BIBLIOGRAFÍA Y FUENTES

In Reynolds’ portrayal of God’s disability and vulnerability, “God reveals the divine nature as compassion not only by ‘undergoing’ or ‘suffering’ with human vulnerability, but by raising it up into God’s own being” (Reynolds, 2012: 42). As Eiesland has noted, Jesus bore the wounds of the crucifixion, which signifies His solidarity with humanity. We, therefore, need to focus on Jesus Christ as the exemplar of the stranger, who became the icon of a vulnerable God (Reynolds, 2008: 20). By implication, Jesus’ vulnerability made Him become in every respect like His sisters and brothers, including the disabled. For this reason, Antus (2013: 258) urges believers to share a dependency with one another by living in common vulnerability, just like Jesus did. Like Reynolds, Antus affirms that “we do not discover who we are, we do not reach humanness in a solitary state. We discover through mutual dependence, in weakness, in learning through belonging” (Reynolds, 2008: 19). Human beings are not created for isolation, hence the image of the Christian God is revealed distinctly in relationality, creativity, and availability.

As Eiesland recounts, the God of her dreams is totally different from the God of society and culture, whose character is omnipotent, perfect, solitary, almighty, and prosperous, and who ultimately does not identify with the vulnerable, disabled, poor, sick, etc.. Hull (2003: 35) agrees that the human image of God is usually that of the perfectly normal human God, who is raised to an even higher level of perfection. However, such images of God exclude imperfect or different bodies. Deconstructing this act of exclusion is a challenge to the church and society, which need to understand the image of God’s vulnerability. Thus, the church should carefully consider her actions towards those with disabilities, particularly from the three perspectives of creativity, relationality, and availability, which Reynolds claims are the primary characteristics that are revealed in God’s image. These images are repeated here because of their relevance in neutralising the attention given to physical body fitness, instead of the image of God. If all human beings are created in the image of God, these characteristics should be priorities.

79

5.3.1 Image of God as Creativity

Reynolds shows that the vulnerable God, who is the God of creation, chose to share His divine power of creativity with human beings in many ways such as procreation, naming, caring for, guiding, nurturing, harnessing and managing the economy of living things (Reynolds, 2008: 180)101_{. Cooper argues that God has given His creatures a level of creativity and love to sustain}

creation towards increasing complexity, meaning and value, but not in a controlling way, so that God and the world become co-creators of each event (Cooper, 1992: 179). For Samuel (1998: 16), the omnipotent Jesus Christ as the almighty, all-powerful God, who is the co-creator and through whom all things are made, disabled Himself on the cross. Samuel calls this the disablement of God. Regarding God’s omnipotence, Dicken claims that the design was to limit God’s responsibility towards His creation which includes and does not exclude each finite creature, as each is an occasion to be a co-creator with God (Dicken, 2011: 134). Reynolds agrees with Moltmann that human beings are the representatives of God on the earth and are therefore given the position of co-creators to create from chaos, to nurture and to bless (Reynolds, 2008: 180). Human beings have instincts and can talk with the Creator. Seeing humans as co-creators adds meaning to the word “difference” as used by Reynolds, for we are all created differently in terms of the colour of skin, shape, size, and gender, yet we relate with one another as we agree to make ourselves relational. We shall shortly dicuss the image of God as relationality again below.

5.3.2 Image of God as Relationality

It is significant to note that human beings are wired as relational beings created by God (Reynolds, 2008: 180). Similarly, because humans are in the image of a vulnerable God, it is important to understand that Jesus Christ entered the human contingency and willingly embraced vulnerability because of love. Jesus did all that He had to do with a relational intent (Reynolds, 2012: 42). In this regard, God invites His creatures to participate within His very being of relational praxis just as Jesus did, because God Himself is a relational God (Holt- Woehl, 2012: 124). This participation should be a socially relational action, just as God Himself declared that the condition of the totally isolated Adam, was not good. God has given human beings the gift of communicating relationship with one another and with God (Holt-Woehl, 2012: 26). However, if the image of God is conceived as residing in relationality, then those

101 _{Managing the economy of all living things is a call to be like the Creator, imitating divine creativity, to generate}

80

whose relations are damaged, are disadvantaged (Hull, 2003: 6). Marais, however, states that love for self and neighbour should be the expression of any relationship. She further maintains that the essential and significant aspects of this relationality are connected to our source, who is the God in relation, even with Jesus Christ (Marais, 2015: 282). This view of God’s image as relationality takes us to the next point – availability as another image of God.

5.3.3 Image of God as Availability

As mentioned above, Reynolds notes that welcoming another is being in relation with God, and being in a relationship with God means being in relation with another (Reynolds, 2008: 185). Hence, Reynolds sees love as the heart of the creative and relational fabric of the imago Dei, since humankind mirrors God’s free love as availability which is displayed by solicitude towards the other (Reynolds, 2008: 185). The church is therefore challenged to see this attitude of availability as a self-transcending love that is open towards the other (Reynolds, 2002: 330). Swinton agrees that if we (the church) become available to others, then we are exercising our freedom of relationship. In other words, the church should assume the core of love, which is a vulnerability. Iozzio (2008: 400) understands this availability to others as a dynamism of respect, fidelity, and compassion which creates space for others as for everyone else. This availability could also include what Sugden (1998: 30) calls “the availability of physical and spiritual access”. In my view, availability is an act of imitating Jesus Christ, whose relational availability was possible because of love. It, therefore, suggests that love should be carefully considered as the key to availability.