So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
GEN. 1:27
…
To educate and teach is to help the other become human. And so, behind every education, however concrete and pragmatic it may be, lies an idea of the human being. After all, how can you help children and students become more human without having your own idea about being human? You have to know where you are going with children and students!
RAES, 2011b, p. 70, our translation
1 Introduction
Now that we have outlined our pedagogical and theological premises, the following three chapters will focus on the main elements of a Christian school pedagogy. In this we follow the three corners of the pedagogical triangle, starting in this chapter with our view of the student. For the pedagogical setting, we need insights from formal theology on the perception of the human being. In other words: we provide, with a philosophical term, a reasoned ‘anthropology’. How we view students as human beings is not only a matter of philosophy. We are aware of non-differentiated anthropological conceptions in the everyday teaching practice, at the lowest layer of theological reflection (see Chapter 2, Figure 3). Teachers do not usually act based on an explicit doctrine about the human being but on unexpressed ideals and expectations about humanity, internalised in the course of their lives (De Muynck, 2021). Consider the example of a 6th-year teacher who decides to deviate from the maths method for a lesson about chance and probability. He relates the following:
I didn’t just want the children to learn about chance and probability as prescribed in our educational method. I want them to see how you can deal rationally with the future. In their future professions, they will have to reason about what is
Remarkably, the teacher links a maths lesson with religion. To use the words of the previous chapter: in his imagination, thinking about God is not separated from mathematics. However, what interests us most in the context of this chapter is what image of man is involved in the teacher’s actions. Does the example reveal something about humans, their destination and how they can be led there (Bavinck, 1928, p. 21)? Or, to put it in the words of the quotation above this chapter: is the teacher engaged in helping students to grow as human beings (Raes, 2011b, p. 70)?
We shall not answer that question immediately but return to it further on in this chapter. First, let us stop to make a general remark here. As stated earlier, the starting point of this school pedagogy is not anthropology, but God’s mission. However, this does not mean that anthropology is of minor importance. Even though images of human beings are often implicitly present in education, these images strongly determine the teachers’ actions. They are part of their own professional theory. We will return to this in Chapter 6. This means essentially that teachers integrate images of man into their own framework of knowledge, insights and teaching style (Kelchtermans, 2009, pp. 260–265). Teachers can proclaim, for example, ‘children are naturally curious’, and apply this in their teaching. This indicates the importance of an anthropological chapter in a school pedagogy: teachers’ images of students direct their pedagogical actions (Beugelsdijk & Souverein, 1997, pp. 24–25).
To answer the question of what kind of beings learners are, and what task teachers have, concerning their education and training, we take our starting point in the image of God. Following the Reformed theological tradition,
2 Humans as the Image of God
2.1 Created in God’s Image
The central idea of being created in God’s image is explained by many theologians (see for example Bavinck, 1928, pp. 83–84; Bavinck, 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 511–588; Middleton, 2005; Van den Brink & Van der Kooi, 2017, pp. 260–266). According to Genesis 1, God has created humans in His image and likeness (Gen. 1:27), unlike the animals, which were made according to their kinds (Gen. 1:25). Although humans are explicitly called the image of God only a few times in the Bible, this concept belongs to the core of the biblical discourse on humankind; it is presupposed, for example, in Psalm 8, Ephesians 4 and Hebrews 2.
There is broad theological consensus that the image of God expresses the connectedness to God and at the same time subordination to God. The human being is the crown of God’s creation, yet not divine. The Bible does not state that the human is the image of God (this is only said of Christ; see 2 Cor. 4:4), but that they are created in God’s image and likeness. They are an image of God in the sense of representation, not of archetype. In addition, according to the second creation narrative, humans are made from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7). They are created in God’s image but also out of dust, meaning that there is at the same an intrinsic connection and a qualitative difference between God and human beings.
While there is hardly any difference of opinion about the basic outlines of the image of God, it is another matter when it comes to its concrete elaboration. The history of the reception of Genesis 1:26–28 is characterised by various interpretations. According to the classical interpretation, the image of God is shown in humans’ capabilities. As living beings (animal rationale), they have a capacity for reasoning and for acting morally. Sometimes reference is
When man is said to have been made to the image of God, these words refer to the interior man, where reason and intellect reside. (…) Even our body has been made so that it reveals that we are better than the beasts and, for that reason, like God. For the bodies of all the animals which live either in the waters or on the earth, or which fly in the air, are turned toward the earth and are not erect as is the body of man. This signifies that our mind ought to be raised up toward those things above it, that is, to eternal spiritual things. (Augustine, 1991, p. 76)
Although Augustine commonly interprets the image of God in a structural way, we can also connect his anthropology with a relational interpretation: the opening of the Confessions (‘Our hearts find no peace until they rest in you’) shows Augustine’s conviction that the human being was created relationally. As long as the relation is not restored, people are not only estranged from God, but also from themselves (Augustine, 1982, Book 1.1).
