1. Introduction
What is the kind of anthropology
that is beneficial
for the global man today? The 21st Century African man is faced with
a variety of influences that inform his humanity and his interpretation of the
world and God. The 21st Century African man finds himself in a metropolis,
where no singular and objective foundation of meaning is accorded to him. The
African Scholar J. N. K. Mugambi observes “the greatest evidences of anarchical
tendencies is in the urban centres – which, sociologically and universally, are
associated with individual freedom from, anonymity, mobility, opportunity,
flexibility and plurality.”[1]
Mugambi observes that other scholars see this
plurality of phenomenon as a success. Yet, a quick observation of the daily
news articles paints a different picture: Religious wars, political and social
anarchy, economic and health deprivation, capitalism, broken relationships and
death. How then is man to find meaning in this cacophony of human experiences?
Different philosophies and worldviews are quick to offer “spiritual” solutions
without any idealistic definition of the term “spiritual.” Different religious
and political leaders seem to offer the best and unique solution yet their
character remains antithetic towards what they preach. In short, there are
presently very many voices that have left the 21st century man and
woman empty and without hope. At the very least, man is confused with the
variety of choices with which to choose from.
However, this confusion stems from the postmodern
worldview that is prevalent in our times. In a sociological framework,
postmodernity,
as a recent development of
modernity, can be typified by several cultural factors. A leading feature of
postmodernity is the breakdown of social and religious consensus, or rampant
pluralism, which tends to fray social cohesion . . . Postmodern social
experience in general saturates the self with a welter of conflicting and
confusing images and ideas, with little unity and coherence at hand.[2]
Hence the
main question of this paper will be: what sort of anthropology will provide a
coherent understanding of man today? In lieu of postmodern pluralism, what kind
of theology of man can provide meaning and hope for man to interpret his past
and live for his future? As opposed to cultural romantics, this paper will seek
to understand the context of man and how he can find true freedom. So as not to
sound equivocal, this paper will argue for the ultimate freedom that can be
found in Christ, so that man can be who he was meant to be. In the words of
Jesus to those who had believed in him, “If you follow my teaching, you are
really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you
free.”[3]
Accordingly, fragments of man will survey what other worldviews suggest of man
whereas a hope for man will be founded on a hopeful biblical anthropology.
2. Fragments of Man
Since
man finds himself in a pluralistic world, he has developed different
“fragments” of man – different articulations of what it is to be human. Mahatma
Gandhi, inspired by the injustices in his world, is renowned for the phrase “be
the change you want to see.” Whereas this phrase is a favourite among social
activists, the presupposition behind it may be different from the activist’s.
This humanist bias focuses on “the creations of the human mind and imagination
because of a conviction that human beings have inherent dignity and that what they
do can be noble and inspiring.”[4]
In harmony with this, the writer of the Psalms quips:
What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you
care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned
him with glory and honour. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you
put everything under his feet.
Here we see that
Christians are by some loose definition, humanists – They cannot acquiesce in a
philosophy which denies the goodness of God’s creation by degrading humanity.
There is a God-given dignity to man . . . [5]
Yet this definition is loose because despite this goodness, something within
the nature of man seems to be amiss. Despite the fact that he has dynamic
creative power, his innovation has sometimes run amuck. From historical annuls
the example of Hitler and the concentration camps of Auschwitz and the Hutsi
and Tutsi genocide of Rwanda serve as vivid illustration of this point.
Some still have
developed a fanaticism of scientism. They have believed that scientific inquiry
best interprets human experience. Hence, man has developed magnificent and at
times queer scientific advancements in technology. They have been held captive
by a naturalistic idea that “man is matter”, a constitution of random atomic
collisions. The evangelical philosopher Gordon H. Clark observes the extent of
the theory of evolution in providing an understanding of man in the twentieth
century.[6]
In his critique of evolution, Clark observes that it has served to demarcate
racial lines as well as inhibit the scientific process. In light of this, his
rebuttal is that the doctrine of creation, which we shall look at in the
following sections, gives coherence to anthropology.[7]
Christian theologians take a similar view of evolution theory. They have often
asserted that man is to be judged by what he is and not how he has come to be.[8]
Despite the fact that this is not a conclusive reason, in this pluralistic
setting, being grounded in Christian teaching is crucial in protecting us from
a syncretic understanding of ourselves, our world and God.
