The Essentials of Integration: Developing the Image of God

By Eddie K. Baumann - In previous issues of CSE, he presented two principles focusing on curriculum integration: stewardship and reconciliation. While these principles serve as a theological framework for curriculum, they also underscore a potential problem in the normal practice of biblical integration...

In previous issues of CSE, I presented two principles focusing on curriculum integration. The first, stewardship (CSE 11.3), is teaching students to use their knowledge, time, abilities, and resources for God’s glory by ministering to the spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical needs of others and caring for the world God created. Teaching from a stewardship perspective empowers students to obey the commands God gave humanity before the Fall. In the second, reconciliation (CSE 12.2), students learn to use all God has given them to help restore humanity’s broken relationships— to God, others, nature, and the self—in a world that suffers from sin and the consequences of the Fall.

While these principles serve as a theological framework for curriculum, they also underscore a potential problem in the normal practice of biblical integration. Most teachers view integration primarily as a curriculum issue—the process of aligning academic content with biblical truth. Consequently, integration affects lesson planning but often fails to influence instructional methodology. Subsequently, integration has little direct effect on the objective of education—the edification of the students. As a result, students often find integration has little importance or practical relevance to them.

A third principle, developing the image of God, is instructional in nature. It is directed at making the principles of stewardship and reconciliation pedagogical as well as defining curricular goals. Unlike stewardship and reconciliation, the principle of the image of God is not simple to state. It requires a bit of theological and philosophical background.

In Theory

In the Western world, two views of humanity have been prevalent. The fi rst, the biblical view, states that humans were created as God intended, in His image, but then they sinned. As a result, the image of God is marred in humans but not lost. Thus, all human beings are image-bearers of God even in their unbelieving state. The second, the Greek and Enlightenment view, maintains that humans are separate from animals not because of any intrinsic worth (i.e., God’s declaring them valuable), but because of the human capacity for reason. From this perspective, the more rational one becomes, the more human one is. Consequently, education, as the process of becoming more rational, becomes a humanizing influence on people and society.

This second perspective causes many people to view social problems as a result of ignorance and to see education as a means to elevate both the individual and society. This emphasis on education for individual improvement, combined with the desire for autonomy (the essence of the sin nature), has led to a belief that educational attainment empowers the individual. That is, the more education one attains, the more options one has in life. As such, educational attainment serves as a means to pursue one’s own values or interests. While schools may engage in character education to encourage more altruistic or humanitarian ends, such pursuits are seen as voluntary, not as moral obligations.

The term image of God is charged with meaning. Genesis 1:26–27 records God’s intent to make humanity in His image. The idea of image-bearing is reaffirmed in the New Testament as well (see James 3:9). The first two commandments of the Decalogue are also significant in this regard. In Exodus 20:3, God commands people to have no other gods before Him. In Exodus 20:4 is the command to not create any graven images or idols. Idolatry, such as Israel’s repeated worship of false gods, violates both commands. In addition, placing the pursuit of other things—such as money, prestige, or power—above the pursuit of God is a type of worship that violates the first commandment. The question, however, is whether the second commandment can be violated without breaching the first.

Exodus 32 records Israel’s creation of the golden calf. Note that Aaron, speaking for the people, claims “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (v. 4, NASB). God repeats this claim to Moses (v. 8) and condemns the action, but He does not specifically call it idolatry. The Israelites had seen the plagues and miracles that liberated them from Egypt and had experienced God’s provision for them in the desert. In essence, they had not abandoned God but had violated the second commandment by creating a graven image of God to worship.

Why the injunction against physical representations of God? Certainly, physical representations of God are limiting, and they reduce Him to qualities that can be captured by the limits of human imagination and handicraft. Yet, as any teacher who has taught young children knows, complex concepts must be made concrete to aid understanding (which is why teachers will divide a pizza to teach fractions). Even adults struggle with abstract ideas and often require diagrams or other symbolic representations to facilitate understanding.

God, who created humans, certainly understands these cognitive qualities. As spirit, God is abstract to human senses (see John 4:24) so that the desire to understand God is potentially hindered. The second commandment might appear to set humans up to fail in understanding God. Yet God provided means to understand Him through the furnishings of the tabernacle and temple, the symbolism of the sacrifices, and (ultimately) through Christ as God’s very essence.

When Christ states, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9), He makes this claim in both His perfect deity and His perfect humanity. As image-bearers, human beings are also supposed to reflect many of God’s attributes through their lives. This reflection of God is not for God, who does not need the imperfect reflection humans can provide, but for others, who require a concrete representation of God to more fully understand Him.