John Calvin (1509–1564) situates the image of God in the soul, although he also connects it with the human body. This occurs for example in a sermon on Gen. 1:26–28 from 1559 (Calvin, 2009, p. 94), and in the Institutes (1559). The image of God relates to the soul, but God’s glory also shines in the body: that
The capacity of rational agency is a remarkable capacity; it gives those who possess it great worth. The problem, however, for those who want to ground human rights in the worth we have by virtue of possessing this capacity is that some human beings do not have the capacity: newborn infants do not yet have the capacity, those sunk deep into dementia or in a permanent coma no longer have it, those severely impaired mentally from birth never have it. (Wolterstorff, 2013, p. 134)
The main point made above about the secular capacity accounts applies here as well: whatever be the capacities required to possess the image of God, some human beings do not have those capacities. If the image of God is understood in the traditional way, as presupposing or consisting of the possession of certain capacities, then some human beings lack the image of God. (Wolterstorff, 2013, p. 136)
Besides a structural interpretation of the image of God, we can distinguish a functional understanding. Here the emphasis is on what the human being does or is called to do as God’s representative: fulfilling and subduing the earth and ruling over the animals. Being human is then linked to the formation and transformation of culture. Middleton, phrases as follows: ‘(…) the human calling as imago Dei is itself developmental and transformative and may be helpfully understood as equivalent to the labour or work of forming culture and developing civilization’ (Middleton, 2005, p. 89). This becomes manifest, for example, in the building of cities (Gen. 4:17; 11:1–9) and the making of musical instruments (Gen. 4:20–22). This explanation stands stronger than the structural interpretation, because the image of God relates to the command to multiply and to master creation (Gen. 1:28). Thus, the human being reflects God’s wisdom and creativity. This approach is recognisable in the objectives of teaching, for the teacher wants to teach the students something beneficial for their lives and their future professions. A functional view of the image of God suits our mission-oriented pedagogical approach. An objection to this explanation is that it narrows being created in God’s image to a task. A human being, however, is more than the task they fulfil. So, for biblical-theological reasons, despite the validity of the functional interpretation, we need to interpret the image of God more broadly.
From the twentieth century on, there has been broad consensus on a relational interpretation of the image of God. Not abilities distinguish human beings from animals, but the fact that they are relational beings: created in relationship with God (Gen. 1:26–27), other people (Gen. 1:27) and the world (Gen. 1:28). This relates to the creation account of Genesis 2, which is about the relationship with God (v. 8), with other people (vv. 7, 12, 16), and with creation (vv. 18–19) (Van den Brink & Van der Kooi, 2017, p. 265). According to this interpretation, neither human capacities nor the task given to humans is decisive but their resemblance to God as a relational person. A person is the object of God’s love and can respond to love; as a person, they can enter into relationships with others and take responsibility for their task and calling. This corresponds to their unique position: while the animals were created in their own kind, God created humans in His image and likeness.
There are various biblical-theological arguments for a relational understanding of the image of God. The biblical talk of image and likeness points to a relationship: as the image of God, human beings do not exist in isolation, but as creatures in relation to God. As creatures, they are addressed by God and held responsible. Furthermore, the relational aspect is apparent from the
A relational interpretation enables us to integrate important aspects of the other interpretations. For example, the human’s calling according to the functional interpretation could easily be connected to a relational interpretation. Being called presupposes that people are related to God and their environment. Based on Genesis 1 and 2, one can add that humans are related to other people. In the same way God addresses people, they can answer God and enter into reciprocal relationships (Van den Brink, 2017, pp. 200–201). They are not only in a responding position towards God but also towards other human beings. In the school pedagogy context, we can apply this to the student’s relationship with the teacher. Students can listen to and receive something from the teacher and are also able to respond. However, they are independently growing in a knowing relationship to reality (the top line of the pedagogical triangle). They develop their own perceptions and reasoning. In the dialogical relationship, they practise taking responsibility. A relational interpretation can also do justice to an important aspect of the structural interpretation: as unique creatures, humans stand in relation to God because, as opposed to animals, they have souls. As reasonable-moral beings (as formulated in Chapter 3), they are able to gain insight and act (morally).
