Imaging God Together: Exploring God and Self-Representation Through Art and Intellectual Disability

Abstract

The God representations of people with intellectual disabilities remain largely unexplored in the psychology of religion. This Canadian arts-based study investigates how Christians with intellectual disabilities perceive God and themselves through Photovoice, guided interviews, the LAMBI God representation scale, and an adapted Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Eleven adult participants shared theological and psychological insights through photos, art, and conversation. The research challenges assumptions that theological reflection depends on heightened cognitive capacity and emphasizes the value of including neurodiverse voices in conversations about divine realities and self-identity. Findings show that even inclusive methods require ongoing adaptation to support meaningful engagement. Standardized quantitative tools often fall short in this regard, while creative, relational approaches reveal rich conceptions of God and self. This paper contributes to growing conversations around divine representation, self-worth, and the theological significance of disabled perspectives in shaping a more expansive understanding of God, identity, and the human experience.

What comes to mind when we imagine God? While theologians and psychologists alike have long explored this question, the perspectives of people with intellectual disabilities are still rarely included. Despite increased interest in developmental and relational aspects of religious cognition, little is known about how adults with intellectual disabilities understand and experience the divine. Cognitive ability is too often implicitly accepted as a prerequisite for meaningful expression of divine reality. This project challenges that assumption by centering the lived experiences of Christians with intellectual disabilities and exploring their understandings of God and self through accessible and creative qualitative methods and established scales.

People with intellectual disabilities are frequently marginalized—not only within ecclesial communities but also in theological discourse. Traditional accounts of the imago Dei, rationality, and moral agency have been historically dismissive of those with intellectual disabilities, if not outright excluding them from full personhood. ¹ Disability theology critiques these exclusions, offering an expansive vision of human dignity rooted in relationality and interdependence. However, there remains a lack of empirical research that takes seriously the theological contributions of people with intellectual disabilities themselves. As Swinton (2002) notes, “The spirituality of people with [intellectual disabilities] is under-researched and frequently misunderstood” (p. 29). This assertion has been reiterated in the decades since, including by Parchomiuk et al. (2024), who lament, “There is a dearth of research on how people with intellectual disabilities perceive different faiths, both their own and other people’s” (p. 1). A growing body of work examines the involvement of people with intellectual disabilities in faith communities, particularly churches (Ault et al., 2013; Carter & Boehm, 2019; Griffin et al., 2012; Vogel & Reiter, 2003), but only two empirical psychology of religion studies—Bassett et al. (1994) and Shogren and Rye (2005)—examine how individuals with intellectual disabilities conceive of or “image” God. This exclusion has implications not only for the breadth of psychological inquiry but also for the depth of theological reflection. If human conceptions of divine realities include the views of some humans but not others, the result is not only incomplete data but also inadequate support for diverse expressions of faith.

In the psychology of religion, research on God-images and representations has typically relied on self-report measures developed for and validated with neurotypical populations. Studies such as those by Rizzuto (1979), Granqvist and Kirkpatrick (2004), and others have linked God-images to attachment patterns, moral reasoning, and mental health. However, standard instruments often fail to account for communicative diversity, distinct cognitive processing styles, or other accessibility needs such as requiring additional support to participate. This gap limits the field’s understanding of the full range of human-divine relationality.

Research Context and Objectives

Related studies

Bassett et al. (1994) conducted a study showing 15 pictures to 33 people with intellectual disabilities—ranging from what they identified as “mild” to “profound”—across various Christian denominations. This was an early study confirming that participants with intellectual disabilities had meaningful perceptions of God. Participants were asked which images reminded them of God. As cognitive limitations became more pronounced, “the concept of God shifts from a mixture of concrete religious symbols and personification to pure personification” (p. 48).

Related observations arose with Shogren and Rye (2005), who conducted a study with 41 individuals with intellectual disabilities in Ohio. Again, participants were labeled as having “mild” or “moderate” intellectual disabilities. While the sample was largely Christian, several other religious traditions were represented. The study echoed that “religion is an important part of the lives of the majority of participants, indicating a clear need for continued study of people with intellectual disabilities” (p. 43). They also found that “participants with mild intellectual disabilities were more likely to select pictures with abstract representations than participants with moderate intellectual disabilities” (p. 48) and suggest that “people with more significant levels of intellectual disabilities process religion and religious concepts in more concrete ways, and therefore may need more support to understand abstract religious concepts” (p. 48).

Notably, these studies did not include abstract symbols or photographic representations of nature, distinguishing them from the current project. Yet, their papers are unique in offering empirical research combined with accompanying theological insight in this specific area of God representation.

