imago dei

The image of God should be looked at in regards to the personhood of God. By this, I mean to focus on the spiritual qualities that rise above nature and physicality. We are limited and enlightened by the human-situation, and so we have difficulty describing the specific identifying features of the image of God. We can only speak of God as He relates to our experience and comprehension. This is a good reason why we were, in fact, created in God’s image; namely, so that we could have some understanding of who/what/how He is. I refer to the human-situation that limits our understanding, based on our dualistic nature. We had a perfect beginning, and a sinful fall; but we can have a perfect ending. This requires us to include in the image of God, the image of Christ. In a sense, Jesus was the first among men, in that He was finite (created physical being) and infinite (limitless resource, power, holiness). We are in Jesus’ image as our actual meets our potential. By this, creation in the image of God is tied to redemption. This puts us in a place situated transcendence. What I mean by this is that by being simultaneously on-earth, and intimately connected to God in heaven, Christians find themselves with the capacity for self –transcendence that allows us some experience and understanding of God’s structure, or character makeup, and His relationality. If humans were created in God’s image, then, the image of God is, becoming more human. Okay, that seems confusing…but we are not talking about what is God? –we did this in the revelation and doctrine of God sections…we are now talking about what is the image of God? In the Genesis 1 account, God said "Let 'Us' make man in 'Our' image...male and female...". If anything, this looks like God emphasizing unity...oneness...as Adam and Eve are created in the image of the Trinity. This means that “human” would refer to the image of God, rather than what seems more natural for us (to think of “human” as bad). And so, on a horizontal line, beginning with creation of mankind in the image of God, and continuing through the fall, and on to redemption by Christ, we have the ability to return to “original human” that God had created before the fall. Does that make any sense? Sin and evil draw us away from our original selves (the image of God). And the image of God is found in us becoming more-human…more-original-human (and it only comes through the grace of Christ). And that image looks like the unity of the Trinity (for a start).

Chosen format

shooting me2, originally uploaded by kab_live.

I've decided to make this primarily a photoblog. This is the format it has taken on, and I like it. Several times, I have sat down to write an opinion or commentary blog, but the page remains blank. I may be overcome with a fear of bad blogging. I did start a side-blog...it's out there...and I'm writing. And I guess, that was the whole point of the Blog Revolution of '08 (right Chris? -brewingthoughtsblog).

boat in the family

DSC_0387, originally uploaded by kab_live.

There's a boat in the family now! Of course, the above picture isn't it (it's a toy boat in a pond). I am looking forward to warmer weather and afternoons on the lake. If you are nice I might try to sneak you aboard.

some notes about God's providence and evil's existence

Been reading Migliore. He discusses traditional answers to this titles question and alternative theodices. I'll list and describe his thoughts, and make a few comments.

I really like the way that Migliore started this chapter:
“Our quest for coherence…must resist the temptation to build a system of ideas that pretends to know more than we do and thereby loses touch with both faith and lived reality. While we can have confidence in the truth of God revealed to us in Christ, our knowledge of God is not exhaustive.”

PROVIDENCE=God provides, takes care of, supervises, enables, all things

*There is a knowing and decided evil at work…what is God’s place.
*Natural evil refers to injury, suffering, caused by diseases, accidents, earthquakes, fires, and floods, etc.

Is mortality in itself evil?
--Augustine and Calvin: divine providence is less a speculative doctrine than a practical truth…God reigns and evil is firmly under God’s control.

Traditional Theology:
-incomprehensibility of God…just trust Him
-divine punishment
-divine pedagogy that makes use of earthly suffering to turn us to God and to cultivate our hope for eternal life

Modern alternative Theodices:
Protest Theodicy
Very strong view of the sovereignty of God that leads one to question God’s goodness…must honestly deal with “God is love”.
Ex:
-Jacob wrestles with God
-Psalmist “How Long”
-Job “I’m innocent”
-Jesus cries out to God from the cross
Answer:
-to be faithful to God even when might appear that God has ceased to be faithful…part of a faithful response to God is to protest evil.

Process Theodicy
God’s power is only expressed as persuasion, rather than coercion, thus He is limited and cannot prevent some evils. God is indirectly responsible for evil because He creates forms of life that have the potential for evil. God cannot be blamed because He intends good and shares in the suffering.
Weakness:
That Good will win

Person-making Theodicy
God desires persons who freely render their worship and adoration. Hence, human beings are created incomplete and must freely participate in the process by which they come to be what God intends them to be.
??”existence of worlds beyond this world in which persons continue their movement toward the fullness of life in love that God intends for all creatures”??
-spiritual worlds??, continued growth through eternity in heaven??
-Focuses on growth through suffering…not enough on resistance to suffering (every form and occurrence of suffering is an opportunity for spiritual development)
-Heb. 5:8 “learned obedience through what he suffered”

Liberation Theodicy
Redemptive suffering. A call to courageous human participation in God’s struggle against suffering rather than a pious acquiescence in suffering.


