Anthropology/Embodiment

b. of friend Daniel Aaron Harris, with cerebral palsy who told me that he never fully accepted himself and his place within “normal” society and the church until he accepted psalm 139 - god you formed my inward parts, you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made, .... my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.... etc. etc. That wasn’t just about other people. that was about me too. He told his pastor, I learned two things about myself reading God’s word. #1 - I am not a mistake or result of sin. I was made this way. #2 - Because of it I am uniquely fit for ministry. To which his pastor responded. “wait a minute, God didn’t make you this way.... I don’t know how disability comes about, but I do know God didn’t make it this way… and 2- ministry is going to be very difficult for you. My friend didn’t listen and today is studying for his phd and has a ministry called fallen walls international, he comes alongside people newly disabled to walk with them and help them with their questions to God, since he knows they’ve never asked them before, because they never mattered to them before.

c. and in 2 decades of friendship and work in this field I could tell you so many stories. And so many them have their ties to incomplete theology.

SO ITS MY CONVICTION THAT FOR invitation and hospitality to happen for people with disability in our churches that we need to have inclusion at every aspect of church practice. Not just at the ministry level, but at the theological level. That we look at the scriptures that form our theological thought on mankind with one of our lenses being that of disability.

For so long, theology has been done by those with the resources, the education, the

Intro:

I like to know - HOW MANY OF YOU EITHER HAVE A DISABILITY OR A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY WITH A DISABILITY?

Thank you -

AND ALSO - FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN WITH QUESTIONS AT ANY POINT ALONG THE WAY.

ANTHROPOLOGY:

What have you covered so far in this class as it relates to anthropology? The study of humankind?

That’s so good! It’s such an important aspect of theological discipline. Scripture is full of thoughts on this very subject. I think if - What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” The Psalmist recognizing the deep questions of what it means to be God’s human creations. Important questions that we all face in this life.

What is our purpose?

what are our origins?

what does it mean to be embodied?

What is our current fallen state?

what is God’s image in us?

How does sin affect our bodies?

What is healing all about?

3 Facets of Anthropology

This Morning we only have an hour and so it will be more of a intro into the implications of studying this field with the lens of disability.

And so we’ll look at 3 facets -

Defined?

Substantive/Functional/Relational/Vessel of God or Multifaceted Image

Ideal Humanity: Jesus as the exact Image is our measurement- Not - AquaMan

Christian Ethic

Embodiment- The Image of God is meant to center all human creatures in the same circle and instead with our many definitions we create sub categories. Which we’re all kind of okay with because that’s how our world seems to us. Their’s the athletes, the academics, the popular, the rich, the poor, the attractive, the not so much, the disabled and non disabled, the young and the old. Etc. Etc. As if the subgroups we are part of define us more than the main category. Of Image Bearers.

The Image of God is meant to center all human creatures in the same circle and instead with our many definitions we create sub categories. Which we’re all kind of okay with because that’s how our world seems to us. Their’s the athletes, the academics, the popular, the rich, the poor, the attractive, the not so much, the disabled and non disabled, the young and the old. Etc. Etc. As if the subgroups we are part of define us more than the main category. Of Image Bearers.

Embodiment - What part do our bodies play in our being human? and how does a proper understanding of embodiment help to center all people- regardless of ability within the norm of human experience.

The Imago Dei- Do we know what it is? Do we all have it? What did the Fall do to it? Does disability mar the image more than in the rest of us?

Sin - What does the fall, or individual personal sin have to do with disability and the image of God in us. To be more pointed- Does disability mar the image of God more than in the rest of us? or is it simply a facet of our embodiment. If it’s a facet of our embodiment with ramifications from the fall, then it frees us to think differently about cause of disability, healing, etc.

EMBODIMENT

Embodiment is simply the understanding that we are embodied people. People with bodies. We are not simply bodies- we have minds, souls, etc. , but we also can’t deny the fact that our bodies play a significant part in how we engage in the world God created us and in the way we engage God and Neighbor. When Jesus commands us to love God and Neighbor, to serve others, to feed the hungry, visit prisoners, care for the orphaned and widow. When the Torah tells the people of Israel to care for the foreigner, to speak up for the voiceless, etc. etc. Embodiment, and the needs that come with being an individual embodied in this world are definitely in view.

