The theological idea of imago Dei comes from the creation account of humanity. Genesis 1:26-27 says,
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he creaed them.
One theological question that emerges from the story of humanity is, “to what extent has the imago Dei been corrupted as a result of the fall of humanity?” Or stated positively, “how much of the imago Dei is retained in fallen humanity?” This would appear to be a core issue when we discuss Christianity’s encounter with a postmodern culture. Our view of humanity drives the way in which we present the gospel. If, for example, we view God’s image created in humanity as corrupt our gospel message will tend to focus on resolving the cause of corruption. However, if our view suggests that humanity is essentially good our gospel message might focus on humanity’s ability to please God.
I do believe that there is a range of theological formulations regarding imago Dei that could be considered orthodox. Nevertheless, how they are presented to or understood by a postmodern is important in a contextualized gospel message. So the question I’d like to submit for discussion is what does the imago Dei look like in an emerging theology?
Biblical background to 'image of God'
Michael, this is a great question and, as you say, highly relevant for the debate with postmodernism. It might be helpful to give some thought to the biblical background to the idea of imago dei and how it might have been affected by the fall.
The precise meaning of ‘image’ in Gen.1:26 is not easy to determine, but clearly it must be delimited in some respect. The context suggests that it has to do principally with the thought that humanity is given ‘dominion’ over the natural order. Egyptian and Assyrian texts commonly refer to the king as the image of God, as the representative of God on earth, so perhaps what we have in Gen.1:26 is a democratization (and implicitly a critique) of this idea (G. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 30-31). Gen.9:6 reads: ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.’ This may mean that being in the image of God preserves the sanctity of human life, but I think the verse probably again asserts the ‘authority’ that mankind has been given as God’s representative, in the exceptional case of murder, to take life.
If this understanding is correct, then it may be rather misleading to say that the ‘image of God’ has somehow been corrupted by the fall. On the one hand, the consequence of eating the fruit is pain in childbirth, the subordination of the woman to the man, the hardship of producing food from the ground, and presumably death (Gen.3:16-19). There is no clear link here with the ‘image of God’ theme. On the other, ironically, the man becomes not less but more God-like by eating the fruit: ‘Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil…”’ (3:22). It is to prevent him from taking the next step towards divinity by eating the fruit of the tree of life that he is excluded from the garden.
Whether or not the ‘image of God’ motif is strictly relevant to this discussion, we still have Paul’s argument about the origins of sin in Rom.5:12-21. What I would say with respect to this passage – by way of a partial answer to your question – is that the extent of human depravity is not really the issue: rather it is a matter of life and death. Paul is not really concerned about how good humanity is or to what extent we are able to please God. His argument is that there is no escaping the utterly destructive fact of death – ultimately a consequence of Adam’s sin – apart from the free gift of righteousness in Christ. But I would have thought that the question of whether humanity is ‘essentially good’ or not then becomes an empirical one: good is good and evil is evil – call it as you see it – but neither has a bearing on whether we die or not.
This is important for an ‘emerging theology’ at least insofar as it allows us to speak honestly about human nature without having to force it into such pessimistic and debilitating theological categories as ‘original sin’ or ‘total depravity’. There is another empirical question, however, which is no less pertinent to the current debate: to what extent do believers genuinely manifest the new life in Christ? Paul recognized the problem: ‘How can we who died to sin still live in it?’ (Rom.6:2).
Context of imago Dei
Is imago Dei an appropriate starting point in engaging the emerging culture? St. Paul seems to address the Athenians and Lystrans from the perspective that God is creator of all things including humanity. To the Athenians he suggests that we are all, sinner and saint, His children.
While I agree that an aspect of being created in the image of God includes the idea of dominion, it would seem that it also includes this idea of relationship, “we are all His children” (Acts 17:28). It is ultimately God, according to Paul, who provides the proper conditions for humanity to rule over creation in an apparent desire to have a relationship with His “creatures.”
We see this idea of relationship in the garden after the fall. God continues to reach out to Adam and Eve, but they are hiding. God reaches out to Cain before and after he killed Able. Isn’t the story of Israel one of being God’s blessing to the nations in His desire to have a relationship with humanity?