This appeal to
rationality and empiricism has drawn attention away from theism and seeks to
understand man from his own vantage point, his own experience. This type of existential
worldview is captured well by Soren Kierkegaard’s story in William Barrett’s Irrational Man, that the absent minded man is so abstracted
from his own life that he hardly knows he exists until one morning he wakes up
to find himself dead.[9]
In our contemporary times, this is evidential of what life today looks like. A
great appeal is given to man and his existence here in this world and all that
it has to offer, that it seems that this reality is all that there is.
Hence man becomes
fascinated by some aspect of his experience that he decides to live his whole
life for it. For instance, man is seen as a machine, his purpose only in the
production process and this is what may have lead to workaholic-ism; Man has
been seen only in an economic sense, many living “to make money” – perhaps why
the African, because of the prevalent poverty has focused so much on the daily
bread that he has, for good reason, not thought of systematic and sustainable
ways of empowering himself out of the predicaments he meets. These views have
been very subjective and one-sided, and the consequences have been obliterating
for man.
The gap between
the haves and have-nots is on the rise with an increase in capitalism, as
opposed to the nationalism and socialism of the founding African fathers. The
youth have lacked opportunities because of the greed of a few and lack of
supportive social structures, and hence chosen idleness, violence, early
pregnancy, drug abuse and suicide. Socialist regimes and programs have only
served to strengthen capitalism and anarchy, when the middle class rise to
power. New Age spirituality has remained non-committal and only served to
foster restlessness within the souls of seekers, for in the words of Augustine,
“man is restless until his soul rests in God.” A form of secularity[10]
has provided a safe haven for religious people yet denying the power of God.
The apostle Paul
writing to Timothy, prophetically paints a modern day picture of man: “People
will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive,
disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving,
slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous,
rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.”[11]
While this may not offer a concise summary of the consequences, it is clear
that hope for man seems elusive. These fragments of man give us a sweep of the
various interpretations of man and his world, and the coming sections will
serve to provide a coherent synthesis of man and hence chart a hope for him for
his day and future progeny.
3. Toward a Hope for Man
These preceding
paragraphs have served to show that man’s efforts to understand himself have
generally led towards a cycle of vanity. When two men are drowning in a pool of
water, then none can save the other. The only way of escape, no matter how
foolish or simple or different it may seem, is if one is thrown a straw and
hence the proverbial sentiment “a drowning man will clutch at a straw.” But the
question then is what straw? Who will avail it? Despite man’s dignity and
superiority in the created order, we see that things have not yet been brought
under the subjection of his feet. To answer,
The question regarding the significance of man’s creation in the divine
is raised on the opening page of the Bible, but it is not clearly resolved
until we come to the revelation in the New Testament that Christ himself, the
Son, the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). This discourse is indisputably
of immense consequence if we wish to establish a right understanding of the
nature of man; for it points us to the truth that the authentic identity of man
can be grasped only though the knowledge of man’s relationship to Christ – a
relationship which, far from having the beginning with the incarnation of the
Son of God at Bethlehem, extends right back to the creation itself, and even
beyond that to the eternal distinction within the unity of the Godhead between
the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[12]
The
clergyman Philip Edgcumbe Hughes offers a biblical portrait for the
understanding of man: He draws our attention form our autonomy to the idea that
the knowledge of revelation[13]
gives a holistic and intimate way of understanding man. The next sections are
going to survey this so that we can understand man and how historically and
providentially, he finds himself where he is.
a) The Creation of Man: Where does it Begin?
i) The Image of God
An assumption here
is made that man was created in the image of God as scripture accounts for. The
question begs, how and why? Hughes writes that “it is in this charter of his
constitution that man’s uniqueness is specifically affirmed as a creature
radically distinguished from all other creatures.”[14]
Knowing the nature of God as an independent being, still he speaks of his sons
and daughters from the ends of the earth as those whom “I created for my glory” (Isa. 43:7; cf. Eph.
