PROLOGUE
Images of Scriptural Reasoning
Willie Young
King's College, Pennsylvania
This issue of the Journal of
Scriptural Reasoning opens a conversation among Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam on the meanings of being in the image of God. Yet, where being in God’s
image might be thought only to signify the spiritual or rational life of
humanity, these essays suggest that the image of God bears within it profound
significance for how we conceive of relationality. Beginning from the work of
Steve Kepnes, Kurt Richardson, and Muhammad Umar, these authors and their
respondents draw out a range of ways that the image of God opens onto questions
regarding the relations and practices that constitute our lives. In the light
of Genesis 1:26-27 (NRSV), the different issues raised in these essays and
responses can be loosely and unsystematically brought together, suggesting that
the diversity of responses, styles, and topics may speak to the polymorphous
nature of humanity, and the possibilities that divine creativity engenders.
“Let us make humankind in our image, according to our
likeness…”
The creation of humanity begins differently than
that of other creatures, with God’s saying “Let us,” a plural, middle-voiced
activity, as God permits in commanding. That which is created, “humankind,” is
created in an image, according to one likeness. Here, we have an
apparent plurality (“our”) within the creator, and oneness in the creation. The
image of God, then, is humanity’s being-in-relation to God, a “triadic”
relation as Kepnes says, as such
relation becomes inseparable from intrahuman relations in the ensuing verses.
Likewise, in reflecting on the Gospel of John, Richardson’s paper sets forth
a Trinitarian version of divine creativity, in which the relations between God
and logos generate the human image, whose plurality unfolds from its shaping in
light of the uniqueness of Christ. In Umar’s essay, divine unity is
maintained throughout; however, creativity nonetheless exhibits the plenitude
of God, as God’s attributes extend throughout the diversity of creation, while humanity
unites all of the attributes that other creatures reflect deficiently.
In creation, divinity is mediately present to
humanity. Kepnes offers several possible readings: the “image” suggests a
divine instrument, while the “Let us” may signify a solicitation on God’s part
of human cooperation in creation itself. On both counts, Kepnes’ reflections on
how the Torah helps humanity to counter the evil principle may perhaps be read
as carrying out such creation. For Richardson, Christology provides a focus for
understanding creation, as humanity is created anew in and through Christ. Initially,
one might not expect such mediation within Islam; however, as Umar states, in
that the Qur’an is the “full expression” of God’s word, which is ever only
partially embodied by any person at any time, it is through the Qur’an that
God’s image is created in humanity. Thus, in surprising ways, an element of
mediation emerges from each tradition’s account of creation. Such mediation, it
seems, also lends definition to human nature, as shaped by Torah, Christ as logos,
or Qur’an.
Still, there is also the question of what it
means to be in the “likeness” of God—as Kepnes writes, how can one be in the
image of a God who transcends representation? The question of how the image of
God must be an “open-ended image,” in Kepnes’ words, also leads into issues of
iconoclasm in Christianity, in terms of which sorts of representation are
appropriate to God. Umar’s essay captures the dialectical approaches of tanzih
and tasbih, negation and participation, through which humanity and
creation as a whole are seen as sharing in God’s attributes while also falling
short of any comprehensive depiction.
In exploring these issues, one of the central
questions of the essays emerges: given that human activity can often take a
unitary, finite form that closes off plurality—in action, thought, or
representation—how can we responsibly imitate, conceive, and depict the
infinite God? As Chad Pecknold
describes it, without recognizing the “third thing” that remains mysterious,
the truth about God may be hidden from us. Gen. 1:26 suggests that in our
created being, there is a tendency toward uniformity, or what Dan
Hardy terms “normativity,” which
may not grasp the fullness of the creator who has engendered it. As created, this
tendency can be good; its importance is perhaps partly captured in Mark
Ryan’s discussion of
formation. Still, in these verses, questions remain as to how it is so.
“Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
This segment of Gen. 1:26 has not received as
intense scrutiny in these works of scriptural reasoning as the preceding and
following verses. However, Umar’s discussion of humanity as the vicegerent of
God clearly parallels the idea of dominion. It suggests, then, that being in
God’s image requires recognizing the signs of God in creation. Such dominion,
then, is both submission and participation, a form of responsibility and
guardianship that may not easily fit established political categories or
environmental ethics.