2.2 Fall
Now we come to the question of the consequences of the Fall for man as God’s image. Can we, from the here and now, refer to an anthropological given from the good creation? If not, the creation of humans in God’s image loses its relevance for school pedagogy, because it is not applicable to the student’s actual situation. We give separate attention to this because this issue seems to have been underestimated (Kuiper & De Muynck, 2025). In addition, if the answer is affirmative, what sin means for man as created in the image of God will have to be explained.
Christian tradition has answered the question of whether man remained in God’s image after the Fall in different ways (for an overview, see Van de Beek, 2014, pp. 189–194). According to Reformed theology, the image has not been lost, but severely damaged. Calvin, for example, says that the image of God has not been destroyed and annihilated in man, but corrupted in such a manner that only a ‘frightful deformity’ remains. As said in the previous section, Calvin relates the current image of God not to creation, but to its restoration through Christ: the gifts and abilities by which man excels and why he is a mirror of
The Reformed confessions also emphasise human depravity with remnants of the image of God remaining. However, the Belgic Confession says that these are only to deprive humans of any excuses for his unbelief (Art. 14). The Canons of Dort offer a more positive interpretation: after the Fall, man has still some light of nature left, by which he retains some knowledge of God and natural things as well, such as the distinction between moral and immoral (Chapter III/IV, 4). Neo-Calvinist theology, distinguished between the image of God in a narrow and wider sense, and by doing so, sought to honour both human depravity and the residual gifts to safeguard humanity (see for example Bavinck, 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 548–549). An important objection to the distinction between the image of God in a narrow and wider sense is that it would lead to a division of human capacities: what can humans still do after the Fall and what can they no longer do? Because humans have lost true knowledge, righteousness and holiness, the focus is shifted to rationality and creativity. This, however, leads to a dualistic view of humans as sinners, but in practice, the confession of being sinners not resonating with the view on the rationality and creativity of human beings.
A relational interpretation solves this problem because it is no longer required to determine which abilities remain since the Fall. As relationship bonds are essential to humans, they cannot lose the image of God. Every person continues to resemble the Creator. That the human has remained a relational and a reasonable-moral being after the Fall is evident by the fact that God calls Adam to account: ‘Where are you?’ (Gen. 3:9). When Adam hides himself, avoiding communication with God, the LORD calls him out. At the same time, the command to cultivate and preserve the earth remains, so that we can also acknowledge an important point of the distinction ‘in a narrow and wider sense’, namely the preservation of humanity.
The image of God has not remained undamaged after the Fall. The relationship with God is broken. In their relationality humans seek to replace the broken relationship with God in self-idolatry or idolatry of creatures: people have replaced the glory of the imperishable God with an image resembling a perishable human being (Rom. 1:23–25). While inter-human relationships are not broken, nor those with the surrounding world, they are under pressure. Adam blames his wife (Gen. 3:12); in the post-fall situation, the man rules over his wife (Gen. 3:16). In Genesis 4, the broken relationship becomes manifest when Cain kills his brother Abel out of jealousy (Gen. 4:8). However, the calling of humans also remains; from now on, sadly, reproduction is accompanied by sorrow, where the woman gives birth with pain (Gen. 3:16). And still,
The fact that relationships are broken and disturbed has consequences for being human. Again, the significance of Augustinian anthropology becomes apparent: ‘Our hearts find no peace until they rest in you’ (Augustine, 1982, Book 1.1). Human beings are looking for something they do not have (anymore). A relational interpretation does not relativise sin and brokenness. Because of the broken relationship with God, humans are estranged from their Creator and therefore from themselves; this affects interpersonal relationships and the relationship to the world. To respond to their calling, they need redemption, regeneration and conversion. This brings us to another aspect of the biblical discourse about the image of God: The New Testament’s primary concern with Christ.