I relate most, to the person-making theodicy. I do see biblical precedence for humanity's calling to submit ourselves to God...this requires on our part, a full engagement of our physical, emotional, logical selves to our spiritual selves as we trust God, grow closer to Him relationally, and conform to His image. In this way we can begin to reach our full potential in Christ. I do though, agree with Migliore's description, in that the person-making theodicy is weakened by its lack of emphasis on resisting unnecessary suffering. In an extreme form, this type of ideology could lead people to actually seek out suffering, and in turn, could glorify suffering in itself. This is a pretty scary road if it is followed.

what about the Trinity's involvement in creation?

Still reading the Migliore and Grenz books. Migliore describes several metaphoric models for understanding creation. Of the five models of creation that Migliore describes, I find myself strongly relating to a combination of the emanation analogy and the artistic expression model. I can understand how Migliore might see emanation as impersonal, but I like how Grenz matures the idea by illustrating the outpouring to have a naturally reciprocating character. (LONG QUOTE AHEAD “The act of creation is the outflowing of the eternal love relationship within the triune God. The world exists because out of the overflow of his own character, which is love, the eternal God establishes an external counterpart, creation. Just as it is created in accordance with the very essence of God –love—this counterpart exists to be both the recipient of and the mirror of the divine love” (Grenz Book "TftCoG"-101). This is consistent with my inclinations about God; He is love, He is abundant, He is the beginning (with His work of creation) and He is the end (the receiver of creation’s response). Also, simply put, the “creative” nature of creating, expresses God’s artistry and playfulness. The artist is creator of beautiful things. In this sense we comprehend that the world is God’s and that His creation was purposed to present the beauty within His nature. This would also indicate that while the creation may be seen in different ways, it’s true meaning is only found within the intent of the Creator. I think that uncontrolled-emanation is the weakness of that concept, but if it is looked at as controlled/planned release it expresses the way that God is personally engaged with creating/creation. God is in control of how and when He releases Himself into creation. I suppose this is why I feel that it should be merged with the artistic expression/play analogy. When these two are coupled, it helps me express that God creates, as He will and out of who He is.

The formation and generation analogies compliment the abovementioned models. Formation should refer to God’s work of sustaining creation, and His work of redemptive recreation. The Generation model depicts a human, cultural, and even personal understanding of the way God engages His creation. As God emanates His character through creative activity, He cares for, and provides for the needs of His creation. This is an outpouring of His love and power, and it coincides with the concept of God forming His creation for His glory.

I do not prefer the concept of the mind/body relationship. While it does help to portray a unity the God desires for His creation to have with Him, it otherwise is allows for some weaknesses. This model would seem to level the creation with the Creator. The mind and body are co-dependent on each other in many ways. It would be incorrect to infer that God is dependent upon His creation.

Grenz asserts that creation is the work of the full Trinity. In some places it seems that Grenz is depersonalizing the HS ("The dynamic that binds the Father and the Son – the power of their relationship-is the HS") ("the Spirit is the personal power of God- the dynamic of love between the Father and the Son – by means of which all things exist"). These examples cast a picture of the HS as being power through which God works...as opposed to being powerful (which would be an attribute, and description of action of the person of the HS). I don't know if I am describing what I mean well or not...Grenz makes the HS seem to be only the adjective of the Father, rather than it's own noun. Though, the final two sentences of this section in the book could be looked at as contradiction for the purpose of this discussion.

"the HS is the 'one' (seems to have a sense of individuality) through whom the Father, the direct agent in creation, fashions the world."
vs.
"the HS is the personal power of God" (the strength in which God works).

While the distinctive roles he describes do make logical and spiritual sense, I think that more value can be found when we focus on the unified way in which the Trinity completes creation. I do not mean to say that the value is only in the oneness. In any subject, it seems to help understand a concept when we look at its smallest denominators. By dissecting "God Creates" into "The Father, the Son, and the HS create" we can better comprehend HOW the Trinity is one. I think that there is value in looking at the distinctions; but they should not separate God's persons...they should reveal their unification, and the unified way in which the Trinity completes creation. Holistically, the Trinity called all things into existence, laid purpose for all things, and is at work sustaining and leading creation to respond to the Creator. This ways in which the Trinity completes Divine experience (even in creation) helps me believe in God and in His sovereignty. Faith in the completeness of a Trinitarian God who creates out of His own nature provides that there is purpose in an orderly creation, and that all of His creation is inherently good. For me, the cohesion of the Trinity accentuates how He has put all things into proper order, and all things are created to express His glory.

is God a dude or a chick?

