Understanding The Image Of God: Structure, Function, And Relationship w/ Jason Glen

What if our arguments about politics, ethics, and identity are symptoms of a deeper amnesia about what a human being is? We sat down with ethicist and professor Jason Glen to rethink the Image of God from the ground up—why it matters now, where classic theology helps, and how a richer view can heal the way we live, lead, and speak.

We unpack three major angles that have shaped Christian thought. Structural views highlight capacities like reason, conscience, and will; functional views center vocation, stewardship, and culture‑making; relational views focus on communion with God and neighbor. Each lens adds clarity, but each can harm when taken alone. Tie dignity to capacity and you risk sidelining the unborn and the disabled. Tie it to productivity and worth rises and falls with output. Tie it to active relating and isolation looks like erasure. Held together, they restore a durable vision of human worth.

We also trace the beauty and stakes of complementarity. “Male and female he created them” is more than a line in Genesis; it’s a living parable of unity and difference that echoes God’s relational life. When homes and churches honor equal worth and distinct gifts, authority becomes responsibility, help becomes strength, and conflict becomes a path to growth rather than a permanent war. That same vision reframes heated issues—abortion, end‑of‑life care, immigration, public discourse—by insisting every person is an image bearer deserving of respect.

Along the way, we address the popular “human being vs human doing” trope, clarify why “image bearer” differs from “child of God,” and offer practical steps for digital civility and real‑world compassion. If you’ve felt torn between truth and tenderness, conviction and humility, this conversation offers a framework sturdy enough for both. Listen, share with a friend, and leave a review to help more people rediscover a hope‑filled, dignifying vision of humanity.

Jason Glen IG: @truettglen

Jason Glen website: https://jtruettglen.com/

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:06

Alright everyone, welcome back to the God Attachment Healing Podcast. I'm excited that you're here and excited about the topic that we will be exploring today with Mr. Jason Glenn, good friend of mine. We've been having a couple of conversations. He's been on Psych and Theo. I think this is your first time on God Attachment. Jason, no, I think you've been here once before.

SPEAKER_00 0:27

No, no, I was on God Attachment.

SPEAKER_02 0:29

Yeah. We did it on Shane. Talked about that.

SPEAKER_00 0:32

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 0:32

That was a great topic. And today we're going to be talking about what it means to be made in God's image. A real favorite topic of mine. And uh I saw a piece that you wrote on this, and that kind of sparked the whole interest on having this conversation tonight.

SPEAKER_00 0:47

Great. What what uh you're gonna have to tell me which piece you saw.

SPEAKER_02 0:51

Yeah, well, it was about the functional relational aspect of God, structural aspect of God. I remember talking about that in school. Um, it was when I was taking, I think it was my hermeneutics class, and we were talking about this piece. It was for our systematic theology class. Um, and uh yeah, so I remember talking about that, and I said, you know what, this ties in well to God attachment because if we're made in God's image and we're relational beings, then we're probably gonna touch on this, right? Uh awesome. So so yeah, so knowing that you're interested in it um is a good place to start because when two people are excited about a topic, I think you just go in a lot of great places. So I'm excited. Amen.

SPEAKER_00 1:34

Amen.

SPEAKER_02 1:35

Well, Jason, for those who who don't know you, um, usually what I do, I give the guests a couple of minutes to just kind of briefly introduce themselves, talk about some of the work that they do, and uh yeah, just anything else that you'd like to share.

SPEAKER_00 1:48

Yeah, you bet. Uh obviously for those that that didn't see me in the shame episodes, uh I um I I work as an online uh instructor, professor for uh Liberty University online, and I teach uh ethics classes. I'm a subject matter expert there and in an ethics course. Um, and I deal with primarily in that course, I deal with embodied issues such as um sexuality and euthanasia and and uh beginning of life, end of life issues. And um, so that's that's my primary job. Uh, I've got a family, uh wife, and and four daughters, and uh three, two of my older my older daughters have graduated and moved on from Liberty. And uh my third daughter is is there uh working on a music degree, and and then I've got a a younger daughter that's still in junior high. So uh that's the fam. Got got some dogs in the house as well. And uh I'm can I'm working on my PhD, I've been working on it for quite some time, so 20 2017, and God willing, I'll wrap that up maybe the next couple of years. But I I I do that over in Belgium at a at an institution there called the Evangelical Theological Faculty out of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Uh, and my my topic, as we discussed last time, is on shame and and human flourishing. Um, and I work primarily with a philosopher uh named Martha Neussbaum, an American philosopher on that subject matter. So, but it definitely definitely uh intersects and and and crosses over with uh the subject matter of the image of God, of course, and and uh especially relationally speaking.

