Ramifications of "imago Dei" as fuction rather than ontology

I enjoy the posts at the Musings on Science and Theology blog, and today the author included his interactions with Bill Arnold's Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). This involves consideration of the ancient near eastern context as it relates to various facets of the creation narrative. In regards to the "image of God" Arnold writes:

On the basis of numerous parallels from both Egypt and Mesopotamia, it has become clear that the phrase is related to royal language, in which a king or pharaoh is the “image of (a) god.” Thus humans are created to function in the divine image through the exercise of “dominion” and “rule,” … The image of God is about the exercise of rulership in the world. p. 45

This means that "image of God" is a functional and representational concept, not an ontological one referring to an aspect or aspects of human nature that somehow sets them apart from the rest of non-human animals. I share Arnold's understanding, and I believe it can be supported not only with reference to Genesis, but also in keeping with the rest of the biblical text as it articulates a monistic anthropology rather than a dualist one found throughout much of Christendom. I'm in the minority here, but I'm in good company with some of the scholars how have articulate this view, such as Nancey Murphy and Joel Green.

I would also slightly supplement Arnold's terminology and concept in the quote to rulership with intimately connected to an ethical sense of stewardship rather than dominion in that dominion and that the idea that humanity is "better' and somehow discontinuous with the rest of creation has contributed many times to the abuse of nature, particularly when combined with some eschatologies where the creation is viewed as temporary and soon to be discarded.

Beyond that we should also note how important a shift in the idea of the image of God is to many areas of theology, not only anthropology, but also the neurotheology, creation care, and animal theology. A shift from viewing humans as created in the divine image and thus having a spirit or soul to living in the creation and tasked as wise stewards representing God has significant ramifications for Christian theology and praxis.

Mormonism, Myths, and the Old Testament

Students of religion are aware that the religions differ on their understanding of the creation, and related to it, their views on the nature of the transcendent or the divine. This is certainly the case with evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. Both groups view the cosmos as the creation of God, but differ dramatically on their understanding of both the nature of the cosmos and the creator. Interestingly, they move conceptually in very different ways on this topic.

For evangelicals the cosmos is finite and dependent upon God for its origins and continuing existence. They differ on the degree of evolutionary development possible or actual within the cosmos on a number of levels (as evident in the debates between theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and young-earth creationists). Evangelicals also conceive of God as distinct, transcendent, and "other" in relation to the cosmos, existing as eternal and possessing "aseity," or non-contingency in relation to the cosmos or anything else for his existence.

By contrast Latter-day Saints move in very different conceptual circules in regards to the cosmos and the divine. For them matter is eternal and God is viewed as the creator in the sense of organizing matter into the shape of the cosmos. God himself is related to the cosmos not only as organizer, but also as a contingent and material being who has gone through a process of evolution and development, just as all human beings may experience.

Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints have debated these differing views of creation and creator for quite some time, both on philosophical and theological levels. While this level of discussion is important, in my view an even more significant aspect is missed in these discussions, that of myth. Robert Ellwood discusses the importance of myth:

[Myth] encodes in story the fundamental principles: its social organization and way of life; its essential rituals, taboos, and other institutions; its dreams and its fears. We need to always remember that a myth is not just a story; it is also architecture, music, ritual, art, people's names, the organization of society. More than '"ordinary" stories, however good or profound, real myths sets up a whole network of associations that may deeply dye many area of one's life.

Every religion has its myths, its powerful stories that include those of origins. These are important not only for the doctrines and theology that are developed out of them, but also for there explanatory power, and perhaps even more importantly, for the emotional impact they have on the individual, and by extension, their religious culture. The creation stories of Genesis represent the Hebrew creation myth that told them how their covenant-making God was also the creator of the cosmos and the people of the surrounding nations. This creation myth was later shared by the Christians as they became a separate and distinct subculture arising out of Judaism, and similarly, it became the foundation for the creation myth of the Mormon people as they arose out of more traditional forms of Christianity.

The point to be taken away from this post is that we must recognize the underlying significance of the creation myths to our respective religious cultures, and it is the power of these myths and not merely the doctrines derived from them that result in our strong convictions and disagreements on these matters. For example, because of their creation myth, evangelicals are scandalized by any suggestion that God might be material and evolve like the cosmos. For Latter-day Saints this is the most natural of perspectives because it flows from their creation myth. By focusing our discussions between our religious communities on the doctrines of creation and creator without connecting them to their respective myths we miss an essential element of understanding the emotive and intellectual power of our creation stories.

I'd like to make a suggestion that might provide some important tools for equipping evangelicals to be better prepared for addressing this issue. In 2010 Latter-day Saints will be studying the Old Testament. Evangelicals can pursue the same focus of study in order to better understand this portion of their Scriptures, and to better prepare them for discussion with Latter-day Saints. As a resource I recommend a resource to help with this in the form of John Walton's Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Baker Academic, 2006). This book is helpful in that it paints a picture of the ancient near eastern context of the Old Testament as a corrective to evangelical assumptions that may color our (mis)interpretations formed by modernity in the West, and the creation-evolution and inerrancy debates. Among other topics Walton discusses the concepts of the world, the heavens, temples, and even magic and omens. A companion volume that connects the Hebrew creation story to the mythic is Robert Ellwood's fine introductory overview of the topic in his book Myth: Key Concepts in Religion (Continuum, 2008).

I hope a consideration of myth, and fresh perspectives on the Old Testament might help add new dimensions to our dialogue and understanding in the new year.

Cosmos as Divine Temple: Applications for Evangelicals

I recently became aware of a book that came out in May of this year. It is by John H. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, and it is titled The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP Academic, 2009). The interesting thing about this book for me is that it looks at the literary and cultural context of the ancient Near East and what the Genesis creation narratives would have said to the Hebrews as it reflected their cultural context. This cultural and literary perspective provides the foundation for Walton's argument that the Genesis creation stories are functional rather than material in nature, and that this results in a portrait that is painted of the cosmos as a divine temple.

This volume includes a number of ideas that evangelicals will no doubt find provocative, but are nevertheless worthy of reflection. Consider this intriguing excerpt from Chapter 1, "Genesis is Ancient Cosmology":

Deity pervaded the ancient world. Nothing happened independently of deity. The gods did not "intervene" because that would assume that there was a world of events outside of them that they could step into and out of. The Israelites, along with everyone else in the ancient world, believed instead that every event was the act of deity -- that every plant that grew, every baby born, every drop of rain and every climatic disaster was an act of God. No "natural" law governed the cosmos; deity ran the cosmos or was inherent in it. There were no "miracles" (in the sense of events deviating from the "natural"), there were only signs of the deity's activities (sometimes favorable, sometimes not). The idea that deity got things running then just stood back or engaged himself elsewhere (deism) would have been laughable in the ancient world because it was not even conceivable. As suggested by Richard Bube, if God were to unplug himself in that way from the cosmos, we and everything else in the cosmos would simply cease to exist. There is nothing "natural" about the world in biblical theology, nor should there be in ours.

I take away from this a few observations. Although Walton and most evangelical readers will consider this thesis in light of the creation/evolution debate, and I think this makes an important contribution in this arena, I would like to see evangelicals make application in two other areas. First, the idea of the creation narratives as a discussion of God's cosmic temple is a reminder of our neglect of a creation theology, including God's temple indwelling of his cosmos and our responsibilities as stewards of the creation. Second, I believe Walton's thesis presents a point of contact for Christian-Pagan dialogue.

I encourage evangelicals to entertain Walton's thesis with an eye toward a number of applications.