I think it's N. T. Wright who talks about 'pistis' being understood as 'loyalty' which I've always liked as an active form of 'faith'. Am I being loyal to Jesus and God? Am I acting in the way a loyalty servant does?
Also makes me think of the loving servant with the pierced ear - the desire to choose to remain my lord's servant, not out of obligation but out of a deep love that causes me to want to serve him.
Magnificent, yet again. And I couldn't agree more: 'the immediate meaning of imago dei is found in our role much more than in our rights.’ This is of the upmost importance, as you brought out wonderfully.
Again, truly wonderful!! These just keep getting better and better. I love the deep dive into the meaning of words to help us understand what God meant when He said what He said.
"The physics of true lordship is steadfast love. Nothing easy about it. But, again, he is patient. And when the day comes, when his call rings true in our hearts, he will only speak a word, and we will be his. It will be almost…easy."
When you talk about humans calling forth creation in that call and response, there is a hint there in Moses and Joshua. Moses though (to my recollection) does not call the ground to open up and yet it somehow obeys. And of course with Joshua and the famous passage of making the sun stand still. A hint of that authority.
Excellent work. Was studying Judges 15 this morning and the story of Samson killing the thousand with a jawbone. Some strong symbolism at play there. Jawbone is of the mouth. God through Smason using a weak, disgraceful, unclean weapon that comes from the mouth to display His power and sovereign authority was gripping. God defeats His enemies not by the sword alone, but primarily by His Word. Divine, authoritative word over brute force, and through a broken and defiled vessel. The jawbone is a symbol of Samson himself, a weak and unclean instrument but unthinkably powerful in the hands of the redeemer.
Woah. Yeah, the jawbone as broken-call-and-response-slowly-being-redeemed is a great picture of Samson's whole life. I've never thought about that. Profound.
I’ve been really really encouraged by your work. Can’t stress that enough. I’ve been sharing it with ppl, and will def be using it at some point as a reference to teach. The analogy of the prince knowing his royal rights but not exercising his royal responsibilities was clear and helpful. I’m mostly approaching your work because of my deep convictions about the home and the biblical household order. Seems like this is where our understanding of authority begins on earth. It all starts at home. And it seems to be almost completely lost from our social imaginary, even in the church. But your work here is really helpful to me as I am working to re-enchant ppl’s beliefs about the home and God’s gift of the household order. Anyway, would love to keep in touch here. And will keep reading your work. Thanks.
Thank you, Jeff. I agree this kind of insight/authority begins in the home, and I agree that it is deeply overlooked in our moment. Glad you are recognizing that too! And I'm so glad this stuff has resonated with you. Hope you like the next one!
'Crowns are made for service'. That's it right there; the failure of western culture to be more than the philosophical/theological justification for various forms of individual and corporate oppression is in its failure to acknowledge this point, and to do something with it. I'm not blind to the good things in western culture, and I'm quite capable of enjoying many of them, but the point remains.
Those who would be the greatest among you must be the servants of all. Wives, submit to your husbands. You hear that verse used by Christians to justify the subjugation of those they should be helping to flourish. I could provide some links from downunder, but I wouldn't reckon I need to.
Thanks for this, much food for thought here, as always.
Well said, John. You are not wrong! Our failures to embody this truth abound. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. Part 3 out today or tomorrow.
"The physics of true lordship is steadfast love." Amen! Last night I was thinking how abiding sounds passive to our modern ears, but it is wildly active and radically restful all at the same time. I think this definition of abiding is inherently linked to dominion.
Yes! Wildly active and radically restful. I love it. We just don't see how good God's calling on our lives is. His yoke is easy and his burden is light.
Continuing to read (and adding on to this comment!).
This statement Ross!!! 👉🏻 ""Dominion” as the telos of redemption." !!!! YES. YES. YES. If my kids were not napping, I would literally be shouting "YYEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS LORD" through the roof right now.
I'm a little late to the table, but I wanted to say I really appreciated this piece. I really liked your distinction between power and authority, trust and trustworthiness, and I think that's helpful. I also thought it was a good reminder that God's rule and reign flows through us - so dominion comes as service and faithfulness to God. Last, the imagery of the "comsic middleman" was great! I've been reading Alexander Schmemann's "For the Life of the World" and early on he discusses the role of humans as priests...he, like you, has some great language for it. Thank you for sharing!
I wonder if I could share a couple of additional thoughts, too. Well...I'm going to anyway. :)
One place I found some hesitation is the idea that "purpose precedes value," or that purpose is the ground of value. I don't disagree with what you're getting at....we are called to have authority in Christ and join him in his kingdom. I only hesitate because "purpose" can quickly devolve into usefulness, productivity, capability, etc. I know that's not what you're saying here, but I think it is an important consideration.
Part of what came to mind for me was Henri Nouwen's life at L'Arche and the way living with people with profound disabilities radically reshaped his understanding of the imago Dei. Many of those individuals would not have "usefulness" or even "purpose" in the way our culture tends to define it. And again, I know that's not what you're intending. But I think it might be an example of how slippery the language can be. If value is grounded in purpose, what happens when a person's purpose isn't legible to us? Or when it doesn't look like agency, dominion, productivity...you get the point.
