|
Chapter 1
The Person in
Created Function
Many Christians would rightly say that
we were made to glorify God, to worship God, and that all we do should
serve to this end. Yet, when what we do (however God-related or
directed) becomes the primary emphasis and thus the defining focus for
personhood, we have shifted to a secondary aspect of creation to reorder
God's created design and purpose for the human person. We need to
reexamine this focus and its influence on our practice as Christians
(both individually and corporately), particularly in the three crucial
interrelated issues of how we define the person, do relationships and
thus practice church.
When God created Adam, God gave him
"work to do" (Gen 2:15). We might consider this like a "job" in today's
terms, but in doing so such a limited perception becomes problematic and
is instrumental for setting into motion a series of interrelated
alternatives from reductionism. These reductions have to do with Adam's
person (and thus ours), his relationship with God, God's purpose for
creating Eve (thus all women), the relationship between Adam and Eve,
thus with God's design and purpose for them together with all creation.
Reductionism essentially breaks into parts (or quantitative aspects) the
whole of persons, relationships, creation, even God and fails to account
for the necessary interrelations between them which make them whole.
That is, it fails to go beyond merely a reductionist descriptive sum of
their parts, which then is both mistakenly considered to be the whole of
God created in God's image as well as commonly used as a substitute for
this whole.
We need to examine each of these areas
in succession and see whether they all add up to the whole of God--or
whether our perception of them subtracts from God's self-revelation and
the desires God expresses for the covenant people, the family of God,
especially for a church shaped by modernism while entering a postmodern
period. Throughout this process we will need to make critical
distinctions between what is indeed whole according to the whole of God
and what is only a reductionist substitute for the whole. Our
conclusions will determine how the church is challenged today and who
will significantly meet this challenge
--the eventual conclusion of our discussion in the last chapter.
The Created Person
After God created Adam, there was a
quality about him (along with the rest of creation) that was defined by
God as "good" (Gen 1:31).1 Yet, this quality for personhood extended
beyond and was further distinguished from the rest of creation because
the human person was created in the image, the likeness of God (Gen
1:26, 27; Gen 5:1). In the creation narrative, this "living being" (or
inner person as denoted by the Heb. term nepes,2 2:7) possessing
the innermost life of God ("breath of life") is the quality which
defined the person, even though his work is immediately described next
to the image of God in the first creation narrative (1:26b), along with
the purpose human persons are to fulfill (1:28). Our perception of
personhood becomes problematic if the above order is inverted (if only
by emphasis) and the primary source of defining the human person becomes
"the work"--that is, basing the person on what we do, no matter how
God-related or directed. Such a focus is consequential for the whole
person and the whole of God.
Adam's disobedience of God precipitated
conditions in life east of Eden which would make work difficult (Gen
3:17-19) and human purpose a struggle (3:15-16). Life as God created is
not being redefined here; God's created design and purpose remain
unaltered. Yet, what is subject to redefinition is the human person's
self-perception, making it now problematic how the person functions;
work, for example, was never to be done in any manner. Nowhere is the
susceptibility to redefining the person and personhood greater than in
relation to work (or what we do) outside the primordial garden. It is
vital to reexamine this influence on our practice after the Fall and how
it affects our perceptual-interpretive framework determining what we pay
attention to or ignore, thus predisposing us even to inadvertent or
unintentional practices. This is of critical importance for how we see
the person today and what human activity determines personhood--the
function of theological anthropology.
The significance of "work made
difficult" is not about how hard it can be but about its controlling
influence on the person such that work becomes what defines that person.
This influence tends to be enslaving, if not in quantitative ways (for
example, time and energy), certainly on qualitative matters (like
self-worth). "Who you are" becomes about "what you do." And "what
you are" becomes determined by how much you accomplish in "what you do."
In this process a great deal is at stake here--and the drive for a
payoff can be consuming. Consequently, the primary investments made in
this lifestyle are bonded to work-related activity (vocational and
avocational). Invariably, then, this process of defining ourselves by
what we do or have becomes a comparative process in relation to other
persons, thus creating quantitative distinctions between persons, with
relational consequences--notably stratified relationships, which, when
formalized, become systems of inequality.
At the very least, defining the person
by what one does conflicts with how God created us and thus defines us;
and it inverts the created order by designating (even inadvertently)
secondary matter (like work to be done, even if assigned by God) to the
primary position, thus reducing (even unintentionally) the primary
matter of God's design and purpose for the person to a lower priority in
actual practice. This consequence can happen despite having a theology
in place affirming the primacy of God's design and purpose--a
consequence often seen among Christian workers while doing Christian
service. This not only reduces the whole of the life of God "breathed"
into us but also conflicts with it.