Bassett et al. (1994) offered a theological take on their observation that the personhood of God remains a central, graspable feature across varying cognitive abilities:

The New Testament suggests that people get a clear view of God in the person of Jesus Christ (e.g., John 1:1-18). Perhaps, when God took on human form, God chose a medium that might be meaningful for the broadest possible range of people. (p. 48)

Theologically, the concrete vs. abstract findings of these studies resonate with Jill Harshaw’s work on divine accommodation. All knowledge of God is “given” knowledge. No human being has the intellectual capacity or communication ability to attain divine truth apart from God’s accommodation. This applies to words (e.g., sacred texts), but it goes beyond words,

The fundamental aim of accommodation is relational communication between God and human beings. Words are not the exclusive means by which this communication occurs. Words are merely signs and pointers to a reality which is behind and transcends the means of its expression—the person Jesus Christ who is the greatest accommodation to humanity’s inability to apprehend God. (Harshaw, 2016, p. 90)

In the Christian tradition, Jesus’ incarnation is the model for accessible divine reality for all people. Christian theologians, researchers, and ministry leaders are called to live out God’s accommodation of humanity in their own accessible methods, approaches, and practices.

Current study

This study explored how Christians with intellectual disabilities conceive of God and themselves, and how those conceptions relate to self-worth and divine representation. It aimed to reduce barriers to research by incorporating the creative arts into its methodology. Artistic engagement has long offered people with intellectual disabilities a means of expression that is not limited by language or abstract reasoning. It can function as a “speech-bridge,” a way of connecting people across difference, through color, sound, and image. ² In Christian theology, humans are created by God, in God’s image, as creative beings. Demmons (2008) writes, “Words are merely one form of expression or one form of being; the arts, however, represent a multitudinous variety of options for engaging in encounter” (p. 372).

Known as Images of God: Through the lens of disability, this study draws on multiple methods that include photovoice, guided interviews, a visual God-image rating tool (LAMBI), an adapted self-esteem measure (Rosenberg, 1965), and collage-making. Participants were asked to represent God and themselves through art and narrative, enabling expression beyond verbal abstraction.

The primary objective of this research was to investigate how adults with intellectual disabilities conceive of and think about divine realities. The project included a subsidiary, exploratory aim to consider how views of a benevolent versus authoritarian God might relate to participants’ positive self-representation and self-esteem. By foregrounding the voices and perceptions of people with intellectual disabilities, it aims to expand what counts as theological reflection and psychological data. It contends that divine realities are not the exclusive domain of the intellectually nondisabled, but are encountered, named, and lived in diverse ways—each bearing witness to a God who is, perhaps, most truly imaged in shared human limitation and creative expression.

Methods

Participants

The study included 11 Christian adults with intellectual disabilities, all residing in Ontario, Canada. Eligibility criteria required participants to be at least 18 years old, identify as Christian, and be able to engage meaningfully in visual and/or verbal activities—independently or with support. Limited demographic information was collected at the outset to prioritize participants as people and conversation partners rather than define them through diagnostic categories or demographic labels. While this limited direct comparison with other studies, it allowed participants’ experiences and identities to emerge on their own terms.

People relate in diverse ways to their disability diagnosis. Some may not be fully aware of what it means to have an intellectual disability; others do not consider it a meaningful part of their identity. Others may be fully aware of it and acknowledge how it shapes their identity, experience of the world, and how they are interpreted within society. Participants were recruited who were comfortable being identified with intellectual disability in project reporting.

The study did not assess “levels” of intellectual disability. Participants varied in communication styles, though all used verbal communication to some degree. Some required more repetition, clarification, or interpretation than others. They reflected a range of cultural backgrounds, gender identities, and denominational affiliations. One participant did not attend church; others had some level of involvement. Disabilities and health conditions mentioned included autism, developmental disability, epilepsy, and brain injury. While several participants lived semi-independently, most lived with family or service providers.

Nine of the 11 participants were accompanied by a support person, typically a direct support staff or service agency representative. One support person was a family member. Support persons assisted with logistics, communication follow-up, and photovoice journaling but played minimal roles during interviews. When communication was unclear, they occasionally helped interpret, though this was rarely needed. Ambiguous responses were clarified through audio/video review or omitted from analysis when clarity could not be achieved.

Procedures

Recruitment occurred through online outreach, social media, and partnerships with disability service organizations. Potential participants completed a Qualtrics-based Expression of Interest form. Selection was based on eligibility criteria, geographical diversity within Ontario, and indication of active faith commitments. Selected participants and their support persons, where applicable, were invited to virtual information sessions to review project details and consent procedures.

Consent documentation included a standard form, a plain language version, and a pictorial assent version for those with substitute decision-makers or who struggled to understand the standard version. All participants demonstrated sufficient understanding to sign the standard consent form. Consent covered audio/video recording, options for anonymity or identification, and decisions about sharing photos, art, and quotes.

