Tag Archive for 'image of god'

The Image of God redux

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.

Sphere: Related Content

The Creation of Consciousness: IV

We know turn to the meaning of consciousness. Etymology indicates that consciousness is made up of two factors: knowing and withness. That is, it is the experience of knowing together with an other.

Edinger tackles the act of knowing from a psychological-empirical approach rather than a philosophical approach. Through the former approach, says Edinger, “the experience of knowing can be at least descriptively elaborated.”

The psychological function of knowing or seeing requires first of all that undifferentiated, diffuse experience be split into a subject and an object, the knower and the known. . . . As [Erich] Neumann says, “This act of cognition, of conscious discrimination, sunders the world into opposites, for experience of the world is only possible through opposites.”

This is exactly Jung’s individuation process which is realized through the experience of the tension of the opposites. Each new increment of consciousness that we collect requires a repetition of this same process of separating object from subject. Schopenhauer talks about the ability for a man to step away from his struggling, suffering life and observe it as if he is a spectator to a play. All the things that were intensely emotion are now cold, foreign, and strange. It is this process that turns an “unconscious complex which has one by the throat into an object of knowledge” and is “an extremely important aspect for increasing consciousness.” The myth of Perseus and Medusa also demonstrates the power of reflection. Once cannot look upon Medusa directly but one can view her via the mirror-shield — the process of human culture or art.

Being known as object is the other half of the process of knowledge. The ego as “knower” is only providing simple knowing. “To achieve authentic consciousness the ego must also go through the experience of being the object of knowledge, with the function of the knowing subject residing in the ‘other’.” This “other” must ultimately be the inner “knowing one,” i.e., the Self or inner God-image. The “Last Judgment” is the ultimate experience of being the object of knowledge. It “can be understood psychologically as a projection into the afterlife of the ego’s encounter with the Self and the archetypal experience of being the known object of a transpersonal subject; it is an awesome experience, as the myths make clear, an experience that man has understandably tried to postpone as long as possible by transferring it to the afterlife.”

We all begin as the known object and slowly, as the ego develops, become the knowing subject. This is a tranquil and powerful state since the subject dominates the object and the object is the victim of the knower. But we must give up our relative freedom as we realize that we are also the known object, once again, to the Self. So, we alternately must play the role of subject and object. The real key to the process is the realization of the “dynamism of connectedness, the relationship principle” that is knowing with. It is a coniunctio, a union, of Logos (knowing) and Eros (withness) and, as such, we are simultaneously playing both parts. Furthermore, this process also applies to the Self which must also be the known object to the ego’s subject. In Answer to Job, Jung says:

Existence is only real when it is conscious to somebody. That is why the Creator needs conscious man even though, from sheer unconsciousness, he would like to prevent him from becoming conscious.

What we see in Job is that “because Job has seen Yahweh’s amoral nature, Yahweh is obliged to change.” In other words, God — or the Self — needs man to promote the Self’s consciousness.

This reciprocal relation between the ego and the Self — in which both are object and subject — has some interesting implications. The unconscious provides the material of our dream life and thus the Self becomes visible to the ego. But what if the life dramas of the ego are the dreams of the Self, the process of God becoming aware of himself?

In this modern age, religion is the Eros, or withness, factor and seeks the maintain man’s connectedness with God and is Self-oriented. Science is the Logos, or ego-oriented, factor and seeks human knowledge at the expense of the connection with the other. Science alone inadequate to the needs of the whole man and the intellectually naive standpoint of religious faith is equally inappropriate for us today. It is the synthesis and linking of these two factors that will increase consciousness in the universe.

Sphere: Related Content