2.3 Redemption
As we have seen, after the Fall, people have remained relational beings. However, the relationship with God is broken, and the relationships with neighbour and environment are disrupted. At this point it is significant that, in the New Testament, not humankind in general but Christ is called God’s Image (2 Cor. 4:4): He is the radiance of God’s glory (Heb. 1:3), the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15). Where we dealt with humans as creatures in God’s image and likeness in the foregoing; we now come to a second biblical line. The fact that, in the New Testament, Christ is primarily the image of God confirms that humans did not come through the fall unscathed. Christ, as God’s image, does not reflect the ideal human being. He is called the image of God in the New Testament in the context of reconciliation and redemption (2 Cor. 4:6; Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:20–22). The fact that human’s relationship with God has been disrupted has consequences for other relationships: those with other human beings and with this world. Even though humans after the Fall are still relational beings, responsible, unique, rational and creative, they need redemption. Therefore, in Christian pedagogy, we cannot speak about man as the image of God apart from Christ. Creation and redemption must be kept united: humans are created in God’s image, but they need Christ, the Image of God, as Saviour.
Finally, the emphasis on Christ as the image of God and the renewal of the image into true knowledge, righteousness and holiness raises the question of whether the New Testament makes all references to Genesis 1 superfluous: does the redeemed creation replace the old? This issue is also important because, in our triadic school pedagogy, we speak about the created world we live in. That the redeemed creation does not replace the old becomes clear from Paul’s
3 Students as the Image of God
In this section, we would like to address the consequences of the image of God for a Christian pedagogical view of students. Firstly, we explore the pedagogical implications of a relational view of students as being created in God’s image. Then we explore the concept of responsibility: as God’s image, students must learn to take responsibility. Afterwards, using the concept of hermeneutical space, we explain that students as God’s image are created with an openness to reality, whereby they can transcend their own existence as reasonable beings and receive and give meaning. These expositions allow us to confirm what we discovered about the structural and functional understanding of the image of God. Finally, we formulate questions that need to be answered from within the pedagogical triangle when we articulate the relationship between the student and the subject matter on the one hand and the relationship between teacher and student on the other.
3.1 Relational Person
By conceiving students as created in God’s image, we have chosen a starting point that differs from the anthropocentric paradigm dominant in Western culture. Not the student, but God is at the centre. That students are created in the image of God not only indicates an intrinsic connection but also subordination to God. In the previous section, we emphasised the relational aspect of the image of God. That students are relational human beings colours pedagogical themes such as uniqueness, authority, responsibility and development (worked out more extensively in Chapter 7). In terms of a school pedagogy, however, the notion of the image of God is relevant in another way, too:
3.2 Religious
‘To be’ refers firstly to the ‘religious’ in human beings: the relationship with God is essential to their existence. We affirm Augustine’s assumption that students find their ultimate goal in serving and loving God. Christian teaching therefore cherishes the ideal of the God-fearing person (De Muynck & Visser-Vogel, 2020). By God-fearing, we do not mean being socialised by Christian habits, but rather living faithfully with God, which requires high moral responsibility. This ideal is difficult for several reasons, not only because it cannot be produced (see Chapter 1), but also because its content has some unattractive aspects. Believing in a crucified person is foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23), it requires submission (Mark 8:35), and faith involves suffering (1 Pet. 4:12). The latter can be the case, among others, in a cultural context in which faith has been so marginalised that living as a Christian believer sets one aside as ‘strange’.
3.3 Unique
Secondly, a learner as a relational being is a unique person. Again, this is primarily determined by the relationship with God: as persons, humans reflect something of God (Wolterstorff, 2013, pp. 136–137). Having the ability to enter into relationships does not mean students merge into these relationships; they remain unique and independent individuals. Nevertheless, the image of God implies that human beings cannot stand on their own. They are, after all, God’s image: they remain demarcated individuals. Mainstream Christian theology has always rejected the mystical option of merging into the divine. Human beings are dependent on and subordinate to God, yet self-contained beings.
Teachers need to respect the uniqueness of all students’ personhood (on the image of God and respect see also James 3:9). Students are not objects, but unique persons, created in freedom from others. According to Bonhoeffer, from whom we derive this thought, we must go against our tendency to set ourselves as the standard and leave room for others. Whoever allows the image of God to take shape in the other, concedes others their freedom and bears the burden of the other’s freedom, including the structure of the personality,
3.4 Undetermined
Thirdly, the fact that students are created in God’s image means that they cannot be reduced to their biological characteristics (genes, gender), psychological structure (character), sociological status (origin, position) or economic value (consumer and producer). All these aspects are co-determinants of the human being, but they remain part of the larger framework that the student is created in God’s image. This mystery that ‘(…) there is a reality hidden in human beings’ (Pollefeyt, 2020, p. 115) must be respected by the teacher. Students are created with gender diversity, but this does not totally determine their identity. The biblical message about gender is part of how one ought to live with others. Together, male and female, reflect God’s image, also in mutual dependence (‘male and female He created them’, Gen. 1:27) and equality (Gal. 3:28, where is said from the relationship with Christ: ‘There is neither … nor male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’). Moreover, how students experience gender in no way determines how they should be addressed. While teachers should take the psychological structure of students into account, they may not narrow them down to this. The same applies to their sociological status (see again Gal. 3:28: in Christ, it does not matter whether one is Jew or Greek, slave or free).