The above reduction of the person also
inverts the process of self-definition from the inner-to-outer focus on
the person (the quality of the whole person, as God sees it) to an
outer-in approach (the more quantitative attributes and categories about
a person). When such attention becomes our concern (for example, in
matters of work), what becomes subordinated, lost or sacrificed is the
inner person (nepes in Gen 2:7) and its qualitative significance
(as the image of God). While identifying an "inner person" implies an
"outer person"--which may appear to employ a dualism in defining the
human person (inner and outer, the more spiritual and the more
physical)--they are not substances to be perceived separately as in
classic dualism from a Greek philosophical framework. The inner (center)
and outer (peripheral) aspects of the person function together
dynamically to define the whole person from the Hebrew concept. Thus one
functional aspect should not be seen apart from the other, nor should
either be neglected; this is what happens in an outer-in approach to
defining the person. The issue then in human ontology is which aspect
has more significance and thus needs to have greater importance--though
not at the neglect of the other aspect.
In Hebrew terminology, the center of
the person is the heart (leb); that is, conceptually, the "inner
person" (nepes) God "breathed" of himself into the human person
(cf. Ecc 3:11b) is signified by the heart (leb). The biblical
proverbs speak of the heart in the following terms: identified as "the
wellspring" (starting point,
tosa'ot) of the ongoing
function of the human person (Prov 4:23); and, using the metaphor of a
mirror, also determined to be what gives definition to the person (Prov
27:19); and, when not reduced or fragmented ("at peace"), as giving life
to "the body" (basar, referring to the outer aspect of the
person, Prov 14:30), which describes the integrating function for the
whole person (inner and outer). This suggests the function of the heart
signifying the "inner person"--which is then inclusive of the
outer--involves both: (1) the qualitative integration of the whole
person, and (2) the functional basis for relationship with the whole of
God, specifically for experiencing the intimate relationship constituted
in the Trinity. Both are realized, of course, only when the heart is not
reduced and is necessarily transformed. The intellect may be able to
provide quantitative unity (for example, by identifying the association
of parts) for the human person. However, while this may be necessary and
useful at times, it is never sufficient by itself to define the whole
person nor to experience the relationships necessary to be whole,
especially with God.
The priority of the inner person over
the outer is illustrated in the selection of Saul's replacement as king.
When God sent Samuel to Jesse's household to anoint one of his sons
chosen to be king (1 Sam 16:1-13), Samuel thought for sure that Eliab
was the chosen one. Yet, God clarified that Samuel based his conclusion
on what he perceived of Eliab's person through the lens of a
reductionist framework using an outer-in approach (v. 7, "appearance,"
mar'ch,
signifying outward appearance). Samuel had shifted to an outer-in
approach in contrast to God who "looks at the heart" using an inner-out
focus of personhood. By returning to God's perceptual framework, Samuel
was able to perceive the deeper qualitative significance of the whole
person from the inner out, thus understanding the significance of
David's outer features ('ayin and tob) reflecting his
inner person (v. 12).
The qualitative significance of the
heart only begins to define the image, likeness of God "breathed" into
human persons, but it identifies why the heart is so important. God's
desires are to be involved with the whole person for
relationship--intimate relationship. Since the function of the heart
constitutes the whole person, God does not have the whole person for
relationship until it involves the heart.
David certainly understood this since
he was chosen by God based on his inner person, and he made his heart
accountable and vulnerable to God (Ps 51:6, 10, 16-17; 139:23)C the
reductionist substitutes of which from the outer in was understood to
have no relational significance to God (cf. Ps 147:10). This is why
David charged Solomon when he was chosen to build a temple dwelling for
God: to respond to God and to be involved with your whole heart (salem,
leb) and the desire (hapes) of your inner person (nepes)
because God wants your whole person for relationship (1 Chron 28:9).
This intimate relationship symbolized by the temple was extended to the
hearts of the whole of humanity for relationship together as the whole
of God's family (cf. Acts 15:8, 9)C the significance of which will be
discussed in the chapters ahead.
Without the qualitative significance of
the heart, all that is possible are ontological simulation and
epistemological illusion. This is the significance we need to grasp more
deeply in the divine narrative that God ongoingly pursues the heart and
wants our heart (cf. 1 Sam 16:7c; Prov 21:2; Jer 17:10; Lk 16:15; Rom
8:27; Rev 2:23)--that is, the whole person for relationship. Therefore,
the "inner person" signified by the heart has the most significance to
God and, though not to the neglect of the outer, needs to have greater
priority of importance for the person's definition and function.