Participants and support persons signed and returned consent forms before participating. Opportunities to withdraw were provided throughout, including at the beginning of each in-person interview. All participants chose to be identified in the dissemination of results. Participants are identified throughout this paper by their first names, consistent with their choice. This option for participant identification by first name, as well as the option to remain anonymous, was reviewed and approved as part of the institutional ethics process. Providing this choice upheld participants’ right to claim public ownership of their artistic and theological contributions while preserving the option for confidentiality.

Participants completed a photovoice and journaling exercise, often with support, followed by a 90- to 120-minute in-person interview at an accessible location of their choosing (e.g., church or community setting) in late November and early December 2024. ³ CAD$50 in gift cards as an honorarium was provided at the interview’s start, regardless of completion. Interviews included a photovoice and journal review, God representation exercise, self-esteem assessment, and collage-making activity, each described in the next section.

All participants completed all components of the research protocol. Regular check-ins ensured their comfort and engagement. Interviews were audio-recorded (with optional video), transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo.

Qualitative analysis was conducted solely by the author, a researcher and theologian with cross-training in psychology and close to two decades of experience in the field of intellectual disability support. This background in disability theology and practical experience informed the thematic analysis and interpretive commentary.

Participants and support persons were given up to 10 days to review transcripts, quotes, and themes before public sharing. Only a few minor edits were requested. No participants withdrew or removed quotes. A culminating art exhibit showcased their contributions.

Measures and Materials

Photovoice journal

A photovoice approach was used to invite participant perspectives on their understanding of God. Each participant submitted two to four personal digital photos “that remind you of God or that make you think of God.” A structured journal template (see Table 1) guided reflection on each image, prompting descriptions, emotional responses, theological associations, and personal meaning. Participants were supported as needed to fill in the journal. The need for an audio response option had not been anticipated but was incorporated when identified and fell within existing consent parameters. The photos and journals served as a basis for open-ended discussion during the interview.

Table 1.

Photovoice Journal Prompts.

1. Describe your photo. What have you taken a picture of? What is happening in your picture? What do you see?

2. What does this picture make you think or feel? Why? . . .

3. Why did you take a picture of this? What did you want the photo to show or tell us? . . .

4. What about this picture makes you think about God? . . .

5. Why is this picture important to you?

6. What else do you want to say about this picture when we meet?

The full Photovoice Journal template is available as Supplemental Online Material.

Participants submitted a total of 42 photos for the photovoice activity. All were reviewed, though not all were included in the final analysis. One image was excluded for potential copyright infringement and three for unclear or missing photo consent.

God-image rating scale (LAMBI)

Participants completed a visual God-image rating task based on the LAMBI scale. Johnson et al. (2019) developed this scale as “a new measure with five dimensions: Limitless, Authoritarian, Mystical, Benevolent, and Ineffable,” addressing the need for a concise tool that captures both anthropomorphic and abstract representations of God (p. 339). Each dimension of the scale was represented by four images, with two additional nature-themed images added to the “Limitless” category based on insights from K. Johnson (personal communication, October 2024), for a total of 22 images. Control images were not used, as the scale has already demonstrated strong psychometric validity and theoretical relevance.

Using the visual 5-point Likert-type scale shown in Figure 1 (1 = “Not at all” to 5 = “Very much”), participants answered the question, “How much does this image remind you of God?” At times, open-ended prompts such as “Tell me about that one?” helped participants articulate their thinking, though often they would speak to this on their own or would place the photo without further clarification or comment. Most participants adapted easily to the visual Likert scale.

Figure 1.

Visual Likert-type scale used for LAMBI god-image rating task and the adapted Rosenberg scale.

Self-perception assessments

Self-perception was explored using two different tools: the adapted Rosenberg scale (Rosenberg, 1965), adapted following Dagnan and Sandhu (1999), and a self-representation collage activity, which offered a non-verbal medium. A 2023 systematic literature review of self-esteem and intellectual disability found the Rosenberg scale to be the most commonly used in assessing self-esteem (Lee et al., 2023). Questions were presented on tactile cards and calibrated through simple preference exercises. Six core items (listed in Table 2) were then administered with verbal and visual support, focusing on self-worth, competence, and affective self-evaluation.

Table 2.

Adapted Rosenberg Scale.

“How often do you think this?” (1 Never – 5 All the Time. 4 and 6 were reverse-scored)

1. “I feel that I am a good person, as good as others.”

2. “I feel that I have a lot of good qualities.”

3. “I am able to do things as well as most other people.”

4. “I feel I haven’t done anything worthwhile.”

5. “I like myself.”

6. “At times I think I am no good at all.”

Participants were also invited to create an artistic self-representation collage (see Figure 2) of themselves and things that they liked with magazine cuttings, stickers, glue, etc. I traced the shadow of each participant’s head for a construction paper cut-out, which served as the outline for their collage. Participants were invited to select their own preferred music to accompany the activity. While specific selections were not tracked for analysis, participants frequently chose Christian worship music or contemporary pop songs, helping to establish a comfortable and familiar atmosphere for creative expression. Participants received varying degrees of assistance from the researcher and support persons, at the participant’s direction for finding or integrating content. This measure offered a non-verbal medium for exploring identity and self-concept.