In the current context of meritocracy, efficiency and management strategies, it is relevant to emphasise that the economic status of students does not decide our vision of students. They derive their dignity not from their achievements but from the fact that they are image-bearers of God. ‘There is no ideal of perfection that is placed as on a pedestal, as if a successful, intelligent, and attractive person would optimally reflect the image of God’ (Van den Brink & Van der Kooi, 2017, p. 264). They are more than the sum of their abilities or deficiencies. In the educational culture in which test results function as a frame for teachers, the concept of the image of God is culturally critical because it forces us to focus primarily on the student as a responsible person and not on achievements. Here we refer to what was said in Chapter 3 about the qualifying norm in school pedagogy. From a human dignity perspective, we are therefore critical of overvaluation of academic results and of excellence programs, as these tend to strengthen the one-sided attention to the student’s cognitive achievements.
3.5
An important question remains regarding the relationality of being human. Sin has not destroyed relationality: students remain attached to relationships, even if they are sinners. Also, all students have their gifts and talents, which can be accepted ‘with “cheerfulness and gratitude” as a starting point for their education’ (Bavinck, 1928, p. 78, our translation). The good and the beautiful found in creatures should receive appreciation (Bavinck, 1928, p. 106). At the same time, brokenness affects everything; a condition the teacher needs to reckon with while teaching. Because of sin, the dynamic of address and response is under tension. There are obstacles, both in the student and the teacher: self-centredness, miscommunication, misinterpretations, entering into contact and breaking it off can all be found in classrooms (Van Laar-Jochemsen, 2025). In addition, there can be trouble at home and the brokenness can sometimes be manifest in the relationship between teachers and parents.
Therefore, both the relationship founded in creation and its restoration through Christ are pedagogically relevant. To be a human being in a relationship, called to develop gifts and qualities to the honour of God and the salvation of one’s neighbour, students should not be addressed solely in terms of their creative origin. For this would imply that people with but a few pieces of the image of God just have to make the best of it. A Christian pedagogy that takes its anthropological focal point in the image of God therefore needs to relate creation, sin and redemption to each other. Although students remain relational beings, they will not reach their destination without redemption through Christ. In the words of Augustine: the heart of a student finds no peace until it finds rest in God (see Augustine, 1982, Book 1.1). People depend on Christ who, as the Image of God, does not reflect the ideal human being we must conform to, but is the Redeemer through Whom sinners come to their destiny. If sinners are renewed in the Image of Christ, this means a hopeful perspective, both within the educational context, for the task and vocation in this life and for the life to come.
3.6 Responsible Person
Human beings are designed to bear responsibility. This is intrinsically connected to the image of God, as is shown by the task God gave to humans to master, cultivate and preserve the earth (Gen. 1:28; see also Ps. 8). This touches on another aspect of the image of God for school pedagogy: education aims at responsibility. Connecting the image of God with responsibility has deep roots in the Christian pedagogical tradition. Comenius says: ‘He spoke wisely who said that schools were the workshops of humanity, since it is undoubtedly
The increasing independence of the student, Biesta aptly says, is not a problem to be solved; rather, it is the goal of the teacher’s (school) pedagogical action (see Chapter 3 and Biesta, 2018, p. 13). We agree with what has often been emphasised in the pedagogical tradition that man is animal educandum, a being who must be raised to become someone ‘who stands for what he is and does, and also wants to stand for it’ (Langeveld, 1974, p. 45, our translation, italics in the original text). Maturity refers to stability in the person. It also refers to a ‘unity of moral standards with which this person identifies, or strives to identify’ (Langeveld, 1974, p. 45, our translation). From the concept of the image of God: the student stands as a person in relationships, and they must learn to be responsible in their relationships, as a moral entity. Connecting this to the functional understanding of the image of God: as image-bearers, students acquire a moral stance during their education, and therein they learn to understand their task and calling.