To claim God as specifically male or female would be to put human limitations on "Him". God is asexual in that "He" is above (not limited by) gender. I suppose that out of our tradition...and out of our personal experience we cannot help but relate to God by masculine pronouns. In the Genesis 1 account, God said "Let 'Us' make man in 'Our' image...male and female...". If anything, this looks like God emphasizing unity...oneness...as Adam and Eve are created in the image of the Trinity. Maybe this is more of the point than what alikeness' and differences were there...and what the gender God is most like.

more thoughts on the social God

I can relate to those individuals Migliore (i mentioned him in my last post) describes who struggle with language/philosophical issues. In the context of the traditional theological discussions surrounded my growing up, I sometimes felt the same gap between the historical God and my personal experiences with God. The work of determining doctrine is a very personal activity. It is where human understanding meets the person of God. A person’s theology of God is the result of their studies and experiences; and it directly relates to how they are to live out their life. That makes it easy to empathize with the victims of injustice. It would be difficult to not allow such experiences to affect one’s ideas of the One who is omnipotent. The danger is in allowing our interpretations of our personal encounters with God and with the world to trump biblical absolutes about God. We cannot allow our individual inclinations to modify scriptural evidence of the fixed and essential attributes of God. Scripture states that God is love; this means that love does not define God, but that God defines love. Other absolute definable qualities of God are found in the Bible, such as: “God is Light”, “God is Spirit”, the elements of the Trinity, and Christ’s death and resurrection acts. God is intrinsically relational. He is in harmony with His triune nature and He interacts and seeks union with us. While searching for truth, we must honor the unconditional characteristics of God and consider the unique ways in which He reveals himself to each of us personally. We should also consider that In a way, all of our theologies are wrong (or at least incomplete) because the infinite God cannot be confined by our finite systems of thought.

the social God

Currently, I'm reading Daniel Migliore's "Faith Seeking Understanding", and I am re-reading Stan Grenz's "Theology for the Community of God" and "The Social God and the Relational Self". This week, I read their thoughts about the personage of God. Migliore describes the doctrine of God as the core of Christian theology. The problem with discerning the person of God lies in the people doing the work of discernment. The logically, philosophical, and emotional presuppositions that humans bring to the task can taint the truth of who God is. In the tradition of this doctrine, Migliore suggests 3 distinct demoralizing issues. First, the history of God's presence in the midst of evil is called into question. By claiming terrible acts in God's name corrupt humans have corrupted the truth about who God is. Migliore describes a second problem in the inference that the traditional views of God are disconnected from modern experiences with God. Migliore also explains a problem that is championed by feminist theology, in that images of God are presented out of a tradition of sexism/racism, and are therefore spoiled by prejudice.The author offers that a holistic and true picture of God can be found in the Christian confession of the Trinity; and it is the essential attribute of God. The doctrine of the trinity began during the patristic era of the second- and third-centuries, but the Roman emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea in 325 serve as a landmark beginning for general interest and debate of this widespread Christian belief. Externally, the church around 300 was first beginning to take form. Christians could be found in all classes of society throughout the Roman Empire. The modern canon was taking shape and being taught in churches at Alexandria, Rome, Antioch of Syria, and in homes throughout the empire. Internal struggles for power and authority within the church led to many changes and variations in Christian belief during the early fourth century. Salvation had shifted from mere faith in Christ to being found in the sacraments; and personal faith in Christ was replaced by faith in one’s loyalty to the Church. Most early Christians claimed to be the continuation of the work of the God of the Old Testament era. Many early Christians also recognized that God was revealed through Jesus, thus laying the foundation for the belief of His deity. Grenz states that “At the same time, in keeping with the pattern set by [Christ] himself, his followers clearly differentiated between Jesus as the Son and the one whom he claimed to be both his and their Father (e.g., Rom. 15:5-6).” Grenz also added that “Not only did the early Christian faith consist of the confession of Jesus and the belief in one God, it also included the assertion that God is now present among his people through the Holy Spirit.” During his ministry on earth, Jesus described and even named the Spirit’s role (e.g., Matt 28:19; John 14:16). This third part of the Trinity was understood to be part of the “personal, divine reality within the Christian fellowship.” As the early patristics laid a Trinitarian foundation for Christian belief, three distinct schools of Christian thought had developed and displayed antagonism to one another. Even so, Constantine saw Christianity as a growing institution that could save, or at least prolong the dying Roman Empire. For Christianity to unite the Empire, first, Constantine had to unite Christianity. He planned to settle a major Christian controversy on the question of deity of Jesus with the Council of Nicea.