Figure 2.

Sample collage example for participants.

Results

Preliminary analyses

There was notable variation in verbal expression across participants. Some offered extensive theological reflection, while others spoke more briefly. Care was taken to listen closely to participants who spoke less or expressed themselves in different ways, ensuring their contributions were thoughtfully included in the analysis.

One participant’s engagement with the LAMBI scale raised concerns of social suggestibility, as they appeared to seek affirmation or “correct” answers from their support person. However, closer review of audio and video confirmed they consistently adhered to their original selections. Their answers were also not among the top three for deviation for image means, which suggests intentionality. Their data was therefore retained.

Themes were initially developed through relational, reflective engagement with the data. NVivo software confirmed the coherence and recurrence of the themes. Three refinements emerged from the process: (1) theme descriptions were clarified for precision and consistency; (2) certain participant quotes captured themes so well that they became part of the theme titles; and (3) the order of themes was revised to better reflect their narrative and theological flow.

Reflexive practice

I kept a personal research journal throughout the project to reflect on my experiences, assumptions, and interpretive decisions as they unfolded. As Finlay (2002) affirms, reflexivity in qualitative research is widely accepted and expected but not without complications. Several observations stand out. First, the difficulties associated with conducting interviews while recovering from a knee injury. While it made traveling and navigating spaces challenging, the injury underscored the embodied nature of access and participation, making apparent physical barriers that I may not have otherwise noticed.

Other journal entries highlighted the complexity and challenge of the ethics review process, particularly in advocating for participants to be recognized as collaborators and the extra obstacles involved in integrating flexible and accessible methods. Despite my comfort working and speaking with people with intellectual disabilities informally, resilience and advocacy were needed through this process to arrive at ethically supported research processes. I observed:

It is no wonder that most researchers don’t take the time to work to translate the insights of people with intellectual disabilities into work that can be shared with the academic community. In our well-meaning interest to protect vulnerable people, we have stifled their voices and increased their vulnerability.

Dynamics of vulnerability also came to the fore during the collage-making activity, as I physically traced participants’ silhouettes onto paper as a starting point for their collage. As a theologian, I became singularly aware of the vulnerability of the artistic act of tracing someone else’s shadow, wishing to do justice to their image while aware of my own artistic limitations. Always occurring before the participant began their collage, it helped prime my awareness of and sensitivity to creative arts as self-exposure.

Results and discussion

Thematic analysis revealed six interrelated themes illuminating how participants understand God and themselves: (1) God Reaches Down, (2) You Need a Magnifying Glass, (3) Best Friends for Life, (4) It Still Hurts, (5) I Could Conquer the World, and (6) I Was Helping the People. Rather than being ordered by frequency, the themes are arranged to reflect theological resonance and narrative flow. “God Reaches Down” explores divine presence in ordinary life while “You Need a Magnifying Glass” names barriers to understanding and access of this divine presence. “Best Friends for Life” highlights relational belonging with God and others, while “It Still Hurts” gives voice to grief and relational loss when this sense of belonging is broken. “I Could Conquer the World” and “I Was Helping the People” emphasize participants’ strong sense of self-worth and active expressions of faith.

These themes emerged through inductive engagement with participant contributions and were confirmed using NVivo analysis. Each is presented with representative quotations, interpretive commentary, and—where relevant—quantitative insights from the LAMBI scale and the adapted Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Together, findings offer a multidimensional account of God representation, identity, and self-esteem among Christian adults with intellectual disabilities. The first theme identified is:

God reaches down: Everyday incarnation

Participants consistently described encountering God in the material and sensory details of daily life. Patricia from Ottawa had taken a photo of a tree in the fall (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Patricia’s photo of a tree with brightly colored fall leaves in front of a blue sky.

In the interview, she said:

Different colours of fall colours of the tree. But there are some red and brown, some yellow. Just reach down, and lay his hands on top, and change the colours. God has to hold his hand and will lift his hand on top of the tree and change the colours.

Patricia confirmed that we cannot “see” God, but she understands trees changing color in the fall as an active partnership between God and nature. God reaches down and changes their colors.

Nature, and God’s creative role in it, featured prominently in participant reflections. All 11 participants spoke to this aspect of God’s activity in everyday reality. Lise shared, “I say, ‘Wow, this is what God created?!’ Oh, unbelievable. It’s a beautiful sight to see . . . the beautiful flowers and the beautiful earth he gave us to live on.” Ryan answered his own question about why God created everything: “Because he loves us. Because he wants people to enjoy life. I think that’s why, I think.” Others spoke about God’s presence in animals, sky, water, and sunsets. Raee proclaimed, “He can be an artist. Every day he’s an artist,” realizing that in taking a photo or observing a sunset, God is partnering with human beings to make that moment come alive in a unique, creative act.