3.7 Hearing and Responding
Responsibility assumes that students are responsive beings, being addressed and expressing themselves (cf. Kohnstamm’s description in Langeveld, 1974, p. 65). From a pedagogical point of view, the ethical-responsive form of being a person is at the heart of attention (Danner, 2010, pp. 150–156; Geertsema, 2005). In education, children learn to take responsibility. The responsive nature of the relationship implies that students should develop a listening attitude. This could be brought in connection with Shema Israel, Israel is called upon to hear: ‘Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts’ (Deut. 6:4–6). Remarkably, these words are linked to the parent’s educational task, in which hearing and responding are important (‘Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up’, Deut. 6:7). From this, we derive the insight that education should be rich in practices that elicit listening and attentiveness. From the central idea of hearing and responding, we can also derive the importance of understanding symbols, meaning letters and numbers which, in the cultural development of mankind, have become tools for hearing and understanding. Literacy and numeracy are skills that should be given priority
3.8 Guides
The pedagogical relationship between teacher and student does not aim at students’ permanent dependence on their teacher but at their maturity. Only by standing in the world as an adult, can the student take responsibility (Biesta, 2018, pp. 16 ff.). Because students do not take responsibility naturally, the teacher’s task is to guide them and help them carry it. They also encourage students to take responsibility for relationships. In the process of guiding, teachers provide space and set limits and, in doing so, they prepare students for a situation that does not yet exist, namely that of adult responsibility. At school, students practise responsibility in caring for each other and taking care of their tasks. Apart from that, the teacher also invites the students to imagine what the future will look like. In the example at the beginning of this chapter, the teacher looks ahead to the students’ future position in society. He believes his lesson on probability can help students develop an idea of certainty and uncertainty. Here, the functional understanding of the image of God comes in: people are created with a task and a vocation, to master, cultivate and preserve the earth. Even if daily work after the Fall is done in a sweat, because the earth brings forth thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17–19), humans remain responsible.
3.9 Freedom
Responsibility presupposes freedom because it requires intrinsic motivation rather than compulsion. Freedom and the related concept of autonomy can be understood as freedom from someone or something. In situations of oppression, through exploitation and also through systematic humiliation, such as bullying, freedom holds an important emancipatory value. In pedagogical terms, this is evident in, among other things, safeguarding the uniqueness of the person. However, being free from something or someone is not unlimited. Based on our view of students as image-bearers of God, we demarcate this freedom from negative or unrestricted freedom that fosters a solitary approach to the human being. Theologically speaking, God’s commandments bring freedom: students are called to love God above all else in freedom and their neighbour as themselves.
The connection between responsibility and freedom is most evident if we understand freedom as being free for someone or something. It requires that people are created for the community. It is precisely through the relationship with God and others that individuals can define themselves. The notion of the
3.10 Culture Mandate
From the perspective of the image of God, responsibility means taking one’s task and vocation on earth seriously. Students are called to love God above all, the neighbour as themselves and to care for the world they live in. The notion of the image of God puts the learning process in a broad, meaningful framework. Learning serves to sense and understand God’s calling better (cf. Van Brummelen, 2009, p. 99). Here, once again, lies the connection with the functional approach of the image of God, which in the Reformed tradition is linked to the cultural task given to humans (Middleton, 2005, p. 89; David I. Smith, 2009, pp. 53–57; Smith & Felch, 2016, p. 97).
3.11 Development
In Section 2 of Chapter 3 of this book, we concluded that a learner needs their own developmental space to become an adult. This notion is closely connected to the relational understanding of the image of God. For pedagogy, it is important to state that a relationship is not static, but always in development. As a relational being, we acquire knowledge and experiences with others, with the world we live in and, if we live coram Deo, with God. Bavinck already linked the image of God with development in knowledge and art (Bavinck, 2004, Vol. 2, p. 557). Development is bound to the image of God; it not only points to humans’ origin and the relationships in which they stand but also to the teleologic character of their existence. Because the image of God in man was originally unfinished, it requires development. Therefore, Bavinck considers the image of God as a gift and a task: it is a gift of grace and simultaneously the seed of a wonderful development (Bavinck, 2004, Vol. 2, p. 557).
