John Calvin, in his commentary on Colossians, spoke of the image of God within us as a broken mirror. He meant it more to reflect (ha ha) the idea that we were once made in the perfect image of God, and have since fucked it all to hell. Although I disagree with the final conclusion of Calvin’s use of the metaphor, I find it quite compelling.
To be made in the image of God is to contain within you, at the very center and least changeable portion of your being, something that is holy, something that is Good, something that reflects God, much like a mirror. The thing is, we are all insufficient mirrors. We don’t have the ability to reflect the entire image. God is the horizon, the entire landscape, and we are shards of broken mirrors, with a good deal of our reflective surface buried underground.
God is eternally present whether we are subservient to his will or not, whether we believe in him or not. The image of God is a part of our being, whether we acknowledge it or not. The mirror sticks above the ground, if only minutely. That mirror will reflect a small portion of God. As Christians, our goal is to “unearth” ourselves as it were, and become as reflective of God as we can possibly be.
Here’s where people start getting cranky. The image of God is not containable within a single human being (with the ultimate and mysterious exception of Christ). Even if we were to somehow completely pull ourselves from the layers of dirt, sin, historical context, and personal preference, we would not be full representatives of the image of God, and this is why.
God is not genderless, he is all genders. God is not raceless, he is all races. God is not faceless, he is all faces. God is not breathless, he is every breath.
God is not one of This or That. God is a one of This and ... and … and … (ad infinitum). To whit: God is not genderless or raceless or faceless or breathless. God is all genders and all races and all faces and every breath.
The image of God is a universal, but that image is not universal.
Kierkegaard believed that the only thing that was not fractured or internally divided was God, and the will of God. He termed this “the Good.” The image of God is the Kierkegaardian Good within every human being. The problem is that we can take this Good and turn it into an idol. Good is to Idol as Truth is to Heresy, taken too far. God is the only place where the divine image is whole and complete. God is the only place where the Good is fully and accurately represented.
The image of God in us is, therefore , at the same time our best and easiest access to our God and our largest temptation to pride. When the image of God is seen from the perspective of the individual, the image of God becomes reason for self-deification. When the image of God is seen from the perspective of God, it becomes a reason for utmost humility and surrender to the one whose image we so desperately desire to become, and are in part, but by our own power never fully will be.
[The above is a random rant in response to some reading I did for a Theology class on the Divine Image. As the title suggests, I do not consider this in any way complete or exhaustive. I do, however desire a bit of dialectical discussion... so.... thoughts?]
Posts
The paradox of the blessing and temptation that come from being image bearers is an intriguing thought. Especially since the moment we allow that temptation to lead to sin is the moment we are shirking our responsibility as image bearers.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the line between accepting the reality of what we've been created to be and misunderstanding that reality to the point of becoming prideful?
Wouldn't it be safer for me to ignore the title of image bearer and focus more on God? That way I'd be less likely to become prideful, and thus more likely to actually fulfill the position of image bearer.
Does ignorance equal innocence?
Oh shit.
"An elected state of ignorance is pure foolishness." ~My friend Andy and I~
But what of those who are truly ignorant? Those without information. Does the 'truth' actually set them free when it also forces upon them the yoke of responsibility? Yes, because the yoke is easy and light.
By informing someone of their distance to God I increase their potential to sin (move further away from Him) and enable them to repent (draw near) at the same time.
Or maybe it's not about me. My choice is to obey or not. What happens after isn't up to me.
But don't I need to understand what's happening in order to obey? But is that even related? Did this train of thought just fizzle out?...
Three paradigms of faith, as presented to me by Dr. Neuhouser, my Anthro Professor.
ReplyDelete1. Faith is true belief: This is the archetypal protestant approach.
2. Faith is experience of God: This is the archetypal orthodox/mystical approach.
3. Faith is obedience to God: This is the archetypal anabaptist approach.
Every permutation of faith must contain all of the above, but some traditions emphasize one over the other, sometimes to the point that some would call heresy (in the understanding that heresy is a truth taken to an unhelpful extreme). It seems to me, Sam, that you are struggling with questions of responsibility, faith, the plight of the unreached, and the weight of salvation, from a very archetypal protestant perspective.
Within that philosophical/theological framework, I've found that the calvisist tradition has a lot of peace to offer, if you can parse out the teachings that you can accept.
Outside o the philosophical/theological framework of "Faith as True Belief," I've been finding the Christian mystics, old fathers and new academics, quite encouraging. I've also found that a conversation with a good Anabaptist about these things can do wonders to quell the tumult.
Your struggle is one that will, in many ways never end. You are entering into what certain dead greek-speaking christians would call "the brilliant darkness" that is God. You are entering an area where, as Karl Barth said, "We, as Ministers ought to speak of God. We are human, however, and so cannot speak of God. We ought therefore to recognize both our obligation and our inability and by that very recognition give God the glory."
You are compelled to push further into the divine mystery of how the Lord has structured the cosmos and functions within, without, and in spite of it. You are dealing with questions that are simply put, beyond your intellect.
Therefore, Sam, push ever harder. Never stop seeking the will of the Father, experience of the Spirit, and understanding of the Incarnated Christ. You will never find yourself standing solidly on modernistic, self-imposed certainty. You will instead find yourself standing in the midst of the cacophonous silence that is our creator, which no amount of knowledge, experience, or obedience will ever understand, deplete, or satisfy.
Woah. Nice. I'm with you on that.
ReplyDeleteYou may have taken my comment a bit too seriously though... You do that sometimes (or maybe I don't take things seriously enough).
But I still love you.
Anyways, Barth's a dude, and so are those dead greek people... 8|
I was talking with a Guatemalan student today about some theological shit. and some cultural stuff too. It was rad, but difficult.
Alright, Seriously though, I shouldn't be writing this comment right now because as you can see I'm not in a very serious mood.
I do appreciate your well-informed thoughts.
I need to sleep.
Dios te bendiga.