When we read stories in the bible, those are stories of embodied individuals- who had sickness, injury, disability. They lusted, they fought, they caused pain in others, they murdered, they were enslaved, they travelled, they were threatened, they immigrated, they had communities, etc. etc.

And the fact that our entire faith centers on a God who Became Man. Who Took On Flesh. Shows the importance of embodiment to experience of humanity as God created it.

I bRING THIS UP HERE BECAUSE IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE FACT THAT IT CENTERS ALL HUMANS IN THE SAME SPHERE CALLED NORMAL HUMANITY. WHICH IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR UNDERSTANDING DISABILITY. THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT OFTEN WITHIN THE CHURH WE ARE JUST AS INFLUENCED BY OUR REIGNING CULTURAL PHILOSOPHIES AND THOS PHILOSOPHIES FIND THEIR WAY INTO OUR THINKING ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.

this leads us to ask- is their an ideal body- and ideal human

DISABILITY MODELS- BRIEFLY WITHOUT TAKING TOO MUCH TIME, I’LL EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN.

DISABILITY MODELS

VOCATIONAL MODEL/MEDICAL MODEL/MINORITY GROUP MODEL/LIMITS OR EMBODIMENT MODEL

We are all in the middle. Where humanity is. Where what it means to be human is. With all of our diversity- skin color, ethnicity, eye color hair color, disability, ability, gender… And we’re All responding to our embodiment.

We all belong to eachother. and we all have something in common. But I’m definitely not satisfied to leave it there. because I think WE HAVE SOMETHING IN SCRIPTURE THAT MAKES AN EVEN STRONGER CASE A MORE BEAUTIFUL CASE FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITY.

THE IMAGO DEI:

THE DIFFICULTY WITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AROUND THE IMAGO DEI IS THAT IT HAS OFTEN SEPARATED PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES RATHER THAN INCLUDED THEM.

HAVE SOMEONE READ - , , ,

AND WE’LL MAKE A LIST OF WHAT WE HEAR ABOUT THE IMAGE OF GOD. - triune?, dominion/role, diversity in gender, like god, ethic of imago dei- and also 9:6 was a reminder to Noah- so we know that the image survived the fall, ethic even in the new testament church.

These passages leaves us with a rather ambiguous idea of what it actually means for humans to be in image of God. Yet this has not deterred many Christian thinkers and theologians from positing a definition. Because it’s important.

As you know there are various ways to view the Imago Dei, and yet until recent years, they all presented various issues to someone with severe disabilities seeing themselves in that definition.

The text of , and 5 leaves us with a rather ambiguous idea of what it actually means for humans to be in image of God. Yet this has not deterred many Christian thinkers and theologians from positing a definition.

Show Slide. The Main problem…

Disability Theology however asks us to take the doctrine of Imago Dei so seriously that we ask the question:

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A MARGINAL CASE OF HUMANITY?

There are Way too many definitions to cover in our short time so we’ll look briefly at the main categorizations for understanding the Imago Dei in Christian Theology. 1. Substantive View. Show Slide.

Explain: In the substantive view we are looking for a faculty, or capacity that we possess that we alone amongst creation possess and or that is similar to an attribute of God’s

Some of the most Common

Imago Dei as Reason

as will

as freedom

as creativity/Imagination

The Most Common of course- The Imago Dei as Reason.

He believed that reason is the one way in which any creature can most completely imitate and image God.

The difficulty is that this creates a hierarchy of being. Those with the ability to reason can truly image God and those human creatures without ability to reason can simply bear resemblance by way of other lesser qualities.

I don’t think Aquinas or others were arguing for their being marginal cases of humanity, but it does obviously leave the possible existence of such cases. For those, they are only human according to their origin, but do not possess that which God placed in Adam and Eve.