SPEAKER_02 3:32

Yeah, yeah, no, absolutely. And and Jason, as you think about this, I know when before we started having this uh conversation, one of the things that you mentioned is it's a it's an area of interest, but it's also a very broad topic. And it kind of brings up the the question of, you know, well, it is, and then also why is it important for Christians to understand this uh topic of what it means to be made in the image of God? You know, if we go back to Genesis 1, really from just one to Genesis 3, we kind of see this all play out um pretty explicitly and get a lot of our, I guess, our theology of of man maybe at the beginning, uh, in those first three chapters, and obviously there's the fall of man and so on. But um, yeah, I mean, why is this why do you think this is an important topic for Christians to understand?

SPEAKER_00 4:21

Goodness, you know, um the irony of of this subject matter is that when things are going well in a society, there's not as much need to talk about it, right? When when your families are functioning properly, when you're when mom and dad are in a good space, uh when when your neighborhood is is friendly, when you all share the same religion in the city and in the state or the colony, uh, when when you have a similar can convictions on laws and and uh what human flourishing looks like, uh, there's just not as much need to really think about and talk about what it means to be made in the image of God because you're functioning in in a way that's fruitful um and doesn't have as much conflict. However, when you live in a world like ours, where it seems like a war is on the brink every, you know, every week, something's uh may arise and uh in international politics, and then you've got uh riots in the streets based on on immigrant status, uh, and and you've got religious liberty issues, uh people wanting to say, I have the right to do this and I have the right to do that. Uh and then again, abortion is back on uh back on the docket and whether we allow, and in Virginia, I know we're we're allowing you know full-term uh abortions. Uh so we those sorts of things um make the conversation about what it means to be made in the image of God incredibly important, yeah, because it it can dictate how we respond uh to all of those issues, whether it be um thinking about a Russian uh attacking Ukraine, or whether it means thinking about an immigrant coming across a river uh or committing fraud in a different state, or whether it whether we're talking about a baby that's eight months in the womb. Um man, our understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God in relationship to those things uh can can literally be the difference between life and death.

Defining Structural, Functional, Relational Views

SPEAKER_02 6:40

Yeah, yeah, that's so true. I I mean I would hate to think, and I know this is kind of those um those areas where when there's a lot of people who are saying, you know, I'm a Christian and here's what I believe, but with these specific topics, I don't believe, you know, that this is allowed or that we should do this or impose our rights on someone else, things like that. Um yeah, I mean, the most people don't really take the time to consider what it actually means to be made in the image of God. So for us as Christians and and this specifically who we're talking to, this is why it's important that we need to understand what we believe about this specific topic because it does inform a lot of what we think and believe about these different different issues. So um, so yeah, I guess a good place to start is okay, so at the most maybe basic level, what does it mean to be made in the image of God? I talk about God attachment healing, and the main thing that I kind of uh propose is we're relational beings, you know. God within himself as a Trinity is a relational being, and that's part of the image that he's uh given on to us. But there's a lot of other layers that we I I don't explore, and maybe this is some of the stuff that we'll get into uh tonight. Is well, what does it mean to be made in the image of God? What is like a general basic understanding of that?

SPEAKER_00 8:01

Yeah, yeah, and that's the problem. You know, the problem is is that has literally been debated uh throughout the centuries, you know. Uh, what is it? What is it, what does it mean? What is it not? Uh so you you even you have these great debates, even you know, among theologians, um, as to whether it's appropriate to come at it from um what we call a structural standpoint, um, uh which is more focused on what are what are the human capabilities that remind us uh of God, um and or is it better to come at it from a functional standpoint where we think about okay, what are what are some things that we do in life that look like what God does and what he says he does, right? And and you've just over um over the centuries and certainly over Christian history, you've had debates on, you know, uh Arenaeus or Calvin uh or or Thomas Aquinas uh had their own definitions. Uh and like for instance, um Araneus uh made the argument between uh the image of God and the likeness of God. And so the image and the likeness of God, right? So so he would say, well, yeah, everybody's made in the image of God, but not everybody's in the likeness of God. And um, so whereas uh you have a reprobate or a non non-believer who's um or pagan who's made in the image of God, and certainly has some qualities uh that we would say, yes, they are reflective of kind of aspects uh of God. Um certainly they are not acting or behaving or believing like a person that knows God in a familiar way and has a relationship with God. And and they definitely don't have the ability to be like God. And so they are they are not becoming in the likeness of God, and and they still don't have the hope of being in the likeness of God until they uh pursue Christ Jesus or believe on Christ Jesus. So that like that's an that's an Irenaeus take, right? Um whereas Calvin, man, he would he wouldn't make that distinction, he wouldn't make that likeness. Uh they would say, no, it's kind of, you know, and Thomas Aquinas would Thomas Aquinas would say, no, I don't I don't like the way that's put. Actually, you know, everyone has uh everyone has the capacity, has the is made in the image of God, and has the capacity to uh reflect at various degrees um who God intends us to be in order to reflect Him. Uh and of course, you know, with Aquinas, you you definitely get that kind of Roman Catholic uh God's grace plus my work work together to make me more to make me reflect God better.

