The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei

Rating:
Summary: Mostly good stuff, but not original
Review: Right off the bat, let me say that I am in large part in agreement with most of the affirmations that Grenz makes in this book. His concerns are parallell to my own, and I agree with most of his contentions and aims in this book. That said, I also think there are a lot of weaknesses in this book. I debated giving it thre or four stars. I opted for four, simply because of the scope of this book. It covers a lot of ground, particularly the modern demise of the "self" very well. For those that have little background in academic theology, I think this book will be must more helpful than it was to me.

Before offering any criticisms, I should note some of the central positive features of this book.

1)The biblical theological methodology in delineating a doctrine of the image of God. Grenz's reading of the biblical material through a canonical and narrative methodology builds a strong biblical case for a communal, eschatological theology of the image. I think he is right on here, and I'm glad he took the time to build a biblical case rather than just jumping to his conclusions.

2)The emphasis on the importance of narrative for the formation of the Christian community and the community's embodiment of the image of God as the prolepsis of the eschatological consummation. Again, I think Grenz is right on here. All these issues are vital for engaging the postmodern context.

3)The discussion of human sexuality as part of the image of God in trinitarian perspective. Grenz's case that sexuality is the human impetus towards bonding and thus is fulfilled ultimately in the eschatological community is very helpful. Christian theology has ignored or underplayed sexuality far too much. It is very good that Grenz is engaging these issues on the basis of the biblical narrative over-against someone like Eugene Rogers that simply ignore much of Scripture to underwrite another political psotions on sexual issues.

4)The desire to address the postmodern context with the resources available in Christian theology, especially through the lens of trinitarian theology and relational philosophy. Many evangelical thinkers are content to simply close their eyes and just mumble "nuh-uh!" (an example of this is the shoddy, lazy and inept work of Douglas Groothuis). Grenz is a great exception to this, and that is very commendable.


There arem unfortunately some elements of this book that I have some problems with. While I don't think they go to the thrust of Grenz's case, I do think that they are importany issues, hence I mention them.

1)There appears to be a neglect of the pneumatological element in the constitution of the trinitarian imago. While Grenz does delineate the role of the Spirit as that of placing believers in Christ and constituting them in their relations with each other, there seems to be an underdeveloped doctrine of the Spirit's role in the Trinity itself. If the imago dei truly is an image of the perichoretic life of the triune God, then it is important to delineate the nature of the triune life itself. Grenz appears to hold that the Spirit is the bond of love that unifies the Father and Son, relating them to one another and concretizing the unity of the triune God (p. 317). This is problematic in that it fails to delineate how the Spirit is himself constituted in his own distinct relations to the Father and Son. A consistent relational ontology would demand that attention be given to this facet of the trinitarian life. It is unclear how it is that he Spirit could be the "bond of love" between the Father and Son in any meaningful way. Colin Gunton proposes that we think of the Spirit as the mediator of the love, rather than the love itself (Act and Being, 104). However, is this a true solution to the problem? This does preserve more of the personal element of the Spirit's role, yet it still is unclear how the Spirit is constituted in his relations with the Father and Son and vice versa. It is unclear to me how the Spirit can give anything to the Father and Son other than what he is in his own personal particularity. Could it not be said that the Spirit, in accordance with his personal particularity relates himself to the Father and Son in such a way as to incline them to shower their loving affection upon one another? Could it not also be reasonably said that the Spirit relates to the Father and Son in this way because he delights to establish love and community? This also answers the question of how the Spirit is constituted in his own particular relations. It is his own distinct relations with the Father and Son that he is constituted as a particular hypostasis rather than in his relating of them to each other which seems to render him as nothing more than a divine conduit of love. Could this not also shed light on the Spirit's role in the formation of the love and unity of the church? Thus we could say that the Spirit relates himself to the particular members of the church is such a way as to incline them to love and unity with one another. This seems be something of a better approach than the traditional Augustinian response.

2)While Grenz's emphasis on the importance of sexuality for understanding the divine image is very helpful, there are some problematic tendencies here as well. First, it is difficult to see exactly how sexuality per se can be seen as the underlying impetus that drives human persons towards community. While sexuality is certainly one impetus towards relational bonding and communion, I don't see how it can be the only, or even the primary one. To make sexuality the prime driving force in the human need for communion seems to release a whole host of ethical problems if these issues are taken to their logical conclusion. How can the communal relationship between males in the church be truly thought of as "sexual"? This would seem to lead Grenz toward a view of homosexuality that he does not hold (see his "Welcoming but Not Affirming). Would it not be better to think of human sexuality as indicative of human personal particularity and differentiation that drives them towards a specific relationship, namely marriage? While marriage cannot be seen as the ultimate expression of the imago dei, it must not be removed from it's proper place in the created order, particularly as the image of the union that characterizes the union of Christ with the Church. In our discussions of human sexuality and the image of God, could we not say that marital sexual expression is the prolepsis of the mystical, marital union of Christ and the Church? This preserves the role of sexuality as part of the imago dei, while not absolutizing it in such a way as to make it of ultimate importance in discussing persons as persons-in-relation. Thus human sexuality is to be seen as a facet of the relationality of persons-in-relation, but not as the constitutive factor of it. Grenz seems to reduce all human relationality to sexuality and this seems to be problematic. We can certainly say that the ultimate fulfillment of humans as relational persons is in the eschatological community and new creation. But is all human relationality sexual? I would question if this is the case. Sexuality should be seen rather as one particular form of relationality, that is embodied proleptically in the marriage relationship of male and female and eschatologically in the marital union of Christ and the Church.

3)Grenz also seems slightly off the mark in his description of the imago dei as goal. His emphasis on the eschatological fulfillment of the image of God in the new creation seems to detract from the image as a reality that is present now. Although Grenz makes it clear that the image is realized proleptically in the present, the idea of the imago dei as the goal of being united in communion with the triune God and one another seems to detract from the idea that the image is a reality that is strictly relational. Would it not be better to say that for persons to be created in the image of God is to be persons-in-communion with the triune God and one another and that this communion is realized progressively in the economy of salvation, culminating in the eschaton? This seems to be the idea that Grenz has in view, but by expressing as a goal rather than simply as persons-in-communion realized eschatologically he seems to undercut his own thesis.

4)Another point concerns Grenz's discussion of the divine glory particularly in chapter 5. While he appears to define the divine glory in trinitarian terms relating it to the inter-trinitarian love at the end of the book (p. 335-336), this does not seem to be the emphasis in his discussion of the "glory-christology" in the New Testament. Grenz's work would benefit from clarification on this point.

All in all, I do recommend this book. For those that are just getting into trnitarian theology, this book will be very helpful. However, it is very important for the discerning reader to move on to some more substantial theologians that Grenz, such as Coling Gunton, Robert Jenson and John Zizioulas for starters.