Maria also believed God partnered with her during the photovoice exercise. She took photos of a squirrel and a hawk:

The squirrel seemed to pose that day. It’s like it knew when I had to take its picture . . . Maybe Jesus helped me that day. I think Jesus helped me take a picture of the squirrel.

These expressions reflected a vibrant awareness of God’s nearness, activity, and creativity. God is not as distant or abstract but is active and revealed in the world and through nature. Participants reflected a grounded, relational spirituality that is affectively charged and rooted in embodied experience.

The project’s design and particularly the photovoice exercise invited participants to notice and reflect on where they “find” God in their everyday lives. This framework—and the photographic medium’s inherent reliance on capturing visible, material reality—inevitably shaped the themes that emerged, especially the theme of Everyday Incarnation. However, participants’ depictions of God align with past studies (Bassett et al., 1994; Shogren & Rye, 2005) that emphasize concrete and personal imagery over forms of representation framed in those studies as abstract or symbolic. At the same time, participants’ use of concrete imagery often carried symbolic and theological meaning that does not fit neatly within this inherited distinction. This suggests that the findings are not artifacts of the methodology but reflect recurring patterns in the theological imagination of people with intellectual disabilities.

Nature and LAMBI analysis

Previous studies with this population did not examine God-nature connections in their approach. At most, the 1994 study included pictures of “man holding globe” or “Christ in the sky” (Bassett et al., p. 47). Shogren and Rye (2005) included three categories of pictures: concrete, abstract, and nonreligious, but concrete pictures were selected for their “clear depiction of a religious person, activity, or object” (p. 37) and nonreligious pictures were selected purposefully for their lack of connection to religious themes. “Examples included a traffic light, a television, and a clock” (p. 37). Natural imagery did appear of participants’ own initiative in a “Draw God Task” they engaged with later.

In this subsection, qualitative observations are placed in conversation with the LAMBI God representation scale to explore where participants’ everyday experiences of God intersect with a structured visual scale of God representations. This analysis appears within the Everyday Incarnation theme because participants spoke about encountering God through the natural world, and because nature also appears directly within the LAMBI scale. Other themes focused more on relationships, emotional experience, or everyday practices of faith, which did not connect as clearly with the visual structure of LAMBI and were therefore not examined through that measure.

Participants in the Images of God study resonated with images of nature as representations of God, particularly those depicting earthly landscapes within the “Limitless” dimension. These images were rated higher on average (M = 4.34) than their “Mystical” sky-based counterparts (M = 3.94) and elicited more consistent responses (SD = 1.04 vs. SD = 1.39). Compared to Ineffable (abstract, symbolic images; M = 2.64, SD = 1.64) or Authoritarian (commanding, bearded representations; M = 3.30, SD = 1.67) categories, Limitless and Mystical images both drew stronger and more cohesive associations with the divine. This suggests that tangible, grounded imagery (especially nature-based scenes) was more accessible and resonant for participants. By contrast, representations of the heavens or cosmos evoked greater variability, perhaps shaped by how abstract, distant, or unfamiliar participants perceived them to be.

The Mystical image that most powerfully captured participants’ imagination—M2, depicting Earth viewed from space (for a representative example, see Figure 4)—stood out distinctly. It achieved the highest rating in its category (M = 4.73, SD = 0.62) and, notably, had both a higher mean and lower standard deviation than any of the Limitless Earth images.

Figure 4.

Representative image of Earth viewed from space, similar to the one presented to participants during the God representation exercise.

Lise spoke to the image, saying “I see God’s light. I see part of heaven. It’s almost like a gate, part of the sky in a way. Shining toward me saying, ‘this is God, I’m calling you, reaching out to you, okay? Do you hear me?’ ‘Yes, I do. Now I do!’” Lorie said simply, “That reminds me of God very much.” Some participants referenced the heavens and the earth, as in creation, and Maria pronounced, “The world goes with Jesus.” Participants strongly identified God in this image, which blended the transcendence and awe of space with relatable grounding.

You need a magnifying glass: Barriers to faith

Eight participants expressed difficulty understanding or accessing aspects of Christian teaching or practice. Along with faith-based movies and TV shows that she grew up watching with her mom, Maria spoke about how she uses an audio Bible instead of a written one, where “The writing [is] so small. Yeah, you need a magnifying glass to see it.” She wasn’t the only one who found the written Bible difficult to read or understand.

Accessibility takes different forms. Lise remarked,

I feel like I’ve lost a little bit of my faith and just, I need to ask him again to forgive me and, because I had stopped going to church because I don’t know the Bible, and I don’t understand the Bible.