SPEAKER_02 11:28

Uh to give me a more oriented towards becoming more like Christ though.

SPEAKER_00 11:33

Oh all all of them. Like there's you know, all of one yeah, the ultimate goal, all of them are gonna say the goal is Christ Jesus. Well, you get to uh like the relational side of things where they start going, you know, the the the whole functional and the whole uh structural, that's not that's not the best language for this. These are some of the later theologians. So guys like Bart, Karl Bart and and uh Bruner, um and and uh Burke Auer, they would say something like, you know what, what ultimately matters is that we is that the image of God is that we reflect God. And that and the only way to properly reflect God is to is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ and to image Christ Jesus. And so that's where you get into the whole, well, you're you you're you're not it's not that you're made in the image of God, it's that you are relating in the image of God. Uh and so that you know that's got its own, that's got its own theological problematic aspects to it. But all that to say, there's just there just hasn't been consensus. I mean, uh the the uh functional uh definition um has been popular recently with the whole uh vice regent, uh we're all kings and queens language, right? Uh, which has come out in various articles and songs even, right? Uh praise-worship songs, uh, we're all kings and we're all queens. Well, what do they mean by that? What they mean is we have we we have dominion over the earth and we are to rule as image bearers, and so that's that's a very functional way of looking at the image of uh image of God. Um, and all of these, if you if if they're taken alone, um, in my opinion, um they have some faults to them that you wouldn't just want to put your flag on on any one of those views and go, yeah, I'm a man, I'm a functional guy, dude. Or I'm a structural, I'm a structuralist, or I'm a relational guy only. It's relationship, that's what images that that's it. Yeah, yeah. In my opinion, you don't want to do that.

SPEAKER_02 13:58

Sure, sure. And and are those um I mean they seem self-explanatory, but can you explain those to the audience? So the relational seems pretty self-explanatory, but the functional and structural, what are you referring to when you're describing those characteristics?

Historical Theologians And Debates

SPEAKER_00 14:14

Yeah, yeah, again, the the the structural, um you're looking, you're looking at uh a human being, and you're getting and you're saying, what what aspects of that human being make them different than animals? Um, what what is it about them that relates them to the creator in a way that is similar to the creator? Um and that's different than functional. We're not talking about we're not talking about functional yet, where we talk about go out and do things that the creator does. We're talking about structural. So um a lot of the structural guys uh will harp on reason, right? Um and will. So you've got reason and will going on. So what makes me like God? Well, the fact that I can reason, that I I have this ability to think, you know, it's the I think, therefore, I'm made in the image of God, right? Uh I I I have a will, um, a sentient will, therefore I am, I am made in the image of God. I am an image bearer. So that's the that's the structural uh aspect of it. Um and you can see, you can do the you know, the walk through history and kind of you know look coin at various times in scientific and theological development, philosophical development, and go, well, I can see how that got popular then, because you know, Immanuel Kant was writing on the, you know, this, this, or Descartes was writing on this about thinking, and therefore, you know, so then you have theologians that kind of follow suit on some of that stuff. Um, and and Aquinas is no, you know, different. Uh Augustine and Aquinas, they were they were pulling their perspectives from Plato and Aristotle, uh, in terms of how do I how do I see a human being? And reason was a big part of how, of course, Aristotle and Plato saw a human being, the difference between us and other animals. And Aquinas would go, well, yeah, you know, that's that's a that's kind of a, you know, that's the that's the big deal right there that makes us different. So that's structural. Then you have again, you have that functional, like I said, functional is looking at, okay, um, I can go out and I can create. Uh, I can be a co-creator, right? I can have a family, right? I I I can go out and I can take dominion, I can plow the earth, uh, and I'll take dominion over the earth. Uh, I can so yeah, it's it's not that it's not like it's completely and totally detached, of course, from the the structural side of things, but it's really focused in on and in our definitions of uh well what's distinctive about the image of God is the fact that we are doing what God does. He creates, he orders, he labels, he names, he he forms, he shapes. So do we. We do that, we rule, you know, we take dominion, uh, we conquer. I mean, and and you so you you it can definitely be taken uh some and and I think if you got hopped online right now and got on Twitter, uh and you you know you found yourself some Theo bros on there, you would see some of you'd you'd find some of this language of this dominion language that really you go, oh okay, okay. It sounds like you really bought into this is how we image God uh as his representatives by doing this, right?

SPEAKER_02 18:14

Yeah, that's that's so interesting because I I guess I never I always thought of those three things as yeah, all three of those are part of how we are. One would think, you know, yeah, but yeah so there's other people that just have one and they make that the primary focus.

