The Genesis of Values in Genesis

Introduction

Much like the origin of the universe, man has pondered the origin of his values. Values are defined as: ‘socially and personally shared conceptions of the good, desirable, and righteous. They are stabilized beliefs about personally or socially preferred modes of conduct or end-states of existence. They determine how one ought to or ought not to behave or act’ (Suar & Khuntia, 2010, p. 443). Some attribute their origin to the environment and others believe they emanate from within the individual. Christians believe values were instilled by God to man at creation. The account of the fall of man in Genesis is a clear indication that man was created with values. In this case, man valued knowledge. Specifically, he valued knowledge he was not meant to have, which is indicated by the use of the word ‘desirable’.

Genesis 3:6 states,

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (NIV)

What is unique about man’s value for knowledge is that it was innate to him at creation, ‘before’ the fall and he had the ‘desire’ to obtain more. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word ‘desirable’ as ‘wanted or wished for’. Moore (2004) notes, ‘A person who desires, an object, state of affairs, or sensation, for itself and not just for something it can bring about, has an intrinsic desire for it’ (p. 76). This was certainly the case with Eve. Moore (2004) goes on to state, ‘Value does not afford a single uniform measure of preference but a measure relative to each valuer [sic]’ (p. 77). In other words, the worth of values is individualized and intrinsic. We desire that which we value. Although man had been given all the knowledge he needed, he freely chose to give into his desire for more because he ‘valued’ it.

Genesis 1:26 states,

Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ (NIV)

God created man in his image; God is omniscient. Therefore, it is logical to conclude man was given an amount of knowledge. In Genesis 2:19–20, Adam was tasked with naming the animals. This presupposes he had an intellect and a measure of knowledge commensurate with the task given him by God. Eve’s temptation was based on gaining ‘more’ knowledge, or wisdom. The temptation did not become sin until ‘after’ Adam and Eve took the fruit and ate it, which was an act of disobedience. Prior to sin entering the world, man valued knowledge. This demonstrates man was created with values.

Although Adam and Eve were created and not born, it is reasonable to conclude their descendants were born with a core intellect from which their values emanated. Much like DNA, man is born with a base intellect from which his values emanate. Webster’s defines intellect as ‘knowing or understanding; the capacity for knowledge, for rational or highly developed use of intelligence.’ While we all have different values, the selection ability to recognize and modify our values is a reflection of our God-given intellect. Therefore, from a Christian worldview, all values ultimately stem from God.

Worldview

A worldview is a way of interpreting the world. One author states, ‘A worldview is a complex system of interpretations of experiences and orderings of relationships that provides a cohesive way of understanding reality’ (Fagerberg, 2001, p. 553).

McCormack (2008) notes, ‘A worldview is the assumed model of reality through which a society understands and interprets the world. It is like an invisible map through which we perceive reality’ (p. 40). While a worldview is map used for perception, Oster (2012) notes, ‘We filter the world through our values.’ If we filter the world through our values, we also base our worldview on them. Thus our worldview is formed by our values. However, it is also formed by our beliefs. Kim, Fisher and McCalman (2009) note, ‘Our beliefs and values are imbedded in our worldview’ (p. 116).

Christianity is a worldview itself. ‘Works by Christian writers and thinkers would suggest that Christianity is more than a religion or a set of moral guidelines or beliefs. It is a worldview that applies to all areas including social issues, history, politics, science, and anthropology’ (Kim et al., 2009, p. 119). The universality of a Christian worldview does not exist due to the variations in beliefs by Christians. What is important, though, in regard to the genesis of values, is the broad scope of Christianity as a worldview. Its inclusiveness permeates every facet of life from which values receive their external stimulus. Naugle (2002) notes, ‘Its [Christian worldview] popularity is due in part to its attempt to provide a comprehensive explanation of reality that is rooted in the Word of God’ (p. 4).

The Christian worldview has become increasingly influential in recent decades, especially by evangelicals. ‘As a matter of fact, in the entire history of “worldview”, no single philosophic school or religious community has given more sustained attention to or taken more advantage of this concept than Protestant evangelicals’ ² (Naugle, 2002, p. 31). The Christian worldview is a means of interpreting the world through the teachings, concepts and principles in the Bible and taking action based on that interpretation. Furthermore, it incorporates values commensurate with that worldview, for example, family values.

Origin of Values

Evidence supports the contention that we are born with a sense of values. Kropp, Lavack and Silvera (2005) concluded that values can be classified into three dimensions:

Internal values (self-fulfillment, self-respect and sense of accomplishment); external values (security, sense of belonging, warm relationships with others and being-well respected); and interpersonal values (fun and enjoyment in life and excitement. In general, internal values do not require the judgments or opinions of others. In contrast, external values generally require the presence, judgments, or opinions of others. Interpersonal values combine some aspects of both internal and external values; however, by definition, they focus upon interactions between people (p. 11).

Man’s internal values are a reflection of God. They are man’s core and comprise his moral structure much like all people are comprised of DNA. No two people, not even identical twins, are alike. The same is true of values.