1:11-12). Therefore we are able to “do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).[15]
Grudem here concurs with Hughes that “this fact guarantees that our lives are
significant. When we first realize that God did not need to create us and does
need us for anything, we could conclude that our lives have no importance at
all. But scripture tells that we were created to glorify God . . .”[16]
The Creation
account of Gen. 1:26 – 27 is the quintessential text for the fact that we are
created in God’s image. Clearly, we learn that it was an initiative of God, and
that to be fully human means to understand our story from History – His Story,
the redemption of man to Himself. The “let us” and Elohim of Gen. 1.1 indicate the plurality-in-unity aspect of the
triune God, perhaps an echo of a redeemed human community. This aspect of
familial relationship can be seen in Eph. 3:14-15, and we gather that it is
rooted in the relationship of Father, Son and Spirit. Hughes reflects, “The
postulation of the divine plurality-in-unity is no mere theoretical abstraction
or speculation. On the contrary it attests the truth, so important for our
understanding of man’s creation in the divine image, that God being triune, is
a personal God.”[17]
This idea of man
being a personal being differentiates him from other creatures, that we are
capable of personal fellowship with and personal response to our personal
creator.[18]
Whereas religion aimlessly seeks a path to a G(g)od whom they do not know, God
the personal, revelatory God has created us in a manner that we can relate with
Him and know him and indeed this is life.[19]
True, meaningful life is knowing God. Yet in light of our depravities,
imperfections, weaknesses, how can we relate with such a God who is so Perfect,
Holy, Magnificent, Pure and perfect in Righteousness?
“Image of God” has
been interpreted differently by different people, but nonetheless, we can see
some common areas of similarity or compatibility with God. Dr. Ness, Lecturer
of Anthropology identifies ten aspects that this image can be fully appreciated
and that we can refer to. Man is a: Social being, multiply-united being,
creative being, spiritual being, communicative being, controlling being,
intelligent/rational being, emotional/aesthetic being, volitional being and
moral/just being.[20]
As opposed to some of the earlier view elucidated here, this view sees man as a
holistic being, without an overemphasis on any one aspect. This is as opposed
to the dichotomy that Western theology and philosophy is blamed for.
ii) The Essential Nature of Man
What
constitutes man? Generally, three views of the nature of man are commonplace in
Christian theology.[21]
Most people agree that we have physical bodies. In addition to this, some
believe that we also possess “soul” and “spirit”, one school seeing them as one
and the other school as separate: the former view is called dichotomy (body and soul/spirit) whereas
the latter view is called trichotomy (body,
soul and spirit). The third view is mainly a non-Christian view that sees human
nature as only made up of the body and that the body is the person, and is
referred to as monism.[22]
The
evidence for the man possessing a soul or spirit is seen in Gen. 2:7 where the
word “breathed” is rendered nephesh in
Hebrew, meaning soul or life. Moreover, Christian teaching informs us that we
are to grow in holiness in all aspects of our lives, bodies as well as souls (1
Cor. 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1).[23]
From scriptural evidence, there are many places where soul is used
interchangeably with spirit, hence lending credibility to the view of
dichotomy.[24]
We
observed earlier that Western thought borrows from the greek idea that matter
is evil and some of the trichotomists, in Grudem’s view, usually fall into this
error. However, a holistic view of man is crucial in our understanding of man
and would help us not to neglect any areas of our human nature, such as
intellects, emotions or physical bodies.[25]
This error of Gnosticism that sought to uphold the idea of an immaterial part
of man existing without the body is what John writes against in John 1. Since
Jesus took the body of a man, it is a reminder that the body is crucial for our
humanity. Our body is the vehicle for our souls or spirit, without which our
spirituality as human beings would be non-existent.
