1000

The Bible tells us that humans bear the image of God. Genesis 1:26-27 states: “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness . . . . So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” There are many different ideas about what this means – what is the image of God? The most literal, and completely wrong, way to understand this verse is to think it means humans physically look like God. Some have suggested it has to do with either our mental, or volitional capacities. I've already commented on this verse in my basic philosophy statement, but I recently had, what is for me new, an idea. And, I now believe it is the primary way in which we bear God's image.
I am reading through a book by Walker Percy called Lost in the Cosmos – I highly recommend it. In his book Percy goes into detail about the unique way in which humans relate to each other and their world. We communicate in a way that no other animal does. (I'm not going to try and explain it; if you're interested read the section on semiotics.) It made me think again of Genesis 1:26-27. Genesis states that God created both man and woman in his image. I had always taken that to mean that both man and woman individually each made known a particular aspect of God's nature. I still believe that is true in a way, but I no longer believe that that is the main point.
The passage first says “God said, “Let us make mankind in our image”. This is usually just used as a proof text for the doctrine of the Trinity, but it's more than that. It's not enough just to say: “look there's a verse which teaches the doctrine of the Trinity”. What does this tell us about what God is like. We as Christians affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, but we rarely grasps its significance. We tend to use it simply as a means to affirm that Jesus is God. Many think of God as an individual, or three individuals. The focus is upon the individuality of the three even when we affirm their oneness. I used to think of the Father, Son and Spirit as expressions of God's nature, but ultimately I thought God was singular. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't mean much to me. However, what G.K. Chesterton finally helped me understand is that God ultimately in God's most basic form is a being in relationship – this is God's essence, not a byproduct. God's self has always been Father, Son and Spirit in relationship. This is how it can even be said that God is love. Love requires relationship; God in very nature is not singular, God is triune. So, what this means in relation to what is being said in Genesis is: God decided to create beings which could share the Trinity's capacity for relationship.
“[I]n the image of God he created them; male and female he created them . . . .” Man and woman in relationship bear the image of God. I would go so far as to say that an individual void of relationship no longer bears God's image; the capacity is there, but the image is lost. As objects we are no different from the animals. Only as subjects in relationship do we express that which we were created to express. I'm not saying that a sexual relationship between a man and woman is required to bear the image of God. I'm saying the primary way humans bear God's image is through our unique ability to relate to one another and God. It is primarily our love which makes us image bearers. There are many ways in which creation makes God known. All of creation was designed to reflect God's nature in a multitude of ways. But, humans are capable of something unique, that is our capacity for relationship.