Together with a few friends I am reading a great book called, “The Face of the Deep: a theology of becoming” – by Catherine Keller. The text is witty and wonderfully creative. It’s a feminist, constructivist challenge to the doctrine of creation “ex nihilo” (creation out of nothing) proposing instead creation “ex profundis” (creation out of the watery depths or out of primal chaos).
Our discussion around the book has been passionate to say the least. And we have been talking a lot about gender, sexes, sexuality, and bodies.
I seeing new connections, in my reading and our conversations… I’m beginning to see more clearly how part of the “image of God” may be about particular bodied realities, or better said, may be about difference. This just clicked in a fresh way for me.
If we hold to the image of God as the “possession” of the individual then certainly the image cannot about difference (gender etc). If however, we understand the self to be intrinsically relational, so much so that we bear the image of God in relationship (See Grenz, van Huyssteen, Shults, and Janzen), then it may be precisely in our difference (including gender) and our choice for oneness that the image of God is manifest.
It may be that in this way we most reflect a God who is plurality and oneness. We have very real differences and yet are one.
I see every interpersonal relationship as “image bearing” (the plurality and oneness). Anytime “self” is served, we witness “the fall” (in varying degree) of relationship; while anytime we see self-emptying, we see God’s dream incarnated.
But I don’t limit this to marriage, it’s just that marriage has been one of the most approachable human examples of this divine reality, (though that may be changing).
One of the reasons why marriage is such a great Trinitarian example is that the fruit of its love is so tangible. Two unique selves come together forming an “us.” The spirit of love is infinitely creative and desires to share its love beyond its perichoretic self and a child is born.
Peace, dwight
