Imago Dei and the Material World (Part 3)

Throughout most of history, the Church has taken an instrumental view of human work and economic activity. There is no question that work has such value. Through our labors, we provide food, clothing, and shelter. Work sustains us so we can do those distinctly human activities like worship God, meditate on who God is, educate our minds, and enjoy community with others. Our work gives us resources to share with others in need and invest in the lives of others. Within the context of the Church today, our work environment is often characterized as a staging ground for evangelism and a context where we can exhibit Kingdom principles of living. Work is also frequently valued because of the funds it provides for the Church's institutions, programs, and ministries.

In addition to the instrumental view, there has been teaching that values work in an ontological sense. It tends to be grounded in the creation narrative. Human beings were created to be stewards over the earth. Human labor is seen as a way to glorify God by dutifully caring for the created order, keeping the status quo until Christ's return when the pre-fall order of things will be restored.

These instrumental and ontological views express much of what the Church has taught over the centuries. There is little wrong with either of these views as far as they go. The problem is what they are missing: an eschatological view.

My shorthand observation for the eschatological view is this: The narrative of the Bible begins in the garden (Eden) and ends in a city (New Jerusalem). Many Christians today (especially postmodern deconstructionists) falsely attribute the idea of material progress to the Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers appropriated the idea of progress from Christianity and wedded to the idea of human self-autonomy achieved through reason. The biblical narrative is pregnant with the idea of progress, including material progress, under God's direction.

Judaism introduced the idea of linear type. Ancient cultures had cyclical notions of time. Religious rituals celebrated the cycles of nature and sought to earn the gods' favor by honoring nature's cycles. Judaism postulated a beginning to creation. Humanity was created and instructed to multiply and fill the earth. Humanity was instructed to till and keep the Garden, but humanity was also instructed to "subdue" (kabash) and exercise "dominion" (radah) over the earth. The Hebrew words here are powerful and violent. They mean "to tread down; hence, negatively, to disregard; positively, to conquer, subjugate, violate" in the case of kabash and "to tread down, i.e., subjugate; specifically, to crumble off" in the case of radah. (Strong's Concordance)

Contrary to ancient notions of worshiping and conforming to nature, the Genesis account envisions humanity filling the earth and reshaping it, bringing creation to fruition. There is a linearity to the presentation of events. (It is beyond my scope here to give a fully qualified presentation of "subdue" and "dominion," but just for clarity's sake, I'm not suggesting the natural world has no intrinsic value and that it may be exploited for any purpose. I emphasize that passive preservation of pristine creation is not in sight in the Genesis account.)

After the fall and expulsion from Eden in Genesis 3, we see something new emerging in the Old Testament. From Noah, Abraham, and Moses, we see an unfolding vision of restored shalom (peace, security, prosperity, physical health, and healthy relationships.) God establishes a people to be a light to the world, and at the end of time, God will bring the entire world into his Kingdom and restore shalom. (Isaiah 25:6-10) As we know from other Old Testament writings, a messiah will lead people into this eschatological reality. This coming shalom unquestionably had material implications. Please revisit the listing of the blessings for obedience to God's covenant with Israel in Deuteronomy 28:1-14. Resist the temptation to spiritualize them in some Gnostic way or to explain them away because of prosperity gospel heresies. Material prosperity for all God's people is linked with shalom.

Christianity is where we see the idea of progress fully emerge. Rodney Stark points out that while Judaism had a linear timeframe, it tended to see the people of Israel processing through time instead of progressing through time. They were oriented to the past and keeping the Mosaic Covenant in anticipation of something God would do in the future. (Stark notes a similar orientation with Islam toward the writings of Muhammad in anticipation of a future reality.) Jesus comes announcing the Kingdom of God. He declares it is here but not yet consummated. Consummation will be accomplished upon his return.

Meanwhile, Christians are told to live as if the Kingdom is already here. (i.e., proleptically) The orientation shifts from compliance to a legal code in the past toward realizing a vision of a coming future. Christians are to be yeast in the dough of the world, causing it to rise and come to fullness, all the time aware that true fullness will not happen until Christ returns.

The physical image of the new order in its completeness is instructive. The new order is not a protological return to the Garden of Eden. The image is of a magnificent and abundant garden city called the New Jerusalem. Cities in ancient cultures were the highest symbols of human commerce, government, art, and culture in general. The image communicates that that made of human labor is incorporated into the coming New Creation and becomes the dwelling place of God with humanity. It suggests that progress in the development of human culture, including in economic and material well-being, is part of the unfolding vision.

Jesus is the prototype for the new humanity, the firstborn of the new creation. (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, Colossians 1) And, "We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies." (Romans 8:22-23, NRSV) Christ is ushering in the New Creation, and we are united to Christ as his body and his temple on the earth. Therefore, we are also participating proleptically in his work of redemption and transforming creation (human and non-human). Few Christians have problems subscribing to the idea of a spiritual "leavening" occurring over time because of Christ working in the world but many Christians, in a dualistic split, are resistant to the idea of "progress" in human culture, including economic transformation.

How does our work in this time of the Kingdom "already but not yet" have an eschatological impact?

(Continued)

[Index]

Comments

[Peggy]

It seems to me that the "already" things we do today are the seeds of the "not yet" things that continue on until that final "city" becomes reality.

This reminds me greatly of J.R.R. Tolkien's wonderful perspective of humanity as "sub-creators" under God being the key way we represent the "imago Dei." It makes sense that the "imago Dei" would "work" itself out materially as well as spiritually (wholistically, that is) as the unified manifestation of the "missio Dei."

It's a package deal....

[Michael W. Kruse]

Well said!

[RonMcK]

Michael
Ladd said that the Kingdom of God is "already, but not yet".
Jesus said the Kingdom of God is at hand.
Jesus never said the kingdom is not yet.
Ron

[Michael W. Kruse]

Now Ron, which authority are you going to trust? Ladd or Jesus? :)

Seriously, I think the "already, not yet" language is based on more than Jesus' words. Sort of like the idea of Trinity seems to be present but not explicitly stated, I think others see this a valid formualtion of NT teaching.

Do you have a different take?

[RonMck]

Michael
The view that the Kingdom is “not yet” and will come when Jesus returns in power is the last residue of dispensationalism. The truth is that the kingdom described in the New Testament can be established by returning in power, because there are only two ways that he could do it.
1. Human nature could be changed so that we lose the freedom to sin, but it would become a kingdom of automatons.
2. Jesus could use force to coerce unwilling men to accept his authority, but it would cease to be the voluntary kingdom.
In either case, the resulting kingdom would be much diminished from the Kingdom described in the New Testament.

The only way for this kingdom to come is for people to freely choose to accept Jesus authority. That can only happen through the Holy Spirit renewing human hearts. God has set things up so that can happen now. Jesus had to go away so that could happen.

(This is the same contrast as the one between the free market and the socialist forcing people to be good.)

The accepted view that the Kingdom is not yet, is actually a belief (unbelief) that the Holy Spirit cannot do it, but Jesus can. This is a distorted form of Trinitarianism, where there is one God in two and half persons.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Thanks for the elaboration Ron.

My context for "already, not yet" is historic Reformed Christianity. I don't know if he originated it but Walter Rauschenbusch of "social gospel" fame is who the phrase is often associated with. I've always heard it in the sense that Kingdom is here, and like yeast in the dough, it is filling all creation. The early 20th century Rauschenbusch crowd were convined they would fully usher in the reign of Christ. This was going to be the Chrisitan Century as in "Christian Century" magazine. Historially, Reformed theology has held that there would be a growing infusion of the Kingdom of God but there would be sharp juncture at which time Christ would enter to make establish his reign. Something akin to these two perspectives has always been implicit in the "already, not yet framing" I've heard. It is Dispensationalist who I find are usually the most adamantly opposed to such a framing.

