last night sometime between my supervisor's surreal questions* and incomprehensible directions** i found myself in a conversation about what the imago dei means in genesis 3. one of my atheistic co-workers suggested that if God created us in his image, then experience suggests that he must be one f'd up deity. the self-professed christians in our group decried that notion and talked about the importance of believing in God's image, even if one doesn't know or can't explain what that means. for my part, i opted out of the conversation and openly wondered why i can't seem to express the imago dei by finding, creating and sustaining God's beauty, goodness and truth in this apparently banal, colorless and altogether ordinary environment.it seems to me that if i cannot find a way express/incarnate/seek God's image in this ordinary environment, i have no business speaking about the beauty, truth and goodness of God in spaces that are set aside for the sacred. so, instead of treating my coworkers as apt objects of ridicule and approaching customers as confounded equations that no one needs to solve, i am going to to go digging for the imago dei in this apparent wasteland in hopes finding light brighter than the florescent and creation evolving out of the cubes.
* i.e., "isn't this a tit job?" me: "huh?" "don't you just love the job and want to hit it like a tit?" me: "no." "come on, you know this is a tit job..."
** i.e., "you know shave and a haircut, two bits?" me: "yeah." "tap that out for me on your desk!" me: "no." "come on, why can't you tap that out?" me: "because i'm white and bereft of rhythm."
2 comments:
Actually, I have some questions about this "made in God's image" business. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the Bible is pretty specific that God is a "he". However, He made man AND woman in His image. Does this mean that although God may, in fact, by phsycologically male, his body is that of a hermaphrodite?
Also, even if the first people were made in his image, wouldn't people that existed 2,000 + years ago look very different than we do now?
ali, there have been volumes written on what this idea of the imago dei means. my best guess is that the imago dei is a way of suggesting that, in his infinite wisdom, God chose to impress his creativity, capacity for will, affection for beauty, desire for justice and undoubtedly many, many other things upon the men and women he created.
although the Scriptures often speak of God, and God in Christ, in male terms, i think we should be careful to assign, and so limit, God to a gender. throughout Scripture he shows the very best (and some would argue, sometimes the worst) of masculinity and femininity.
as for the people 2,000 years ago, i don't think they were physically all that different than us, though you'd have to ask others more educated than i for an adequate opinion.
moreover, as for the conception of God as a hermaphrodite...there haven't been volumes written concerning that idea. if you publish quickly, i think you might just have the corner on the market.
pax.
Post a Comment