That's also part of why artmaking came to mind. My favorite artist - Makoto Fujimura - often talks about art's inherent uselessness. And that's part of its glorious resistance. Its value isn't reducible to what it does. In that way, our art becomes connected to God's Art of creation. God did not need us to fulfill some purpose that he couldn't (something I'm positive we agree on), but that creation comes out of gratuitous extravagance and delight. God does give humanity purpose, but it seems like there is value before purpose is given. We have purpose because we are beloved by God.
Adam 1 as the figure of dominion and Adam 2 as the figure of relational communion/covenant. It's a tricky balancing act. To get to true dominion, as you point out, we must go through love. And to love, we must exercise what I'd call reciprocating authority. No matter how watered down the meaning of love has (or will) become, we cannot divorce humanity's purpose within love.
One final thought that will bring it full circle I think - as we try to unwrap what Jesus means in these teachings, I think any assessment of his purpose has to be done from the bottom. Jesus identified his kingdom with the poor in spirit, the meek, the grieving, the persecuted, the child, the outcast, the marginalized. So rather than beginning with the upper end of capacity, capability, agency, or cultural competence, I wonder if we should begin by looking at these teachings through the eyes of a child, or someone dependent, or marginalized, before moving "upward" into other areas.
That's not to make everything about power or social dynamics. I just think Jesus seems to reveal the kingdom from below. So any account of dominion or authority has to make sense first from the underside, before it makes sense from strengths or competence.
Anyway, I really appreciated this piece, and it quite obviously created some good food for thought for me. Hope you are well - and hope this is not received as any sort of "correction", but just "Hey, here's what this made me think of" as is the mark of any good writing. :-) Steady on.
Babe, if you would simply feed him or take him for a walk every once in a while, the dog would probably listen to you.
Hahaha
I think it's N. T. Wright who talks about 'pistis' being understood as 'loyalty' which I've always liked as an active form of 'faith'. Am I being loyal to Jesus and God? Am I acting in the way a loyalty servant does?
Also makes me think of the loving servant with the pierced ear - the desire to choose to remain my lord's servant, not out of obligation but out of a deep love that causes me to want to serve him.
Man, that image of the pierced ear. Perfect. And yes about loyalty! Matthew Bates has also used the word "allegiance" to the same effect.
Magnificent, yet again. And I couldn't agree more: 'the immediate meaning of imago dei is found in our role much more than in our rights.’ This is of the upmost importance, as you brought out wonderfully.
Agreed! Not talked about enough. Thanks, as always. Honored to have someone like you all reading my stuff. Makes me not feel crazy or alone.
Thank you for writing such awesome work! I look forward to your writing. I’m always better for reading it.
Again, truly wonderful!! These just keep getting better and better. I love the deep dive into the meaning of words to help us understand what God meant when He said what He said.
"The physics of true lordship is steadfast love. Nothing easy about it. But, again, he is patient. And when the day comes, when his call rings true in our hearts, he will only speak a word, and we will be his. It will be almost…easy."
Amazing!!!
Thanks Teodora. You have a knack for picking my favorite moments in these pieces. Really encouraging.
When you talk about humans calling forth creation in that call and response, there is a hint there in Moses and Joshua. Moses though (to my recollection) does not call the ground to open up and yet it somehow obeys. And of course with Joshua and the famous passage of making the sun stand still. A hint of that authority.
Yes definitely! Both men, in their own way, are images of reclaiming Adam’s dominion in some small way.
Excellent work. Was studying Judges 15 this morning and the story of Samson killing the thousand with a jawbone. Some strong symbolism at play there. Jawbone is of the mouth. God through Smason using a weak, disgraceful, unclean weapon that comes from the mouth to display His power and sovereign authority was gripping. God defeats His enemies not by the sword alone, but primarily by His Word. Divine, authoritative word over brute force, and through a broken and defiled vessel. The jawbone is a symbol of Samson himself, a weak and unclean instrument but unthinkably powerful in the hands of the redeemer.
Woah. Yeah, the jawbone as broken-call-and-response-slowly-being-redeemed is a great picture of Samson's whole life. I've never thought about that. Profound.
I’ve been really really encouraged by your work. Can’t stress that enough. I’ve been sharing it with ppl, and will def be using it at some point as a reference to teach. The analogy of the prince knowing his royal rights but not exercising his royal responsibilities was clear and helpful. I’m mostly approaching your work because of my deep convictions about the home and the biblical household order. Seems like this is where our understanding of authority begins on earth. It all starts at home. And it seems to be almost completely lost from our social imaginary, even in the church. But your work here is really helpful to me as I am working to re-enchant ppl’s beliefs about the home and God’s gift of the household order. Anyway, would love to keep in touch here. And will keep reading your work. Thanks.
Thank you, Jeff. I agree this kind of insight/authority begins in the home, and I agree that it is deeply overlooked in our moment. Glad you are recognizing that too! And I'm so glad this stuff has resonated with you. Hope you like the next one!
