gift from our Creator. As we move forward into a posthuman world, our language must remain anchored in the objective truth of the Imago Dei, ensuring that we respect the dignity of every human person from conception to natural death.