Bearing God’s Image
In a philosophy class I took once, I think it was environmental ethics, we discussed at one point the Christian belief that people are made in God’s image, and how for Christians that was the reason why things like cannibalism are bad, but eating beef was acceptable. Or why abortion or eugenics from a Christian ethic are bad; they ultimately violate God because they violate natural man, who is made in God’s image. I agree that the outworking of “bearing God’s image” does mean that man has inherent value and there are ethical implications for this (no cannibalism, etc.). But I wanted to add a dimension to the “made in God’s image” doctrine that I heard recently and see what anybody thinks about it. In a lecture by N.T. Wright recorded some years ago, he talked about the historical dimension (one of his specialties) of what it meant to bear an image in ancient times. Conquering emperors he said (which I verified with my Humanities prof.) would literally set up monuments of themselves in the land that they subdued as a tactic to maintian control. These image bearers had an inherent political function. The Christian, Wright says, has this type of function as an image bearer; they are inherently a sign post to God’s governing authority over everthing, and is inherently a threat to governing authorities that try to conquer even people’s belief in God. Hence the persecution of Christians in the Roman world. I hasten to add that Wright did not say that this is all it meant to bear God’s image, but that the imperial practice of setting up image bearers can be applied to Christians. Now, this dimension seems in line with scripture (thinking of 2 Cor. 3:18; we as Christians reflect God’s glory) and I wondered what other people thought about this. Can we apply the concept of imperial image bearing to the Christian as a way of understanding more fully the doctrine of being made in God’s image, or do we lose something by directly applying this cultural parallel?
εuαγγeλιον θεοu 
March 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I definitely think it is helpful to understand the parallel. If an emperor’s image is sacred, demands respect, and displays authority, how much more God’s. Remember the destruction of Sadam Hussein’s statue in Bagdad right after the invasion? The Iraqi people were so zealous about it and all the news channels reported it as a huge moral victory. There was dancing in the streets just because his image was knocked down, and with the image went the authority.
March 11, 2008 at 6:01 am
Great example Alex! The more I’ve thought about this concept of imperial image bearing the more I like it. It has really helped me to put the emphasis on God as the authority, rather than just on man the image. For a long time I really only thought of this doctrine in connection with the above mentioned ethical implications.
After the sermon this last weekend about politics I’ve realized that one of the ways we reflect God’s image is by being politically involved. Going back to your example of the Hussein statue being toppled over: that is such a vivid image of the kind of work Christians should be doing in their own surroundings. Not just paying lip service to issues, but actually helping to smash down the idols erected by bad leaders. With a regime like Hussein’s which is very obviously physically oppressive the lines are pretty clear cut; defend life against the enemy. But where I really think the doctrine of bearing God’s image can help shed light is in the political issues where the lines are really blured, like cloning for instance. Here’s the beauty of it though: Christians in whatever issue have a powerful position from which to argue, that people are made in God’s image, and in so doing they are reflecting the image of God and confronting society level idols.
January 26, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Another level at which abortion truly grieves the heart of God.