read part one first
THE REST OF THE STORY
The Fall-Redemption story is part of the story, but it is really an abbreviated lo-cal excerpt of the fuller version. And here is the problem; to start the conversation with the Fall is to start talking about God’s Story at Genesis 3. Starting the conversation here and omitting the opening salvos of the first two chapters has locked us into having only one conversation about God: the 2nd person conversation. I would like to suggest when we start the conversation with a fall-redemption paradigm we only can talk about God in 2nd person. In other words the only way we can view God is as “Other” as “out there” as another person. While that is totally true about God our inability to see God from a couple other perspectives may be debilitating us.
Part of the way through this impasse is to start at the beginning of the story instead of chapter three. When we start the story in the creation narratives, the truncated Fall-Redemption story expands to the Creation-Fall-Redemption story which really leads to a fourth concluding part, which clarifies the reason for redemption and that is for the express purpose of getting us back to Eden, the creation. This fourth part we might call re-creation or restoration. This leads to a four part story that is full slice thick narrative; Creation-Fall- Redemption-Restoration.
In Genesis one and two we actually have grounds for God conversations that start in a different place. In Genesis 1, we have God creating humanity imago dei (in the image of God). Here is a picture of God breathing into humanity his Spirit. What shape might a conversation take that has the imago dei, which is present in every human, as the starting place? In other words, what would a conversation look like that said you have god-stuff in you? This is what we might call the 1st person conversation about God. And what is quite obvious is culture seems to be having the conversation all around us, but not with us.
Further, as God breathes into humanity, God’s charge to humanity was to selflessly serve and oversee the created order, that includes the animals they named, the flora they cultivated, the birds they sang with and the fish that introduced them to the aquatic world below. Creation may provide yet another conversation entry point. Every time we “see God in the sunset”, acknowledge “God in nature”, recognize God’s presence in the complexity and wonder of the oceanic ecosystem we are seeing God “out there” as 3rd person, as creation personified so to speak. More on this later.
START AT THE VERY BEGINNING
When we start with creation and Genesis 1 we instantly enter into a world where every person has been invested with the image of God, with God-like authority and qualities and mandates. Notice, it is everybody, not just Christians filled with God’s Spirit. In the Genesis account all humanity has the very breath of God. Everyone finds resonance here because these are things deep within the human psyche that are incontrovertible. They are intuitive soundings that “I am somehow made to be god, or divine or connected to the divine.” The benefit of this starting point for spiritual conversations is it is as universal as the Fall conversation, but it holds one huge advantage; it is the beginning of the story and it is a positive starting point. Is it any wonder people don’t gravitate toward the “You are heading to hell in a handbasket” conversation but do resonate with a “You have been made as the crowning glory of creation (Psalm 8)” conversation?
For some of us what I’m about to suggest may be a foray into unknown waters. But my guess is that most of us have read material or been influenced by other flavors of the Christian tradition, and maybe at times not even knowing it. I want to suggest we may be able to learn from others that fall outside of our small tribe, denomination or fellowship, and realize heaven will be populated by people of all stripes of the Christian tradition. With this in mind, our brothers and sisters from the Eastern Tradition of Christianity may be able to substantially help us along in understanding the 1st person conversation about God. In the West, the journey toward God is a journey out to the Other, a journey out there, outward. In the East, the journey toward God can be an inward journey to the quiet place where God has placed his image and spirit.
The idea here is connection to imago dei, the image of God in every single human. It is a connection to the original breath of God in us, and it is that which animates our very existence. I want to be quick to note I am not suggesting that a journey inward will somehow enable a complete and biblical understanding of the Christian God. Nor am I suggesting that humanity being made in the image of God implies humans have the same power or attributes of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I am suggesting, however, we may have missed a valuable and universal starting point.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
After reading both part 1 and 2 and both of your previous books (static and transformational Architecture) I am wondering what is the difference between the “Imago Dei” concept or the thought of God breathing life into us (literal or not?) and how we recieved the holy spirit after christ was risen? Are they the same or different because if they are the same then that would change a lot of my person beliefs, as well as I would assume others who are attempting to shift there views about God to this post-modern thought.
Zach great question and perceptive connections. While I think those two items/events are related I do not think they are the same. In TA I use the metaphor of an operating system upgrade. Imago dei is the foundation of original first creation. The Holy Spirit is the next step or new creation piece. I think John 3 is good example of how these two are related (a new creation/old(first) creation example that has been noted by scholars for a long time).
After reading parts 3 and 4 I have to wonder what is the difference between “us” being little gods and the whole Morman view of us becoming gods (if I have my facts straight)?
This whole concept of we are little gods seems a lot like the principles of some/most of the eastern religions of the world. Therefore, I have to ask what was Jesus doing during those 18 years that is skipped in the bible (ages 12-30)? Could he have been traveling to other places preaching the same messages but had the people grasp this concept in a different mannor, therefore creating the diversity of the religions we know today?
Zach an excellent musing for sure. Two quick comments. I think there is a big difference between the reading suggested here and the Mormon view you allude to. Since I am no Mormon theologian and wouldn’t want to misrepresent them, let me clarify my thought. The little gods reference in John 10 references Psalm 82 the context is interesting and instructive. The people of Israel were to act as God would act in taking care of those around them, in stating that fact the psalmist calls them ‘gods.’ Ironically as I point out, Jesus states to the Pharisees that their scriptures call them such. My point is this has to be some nod to the imago dei, the god in them portion of their being because they clearly were legalists missing the main point of who Jesus was. That said, what does it mean to start our conversations with people on that common ground.
To your second musing about the “silent years” as they are called, interesting idea. Cool possibility huh?