The Image of God in the Developmentally Disabled
David M. Anderson, Jr. 1
The current culture of America is pushing for toleration of all kinds. On the religious scene, pluralism has become the accepted norm. In the classroom, absolutism is a forgotten bygone. Ethically, many believers are being coerced into accepting propositions which do not fit with their biblical understanding. Sadly, this toleration agenda in today’s world has had a profound effect in the medical world; specifically in the sector of bioethics. The vehicle of abortion is being driven by innumerable sources of misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Biblical and even scientific truth. Euthanasia has become a popular topic as scientists and doctors have endeavored to define what it means to live from a God-less perspective. The list could go on, but the bottom line is this: without the authority of God’s word, man is left to his self-centered and sinful reasoning and logic to determine what is right in these sensitive areas.
This horrific moral scene has only added to the confusion and complexity of society’s interaction with the intellectually and developmentally disabled. A recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention showed the increasing number of developmental disabilities present in children between the ages of three and seventeen years old.[1] Another study by the Census Bureau indicated a 200 billion dollar budget for discretionary spending on those with disabilities, and a 357 billion dollar budget to provide work for those who are of working age but are limited by severe disabilities.[2] So far, it seems this country is doing what it can to meet the needs of this growing disabled community. With the present redefining of terms, however, this group of people is endangered by any interpretation of personhood contrary to Scripture.
Therefore, it is indeed necessary to flesh out the doctrine of man and his relationship to the image of God. Only on these grounds will believers understand how they ought to interact and care for the disabled and the outcasts of society. The Bible’s teaching of God’s creation of man in His own image has direct implications for the value and treatment of the disabled. Through the development of a biblical theology of this doctrine, the examination of various perspectives on the value of life, and appropriate synthesis of the two, this article will seek to demonstrate the God-given value of intellectually and developmentally disabled people and the proper response elicited by such truth.
A Biblical Theology of the Image of God in Man
In order to build a thorough biblical theology of this controversial issue, it is necessary to examine all the various passages in Scripture pertaining to it. There are only a few passages that speak directly of the image of God in man. Thus, they will be given brief but adequate treatment.
Genesis 1:26-27
It could certainly be argued that this passage is the cornerstone upon which the doctrine of the image of God in man is built. The context is the sixth day of creation. God has just created all the animals and now comes to the peak of this creation week, as he creates that which will have dominion over all the rest of His creation.
Scholars debate whether the terms for “image” and “likeness” refer to the same thing or to a dual aspect of the image of God. Many have claimed that “image” must refer to the concrete and absolute image, whereas “likeness” simply hints at a reflection of who God is. These would say the concrete part of God’s image or the “material image” was only in man until the fall, at which point it was lost. Because the reflection of God’s image or the “formal image” is unchangeable and cannot be affected by sin, they would claim this portion remains in man.[3]
However, as one looks critically at the text, it should be noted that “image” and “likeness” here are acting as synonyms describing one fact from two angles. If one assumes a duality by these terms, then it must logically infer that God has a body, for man could not be an exact copy of a bodiless figure.[4] Hence, it seems more logical to take a singular approach to these two terms. Gordon Clark further explains this reasoning as he writes, “God created man after his image and likeness. This image cannot be man’s body for two reasons. First, God is spirit or mind and has no body. Hence a body would not be an image of him. Second, animals have bodies, yet they are not created in God’s image.”[5] It seems the correct interpretation of these two terms is to take them as synonyms referring to the same thing.
This passage is also important for the understanding of man’s relation to the rest of God’s creation. Ken Gardoski explains, “The Bible teaches that God made man in his own image, according to his own likeness. This sets man apart from the other forms of life that God created. God has crowned man with glory and majesty and has made him to rule over the rest of God’s creation.”[6] It is important to understand from Genesis 1 that man has been given something that makes him the highest of all God’s creation: the image of God.
Genesis 5:1
Not much debate has gone on concerning this passage, because it is a basic reiteration of Genesis 1:27. The only point worth noting here is that this statement of Adam being created in the likeness and image of God is the prelude to the listing of the generations which followed Adam. Could it be that Moses, as the Holy Spirit directed him, thought it important to reemphasize this peculiar trait of Adam’s race before recording all who then made up this race? One cannot be conclusive regarding Moses’ intentions, but that point is certainly worth consideration.
Genesis 9:6
If the Genesis 1 passage is the cornerstone upon which this doctrine is built, then this passage might very well be the corner stud. Noah and his family have just recently exited the ark after the great flood. Having smelled the aroma of Noah’s worshipful sacrifice, God is now making a new covenant with him and his family. As he is outlining this covenant, he lays out ordinances by which Noah and his sons will govern the earth that they are about to replenish. Amid these ordinances, God tells Noah that murder shall not be permitted. The basis for this ordinance is that mankind bears the image of his Creator.
