Page 55 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 13

Theologies of the Imago Dei bearing structure that can be known by hu-
mans? Substantivists have frequently proposed
Table 1 presents the three major families of some characteristic, or group of Godward cha-
views about the imago Dei. Some key lines of racteristics, as constituting the substance of the
support and criticism are also presented. We divine image. They have often identified facul-
will now briefly summarize each of these views ties, such as reason, they assert are present in
and their current status. humans but not in non-human animals. Some
have claimed their understanding of the uni-
Substantive/Structural. The dominant Christian que aspect of the image in humans is evident in
theological tradition until recently has been the Scripture. Others substantivists do not presume
substantive or structural view. This view holds the relevant faculties are denoted in Scripture
that the imago Dei is a quality or compacity but have proposed characteristics that they be-
of humans that reflects a quality or capacity of lieve can be synthesized with Biblical teaching
God such as possession of a soul, conscious- without conflict.
ness. reason, or volition/agency (Blomberg, Despite the longstanding acceptance of the sub-
2016, Erikson, 2013, McGrath, 2017). The term stantive-structural view, it has fallen out of favor
“substance” is used in this context to refer to in contemporary theology. It is perhaps not sur-
some constitutional similarity between humans prising in an era after Darwin that worldviews
and God, although orthodox proponents are which espouse a radical discontinuity between
quick to deny any physical similarity. Boyd and humanity and the animal kingdom would be-
Eddy (2002) articulate a common form of this come challenged. Yet not everyone as ceded the
view: “the imago Dei means that in all of God’s territory. For instance, Moreland (2009) de-
creation, humans have a soul. The imago Dei is fends a non-reductive, dualistic view of cons-
not something we do; it is something we are. It ciousness as marking a “recalcitrant imago Dei”
is our essence” (p. 76). that cannot be eliminated by contemporary re-
This view is also known as the structural view ductionist efforts.
since an alternative way of describing it is that Yet there are other considerations that have ero-
humans are structured with characteristics that ded support for the traditional view. While the
represent analogous characteristics of God. The demonstration of distinctive human capacities
capacity to reason was a frequent contender for that seem analogous to attributes of God provi-
such a mirroring capacity. Augustine sees an de an intuitive reason to identify such capacities
analogy in a proposed tripartite structure of the with the imago Dei, such post hoc observations
human rational faculties (memory, intellect, vo- do not demonstrate by themselves that this is
lition) and the Trinity (Augustine, 2002, Drever, what the Bible means by terms conveying the
2013, McGrath, 2016). Aquinas would similarly imago Dei in their original context. Critics of
emphasize rationality (Aquinas, 2010, Dorman, the substantive view have noted that the text
2001). does not tell us what precisely makes up the
A number of lines of support have been advan- image or likeness of God that humanity re-
ced in favor of the substantive or structural view. flects (Cortex, 2010). MacDonald (2008) com-
It is the clearly dominant Christian interpretati- ments “…. there is widespread agreement that
on of the imago Dei in Christian tradition until the traditional understanding of the imago as
recent centuries (Berkouwer, 1962, Erickson, an intellectual, spiritual or moral faculty has to
2013, McGrath, 2017). Substantive views often be abandoned and that its significance must be
assert that the divine reflection present from a established on exegetical grounds rather than
possession of a soul provides a robust basis for as an a posteriori comparison with the animal
human equality and worth regardless of one’s kingdom” (p. 304).
station, abilities, race, gender or other diffe- As we noted, the most common capacity ad-
rences (Boyd & Eddy, 2002; Dorman, 2001). Is vanced as a constituent for the divine image has
there difference between creatures that God has been the human rational faculties. A number of
structured to distinctively possess His image scholars over the last century have alleged this

53