CAN A HUMAN PERSON EXIST AND NOT HAVE THE IMAGE OF GOD WITHIN THEM? HANS REINDERS picks up this question in his book dealing with the most debilitating of disabilities and says can we make a case for the presence of the imago dei in that person too?

What separates us from other creation?

Functional View - The functional view argues that Only Jesus is the image of God Ontologically. And therefore all other humans are the image of God by way of function and not ontology. It is argued that the translation of Betsalmenu and kidmutenu in Genesis. Should BE TRANSLATED AS OUR IMAGE VS IN OUR IMAGE, AND ACCORDING TO OUR LIKENESS.

THE BASIS FOR THIS VIEW IN SCRIPTURE IS IN - ALSO VS 28 - BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY.

IT IS ARGUED THAT IN ANCIENT NEAR EST “KINGS AND SOMETIMES PRIESTS WERE DESIGNATED AS THE IMAGE OR LIKENESS OF A PARTICULAR GOD. AND SOMETIMES THEY USED STATUES OR IMAGES TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN PLACES WHERE THEY WERE PERSONALLY UNSEEN.

HOWEVER IN GENESIS - GOD CREATES PEOPLE IN HIS IMAGE WHEN IS PLAN AS WE KNOW IT IS TO live with them and be with them.

While like the substantive view, the functional view has merits. It also has limited scriptural support and leaves us with a separation- Yong- disability theologian points out functional view underlies the claim that the mentally retarded are without the image of god since the imago dei is basically centered on responsibility.

INTERESTINGLY - THE IDEA OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITEIS BEING WITHOUT THE CAPACITY FOR RESPONSIBILITY OR VOCATION HAS LEAD TO CONVERSATIONS OF QUALITY OF LIFE. - WHAT QUALITY OF LIFE WILL SOMEONE WITH A DISABILITY HAVE. - IN NAZI GERMANY THEY CALLED THEM USELESS EATERS BECAUSE THEY CONSUMED BUT COULD NOT PRODUCE. - THEY HAD NO VOCATION, NOTHING TO GIVE TO SOCIETY BY WAY OF FUCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY, AND IT IS A SIMILAR ETHIC THAT GUIDES THE SAME DEBATE CONCERNING PRENATAL TESTING FOR DISABILITIES.

I BELIEVE AS DO OTHER SCHOLARS, SO THIS isn’t just my idea. :) That the genesis text does not intend to specify the content of the image and so it is hard to make a case for any defintion.

I think thefunction of man is better seen as a blessing God bestows to man, a calling and vocation.Yes it represents and resembles God, but does not fully define what it means to be a creature in his image.

RELATIONAL VIEW

While there are various nuances, the majority of them see that in the text of genesis God reveals himself as a triune God. “Let us make man..” So Then God Creates Man to be Fundamentally Relational like God.

He creates us to be in relationship with him and with others. It IS AN ATTEMPT TO FIND THE SOURCE OF GOD FROM WITHIN GOD NOT HUMANS.

AND THIS KIND OF RELATIONSHIP IS NOT DEPENDENT ON MANS ABILITY TO HAVE IT, IT COMES FROM GOD.

YET THERE ARE SOME UNHELPFUL NUANCED VIEWS HERE AS WELL. MARTIN LUTHER BELIEVED THAT BEFORE THE FALL WE WERE IN PERFECT RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. THE IMAGE WAS LOST IN THE FALL BECAUSE OF SIN, AND IT CAN ONLY BE REGAINED THROUGH THE RESPONSE OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE OF FAITH TO GOD. FAITH IN GOD IS THUS THE PARTICIPATORY ABILITY HUMANS MUST POSSES TO IMAGE GOD. IF THIS VIEW DEMANDS THE POSESSION OF A CERTAIN ABILITY TO RESPOND TO OTHERS, THEN IT TOO COULD BE PROBLEMATIC TO FIND THE IMAGE IN CERTAIN PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.

SO WHAT? - SO I’VE tried to show how some of the more common attempts at defining the imago dei create a problem for us to see it in all people. But where does that leave us. So What now?