The alternative to the qualitative
significance of the heart increasingly becomes more quantitative (things
measured by quantity or identified only by rationality), secondary and
substitutes for the qualitative significance of persons created in the
very image, likeness of God, who is not quantitatively defined, though
quantitatively given in the incarnation. This reduction not only
conflicts with how God created us and defines us, it conflicts with how
God relates with us, thus confounding relationship with God. We need to
examine this relationship along with the whole person to more deeply
understand God's design, purpose and desires.
The Person's
Relationship With God
From the beginning Adam was not created
for what he could do and the activity simply of doing something,
whether work related or not, though a part of his function was to work.
We can essentially define work as what we connote by the function of
making a living. In creation, however, work was not designed for this
end in itself; thus it could not be done in any manner but was engaged
on two distinct terms. When God "put the man in the Garden of Eden to
work" (Gen 2:8, 15), it was clear the Creator established ("put" siym,
establish, appoint) the creature in the work. Thus, the first term for
work was that it was to be undertaken within the functional context as
creature in relationship to Creator--that is, the relational context.
Secondly, God was clear about the conditions (command, desires, 2:16)
for engaging work in this context and that involvement in this necessary
relational context was only on God's terms--thus, the relational
process defined by God, the sovereign God.
This relational context and process of
creation are fundamental for a valid function of work and most
importantly are intrinsic to the primary function of the whole person as
created in the likeness of the triune God. Thus, how a person functions
is determined by how the person is defined and perceived. This
self-definition determines not only how we do work but even more
significant to God also determines how we do relationships together. How
we do relationship with God is about our relational involvement and
response as whole persons to the whole being of God. The relational
context and process of how we do relationship with God is signified by
worship, not defined by how we do work for God, even though serving is
part of our response of worship--part of a complete relational response.
It is not a coincidence that the term
for "work" ('abad, 2:15) is the same term used for worship in the
O.T. denoting service. The authentic worship of God must also involve
the relational response of service distinctly based on relational
submission, adoration and praise. These responses together (forming the
acronym PASS) constitute worship and signify how to do relationship with
God; worship is the functional pass to the intimate presence of
God. Therefore, how work (or service) is to be done must function
by engaging in this primary relational purpose as designed by the
Creator in relationship with the created person. Without involvement in
this relational context and process, work (or service) has no relational
significance to God and thus has either little meaning or no qualitative
fulfillment for the person created in God's image. Reductionism of any
dimension of creation has far-reaching repercussions on our person
today, on our relationships and consequently on how church is practiced.
We need to more deeply understand in
function that the person was created with a qualitative function
intrinsic to God, the quality of which work (or doing something, even
service) by itself did not have (a condition God defined as "not good,"
Gen 2:18) and, therefore, the function of work (or what we do, even for
God) could not fulfill--no matter the nature of the work nor the extent
of experience from it. This qualitative function for the human person
which God implanted in creation was relational. God "breathed" in us the
relationality in likeness to the whole of the triune God, by which the
Trinity is mutually involved with each other and now involved with us.
In the creation narrative (Gen 2:18)
God may appear focused on the work as the purpose for which Eve was
created. That emphasis would be inconsistent with how God defines the
person and, once again, would invert the primary priority of God's
created design and purpose. Further, this emphasis on what we do becomes
problematic because it predisposes us in a reductionist interpretive
framework affecting not only how we define ourselves but also how we do
relationships and thus how we practice church. This includes how
spiritual gifts are perceived and the emphasis on giftedness to define
the person and to appoint church leadership. We need to return to God's
created order so that we can more deeply understand both our person and
also understand God, including the nature of both as well as our
relationship together.
The above narrative is usually rendered
"to be alone" (2:18) but the Hebrew term (bad) can also be
rendered "to be apart." The latter rendering gives a greater sense of
relationship and not being connected to someone else. This nuance is
significant because for Adam it was not just the secondary matter of
having no one to share space with, no one to keep him company or to do
things with (particularly the work). "To be apart" is not just a
situational condition but most importantly a relational condition. A
person can be alone in a situation but also feel lonely in the company
of others, at church, even in a family or marriage because of relational
distance--"being apart." I thus suggest that this rendering is more
reflective of the dynamic process of relationship in God's created
design and purpose--and needs to replace the conventional "to be alone"
not only in our reading but in our theology and practice.
What the person Adam (thus all persons)
needed in the above context had little to do with help for work but
everything concerned with his primary function, the quality of which
work cannot provide nor fulfill. This concern was God's focus and
provision for the first human person. This is about relationship
fundamental to human make-up rooted in the image, the likeness of the
triune God, about relationship basic to the function of the whole person
(from the inner out), about relationship primary (above all else) to the
created order of life. This is the primacy of the created context and
process of interpersonal relationships:
the relational context and process.
