The Image of God
Introduction
In Jean Bethke Elsthain’s book “Who are we?” she creatively re-narrated the 1982 film Blade runner. It is a story about a blade runner whose mission is to hunt and destroy replicants (androids) who are highly intelligent and can cause great violence. These replicants are manufactured advancely to look and function as a human being. They are implanted with memory of childhood and family including their education, personalities. All of these were all predetermined by their manufacturers as to serve the purpose for their production.
Without the aid of any modern equipment an ordinary human being will not know who among the crowd is a replicant or not. Even the replicant did not know that they are not humans. It became a big threat for the human race when these replicants discovered they are just androids. Greatly troubled by their false existence and identity, the replicants band together and formed a rebel group in resentment and opposition to the human race.
It is here where Deckard (Harrison Ford) special role as the bladerunner came in. As the only person licensed to hunt and destroy the replicant whether they are violent or not, Deckard bloodily and painstakingly hunted down the replicant one by one. Interestingly a twist happened when Deckard fell in love with Rachel, a very lovely woman who helped her a lot in his mission. In the progress of the story Deckard accidentally discovered that Rachel is a replicant. The dilemma for the protagonist Deckard is that he is bond by his mission to kill all the replicant and that includes Rachel. Rachel the replicant or person whom responsible for him fell the true meaning of life and realize the fullness of his humanity. Rachel became very much comfortably human for him. The story culminates with the humans becoming violent and irrational while the replicants became more like human in their search for the meaning of life. Jean Bethke Eslthain emphasizes that the film struggled to answer the questions, who are we? Why we are here? And where am I going? (Eslthain, Who are we?, p. 7-10).
This film reflects not only the psychological but also the spiritual questions of man’s being. I think these questions are profoundly true to every human being. The search for identity and purpose and significance are imbedded in our beings.
I believe that the theology of the image of God in man demands great attention and more critical reflections that pertain to ministry and personal life. It may not be fitting for a replicant to seek for such questions but for sure it very much fitting for us. That if these androids searched for their identity in reference to their manufacturer so much more that we as human beings should search for our identity in the light of God our creator. I deeply enjoy and appreciate the readings and discussions in the theology class especially the topic on the image of God in Man.
Generally, I agree with Hoekema and Dyrness in their discussion in the Image of God. Here are some of the Major Points.
I. Defining the Image of God
In Defining the image of God, I agree with Hoekema in his reference to Louis Berkof in saying that the image of God in man is constituted by the whole aspect of who man is and what man does. It is as he says as having both the structural and the fuctional image of God (Hoekema, p. 68-69). By this, it is clearer for me to see the condition of man before and after the fall. That according to Hoekema, the image of God in man is not rendered totally destroyed. That the image of God in man was still there after the fall but was reflected in his interaction to his creator, fellowmen and the creation in general. That structurally man still reflects the goodness of the image of God in him, (man’s creativity, intellect etc.) but functionally in his decision, direction, motivation and intent was affected. (Hoekema, p.72-73)
II. The image of God in Conversion
This for me appropriately explains the need for a man to repent volitionally of his sins and accept the direction of the reign of the kingdom of God. Where as when we confess that Jesus is Lord, (Rm. 10:9) we will be saved. As Maggay stated in her book transforming society, that when we confess Jesus is Lord is not only a personal appropriation of His lordship but also a social and cosmic reality. That I believe when a person acknowledged the lordship of Christ in his life, he does not only appropriate the rightful direction and function of the image of God in him but also rightfully locates himself in the overall map of God’s will for all creation.
III. The Image of God in the Man-woman relationship
Very much relevant is the discussion regarding the three relational direction of man. Hoekema used Jesus Christ as the perfect model. Truly man is called to be directed to God, to his fellow men and to rule over creation.
Mar Osthathios in his book, Theology of a classless society, that in relation to man as directed to his fellow man said. “My thesis is that ‘God is Love’, means that God is trinity and that love in its ultimacy is co-equal, co-eternal and co-essential as the blessed trinity.” Osthathios reflects on profoundness of the trinity as the basis for relating to our fellow men. He emphasizes that God in trinity is a community of sharing, loving and complete harmony with one another. All are distinct yet equal in all (Osthathios, p. 12)
Interestingly, in the same topic, Hoekema discussed the implications of Man-woman relationship using the creation account. He pointed out that women compliment supplements and complete man. He stated that it is in the union of man and woman that will make them complete. By this he qualified his statement that this is not implying that is only experienced inside marriage only but implying that there is a need for a deep fellowship between human beings. That woman and man can not attain to true humanity in isolation. (Hoekema, p.77) Following the man-woman relationship, Osthathios stated that “A Trinitarian theology of equality inspite of distinction is most applicable in the case of man and woman. Pauline reference to the equality of Jew and Greek, slave and free, Male and female in the body of Christ in Gal. 3:28 do not exclude the functional distinction that man and woman have in historical order. (Osthathios, p. 18) Here Osthathios used the words, ‘distinct but yet equal’, a phrase I think can very much accepted by men and women (especially in the Theology 2 class) in describing their relationship.
It is clearly seen in the Genesis 2 that man and woman are two distinct entities. For the reason that Adam is lonely and necessitates a companion ‘fit’ for him. This for obvious reason man and woman are different their physic, psychology and social function according to their physical endowment. Women are most often the one who take care and nurse the kids because of the natural provision they have for their babies. Men are more often called to be responsible in terms of labor work because of the hard and big physic he has that can compensate for his work. Yet, their being distinct complements each other well when put in a context of a family.
IV. Personal Application of the Image of God in the context of my family
Personally, being a parent is exhausting yet rewarding. Together with my wife, I could have not better experienced the adventure of shared commitment and concern for our family than anybody else. In this, I see God in His character in a very meaningful way. I see the image of God as a triune being reflected inside the context of family, where the husband and wife although distinct in their roles are equal in their value in the family. Also, I can’t think of any other better model of a parent other than God Himself. Who both revealed himself as a nursing mother (Isa. 49:15) and a responsible father in the bible Matt. 7:9-11). I praise God that we have an “Eternal Parent” who enabled us to reflect his character to our very own children.