Gadorski explains the importance of this passage as he reasons through it:
Because God created man in his own image, God highly values human life. God defends man’s right to life against those who would threaten it or take it away. In Genesis 4:10-12 God cursed Cain for murdering his brother Abel (although he spared Cain’s life). However, after the flood in Genesis 9:5-6 God demands the life of anyone who takes the life of another human being: “Surely I will require your lifeblood . . . from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” The reason God gives for requiring the life of the one who takes life is this: “For in the image of God He made man.” Thus in Scripture man’s right to life (not to mention the right of government to carry out capital punishment) is based on man’s bearing the very image of God his Creator.[7]
This teaching is quite valuable as one begins to develop an apologetic for the sanctity of life issues that are faced in today’s culture.
1 Corinthians 11:7
This passage is highly controversial, but the image of God is not so much the point of dispute here. Paul is teaching the Corinthian believers about the importance and necessity of role distinction between men and women and fleshing out his teaching in the context of the local church. His reference here to the image of God in man is really just drawing the Corinthians’ attention back to the created order. So in that sense, it does not add much to the discussion of what the image of God in man actually is. Nevertheless, Paul’s teaching does highlight the fact that man was made in God’s image so he could glorify God supremely.
According to Genesis, both Adam and Even were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). What then did Paul mean by saying that man is the image . . . of God in contrast with woman? He probably meant that Adam held a special status (glory) as God’s image because he was created first. God made Adam directly from the dust, but he made Eve from Adam’s body. This gave Adam and his male descendants a unique role on earth that could not be held in the same way by women (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12–13).
This perspective seems even more likely because Paul not only described man as the image of God, but also as the glory of God. Adam was not designed for his own glory, but for God’s. Before making Eve, God placed Adam in the garden of God and commissioned him to work the land in his service (Gen. 2:15). In this sense, therefore, the male descendants of Adam have a more direct responsibility to serve God in the fulfillment of his creation mandate.[8]
It is not the intent of this article to highlight the different roles of men and women in the church, but from this passage to point out that man was created in God’s image primarily to give God glory.
Colossians 3:10
In this section of Colossians, Paul is differentiating between the old man and the new man. He introduces a crucial “twist” to the understanding of the image of God in this passage. He writes that man is being “renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him.” The question at hand then is this: how can man’s image of God be renewed in knowledge? Gordon Clark offers an explanation:
The reason theologians have asserted a duality of the image, rather than the unity of the image and the plurality of its activities, the reason also that Paul indicates some sort of duality by mentioning righteousness in Ephesians 4:24 and knowledge in Colossians 3:10 is the occurrence of sin. Since Adam remained Adam after the fall, it looks as if some “part” of the image survived; but since also Adam lost his original innocence and Cain committed murder, was not some “part” of the image lost? Man did not lose dominion over the animals; he also retained some other items; but in comparison with his changed relation to God, animals are of minor importance and the other items require little discussion. Sin, on the other hand, and its effects are of such great importance and require such frequent mention that a duality in the image, one half of which is lost, appears as a natural interpretation. Such an ontological separation of two parts has seemed to many theologians the best method of maintaining both of two truths: that man after the fall is still man, and that sin is far from trivial or superficial.[9]
Clark makes a valid point that must be understood regarding the image of God in man. Part of the image of God in man was certainly lost in the fall, but not all of it. So, all of mankind is still in the image of God, but the image has been marred. That is why Paul clearly teaches that the image of God is something that is also renewed in man as he has come into a regenerated relationship with God and is sanctified by him. Thus the image of God in man is not entirely static, but rather a fluid development toward that end.[10]
James 3:9
James adds yet another important aspect to the doctrine of the image of God in man. In the beginning of chapter three, James presents pointed teaching about the believer’s use of his tongue. This passage is particularly noteworthy because unlike the rest of the New Testament passages with similar language, it does not reference Christ while discussing the image of God. Furthermore, an important clarification can be made here by James’ acknowledgment of all mankind. He does not teach that it is wrong to curse believers who are made in God’s image; rather he teaches the sinfulness of cursing any member of the human race because all are made in the likeness of their Creator. This strongly combats any idea that the image of God is limited to regenerate persons.
Kurt Richardson appropriately elaborates on the teaching of James as he writes, “Clearly, James taught that the original stamp of the likeness of God in the human creature is still present. . . . The human being was made for God, fashioned to know God and to reflect the attributes of God in a creaturely way. To dishonor any human being in some way dishonors God.”[11] Thus one can safely conclude that God’s image is in no way reserved only for the elect.