God created Adam initially without this
human relational context, though the relational context and process
existed between him and God. Yet, created life in the human context
could not remain solitary because of the image, the likeness of this
relational triune God. The human person was never meant "to be apart."
Eve completed the interpersonal relational nature of human life which
was predicated on the intimate relational nature of the triune God,
constituted first in the intimate relational communion between the
persons of the Trinity and then by that same communion between God and
human persons. Into this deeper context of interpersonal relationships
we all were created and for this purpose our lives are designed. It is
from this trinitarian relational context and by this trinitarian
relational process that God is glorified, worshiped--not by the focus of
what we do.
This communion with God which
constitutes the relational context and process of life was broken by
human disobedience and independence, with the relational consequence "to
be apart." Certainly, not only in relation to work but also in our
relationships (especially with God) this condition "to be apart"
underlies our reductionist tendencies, the substitutes we make in life
and why we settle for less. In the human narrative, essentially every
human activity since Adam and Eve's disobedient independence has been to
diminish, distort or deny the primacy of relationships in the created
order. In the divine narrative, everything the Trinity has done is
relational and is done to restore relationships to God's original design
and purpose. This created design and purpose is what Jesus came to
restore us to--both with God and with others. Our theology and doctrine
need to reflect this coherence.
As we reflect on creation and the
relational context and process, we have to examine how we also "see" God
and thus relate to this God. If we only see God as Creator, there can be
a tendency to define God by what God did (past and present) and ignore
God's whole being. This is especially the tendency if our
perceptual-interpretive framework is reductionist. To focus on and
relate to God's being is not only to engage the sovereign God (who
commands) but also to be involved with the triune God (who is intimately
relational). On the basis of this God the relational process is
constituted. Any other God is a reduction of the God of creation and the
God of revelation vulnerably shared with us.
Relationship with God cannot be engaged
on reductionist terms, despite how much and well we may work for
God. Such "engagement" even with good intentions essentially seeks
relationship with God only on our terms. Jesus put this relational
reduction into perspective for his disciples by defining what is
important and thus primary: "whoever serves me must follow me; and where
I am, my servant also will be" (Jn 12:26). The Greek term "to serve" (
diakoneo) comes from the word for minister, deacon, servant (diakonos)
and has the emphasis on the work to be done, not on the relationship
between a master and servant. Note this distinction because the emphasis
of "serve" is similar to the focus on work discussed earlier when God
created Eve. Here Jesus is telling us emphatically that in order to
serve him it's not sufficient for Christians to focus "on the work to be
done," or on related situations, circumstances, no matter how dedicated
we are or how good our intentions. Service (work) is not what being a
follower of Jesus is all about. While service results from it, even
being a disciple does not mean to focus on and emphasize service (what
we do) first. As an aspect of worship, service emerges relationally from
the other relational responses of praise, adoration and submission
(PASS).
Here again, the necessary and more
important priority is to be involved in the ongoing deep relational
process of following Christ (discipleship), that is the intimate
relationship of being with him. Being a follower of Christ is
this relationship first and foremost; this intimate relationship is the
true vocation of all his followers because Jesus restores us to God's
design and purpose.3 This created order is purely relational, and the new
creation in Christ fulfills this--the completion of which the Spirit is
to continue. Therefore, the primary work God created us for is totally
relational work.4 All other work is not only secondary and
subordinate to relational work but to be undertaken and engaged
according to this primary work of relationship.
And relational work in our involvement
with God is the foremost priority--and the greatest command from God,
including relational involvement with others over which no other work
has priority or more importance. Jesus further clarifies the ongoing
functional perspective of relational work by defining what is necessary
according to God's desires (Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-31). He refocused any
reductionist perceptions (interpretations) of the commandments and
summarized what has relational significance to God. The first priority
is to love God and the second is to love your neighbor. In a
reductionist framework "love" is defined essentially by doing something
(what we do) and focuses on the work to be done, not relationship.
Normative Jewish religious practice up to the time of Christ followed a
code and defined righteousness by the extent of observing a code of
conduct; Jesus was responding to such a mindset. Both these reductionist
substitutes might practice "the letter of the law" (about following a
code) but not "the spirit of the law" about relational involvement of
love), as Jesus outlined in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) making the
inner person and relationships primary. This is why Jesus clearly
expresses the need that our righteousness "surpasses that of the
Pharisees and the teachers of the law" (Mt 5:20)--that is, surpasses the
reductionists.
Love--from hesed in the O.T. to
agape in the N.T.--is not about an attribute of the individual
but about the function of the whole person in relationship. Hesed
presupposes the existence of a relationship between persons involved;
and where no relationship has been established previously, the person
exercising hesed has chosen to be involved with the recipient and
treat them as if such a relationship was existing. Agape often
tends to be perceived outside of the relational context, thus focusing
on the individual and doing something--notably sacrificial self-giving.
