Chapter 4: An evaluation of Sallie McFague's body of God cosmology
5.2 The particularity of the human being
5.2.2 A modification of the body of God anthropology's approach to the soul-mind-body issue
5.2.2.3 In the image of God
The body of God anthropology does not begin its reflection on what it means to human in light of the imago Dei. Human beings are to be understood in terms of the common creation story,
"rather than as a reflection of divine reality" (1993a: 110). By doing this McFague has
bypassed a central resource for theological reflection: the bible36. It is understandable why this has been done and McFague's attempt to overcome anthropocentrism is praiseworthy. A text such as Gen. 1: 26-9 appears to support anthropocentrism, because it seems as though God created the universe for humankind's glory. The Genesis reading may thus be used to justify the domination of creation by humankind.
Prior to the publication of The Body of God, McFague does use the imago Dei concept in her reflection on the body of God model (1990: 216f). She argues that if God is conscious of God's embodiment then human beings are conscious of their own.
This means humankind has the potential to care for the universe's body and thus has a "special status and responsibility" for it (: 217). McFague appears to have changed her views and links human responsibility not to the imago Dei, but to the common creation story.
However, it was signified previously in the study that the imago Dei might be interpreted in a relational manner. Humankind comes from the earth's dust and is thus an intimate part of it.
Human beings have the responsibility to care for creation with a gentle and merciful hand.
Being created in the imago Dei means that human beings are relational beings. They thus have the capacity for relationship with each other and all of creation. However, what makes
humanity unique vis-a-vis the imago Dei is its openness to God. In this manner a Christian ecological theology should be theocentric. In addition to the views of human particularity that a complexity hierarchy from the sciences may present, an anthropology based on the imago Dei highlights human uniqueness in terms of its relationship with the Triune God. McFague's attempt to avoid the apparent anthropocentrism of imago Dei theology thus seems to lose this notion of human uniqueness. Pannenberg and Conradie both argue for a theocentric
anthropology that signifies humankind's continuity with creation.
W. Pannenberg explains the notion of humanity's openness to the world and God. He understands the term open to mean humankind's constant search for something beyond the world (1970: 8). This search differentiates human beings from animals. Like animals they have drives such as the need for food and conditions that bring about a healthy body. In this manner humankind relies on its environment. Pannenberg notes that while animals are in bondage to their environment, human beings are dependent on God and he writes, "openness to the world presupposes a relation to God" (: 12)37. This approach appears to maintain humankind's continuity with creation and also stresses its particularity.
E. Conradie asserts that the idea of created in the image of God has been under emphasised in Christian anthropology (2005c: 23). Human beings emerge in the creation narratives of the bible and therefore are connected to creation. In other words anthropology needs to be understood in relation to the doctrine of creation. To be created means that one is a creature and thus part of creation. The fact that God sees and then declares creation to be good means that God values physical reality highly. This is in contrast to Platonic, Neoplatonic and Gnostic systems of thought, which devalue the physical world. These thought forms support the idea that humanity is alienated from the created order (: 24).
Conradie describes the human situation as a search for the boundaries of existence (2005c: 149). This is done when the self is able to transcend his or her environment.
Conradie stresses that a Christian anthropology should not have the sciences as its foundation, as this could result in a "shallow form" of natural theology (: 10, 14). McFague argues that the world as God's body is an attempt to construct a theology of nature and is therefore not another form of natural theology (1993a: 75). However, the body of God anthropology understands humanity from the perspective of the common creation story and not the imago Dei. In other words it does endorse a form of natural theology. For Conradie a Christian anthropology must include the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of God (2005c: 10). This appears to be reasonable; as such an approach will result in a theocentric anthropology.
Conradie is particularly concerned with a theology that romanticises or over extends human responsibility and writes," a denial of that which transcends this life does not necessarily encourage responsibility for this earth" (2005a: 300). While the body of God anthropology does stress human responsibility this is not understood from a theocentric perspective. It is for this reason that this particular anthropology is in disagreement •w\X\\point three of the study's requirements for an adequate ecological anthropology. McFague's anthropology therefore needs revision in this regard .