In this respect, the command for no graven images is partly to ensure that human beings do not abdicate their responsibility to be image-bearers—a responsibility that makes humanity obligated to others in a manner that countermands the desires of the sin nature. The New Testament teachings on sanctification urge believers not simply to pursue holiness as an end in itself, but so that they are better equipped to minister to others as reflections of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

These three integration principles oppose the tendencies of the sin nature—the desire for sovereignty and autonomy from God in order to pursue one’s own desires. In stewardship, the focus is on how the gifts given by God are to be used for His glory according to His established standards by ministering to others and caring for the created order (see Matthew 25:34–40). In reconciliation, one works to help restore human relationships that sin has marred and continually threatens—relationships with God, others, nature, and the self.

In developing the image of God, students are guided in the process of becoming better reflections of God to others. This process requires more than theological understanding; it requires action. In Genesis 2:18, when God declared, “It is not good for the man to be alone,” there is acknowledgement that humans cannot experience their true godly purpose without the ability to reflect God to others. In essence, Eve was the recipient of Adam’s labor just as Adam would be the recipient of Eve’s.

When they consider the concept of the image of God, most Christians think of the traits humans share with God— for example, humans can love, reason, and exercise their wills, just as God can. This understanding, while not wrong, is incomplete; it fails to consider that the image is a reflection and must be reflected to someone. Thus, the capacities to love, think, or feel are relational. God’s image is reflected through these capacities in relationship with God and with others (see Matthew 22:37–40).

From this perspective, the purpose of a biblically based education is to prepare the disciples of Christ to reflect Him to others for His glory. The original intent for humanity, as seen in Adam, is that humans would reflect God to others through working for their betterment. This original intent was perverted in the Fall, and people now seek to use their abilities to serve themselves. Encouraging this concept of God’s image returns to God’s original intended relationships for humanity. In this way, the children of God are called to experience all God purposed for them, so that “they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).

In Practice

Unlike simple curriculum integration, developing the image of God is not only a call to know but a call to act. The effects of sin have distorted God’s image, so developing the image of God humanizes students in a godly manner—a purpose shared by but misapprehended by Enlightenment thinkers. For Christian educators, the goal of developing knowledge and reason is to prepare students to respond to God and to use knowledge in ways that bring glory to Him. Integration that seeks to develop God’s image requires teachers to give students opportunities to use what they have learned in ways that correspond to God’s purposes for learning.

Combining the curriculum principles of stewardship and reconciliation with the instruction principle of developing the image of God leads to education that is both dynamic and activity oriented. Several examples may serve to highlight this point.

At the elementary level, developing God’s image should focus on attitudes, character traits, and behaviors that emulate Christ and look after others’ interests (Philippians 2:2–7). Teachers should model these traits to students as well as provide encouragement and opportunities for practice through assigned classroom responsibilities and voluntary occasions to serve. Proper emphasis should be placed on the idea that service to others brings glory to God and not opportunity to promote oneself.

As students mature, classroom opportunities can be augmented to allow greater participation in the school community—for example, helping teachers or younger students or caring for facilities in ways that emphasize the practices of stewardship and reconciliation in daily life.

As students enter middle school, implementing the image of God can be extended to life in the greater community. This extension integrates classroom content with the relevance of the gospel and also emphasizes the relationship of stewardship and reconciliation to discipleship as students move from childhood to young adulthood. The energy, excitement, and emerging idealism of young adolescents make them receptive and enthusiastic to more community involved activities.

Integrating such practical experiences with the biblical concepts of stewardship and reconciliation and the content of classroom learning will connect faith, learning, and life— a goal sought by many Christian educators. For example, one school’s students practice compassion by working for low-income seniors. Students who serve are also able to complete a history project for their social-studies class by interviewing the seniors on their life experiences.

The high school level offers even greater opportunities to develop God’s image. For example, in a personal-finance course, one instructor has students plan a budget for a local family of four in which both parents work for minimum wage. The objective not only helps teach budgeting but also gives students the opportunity to learn the effects of poverty and to develop compassion for the working poor. In another school, students use their art or music talents to provide free concerts, exhibitions, and artwork for members of the community.

Strategies that seek to integrate faith with learning and result in application to life require planning that not only aligns the curriculum with biblical truth but also influences the goals and outcomes of instruction. Biblical integration, like all Bible-centered instruction, is for the purpose of making disciples. The discipleship process involves not only engaging the mind but also promoting godly action (James 1:22, 2:20; Romans 12:1–2).

Ultimately, the goal is for teachers to guide students to transfer learning to life outside the classroom. In developing the image of God, the principles of stewardship and reconciliation are given application, first in the controlled and supportive setting of the community of faith and later to the community at large. In this way, these three integration principles seek to develop faithful disciples of Christ who can apply the content of learning to all aspects of life.

Eddie K. Baumann, PhD, serves as a professor of education and teaches both graduate and undergraduate courses in philosophy of education, educational psychology, and biblical integration at Cedarville University in Cedarville, Ohio.
The Essentials of Integration: Developing the Image of God | CSE Volume 13 Number 4 | 2009/2010 33 By Eddie K. Baumann