Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck presents a broader notion of the image of God, something important in health care chaplaincy. For him, human beings do not have the image of God. The image of God is not something or a characteristic that we all bear, have, or acquire. As human beings, we all are the image of God. Our body, soul, and spirit, represent integrally the image of God. So there is no difference between the image and likeness of God, since all aspects of the human being reflect God perfectly . All that is God is found in us in a limited way; for example, essence, character, virtues, abilities, etc. This allows us to affirm that our bodies are not outside of the image of God, but are an essential part of it.
Our bodies allow us to interact with the physical world—a body that God created healthy and capable in all aspects. Thus, dominion over the earth would be one of the many characteristics of the image of God. Neither angels, demons, animals, nor plants have dominion over creation, except God and human beings. And that dominion should be understood not as exercising unlimited power over creation, but as representing God in the creation’s care. One thing I like to highlight is that our identity is formed before one may do something. Human beings are not what they do, but they act because of who they are. For instance, do we sin because we are sinners, or are we sinners because we sin? I strongly believe that although both are valid points, the first option has more validity or soundness than the second option. Therefore, despite all the features of the image of God human beings have, we cannot work apart from God because God created us intentionally to be always in communication with him.
I think we reflect more of the image of God in our spiritual aspect than in our physicality. For example, human strength cannot be easily compared to God’s strength, but our ability to show love and compassion to others reflects a lot of God’s character. When sin corrupted human nature, we lost the ability to reflect God in the ways He wanted us to do it, so that Christ restored such image in us in order we may have communication with God again and reflect him in the best way possible.
Overall, I lean toward Bavinck’s synthetical view of the image of God. The view has many positive and useful implications for modern Christianity. The advantage of this theological synthesis is that it offers us a holistic approach, which can allow us to include the insights of the other major views such as the structure of the human person, such as reason and capacities, and the functional and relational perspective.