Creation and Humanity

A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, Volume 3

Veli-Matti Karkkainen

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781467443098
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

The third installment in a wide and deep constructive theology for our time This third volume of Veli-Matti Karkkainen's ambitious five volume theology project develops a Christian theology of creation and humanity (theological anthropology) in dialogue with the Christian tradition, with contemporary theology in all its global and contextual diversity, and with other major living faiths -- Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. In constructing his theology of creation and humanity, Karkkainen uniquely engages the natural sciences, including physical, cosmological, and neuroscientific theories. He devotes particular attention to the topics of divine action in a world subjected to scientific study, environmental pollution, human flourishing, and the theological implications of evolutionary theory -- with regard to both cosmos and humanity.

II. Humanity

9. Introduction: Humanity in a
Radically Changed Context

Theological Anthropology in a New Environment

Traditionally Christian theology has considered the transition from the discussion of nature to humanity as a disjuncture with the intention to underscore the importance of difference of humanity from the rest of creation. Contemporary theology, on the contrary, considers the transition just that, namely, transition, starting with the question of “what links human beings with animals and all other creatures.”1 Before speaking of humanity as the imago Dei, let us talk about men and women as imago mundi (the “image of the world”).2 Surprisingly, the two creation narratives in the beginning of the OT point to a dynamic mutuality, fellowship, and unity-­in-­diversity among creatures. The emergence of a sequence of forms — or “generations [toledoth] of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (Gen. 2:4a) — culminating in the creation of humanity, makes the creation an interrelated web, a network. The Yahwist narrative makes the creation of human beings a matter of having been “formed . . . of dust from the ground” and having had “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” as a result of which “man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). This “spirited,” living being, formed of ha adama (earth), is called Adam. Similarly to all other creatures, the one created “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27) depends for her livelihood on the “green plant for food” (Gen. 1:30; cf. 29).3 Moltmann rightly concludes: “It is only when we become aware of the things which human beings have in common with other creatures, and the things that differentiate them, that we can understand what the human being’s designation to be the image of God really means (Gen. 1:26).”4

Not only theological developments but also dramatic changes in the sciences and philosophy have caused previously unimaginable shifts: from a naive cosmology with our planet at the center of reality, astronomy and physics moved it out to the margins of a vast galaxy among billions of galaxies; evolutionary theory and biology definitively linked humans with the rest of creation; “[m]odern psychoanalysis showed that beneath the human being’s feeble self-­awareness . . . lie worlds belonging to the unconscious — worlds of unrecognized drives and involuntary suppressions”;5 neurosciences revealed astonishing bases of human decisions, emotions, and will in brain functions; and so forth. At the end, the human being “has seemed definitely to redissolve in the common ground of things.”6

One of the changing factors with regard to theological anthropology is its location in systematic and doctrinal theology. Rather than forming their own locus (“place,” i.e., chapter), anthropological questions were scattered among other doctrinal themes. Typically, premodern theology discussed theological anthropology in four loci:

• In the doctrine of creation, both the continuity and discontinuity with other creatures were in the forefront, but the latter was usually emphasized. The defining concept here was the imago Dei. Part of the discussion was long-­standing debates about how to frame the dualist understanding of human nature, whether as spirit-­soul-­body (trichotomist) or as spirit/soul-­body (dichotomist), as well as the question of the origins of the soul.
• In the doctrine of sin and salvation, the emphasis was placed on the salvation of the “soul.” A literal understanding of the Genesis 2–4 narrative was assumed.
• In eschatology, questions related to the “intermediate state” were discussed. While belief in the resurrection of the body pointed to the “material” nature of Christian eschatological vision, a holistic, cosmic vision of the new creation was often missed because of a predominantly “spiritual” hope.
• The doctrine of revelation considered the conditions for the reception of divine revelation, under the rubrics “general revelation” and “natural theology.”7

Rather than lamenting the radical transformation of the context of humanity, constructive theologians should take it as an opportunity. Indeed, this is not the first time Christian tradition has had to revise the assumptions on which it bases theological doctrines. Just consider the revolution from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican solar system. Or consider the far-­too-­long opposition to evolutionary theory. That said, the church should neither accommodate to the “spirit of the age” nor compromise its deepest theological convictions. Rather, in its conviction that no new discovery of nature can ultimately threaten faith, the church should make its message understandable to new generations of men and women. Furthermore, the task of constructive theology is to provide thoughtful critique of the scientific denial of human uniqueness in its linking of humanity with the rest of creation, or of brain study with a reductionistic denial of the whole concept of human intentions and free will.

Although reductionism among scientists should be resisted, constructive theologians should embrace the significance of sciences. Building on the discussion of science-­religion relations (chap. 1), we now add a few further remarks with anthropology in focus, including the views of other religions.

Sciences, Religions, and Theological Anthropology

The biggest scientific challenge — and resource — for contemporary theological anthropology is undoubtedly the standard evolutionary theory.8 As discussed in par...