Much is made these days, in both Christian and theist (those who believe in a higher being but not necessarily the Christian God) circles about human beings created in the image of God. I think that what is normally meant by people who say this is that we are created with a soul or perhaps intelligence, thus distinguishing us from animals or other parts of creation. However, as I read the Fathers of the church, and particularly a group of fourth century Fathers known as the Cappadocians, it is becoming clear that the early Christians had a different definition of the image of God, one that was rooted in the question of what it means to be a person. (What follows is a bit theological and philosophical, but I will try to put it into understandable terms for both my readers and myself.)
The Greek philosophers did not have a clearly defined notion of a person. The closest they came was a "unique collection of properties." Thus, I am a person - the specific person Jackson Lashier - because I am a male, white, have freckles, have a right leg that is a bit shorter than the left, and the like. Though there may be other white males with freckles, there is no one else who has the exact same set of properties or characteristics that I do. While Christians incorporated this definition into their work, they expanded upon it, developing, as it were, a new vocabulary and a new definition of person.
So, the divine persons can also be defined as unique collections of properties. The Father is the Father because he is uncreated, he is the creator, etc. The Son is the Son because he is the one through whom all is created and he is the one who came to earth. The Spirit is the Spirit because he proceeds from the Father and he gives spiritual gifts etc. Thus, they are distinguished one from another, just as I am distinguished from my wife because, among other things, I am a male and she is a female.
But here is where it gets good. The Fathers believed that these unique sets of properties, though adequate for distinguishing the different members of the Trinity, were inadequate for making them persons. They took another step. What makes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit persons is that they exist in eternal communion with one another. To quote a Father: "There is apprehended among these three a certain ineffable and inconceivable communion." This communion is what moves them from the abstract notion of a "unique set of properties" to a person, and what distinguishes a Christian from a non Christian view of person.
What this means, I think, for the truth that we are created in the image of God is that we too are created to be in communion with others! The image of God in us is not simply our mind or soul, because people with minds and souls can be profoundly isolated. It means that we are created for relationship, the same kind that the Trinity has experienced for eternity. This is not to say that if someone is isolated that they are therefore not a person, but it is to say that, apart from vital communion, the fullness of our personhood and the image of God in us is not fully realized. This isolated person is in need of salvation. This is why the church is so important, and why the Christian life can never be simply "just God and me." The church puts us in communion with others and with the Trinity. Therefore, a crucial part of the salvation process is not simply "asking Jesus into one's heart," it's getting truly connected with others (Is it any wonder that the central act of the church is communion?)
This is the profound truth embedded in the words of Genesis 1:26, the key image of God text, which reads: "The God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness.'" And when he creates, what does he create, but a communion: "male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27).
I hope that I have somewhat articulated the profound truth that I am currently working through. If you want a much better discussion of the same idea, check out Dennis Kinlaw's book, Let's Start With Jesus. Besides being profound, it is extremely readable and accessible. I believe chapter 3 targets this issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hey Jackson,
Good thoughts, it makes me think of a statement often quoted by Roman Catholics but really is true for all Christians, that there is "no salvation outside of the church." Not meaning some institution, but rather that salvation is a communal reality and no one can "be saved" without being in relationship with God and other believers. It's interesting that the first two words of the Lord's prayer is "Our Father" and not my Father. It seems that Christ is saying that we cannot have a relationship with God as Father unless we have relationship with others. I bets its getting chilly up in WI about now. Later Matt
Excellent point Matt. I think when Protestants (or Anglicans) here this sort of statement, we get really hesitant because it sounds legalistic - like I have to be a part of a church to be saved. But that is not what either you or I are saying. Rather, its simply that the Christian faith makes no sense apart from community. An individualistic faith is just not a biblical faith.
The whole idea that we were made in the image of God is a huge theme in my life right now. I love your thoughts on it and am still processing it all. Beautifully put, my friend. I would say I have come to know more of myself in God's eyes through something similar to what you describe. Namely, friendship with you and your beautiful wife and some others...
This goes right along with what I blogged about last week. I don't think it is an accident that the commands are "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." We can only really live in community as we learn to love God with all our heart. AND, we can only love God with all our heart as we live in community with each other. It's all cyclical, isn't it?
You too have a beautiful way of putting things Julie. It truly is cyclical - and no accident that Christ puts these two commandments side by side. I am enjoying the thoughts on your blog Julie and I encourage anyone reading to check that out as well. www.julienoelle.blogspot.com
(Forgive the shameful plug.)
thanks for the shameless plug, jackson! :)
If you spoke to someone from any of the multiple sects within the Hindu tradition they would each describe their chosen image of the Divine (God) which they worship either at home on the family shrine or at the Temple.
It would be completely obvious and acceptable to all of them, that all of these chosen images of the Divine (God)are an acceptable (and potentially profound) way of worshipping the formless Divine Radiance in which all of this is arising.
Such practice and understanding is an integral part of their Hindu identity.
Post a Comment