I've been wrestling with this increasingly in the last few months. I have become convinced that we need to challenge and offer a better theology to the Christian community at all levels (individual/church/Academic) of what constitutes the Image of God. This came up again today as a colleague who is taking a theology course pointed out a quote from Laurence Turner's theology textbook "Genesis"
"Thus human subjugation of the earth and dominion over animals bears analogy with divine activity and represents at least part of the human condition of being in the image of God. Just as God previously created light and then transfers dominion over creation to human beings. This suggests that the 'image of God' in humans refers not only to what humans are but primarily to what they do" (24).
I don't have an issue with his suggestion of 'represents at least part of the human condition of being on the image of God', but I believe he reinforces the 'intellectual' idea of the Image of God over 'what humans are’ with his emphasis on 'primarily' to what they ‘do’.
In my mind we 'do' because we 'are', and not - we 'are' because we 'do'. Maybe I'm tilting at windmills*- I've got to watch that - but I do think there's an important difference here. If you read some of the earlier postings on the topic 'disabled God' you'll see some of these thoughts.
It's not because people with developmental disabilities cannot 'do' - but, what they 'do' is often not valued as 'doing' by the society about them - if the image of
* for those who the phrase 'tilting at windmills' is unfamilar, I refer you to the literary classic "Don Quixote" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote
