A few nights ago I attended a Shabbas - Sabbath - celebration at Temple Aaron, a Conservative Jewish synagogue in St. Paul. If you’ve never been to one try to get an opportunity; it’s a wonderful experience. But this one was a little different than most. To celebrate Martin Luther King’s birthday they had invited a mostly Afro-American singing group, The Metropolitan Men’s Chorus, to sing for the service. Can you imagine listening to “Let my people go” sung by African-Americans in a Jewish worship service? It was simply awesome. But the reason I mention it now is that before they started to sing, one of the members of the chorus spoke a few words of introduction and thanks, and concluded by saying, “If you don’t think I’m made in the image of God, you don’t have a problem with me. You have a problem with God.”
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
What does it mean, to be made in the image of God?
And what does it have to do with our relationship with him?
Image-of-God isn’t about appearance. That’s really obvious, once you stop to think about it... We’re told all throughout both the Old Testament and the New that God doesn’t have a body; he is spirit. Although some theologians have tried to argue that the fact that human beings walk upright, and gaze upward and outward, is a reflec-tion of the divine essence. But that doesn’t seems to me to hold much water; after all, penguins and ostriches walk upright as well. And although many of us spend rather too much of our time hiding our heads in the sand as ostriches supposedly do, I somehow doubt that ostriches have an equivalent claim to image-of-God status.
But do we care? Why do we care? Isn’t this more of the same sort of stuff that medieval scholars used to worry about, like “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” What has it got to do with you and me, now, trying to live as Christians in a very complicated and confusing world?
Well, do you know anybody with self-image problems? Have you ever struggled with an identity crisis? As far as I can tell from reading and talking to people, image and identity are among the biggest problems of American culture, especially for our young people. It certainly has been for me. Even though God has made some progress, I still struggle against perfectionism, the idea that I am only worth as much as my latest achievement. But if that’s how things worked we’d be back with the Pharisees trying to earn God’s favor.
Finding our worth in human standards of success or failure is a dead end. Every attempt to define what we humans really are about, without reference to God, have all been mistaken. We’ve seen in the last few decades that Marx’s idea that people are essentially economic beings is totally bankrupt. The rise and fall of the Yuppies showed that materialism - even when we’re successful - is incapable of providing purpose and value. In America, at least, the predominant secular view today seems to be that the key component of human identity is sexual. But pursuing fulfillment through sexuality leads to broken marriages, promiscuity, AIDS, abortion, and sexual violence of all kinds. Neither Wilt Chamberlain, with his boast of over a thousand sexual partners, nor Madonna, who marketed her sexuality for millions, can give us the answers. The questions of self-image and identity can only be solved by looking to God, and finding out what we, as redeemed persons, are supposed to be changing into.
What is in us, you and me, that God is trying to grow?
In order to answer that question honestly, that is, without just saying “because I said so,” I’m going to have to slash through a thicket of theological undergrowth, but bear with me: I promise you it will clear up eventually.
One of the earliest and longest-lived theories is that we are in God’s image be-cause of our reasoning capacity. The great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas said that “the intellect is that whereby the rational creature excels other creatures; wherefore this image of God is not found even in the rational creature except in the mind...” That’s a very attractive thought, for people like me who tend to be rather cerebral. And even though we could design an entire graduate seminar on “The Intellectual Implications of the Image” I’m going to dismiss it with two observations. First, is intellectual achievement a sign of spirituality? I don’t think so, and the Apostle Paul in says, “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world?” [1 Cor 20] And second, the thought that the more “intelligent” someone is, the more “image of God” he or she can lay claim to, is a very scary idea. Intellect, like sexuality, is a gift from God to be celebrated, and to be used according to the manufacturer’s directions - but neither one can hold up as the center of our existence. If we try to base our identity on either reason or sex we’ll be sunk.
But I don’t want to be unfair. There’s more to our “minds” than what’s measured by IQ tests; there’s also creativity, self-awareness, and the moral sense... could one of these be what is meant by “image”?
What I mean by moral sense is that sense of rightness and wrongness we all seem to be born with. I don’t have to remind you parents of how soon it is when your children start saying, “it’s not fair!” My 2 1/2-year-old godson Philip already has a pretty good grasp of what is or isn’t fair. But if I’m reading Genesis correctly, it was after we succumbed to our desire to be like God and ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that we humans acquired this faculty. So even if the moral sense is an attribute which we share with God, it’s not what is meant in Genesis 1 by “image of God.”
I think there’s a pretty good argument for creativity. Look at verse 27: So God cre-ated man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Are you familiar with the Lord Peter Wimsey mystery stories? They were on the PBS Mys-tery series a few years ago. Anyway, Dorothy Sayers, who wrote them, was also an outstanding theologian, a friend of C. S. Lewis and that crowd. And she wrote a book called The Mind of the Maker, about the creativity of God, in which she points out that the only thing that is said in context about the original of which we are the image is “God created.” She therefore concludes that “the characteristic common to God and mankind is apparently... the desire and ability to make things.” It’s a terrific book, and I recommend it; but I want to add something: Creativity begins with seeing: the ability to imagine a new and different kind of reality. A statue, a boat, a government ... They all began with a different way of seeing. Only after we get a vision of where we’re going can the work begin. And then, Sayers points out, every artist learns that “the only way of mastering one’s material is to abandon the whole conception of mastery and to cooperate with it in love...” and of course we know that the very essence of God-the-Creator is love. This theory sounds very good, very plausible.
But we’re not out of the theological woods yet. Before we just say, “right! It must be creativity,” we have to look at the idea of self-awareness. The theologian Emil Brunner says that “only a self which is self-determining can freely answer God;” since God made us in order that we should respond to Him, self-awareness then be the primary essence of our image. Only if I am aware of myself as separate can I respond to anyone or anything else. All relationships require separation and self-awareness. Intellect, moral judgment, even creativity are all consequences of self-awareness... So, then, human beings are responsible: that is, we are capable of response - responsive - and accountable to God for our response. Even if one were to say, “I do not know any Creator, and I will not obey any God,” this is a response. We can respond, and we must respond.
Is that it? Are we done hacking through the theoretical underbrush? If we put the 2 ideas together, creativity and responsibility, do we have our answer? Is that what image-of-God means? Does it tell us who we are, what kinds of critters God created us to be?
I don’t think so. It tells us “What?” but that’s only half the story. It’s like defining a car as something you put gas in and make monthly payments on. And if you ask, “What does it do?” the answer, “Well, it makes smoke and noise and the wheels go around,” doesn’t help. A big part of the “what” is the “what for.” Does the Bible say anything about what we are for? Is there a “Why?” connected to creativity and responsibility?
It’s most likely that we act out our created likeness to God in rule, or dominion. Genesis 1:26 tells us straightaway that that is what God designed us to do. “Then God said “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” He repeats it in v 28: “...fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish ...and the birds and ...every creature...” This doesn’t leave us much room for argument, does it? I mean, here it is, in black and white: we are to rule. There’s no ambiguity in the Hebrew; this is the kind of relationship a conquering nation has over the vanquished. The word translated “subdue” isn’t any better; it means to crush down, as in grapes. Not only are humans to be in charge, but the words used imply that the rest of the created order isn’t just going to stand in line and wait to be told what to do. The job is expected to be work. (Incidentally, this suggests that it isn’t work itself that’s part of the curse in Gen 3, but drudgery, labor distorted into ugliness.) We were designed from the beginning to be workers.
I’m not sure I altogether like where I’m headed with this dominion idea. If I’m not careful I might come down squarely on the wrong side of the jobs vs. spotted owl controversy (I hope I don’t offend anyone with this, but frankly I’m on the side of the spotted owl. It’s not that I’m against jobs; it’s just that we Christians really need to re-deem our record on environmental stewardship. But that’s the topic for another sermon). The question here is, “Is this idea of rule or dominion what is meant by ‘in the image of God’?” What about creativity and responsiveness?
The answer is that whatever authority we have is contingent. “Image” doesn’t only mean likeness. It also means representative. Where v. 26 says “Let us make mankind in our image,” it could as easily and as correctly have been translated “Let us make mankind as our image,” that is, as God’s viceroy, to act on God’s behalf. Ancient Near Eastern kingdoms used to appoint governors in distant provinces in whom the authority of the king resided; only so long as the king was pleased could the authority be claimed, could the governor be said to be the image - or the voice - or the hand - of the king. It may be that there is nothing actually in us which can be likened to any of God’s attrib-utes. It may be that human beings partake of God’s image only when as we are acting specifically and consciously in His service.
I feel as though I’ve backed myself into a corner, because there’s no way of figuring out which one is right. We could sit and spend the next week - or month - or year - arguing over whether image is something we do or something we are. But we don’t need to. Because if we exercise dominion responsibly and creatively, both role and attribute will be two sides of a whole, and we won’t have to worry in which half the image resides. The image of God will be in us, both being and doing, and He will be pleased. And we will begin to become whole, as we begin to live out His purposes for us.
Now let’s get practical. What does it mean, that human beings are essentially re-sponders to God, made to exercise creative dominion?
How many of you have tried to light a fire using a lens, or a magnifying glass? I’ve never done it, myself, but the Girl Scout Handbook gave instructions, and I’ve since read about it in adventure novels. You focus the rays of the sun onto whatever you’ve prepared as kindling, and be patient, and pretty soon a little wisp of smoke will curl up from the wood and not too much later you’ll have a fire.
That’s an analogy of responsible and creative dominion-having. To be responsible is to be open to God, and correctly oriented to Him, and to let Him work through you. To be creative is to understand your material, and to work with it according to its characteristics, and focus God’s power on the process. Remember what Dorothy Say-ers said about creativity? “The only way of mastering one’s material is to abandon the whole conception of mastery and to cooperate with it in love...”
When God said “subdue,” and “rule,” we got it wrong. We thought he meant giving orders. But we have always misunderstood the concept of rule. Remember what Jesus said: “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” [Mk 10:42]. We cannot do better than to take Jesus’ example as our own.
But there’s another side to this question of God’s image. So far we’ve just been talking about what means in terms of ourselves, our own identities. But it goes beyond that. What does it mean to me that you are also made in God’s image? Every four January’s, in every post office in the country, the picture of one President is taken down and the picture of another is put in its place. Well, sometimes it’s eight years before the changeover happens. But that image of the president reminds us all who’s in charge.
How many of you remember that great moment when the giant statue of Lenin was toppled from its pedestal in front of the Dzerzhinsky prison in Moscow? That was a historic event for Russia, when Lenin’s authority was finally and decisively rejected. How we treat our images of authority corresponds exactly with the way we feel about that authority. Why else do we hang figures in effigy? Where else did the outrage over flag-burning come from? Images of authority become surrogates that we vent our feelings on.
The people in your own life - all of them - are reminders of the presence and authority of God. Does the way you treat your subordinates reflect your attitude toward God? Does the way you interact with your boss reflect your awareness of the presence of God? Or let me put it another way. Did you know that the way you treat your spouse and children tells them your opinion of God? What does the way you treat your co-workers say about your attitude toward God?
How do you respond to the homeless? Proverbs 14:31 says, “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.”
What’s your attitude to the mugger, to the rapist, to the man who beats his wife or the woman who has had an abortion? As the old hymn has it, “Are ye able to remember, when a thief lifts up his eyes, that the pardoned soul is worthy of a place in paradise?”
Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” He went on: “I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me….I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” [Mt 25:40]
Jesus himself lies abandoned in our nursing homes. Jesus himself is sent back on the streets because we have no room in our drug-treatment programs. Jesus himself is abused in our foster care system. Jesus himself is hungry, and cold, fatherless, faithless and hopeless. Can we see it? Can we see the Nativity in the crack babies that crowd our hospitals’ neonatal units? Can we see the frightened child in the face of the convicted murderer?
The great Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard told a parable of 2 artists: One bragged, “I have travelled much and seen much in the world, but I have sought in vain to find anyone worth painting. In every face I have seen one or another fault. Therefore I seek in vain.” The second one, on the other hand, said, “Well, I do not pretend to be a real artist; neither have I traveled in foreign lands. But remaining in the little of circle of people who are closest to me, I have not found a face so full of faults that I could not discern in it something glorious. Therefore I am happy in my art.” Is this not this one who is the artist, who by bringing something with him found what the other could find nowhere in the world, because he did not bring it with him?
Remember that creativity begins with the ability to see the hope of a new reality...
Remember that lens through which the power of the sun can light a fire? In the same way we become the lens through which the light of God discerns beauty and promise in the least of his creatures. We are that lens... If we let God shine through us, who knows what wonders we might see? Who knows what wonders God might do?
And besides - think about it - maybe God isn’t working through you to change them. Maybe God is working through them to change you.