inerrancy

Biblical inerrancy is a position/belief that the Bible is completely without error; that it is absolutely accurate in all its parts. Full inerrancy demands that the Bible is true in everything it says on any subject and is approached very technically. I think that the Baptist Faith and Message uses more detail to describe a belief on scriptural integrity so as to prevent people from making assumptions based on a brief, one-word description. Just as we in this class find it necessary to determine the actual meaning of the word “inerrancy”; using it in the BF&M would have the potential of leading to more questions rather than providing a collected answer. The statements about scripture found in this confession do describe it to be written under the providence, guidance, and superintendence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it stands as “totally true and trustworthy” and “truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter”. The latter phrase seems to suggest an emphasis on the substance of the Bible, as opposed to being true in form as well as matter (which would include elements of style, grammar, and other extraneous details). The BF&M statements also imply a human responsibility, in that it is infallible when it is rightly interpreted, in light of the purpose and context of the writers. Infallibility focuses more on faith and practice, rather than on modern scientific understanding or historiography. I believe that the scriptures claim their own truth and relevance, and therefore I believe them to be without error; though I do infer this to apply to the teachings and purposes of the Bible. This implies that both inspiration and illumination are necessary for connecting to the truth of the scriptures.

some notes on inspiration and inerrancy

Inspiration is the process used by God to communicate His message through the Bible.

Some traditional views of inspiration:
Humanistic Views of Inspiration - Scripture contains the noble insights of great people of faith.

Dictation Theory of Inspiration - Human writers were only instruments or stenographers through which God spoke his message

Dynamic View of Inspiration - God inspired great people of faith to write his message. He inspired through thought, rather than word for word. Writers wrote down God's message within the parameters of their own language and worldview.

Plenary Verbal View of Inspiration - The very words themselves are inspired.

And about innerrancy:
Propositional Inerrancy - also called "Blunt Inerrancy," "Strict Inerrancy," or "Absolute Inerrancy. Every word of the Bible is propositional truth, including those relating to science, history, etc.

Pietistic Inerrancy - also called "Fideistic," "Naive," or "Spontaneous" Inerrancy; or "Biblicism." A non-critical approach that assumes all statements in the Bible are true.

Nuanced Inerrancy - View of inerrancy depends on the genre of biblical literature. Some portions of Scripture were dictated verbatim, e.g., Ten Commandments. Epistles and historical portions have verbal inspiration. Material like Proverbs requires a more liberal understanding of exactness.

Critical Inerrancy - Holds that each word of Scripture is as God would have it. However, it allows for a number of qualifications, e.g., rounding off of numbers, cosmology, scientific references, inaccuracy in quotations, etc.

Functional Inerrancy - also called "Limited Inerrancy" or "Infallibility." The Bible is inerrant when it speaks of matters of faith and ethics, but not necessarily in matters of science or history. It speaks of the Bible in terms of truthfulness and faithfulness. The Bible may contain an error in history or science that was not available to the writer. However, these "errors" in no way effect a truthful teaching about faith or behavior.

the Side-Blog in a Blog Revolution

I wanted this year to be (for me) the Blog Revolution of '08. I started strong, but quickly fizzled out. I think maybe I've been overcome by the fear of bad blogging. And so, I'm starting this side-blog to work at consistency in writing. The goal is just to get something out there...it may be theological for a while, and then maybe political. I may write about my weekend or my opinion on the state of the Dallas Mavericks. I will write...because it helps me think.

The Trusty Boyd's of Scotland

Linds and I went to Salado with Ross and Stephanie. We found this quiant Scottish/Irish gift shop. We were able to track Lindsey's family (Callon side, to the Callaghan's of Ireland), and the "Trusty Boyd" clan of Scotland. Duncan Boyd was executed for supporting independence in 1306 and Sir Robert Boyd was a commander for Robert the Bruce (think Braveheart) after the death of WIlliam Wallace. For his service and valour during battle he was awarded lands, including Kilmarnock.

I had done some geneaology studies a few years ago, and decided to adopt these Boyd's as my forefathers. If you ever look into your anscestory, I recommend finding the "coolest" historic figures that share your last name, and claim them to your line.