Robert
H. Gundry summarizes,
In sum, the consistently substatival meaning of the term sōma protects the functional element
proper to that term. That element consists in the instrumental function of the
physical body, a function necessary to human existence. Consequently, sōma bars ascetism and mysticism,
withdrawal from history and society. Spiritualizing idealism, romanticism,
introvertive existentialism – somatic anthropology excludes them. Positively,
the physicalness of sōma affirms
life in a material world and our responsibility for it. We do not escape
non-Christian materialism by flight, but through sanctification. By assuring
the importance of materiality in the future through physical resurrection, sōma insures the importance of materiality
in the present. Thus theology retains its this-worldly relevance along with its
other-worldly hope.[26]
This then forms
a balanced, holistic and impactful anthropology: an understanding that man’s
body is that which enables him to relate and experience the external world, and
that of others; that man’s image is holistic and not only spiritual; and one
that has consequences for upright living and sharing the message of redemption
to other men and women.
b) The Fall of Man: What is wrong with man?
The fall of man is
synonymous with sin, yet many schools of thought even deny the very existence
of sin. Also, the way sin has been talked about makes many people averse to it.
But looking at world events and history, isn’t it plausible that there is
something inherently wrong with man? Take for instance the Westgate terror
attack in Nairobi Kenya in the year 2013: What would motivate people to mass
murder other fellow human beings, both young and old? Looking back to the
Crusades, where one religion was against the other, what would be the reason
that ‘religious’ people would resort to such behaviour?
Some answer that
man is hopeless, he cannot help himself. Others still claim that it is only the
flesh of man that is corrupted. Are these views realistic or true? To some
extent. However, on the other hand, as we have seen, this same man is still
capable of some good acts. Additionally, we find that it is not just the flesh
of man that is corrupted, but the soul. It is not only in the outward
expressions of man that we see failure, but these are influenced and fuelled by
man’s inner dispositions. Within man lurk the emotions of anger, lust,
prejudice and hatred. No wonder Jesus talking to the Pharisees in the Sermon of
the Mount expounded on the religious teachings of his tradition when he said,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her
in his heart” (Mt. 5:27-28). Clearly, there was something inherently wrong with
man, and indeed, there is something inherently wrong with man.
Having established
this fact, then we can define sin as “any failure to conform to the moral law
of God in act, attitude, or nature . . . Sin includes not only individual acts
such as stealing or lying or committing murder, but also attitudes that are
contrary to the attitudes God requires of us.”[27]
Hence we see here a relationship between sin and God’s moral character: Knowing
God as the Holy One of Israel, perfectly righteous, the perfect one, the loving
one etcetera (Deut. 32:4; Gen 18:15; Job 34:10; James 1:13), then sin is what
is contrary to these attributes. Hence,
Sin is directly opposite to all that is good in the character of
God, and just as God necessarily and eternally delights in himself and in all
that he is, so God necessarily and eternally hates sin. It is, in essence, the
contradiction of the excellence of his moral character. It contradicts his
holiness, and he must hate it.[28]
In
the Creation narrative, we see that man’s fall came as a result of Satan and
his legion of demons. In fact the fall of these angels in the angelic world,
from scriptural evidence, was prior to man’s existence hence showing that sin was
present before man existed. When man fell, his definition of “what is right?”
changed and was based on their own evaluation of what was good for them, rather
than what God’s word defined.[29]
Is it no wonder
then that man’s justice when making moral decisions changes and is not founded
many times on any standard? Is it not why today man choses the right thing and
tomorrow his standard changes? It is the reason why many times, man misses the mark. It is the reason why
man seems to be swayed to and fro by different currents of wind such that he
has no hope of foundation. This is what is wrong with man: not social injustice,
or poverty, or prejudice – These are the symptoms of the sin that lies within
and in the environment of man.