First of all, For sake of this class I’ve reduced some of the arguments to specifially focus on how disability as a lens when doing theology helps us see new things, but I in no way am trying to say that it should be the only lens, or that that one lens alone does away with any of these views in their entirety. I actually think that based on the vagueness of scripture in terms of definition itself and the lack of agreement from theologians throughout centuries is the best argument for not trying to define it too clearly our selves.

There fore I think the best description of the Imago Dei a broad and multifaceted one. (if they ask- I believe a relational view has the most promise in terms of scriptural support, in terms of Jesus as exact image, but not the ability to give relationally necessarily but to be in relationship. which even the most disabled of individuals - whose caregivers report them being profoundly human and find them enjoying their company and finding belonging with others and God. But I think it must be multifaceted- and allow for multiple ways to image God. it is absurd to think that reason and vocation in the garden don’t somehow image the creator who gave them to us. relationship images him. And people with disabiliteis - have unique gifts and unique callings that imgae him in different ways so that his church when complete in its diversity images him more clearly.

Ideal Humanity: Jesus as the exact Image is our measurement- Not - AquaMan

Ideal Humanity: Jesus as the exact Image is our measurement-

The Best of humanity- the ideal humanity is found in Jesus. He is the exact image of the father. Those that have seen him have seen the father.

It’s important to remember this image as the ideal image of God when we think about the imago dei in each of us.

Christian Ethic

Jesus- God who took on the frailty of humanity. Did he image the father by his reason alone? by his relationship alone? by his function alone? by his embracing of his embodiment? In some ways, the people I know that have disabilities image Jesus in ways I never might. - embracing the embodiment that jesus had and that they have- the suffeirng servant, despised and outcast, not much to look at, ridiculed and thought less of.

Christian Ethic- the passage in james and the passage to Noah about not killing, not hurting, not despising the one made in the image of God is core to our ethic of how to be in relationship to others. It’s a protection and blessing given by God to ensure our well treatment by others who share that image. WE ALL HAVE IT. AND IT KEEPS US FROM THINKING MORE HIGHLY OF MYSELF THAN ANOTHER.

THE IMAGO DEI TELLS US THAT INCLUSION IS NOT THE AIM, IT IS THE GIVEN.

SIN - WE’VE ALREADY talked about the simple fact that the image remained after the fall. To what extent it has been marred has been argued as much as what is the image of God.

Slide Ideas - Imago Dei and embodiment (Limits Model) tells us that inclusion is not the aim, it is the given, disability is not an abnormal facet of life but a normal one, Stats also prove this - in a given year 30% of the population has a disability, and 1/2 of all american families have an immediate family member with a disability.

The question for us today is to what extent is the fall responsible for disability and other pain/suffering in the world (to which I’d quickly remind us that not all disabilities actually come with suffering and pain).

Briefly- by looking at the garden- we see Adam and Eve. As much as we know they don’t have disabilities. is that enough to say that disability is caused by the fall?

If we understand psalm 139 and other passages to be speaking of God’s involvement in the creation of all life, even after the fall, to what extent does the fall play into our embodiment possibilities outside of eden as opposed to his role of creating us?

For those going into ministry. Can I tell you something important. We are in here studying it as if its an issue to be studied, when in reality there are people in our very churches with kids, sisters, brothers, dads. etc. who are disabled. Who are asking the questions of WHY? WHY GOD? WHY DON’T YOU FIX IT?

I RECENTLY DID A FUNERAL FOR A FRIENDS BABY THAT WAS STILL BORN. - THEIR 6 YEAR OLD CAME UP TO ME AFTER THE SERVICE AND SAID, YOU ASKED HOW YOU CAN HELP US. I KNOW HOW YOU CAN HELP. - MAKE IT SO GOD DIDN’T TAKE MY BABY SISTER.

