Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Theological Anthropology

Humanity and Ministry in Light of God Becoming Human


December 10, 2014

A theological anthropology asks the question, What is humanity in light of God? There are as

many places to begin with this question as there are conceptionsor non-conceptionsof God. For a

Christian, though, the question narrows: What is humanity in light of God becoming human? This is a

christological anthropology. The place to begin with this question is the incarnation of Jesus, particularly his

life, death, and resurrection.

Creation

While the incarnation is the place to begin, it is not at the beginning. Therefore, I will briefly

address creation and the imago Dei which is the context in which the incarnation occurs. Most theological

anthropologies begin here. Moltmann (1993) states that the fundamental concept of theological

anthropology has been imago Dei (p. 215) and that theological anthropology should always have considered

the human being's likeness to God only in the context of the doctrine of creation (p. 215).

Much has been said concerning imago Dei. Moltmann and others have suggested that because of its

proximity to Gods self-referential plural and the designations male and female that it refers to the sexual

differentiation and community of human beings (p. 222). Moltmann also suggests that it refers to human

authority since it is followed by Gods command to subdue the earth and have dominion over its creatures

(Gen. 1:28 ESV). Many teachings have taken a more individual approach insisting that imago Dei refers to the

scope of human emotion or the unique ability for humans to reason.

These are all meaningful suggestions and aspects of humanity well worth reflecting on, yet it seems

that the phrase imago Dei is often a catch-all into which the anthropologist or theologian may import any

idea s/he wishes to perpetuate. In light of the royal nature of the Genesis 1 creation story and the ancient

near east monarchical culture, I understand imago Dei as not referring to what we are but rather why we are

and, more importantly, who God is. Ancient Kings, after establishing authority over a particular region,

1
would place images of themselves in public places as a declaration of their authority (Walton & Matthews,

1997, p. 18). We, therefore, exist not for the purpose of establishing our own authority over the earth, but

rather as a declaration of and means for Gods authority. The story goes on, however, to show that we have

badly abused that authority. Even so, God did not reject the humanity he had created to carry his authority,

but rather, in the incarnation, became one of us to display his perfect authority, be abused by ours, and

establish a new way.

Incarnation

The story begins with creation, but climaxes in the incarnation. This is the event which establishes

and addresses the question What is humanity in light of God becoming human? In order to establish a

christological anthropology, I will explore three primary aspects of the incarnation: the life, death, and

resurrection of Jesus.

Life

In creation, God created man in his likeness; in the incarnation, Jesus was born in the likeness of

men (Phil. 2:8). In Jesus, God became human and, though he in every respect [was] tempted as we are, he

lived without sin (Heb. 4:15). Jesus lived the perfect human life and therefore we can discover what

humanity ought to be by looking at the way he lived.

Many theological anthropologies teach human depravity. Colloquially, this can be heard in in the

get-out-of-jail-free phrase: Im only human. Theologies and phrases like this have a basic assumption that

humanity is inherently flawed. The incarnation forces us away from faulty assumptions like this because if

Jesus was both perfect and human, then imperfection is cannot be a core aspect of humanity. The incarnation

keeps us from too low a view of humanity because in Jesus human life we see perfection.

Jesus life also displays the nature and necessity of interpersonal relationships. Throughout the

gospels we can see that there is no one with whom Jesus would not associate. This is displayed in the

powerful reality of table fellowship. Jesus dines with sinners (Lk. 5:29), but he also sits at the table with

2
religious leaders (Lk. 7:36). Everyonerich and poor, young and old, men and womenis welcome at the

table with Jesus.

In addition to who Jesus lived his life with, we can also learn from how Jesus lived among them. This

is seen most particularly with his disciples. Throughout his life and ministry, Jesus lives in concentric

communal circles. From the crowds, Jesus selects twelve men to share himself more deeply with and within

those twelve, he goes even deeper with three. During the hours leading up to his death, Jesus is weeping and

crying out to God. Amidst those cries and tears, he calls to these three and asks them to pray with him. Jesus

life displays that persons have to be understood in social terms (McFadyen, 2000, p. 18). Martin Buber

(1958) describes the necessity of community when he says that I become through my relation to the Thou; as

I become I, I say Thou (p. 11). Jesus lived his life in intimate community because this is how we are as

humans.

Death

Jesus life was in community, but his death was in isolation; in life he perfectly displayed the

authority of God, but in death he was abused by the authorities. While Jesus life keeps us from too low a

view of humanity, Jesus death keeps us from too high a view of humanity. Alison (2007) describes the

human propensity toward violence in how the earliest forms of sacrifice were typically human sacrifice. He

goes on to say that We are the angry divinity. We are the ones inclined to dwell in wrath and think we need

vengeance in order to survive (p. 175). In Jesus death we see just how bad things have gone; we see how evil

humanity can be.