SPEAKER_00 18:28

Oh, yeah, that's the that's the primary deal, yeah, for sure. Yeah, for some of these guys. Um and and yeah, you you wanna you wanna push back and go, well, now you you see how you know we could do a whole session on what are the dangers, right? Uh of and then this is and I don't know if uh if you read my my article on black theology and and um on the image of God. Um, but I I wrote I did an assignment, wrote a paper on black theology and the image of God, uh, and how the fact that uh early he had these American preachers and you had guys like Whitfield, uh and of course you had the Wesleys coming in, maybe his slave owners, right? And Whitfield, for instance, originally started out as like um uh uh as against slavery, and then he saw what it did for like his Georgia, his farm or whatever, and he's like, Oh, maybe slavery's not so bad. But the point is that you had a lot of Christians, a lot of preachers in the South, especially not exclusively, that were buying into the modern, you know, modern, modern in the in the philosophical sense, which is we're talking 1700s, right? And um, 1800, um, they were looking at the um a Darwinian and the this is what a human is, and we have the technology and we can do it, we're the smartest, we're the most intelligent, and and and we are taking dominion over the earth, and and they're taking this um view of man and and they're combining it with their Christianity. Um, and then they're they're looking at this slave who was ripped out of their culture, where they were functional, right? Ripped out of their culture, doesn't speak uh our their language well, um, doesn't seem to be articulate in the intellectual practices and habits that we value in that community, right? In the South and and you know, or antebellum or uh before or after the war, right? Uh we don't they don't value what we value, they can't do what we can do, they can't think what we can think. Uh and it was really easy to say they are lesser than. They're lesser than because um functionally they can't do what we can do. Interesting.

SPEAKER_01 21:09

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 21:09

Um, well, then black theology says, nah, no, no, wait a second. Like, so you you're getting into the 1800s, late 1800s, early 1900s, and you're you're having black theologians, James Cohn, you're having these guys go, now wait a second, we have always had our intellectuals. We have always had um uh you know, our preachers that were thoughtful and our scientists and and our thought leaders, right? Um, and so they reacted to this faulty understanding of the image of God that was being propagated for utilitarian reasons, could also have been, you know, convictionally held to based on theological study or whatever the case. Is but it also happened to be highly utilitarian nature, right? Uh he's he's not a human, he's a he's like my pet, he's like my property. Uh therefore he I don't have to treat him as I would treat a image bearer. Um, because clearly this is what an image bearer is, uh, and they're not that.

SPEAKER_01 22:26

Right.

Dangers Of One‑Sided Views

SPEAKER_00 22:26

And so all that to say, you know, it it's it's incredibly important uh that we we wrap our heads around what are the damages, what are the dangers uh uh of not getting this thing right, or at least not having some epistemological humility in relationship, you know, to the topic.

SPEAKER_02 22:46

Yeah. No, I mean that that's wild to think about um how much it actually does influence, even even historically, how the image of God carries so much weight in each of these various topics. You know, I had a conversation, Jason, with a um a guest a couple of weeks ago, and it's very interesting because in the mental health field, there's this emphasis about doing too much, right? And and you know, that that's where the call for self-care comes into play, and you know, it has its there's arguments for it. I have some other arguments, uh not so much for it, but more the idea of that God didn't make us as people who do things, right? And the comment was we're not human doings, we're human beings. And I would just wanted to kind of get your thoughts on that because being and doing seem to both be part of the image of God. And um, I don't know if you want to exclude one over the other, but I guess it plays into that comment you made earlier about there's people who choose to focus only on one aspect or the other when really it's all three of them or four of them.

SPEAKER_00 23:54

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I I mean I I I feel like with as with so much, so many of these issues, you have these reactionary sort of of statements and convictions. I was I, you know, I used to be an ROTC student at Texas AM. I was training to be a Marine Corps officer. I had a contract in the Marine Corps, uh, I was in a bad space in life, I was a violent young man, and then I went through some hard stuff and repented, and uh, and then I felt like God was leading me out. And when I got out, I was like, well, war is evil, and Christians have no business ever having any sort of violence in their life or participating in anything violently physically speaking, and therefore we shouldn't, you know, be involved in politics and we shouldn't certainly shouldn't go in the military. And I probably shouldn't even defend my wife if she's being beat up. Right. So that was that was my overreaction based upon a very unhealthy space I was in prior. I overcompensated. So that's what we tend to see with with these, oh dude, no, it's all about being. And when you say it's about doing, you're shaming anybody who doesn't do what you think they're supposed to do.

SPEAKER_01 25:15

Right.

SPEAKER_00 25:16

And so it it's about being. And then and then you got the guy that's watching, you know, his deadbeat dad, or or or you know, his family of uh of individuals that are lazy, uh, or uh history uh of you know, of uh in his community of individuals that that simply didn't uh produce fruit and were not flourishing and we're not living out what what a flourishing human life should look like. And he goes, uh oh yeah, being are you see? I I see those beings sitting over there on the couch right now. Do you think that's who God intended us to be? Uh no, God is about doing, right? You know, yeah, I'll yeah, I'll go one more than that. James says, you know, faith without works is dead, man. So, you know, I mean you'll you'll get you'll get you'll get these overreactions, but they're often simply just they're based on bad experiences or you know, or kind of a faulty uh introduction to the topic to begin with, uh you know, and and and they overcompensate. I feel I feel like that's that's often uh why that sort of thing happens.

