Page 58 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 13

them. McKirkland (2015) that unresolved is- humanity as made in the image of God.
sues about the nature of human personhood, Another approach to understanding the imago
what happens to the image of God during the Dei is to adopt a multifaceted or eclectic view
intermediate disembodied state after death and that attempts to draw from all of the influen-
before the resurrection, or about how predesti- tial views (Grentz, 2001, Hoekema, 1986, Mc-
narians should understand the image of God Minn & Campbell, 2007). Hoekema argues that
in those whom are not predestined to be con- the notions of structural capacity, function and
formed to the image of Christ arise from pro- relationality are interwoven in various Biblical
posals such as Kilner’s. Lysen (2017) notes that conceptions and each one captures some aspect
Peterson’s account assumes an idea that the hu- of the imago Dei. Building on this notion, Mc-
man identity “is inalienable yet unrealized” (p. Minn and Campbell (2007) relate each of the
119). Peterson appreciates the teleological no- three views as a theological integrative frame-
tion in Irenaeus that humans were not created work for different psychotherapy orientations.
originally in their final state but rejects Irenae- While many commentators find valuable in-
us’ idea that imago Dei is only a potentiality in sights offered in different views, they often at-
Eden. But by granting that the humans do not tempt to reframe the insights in light of their
perfectly reflect God at present or that the ima- own dominant paradigm about the imago Dei.
go Dei is to be equated with a kind of potentia- If none of the views have demonstrated veraci-
lity, Peterson leaves unexplained how the ima- ty, such eclectic approaches may constitute a
go Dei is now present only to a degree and yet leaky bucket fallacy (i.e., when multiple faulty
equally possessed by each human. theories are combined they do not automatical-
A criticism of the relational view is that it is an ly fix each other’s flaws so the composite may
anachronistic reading to see the imago Dei as not “hold water” any better than the theories in
an analogy between human and Trinitarian re- isolation). An argument for the validity of the
lationality in Genesis. Would it not be anachro- composite is needed that shows how the indi-
nistic as well to understand the Genesis 1 use vidual flaws in the component parts in isolation
of the image of God phrase as referring to our are no longer an issue for them in combination.
telos in Christ? Kilner (2015) makes a case that
because the author of Genesis does not stop to Constitution & the Imago Dei
explain what is meant by tselem, it is reasonable The issue of the human constitution or human
to assume the author intended it in an ordinary ontology is one of specifying what “makes up”
and conventional way. The Christological telos human beings (Churchhouse, 2017, Erick-
would not have been obvious to the author or son, 2013). This is an equally challenging topic
the author’s audience when Genesis was writ- in theological anthropology that can be co-
ten. Similarly, Peterson’s (2016) account re- mingled with how the imago Dei is understood.
quires the benefit of the whole Canonical nar- Those who hold particular ontological views of
rative to understand the breadth of the imago the person, such as the substantive view that
Dei. Even if we just limit ourselves to the under- humans are souls, have often then read that on-
standing of the imago Dei in the creation narra- tological emphasis back into their understan-
tive on Peterson’s terms retrograde theological ding of the imago Dei. Dorman (2001) notes
impositions may be needed. What basis is there that “throughout the history of Christian doc-
to assume that the Genesis author understands trine the majority of theologians have defined
the dominion charge just as a consequence of the imago dei as relating to the faculties of the
humanity’s identification with the imago Dei human soul common to all human beings” (p.
but not as its definition? Despite their canonical, 109). But as Churchhouse (2017) observes:
synthetic, and systematic value, such approa- …. imago Dei studies and human constitution
ches may leave unanswered the more particular doctrine are distinct anthropological areas. The
exegetical question of what presumptively clear first arises from the phrase in Genesis 1, which
contemporaneous meaning would have been emphasizes the identity and (teleological) pur-
intended by the author of Genesis in describing pose of humanity, so theologically, it is right to

56