Metaphor and Biblical Humanism

June 22, 2008

Reflections on metaphor adapted from a series of e-mails...

I am currently reading Wright on Heaven. Take note:

"My suggestion is that it is possible for human beings so to continue down this road (idol worship so that they become like that which they worship), so as to refuse all whisperings of good news, all glimmers of the true light, all promptings to turn and go the other way, all signposts to the love of God, that after they become at last, by their own choice, 'beings that once were human but now are not,' creatures that have ceased to bear the divine image at all." (chapter 11: Purgatory, Paradise, and Hell, 182; Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the church. NT. Wright, 2008.)

This quote reminds me of what I once wrote about man being a metaphor for God. Because a metaphor has its source and definition in the thing which it represents, when a metaphor refuses to represent that thing, it has no definition and dies/disappears.

As an essay for Mr. Palladino's World Civ class, I wrote reflections on Pico Della Mirandola's, "Oration on the Dignity of Man," which reflects the rising humanism of the Renaissance. However, I argued that Mirandola's view was decidely unhumanistic ("humanism" in a true, Biblical sense) and that the Biblical view of man is far more humanistic. Mirandola seemed to believe that God had created man in a sort of "in-between place" - man was made "a little lower than the angels/gods" and yet "higher than the beasts." Man was then given a unique ability to make choices - he can become as great as the angels/gods or as base as the beasts of the earth.

The problem with this view is twofold. First, it is a very Platonic way of thinking. It depicts the earth and humanity as something innately negative or "low" and the heavenly realm as something good. Therefore, man must aspire to eschew earthly, beastly things and seek to be made like a heavenly, angelic being. Secondly, it places the power of greatness in the hands of man without any consideration of the sovereignty of God. It is deism, now that I think about it: God created man with potential and left him to his own devises, saying, "Go, be as great or as low as you can be."

Contrast this with the Biblical worldview, which depicts man as being created in the image of God - this is what makes him distinct from all other creatures. He does not have to aspire to godhood because he is already "like God." He is, in a sense, a "mini-god," who is to do in small the things that God does in large: subdue evil, create, procreate (for God "gave birth" to the world) and rule. Man is already a king of the earth who must continue to rule in submission to the divine King if he wishes to maintain a sense of identity as a human being. Man is free to make decisions, but not without limitations. He is truly free, truly human, insofar as his choices reflect the will of God. This is where man's greatness lies: in his role as a representive of God on earth. When man ceases to live in proper relationship to God, he loses his humanity and becomes a faceless phantom; a metaphor.

I think that a high view of true humanity inevitably evokes a high view of God since man was made in His image. Our problem is not that we glorify what is human versus what is divine, but that we believe humanity can have substance, definition or glory apart from God. This is the sin of Adam and Eve - not that they wanted to be gods (for they were "gods" already), but that they wanted to be gods apart from God; to have a separate identity. They wanted to be self-sufficient instead of embracing the dependency characteristic of metaphors. Yet, a metaphor is most glorified when it most fully represents its Source. This is what it means to be human: to embrace and fulfill one's role as an image-bearer of the Deity. This is true humanity; this is true greatness.

A real metaphor seeks not its own glory, but points beyond itself to its Source. In his book, "Humility," Andrew Murrey defines humility as "dependence on God." He asserts that our need to be humble does not lie in our sinfulness, but in our humanity, for Christ was completely humble and completely holy. Murrey emphasizes that Christ's humility was his dependence on the Father. Christ always seeks obedience to and glory for his Father. So Christ is the ideal Metaphor who seeks the glory of the Father whose image he bears.

(Phil. 2:3-11) "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of , even on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Now, here is Phil. 2:3-11 with my thoughts added about Christ as the ideal Metaphor. Pardon its theological flaws and eisegesis - when speaking of metaphor, I am foremost an artist and philosopher, not a theologian.

"You, members of Christ's body/form and His representatives/metaphors on earth - do nothing from unhuman selfishness or empty conceit (which leads to formlessness), but with humility/dependence of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests (simply seeking glory for yourself), but also for the interests of others (realizing that true glory comes through seeking someone else's glory). Have in yourselves this same attitude of self-emptying dependence which was also in Christ Jesus, who existed in the form/image of God, but did not consider equality with God something to be grasped or stolen (unlike the Old Adam), but made himself a metaphor, taking the form of a bondservant (who serves and represents his master), by becoming a human being. Being found in appearance as a human (whose role is to point to God), he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of , even on a cross. (Now is natural punishment of an image-bearer of God who abdicates this role. Though Christ is the perfect image of the invisible God, the ideal metaphor, he experienced the pain of being dehumanized: he became a formless metaphor [i.e., became nothing]. Yet in that very act of relinquinshing his image, Christ perfectly represented the selfless love of His Father. In suffering the punishment reserved for "bad metaphors," Christ actually acted as the wholly "righteous metaphor" who represents its Source well.) For this reason also, God exalted this obedient Metaphor and bestowed on Christ the name which is king above every name (it is the name reserved for the quintessential Adam), so that at the name of the New Adam, every knee will bow (the whole created order), and every tongue will confess that the New Adam is at last lord, to the glory of the God the Father (under whose Kingship he rules and subdues on earth as His representative)."

The thought did not occur to me until I began to type that part of Phil. 2: "And every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." I had always supposed this verse to, in some way, refer to Christ's role as the divine king (and perhaps it does). But perhaps, in the context of the poem - since it deals primarily with Christ's humanity - it makes more sense to think of it as the declaration that at last an Adam has become lord of the earth as the first Adam was meant to be. As the first Adam was meant to rule (assumedly) for the glory of God as His viceregent of sorts, so Christ now fulfills that role created for an Adam, ruling to the glory of the God the Father. I suppose I also thought the poem refers to worship of Christ as a deity (and, again, it could - since Christ is also God). However, perhaps it makes more sense to think of "every knee shall bow" as an act of submission to God's chosen human king rather than direct worship of Jesus as God (although, since the role of the human being is to represent God, in submitting to His viceregent, we are in a sense worshipping God). Perhaps, perhaps.