This reduces the relational process of love to "what to do," which makes
love more about the individual than the relationship, more about giving
something than about vulnerably involving self with another in
relationship. Biblical love, however, is not about what to do
focused on promoting the attribute of doing something positive, even
sacrificially, but about how to be involved with others (foremost
God) in relationship focused on them while promoting their well-being.
Unfortunately, when Christ's agape
love is highlighted, agape is often reduced to his sacrifice on
the cross without the full relational significance of his life as the
whole of God. When this incomplete Christology is used to determine our
practice of love, the created function of our persons is reduced in a
truncated soteriology without eschatological understanding of the whole
of God's desires. When God's unfailing love is highlighted (cf. Ps 107),
hesed is not merely about an attribute that does not change, fail
or cease but about God's ongoing involvement and treatment of us in
covenant relationship. "God is love" therefore tells us less about
what God is and more about how God is in relationship.
Love defining what God is and
expressing how God is--specifically within God's being as trinitarian
and particularly in God's revelation in the incarnation--is not about
"what to do" (doing something) but about "how to be involved" (being a
whole person in relationships). We cannot reduce the God of love to
merely doing something and thus limit God's qualitative being, intimate
relational nature and vulnerable involvement with us to only what God
does. Any reductions limit us to quantitative (outer-in)
perceptions/interpretations which may inform us of some of God's
activity but do not provide us the framework to truly know the
qualitative God and to intimately experience the significance of love
intrinsic to the relational involvement of the Trinity's communion. In
the trinitarian relational context and relational process, the whole of
God is always vulnerable to us in relationship and thus also accountable
to us in this relationship.
God created persons for relationship
and to be intimately involved with each other, the design and purpose of
which is engaged by relational work. In his summary account of God's
desires, Jesus refocuses us on this relational God and the relational
work needed to respond to God's commands (desires) with relational
significance. To love God is the intimate involvement of the whole
person in ongoing relationship. Nothing is more important than this
relational response (Mk 12:31), and all of God's desires from throughout
the O.T. "hang on" this relational response (Mt 22:40). It is this
intimate relational involvement of love which functionally defines the
qualitative difference of God, as in the Trinity which Jesus revealed
vulnerably about his relationship with the Father (both agape Jn
15:9 and phileo Jn 5:20), and which functionally defines the
relational design and purpose for human persons.
The second command is not to be engaged
apart from the first because it is an extension of it. In a reductionist
interpretive framework the predisposition is to interpret "love your
neighbor" as the quantitative work of doing something positive rather
than by the qualitative relational involvement with others. Yet, Jesus
said "the second is like [the first]" (Mt 22:39). The term for "like" (
homoios) denotes a correspondence in property or nature. That is,
to love God is complete relational involvement by the whole person; this
is the property that corresponds to God's love and the intimate
relational nature of God's involvement with us. This is the relational
response God desires (commands) back from us, and the relational
involvement extended to others which would witness to the property and
nature of God's love both for us and from us. Alternatives from a
quantitative reductionist framework cannot substitute for this
qualitative relational significance, nor can they fulfill the created
function for human persons.
This relational work became problematic
for Adam as we can observe of his relational behavior in the Garden
after his disobedience. First, he invented the "human mask" in
relationships to cover up the true self ("fig leaves," Gen 3:7). Then he
kept relational distance from God ("hid from," 3:8), only to experience
the tension and fear of the disclosure of his person ("afraid," 3:10).
To preserve his image or self-worth he deflected responsibility and
would not be accountable to God for his person, even at Eve's expense
(3:12). These four practices are counter to relational involvement and
compound the relational work needed for relationship with God and with
others. This is to be expected when the whole person is reduced and the
primacy of intimate relationships is reduced in human action.
Yet these practices are common to all
of us, and we rarely need special circumstances (as in Adam's case) to
engage them. The operative word here is "common" because this is the
common way we do relationships, even in the church. Relational work was
problematic for Adam, for Israel, for the first disciples and in church
history. And relational work has been particularly problematic since the
Enlightenment and continues to be problematic today as compounded by
modernity, and now has a renewed challenge in this postmodern period.
Relational work becomes further
problematic for us when a reductionist interpretive framework
misperceives God's purpose for creating Eve and the significance of her
relationship with Adam. These are vital issues which our discussion
needs to include in order to understand what adds or subtracts in the
relational equation of God's created (original and new in Christ) design
and purpose, particularly for the church.