Our understanding of imago Dei then can also be delimited to our understanding of who God is in relationship to His creation. Understood in this manner, being created in God’s image would indicate not only responsibility for creation, but also relationship with the creator and each other.
A number of issues arise for the Christian encouter with emerging culture:
1. how fully do Christians model this relationship?
2. how incomplete is this relationship in the life of the non-Christian?
3. how do Christians engage people with the message that God is their creator?
What happens if we interpret
What happens if we interpret the image of God trinitarianly? If the image of God is the image of the triune God, what difference does this make? If we begin with the fact that God is Father, Son and Spirit in mutually-loving relations, does this mean the image of God in us is our ability to relate to God and to one another and only when we relate do we properly reveal the image of God in us.
Therefore, to be ‘in Adam’ (Rom 5) is to see the image of God marred - relationships are not what they should be and to be ‘in Christ’ is to see the image of God, through the image of Christ, relationships should be something more like God intended: see Eph 2, where Paul speaks of Ephesians being ‘in Christ - a new humanity - where the divisions between Jew and Greek are no longer there. If we take this seriously, if we are ‘in Christ’ (i.e. Christian) we should live according to Christ, and to there allow relationships to fragment and destruct is to live denying our new state ‘in Christ’ and to return to a life defined by Sin, which we have left behind. In saying that, Paul speaks of ‘being conformed to the image of the Son’ in Rom 8:29, suggesting that although we now live according to Christ and in Christ, this is not something that is fully happened this side of death.
Image of the trinity?
Andy, I wouldn’t disagree with your conclusions here: I’m sure it’s right to emphasize the centrality of relationships in our understanding of both sin and righteousness. Although the emerging church hardly has a monopoly on this insight, I do think that we are learning to work through its implications more thoroughly and more consistently. However, I would quibble with aspects of the biblical reasoning behind the conclusions.
1. On what basis would one choose to interpret the image of God in a trinitarian terms? The argument that ‘let us make man in our own image’ entails a reference to the trinity is highly questionable; and at best it would be an argument for an internal relationality (body, soul and spirit? multiple personality disorder?). I don’t really see why this thesis is necessary – there are plenty of other grounds on which we can argue for relating well to God and others (eg., ‘love the Lord your God… love your neighbour as yourself’).
This doesn’t mean that we can’t use the ‘image of God’ in a broader sense today – it is a powerful metaphor for the sanctity and value of human life, for example. But I do think we should be careful about reading back modern usage into the biblical texts without good reason.
2. Paul shows no especial interest in relationships in Romans 5; nor does he allude to the ‘image of God’ motif. Maybe he had those things in mind, but aren’t we guessing here?
3. Ephesians 2 addresses the particular question of the relation between Jews and Gentiles because this was fundamental to the redefinition of the people of God – the extraordinary ‘mystery’ of Paul’s gospel (Eph.3:1-6) that had taken place through Christ. But, of course, the general argument is correct: there is no basis for discrimination or apartheid, whether racial, cultural or sexual, in Christ.
4. I think that being ‘conformed to the image of his Son’ in Rom.8:29 should probably also be interpreted in a quite specific sense. The passage is about suffering and glory. To be conformed to the image of Christ, therefore, is to suffer with him (cf. v.17) and to be raised with him, so that he will be ‘first-born among many brethren’ (v.29): Christ was first to go through this experience but he was not to be the last (cf. 1 Cor.15:23).
Perhaps Col.3:9-11 is more relevant, though I’m not sure there is a direct allusion to Gen.1:26 here:
I presume the point here is that the ‘new nature’ should be increasingly ‘Christ-like’ and that we should behave towards one another as Christ behaved (cf. Phil.2:5).
Enough. I have a feeling that I’m stopping this discussion getting anywhere useful. Michael’s fundamental concern is still entirely valid: What do we need to say about the moral and spiritual condition of humanity?