She felt bewildered and lost in part due to conceptual difficulties. It was difficult to keep track of what was being said in services and what she was reading in the Bible. This lack of understanding made her feel like she wasn’t living out her faith well. She confessed, “I get so confused and I get all tied up and I kind of lose myself within there. It’s like I’m in a knot and it’s like I wanna try to get loose.” Despite feeling this lack acutely, Lise communicated a better-than-average awareness of creeds and doctrines, even if certain aspects of them were muddled.

These insights highlight the limitations of faith formation models that rely heavily on specific ways or forms of engaging Scripture and prioritize cognitive comprehension. They also speak to the persistence of faith even when understanding falters. People’s desire to understand and their concern over faithful practice are, themselves, acts of faith. These experiences call for a broader hermeneutic of accessibility that validates diverse ways of knowing, believing, and trusting.

Best friends for life: Belonging to god and one another

All 11 participants spoke about love, family, and friendship as central to who they are and who God is. Daniela described those close to her as a community that “help[s] me, loves me and cares about me.” Ryan said, “God made people. He made them to love each other,” and Judy, reflecting on close relationships with her dogs, said, “They’re my best friends.” For Maria, the Nativity story reflects the loving family of God.

Dirriell took a photo with Elizabeth, whom he calls his BFFL or “Best Friend for Life.” He experiences God through his relationship with his friend and believes that friendship with God is like his friendship with Elizabeth. Dirriell wrote in his journal, “God is a good friend that listens to me, and he is nice with me,” echoing much of what he valued in his friendship with Elizabeth.

These themes of affection and interdependence grounded participants’ understanding of God and self. Their emphasis on relationship aligns with attachment-based understandings of spirituality, where God is known through secure and loving human connections (e.g., Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2004). Rather than separating divine and social experience, participants wove them together. Theologically, this affirms a relational anthropology and an image of God reflected in mutual care.

It still hurts: Grief, loss, and divine comfort

The painful corollary of belonging to God and one another is that grief—the pain of loss—was woven in some way through 10 out of 11 participant accounts. Lorie took a photo of the cemetery in Kingston where family members are buried. She shared, “They’re all in heaven. . . but it still hurts. I’m very sad and depressed about it.” Dirriell said, “I cry when my grandma die. She up in heaven.” Ryan recalled the pain of being bullied as a child, and Lise spoke to her fear and confusion related to death. Their reflections were marked by vulnerability and emotional honesty. Participants integrated faith with grief. Rather than denying pain or offering quick explanations, they spoke freely of loss—valuing and celebrating those who had made a positive difference in their life even through pain.

I could conquer the world: Self-worth and transformation

The faith journeys of 9 out of 11 participants reflected a deep sense of self-worth and ongoing transformation. Daniela shared a photo of her First Communion. “Even though I have seizures, I felt like I could conquer the world.” She wrote in her photovoice journal,

My First Communion is one of the most important days of my life. It is a celebration to celebrate because I was giving God my heart and life. I felt like I could take on the world and felt like I was a Princess.

Like Daniela’s First Communion, expressions of personal growth and transformation were frequently tied to memories, spiritual practices, or personal symbols. Frank took a picture of the many necklaces he wears. “My ‘Resist the devil’ necklace makes me think of God when I am being mean to friends or thinking bad things. Reading this makes me think of God and reminds me to be positive.”

Participants spoke with confidence about their value and dignity. Michelle said, “I feel that I am a good person . . . I like myself.” Dirriell declared, “I am a beautiful man. Grown man. I love myself.” These affirmations resist cultural and religious narratives that frame disability as a deficit.

Quantitative insights from the adapted Rosenberg self-esteem scale

Themes of worth and transformation were reflected in participants’ responses to the Adapted Rosenberg Self-Esteem questionnaire (see Figure 5), which indicated generally high self-esteem and stable self-perceptions among participants. Most responded positively across items, with high mean scores on statements such as “I am a good person” (M = 4.55), “I have a lot of good qualities” (M = 4.45), and “I like myself” (M = 4.27). Standard deviations were moderate, suggesting relative consistency across the group.

Figure 5.

Distribution of participant scores for adapted Rosenberg items.

Closer inspection of the item “I like myself” reveals meaningful nuance. Lorie’s self-placement at 1 significantly lowered the group mean from 4.6 to 4.27. Her explanation complicates a straightforward interpretation. When I asked why, she indicated she never thinks “I like myself,” she responded, “I never think of myself in any way. I think of other people.” Rather than indicating self-rejection, her response reflects an orientation toward others and the virtue of humility, which she framed in terms of being “a sweet, kind, gentle soul.” In this light, it does not demonstrate that she does not like herself, only that she never thinks about liking herself.