Eve's Purpose
Critical to our deeper understanding of
the purpose for Eve's creation is the focus on the kind of work
emphasized in the creation narrative. If you translate the Hebrew
expression 'ezer kenegdo as "a helper suitable for him" (Gen 2:18
NIV), thus interpreting the woman as an assistant or helpmate to the man
(as complementarians do), then the focus is on the work in the Garden
with the emphasis on "what they did." Or if you translate it "a power
[or strength] corresponding to man"5 with the interpretation of Eve
corresponding to Adam in every way, even "be his equal" (as egalitarians
do), the focus can be on any type of work with the emphasis still on
"what they do." Both of these interpretations and perceptions minimize
or even preclude the primacy of relational work in God's design and
purpose for relationships between persons created in God's image,
likeness. This is the consequence because an emphasis on "what we do"
reduces the qualitative focus of how we function in relationships in
order to be whole merely to performing a role.
It is also not sufficient to say that
Adam was lonely and needed a proper counterpart because he was living
without community. While these conditions existed, community and its
formation connote different perceptions to persons, the very least of
which may not even involve intimate relationships as understood in the
community (communion) of the Trinity. Yet, God did not create Eve for
Adam in order to have simply a collective dimension to life called
community or a social context within which to do their living. This has
implications for church practice which will be discussed in later
chapters.
Eve was created for the primacy of
relationship, thus for the completion of the human relational context by
which their persons (from the inside out) could now involve themselves
in the relational process constituted in the triune God and signified by
the image, likeness of God. Without the completion of this relational
context and process, a person(s) would "be apart"--a condition God
defines as "not good" but which has become normative of the human
condition, even among Christians.
Eve's purpose was not about working the
Garden nor filling the earth, especially as we have come to define those
purposes with the emphasis on "what we do." These would be quantitative
reductionist substitutes which redefine the person from the outside
in--for example, according to roles and our performance. Even though Eve
was created as a person in God's image to complete the relational
context and process, she was not immune from reductionism because she
was free to redefine her person. While making this choice does not
change the created ontology of personhood, it reduces how the person
functions and constrains what the person experiences, thus effectively
redefining personhood in human perception.
Satan tempted (tested) Eve with just
such a reduction of her person. In their Garden encounter Satan
redefined her person by appealing to her mind with knowledge (Gen
3:5)--the defining characteristic of the modern information age. Such an
appeal subtly altered how Eve functionally defined her person, thus
shifting her to a quantitative focus on secondary matter (for example,
attributes about the fruit, 3:6a). From this quantitative perceptual
framework, what she paid attention to and ignored became reordered from
what God created and commanded, and inverted her priorities. This led to
her pursuit to be a quantitatively better person (by gaining wisdom,
intelligence, expertise, 3:6b). The further significance of this
reduction and redefinition is how she functioned in her relationship
with God and attempted to have this relationship on her terms (based on
her response to Satan's reductionist appeal, 3:5). Adam fell to and
labored under this same reductionism.
This dramatically illustrates what
underlies all reductionism and Satan's ingenious counter-relational
work, which began with the first persons, extended to Jesus and
continues with us today, even within the church (2 Cor 11:14,15)--a
presence that should not be lost to us, which will be expanded on in
Chapter 4.
It would be a further reduction of
Eve's purpose, and thus an inaccurate interpretation, to perceive that
women (gender and sexuality) were created primarily for specific
relationships with men. Underlying Eve's function to work is the purpose
God gave her and Adam to "fill the earth" (Gen 1:28). Obviously, this
then involved the created function of marriage (2:24) and procreation
(3:20). Yet our deeper understanding of marriage and procreation for
God's purpose is also contingent on the kind of work emphasized in the
creation narrative. If the work focused on is merely about making a
living and extending it in raising a family (a dominant view), then our
perceptions of marriage and family become reductionist (as previously
noted about what we do) and our practice increasingly quantitative (as
discussed about how we do relationships). This was not the purpose for
Eve's creation.
In God's purpose to "fill the earth"
the term for "fill" (Heb. male) denotes completion of something
that was unfinished. With this in mind we need to understand what God
started in creation that Eve and Adam were to work for its completion.
Did God just create a man and a woman, male and female, with work to do?
Did God merely create the human species to be the dominant conclusion to
all of creation? Or did God create whole persons in the very image of
God's being (constituted as the qualitative significance of heart) for
the purpose of these persons having and building intimate relationships
together in the likeness of the relational nature of God as constituted
in the communion of the Trinity?
