Punctum Saliens

A quote by Zizioulas at Chrisendom reminded me of a comment I wrote on one of my earlier posts. It is a reply to D.W. Congdon from The Fire and the Rose who was kind enough to briefly engage me. I really like my “fun house mirror” analogy and so I thought I’d use this as an excuse to promote a comment to a post. I am totally unfamiliar with Zizioulas and so I may be misinterpreting him. I’m definitely taking him out of context since I have no context. So, let that be your grain of salt …

“While the view that we are simply created in the image of God and thus bear this image in ourselves is rather common, it is also misguided.”

Then what do the two verses from Genesis [1:27 and 9:6] that I quoted in the post mean? Do they not say that we were created in the image of God? And the second one does not specify that spirit-filled men should not be killed. It refers to the general “man.”

“The NT speaks of Jesus as God’s image in a few different places, and it is also a theological axiom on the basis of the incarnation.”

To what verses are you referring? I’ve never heard it put that Jesus was God’s image. I’ve only heard that Jesus was God.

“Our own identity is marred by the fact of our sinfulness. The image of God is thus properly a christological category, not an anthropological one.”

Exactly! Our own identity as the image of God is marred by our sinfulness and Jesus and the Holy Spirit is what brings us back to our pristine, pre-fall identity. Of course, this body “I” am in possession of at the moment is not the image of God if this is the “anthropological one” you mention. Of course it’s not. But I am not my body. The body dies so it can’t be the image of God. And this is one of the problems — we think of our body as our “I” and it’s not.

“Our identity as the ‘image of God’ is never something we possess, even as believers. Instead, it is always a reality that is outside of us in Christ himself. We bear the image of God only by participating in the reality of Jesus Christ as the true image of God.”

Agreed. It’s not something we can possess. But I don’t agree that it is “outside of us.” “In Christ himself” I agree with but Christ is in us; is part of us (as believers). Plus, I still submit that our original, true, unmarred nature is the image of God.

“The image of God is not something we ‘already are’; it is something, rather, that we ‘will become’ eschatologically, as we are perfected by the Spirit.”

This may be semantics but can you be partly the image of God? Isn’t being the image of God kind of like being unique or perfect — either you are unique or you’re not; either you are perfect or you’re not. “Almost perfect” is not perfect. “Somewhat unique” is not unique. A distorted image of something is still an image of that thing. The distortions do not detract from that. A fun-house mirror still shows you your image. It may have a huge head and a tiny torso and corrugated feet but it’s still an image of you. If you deconvolve that image, you will get a true image of youself. The fun-house mirror does not display an image with four heads, sixteen arms, and fourteen feet. You may not be able to even recognize it but it is still your image. Isn’t that really what sin has done to us? Made us unrecognizable as the image of God? The work of the Holy Spirit is to flatten out the fun house mirror so that we can see what we really are.

So, I don’t agree that we become an “image of God” just because we are a member of the Church. (And I really need a qualification on that phrase. “Church” is capitalized so I’m assuming he’s not talking about First Presbyterian.) We may “realize” our already being an image of God by being a member but I don’t agree that we “become” an image.