Archive for the 'Imagio Dei' Category

Relinquishment of Dominance as a Requirement for Citizenship in the Kingdom of God

Honzo April 2nd, 2008

In the Roman world, within the household, the position of child is the lowest in terms of power and hierarchy.  Taking this into account, consider Mark 10:15:

I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.

Rather than assuming our standard in pouring of innocence and naiveté into the phrase “like a child,” perhaps we are better served with assuming a Roman view of children, of powerlessness over others into this phrase.

Also consider Luke 22:25-27

Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’  But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.

Here again we see the same theme - the relinquishment of dominance as a command of Jesus to his followers, to the members of the Kingdom of God.

If we do not relinquish culturally inherited claims of dominance over others and see them as true equals then ours is not the Kingdom of God.

Seeing people as the imago deis involves the complete removal of claims of dominance and superiority.  This must be applied in terms of race and gender.  It is a command to give up our claims of dominance over others.

OS and Adam

Hank January 31st, 2008

I felt like we were just going to go down the same path as in another post about the historicity of Adam and whether or not sin and righteousness is imputed (I would say both are imputed because that is the very parallel that Paul is drawing out in Romans 5:12-21, and thus for this parallel to work Adam must be historical and his sin must be an actual event in history) on the Myth thread. So I just went ahead and posted this so that we could devote an entire thread to OS, picking up some where Brad left off, and Adam being historical.

By my reading of Calvin’s Institutes, he would not say that there is a specific gene, like modern science would understand "genetic," that contains sin. Rather Calvin points to Romans 8:20 and says that humanity is part of the creation (ἡ κτίσις ) that was subjected to futility. He also understands original sin not to be sin itself but rather it is the corruption (cf Romans 8:21 ESV "bondage to corruption") of the imagio dei that all humans have. Thus we who are in the image of Adam bear that corrupted image as well (Notice the parallel of "futility" [ματαιότητι] in 8:20 and "bondage to corruption" [τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς] in Romans 8:21), being part of the created order. Thus it was Adam’s sin that corrupted humanity’s being the image of God and it is God’s curse that confines all of creation under that corruption. Therefore the corruption of sin rules over all of the creation, including human beings and their wills–which is precisely what (that is the human will) Calvin argues to be what makes humans the bearers of the image of God. The creation is enslaved or in bondage (Gk. δουλείας) to the corruption that is removed when the bodies of the sons of God are redeemed. I think "genetic" is too much of a caricature of the Reformed view of OS, at least from Calvin’s point of view expounded in The Institutes that is.

Christians and the Other

Honzo December 16th, 2007

Question of the day (this time with an answer):

How do we, as Christians, conceptualize the Other?

How should we treat these people, both to their face and within our communities while they are not present? They think that they know how to best relate to that which is “wholly Other” - whether it be God, gods, the numinous, whatever you want to call it(s). We think we know how to as well. What do we do with such an impasse? Shall we let loose upon them the canon and be done with it? Do we assume all roads generate the same journey?

A good friend of mine and fellow author here at Theology for the Masses, JR Madill, navigated these very issues a few weeks ago in a talk on Christianity and Pluralism. Now, I don’t want to give away what he had to say, but I do want to say that I found his reply to be quite good and worthy of your consideration.

 
icon for podpress  JR Madill - Christians and the Other: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Revisiting the torn curtain in Mark

Hank September 19th, 2007

I blogged over at Think Wink about the symbolism in Mark’s imagery of the torn veil in Mark 15:37-38. I pray you are as blessed by this new (or for some of you of you not so new) approach to understanding this imagery. You can read it here, A Sermon Idea for Easter?

…Because God First Loved Us…

jr. September 5th, 2007

“[Your dream to become great] is the dream of every living creature, the desire that is the very root of life itself. To grow until every space is a part of you. It’s the desire for greatness. There are two ways of fulfilling this, however. One way is to kill anything that is not yourself, to swallow it up until and destroy it until there is nothing left to oppose you. But that way is evil. You say to all the universe, “Only I will be great, and to make room for me, all the rest of you must give up even what you already have to make room for me.” – Ender Wiggin, Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card

7Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. … 19 We love because he first loved us.” – John the Elder (1 John 4)

What does it mean to say that God is Love? For much of our history, Christian theology has spoken of God’s central attribute as existence or glory or something of the like. But John is claiming something all-together different. John tells us that “God is love”, and another writing from that same community defines Love as Sacrifice: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13). But what then does it mean to say that God is Sacrifice? To sacrifice is to give up that which we value. Giving up that which is not dear to us is hardly sacrifice; rather, to sacrifice is in a very real way to give of ourselves, to give that which comprises our identity. So imagine a God who is defined not by self-glorification or –gratification, but by self-emptying, self-sacrifice. Imagine a God existing in three persons who are engaged in an eternal dance of joyful, selfless giving. This sort of God finds glory not in self-aggrandizement, but rather in selfless giving. The greater the sacrifice, the greater the glory. It is this sort of God who, out of the overflow of joy and sacrifice, the overflow of Love, creates a world filled with being who, like himself, have a will that they can willfully sacrifice (for one cannot be selfless if one has no Self to give).

But here, of course, is the steep cost of Love. Beings created in the Imago Dei, the Image of God, can choose to sacrifice, or they can choose not to sacrifice. We can choose to give of ourselves or we can choose to preserve our Selves, to fight and to battle until we have created a space in which only We exist. This is the essence of Sin: that we would choose to preserve I at the expense of the Other, rather than to give I in service, in sacrifice to the Other. This tendency to think first of ourselves, to work for self-preservation, has been at work in us since the beginning, and we are nothing if not creatures of habit.