Reductionism turns God's purpose to
"fill the earth" effectively into making children and the quantitative
work of populating the earth. Likewise, perceptions of "be fruitful and
multiply" become based on quantitative notions. If this were God's
purpose, the results such work had initially produced would have been
partially acceptable, and God would not have started over with Noah and
his family (Gen 6:1ff). But God's purpose is qualitative; filling the
earth is not about the numbers. What God started in creation was an
extension of the triune God's being and nature--not to be confused with
pantheism. The person was created with the qualitative significance of
God to have relationships with other persons, both of whom are
undifferentiated (not reduced) by quantitative distinctions (such as
gender or sexuality). Gender or sexuality do not distinguish the
qualitative significance of human persons and relationships, though the
whole person is certainly embodied in them irreducibly. This aspect of
creation serves to highlight in general the intimate relationships for
which all persons are created, not to determine the ultimate context in
which these intimate relationships can be experienced, that is,
male-female relationships and marriage.
Yet these relationships started in
creation were not simply any type of positive relationship, rather only
intimate relationships as vulnerably revealed to us in the triunity of
God (not tritheism). These intimate relationships then are further
distinguished as intimate interdependent relationships signified by the
relational work of the Trinity. It was God's purpose from even before
creation (Eph 1:4, 5) that these intimate interdependent relationships
function to build together persons after the whole of God's
likeness--that is, the family of God. This original purpose--started
again with Noah (Gen 9:1)--was formalized in the covenant God made with
Abram (Gen 17:6), extended through Jacob (Gen 33:5) and is fulfilled in
the church through the redemptive reconciliation of Christ and is being
completed functionally and experientially by the ongoing relational work
of the Spirit (Rom 8:14-16; Eph 1:13, 14). God's revelation and our
theology cohere in this relational progression of God's created
(original and new in Christ) design and purpose,6 which are functionally
whole and wholistically relational.
Jesus came to restore us to God's
design and purpose started in creation. Yet, we often appear not to have
this functionally whole understanding of God's vulnerable revelation in
the incarnation and the relational work signified by the gospel. When we
separate or subordinate the primacy of the relational work in God's
purpose to build not just family (in all its forms) but the kinship
family of God, marriage and procreation (thus the purpose of Eve's
creation ) take on a different purpose than God intended. Instead, they
become a function of our purpose to make a living, to have a life and to
build one= s life (characteristics of bios, not zoe, cf.
Jn 10:10). Consequently, what is only secondary to and a means for God's
purpose becomes primary for and a means to one's own purpose. This
reductionist framework for marriage and family certainly has had its
consequences on building the family of God today. Despite the emphasis
on marriage and family (and related values) which has "filled" many
churches, we seem to have difficulty building the intimate
interdependent relationships started in God's created design and
purpose. Certainly, if we don't deeply understand what God started, it
will remain difficult for us to complete ("fill") this purpose as God
intends, regardless of our best intentions.
Eve's Relationship with
Adam
To understand Eve and Adam's
relationship we have to look deeper than the notion of male-female
relationships, thus beyond marriage and raising a family. The creation
narrative gives us little account of their relationship prior to their
disobedience and independence. As previously discussed, they both
engaged in reductionism at Satan's urging. This suggests the beginnings
of a paradigm shift in their perceptual framework which would shift the
focus away from the qualitative (and from inner out) to the quantitative
(and the outer in). This shift was significant not only in their
relationship with God noted above but also significant in how they
functioned in their relationship with each other.
Before the Fall, Eve was able to be
"naked" before Adam and likewise Adam before Eve (Gen 2:25).
Reductionism was not engaged at this point so this did not imply any
sexual interaction. While the term "naked" denotes not wearing outer
clothes, they were freely able to be with each other in the whole
persons they were without having to mask any part of their person. Thus,
"they felt no shame" (2:25). This is not without the deepest of
significance and suggests the qualitative nature by which genuine
intimate relationships are constituted. The Hebrew word for "shame" (bos)
denotes confusion, embarrassment or dismay when things do not turn out
as expected. Applying this to relationships, we all have been in a
relationship situation where such feelings (ours or the other person's)
were experienced because one (or both) of the persons did not turn out
as expected. This goes beyond male-female relationships to any
relationship where the person (again ours or the other's) does not
function as expected, desired or hoped for.
For Adam, the issue in creation of "not
good" was a qualitative-relational matter, not a quantitative condition
"to be alone." The latter is often addressed in quantitative terms with
reductionist substitutes (for example, to "fill a
void"). Further, it is
qualitatively good and quantitatively necessary "to be alone" (and
quiet) at times, especially in today's Western lifestyle. The primary
issue for Adam's person (and all
persons), however, is that God did not want Adam "to be apart" from the
qualitative significance of another person corresponding to his person
in the image of God, which also involved the qualitative experience of
intimate relationship together in the likeness of the Trinity (cf. Jn
17:21, 22). That person was Eve, a person for relationship who was
embodied in female gender (a distinction not to be confused with the
qualitative significance of her person, yet having a significance to be
discussed later).
