Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters. By Carmen Joy Imes. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2023. 248 pp. $22.99 (paper).

Carmen Joy Imes’s Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters is a timely exploration of the doctrine of the imago Dei. It reflects significant trends in contemporary evangelical theology, three of which stand out in particular: the increasing accessibility of scholarly works, a renewed focus on what it means to be human, and the recognition of creation as a source of divine knowledge. While the book excels in engaging these themes, it is not without its shortcomings, particularly in its interpretive framework and theological emphases. Imes’s egalitarian reading of Scripture and her overemphasis on the earthly and bodily dimensions of humanity present significant concerns, and her limited engagement with broader scholarship leaves her argument less robust than it could be.

Overall, this book is a well-written and thoughtful contribution, but it raises important questions that merit deeper discussion.

Strengths of Imes’s Work

Imes succeeds in aligning with three major currents in evangelical theology that are shaping the contemporary landscape. Each of these is commendable and reflects her ability to engage with her audience meaningfully.

Accessibility of Scholarly Work

One of the most refreshing aspects of Being God’s Image is its accessibility. Imes writes with clarity and approachability, ensuring that complex theological ideas are available to a broad audience. This trend toward making theological scholarship accessible is a positive development in evangelical theology, allowing laity and pastors alike to engage with ideas that might otherwise remain confined to academia. Imes’s ability to connect doctrine to practical life is a particular strength of this book. Readers who might be intimidated by dense theological tomes will find her work inviting and informative.

A Renewed Focus on Humanity

The book’s focus on the anthropos—what it means to be human—is both timely and valuable. Imes draws from Scripture to explore the identity and vocation of humanity as image bearers of God. This emphasis speaks to a broader evangelical concern with human identity in a world increasingly defined by confusion about what it means to be human. Her approach encourages readers to see their daily lives, relationships, and work as central to their purpose as image bearers.

Creation as a Source of Knowledge

Imes emphasizes creation as a genuine source of knowledge about the world and God’s role in it. This is a welcome corrective to overly spiritualized readings of Scripture that neglect the material and physical dimensions of God’s revelation. Imes’s approach situates humanity within the broader context of God’s creative work, highlighting the importance of stewarding creation and recognizing its theological significance.

Significant Critiques

While Imes’s work offers much to commend, it also exhibits substantial weaknesses that reflect broader trends in contemporary evangelical theology. These issues deserve careful attention, as they shape the overall effectiveness and theological coherence of her argument.

Egalitarian Hermeneutics

One of the most significant weaknesses of Being God’s Image is its reliance on an egalitarian hermeneutic. Imes places substantial emphasis on the similarity between male and female as image bearers of God while downplaying their differences. This approach is particularly evident in her interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. In chapter 2, for example, Imes devotes considerable attention to developing an egalitarian notion of humanity and the imago Dei. While it is true that both male and female are made in the image of God, Imes’s focus on their sameness overlooks the theological significance of their differences.

The procreative potential of male and female, rooted in their similarity and difference, is central to the biblical narrative. The Genesis account presents the union of male and female as integral to God’s covenantal plan, a theme that runs throughout Scripture and finds its fulfillment in the relationship between Christ and the Church. By downplaying this aspect, Imes misses a key element of the imago Dei and its connection to God’s creative and redemptive purposes.

This egalitarian framework also influences Imes’s broader theological construction. On page 42, she states that “our sex, gender, marital status, and parental status are not essential components of our identity as God’s image.” While this may resonate with contemporary cultural sensibilities, it does not do justice to the biblical text. Biological sex and the sexual difference between male and female are not incidental to the creation story; they are vital components of God’s design for humanity. The conjugal reality of marriage and the generative potential it represents are essential to understanding the imago Dei and cannot be ignored.

Overemphasis on the Earthly and Bodily

Another area of concern is Imes’s overemphasis on the earthly and bodily dimensions of humanity. Following theologians like N.T. Wright and Richard Middleton, Imes adopts a heavily this-worldly perspective on the human condition and eschatology. While her focus on embodiment and the material aspects of creation is a valuable corrective to certain spiritualized readings, it creates an imbalance that neglects other important dimensions of theological anthropology.

Historically, theology has emphasized the soul, intellect, and the beatific vision as central to human identity and destiny. Imes, however, gives little attention to these aspects, focusing instead on the embodied and earthly nature of humanity. This trend is particularly evident in her eschatological vision, which prioritizes the restoration of creation and the physicality of the afterlife while downplaying the heavenly and immaterial aspects of human destiny.

This imbalance reflects a broader trend in contemporary theology to flatten the hierarchy present in Scripture and historical theology. By neglecting the disembodied interim state and the immaterial dimensions of the afterlife, Imes offers a vision of humanity that feels incomplete. As Matthew Levering and other theologians have argued, a God-centric view of the afterlife, characterized by the beatific vision and the immaterial nature of God, is essential to a robust theological anthropology.

Limited Engagement with Broader Scholarship

A final critique of Being God’s Image is its limited engagement with broader scholarship on theological anthropology. While Imes is clearly writing from within a particular hermeneutical tradition, the lack of interaction with alternative perspectives weakens her argument.

For example, there are several contemporary evangelical works on theological anthropology that could have enriched her discussion, even if only referenced in footnotes. Engaging with these works would not only demonstrate a critical interrogation of the literature but also provide readers with a fuller picture of the field. This lack of engagement creates the impression of an excessively narrow approach that does not fully account for the diversity of thought within evangelical theology.

Final Assessment

Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters is a thoughtful and accessible treatment of theological anthropology that reflects significant trends in contemporary evangelical theology. Imes’s emphasis on human identity, the accessibility of her writing, and her focus on creation as a source of divine knowledge are commendable and make the book a valuable resource for pastors, theologians, and lay readers alike.

However, the book is not without its flaws. Imes’s egalitarian reading of Scripture, her overemphasis on the earthly and bodily dimensions of humanity, and her limited engagement with broader scholarship reveal significant weaknesses in her approach. These issues are not merely academic concerns; they shape how readers understand the imago Dei and its implications for human identity, vocation, and destiny.

Despite these critiques, Being God’s Image remains a worthwhile read for those interested in theological anthropology and the doctrine of creation. It invites important conversations about what it means to be human and how we, as God’s image bearers, are called to live in this world. At the same time, it challenges readers to think critically about the theological frameworks that shape our understanding of humanity and God’s purposes for creation.

In the end, Imes’s work reflects the vitality and diversity of contemporary evangelical theology, offering both insights and challenges that deserve careful consideration.