A more traditional theory of atonement would assert that Gods wrath burns against the evils of

humanity but that, through his death, Jesus has taken on the wrath of God and set things right again. In

Alisons view, we are the angry divinity, not God. He suggests that things are put right, not by Jesus

absorbing the wrath of God, but rather by placing himself as our victim and, therefore, absorbing our wrath

(p. 177).

3
A similar, yet different, approach to the atonement is laid out by N.T. Wright (2011b), who

introduces another character to the story. He writes that the real enemy was the anti-creation power, the

power of death and destruction, the force of accusation, the Accuser (p. 186). Wright insists that the

problem of evil is not merely something disrupting God and humanity, but that there is truly a supernatural

force of evil at work. Wright sees Jesus death as taking upon himself the Accusers sharpest arrow and,

dying under its force, robbing the Accuser of any further real power (p. 188). The problem of evil is dealt

with not by satisfying any angry deity, but rather by exhausting all of evils power. The limited authority of

evil dissipates while the limitless authority of God remains.

Resurrection

In Jesus life, we see that humanity is not all evil and that we are meant to live in diverse community.

In Jesus death, we see that humanity is capable of great evil and that Jesus bore that evil. It is in the next part

of the story that we truly see a way of moving forward.

The apostle Paul writes that if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile But in fact Christ has

been raised from the dead The last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Cor. 15:17-26). The resurrection

shows us that our evil, even the murder of an innocent maneven the murder of God, is not the end. The

resurrection shows us that, on the other side of evil, there is forgiveness; on the other side of death, there is

life. This means that we need not be paralyzed by shame but neither shall we perpetuate evil. In the

resurrection, Jesus has shown that there is a new way of living and displaying Gods authority. That new way

of living is through death and that new way of displaying authority is through sacrifice. Paul writes of how

Jesus did this in that, though [Jesus] was in the form of God, [he] did not count equality with God a thing to

be grasped, but emptied himself he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even

death on a cross. (Phil. 2:6-8) Jesus shows us a new way to live and a new way to image God. The imago

Christi is the restoration of the imago Dei. In some of his final words, Jesus helps us to return to the original

intent of imago Dei. Rather than abusing Gods authority, Jesus invites us to join him in perfectly displaying

4
it: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me And behold, I am with you always, to the

end of the age(Matt. 28:18-20).

So, what is humanity in light of God becoming human? We are individuals who live in diverse and

intimate communities with the ability to do both good and also great evil who have been forgiven our evils

and taught to forgive the evils done to us and ultimately tasked with the mission of carrying out Gods

perfect, loving authority on earth as it is in heaven.

Relation

If this is what humanity is in light of God becoming human, then how do we begin to live that out?

How do we carry and display Gods perfect authority? In his work, I and Thou, interpersonal philosopher,

Martin Buber (1958) insists that the eternal Thou is glimpsed through genuine relationship with one another

(p. 75). If we want to learn how to invite others to glimpse God and catch a glimpse ourselves, then we must

learn more about what it means to be in genuine relationship.

Buber describes genuine relationship as a spontaneous encounter of mutuality and reciprocity. This

means several things: Because it is spontaneous, genuine relationship cannot be planned. Buber writes that,

the Thou meets me through graceit is not found by seeking (p. 11). Genuine relationship requires an

open-handed expectancy that invites surprise. An open-handed sacrifice of authority is surrender, which Dr.

Roy Barsness (2006) writes about: The willingness of surrender is not submission to the domination of the

other, which submission connotes, but a willingness to be open to the surprise of what more can be revealed

and what new meaning can be achieved [Submission] wills its person to the domination of the other;

surrender wills itself to the discovery of the other (p. 47).

Barsness discussion of submission and surrender leads the way to the ideas of mutuality and

reciprocity. Because genuine relationships are mutual and reciprocal, they cannot be forced. One cannot

force genuine relationship upon another, but rather it must be received. The only way to invite this kind of

reception is by living in a stance of offering oneself to the other. Barsness continues to write about the

5
challenge of this by affirming that, letting go of tightly held defenses is a terrifying act, not a comforting

one, (p. 48) and that, this act of mutual surrender does not come easily (p. 48). The kind of vulnerable

surrender that led Jesus to the cross is the same kind that will lead us to genuine relationships. It is terrifying

and risky, but it opens up the possibility of glimpsing God.