The introduction of Eve did not confuse
Adam because they were both persons of the same qualitative
significance, despite anatomical differences secondary to their person.
Adam was not disappointed with Eve's person nor Eve with Adam's; "they
felt no shame." Nor did her presence embarrass him about his person or
her person, and conversely for Eve. They were able to be the whole
persons they were and "felt no shame." Furthermore, Adam was not
dissatisfied with God's gift of Eve's person, nor Eve with Adam--at
least prior to their reductionism (cf. Gen 3:12). They were fully able
to enjoy the qualitative experience of each other's person; "they were
both naked and they felt no shame." In other words, they each functioned
in the image of God, participated together in the image of the triune
God and experienced in relationship the very likeness of the whole of
God constituted in the Trinity. This is our initial glimpse of persons
in the image of God experiencing their created function, which lays the
groundwork for our deeper understanding of the function of the imago
dei to be discussed in Chapter 5.
The significance of this relational
involvement was fundamental to God's design and purpose for them. This
is not about marriage and raising a family but about relationship in
which both persons would not "be apart" from the whole of God. "To be
apart" was not the relational quality of God's likeness; to be less than
the whole person God created was not the qualitative significance of
God's image. These are conditions which marriage and family do not
necessarily address nor guarantee. The ultimate quality of their persons
and their relationship was not defined by nor experienced in marriage.
If this were the ultimate of God's creation, there would be marriage in
the new creation in heaven (Mt 22:29-30). In one sense, marriage can become
a reductionist substitute that keeps us apart from the whole of God.
This intimate relational context and
process is God's design and purpose for all persons and all
relationships. They define the deep desires for these relationships God
has and wants for us (cf. Gen 6:6). Yet, God counters the kind of
relationships for us demonstrated by Adam and Eve after they engaged
reductionism of their persons and their relationships (both with each
other and with God). This established a course for the person and
relationships which inverted the definition of the person (now from the
outer in) and the priority of intimate relationships.
Shifting Function
How deeply we understand God's design
and purpose--which are functionally whole and wholistically
relational--and how well we perceive the shift away from this intimate
relational context and process taking place due to reductionism are both
critical for Christian function and practice, individually as well as
corporately. Yet, I doubt if we have adequately addressed the relational
work necessary to deal with the reductionist influences on our practice
"to be apart" in our relationships. We may have addressed in a limited
way the issue of "to be alone"--at least to the extent that marriage and
family may provide. Even within those traditional alternatives, however,
"to be apart" is not adequately addressed such that it is our primary
functional priority in order not to experience what Adam did before
Eve's creation, nor what they experienced together after reductionism.
This also necessitates addressing
functionally how we define the human person and personhood, thus
ourselves in the context of everyday living. How we define ourselves is
an antecedent issue because this determines how we function in
relationships--both of which will determine how we do church. These
issues (how we define ourselves, how we do relationships, how we do
church) are directly interrelated, inseparable as well as reflexive in
influence on each other. And reductionism in one area will impact the
other area(s), as noted in the creation narrative. Similarly, the
transformation of one will necessitate or determine the transformation
of the others. This is the ongoing conflict and hope human persons face
in their created function.
The whole person and the relationship
to be whole started by God in creation are for us to complete--not on
our terms, however. The persons and the relationships between these
persons created by God are taken directly from the whole of God's being
and nature. That is, they reflect who, what and how God is, and
thus truly represent God only by living in the intimate
relational context and process of this God. Yet, we make too many
assumptions about God in our practice (not necessarily in our theology),
often from a reductionist interpretive framework which predisposes us to
perceive of God in a quantitative box.
_________________________________
1. Unless otherwise noted, all quotes
from Scripture are taken from the NIV.
2. Greek and Hebrew word studies used in this study are taken from the
following sources: Greek and Hebrew word studies used in this study are
taken from the following sources: Horst Balz, Gerhard Schreider, eds.,
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 vols. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); Colin Brown, ed., The New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3 vols.(Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1975); R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce Waitke,
eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1980); Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974); W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New
Testament Words (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1981); Spiros
Zodhiates, ed., Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible (Chattanooga:
AMG Publ., 1996).
3. I formulate a theology of discipleship in The Relational
Progression: A Relational Theology of Discipleship.
4. The process of relational work is developed in another study of
mine: Following Jesus, Knowing Christ.
5. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T.
Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1996), 93-94.
6. This progression and coherence are developed further in The
Relational Progression: A Relational Theology of Discipleship.
back to top
Wholeness Study Intro
home |