c) The Restoration for Man: The Hope for Man
Despite the fact
that this makes man guilty of his life, fortunately there is hope. Despite the
fact that contemporary culture and the world offers many roads to salvation,
there is one that has been charted by the Creator and Redeemer-God for those
who acknowledge their helplessness and put their faith in Him: To those who
call out to his name will be saved and restored, progressively to that image of
God. Despite the fact that man misses the mark, and rebells against God, the
fact that God chose to identify Himself with man, to be with him, answers man’s
question about himself,
‘God with us – Immanuel’, God with us, non-divine and godless men;
this is here the answer to man’s question about himself. Man is not thereby
really told who he is in fact basically, what he can do or cannot do, what he
should and should not do. A history is opened up to him into which God’s
promise will lead him in the future. A new possibility of being is opened up to
him as a prospect, a possibility of being in community with God. Man does not
come to see himself here as it were in a new mirror. He acquires a new face. He
experiences his definition in his actual historical call; and if he trusts
himself to it and forgets himself, he experiences his life in the story of God
with him.[30]
Here then we see a hope for man. Man
no longer needs to look at himself but look above. But how is this aspect of
God being with us made a reality? How is the image of man restored to the very
center of man? The scriptural idea that God became flesh, and lived amongst us
shows that in every way the God-Man, Jesus Christ, identifies with man and his
struggles.
More than that,
because he is the perfect man and God, he is the mediator of the image of God
in the image of man (John 1; Heb. 5:1-10). The issues we struggle with as
humans such as pride and anger, we see overcome in the person of Jesus. Him who
did not consider equality with God something to grasped, and took the form of a
man and endured suffering, even to the point of death, and death on a cross
(Heb. 2:16 f.). We see love and faithfulness, and hope. It is hope that sees us
through our trials, and it is a hopeful joy that motivated Jesus during his
earthly existence (Heb. 13:1-3). In his becoming man, we see God identifying
himself with us and proclaiming the kingdom of God on earth. It is here.
Jesus Christ
through his work of atonement[31]
has achieved for us salvation: a hope beyond ourselves. His death was
necessitated by the fact that man has to suffer for his sins, for the
righteousness and justice of God to be maintained. Through his resurrection,
man now has a hope beyond the grave. Grudem, contrasts the resurrection of Jesus
and that of others such as Lazarus in the following manner: “Christ’s
resurrection was not simply a coming back from the dead . . . rather, when he
rose from the dead Jesus was the ‘first fruits’ (1 Cor. 15:20, 23) of a new
kind of human life, a life in which his body was made perfect, no longer
subject to weakness, aging, or death, but able to live eternally.”[32]
He is the one
through whom we have been called from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom
of light (Col. 1:13). The implications of the resurrection, for those who put
their hope in Jesus, are: regeneration or new birth ensured; our justification
(declaration that we are no longer guilty) and the fact that we shall receive
perfect resurrection of our bodies.[33]
It is only through this new nature that we can have a meaningful way of living,
with ourselves and others, and responding to our environment. Through faith in
God, we who are in Christ, are being transformed into his likeness and that
this work shall be perfectly completed when life on earth ends (Rom. 8:28-29;
Phil. 1:6). This is our hope.
4. Conclusion
It
is evidential that our human experience offers a diversity of opinions and
interpretations of how to understand ourselves and others. These fragments,
many times, have only served to confuse man and to live him emptier than they
found him. This paper has discussed a hope for man: “the deepest possibilities
for human man in an inhuman world lie ultimately in a creative, reconciling and
hoping love.”[34]
 |
| Photo taken by Kevin Tosh |
It
is only this life with God that can give us hope and meaning. Indeed, it is the
only life that can save us from eternal death. This kind of anthropology that
is based on the true God and saviour Jesus Christ, in lieu of other conflicting
and diverging anthropologies, is one that gives our life a thorough foundation that
can withstand the storms of changing philosophies, social depravities and
injustices, hopelessness and extinction. It is the only hope for the man of the
21st century, and one that can unify the fragments that make up man
and restore him to perfection. With Paul, we can say: “For I am not ashamed of
the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone
who believes” (Rom. 1:16 NIV) even as we await perfect perfection. The gospel
of Jesus Christ is the hope for man.
