Made in the Image, part 2
April 8th, 2009[Moderator's note: This is the second post by Kathrin Halder in a series. She continues exploring her thinking regarding the imago dei and its relationship to counseling matters. Ms. Halder is part of the Christian psychology movement in Germany and works for IGNIS, a training center. *We apologize for the lenthy delay between Kathrin's first post and this one. The delay was caused by a technical glitch that prevented new posts from being loaded to the blog.]
Some might read my last post and wonder, “That sounds nice. You must have had an experience that moved your thinking. But aren’t you overly stressing that we are wonderfully made and leaving out our sin, weakness, and dependency?”
Yes, I did stress the one side. But since many stress human sinfulness, it seemed to be worthwhile to focus on the other side for one post. But of course we need to try to bring it together.
I have noticed that many of those who stress the positive side of our being created in the image of God seem to suggest that the imago dei is (a) substantival, and (b) at least partially untouched by the fall.
There are others who speak of the imago dei in relational terms (rather than of substance). The image of God seen through a relational lens focuses on the relationship to God. As the fall destroys the relationship with God, the imago dei is also destroyed.
Surprisingly enough, in reflecting on these two ways to view the image of God, I felt that the Spirit of God was leading me in a similarly deep process towards the relational interpretation. Let me explain why. First, we are totally dependent on God. Without him, we are nothing. Second, the substance interpretation of the imago dei may lead us to believe that we function independently from God. Consider instead the teaching of a “Creatio Continua”–an ongoing creation relationship between God and humanity. God remains in an ongoing relationship to this world, speaks into this world continuously, and sustains humanity who would otherwise fall to pieces and return to dust.
In these last days [God]has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.” (Hebr. 1, 2-3a)
“If He should determine to do so, if He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust.” (Job 34, 14-15)
I will never forget a specific day where I thought about that while going for a walk. Suddenly God spoke to me in a clear way, making known that I could only take the next step due to His sustaining power. I felt so close to God as we did one step after the other together, feeling His speaking strength and power into my bones very strongly.
And then the metaphor of a wellspring and river came to my mind. God is the wellspring. He is the only source of water (i.e., life, strength, love, well-being etc). We are the river. We receive and need to continuously receive water of the wellspring to be able to live, love and be of good health. Without the relation to God, we can’t live or love.
“The basic attitude of humility recognizes that no person loves or does any good without the help of God, so that whatever acts of kindness or virtue a person performs, whatever strength or happiness one has, one’s ability to work well and to love well – all these are possible because God gives them to the creatures as God’s good gifts.”
But doesn’t that lead us back to a very pessimistic picture of man as a sinful fallen creature, that doesn’t have any water due to his separation from God? Doesn’t that destroy everything we heard about man as the wonderful imago dei? Only if we misunderstand what happens in the fall. In my understanding we broke off with God, but God never broke off from us? If He had, we would have returned to dust. But as He allows His water to flow even to us weak and fallen creatures by speaking life and love into us, he himself sustains His wonderful creation (at least in part).
But let’s take a deeper look at the consequences for the wonderful creation next week …
Reference: Bondi, Roberta C. (1987): To love as God loves; Conversations with the early church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press

June 11th, 2009 at 11:21 am
“In my understanding we broke off with God, but God never broke off from us?” Actually, according to Genesis, God broke with us because of the actions of Adam and Eve. It was apparent that A & E did not realize that this would be God’s choice of dealing with their indiscretion (for who would deliberately plan to get kicked out of Paradise?).
From a therapist’s POV, I think we should seriously reassess our “blame the victim” approach to Scripture.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Lightbearer, good to “see” you over here. Two thoughts: “But God never broke off from us” is probably meant more as an ultimate response as in “he never abandoned us permenantly.” Second, realization of the consequences (or not as the case was with Adam and Eve) doesn’t make them victims. Maybe you were referring to something else?
June 12th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Phil, good to “see” you to
One: Okay, I can buy that interpretation. But when combined with “…no person loves or does any good without the help of God…” it begs for explanation for the source of “bad.”
Two: The A&E story is the first of many examples that are told in the light of how humans deliberately sin, and God merely responds. But that’s not how the story actually reads at all; A&E were deliberately set up to fail by God.
Just like any parent, God is responsible not only for the actions of his young children, but for managing the attachment style of the relationship as well. So shifting all responsibility onto A&E is victimization.
Do you thing A&E developed attachment disorders as a result?