THE REALITY IS THAT OUR QUESTION OF WHY- SURROUNDING DISABILITY IN THIS CLASSROOM COMES FROM A PURELY ACADEMIC PLACE FOR SOME OF US. AND FOR OTHERS IT COMES FROM A PLACE OF AGONY, OF WANTING TO PROVIDE FOR, TO CARE FOR THEIR LOVED ONE. TO SEE GOD CARING FOR THEIR LOVED ONE. THEY AREN’T USUALLY ASKING WHY SO YOU CAN TELL THEM THE SEMINARY ANSWER. THEIR ASKING WHY BECAUSE THEY HURT.

IT’S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE THE TWO QUESTIONS ARE THE SAME .- WHY? BUT THEY NEED DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT ANSWERS.

JESUS WAS ONCE ASKED - - ABOUT A MAN BORN BLIND. - DID THIS MAN SIN OR HIS PARENTS THAT HE WAS BORN BLIND. TO WHICH HE RESPONDED. NO ONE SINNED BUT RATHER THAT THE WORKS OF GOD MIGHT BE DISPLAYED IN HIM.

the disciples question seems to me that they don’t think it was the fall that caused it, but rather that personal sin did.

JESUS reminds us that the sin is not a direct cause, or at least is’t always a direct cause of disability. when he looked upon the man he saw potential for that body to be the chosen vessel of God’s displayed works in the world, while his disciples only saw a sinful outcast.

I think we have a lot to learn from that episode in terms of how Jesus imaged the father, and in terms of how that blind man imaged jesus.

Thank you and Questions.

semantic range of selem- image (25) and demut likeness (17)

small amount and yet even within those we see that a narrow view- is not supported

selem- used to describe humans as God’s image- and also Adams son seth as being in Adam’s image- ARE WE TO THINK THAT HE REPRESENTS ADAM, IS IN RELATIONSHIP WITH ADAM, IS LIKE ADAM, OR THAT ADAM PLACED A PART OF HIMSELF WITHIN SETH?

BUT THE PRIMARY USE OF THE WORD SELEM- REFERS TO CULT STATUES OF GODS OR IDOLS. IMAGES- HEWN FROM STONE OR WOOD. SELEM IS ALSO USED TO REFER TO NON CULTIC STATUES OR CARVINGS- MEANING IMAGE OR SOMETHING CUT OUT.

A FURTHER COMPLICATION IS THAT SELEM IS USED TWICE AND 73:20 TO DESCRIBE LIFE AS A SHADOW AND AS A PHANTOM. USED IN PARALLELISM WITH HEVEL MEANING VANITY OR EMPITNESS. -THE FLEETING STATE OF HUMAN LIFE.

DEMUT IS ALSO USED OF GOD’S LIKENESS AND ADAM AND SETH. BUT MOST OF DEMUT’S CASES ARE FOUND IN EZEKIEL IN FIRST 10 CHAPTERS AND AR USED TO DISCONNECT HIS HEAVENLY VISIONS FROM BEING TOO CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE EARLY WORDS HE HAS AT HIS DISPOSAL. FOR EXAMPLE “THERE APPEARD ABOVE HIM SOMETHING “LIKE” DEMUT” A SAPPHIRE...

AND IN OTHER PLACES DEMUT REFERS TO A MODEL OR PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION OF AN ALTER.

AND SO IT IS HIHGLY LIKEY THAT SELEM AND DUMUT ARE SOMEWHAT INTERCHANGEABLE AND SIMILAR. THAT USED IN THE SAME CONTEXT THEY UTUALLY QUALIFY EACHOTHER AND MAY BE USED IN GENESES WITHOUT CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE MEANING AT ALL.

THIS ALSO FITS THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST PRACTICES OF HAVING CULTIC IMAGES. DID IT REPRESENT IMAGE OR FUNCTION?

SOME STUDIES SHOW MAYBE THEY ARE VESSELS THAT CONTAINED GOD.

THE ISRAELITES WERE TOLD NOT TO MAKE SUCH IMAGES. AND SO IT SEEMS FIT THAT THE ONLY APPROPRIATE FORM FOR THE DIVINE IMAGE WAS IN GOD’S HUAN CREATIONS. SO GOD CREATED MAN AS APHYSICAL IMAGE OF HIMSELF

Related Media

Related Sermons