A great analogy that illustrates the internal argument for values’ origin is in Newton’s first law of motion, which states an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Values act much the same way in that we are born with a basic sense of values, for example, the value of human life, particularly our own and they remain somewhat fixed throughout our early childhood until we begin to walk, talk, and comprehend. It is during this time that external factors begin to impact the core beliefs with which we were born.

A study revealed that cognitive development occurs in children between the ages of 6–11, and that ‘children focus on concrete, observable elements of their world, but they also begin to organize these elements into trait categories when they describe themselves and other persons’ (Doring, 2010, p. 440). Researchers believe it is during this time of cognitive development that external factors begin to have the greatest influence on value formation.

Schwartz proposed a theory of basic values common to everyone that broke their formation down into ten categories. They are:

Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms.

These values were then grouped into four higher order categories that form two bipolar dimensions. “The first contrasts self-transcendence values (universalism and benevolence) with self-enhancement values (power and achievement). The second dimension contrasts openness to change values (tradition, conformity and security).

‘Hedonism is located between openness to change and self-enhancement’ (Cieciuch, 2012, p. 321). Schwartz concluded, ‘The idea of a continuum implies that the domain of values can be partitioned into broader or more fine-grained value constructs, depending on how finely one wishes to discriminate among motivations (Cieciuch, 2012, p. 321). The premise of the theory is that at least ten common values are innate to everyone. Establishing granularity between them is essentially a matter of interpretation. Nevertheless, the theory supports the Christian worldview that the genesis of values lies within an individual as instilled by God. How they are forged during middle childhood and early adulthood is a matter of external influence and personal choice based upon experience.

Application

Values are integrally related to an individual’s worldview. In this instance, the evangelical Christian worldview makes assumptions as to the origin of values. As such, their application to everyday life is governed by fundamental beliefs that in many ways parallel and support Schwartz’s theory. For example, Peterson (2005) noted three predominant values in the Book of Genesis: ‘(1) the value of defining family in expansive terms; (2) the value of familial continuity; (3) and the value of nonviolent resolution of conflict within the family’ (p. 22). Family was a value and it was enforced externally through the environment, which consisted of a tribe society where beliefs were universal. This relates to conformity, tradition, benevolence and universalism.

As society has expanded, the amount of influence on individual and group values has increased, which has caused diversification and even departure from ‘traditional values.’ In 2010, George commented, ‘People lose their values.’ It appears he may be onto something, particularly in regard to family values. ‘At least one in five women around the globe has been a victim of spousal abuse’ (Petersen, 2005, p. 22). This does not bode well for non-violent resolution to family conflict and the family values held in high regard by the Christian worldview.

Family values are part of the Christian worldview. Family is defined as ‘the fundamental institution of society, an immutable structure established by our Creator’ (Dowland, 2009, p. 607). The American family has been on decline in recent decades. Houseknecht and Sastry (1996) state, ‘That the change in the family that has occurred in recent times represents family decline’ (p. 727). The decline of the American family can be interpreted as a direct result of the decline in Christianity. This decline represents a shift in the balance and application of the categorical values identified by Schwartz. It does not, however, indicate the absence of any specific value.

An article in The Futurist noted, ‘…we are at a critical crossroads for Christianity in America’ (1995, p. 55). Indeed we are. Buchanan (2011) states, ‘Today’s social decomposition is the first consequence of the collapse of Christianity and the moral order it sustained’ (p. 68). The moral order it sustained was a direct result of the family values it instilled. The decline of Christianity is practically synonymous with the decline of the American family. As both decline, the Christian worldview begins to fade away taking its associated values with it.

While this shift in values may be perceived by evangelicals as the demise of the Christian worldview’s dominance, it can be argued that such a change is merely the reorientation of the values continuum suggested by Schwartz. In other words, the component values continue to exist within the concentric construct; however, a redistribution of their importance and relevance to external factors is now present, which manifests itself in an altered worldview. This is significant because ‘our worldview has a profound impact on how we decide what is real versus unreal, what is right versus wrong, and what is important versus unimportant. It shapes our culture and expresses itself in all institutions including the arts, religion, education, media, and business’ (Kim, McCalman & Fisher, 2012, p. 205).

This redistribution of identified values represents a departure from the Christian worldview in social application and a shift toward modernism. However, this redistribution does not nullify or invalidate the hypothesis that values originate in man as instilled by God. It simply indicates the replacement of values’ origin by modernism, which place values’ origin in ‘human reasoning and the scientific method’ (Kim et al., 2012, p. 205). Worldview and Christianity are mutually exclusive entities that have the capability to coexist but are not interdependent on one another for their existence.

Conclusion

Perhaps it is a stretch to make such a bold statement, but the search for values’ origin is the search for God’s truth in all of us, the divine will. We are each born with a sense of being, of right and wrong. Our environment influences how and what we think. Family, friends, school, culture and religion, to name a few, shape our values and help us form a worldview through which we interpret the world. We are each born with an internal compass that remains neutrally fixed—the factory setting, if you will.

God gives intellect to us. Man has free will over his intellect and can so use it as he pleases. His ability to choose gives him the freedom to develop his values and worldview. However, as man has plunged further into sin, his values and worldview has shifted, causing a notable decline in the American family and Christianity itself. Man must right his course to preserve the future of the family and Christianity. He must realign his values and reset his compass.