This vulnerable, spontaneous, mutual surrender is the kind of living that Jesus invites us to in his

resurrection. After his resurrection, Jesus met with his disciples and offered his wounds to them. He let them

see and even touch the marks of the nails and the spear. We, too, are called to offer our wounds to others and

sometimes even those wounds that have not yet healed. For, in offering them, the glimpse of God in the

other may bring about a healing we never would have received apart from vulnerability.

Vocation

As a final movement in this paper, I will explore some implications this theological anthropology has

for my own vocation. In many ways these would apply to any particular person, but I hope to specifically

address and challenge myself through these implications.

One of the most profound implications of a christological anthropology is that, through the

incarnation, God is present in humanity. This is what Buber means when he writes that, In each Thou we

address the eternal Thou (p. 6). This is what Barsness means when he writes that, Surrender sets in

motion a search for the sacred (p. 48). All too often, pastors operate as though they carry the presence of

God to those who are without God. While it is true that pastors carry the presence of God, there is so much

being lost in the assumption that those to whom they minister are without God. Ray Anderson (1982)

addresses this problem when he writes about the cure of souls, The Spirit of Christ is not an attribute

restricted to the professional minister or practitioner of healing. Christ is on the side of the one who is in

need of healing, not merely on the side of the healer. He goes on to say that the task of helping persons is

that one does not bring Christ to the other person, but one expects to meet Christ in the other person (p.

201).

6
As I enter into pastoral ministry, I hope to grow in awareness of the presence of God in me while

also searching for the presence of God in others. It would be a great shame to assume that I carry the

presence of God and that those to whom I minister do not. I would lose so many opportunities to encounter

God and I would rob them of the divinity that they carry. Throughout my ministry, whether that is teaching,

preaching, or counseling, I hope to constantly be a reminder of gracenot only the grace that others can

receive, but also the grace that they can o fer; not only the grace that God has for them, but also the grace that

God has in them.

In considering Bubers idea of mutuality, I hope to carry this into the way that I minister to others.

As a pastor, it is tempting to put on the facade of perfection so that one can perfectly care for others. Yet, I

hope to honestly bear my own wounds in a way that allows for mutual care-taking. Many times I will care for

people in my congregation, but many times I will be cared for by them. I hope to live in such a way that

invites a mutual giving and receiving of care.

Additionally, just as Jesus lived in intimate community and just as the doctrine of the trinity displays

God as in community, I hope to lead my vocation in community. The gospel calls for a decentralization of

power just as the imago Dei calls for the shared bearing of authority. There is a necessity of variety, diversity,

and multiplicity in leadership and care. Throughout my time as a pastor, I will always seek out others to lead

with whether this is through a community of elders, a team of ministers, or a panel of parishioners. The

abuse of authority is real and the surrender of it unto others is the call of the gospel, the new way of living

through death into resurrection.

In light of God becoming human in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus we can see that humans

are created to live in diverse and intimate communities; that we are both individually and systemically

capable of great harm and great good; that we have been forgiven and taught to forgive; that we are tasked

with bearing Gods perfect, loving authority through genuine relationship that occurs spontaneously through

7
mutual surrender. As a pastor, I hope to vocationally embody these things through looking for God in the

other, inviting mutual care, and leading in community with others.

Christ above me
Christ beside me
Christ within me
Ever guiding
Christ behind me
Christ before
Christ my love
My life my Lord

Bread of life from heaven
Lover of my soul
Peace of God so ever present
I surrender my control

Mercy everlasting
Tenderness divine
Word of God so ever healing
I surrender heart and mind

George T. Searcy & John Chisum

8
References

Alison, J. (2007). Chapter 5: Gods Self Substitution and Sacri icial Inversion. In Stricken by God? Nonviolent

Identification and the Victory of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Anderson, R. (1982). Chapter 13: A theological perspective on the cure of souls. In On being human: Essays in

theological anthropology (pp. 194-206). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Barsness, R. (2006). Surrender and transcendence in the therapeutic encounter. Journal of Psychology and

Christianity, 25(1), 45-54.

Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Scribners.

McFadyen, A.I. (2000). Chapter 1: The creation of individuality in Gods image: Trinity, persons, gender and

dialogue. In The call to personhood (pp. 17-44). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Moltmann, J. (1993). God in creation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Searcy, G. T. (Music), & Chisum, J. (Lyrics). (1999). Christ above me [ZOE Group]. On Heart of Worship

[CD]. Brentwood, TN: The Zoe Group. (2000).

Walton, J. H., & Matthews, V. H. (1997). The IVP Bible background commentary: Genesis--Deuteronomy.

Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

Wright, N. T. (2011). Simply Jesus: who he was, what he did, why it matters. New York: HarperOne.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen