Page 67 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 13
P. 67

ment. This seems to resonate well with traditio-  to judge what God can do, or may already be
             nal substantive views of the imago Dei although   doing, within that person’s telos?
             I  am  not  here  suggesting  that  understanding   Some of us will not move eternally on a telos
             was the intended meaning of the imago terms       that realizes that image. But this side of the es-
             in Genesis 1 simpliciter.                         chaton,  what  human  can  separate  the  wheat
             Still, humans are not just enduring spirits who   from the tares without risking throwing out the
             are coincidentally embodied. As Biblical theo-    wheat? It is an act of sinful hubris for Christians
             logy and contemporary neuroscience have both      to think themselves superior to others in rea-
             argued, our conscious mental life is constituted,   lizing the image or likeness of God or to view
             constrained and made possible to a substantial    others as hopelessly having lost the imago Dei
             degree by our embodied condition. Our embo-       because  a  particular  subset  of  characteristics
             died cognition works in such a way that we are    that we have focused on appear lacking. There
             unavoidably in relationship to others. We “walk   is no warrant for us to make such judgments. By
             in others’ shoes” mentally and emotionally to     abiding in the life of the Spirit, God has provided
             some degree just by observing them. We form       the way for the redeemed to be conformed into
             our self-understanding and acquire competen-      His image. To encounter Jesus in the Gospels
             cies in the world by imitating others. Thus, as   is to be confronted with just how many areas
             constituted,  humans  are  inherently  relational   that implicates for our needed transformation.
             beings.                                           The telos of the embodied Christian this side of
             Still humans are not just enduring spirits who in   the intermediate and resurrected state is to live
             their embodied constitutions are also relational   in the body of Christ in a unified community
             beings. We were created to represent a supre-     realizing the divine image to a sufficient degree
             mely relational and morally perfect being. We     so that the world may know the Father sent the
             serve this function of being God’s icon before    Son (John 17:21).
             a watching world now with various degrees of
             realization, as the indwelling Spirit bears fruit   References
             allowing us to imitate Christ (1 Peter 2:21) and   Augustine (2002). On the Trinity (G.B. Matthews, Ed). Cam-
             others ahead of us on the pilgrim’s trail (1 Cor   bridge: Cambridge University. (original work published 400).
             11:1). Because imitation works not as mere mi-    Aquinas, T. (2010). Summa Theologica. [Kindle DX version].
                                                               Retrieved  from  www.amazon.com.  (Original  work  published
             micry but by grasping intention-action-to out-    1265-1274).
             come  sequences,  with  the  Spirit’s  indwelling   Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damsio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for
             and sanctifying presence, we may begin to walk    actions: findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Phy-
             as  He  walked  with  a  renewed  mind  (Romans   siology-Paris, 102 (1-3), 35-39.
             12:2).                                            Baron-Cohen S, Tager-Flusberg H, Lombardo MV, (eds.)(2013).
                                                               Understanding other minds: Perspectives From social cognitive
             If a so positioned integrative understanding of   neuroscience (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press
             the  imago  Dei  subsumes  aspects  of  all  of  the   Barr, J. (1968). The image of God in Genesis-A study in termino-
             three  major  views,  does  it  avoid  their  pitfalls   logy. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 51, 11-26.
             alleged by Kilner (2016)? What of the unrege-     Barth, K. (1958). The doctrine of creation. In G.W. Bromley &
             nerate who will not move towards a realization    T.F. Torrance (Eds), Church dogmatics, 3 (pt 1). Edinburgh: T &
                                                               T Clark.
             of the perfect image of God seen in Jesus? What   Berkouwer, G.C. (1962) Studies in dogmatic. Man: The Image of
             of those who have disorders that in some way      God. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
             interfere with the realization of some facets that   Bertolero, M. A., Yeo, B. T. T., Bassett, D. S., & D‘Esposito, M.
             reflect what God intends us to reflect? All of us   (2018). A mechanistic model of connector hubs, modularity and
             are imperfect reflectors of the divine radiance   cognition. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 765-777.
                                                               Boyd, G.A., & Eddy, P.R. (2002). Across the spectrum: Under-
             in  this  pre-glorified  and  fallen  state.  But  any   standing Issues in Evangelical theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
             person may be on the path towards reflecting      Bray, G.L. (1991). The significance of God’s image in man. Tyn-
             the  image  of  Christ  more  fully.  Even  if  some   dale Bulletin, 42(2), 195-225.
             seem so impaired or so marred by the effects of   Briggs, R.S. (2010). The image of God and other things Genesis
             sin that God’s glory does not seem in any way     does not make clear. Journal of Theological Interpretation, 4 (1),
                                                               111-126.
             present within the earthen vessel, who are we     Brueggemann,  W.  (1982).  Genesis:  A  Bible  commentary  for

                                                           65
   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72