Imago Dei and sexuality
It seems to me that Gen 1 27 and 28 (underlining male and female and , before anything about dominion, the command to procreate), and the immediate results of the fall in Gen 3 (the nakedness stuff and the discord in the Adam/Eve relationship and very specifically in the sexual area - 3:16) and the fact that from NT times to now sexual behaviour has loomed large in the challenges of Christian living all lead to the conclusion that we must understand the image of God as pretty closely tied up with human sexuality. (This of course relates to the importance of relationality as a previous poster pointed out.)At the moment everything the church is seen as saying ahout sexuality is in danger of sounding to our culture like nonsense.
But if we can get a handle on this, we may have a way of speaking about sexual ethics and boundaries which gets beyond our culture’s fundamental assumption that sex is recreational, physical, possibly emotional and the idea that a supreme being is interested in who pokes what where into whom is simply absurd.
If human sexuality is closely tied up with what it means to be created in God’s image then how we behave sexually is pretty central to our integrity/shalom/health…
This is a good question...
I must admit that I question how closely human biological sex ties into the imago dei. Are these two ideas explicitly connected in the Hebrew? The problem I have is that the animals are also created male and female, but we don’t thereby say that the (lower?) animals are thereby the image of God. There is also some debate about whether male and female (Genesis 1:27) and “man and woman” (Genesis 2) have biological and sociological semantic ranges, respectively.
Given that most Christians argue that God doesn’t have a biological sex per se (excepting Jesus Christ) nor a gender should introduce extreme caution into our exegesis, since post-modernity tends to argue that gender is not essential—that is, a reflection of a kind of neo-Platonic Ideal, but rather socially constructed.
Can we derive a consistent or normative pattern for biological sex, sexual activity, or gender as the image of God from Genesis 1-3? I suspect not, but maybe that’s just me.
Good questions
Re animals: yes, but I think the same objection could be raised to almost any attachment of content to the idea of the image of God. Animals form relationships, think etc etc. Any qualitative or ontological status for humanity will have to cope with the similarities of all animal life. (It’s the big issue in Christian animal rights ethical discussions ins’t it?)
Re God and gender/sex. Yes - but doesn’t an understanding that the image of God is represented in male/female humanity (and not, specifically, in male - or female - humanity only)help us with this?
Re gender/sexuality. We need to avoid over simplifying, but accepting my interpretation does mean questioning the understanding that these are simply social constructs. (And isn’t this a modern rather than post-modern argument?)
Re building a case on these chapters alone. Yes - but they seem to be the normative reference point for both Jesus and Paul when they address sexual/social behaviour (and for Paul when he addresses the divine/human relationship.) And this then looks like a consistent worldview rather than a side-track.
G-ds self-image.
one of the things that strikes me about us being created in the image of G-d is the implication that we were/are a representation of the way in which G-d perceives Him/Her self. personally i think it has far deeper implications than mere dominion, which i see as one of the results of our having been created in G-d’s image, along with the gift of imagination etc. such a teaching could form part of the bedrock of emerging theology as it esteems humanity in the most profound way, albeit a fallen humanity.
http://lovemutant.blogspot.com
Re: Imago Dei in Emerging Theology
A good place to start might be to consider some of the Reformers or Fathers views..
Luther http://www.leithart.com/archives/001232.php Augustine http://www.gettysburgsem.org/studies/appendix2.htm and also google Imago Trinitatis Calvin http://www.geocities.com/nythamar/calvin.html
for starters..
The Anabaptist position is harder to find, but I believe Hans Denck wrote a short treatise and the radical reformers were not so pessimistic as Calvin.
Imago Dei and Middleton's latest...
I can’t recall if I put this up on another thread, it’s been a while since I was here and I have lost track rather.
I’ve just been picking around the edges of Richard Middleton’s The Liberating Image, and wondered if anyone else has engaged with this as a prime study on the topic. I’m feeling pretty smug about his direction, seeing image primarily in missional terms, but am being a bit slow in working through his argument. I’ve only known Middleton’s work in partnership with Brian Walsh, and have been a bit surprised at the technical depth and contextual breadth of his approach, so it is slow (but rich) going for me.
Of particular interest, in the light of comments on ethical aspects, would be his last chapters on ‘Created in the image of a Violent God’ and ‘Imaging God’s Primal Generosity’.
But if anyone has already been there some comments might be useful in the context of this discussion.