The issue of dominion also arises in several
responses. First, Hardy asks if the sociopolitical implications of these texts,
and of the pressure toward “atemporal” normativity therein, receive adequate
consideration. How we conceive dominion, vicegerency, the reading of scriptural
and worldly signs, and the reading of one another’s scriptural signs, are all
interrelated and complex questions. Such complexity may trouble our reading, if
it is not hidden by a too-hasty move to definition.
Rachel Muers also raises a
question that could be paraphrased as follows: to have dominion over “every
creeping thing”—what does this imply not only for our relation to the world,
and to one another, now, but also in relation to both history and future
generations? How should we read narratives in ways that recognize the
profundity found therein by authors and subsequent readers, without reducing
the text to a unitary meaning? Moreover, how do we read texts in ways that will
be the genesis of future readers, helping to shape them in the image of God,
rather than in the static image of ourselves?
“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God
he created them; male and female he created them.”
If Gen.1:26 moves from divine plenitude to human
unity, here we have the reverse: human plurality (“them”) emerges in the act of
creation, differentiation as the initial blessing conveyed to humanity (textually,
is it also, here, that God becomes one so that we might become many?). Both Kepnes
and Pecknold read the differentiation of male and female as generative of
multiple human differences, symbolizing inner and outer life, theory and
practice, and others. The question thus emerges: how can we adequately
conceive, and live, this diversity, establishing relations across difference?
In Kepnes’ words, how do we keep the
divisions from turning into dichotomies?
Here, the tendency toward normativity or
definition becomes most precarious. This is, as several authors note, a problem
internal to scriptural reasoning itself. For, as Kepnes notes, the privilege of
contemplation can lead away from practical engagement, much as Adam is absent
during Eve’s discussion with the serpent. Similarly, a focus on abstraction may
keep us from recognizing the embodiment and historicity central to our humanity
(as Ryan’s response
suggests). Likewise, a focus on indicative, assertoric patterns of reasoning
may eclipse the range of possibilities found in other modes of discourse—as,
for instance, David Ford
suggests may be found in subjunctive speech, which retains a greater openness
to possibility. Ford’s concern converges with the concern of Muers mentioned
above, as an indicative reading of scripture may miss the text’s midrashic
character, effacing traditional practices of reading and the possibility
of generating new readings both today and in the future. How we can bring
together different modes of reading and reasoning, and create a sociality in
which they flourish, may figure the broader social and political challenges which
the image of God’s diversity poses.
The preceding is only a brief glimpse at the
broad range of profound questions raised by the essays and responses here,
hardly touching their subtlety and scholarship. Still, perhaps a way into them is
illuminated by Kris Lindbeck’s
contribution, which brings a poetic discourse into the conversation itself.
This poetry clearly creates a space for multiplicity and diversity, but in a
way that includes the indicative along with the subjunctive and midrashic; for,
one can poetically read the closing as Adam and Eve “making way” for the image
of God who is the second Adam (as Kurt Richardson indicatively
proposes), or the Torah or the Qur’an . Her poetry also highlights the ineradicable
demand of labor, of practice, no longer contemplating or arguing without a care
in the world. And, it is a poetry that voices the groaning of creation at human
sin, reading and hearing the signs in the world around us, so that we weep for
others, and not ourselves. Perhaps it is in such creative reading and thinking
that we can begin the reparative tasks before us, and imagine scriptural
reasoning in its deepest and fullest sense.
Editors’ Note: Particularly in light of the preceding
comments, this issue is “open-ended.” We encourage further responses to the
essays here, either as addenda to the issue to be added at a later date, or as
stand-alone essays for inclusion in a future issue.
We would like to thank Mark Ryan for his
willingness to guest edit the issue when the need arose on short notice. His
work was invaluable to its production, and we are deeply grateful for his
commitment. We also would like to welcome Patrick Lyons, a student at King’s
College, who is providing valuable editorial assistance. Many thanks for their
aid in this issue, and on issues to come.
Title Page | Archive
© 2004, Society for Scriptural Reasoning
|