Summary
It is necessary now to summarize the doctrine of the image of God as it has been discussed thus far. James Bing offers a starting point from a simply logical perspective as he says in one of his sermons, “One thing is sure. At the beginning of creation God did not intend for man to be cruel, criminal, and evil. The very fact that we have the word ‘inhuman,’ meaning animalistic in our vocabulary, implies that the act of being human is an ideal state.” He continues, “And we also have the word ‘humane’ which means ‘civilized,’ and ‘humanitarian,’ which suggest kindness and being helpful to others. The very existence and use of these terms is an indication of our potential worth (emphasis his).”[12]
The assertions of Scripture must be given more weight than linguistic logic, however. A few claims can be made from the previous examination of Scripture. First, man was created in the image of God, after his likeness. Second, all humanity is unified in the bearing of God’s image – none are exempt. This is clarified in the Traducian teaching of Adam’s relationship to the human race; because the breath of life was only once breathed into man’s nostrils, it can be said that God has ceased from his creative work. Thus, it can be inferred that what was given to Adam in creation has been passed to all men. Third, this image of God was marred in the fall. Following the view of Adam’s natural headship, the image of God was marred in Adam’s sin. Just as the sin nature was passed from Adam to all men, so the marred image was passed. Fourth, this stamp of God’s image confers value and dignity upon all mankind. These four truths are obviously not all that is to be gleaned from these passages, but they form a solid foundation upon which the rest of this article can build.
Now that a biblical theology of the image of God in man has been built, it is necessary to unpack the truth and flesh it out practically. One of the most basic – and admittedly most broad – questions asked on this topic is this: what is the image of God? Several scholars have made attempts to capture the teachings of Scripture and present them logically in explanation. Others have tried to redefine personhood so as to undermine the image of God in man. Although it will not be possible to touch on all of the various perspectives, it will be helpful to examine at least a few Christian and secular perspectives.
Perspectives on the Image of God
Gordon Clark argues that the image of God in man must be reason. He claims that if it were anything more, total depravity and the image of God could not both be encapsulated in man. In other words, mankind can be in the image of God and sin at the same time because sin presupposes rationality and voluntary decision. Animals, then, cannot sin. “Sin therefore requires God’s image because man is responsible for his sins. If there were no responsibility, there could be nothing properly called sin.”[13]
To this point, some would claim that if one acknowledges that he is dead in sin, then he must affirm either that the image has been lost altogether or that the image has multiple parts. Clark responds with a solution to this paradox by asserting that the image of God is reason. He bases this assertion on the fact that Christ is the image of God and the wisdom of God (Hebrew 1:3) and on the fact that Adam was given dominion over nature – suggesting that his rationality is what set him apart from the animal kingdom. Therefore, according to Clark, this is how sin and the image of God interact: sin interferes with man’s thinking, but does not prevent man from thinking (e.g. Adam thinking incorrectly in the Garden of Eden with regard to the fruit). Further proof of this fact is that in regeneration and sanctification the man is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.
Feinberg recaps some of the ideas of other scholars in his article, “The Image of God.” He summarizes Keil and Delitzsch as finding the image of God in the spiritual or self-conscious personality of man. He also explains Chafer’s thinking, which seems to be in agreement that in light of God’s spirit form, the likeness of man to God must be limited to the immaterial part of man. Feinberg then quotes Calvin’s supporting statement, “there is no doubt that the proper seat of his image is in the soul.”[14] All of these men seem to agree in dismissing the possibility of man bearing God’s image bodily. On the other hand, Feinberg accused the Lutherans of having believed historically that the image of God in man was lost completely in the fall.[15]
Perspectives on Personhood
Two differing positions regarding personhood have been developed in more recent times as the culture has called for positions alternative to those of Scripture. Joseph Fletcher has been a leading proponent and writer for the functionalist perspective. He wrote two foundational articles in 1972 and 1974. In his first article, Fletcher produced a list of fifteen positive and five negative criteria for determining the personhood of any individual.[16]Ware writes about Fletcher’s first article:
A pattern is evident throughout Fletcher’s discussion. He proposes some characteristic of fully-formed human life and suggests a minimal level of its expression as necessary for human personhood. What he never suggests, however, is any rational basis by which he determines which characteristics become criteria or what guides his judgment of the minimal levels necessary for personhood to be properly grounded. One is left to wonder from where this list of fifteen positive and five negative criteria arose.[17]
In his second article, Fletcher narrowed personhood to four traits. One of these traits proved to be the foundational trait to his whole paradigm: neocortical function. “Only this trait or capability is necessary to all of the other traits which go into the fullness of humanness. Therefore this indicator, neocortical function, is the first-order requirement and the key to the definition of a human being.”[18] In other words, the mind or thinking is essential to every other human capacity, according to Fletcher, because of their universality. Ware responded to Fletcher’s assertion by reminding the reader that Fletcher would have to exclude cases like the human embryo and patients in a persistent vegetative state to claim universality.[19]
Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer developed a similar study pertaining to abortion in which they criticized Fletcher of overlapping personhood with humanhood. They set about to redefine the criteria and came to a conclusion which, according to Ware, confers the moral rights of personhood upon many in the animal kingdom while denying these rights to unborn babies, newborns, and many other humans.[20]