I don't see anything in the "already, not yet" that says God will not accomplish what he set out to do.

[samlcarr]

Michael, I have some questions on your sense of an overall flow from garden/forest eventually to city. First the reading of 'dominion' and of 'subdue', the meanings that we can ascribe to these ideas seem to come from an agrarian setting rather than from a forest/garden/orchard setting which is what we would need to seek to be sure that we were not being diachronic in our understanding.

Secondly, the instructions originally given to mankind are strongly modified by the fall and by the set of provisos that God then pronounced.

A clear implication is that while we may still desire to have dominion and to subdue as originally intended, our actual ability to fulfil these desires must now be quite limited or even corrupted by our falleness.

I think it's dangerous to then draw out a realised eschatology based on this.

We have indeed continued to fill, and perhaps even overfill the earth and at the same time we have wrested some control over this entropy-filled existence by harnessing science and converting this control into mechanical and now knowledge driven technologies.

The result is that we have lost contact with the ground and have mostly moved into cities. Now, cities are amazing things, they always have been, but is this really the direction that eschatology tells us that we have to go? Are we not here in danger of replacing what we are, what we were created to be, with a vision based on our own proud progress? Are we not tending again to Babel?

Travel this course for much longer and there will come a time when our creations in turn make us redundant. What will happen then?

[samlcarr]

Apologies - sorry for the double post!

[Michael W. Kruse]

Don’t worry about the double posts. Sometimes my own blog gets into a wrestling match with me over whether I’m human or machine. I can’t tell myself half the time whether I posted or not.

I understand the mandates to rule and have dominion in Gen. 1 to be mandates that implicitly but strongly teach that the earth is God’s and our rule and dominion is as subjects of the one true Lord. As his subjects we would have the heart and mind of God in all we do. To be the imago Dei means to think and act in complete accord with the authentic one who’s image we bear. So pre-fall dominion was not absolute and I don’t see a change in our call from pre-fall to post-fall. What I see is a prophecy that our attempts to be over creation, even in a righteous sense, will be continually frustrated. Holistic human redemption and sanctification means the recovery of co-creative productive stewardship.

I’m struggling against very common tendency to gravitate two one of two poles. One pole is humanity as supreme and justified in doing whatsoever they please with material world entrusted to them. The other extreme is humanity as pure caretakers placed here to keep everything as absolutely pristine as possible with minimal or no disturbance. The natural world is both the object of our work and our habitat. Humanity is part of nature and therefore what we create is part of nature. In that, sense cities are a “natural” occurrence. Yet as part of nature we most be integrated with nature both for nature’s well being and ours.

As to cities, cities are evolving and continuing to do so. I have a friend who as an urban developer who is passionate about creating living and working facilities that don’t dwarf the human scale and incorporate the natural world into their design. The New Jerusalem image is of a garden-city. I’ve been emphasizing the fact that the narrative ends in a city here because of the tendency I see to deprecate human labor and contributions to the material world. I’m pressing those who are inclined to be dismissive of human economic enterprise to reconsider. Ultimately what I’m inviting us to do is fully embrace the garden and the city, and live within the tension that creates for our considerations of stewardship.

[Peggy]

Sorry to be late to the conversation...but I had a thought on Ron's already/not yet concern. He stated: "The only way for this kingdom to come is for people to freely choose to accept Jesus authority." This is precisely how I understand already/not yet as it concerns the Kingdom. It is already here in those who freely choose Christ as Lord...but not yet fully realized in that there are still those who have yet to hear and choose.

Not being dispensationalist myself, I don't presume to know exactly how the end of the story will play...but I do know that Christ is Victor and God's plan is accomplished.

[Michael W. Kruse]

I'd agree that the kingdom is here and now but I think even if every person on the planet became a Christian the Kingdom would not have fully arrived. I think the Kingdom of God is about a King, a dominion (both in terms of a place and a people), and as a way of being/relating. That last issue is a big one. My take is that there must be a transformation performed by God that will complete the Kingdom.