Since I am still getting the hang of this blogging thing and trying to post something (really ANYTHING) atleast once a day, I swipped an exchange I had on Scot McKnights blog and thought I would put it here because Scot’s comment on our being Eikons (greek word for “image bearers” but a little deeper/significant) has been something I have been thinking about lately.
To set the stage, the original post was about Brian McLaren’s re-evaluation of the doctrin of hell in his latest book “The Last Word and the Word After That.” His book has created a firestorm (to say the least) and has done a good job of getting the discussion going on hell, eternal judgement, salvation, etc…In (re)thinking this area of Christian theology myself in recent months I possed the questions that I keep going back to: “What is the fundemental nature of man, and how does this fundemental nature impact our ability to interact finitly and infinitly (or maybe better eternally) with God?” I also said “I think the answers to our fundemental nature have huge implications for our life now and in the future (whether living a God-centered eternity or hell/judgement-centered eternity…)”
Where I was meaning to go with this is that the traditional fundementalist, evangelical answer is “sin.” Post-fall, the fundemental nature of man is sinful and post-Christ experience we are a new creation, the old sin nature has gone and the new Christ nature has come (paraphrasing 2 Cor. 5:17). I didnt quiet get an answer, but he did post an interesting illustration that I think was meant to get us thinking in terra nova. Read the exchange below:
Jeremy,
As a teacher I must say you’ve got some funky (and fun) spelling!But, your thoughts on “who we are” and our nature are undoubtedly the place to begin — after, of course, “who God is” and God’s “nature” (as if we really know these things in any way other than metaphor and approximation).
Let me be a postmodernist story-teller here for what I think humans are.
Once I bought a small head of a Frenchman with a beret, and named him Pierre. He was made to hang on a hook and so I hung Pierre in front of my desk. He had a twinkle in his eyes and smile on his face, and everyone who looked at him smiled. I did too.
Then one day the wind slammed my door shut, and Pierre fell to the floor, and busted into bits. I picked him up in pieces and tossed him into the garbage bin.
Now, let us say that Pierre is humans; let us say God is the Maker; and let us say that humans fell, too. What does God do with his little cracked Eikons?
Scot,
Thanks for the gentle ribbing (read: reminder!) to spell check my writing…I heard the voice of one of my professors echoing in my ear when I read it…scary, hehe 🙂Anyway, on to the task at hand: interesting illustration. If I am reading you correctly, Pierre still reflected the creativity, affection, intellect, emotion…IMAGE of his Maker, but was cracked and damaged. Pierre’s essence of being a small headed, beret fitted Frenchman didn’t change, but was severely damaged.
So, now to unpackage your illustration in terms of the fundamental nature of humanity: it seems like you are saying our nature and essence (in the Platonic sense, maybe…) hasn’t changed, but has been crushed, damaged, demented, warped, etc…Is this where you meant to go?? It seems to be QUITE a different take on the traditional, fundamental notion of the nature or man…
For me and what I have known all my life (the evangelical, fundamental version of Christian spirituality), the fundamental nature of an individual (whether pre- or post-Christ experience) has direct bearing on the nature of his or her relationship with God now and for eternity…thanks for taking the time to help me (and US!) through Dark Thoughts, and others!
-jeremy
Well, what do you all think about this?
