With the conversion of the King of Lithuania on this date in 1386, the last of the officially pagan kingdoms of Europe came to an end. From this time on, all of Europe was officially Christian and guided by at least nominally Christian rulers. Although one can certainly debate the extent to which the medieval Christianization project was succesful at truly transforming individuals and societies, we should recognize the tremendous accomplishment that was achieved with the conversion of the last pagan frontier in Europe. Despite the fall of the western Roman empire and the chaos brought about by the fall of the Carolingian empire and the raids/conquests of the Vikings and the Magyars, nonetheless, the missionary expansion of the medieval church continued.
The Image of God as Covenantal Presence
Some of you know that I have been working on a book for T&T Clark on theological anthropology. It will be part of their Guides for the Perplexed series, which seeks to take readers through some of the more challenging questions in different areas of philosophy and theology. So, the basic thrust of each book is to identify four or five really important issues in a given field and devote a chapter to each. For theological anthropology, I decided to focus on the image of God, gender and sexuality, the body/soul relationship, and free will. Needless to say, this has not been an easy project. I have completed first-drafts of all the chapters and have started working them into their second-drafts. As they reach this stage, I thought I would go ahead and post them here for mockery, ridicule, and otherwise helpful suggestions. The first of the chapters to reach this stage is the one on the image of God. Please feel free to read it through and pass along any comments or suggestions you might have.
The basic thrust of the chapter, in case you have other things to do than please your Th.M. director by reading his pre-publication material, is that the best way to understand the image of God is to find a way of synthesizing the insights of the functional and relational approaches to understanding the imago. (I argue that ‘structural’ approaches should not be used at all to define what it means to image God.) This must be done, however, without subsuming either in the process. So, I begin by exploring the concept of representation at the heart of the functional imago and contend that the key is to understand humanity’s function as manifesting God’s presence in creation as those who have been constituted by him to do so. That is, humanity images God in that they are the ones through whom God has chosen to manifest his presence in creation (i.e., they are his representatives).
Moving on from there, I consider the nature of God’s presence in creation and argue that his presence is always revealed to be a personal presence. Thus, God constitutes human beings as personal beings through the divine address and through the creation of humans as sexually differentiated beings so that humans can manifest his personal presence in creation.
Finally, I contend that the image of God is that by which God manifests his personal presence in creation can only be understood through the unfolding narrative of his covenantal relationships with his people, Israel and the Church. The image of God should not be viewed as an abstract statement about the ‘essence’ of humanity, but is instead a concrete relationship between God and humanity by which he expresses himself in and through the history of his covenantal faithfulness.
So, I conclude that the image of God should be understood as “God manifesting his personal presence in creation through his covenantal relationships with human persons, whom he has constituted as personal beings to serve as his representatives in creation and to whom he remains faithful despite their sinful rejection of him.” I then go on to identify some key implications of this way of understanding the imago that will impact how we address other anthropological issues.
So, feel free to unload on me in the comments. I have read through the manuscript a couple of times, but I have not gone into full ‘typo’ mode yet, so there may be some errors. If you want to let me know about any errors you find, great! Otherwise, just read and enjoy (or, not).
What is systematic theology?
The newest edition of the International Journal of Systematic Theology has devoted its lead articles to discussing the nature of systematic theology. Of particular note are the following:
- Paul Fiddes’ “Concept, Image, and Story in Systematic Theology” argues for an aesthetic theology that makes liberal use of literature as a theological source. This would be a helpful article for anyone wanting to think about theology as narrative.
- A. N. Williams’ “What is Systematic Theology” contends that being ‘systematic’ is at the core of the discipline. Theology is inherently involved in the task of drawing connections (i.e., ‘relations’) between beings and concepts and to that extent must always be systematic.
- John Webster’s “Principles of Systematic Theology” contends that systematic theology is an essentially contemplative discipline grounded in the openness and sharing that takes place between the persons of the Trinity.
Greg Beale on inerrancy
I haven’t listend to it yet, but Reformed Forum has posted the mp3 of a panel discussing the erosion of inerrancy, with particular contribution by Greg Beale. If you are not aware, Beale was a key participant in the debate generated by Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation. I am sure the panel discussion would be well worth listening to if you have some extra time laying around.
Today Dostoyevsky Died (1881)
The 19th century Russian novelist and essayist Fyodor Dostoyevsky is nearly unrivaled in his ability to explore theological themes in and through literature. His elaborate portrayals of the inner life of human persons in all their psychological, spiritual, and social complexity, particularly as they are found in a sinful and broken world, are must-reads for anyone seeking to understand humanity theologically. Similarly his treatments of the doctrine of God, the problem of sin, and the nature of the church, have generated interest ever since.
If you are a Dostoyevsky fan, I would be interested to know which works you have found most compelling and why. For me, I will go with The Brothers Karamazov. There is no easy way to summarize such a complex work, but at the very least a forceful argument that real human life only happens when we embrace one another in all our ugliness and sinfulness – recognizing the mutuality, and complicity, of humanity. Here is a quote from the spiritual sage of the book, Zosima to the young Alyosha along these lines:
My friends, ask gladness from God. Be glad as children, as birds in the sky. And let man’s sin not disturb you in your efforts, do not fear that it will dampen your endeavor and keep it from being fulfilled, do not say, ‘Sin is strong, impiety is strong, the bad environment is strong, and we are lonely and powerless, the bad environment will dampen us and keep our good endeavor from being fulfilled.’ Flee from such despondency, my children! There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men. For indeed it is so, my friend, and the moment you make yourself sincerely responsible for everything and everyone, you will see at once that it is really so, that it is you who are guilty on behalf of all and for all. Whereas by shifting your own laziness and powerlessness onto others, you will end by sharing in Satan’s pride and murmuring against God. (Book VI, Chapter 3)
