Community in the Image of God: Power (p. 6)
I've been toying around with this post for several days. To be honest, I'm not entirely settled on where to start; it's a huge topic that rightly deserves a book-length treatment. I've written previously on the topic here, here, here, and here, among others - it's something of a theme for me, I suppose. Part of this is because of my own story, because of my own wrestling with my very identity as a follower of Christ as a result of the abuse of power of some within specific church structures. Part of this is because of my influences, Yoder, Brueggemann, and Hauerwas being significant among those, and anyone who has read anything by authors such as those will quickly recognize that theme as one that runs through their works as well. And part of this is because of the way I read the Story - which brings us back to the topic at hand. I think that it is perfectly credible to read the Story from the perspective of the use and abuse of power, or more specifically, the delegated authority that is ours as ones in the image of God.
This theme is all over the place in scripture. You don't have to search for it - once you've become aware of it, it leaps off the page as you read, grabs your attention and refuses to release. But I want to focus on something specific, and so will resist the urge towards breadth. I suggest that the proper use of power is at the center of a Jesus-shaped ethic, and in particular, of a community formed in the image of God.
Yoder's Politics of Jesus transformed my thinking on this. Yoder makes an observation in the book that blew me away and changed the way I think about the gospel for good. He says this:
As we noted before more briefly: there is no general concept of living like Jesus in the New Testament...His formation of a small circle of disciples whom he taught through months of close contact has been claimed as a model pastoral method; his teaching of parables has been made a model of graphic communication; there have been efforts to imitate his prayer life or his forty days in the desert: but not in the New Testament....and I can never read the NT the same way again. Say what you will about models of atonement - and I think they are vitally important, don't get me wrong - the one that receives practically no attention in American evangelicalism today is that of example. We are deluged with ways in which we can figure out WWJD - but the one way in which the NT actually addresses the question is completely ignored. The cross is the NT ethic - the voluntary relinquishing of power in service to another.
There is but one realm in which the concept of imitation holds - but there it holds in every strand of the New Testament literature and all the more strikingly by virtue of the absence of parallels in other realms. This is the point of the concrete social meaning of the cross in relation to enmity and power. Servanthood replaces dominion; forgiveness absorbs hostility. Thus - and only thus - are we bound by New Testament thought to "be like Jesus." (pp 130-131, emphasis added)
If the image of God is about delegated authority, and if the one way in which God's authority is most clearly shown is in the voluntary embrace of the cross, then we as a community in the image of God must practice authority in the same way. To do otherwise is to deny our very identity as the people of God. Paul says it in this way:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross.
Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, power, cross, theology
Scott,
I really enjoyed this. I would like to hear your thoughts about how our leadership structures should be interpreted with this understanding of power.
A very, very good point that actually cuts to the heart of how the body of Christ has embraced the American, capitalist attitude and assigned it Christlikeness status. The Philipians reference was also Spiritually supportive of that "mind" that we should emulate by deferring to the Spirit within us at our own expense.
The only caution is pulling that from within the atonement. We can teach what you suggest without multi-tasking the cross. The atonement is just that, the sin bearing blood sacrifice, while all the attributes that glorify God to the world and to Him are found in Christ's life and teachings. The new Testament uses the cross as an example of sacrifice, humilty, etc., but it was one dimensional in its purpose. Rick
Posted by Henry Frueh on October 12, 2006 09:00 PMgrace - next post. It was way too much to try to squeeze into one. ;) Based on some of what I've read of your perspective and experiences, I think you'll find some common themes.
Rick - you wrote:
We can teach what you suggest without multi-tasking the cross. The atonement is just that, the sin bearing blood sacrifice, while all the attributes that glorify God to the world and to Him are found in Christ's life and teachings. The new Testament uses the cross as an example of sacrifice, humilty, etc., but it was one dimensional in its purpose.The problem I have with what you're saying is that it creates a disjuncture between Christ's life and his death. The two don't have any relation to each other in the schema that you're suggesting - unless I'm not reading you correctly. My contention is that the cross is the ultimate demonstration of a life lived in service to others, and it is precisely there that the NT holds it up as an example for us. Not the "life and teachings" of Christ - Yoder is explicit there. Christ's life is never used in the NT as an example. The cross is the only point at which we are called to emulate Christ. That says strongly to me that the NT authors viewed the cross as at the least an example for us to follow. That doesn't, of course, mean that all of the other things that the NT says about the atonement are not important - far from it! Rather, it is to ground our ethic in the same location as the NT - the love of Christ specifically as demonstrated in his willing acceptance of the cross. This isn't multi-tasking the cross at all - or if it is, then the NT authors must likewise share the criticism. See, for example, Eph 5:1-2, 1 Thes 1:6, Phil 3:10, and so on.
Posted by ScottB on October 12, 2006 11:48 PM
Scott,
Once again, a great post. Yoder is...hmmm...well, formative when you "get him". This particular statement of his is hard NOT to get! I mean, wow, that's it. How do we fulfill the "creation mandate" (don't you hate that phrase?) - by SERVING...forgiving...by giving ourselves away. Thanks so much...I'm tracking with you.
franklin - thanks! I hope it continues to be helpful. ;)
Posted by ScottB on October 14, 2006 11:02 PMAnother digression, Scott. Help me out.
I've been thinking about that Yoder passage a great deal - as well as reading his Politics. I like what he says here, but don't at the same time. I agree that the cross is our example, but I don't like that he downplays the rest of Christ's life for use as our example. First, because Christ lived a cross-life. And, second, because Christ was and is Rabboni and his life and teaching are for our benefit and imitation.
Am I misreading Yoder?
Posted by Scott Lyons on October 26, 2006 08:14 PMScott - good thoughts. I don't have my copy handy but I'll try to pull this back together from memory. I don't think Yoder is opposed to imitation of Christ's life per se but rather is approaching this from an exegetical standpoint. His argument is that the New Testament is relentlessly focused on the cross as the point at which we are called to imitate Christ. His point was that in all of the disputes and challenges that the NT authors were addressing, they never pointed to Christ as example with the exception of the ethic of the cross. And I think that it's less the cross-event that he means, as you rightly identify, and more a life lived towards the cross. Also, I don't think he's referencing teaching in the context of imitation - he refers to Jesus' teaching quite a bit, so that would seem to undercut his own agenda. He's going after instead the "WWJD" sort of ethic (obviously an anachronism as WWJD was quite a bit later than PoJ but the premise is the same).
Posted by ScottB on October 27, 2006 12:22 AM