Matthew Henry John Bartlett

Said Andrew Basden in a recent Thinknet post:

To understand ‘the chief end of man’ we cannot use philosophy but must make a theological decision and commitment of belief (though philosophy can enrich our view once we have made that decision). I reject the Westminster Confession statement (“the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever”) on the basis of Gen. 1:26-8 linked with Ezek 34, Eph 1:10, Col 1:20, Heb 1:2, Rom 8:19-23.
   From these, the chief end of man is to represent God to the rest of the creation, so that when it experiences humanity it will be not unlike it experiencing God (i.e. joy that leads to seas roaring and trees clapping their hands; “vegetables may be said to experience the sort of joy” said CS Lewis, “that a vegetable would feel”). A joyful whole-creation is to be what Christ will inherit and what will be complete in him. And we are part of that whole-creation. Our specialness within the creation is not for our sake but for the sake of the rest of creation so that Christ’s inheritance and its own joy and completion may be furthered.
   By contrast, Westminster sees the specialness of humanity is for the sake of humanity and in order to serve God, with no mention of the rest of creation. The Westminster view is not false, so much as a limited subset of the Christo- and cosmo-centric view that I now adhere to.