Bibliography
Barrett, William. Irrational
Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books,
1958.
Clark, Gordon H. The Biblical Doctrine
of Man. Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1984.
Groothuis, Douglas. Truth Decay: Defending
Christianity against the Challenges of Postmordernism. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Nottingham, London: InterVarsity
Press, 1994.
Gundry, Robert H. Sōma in Biblical
Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1976.
Healey, Joseph and Donald Sybertz. Towards
an African Narrative Theology. Nairobi: Paulines Publicaton Africa, 1996.
Hitchcock, James. What is Secular Humanism?
Why Humanism became Secular and How it is Changing our World. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Servant Books, 1982.
Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. The True
Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Leicester, England:
InterVarsity Press, 1989.
Mascall, E. L. The Importance of Being
Human. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.
Moltmann, Jurgen. Man: Christian
Anthropology in the Conflicts of the Present tr. John Study. London:
SPCK, 1974.
Mugambi, J. N. K. From Liberation to
Reconstruction: African Christian Theology After the Cold War. Nairobi:
East African Educational Publishers Ltd, 1995.
[1] J. N. K. Mugambi, From
Liberation to Reconstruction: African Christian Theology after the Cold War (Nairobi:
East African Educational Publishers, 1995), 75
[2] Douglas Groothius, Truth
Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 53
[3] John 8:31-32 NIV
[4] James Hitchcock, What is
Secular Humanism? Why Humanism became Secular and How it is Changing our World (Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1982), 8
[5] Ibid., 9
[6] Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical
Doctrine of Man (Jefferson, Maryland: The Trinity Foundation, 1984), 2
[7] Ibid., 3
[8] E. L. Mascall, The Importance
of Being Human (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), 12
[9] William Barrett, Irrational
Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books,
1958), 3
[10] “Secular” comes from Latin “saeculum” which means “time” or “age”.
Calling someone secular means that he is completely time-bound, totally a child
of his age … with no vision for eternity. See James Hitchcock, 10.
[11] 2 Timothy 3:2-4 NIV
[12] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The
True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Leicester, England:
InterVarsity Press, 1989), 3
[13] The term can be loosely defined as God’s self-disclosure of himself
to man.
[14] Ibid., 3
[15] Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Nottingham, London:
InterVarsity Press, 1994), 440
[16] Ibid., 441
[17] Philip Hughes, 5
[18] Ibid.
[19] John 17:3 NIV
[20] Gen. 1:18, 22-27; 2:4, 20-24; 3:21; 11:7; Job 38:1-11; Prov. 6:1,
6, 23-25; 15:1; Isa. 1:19; Mt. 10:28; Jn. 4:24; Rom. 12:1-21, 13:1; 1 Cor. 14;
Eph. 4:28; Col. 3; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Pet. 2:13 f., 3:15; Jas. 3:1-12 NIV
[21] For a detailed discussion of these views and their scriptural
proofs, see Wayne Grudem, “The Essential Nature of man” in Systematic Theology, 472-486.
[22] Wayne Grudem, 472-473
[23] Ibid., 473
[24] Ibid., 474
[25] Ibid., 482
[26] Sōma is greek for “body” see Robert H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology: With
Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976), 202
[27] Wayne Grudem, 490
[28] Ibid., 492
[29] Ibid., 493
[30] Jurgen Moltmann, Man:
Christian Anthropology in the Conflicts of the Present (London: SPCK,
1974), 17
[31] Grudem defines atonement as the
work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation. See Grudem,
568
[32] Wayne Grudem, 609
[33] For more details see Grudem, 614-615
[34] Jurgen Moltmann, 117
[35] Joseph Healey and Donald Sybertz, Towards an African Narrative Theology (Nairobi: Paulines Publicaton
Africa), 85
[36] Heb. 4:12-13 NIV
Comments
Post a Comment