This underscores the importance of integrating qualitative insights with quantitative measures, and theological sensitivity (such as awareness of the Christian virtue of humility) with psychological assessment. Through interviews, participants frequently acknowledged both their strengths and limitations. The lowest-scoring item, “I am able to do things as well as most other people” (M = 3.55), reflects an awareness of how disability affects daily activities and how gifts and contributions are perceived by society. Such reflections were not purely internal: several participants shared experiences of bullying in childhood and spoke candidly about ongoing experiences of depression, anxiety, or stress. Further research in this area would help unpack the interrelationship between these intrinsic and social factors.

I was helping the people: Living faith through action and service

Finally, as identified by 9 out of 11 participants, faith is not static or private. It is lived through acts of service and daily practices. Michelle from Toronto makes empanadas and sells them to raise money to start a ministry in Ecuador. She excitedly shared, “I was helping the people . . . Because of people, helping them see what Michelle and Jesus, get together helping the people around the world.” She has a passion for saving abandoned dogs. “I help the poor . . . I pray every night . . . I cook and train dogs . . . that makes God happy.” Frank has volunteered at the humane society for over 20 years, and Ryan serves at a local organization supporting people experiencing homelessness by cleaning toilets and garbage. Everyday faith was expressed through ordinary acts of service.

Prayer and spiritual practices are also central. 7 out of 10 participants mentioned their prayer life. Lorie said, “I’m stressed out, I’m overwhelmed. But I read the Bible every day. It makes me feel better. I pray to God six times a day!” Daniela believes, “Prayer and worship are the best ways to fight the devil. . . . The first way to have a relationship with the Lord is to read the Bible.”

Theologically, this is a discipleship of presence and service, where love of God is expressed through care for others. Psychologically, it affirms agency and contribution, especially in contexts where people with intellectual disabilities are often perceived as passive recipients. These accounts suggest that belonging includes the freedom to live out their faith and to give back to their communities.

Authority, benevolence, and incarnation

The final, tentative research question was, “how might views of a benevolent and/or authoritarian God correlate with positive self-representation and self-esteem?” As a theologian, not a trained psychologist, and working with a small sample size, I suspected that an answer here might be elusive. While I was correct in this assumption, interesting observations arose from the LAMBI scale exercise from a theological vantage point. Participants’ responses to Authoritarian and Benevolent images appeared to be shaped by denominational backgrounds and biblical literacy. Many participants attempted to identify the depicted biblical figures in Authoritarian images (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Joseph), and their acceptance of these images as representative of God often hinged on successful identification. For example, A3—featuring a bearded man with stone tablets—was more readily associated with God when participants recognized the figure as Moses. The images depicted authority, yet participants’ verbal observations indicated that a primary driver of their choice was locating these images within their theological tradition and biblical understanding. Similarly, preferences within the Benevolent images were shaped by denominational aesthetic sensibilities. B2, a more transcendent and iconographic representation of Jesus, resonated particularly strongly with Catholic participants who had greater familiarity with stylized devotional imagery. These nuances demonstrate that interpretations of divine imagery were deeply interwoven with theological formation, aesthetic traditions, and scriptural familiarity, highlighting the complex and embedded nature of visual theological engagement.

Among all image types, Benevolent depictions portraying Jesus elicited the most uniformly high and consistent responses. They received exceptionally high average ratings (4.80–4.91), coupled with low variability (SDs = 0.29–0.40), demonstrating widespread consensus. Conversely, Authoritarian images (A1–A4) elicited the lowest average ratings (2.73–3.18) and exhibited the highest variability (SDs = 1.44–1.73), reflecting significant ambivalence about associating angry or punitive imagery with God.

Daniela had a singular response when she came across the pictures of Jesus, placing them off the chart to right of the visual Likert-type scale in terms of how much they made her think of God. I mentioned that she was welcome to put them on “5” (“Very much”) with the other photos. It was immediately apparent that her actions were intentional. Though she did not explicitly articulate her reasoning, it was clear that Jesus was unquantifiably representative of God. Other participants placed images of Jesus at “5,” but Daniela captured the heart of incarnational theology with particular clarity.

We return to the Bassett et al. (1994) observation, “Perhaps, when God took on human form, God chose a medium that might be meaningful for the broadest possible range of people” (p. 48). Jesus is not merely similar to God but is, according to Colossians 1:15, “the image of the invisible God” and asserts in John 14:9, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” Just as the blended LAMBI image of the heavens and the earth captured participants’ imagination for divine reality, so did Jesus as the incarnation of God in human form.

Limitations and future directions

The study involved a small number of participants, limiting the quantity of data points and the generalizability of its findings. The study’s selection criteria did not assess participants’ levels of intellectual disability or specific ages, which—combined with the smaller sample size (n = 11) compared to previous studies (n = 33 in Bassett et al., 1994; n = 41 in Shogren & Rye, 2005)—limits confirmation of sample variability across the population.