3.12
Although we are inclined to express ourselves less idealistically than Bavinck did on this point, the fact remains that development is part of man’s vocation as God’s image. Teachers contribute to students’ development by exposing them to existing meanings. This is generally true. However, according to Psalm 78, this involves God’s deeds and words, so that students put their trust in God and do not become like their fathers. Students are also assigned to form themselves, to be able to perform their task and vocation before God as active signifiers of meaning. Christian teachers know that, since the Fall, separation from God happens within a development process. Therefore, pedagogical action is not based on the qualities of the human being. The Christian faith paradoxically claims that people can come into harmony with God through God’s grace. Redemption and sanctification are also necessary for development. Teaching is aimed at the student being devoted to Christ, now and in their future daily work: ‘so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work’ (2 Tim. 3:17).
3.13 Hermeneutical Space
Following the Flemish theologian Didier Pollefeyt, we connect the concept of the image of God pedagogically with hermeneutical space. The learners, as the image of God, have a radical openness to the reality in which they live, and they can transcend their own existence. They are created in receptivity to receive meanings and give meaning to phenomena. According to Pollefeyt’s definition, hermeneutical space is ‘(…) a place of openness, freedom, sensitivity, self-transcendence, and of receptivity for otherness and for a rich plurality of implicit and explicit meanings and interpretations’ (Pollefeyt, 2020, p. 116). Unlike animals, human beings, in God’s image, are not only able to relate to the world (animals are after all also capable of this), but also to enter receptive and creative relations with the outside world. The ability to find meanings and give meanings is important for teaching: rationality and creativity are characteristic of the student’s humanity. Traces of this ability can be found throughout the Bible. Humans can reflect on themselves, talk to themselves, and multiply their thoughts (Ps. 77:6-9; Ps. 94:19). The inner self can be a source of deceit (Jer. 17:9) but by addressing themselves believers can also arouse themselves to praise God (Ps. 103:1). In today’s educational culture, conferring meaning is more valued than receiving meaning. Receptivity is under great pressure because all the emphasis is on active learning and taking self-direction. In contrast to this, we stress the importance of receptivity as a critical regulatory moment in anthropology. Because educational practices do not automatically incorporate this, there is much reason to cultivate receptivity (De Muynck, 2020a). In times
3.14 Fragile
The hermeneutical space is fragile (Pollefeyt, 2020, p. 116). After all, meanings are received through the teacher, who, when they acknowledge their limitations and fallibility, will experience tension. On the one hand, they open reality for students by telling an authoritative story about God and His world. They try to enlarge the world for students by means of their own interpretative framework and the teacher’s Christian conviction can come into play without restraint. On the other hand, they do not take possession of the student’s hermeneutical space. Teachers aim to help students to find Christian meaning. However, the aim is equally that they learn to practice Christian meaning-giving. As we will point out in Chapter 5, acquiring knowledge is never neutral and the Christian perspective of the teacher never gets appropriated by the student automatically, especially when the teacher respects the hermeneutical space of students. A respectful distance to the student’s own space is not only necessary because education would otherwise become indoctrination but especially because knowledge acquisition requires the students’ active involvement. As further described in the next chapter, the teacher aims to make them wise interpreters.
3.15 Creativity
While the main focus in the hermeneutical space may, in the above, appear to be knowledge and cognitive skills, it does not exclude human creativity. Created in the image of God, students are not only rational but also creative beings. Artistic education brings students into contact with reality in a different way. Here, too, the student should be encouraged to become a wise interpreter: by discovering God’s world through the discovery of meaning, the attribution of meaning and creativity. For education, this implies that students should not only get answers but above all learn to address issues, acting for themselves. This means that students should be stimulated to think the Biblical message through for themselves (cf. Wolterstorff, 2002, pp. 30–31).
4 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have elaborated our view of the learner from the biblical concept of man as an image-bearer of God. We have observed that three interpretations are possible, each with its value: a structural, a functional, and a relational understanding. There are good reasons to give the latter the most
Although we have emphasised earlier that we do not start this pedagogy from theological anthropology, we have shown in this chapter that biblical information about humanity is regulative. By regarding humans as image bearers of God, it becomes clear how important it is to approach students as autonomous persons with a hermeneutical space. Their responsibility is not only moral but also concerns finding and giving meaning as the love for God and neighbour concerns all aspects of life. Education aims at making students wise interpreters. The issue we are faced with now is how they can become so. What do we mean by acquiring knowledge? Can we, from our concept of school pedagogy, clarify how this process takes place? We will elaborate on this in the next chapter.