God himself is relational in the Trinity, and because we are created in the Image of God we are thus also relational. This is actually a topic which is dear to me because I have come to understand the Church as the presence of God on earth. A statement about Imago Dei that informs and accurately reflects my thinking on the subject is found in Emil Brunner’s Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption published in English in 1952. Here Brunner argues that being created in the image of God means
…that man should really give the answer which the Creator intends, the response in which God is honored, and in which he fully imparts Himself, the response of reverent, grateful love, given not only in words, but in his whole life. The New Testament, in its doctrine of the Imago Dei, tells us that this right answer has not been given; that quite a different one has been given instead, in which the glory is not given to God, but to man and to creatures, in which man does not live in the love of God, but seeks himself. Secondly, the New Testament is the proclamation of what God has done in order that He may turn this false answer into the true one.
Here, therefore, the fact that man has been “made in the image of God” is spoken of as having been lost, and indeed as wholly, and not partially lost. Man no longer possesses this Imago Dei; but it has been restored through Him, through whom God gives and glorifies Himself: through Jesus Christ. The restoration of the Imago Dei, the new creation of the original image of God in man, is identical with the gift of God in Jesus Christ received by faith.
The Imago Dei in the New Testament, “material” sense of the word, is identical with “being-in-the-Word” of God.[1]
If the image of God is love, it follows that it must be relational, because even God cannot love without an object of love. If there is no beloved, there can be no love. This relational aspect is hinted at in Genesis in the words “Let us create” (Gen 1:26, emphasis mine). The Trinitarian God consists of an everlasting relationship of love between the persons of the Godhead. The intended relationship of God to man is that same relationship of love, but because man was created with freedom, and man did not use that freedom rightly, the image was lost. When through faith man becomes identified with God in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the proper relationship is restored. But even more, because the image is universal in humans, the love of God that is reflected in man must be reflected to man as well, in the form of love toward our fellows. If the image of God in man is a reflection of the love relationship of the Trinity, then the relationship between man and man must also reflect that.
Another piece of the puzzle is put in place by the Biblical assertion that the Church is the body of Christ. This idea is foundational in the New Testament and summarized by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:12-31 where he compares the Church at Corinth with the parts of the human body. One of the weaknesses of that church was that it was splintered and schismatic, leaving the individual members to seek their own aggrandizement rather than the common good. So it is not by accident that Paul turns from the descriptive image of the body to the prescription of the solution in 1 Corinthians 13, love, which it will be noted is not a prescription to feeling but to action. The problem was that the Church in Corinth was not acting as a community but rather as a collection of competing individuals and thus was not reflecting the divine image but rather a human cacophony, and the solution was to self-sacrifice for the benefit of all.
In modern times both Dietrich Bonheoffer and Martin Luther King have voiced this understanding of the Church in community as the presence of God on earth. In his work The Cost of Discipleship Bonheoffer argues that the follower of Christ has been called out of the world but must give visible proof of his calling by living in fellowship and community.[2] Martin Luther King did not imagine justice as being either accomplished by or visited upon individuals but by and for the “Beloved Community,” which he imagined to consist of all peoples and to constitute God’s image on earth.
The last piece of the puzzle finally falls into place when we ask what does it mean in practice to be the Image of God on earth? In considering this question I think we have to call upon the basic premise that as Christ followers we are called to do what Christ did. Christ is our model. Thus, though in community we have concern for the welfare of each other, corporately we must have concern for the world. Why does the Church exist if not for continuing God’s work of redemption and reconciliation as Jesus commanded (Mt. 28:19-20)? And how is this better accomplished than by following the model of Jesus: to teach, to preach, to set a good example, to heal, to comfort, to reward devotion and to rebuke sin, to extend God’s love to everyone especially our enemies, to be the light of the world (Mt. 5:14), and to remain whole-heartedly and steadfastly obedient to God’s call for justice, righteousness, and love regardless of the cost (Phil 2:6-8)?
So the “Preferred Approach” of Spirituality in Community sings to me because I feel deeply that it is essential and vital to what it means to be a Christian. I believe that the Imago Dei is the reflection of God’s love in his creatures, that that reflection is obscured when mankind directs his love inwardly rather than outwardly, and that the image is restored only “in Christ.” To be “in Christ” means to be in community because the Church is the body of Christ. I think that the Christian community resembles the Trinity in that it is comprised of individuals in a relationship of love, which is not emotional but active, but that it exists at the same time as a unity. Jesus tells us explicitly that to be his follower we must follow him to Calvary (Mk. 8:34), and that means sacrifice for the sake of the world as a reflection of God’s unfathomable love for the world (John 3:16)..
[1] Emil Brunner, Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1952), 61.
[2] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, (New York: Simon &Schuster, 1995), 258.
No comments:
Post a Comment