I do not have any children yet but that has nothing to do with them not being made in my image or likeness. My children will always, because of being biologically half of me and half their mother, be in the image of me and in the image of their mother. It is because we are the procreators that they are in the image of us. The same thing goes for any biolgical children they have with their spouses. We can trace it back all the way to the first couple, Adam and Eve. We are made in the image of Adam and Eve by biological generation. Adam and Eve, then are also said to be made in the image of God in Genesis 1:26. We can logically imply then that if Adam and Eve are made in the image of God and we are made, through biological generation, in the image of Adam and Eve that we are also made in the image of God.
A logical question we must ask is, “What is the image of God?” We already answered what it means, but what is it? This is an ontological question. It is also an economic question. By economic I do not mean pertaining to money and commerce rather I mean how we function within the world. The same terms are applied to the Trinity. The ontological Trinity is the essence of it or the relation it has to existence. The economic Trinity pertains to how the Trinity works in salvation history. Asking an ontological question about the image of God is going to land us in the realm of philosophy and theology, or more specifically philosophical theology.
The imago dei has been hotly debated for years by all positions on the spectrum so this is no easy task. But ontologically, “image of God” simply means what a plain reading would give you. Humans have qualities that are a snapshot of the some qualities God himself has. This “being” part of the equation really, I think, helps us understand what is meant by “image of God.” We humans just simply bear some of the qualities that God possesses, but in a finite way. For a more in-depth look at this see Pint 1 of this series where we explore the ontological question a bit deeper.
Economically, things change up but only slightly. Remember that just because we move from the ontological to the economic, the ontological is not lost or forgotten about. The ontological, or isness is still fully intact and present and becomes the launch pad for the discussion of the economic.
We already have a good idea of what the ontological imago dei is and from that the economic imago dei springs because without the ontological we would have nothing to talk about in the real world working out of the imago dei. All people bear the image of God and that it is the, for lack of a better term, manifestation of those image bearing qualities that we should be affirming. Humans of all beliefs are capable of acting out their image bearing qualities. Why? Simply because they are, ontologically, image bearers. You cannot take that away from them and when they exemplify their ontological image bearing, it ought to be pointed out as a praise to them which in turn is a praise to he who made that person. We cannot get rid of it! Being made in the image of God is just who we are and it helps make so much more sense of things like moral issues once it is properly examined.
I think an example is fitting here. My friend, whom we will call CJ, at one point did not consider himself a Christian. In fact, he wanted to distance himself from that title because he did not want to associate himself with something he did not believe in, yet at the same time when I was going through my divorce, was acting in a more Christ-like manner than some of the Christians in my life. He would just sit there and listen to me and only offer input when needed or asked. When I was crying in our living room, he sat next to me, put his arm around me, maybe he said something simple like, “I know…”, and that was it. CJ was exemplifying the attributes imputed to him as a man made in the image of God. He had no reason to do what he did other than love. CJ did not do come to my side out of personal gain that he would attain from acting on it. He did what he did because of the relationship we had built since 2nd grade.
Acting like this was natural for CJ, why? Because of his ontology that worked its way into the economy of life. CJ didn’t have to think about how he could actively showcase the image of God in me by acting upon his image bearingness. He did what any good friend would do, comfort his friend in the most gentle way possible.
Is it just in relationships between people that the imago dei is shown? Not in the slightest! We see all the time goods coming out of things like the sciences and arts. The thing itself cannot have an inherent moral quality to it because it has not moral responsibility, or culpability. The person who utilizes the thing produced by the moral agent bears that responsibility. The goods that I am referring to are things like the discovery of black holes or a new species of fish or a piece of music you deem good (I will let you insert your own song here that you think is good). Producing goods like these are merely expressions of us being image bearers. They can be used for good or evil by an agent, but the thing itself is not inherently one or the other.
Like I said, it is the moral agent that is responsible for making use of a tool for good or for evil. Take for instance black holes. A famous man by the name of Stephen Hawking, discovered them as part of his physics dissertation. Although he was not militant, Hawking was a known opponent of Christianity. Yet, his lack of a positive relationship with God has no bearing on his ability to use his mind to discover a truth about the universe we live in. Intellect was a common grace that God most definitely granted to Hawking. His use of it to discover a truth is immensely powerful. The evil comes in then when what was intended for good (the truth about black holes in the universe and how they are beneficial to it), is used for evil (trying to convince others that God does not exist). As a point of clarity, evil in this sense is to used as the opposite of good. If God is real then that is true and what is true is good and making an argument that argues against something that is true(good) can be classified as an evil.
That’s enough philosophical rambling for one day. The point is that though someone is able to discover a truth about the universe and how it works and not have a right relationship with God! That is a wonderful example of the imago dei and it should be praised and affirmed. It is what they do or do not do with that truth that becomes an issue. It is a part of who they are as the imago dei. Humanity cannot get around it. Humanity cannot get around acting like it. It is a part of our intentional design, and though it is corrupted, it is not totally destroyed making our functionality still workable in this world though not proper. For more on proper functionality see the previous post.
Brewed Up Apologetics 