SPEAKER_02 26:30

Yeah, yeah. And so so what do you usually recommend with uh obviously they're both you know things that we want to emphasize, um, but how do you get people to eventually understand that those components because we're really fighting against their history?

Being Versus Doing As Image Bearers

SPEAKER_00 26:45

Yeah, hit thought processes. You you try to make it personal, and and with the image of God, it really it is it is it's hard, but it is about using mechanisms to make it to to find a vulnerable spot, right? Um oh you've got a oh you've got a brother with Down syndrome. Okay, let's talk about that. Can your brother do everything you can do? Is he ever going to be able to meet um that level of functionality that you would you would say the image of God represents in the functional understanding of the image of God? Um and most of them are they're going to have that that sympathy and that compassion that says, no, no, God loves my brother just as much, and God sees him as an image bearer just as much as me. And it's easy to do that when it's your brother, right? Right? Or it's easier. Um, there's some cold-hearted people out there, but but for the most part, it's easier once you find that that vulnerable person. And I'm not saying that that is always uh the right strategy, strategy to use in terms of every issue. Uh but uh what I am saying is you try to you try to help them think through the implications of what they are saying. Are you saying that your down syndrome, your brother with Down syndrome, is somehow less in the image of God than you are, simply because he cannot reach your level of intellect or or or physical functionality? Um, and most likely they're gonna backtrack. Um, are you simply saying that because this person grew up in poverty and didn't receive the education that you received and didn't have the financial resources that you had, are you simply saying that because they didn't have they weren't equipped with those things, that somehow now um they are not made in the image of God, but you are, even though somebody like you has in the past been in the same situation like that, um, and maybe even a relative of yours in years past. Um you know, those are the those are the exercises, the immigrant, you know, and and and these are often compassion and sympathy, they are they are very powerful tools. And I am you do need, of course, to be weary uh of whether of whether you're abusing them or not. But when it comes to the image of God conversation, we are intrinsically saying think about this other person, this other human being, and try to imagine yourself in their position, and then ask yourself whether or not the scriptures would say that you somehow are disqualified from being considered an image bearer simply because of that imagined, observed disposition that you've now, you know, considered. Um, so yeah, that that that's certainly you know one tool, and and and obviously that's a whole lot easier when the person has been out. They they've they've worked in the soup kitchens, they've traveled to India and been to Mumbai in the slums, they they've been in different cultural environments. Um, they've been to a Chinese village or or visited Russia. Uh the demonization and the in the in the uh the enemy the enemy terminology is uh a real easy way to to dehumanize a person uh and therefore extract the image of God from them in a heartbeat just by use just by by qualifying them as something or categorizing them as something.

SPEAKER_02 30:57

Yeah, I mean Jason, there's so much to to explore, even in that's what I'm saying.

SPEAKER_00 31:02

It's too broad of a topic.

SPEAKER_02 31:04

You know, these uh these are very important topics. So there's the functional, the structural, the relational, and then in in that um that excerpt that you that you wrote, you also talked a little bit about the complementarity of the sexes, which is an interesting one because I've also heard a lot of people say that um, for example, if we talk about the caring, nurturing side of mothers, so that is the feminine expression of God to his people or to his people. Right? And then you have the other where you have the strength and you have the justice and the judgment, and that's kind of like man, you're offending everybody, right? You know, so so yeah, I mean, but these are these are important elements to being made in in God's image. So can you talk a little bit about that? The complementarity of the Yeah, obviously, obviously that starts in scripture, right?

Compassion, Disability, And Human Dignity

SPEAKER_00 31:56

You know, and that's that's um that's ultimately where we want to land. We want to land, we want to begin there, and we want to bring everything back there. Um, and it's the in the image of God they were created, male and female, they were created, right? Um, and that in itself um speaks to the relational aspects of of our image bearing. The the my concern as an ethicist is is always man, if I if I case the image of God this way, am I leaving myself open for someone to say uh that clump of cells hasn't yet reached uh a state of being or functioning or lading uh that they should be considered an image of a person in the image of God. That's always my concern. Right. What it uh is if that person goes brain dead, um have they lost the image of God? Right, that's that's that's the sort of questions that I believe that we have to ask ourselves to be very careful in how we define and and talk to ourselves and others about what it means uh to be made in the image of God. Uh and so when it comes, of course, uh to God's creation and male and females, that's critically important to say, okay, the image of God, whatever it is, has been inherently tied in scripture, in Genesis to male and females. Right? Um, yeah, well, you that has its own theological nuances. You do have some, you know, you do have some that will say, and I don't I don't say it this way, and I don't have this conviction, but there are some that say that Adam was made in God's image and E was made in Adam's image, right? And I'm like, I that's like I can see where you could twist that out of there, but it it the the scriptures literally say, right, that they were created, they male and female, in the image of God. Right. So I know that's it's important. Uh, I know that if uh then of course I read throughout scripture uh in various places uh about the importance of proper male and female relationships, especially, of course, in the New Testament. Uh and you see, of course, Jesus' relationship with females and invalidation uh of their role in society and the role in the church. Um and and you see Paul's language in places like First Corinthians, right, and Timothy, and he's he's saying, look, it's a marriage, uh, it represents uh Christ and his church. Um, and so in Genesis, you have the male and the female in their being, in their structure, right, represent um the Godhead. We let us go, let us, right? We're we they we have made them is what of course the text is really says, right? We have made them in our image, right? And so you you have this uh plurality in both the being that is making, i.e. the trinity, and the beings who are being made, um which are different, right? But are the same um in a capacity, in a in a framework, in their relationship to the creator. They both relate to the creator, uh, they are both made in the image of the creator, the Trinitarian Creator. Um, and so there's relational being creating relational beings. And uh the male-female relationship, uh, you know, I I've called it the the greatest peace, ongoing peace treaty of all time, of course. And with with with all without the fall, it's not a peace treaty. Uh it is it is distinct beings relating uh on common ground. But they're but they're different, you know, they're different, right? But they're on common ground. So not they're not it's not a dog, it's not an elephant, it's not, you know, it's not a monkey. The you have a distinct male and a distinct female throughout history that have in their functionality of relationship imaged in their relationship the relational God who is a three-person one oneness that relates with himself, right? Uh from eternity.

SPEAKER_01 37:35

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 37:36

Um, and and and so yeah, so if you do away, if you do away with a healthy functional relationship between distinct male and distinct female, you you uh you mar the reflection that is intended to reflect uh a God who is relational, right?

SPEAKER_02 38:03

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 38:04

I don't know if I I don't I don't know if that answered your question. No, bro.

SPEAKER_02 38:08

That was that was excellent. I mean, that was deep and you know, this is one of the things that I hate about modern culture, the battle of the sexes, because it really attacks kind of this this issue that we're talking about here is that what God intended for good, I mean, this has been an ongoing war, and even more so now in our culture, where it's like men versus women, and you know, we're better than you, and we're like we need to get rid of that. And it has creeped into the churches, I believe, where it's it's really impacted how we view each other, and it's really, I think, damaging the way in which we view the image of God in each other, and um, so yeah, so as I think about that, I think about the culture and how you know men view women, how women view men, like we're really attacking this very essential concept of what it means to be made in God's image. And part of this is, I guess the question that I have is what do you think people are missing? What are they getting wrong about this? Why are they allowing or why is culture allowing Christians allowing the culture to influence how we view each other in that way?

Male And Female As Complementary Image

SPEAKER_00 39:15

Sam, uh you know, I always um want to be careful about about uh these sensitive subjects, but but you probably talked to a lot of other people that have gotten divorced in this life. Um most of those divorces were reactions. They were they were reactions to dysfunction in the relationship. Um I would say that many of them, if not most of them, were over-reactions, that the abuse wasn't, you know, wasn't wasn't really as bad as they say it was, or or the um the you know, the infidelity, you know, maybe there was infidelity and they had a reason to do it, but in most cases, uh there's no infidelity. They just get tired of wrestling with the other person's preferences or their harsh language or whatever the case is, right? Uh, and so there is an overreaction um from one of the sexes versus the other sex, where they go, you know what? Uh you're just a horrible person, and I don't want to have I don't want to have anything to do with you, right? And I think I think collectively feminism is kind of an overreaction where where females, quite honestly, right, were degraded and abused in in many societies, including Western societies, for so long and and told you're not a full person in America at one point in time, right? They're not even a full voting person, you know. Um, they didn't have the same voting rights, and and they could be uh wives could be spanked. Um you you have so much back history um with women being treated individually in the family and culturally speaking, and even governmentally speaking, in the law, being treated as lesser than. And so the the reaction, the reaction is screw you, I am just as much a human being as you are. I can think just as well, you know, you know, the this and and just for everybody listening to this, I'm a complementarian. You know, I know I'm starting to sound like an egalitarian here, but but you have to work through these things realistically and honestly in order to get to the right theological biblical understanding of what complementarity is, right? And you've got to work through uh the fact that uh in our own relationships and homes and in our culture and societies, certainly gotten uh a hundred times better over the last 50 years. But throughout history, women have been treated like crap, for lack of a better term. There are always exceptions, they're always, and I'm not saying that women don't have their sins and don't abuse. I always get a little upset when people uh attempt to act like they're just the victims and everything, they're not. Um, but the overreaction is there, and so the overreaction is there's no difference between you and me. Well, what happens when you keep on saying there's no difference over and over and over and over again in your schools, in your homes, on TV, in movies? What do you think will start to happen? Well, you were training ourselves to believe that there is literally no difference between males and females, and that the differences that there are there physically are inconsequential, and they're that are there emotionally or chemically uh or or in personality are inconsequential, um, and and are arbitrary or or are circumstantial, and that they're not existential, they're not transcendently formed, right? That's that's what we have, in my opinion, trained our society to believe, and now we're paying the price, and praise God, we've got some pushback in our culture right now to say, well, wait a second. You know, females are different than males. You know, ironically, it's because of sports, you know, that that we go, you know, we go, no, our daughters need to have their separate sport. They need to have their separate locker rooms. That you know, they're vulnerable. You can't can't do that. It's fathers and mothers going, no, you can't treat my my daughter that way, right? Um, but prior to that, we were like, Yeah, my daughter can do, and we still, you know, every commercial, my daughter can do everything, you know, that anybody else can do. That's not what I teach my daughter. Uh I I and and my daughters. Um, I I think it's a silly thing to say either way, but when we when we talk about what we do and who we are, we have to be as as Christians, we've got to be very careful that we go back to the word of God and we let the scriptures define, okay, what is what is what is the role of man in his relationship to God? Uh Anthony Hakama, great book. And this is where you know I get a lot of my thinking have over time created, yeah, created in God's image. Uh Anthony Hakama, uh, wonderful job talking about the relationship. Um, and this is the relational aspect uh of of the image of God, is that we are we are we are in relationship with our creator, we are in our relationship with our fellow man, humanity, uh, and we are in relationship to the ground, to the earth, to creation itself. Like we have these relationships, right? And and we, the male and the female, um represent this functional um beings who God intended to reflect who he is in the way we relate with uh the earth and with each other, right? Uh we're supposed to actually me kind of be a reflection of his glory and and how we how we relate to all that. Functionally and structurally, we're supposed to relationally be reflective, reflective of his glory and who he is and who he wants everyone to know he is, uh when we when we when we be act are uh the way that we should be act are, you know.

