tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post8698854141146691247..comments2023-08-10T19:27:13.498+12:00Comments on Hermeneutics and Human Dignity: My response to Haller and BlackPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-17357044432931126532013-09-24T12:05:30.055+12:002013-09-24T12:05:30.055+12:00You raise an important point for the line of think...You raise an important point for the line of thinking I am trying to pursue Tobias when you ask about individual men and individual women being also Image bearers. <br /><br />The logic itself is coherent enough frankly. IF one permits the first move, that all three lines of Gen 1:27 interpret one another, so that we may say of the Image itself that it is gendered, “male and female”, so that we have an <i>analogous</i> expression of the Triune God in this uniquely created creature, then equivalent grammar of ordinary Trinitarian speech, as developed during the 4th and 5th Cs, kicks in - analogously of course.<br /><br />There are in the triune Godhead both substance/<i>ousia</i> and subsistent relations. Each Person possesses deity according to their respective identities: the Father possesses Godhead paternally, the Son possesses Godhead filially - and well; how might we avoid the Great Schism from being repeated?! See Lukas Vischer, ed., <i>Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical reflections on the Filioque Controversy</i> (SPCK/WCC, 1981), and Edward Scicieski, <i>The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy</i> (OUP, 2010). One pays ones money and takes ones choice - almost! Though I am no fan of either Photius’ “alone” or Lossky’s polemics, being appreciative of Congar’s noble efforts (his three volumes). But this is perhaps by the by.<br /><br />Just so, humanity IS the Image of God, the Image IS male-and-female; and so - analogously - IS an icon of the Trinity. Yet each male and each female possesses the Image in an analogous manner to each Person’s own idiomatic “manner of subsistence” (Rahner). As with any form of analogy, the grammar of similitude-and-difference applies.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-22426036222761381502013-09-24T02:53:51.230+12:002013-09-24T02:53:51.230+12:00Very briefly, Peter, as I'm in some haste to g...Very briefly, Peter, as I'm in some haste to get to my parish for some delayed work....<br /><br />First, thanks for the helpful summary. I think you lay things out very clearly and in a forward-moving way. Not easily done!<br /><br />I'll just observe that I don't believe that the problem with Bryden's view lies only in its novelty -- as of course I do realize that same-sex marriage is also novel. The difficulty I am having is that in addition to the novelty, I'm not seeing what I regard as a clear argument in favor of the new reading. The novel idea that "male and female together 'effect' the image of God" seems hard to reconcile with the traditional "each individual person is made in the image of God."<br /><br />I take the point about mirroring creation lightly, as human beings do not "create" their children (nor does God "beget" the universe -- again, I raise the point that these ways of viewing the matter trend towards ANE mythology, and away from the actual account. The Hebrew uses "bara" only for God.) This is not to say that human beings can't be creative, but their creativity lies -- as the tradition says the imago does -- in the mind. After all, as I noted in the discussion, biological procreativity is something of our animal nature, not of our divine status. It is needful for this world (though as the stress on celibacy shows, not required of all humans in order to be fully human!)<br /><br />The other caution I would once again urge is on getting too far into Trinitarian matters. when you say "God created one person in two forms (with obvious analogy back towards God-one-being-in-three-persons)" my theological antennae want to warn of creeping modalism. The "Persons" of the Trinity are not "People" and are not different in "form" but in relationship. There is no temporality involved in the begetting or procession, unlike human marriage. People are, in themselves, male or female, but only become husband or wife upon marriage. There may be some echoes there with the Trinity but it's not a very good match, and as I've pointed out in the other comment thread, it is also true of master and slave, monarch and people, or any other number of relational ideneties used in Scripture to image God in relation to the people of God -- and in a same-sex marriage (which is also temporal and involves "difference") even though it is not used to image God's relation with his people.<br /><br />So thanks again for the helpful continued thought.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.com