Reformed Philosophy

I’m in the process of finishing up an essay about what I perceive to be a “untouched” area in philosophical theology. Basically, the main idea that I argue for in the paper is that our corporeal form is an important component of the imago dei (what you take the imago dei to be/or represent is irrelevant) in that it is a necessary expression of the imago dei. Anyway, here are a few thoughts/questions from the paper. Any comments would be  appreciated.

Is there anything a) unique and significant about our corporeal form as humans, b) could we have looked different than we do as humans and still maintained the imago dei (through evolution for example), and c) does the 2nd person of the trinity  tell us anything about this.

I’ll leave (c) aside for now given that it is quite a controversial issue. The main question to think about, however, is whether or not Christ could have come in the form of, say, a blobfish had the blobfish been the most rational creature that had evolved (this question is really only pertinent to the theistic evolutionist).

Regarding (a) and (b), I do think there is something significant about our form as humans and that we couldn’t have looked much different than we do and still maintained the necessary link to the imago dei. This is not to say that our corporeal form is in any way directly related to the God (i.e. we don’t have hands and feet because God happens to have hands and feet). And while there have been small pockets of theologians who do see some direct correlation, it is generally a disregarded view. The most popular views amongst theologians, however, is that the imago die has something to do with a property like reason; or that the imago dei has to do with being God’s representatives–i.e. that we are God’s representatives or ambassadors here on earth. Both of these views seem plausible and neither will contradict my central thesis–that form is a necessary expression of the imago dei.

So why is form a necessary expression of  the imago dei? Well, we as image bearers represent God (or mirror God) by expressing ourselves in particular creative ways. And our corporeal form plays an important role in all of this (e.g., opposable thumbs). Let’s imagine a possible world where the blobfish was God’s representative here on earth. The blobfish has the same level of rationality that we as humans have. Could a rational blobfish have done done this, this, or this?  Now imagine that the blobfish has all the desires that we as humans have. The blobfish wants to express itself through some beautiful painting,  or by writing some moving poem  in honor of God. Unfortunately, however, the blobfish is restricted by its form. After all, the blobfish is only a gelatinous mass of blubber.

So what are some of the implications of this? Well perhaps this might spark some discussion between theistic evolution and the ID crowd (are they really saying anything different?). Perhaps this has some implications on the incarnation. Or, to put it in such a way  that Calvin would have liked, this discussion may tell us something about God’s intention and/or sovereignty over the evolutionary/creation process that resulted in our current human form–a form that ensures the greatest expression of the imago dei.