unknown 46:37

Right.

SPEAKER_01 46:38

Yeah.

Culture Wars And Losing The Image

SPEAKER_00 46:39

So yeah, that's all those are long, long answers to to the question. But that's great. No, uh, yeah, it's incredibly important that we that we get those things right, uh, especially when it when it comes to the to male, female issues, so much, you know, the there this side of heaven, it won't be solved. But and but and that's why I say it's the the greatest ongoing, you know, peace treaty, is we we have an internal angst. It started in the garden, right? Um there is the I don't understand you, you don't understand me. And at the same time, at the same time, we do understand each other in in when we stand before God. If we're honest, if we're honest, we understand each other. And that's that's the Adam and you know, maybe that's a good theological spot to start is to is to say, when in your life, you know, if you're married or or if you have a relationship, you know, with a woman or your man, you opposite sex, uh, that you have tension in, and you're like, remember that place on the garden where Adam and Eve are both dysfunctionally standing before their creator, ashamed. And the reason that they're both ashamed is because they both have the image of God. They are both made in the image of God. If it was just Adam, then only Adam is ashamed. The reason that shame is there is because shame is representative of a being that understands what was expected of them. That's why shame is there, because they transgressed the proper uh relational structural functionality of their very being. And both Adam and Eve stand in shame before their creator because they are both made in the image of God, and we have that, of course, as the foundation of why we are distinct in creation, right? And why we should work, why we should continue to fight to work together, whether it be in a marriage or whether it be at work, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 49:05

But yeah, yeah, no, that was good. Uh man. So we'll put this on the notes. A topic on the structural, on the functional, and the relational, and then we have this one, the complementarity one. Um, these are great topics, Jason. I and I really do appreciate your knowledge and wisdom on them. You know, I wanted to kind of close out with this um last point. I don't think I have it here in the notes, but it came to me as I was thinking about this because a lot of people also make this comment. I'm sure you've heard this before as well, where we're all children of God because we're made in the image of God. And maybe we touched on this last time where we talked about it, but this is one that's dangerous because um if people believe that they're children of God, children of God are given that status by receiving Christ through faith, right? And I think a lot of people miss that. And I think it's you know, I want to say they've heard it in some churches where they say you're a child of God, trying to communicate you're made in the image of God, but when you say you're a child of God, you're saying you're a Christian, even though that person may or may not may not have gone through that process of receiving Christ and repentance for sins. So can you just share a little bit about that? I think this is important for the audience to know. Obviously, there's Christians, but I think there's uh non-Christians who listen as well, just yeah talking about this.