In opposition to the functionalist view is that of the essentialists. This group argues that an individual’s personhood is not anchored in his variable functional capabilities but rather in his essence, as a rational, volitional, spiritual, and personal being. “The point here is not that these qualities necessarily find expression by the individual but that one possesses a nature whose natural kind is, in fact, personal.”[21] Ware also recaps the ideas presented by essentialist, Agneta Sutton:
Sutton argues that because of the variableness of actual functionings, one can never properly define personhood in Lockean (functionalist) fashion. The Boethian approach takes priority because it focuses on the nature of the individual in question, regardless of whether or not certain functions may be presently manifest. That is, because functions flow out of nature, not the reverse, it makes sense to define personhood on what has priority, namely, one’s intrinsic nature.[22]
Sutton firmly contends that actual manifestations of functional capabilities cannot be the determinate factor for personhood. Otherwise, infants, comatose individuals, and perhaps even sleeping individuals would be precluded from personhood. For Sutton, nature is foundational to functional capability expression. “If the nature is present, the individual is a person; manifestation of the functional capabilities of that nature is a relative matter in which some may express more or less, or higher or lower functioning than others. But possession of the nature itself is not relative, but absolute; either one has such a nature or one does not.”[23]
So who is right? Is personhood determined by the exhibition of characteristics declared by society to be that which comprises humanness? Or, is personhood found simply in the essence of personality? The functionalistic approach suffers from its subjectivity. Ware points out, interestingly enough, that the criterion set forth for what determines personhood is basically a mirror image of those defining the criterion. “It is rational, self-conscious, self-directed, volitional, relational individuals who propose rationality, self-consciousness, self-directedness, volitionality, and relationality as criteria for personhood. In short, individuals like me (in ways I specify) are persons; those unlike me (according to the characteristics I have selected as significant) are not.”[24] There is no absolute ground upon which to build the criteria; and this is evidenced by the fact that functionalists cannot agree on which criteria to accept.
However, many theologians have been accused of adopting a functionalist mindset pertaining to the image of God in man. Some of the same characteristics that were adopted by functionalists as fundamental to personhood were used by theologians as such for the image of God in man.
This tension is eloquently resolved by Ware toward the end of his discussion:
The only satisfying resolution to this quandary, I believe, is by establishing, as the essentialist model does, the priority of essence over function. More simply, who we are is more basic to our identity than what we do. This is true both because what we do may vary greatly (i.e., we may grow and develop in certain ways while diminishing or ceasing to function in others) and because the things that we do are always, as Saucy puts it, “grounded in and are the expression of the ontological being of human person.”[25]
Thus, the essentialist model seems to be much more in line with a biblical understanding of the image of God in man resulting in personhood.
Summary
Having established a foundational biblical theology concerning the image of God in man and having examined some of the more popular perspectives on personhood, it is now fitting to relate this information to the intellectually and developmentally impaired. To start, it is necessary to establish a working definition of the image of God in man. Feinberg has written it well:
The image of God constitutes all that differentiates man from the lower creation. It does not refer to corporeality or immortality. It has in mind the will, freedom of choice, self-consciousness, self-transcendence, self-determination, rationality, morality, and spirituality of man. The ability to know and love God must stand forth prominently in any attempt to ascertain precisely what the image of God is.[26]
This definition encompasses what it means to be in the image of God, without limiting it to strictly functional characteristics.[27]
Tragically, the current culture of the world is moving rapidly away from the value of human life. Lutheran Services in America, a disability network, explains the situation in their company statement: “People with intellectual and developmental disabilities are among the most underrepresented citizens in the United States. Because of their disabilities, they are generally less able to advocate for themselves.”[28] But this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The statement continues:
The continuance of the current system of care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is very much in jeopardy as our society grapples with the challenges of long term care, rising national debt, the desire to reform Medicare and Medicaid, an aging population, and efforts to provide universal health care for all citizens. . . . [R]ecent health care reform proposals have also raised ethical and economic concerns regarding the distribution of resources based on the relative value of humans to society, examining the cost to support them in relation to their economic contributions to society.[29]
Alarming, but with the current economic and ethical culture of this nation, the days of these disabled seem to be numbered. Recently, there have even been scientific developments in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. This is being pushed in the UK in an effort to eliminate not only the embryos that contain a gene predisposed to cancer, but also those embryos that contain a predisposition to disabilities and developmental impairment.[30]
For the believer, it may seem he is fighting an uphill battle in this arena. Nevertheless, the proper treatment of the intellectually and developmentally disabled is necessitated by the doctrine of the image of God in man. The theology built in this paper could be used in various ethical arenas, but it has been the express purpose of this article to call the believer’s attention to a biblical view of the impaired. To treat these individuals with any less love because of their impairment is similar to the one in James 3 who blesses God with the same mouth that he curses his neighbor. Based on the biblical theology of the image of God in man and in response to both right and wrong perspectives on the personhood of the disabled, believers must resolve to act in love toward these dear people – for they, too, bear the image of Almighty God.