This Self, this Sin has infected us all since the beginning. We Self-full beings see the beauty of creation through the lens of Self; we tend to ask only “how can this serve my needs?” Rather than work with God to cultivate his Garden, we have chosen instead to do as we please, and in doing so, we serve to unmake that which God called good (Genesis 6). In choosing not to serve God even as God gives himself to us, we have become captives in our own minds, unable to see or care for anything beyond that which is good for I. We have lost what it means to abandon our Selves, to live for something other than I, and so have been cut off from God, unable to enter into his Garden of giving, of true Life anymore.

Thanks be to God that he did not leave us in this sorry state! Rather, he gave once more of himself, emptying himself of his divine nature and taking the form of a slave. He came to We who could tolerate no Other and he refused to be one with us. Rather, he offered us a different way to live, a way that did not demand the preservation of the Self, but rather offers the Self in acts of Love, of Sacrifice. We could not tolerate his Otherness, his difference, and yet still he gave himself to Us, and let us have our way with him. We did what any Self does when it feels threatened. We lashed out and destroyed that which threatens. He knew this, and yet he still gave. He gave and gave, until it killed him.

And only then was the power of Love revealed. For we were made to see that in the end, all of our attempts to preserve I will only end in destruction, for we were not created to take. We were created to give, in imitation of the Self who gave himSelf for us.

A careless leper too comfortable in his own world to notice the older wounds have new infections with new intentions.
Darkness settled in behind me, tapped me on the shoulder singing shivers to my spine from the corners of my mind,

“I’ve been wanting to remind you of everything you’ve left behind and wouldn’t you, shouldn’t you remember me?
Should you forget, I haven’t yet.”

She’s there when I’m alone and she always seems to know the stories that’ll take me back to where my comforts sleep.
A caress with velvet paws that hide her sharpened claws along the walls that time has built high searching for the blemishes.
And i know she’s breathing murder, that it is folly to endure her.
But there is sweetness in her whisper,
“When you’ve had enough, I’ll be waiting. Wouldn’t you, shouldn’t you remember me?
Should you forget, I haven’t yet.’
”– Stavesacre, “The Two Heavens”

The Beauty of the Lord: New Creation and the Imago Dei

darryl August 27th, 2007

For the sake of not having a never-ending post, this will be in two parts. I want to look at how John sets up the image of God; next time, I want to see what the image of God looks like and how it is to be played out within our own lives.

History, they say, repeats itself. And so it does.

“In the beginning was the Word…”

John’s gospel opens with a very deliberate echo of the Genesis story. While John waxes eloquently on this word as the power behind creation (and the ironic twist that the creation doesn’t recoginze his creator), we are quite stunned when we come to 1.14 and learn that the creator becomes part of his own creation in the person of Jesus.

For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, John retells the story of creation, indeed the story of new creation, as he guides us through Jesus’ ministry. While the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke) describe Jesus’ awe-inspiring works, as miracles, John takes a different tact and describes them as signs. Signs of what? Signs of who Jesus is. In the synoptics, miracles are performed on behalf of the penitent; a request for healing is met with compassion, and the life of that person is changed. In John, Jesus performs signs for his own benefit; what he does reveals (”apocalypses,” if you will) who he is.

These signs commence in John 2 with the wedding at Cana (Southern Baptists’ least favorite Jesus story). John inform us that this is the first sign; he intends for us to pay attention and count. The second comes with the healing of a nobleman’s son in ch. 4. Third, we have the healing at the pool of Bethesda (ch. 5). Fourth and fifth are the feeding of the five thousand and the healing of the man born blind (ch. 6 and 9. respectively; interestingly enough, John has each of these set within the context of the Passover). Sixth is the raising of Lazarus in ch. 11.

Anyone who knows anything about numbers anxiously awaits the seventh sign. It never seems to come. Why should we expect it, though? From the outset, John has purposefully linked Jesus to creation. His telling of Jesus and his kingdom is set within that context. Just as creation was brought forth over seven days, so will Jesus and his kingdom be revealed through seven signs.

Pilate presents Jesus to the people: “Behold! the man!” (19.5). Hauntingly poetics words, if we take the time to think about it, especially since Jesus, in ch, 18, was twice called “this MAN.” On the sixth day, man, as the ultimate expression of God’s creative power, was created for the purpose of bearing the image of God. We are all too familiar with the story of his (and our) failure to live up the the task.

But now, again on the sixth day (oddly enough), we behold the seventh sign as the man is set before the world: the image of God the king (v. 14). And here is when the image of God is most recognizable: when it wears the crown of thorns, when it willingly takes the shame and sorrow of the world as its own. This is what it means to bear the image of God. Do we recognize it when we see it?

And just as Adam died, so did Jesus. And sure enough, in the darkness of a cave, Jesus rested from all his work on the Sabbath day.

And on the first day of the week, the word of God, Jesus, comes forth from his rest and works the power of his new creation. The old story is made new.

TheChristianAlert Blog - Euthanasia

Honzo April 7th, 2007

TheChristianAlert Blog - Euthanasia

Interesting discussion on euthanasia is developing there. I welcome our readers to add their thoughts.

Bad Behavior has blocked 799 access attempts in the last 7 days.