SPEAKER_00 50:21

Yeah, no, it's important. I the the children of God language, it and I I mean, I'd have to, I have to, I'd have to jump on Google to confirm this. Um but I'm pretty positive there's one passage in scripture that's that uses the the term child, uh, of we are all God's children, if I'm not mistaken. Um but it's of course it's not it's not saying it in relationship to whether or not the the individuals in question are in a right relationship with God. It's simply stating it in the context of more of the context of we are all created in in the image of God. All right. And there's certainly, you know, you've got those good old passages. Um, you know, again, you know, I'm I'm pulling off the the hip here. Um, but of course, you have you have um um Cain and Abel, right? And and and Cain kills Abel. And the reason that uh that's wrong, of course, is that Abel is made in the image of God, right? And then you you have um um I forgot what book in the New Testament of where it's talking about with the tongue, right? You you you know, you with with with uh yeah, maybe James, but it was talking about the fact that you with your tongue you praise your God, but then you also you know you abuse with your tongue your fellow man who is made in the image of God, right? And so there definitely there's that language uh of that non-Christian person, no matter who he is, whether he's an Iranian, you know, revolutionary guard member, or or whether you know he's an ICE agent, uh, or or whether you know he's a whether he's a terrorist crossing the border, uh, whoever he is or they are, she is, right? They are in, they are an image bearer, they're made in the image of God, um, and they are deserving, because of that, of a certain level of respect. Um, and that's that's where the problem, I think, comes into play. But to your point, yes, of course, we have to be careful about the children of God uh language, because normally the children of God language is allocated to those who actually have a functional relationship with God, have the indwelling spirit of God living inside of them. And that that would bring us back to, you know, to to uh uh Thomas Aquinas or Irenaeus, who would say, uh, no, you're actually in the likeness of God. You know, once the spirit of God is living inside of you and you've been created into a new being, all things have passed away, all things, you know, all things have become new, right? Old things have passed away, all things have become new. So you you have that definitely that distinction of what it means to be a child of God versus made in the image of God. Um, but I but I'm just being honest about the fact that there are, I think, at least one or two scriptures that would give the impression because of language used, that child, child language is used, but the context is not supporting the idea that everybody is somehow God's uh in good relationship child, right? That's good. And I appreciate that. But but you know, but we but we don't man, I I feel like nowadays that's that's not the overwhelming problem. I feel like the overwhelming problem right now is that guy's being the being, he's a demon, right? Or they're they're they're they're dogs, they're they're wretched, disgusting dogs. They don't, they're not deserving of my time, they're not deserving of my respect, they are refuse, right? That's why I and I see this, I've probably spent too much time on on Twitter or X or whatever it is, but I see this coming from too many Christians where they use this abusive, highly abusive language when speaking about the adversary to their political view or theological view or whatever the case is. I I think there's a place I and I use I use terms like disgusting, I use terms uh like shameful, but I'm careful to use them in relationship to actions and beliefs, um, because I want to be extremely careful about not uh it's like the it's like the fool, right? Uh admonition. Don't call a person a fool, don't do it, right? Don't don't hate a person, don't call a person a fool. Um, why? Because they're made in the image God, they're image bearers, and you're going to be held accountable to the fact that God loves them. They they are supposed to be reflective of his glory, they are errant the way that you were errant. In relationally speaking, they they are outside maybe uh of the relationship, uh functional and right relationship, reconciled relationship with God, uh, just as you were at one point in time. And they are acting uh outside of the intended function and structure of who God wants us to be, just like you did and have at times and used to, right? So you just nowadays I feel like we just got to be very careful that we remind ourselves um the respect that's due to all image bearers, and that includes uh babies in the womb, right? That that includes those and includes those who are dying on the bed and and no can no longer communicate with you. Um but but structurally and relationally they are still image bearers, right? They may not be able to function the way that they used to or could have or were supposed to, uh, but the fall and and illness and sickness and disease and death, right? And sin comes in and and messes with that potentiality, but the relationship and the structure is still there. Yeah. Whew, man. That was sorry. Every now and then I get all the soapbox.

SPEAKER_02 57:11

Hey, hey, I'm uh I'm not complaining. I'm sure the audience that won't complain either. This was great, brother. I I mean, like you said, I feel like we can go on a number of these topics for, I mean, they're their own episodes. Yeah, that's true. That's true. Yeah, if you are willing, I'd like to steal more of your time and pick your brain about all these different topics, and you know, I'm sure we'll have more interactions and so on. But uh, brother Jason, I appreciate you, brother. Thank you for sharing on this topic. Uh, for those of you guys who are listening, uh Jason, is there anywhere you know people can reach you or read some of your stuff um so that they can be more familiar with it?

SPEAKER_00 57:46

Yeah, yeah, uh I I think uh jtru at uh glenn.com or something like that. It's it's thoughts from the glen. Thoughts from the glen with one in, like the valley, but my last name is Glenn with one in. Uh that's my that's my my blog uh where I've I've written various blog posts over the years. But uh yeah, just look me up online, I suppose.

Children Of God Versus Image Bearers

SPEAKER_02 58:10

Yeah, sounds good, sounds good. Well, guys, thank you guys for tuning in to this episode, and please share it and leave a review. Uh obviously, the the reviews leave um room for more growth, and also so more people can tune into the podcast. Thanks again, man. We'll see you guys next time.

SPEAKER_00 58:28

Thank you, Sam. Loved it, appreciate you, man.