[churchpack_divider style=”solid” margin_top=”10px” margin_bottom=”10px”] [1] David Anderson was a senior at Maranatha Baptist University when he wrote this article. Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal usually publishes one article each year written by a college student in the Department of Bible and Church Ministries.[2] Though one must be careful not to overanalyze statistics for developmental disabilities, as it is such a broad brush label, the statistics nevertheless present a consistent rise in such cases. C.A. Boyle, S. Boulet, L. Schieve, R.A. Cohen, S.J. Blumberg, M. Yeargin-Allsopp, S. Visser, and M.D. Kogan, “Trends in the Prevalence of Developmental Disabilities in US Children, 1997–2008,” Pediatrics (2011). http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsdev_ disabilities.
[3] Matthew W. Brault, “Americans With Disabilities: 2010,” Current Population Reports (Washington DC: U.S Census Bureau, 2012), 70-131. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf.
[4] Charles Lee Feinberg, “The Image of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 129.515 (July 1972): 243.
[5] T. Cabal, “Are the Days of Genesis to Be Interpreted Literally?” in C. O. Brand, E. R. Clendenen, P. Copan, and J. P. Moreland, ed., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville: Holman, 2007), 5.
[6] Gordon H. Clark, “The Image of God in Man,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 12.4 (Fall 1969): 216.
[7] Ken Gardoski, “Right to Life, Right to Death,” Journal of Ministry and Theology 15.2 (Fall 2011): 60.
[8] Gardoski, 61.
[9] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., I & II Corinthians, Holman New Testament Commentary 7 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 184.
[10] Clark, 216-217.
[11] Marc Cortez, “The Image of God: 6 Things We Can All Agree On,” http://marccortez.com/2012/07/16/the-image-of-god-6-things-we-can-all-agree-on/. Accessed 21 November 2013.
[12] Kurt A. Richardson, James, The New American Commentary 36 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 157-158.
[13] James Bing, “In the Image of God,” http://sermons. logos.com/submissions/106674#content=/submissions/106674. Accessed 19 November 2013.
[14] Clark, 217.
[15] Feinberg, 241.
[16] Feinberg, 245.
[17] Bruce A. Ware, “Human Personhood: An Analysis and Definition,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 13.2 (Summer 2009): 19.
[18] Ware, 19.
[19] Ware, 19.
[20] Ware, 20.
[21] Ware, 21.
[22] Ware, 21.
[23] Ware, 23.
[24] Ware, 24.
[25] Ware, 26.
[26] Ware, 28.
[27] Feinberg, 246.
[28] To the statement, “to know and love God is part of what it means to be in the image of God,” some might object that intellectually impaired individuals do not have this ability. They might not be able to express this ability in a way that the intellectually developed would recognize, but they are still given the same nature as the rest of the human race. Just as infants cannot state their knowledge of and love for God, so the impaired will certainly struggle to do the same. Disabilities, like many other infirmities including death, are a result of living in a fallen world. Hence, individuals who suffer from lack of development have not lost the image of God, for the same reason that one who is suffering illness has not. Therefore, one should trust God concerning the soul of the intellectually and developmentally impaired in a similar fashion as he trusts God in the death of a young child.
[29] Lutheran Services in America, “A Statement Regarding People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,” http://bethesdalutherancommunities.org/document.doc?id=40, 1. Accessed 20 November 2013.
[30] Lutheran Services, 1.
[31] Andrew Fergusson, “The One Who Smiles A Lot,” http: //cbhd.org/content/one-who-smiles-lot. Accessed 21 November 2013.