'Crowns are made for service'. That's it right there; the failure of western culture to be more than the philosophical/theological justification for various forms of individual and corporate oppression is in its failure to acknowledge this point, and to do something with it. I'm not blind to the good things in western culture, and I'm quite capable of enjoying many of them, but the point remains.
Those who would be the greatest among you must be the servants of all. Wives, submit to your husbands. You hear that verse used by Christians to justify the subjugation of those they should be helping to flourish. I could provide some links from downunder, but I wouldn't reckon I need to.
Thanks for this, much food for thought here, as always.
Well said, John. You are not wrong! Our failures to embody this truth abound. Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. Part 3 out today or tomorrow.
Ross, you might make a Christian out of me yet. Please, God!
Ha! One of these days…
"The physics of true lordship is steadfast love." Amen! Last night I was thinking how abiding sounds passive to our modern ears, but it is wildly active and radically restful all at the same time. I think this definition of abiding is inherently linked to dominion.
Yes! Wildly active and radically restful. I love it. We just don't see how good God's calling on our lives is. His yoke is easy and his burden is light.
Phenomenal stuff.
Thanks Sid. Means a lot.
This is so good, bro. 10 out 10.
Continuing to read (and adding on to this comment!).
This statement Ross!!! 👉🏻 ""Dominion” as the telos of redemption." !!!! YES. YES. YES. If my kids were not napping, I would literally be shouting "YYEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS LORD" through the roof right now.
BRO!
No way. Man, so glad it resonates. Been difficult for me to communicate (as you can tell with the multi-part scheme)! But yes, feels so important.
Man, the way you laid out "Trust" vs "Trustworthiness" and the picture, and the X being faith... so good. Thank you Lord for Ross.
Thanks Andrew. Really.
Hi Ross!
I'm a little late to the table, but I wanted to say I really appreciated this piece. I really liked your distinction between power and authority, trust and trustworthiness, and I think that's helpful. I also thought it was a good reminder that God's rule and reign flows through us - so dominion comes as service and faithfulness to God. Last, the imagery of the "comsic middleman" was great! I've been reading Alexander Schmemann's "For the Life of the World" and early on he discusses the role of humans as priests...he, like you, has some great language for it. Thank you for sharing!
I wonder if I could share a couple of additional thoughts, too. Well...I'm going to anyway. :)
One place I found some hesitation is the idea that "purpose precedes value," or that purpose is the ground of value. I don't disagree with what you're getting at....we are called to have authority in Christ and join him in his kingdom. I only hesitate because "purpose" can quickly devolve into usefulness, productivity, capability, etc. I know that's not what you're saying here, but I think it is an important consideration.
Part of what came to mind for me was Henri Nouwen's life at L'Arche and the way living with people with profound disabilities radically reshaped his understanding of the imago Dei. Many of those individuals would not have "usefulness" or even "purpose" in the way our culture tends to define it. And again, I know that's not what you're intending. But I think it might be an example of how slippery the language can be. If value is grounded in purpose, what happens when a person's purpose isn't legible to us? Or when it doesn't look like agency, dominion, productivity...you get the point.
That's also part of why artmaking came to mind. My favorite artist - Makoto Fujimura - often talks about art's inherent uselessness. And that's part of its glorious resistance. Its value isn't reducible to what it does. In that way, our art becomes connected to God's Art of creation. God did not need us to fulfill some purpose that he couldn't (something I'm positive we agree on), but that creation comes out of gratuitous extravagance and delight. God does give humanity purpose, but it seems like there is value before purpose is given. We have purpose because we are beloved by God.
I found myself thinking about Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik's Adam 1 and Adam 2 distinction. This piece that came out close to yours was a great read: https://secondvoice.substack.com/p/what-is-the-divine-image-in-the-age
Adam 1 as the figure of dominion and Adam 2 as the figure of relational communion/covenant. It's a tricky balancing act. To get to true dominion, as you point out, we must go through love. And to love, we must exercise what I'd call reciprocating authority. No matter how watered down the meaning of love has (or will) become, we cannot divorce humanity's purpose within love.
One final thought that will bring it full circle I think - as we try to unwrap what Jesus means in these teachings, I think any assessment of his purpose has to be done from the bottom. Jesus identified his kingdom with the poor in spirit, the meek, the grieving, the persecuted, the child, the outcast, the marginalized. So rather than beginning with the upper end of capacity, capability, agency, or cultural competence, I wonder if we should begin by looking at these teachings through the eyes of a child, or someone dependent, or marginalized, before moving "upward" into other areas.
That's not to make everything about power or social dynamics. I just think Jesus seems to reveal the kingdom from below. So any account of dominion or authority has to make sense first from the underside, before it makes sense from strengths or competence.
Anyway, I really appreciated this piece, and it quite obviously created some good food for thought for me. Hope you are well - and hope this is not received as any sort of "correction", but just "Hey, here's what this made me think of" as is the mark of any good writing. :-) Steady on.