By under emphasising biblical anthropology, the body of God model loses valuable insights vis-a-vis a holistic anthropology. The human being is understood holistically in the Old Testament (McKim 1988: 62). The body and soul are fully integrated and the person is viewed in a social, corporate manner. The soul, flesh, spirit and heart are viewed as fully integrated into the human being. None of these are to be considered the essence of the human being. They are viewed as dimensions or perspectives on human existence.
The soul (nephash-Hebrew) is used to denote parts of the body such as the throat (Ps. 107:5), stomach (Num. 21:5) and neck (Ps. 105: 18) (Maimela 1982: 47). This was done by the biblical writers to emphasis the integrity of the human being. Soul and body were not dichotomised, because the OT writers were unfamiliar with the Greek notion of the soul's immortality. For the Hebrews a soul may be dead or poured out into death (Num. 6:6, Is 53- 12). This is probably why such an emphasis was placed on the General Resurrection of the dead at the end of time. In this way the dead soul and body are simply waiting to be given life
It is not within the scope of the study to do this, as this may require substantial theological revision to the body of God anthropology. This point merely indicates a weakness in McFague's anthropology.
again. In the NT, the wholeness of the person is carried over. The soul (psuche-Greek) is associated with bodily aspects such clothing, eating and drinking (Lk. 12: 20).
Flesh (basar-Hebrew, sarx-Greek) refers to the earthly, creaturely dimension of humanity's existence, in other words corporeality (Gen. 2:21, Jn 1:14, Phil. 1:24) (: 48). The body is thus viewed as indispensable for human existence, as it is the interface with earthly reality. The body is not viewed as inferior to the body and Paul encourages Christians to consecrate their bodies for God (Rom. 12:).
Spirit (ruach-Hebrew, pneuma- Greek) is synonymous with soul (: 49). It is viewed as a gift from God that enables humankind to relate to Him or Her (Gen. 2:7, Jn 4:2). The spirit therefore assists human beings to relate to that which is extraordinary, but is not the most significant aspect of life. Ruach means breath and this again highlights the integrity of spirit and body for the OT writers (Gen 2).
Heart (leb-Hebrew, kardia-Greek) often relates to emotions and feelings (Prov. 14:30, 17:22, Ps 27: 7) (: 50). These emotions may lead human beings astray (Jer. 49: 16, Rom. 1:24). The heart therefore influences all aspects of human life: emotions, choices, actions, desires, beliefs, opinions and sin. God knows people's hearts (Lk. 16:15, Acts 1: 24, Rom. 8: 27).
Moreover, D. Kinsley argues that the bible does not advocate the idea of human beings
tyrannising creation (1996: 118). The bible understands the heavens as beyond humankind and the Mosaic Law restricts how human beings are to treat the natural order. Restrictions are placed on the felling of trees (Deut. 20: 19-20), the land must fallow every seven years (Lev.
25: 1-7) and human beings are called to treat animals in a humane manner (Deut. 25:4). These non-anthropocentric renderings of the bible highlight the need for an ecological anthropology to take the bible seriously.
McFague asserts that it is important for the theologian to image the G-W relationship in a manner analogous with human beings (1987: 62). To do this may require a holistic anthropology. It was shown before that the body of God anthropology does not seem to provide a strong argument against mind/body dualism due to its reductionistic tendencies. This is due to an under emphasis on the notion of mind, as well as little stress on a biblical
anthropology. By introducing the notion of supervenience and transpersonal psychology to
McFague's embodiment metaphysic, an attempt was made to strengthen the body of God anthropology's case against dualism. It was also argued that the body of God model needs more input from biblical anthropology in this regard.
G. Jantzen argues that a dualism, which disparages physical reality, is not adequate for understanding the G-W dynamic (1984: 9). She believes a holistic anthropology is necessary for this, but stresses that the interaction between the mind and body needs to be clarified in order to be an analogy for the G-W relationship. A holistic anthropology as an analogy may highlight a more intimate view of God's interaction with the world. In this manner divine agency will be understood as internal and not external.
These insights have consequences for the body of God anthropology. In its unrevised version it over emphasises the body at expense of the mind and therefore becomes an inadequate analogy for the G-W relationship. However, in its revised form with the insights from supervenience theory, transpersonal psychology and biblical anthropology, the body of God appears to be better equipped to provide an analogy for the G-W dynamic.