While this study examined how the Everyday Incarnation theme intersected with the LAMBI God representation scale, this focus reflected the most immediate point of convergence between participants’ accounts and the visual imagery of the scale itself. Exploring how other themes related to access and understanding, relational belonging, grief, service, and self-worth might connect with God representation measures would require an additional layer of analytic work beyond the scope of the present study. Future research could take up this task by examining additional themes in relation to God representation measures, while remaining attentive to the interpretive limits of standardized visual scales and the need to ground any further analysis in clearly supported connections.

While care was taken to foreground participants’ voices, the perspectives represented here reflect a specific context and do not capture the full breadth of Christian experiences among people with intellectual disabilities. Rather, by demonstrating the distinctive power and impact of several voices it might be imagined how a full chorus of these voices might transform communities of research, work, and worship.

The presence and engagement of support people played a critical role in facilitating this participation. In many cases, support enabled people who may not otherwise have been able to contribute to take photos and have their perspectives heard. There were likely others whose voices remain absent due to a lack of available or sufficient support.

A direct statistical comparison of LAMBI results with neurotypical populations was beyond the scope of this exploratory study but represents a valuable direction for future research, potentially illuminating whether the patterns observed here are distinctive to this population or reflect broader tendencies in concrete theological imagination.

Participants were each capable of some form of verbal communication and engaged in creative practices such as photography, interviews, and collage-making. This study does not encompass people who are considered as having “profound” intellectual disabilities—people who may not use verbal language or be able to participate in arts-based methods. As Swinton et al. (2011) write, these are often “those who have no words but who have much to say” (p. 6). As these authors challenge, we must continue “listening carefully to the experiences of people with profound intellectual disabilities in ways that respond creatively and prophetically to the question: Whose story am I?” (p. 7). It is hoped that as research and faith communities grow in their attentiveness and responsiveness, more “voices”—whether they can verbalize or not—will be heard.

Beyond expanding who is included, addressing practical future directions in faith communities as well as research opportunities is crucial. The consistent preference for concrete and personal imagery across this study’s photovoice activity and the LAMBI scale reinforces previous findings regarding how adults with intellectual disabilities conceptualize the divine. This recurring pattern suggests that when the religious or cultural context presents God in abstract, non-personal terms, participants often default to incarnational reality and tangible, embodied experience as their primary spiritual language. Concepts that require highly abstract cognition, such as complex biblical doctrine or unfamiliar theological terminology, were often met with confusion and feelings of being lost or unable to participate faithfully. The findings suggest that belief in God manifests most powerfully for this population through relational and immediate sensory data—such as the changing colors of a tree or a personal friendship. This insight challenges faith formation models that prioritize cognitive comprehension and necessitates a broader hermeneutic of accessibility that validates diverse ways of knowing and believing.

Conclusion

These findings underscore the significance of advancing inclusive, creative methodologies that amplify voices typically marginalized in theological and psychological research as well as in social services and worship spaces. The integrated thematic and quantitative data demonstrate how spirituality and self-perception among these 11 participants intricately connect to everyday experiences, relational ties, and emotional realities. Participants’ preference for accessible, tangible divine representations—both through the photovoice exercise and LAMBI scale—aligns with their articulated experiences of everyday divine presence, offering vital implications for inclusive faith practices.

Adapted Rosenberg scores further illustrate participants’ resilient self-perceptions, even amid significant social and psychological challenges. The nuanced responses regarding humility, confidence, and self-awareness challenge simplistic disability narratives, inviting deeper reflection on theological and psychological implications.

My top priority was that participants felt encouraged and empowered to share their perspectives on God and themselves as theologians and artists. I am confident that this was achieved. It is hoped that the approaches and results articulated here will continue to inspire accessible psychological and theological research practices, push service agencies to take clients’ spiritual agency and flourishing seriously, and ignite the imagination of pastors and ministry leaders for faith practices that engage and celebrate the contributions of everybody. Taken together, these findings suggest that distinctions between concrete and symbolic God representations may be more porous than previously assumed, particularly as participants’ everyday images of nature, objects, and relationships carried rich theological meaning.

These are not definitive representations of God and self among people with intellectual disabilities. They are the perspectives of 11 Christians in Ontario. They point toward possibilities for future work that may be more broadly representative. If our churches and communities were to center even these perspectives, though, we would embrace practices that encounter God in the everyday, dismantle barriers to access and understanding, treasure belonging with others (including animals), hold space for sacred grief, nurture flourishing and self-esteem, and gently transform the world around us—ecclesially and even ecologically.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-ptj-10.1177_00916471261429418 – Supplemental material for Imaging God Together: Exploring God and Self-Representation Through Art and Intellectual Disability

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-ptj-10.1177_00916471261429418 for Imaging God Together: Exploring God and Self-Representation Through Art and Intellectual Disability by Keith E. Dow in Journal of Psychology and Theology