Theological Anthropology in Asian Conversations: Envisioning an Evangelical Hermeneutic of the Self

I. Theological Anthropology: Where Do We Begin?

Asia offers fertile ground or sites for the imagination, construction, and articulation of theological anthropology in the contemporary context. However, in contradistinction to their counterparts in other parts of the globe—particularly North American and Continental contexts—there is a strong critical consciousness of theological systems. In contrast to the systematization of theology (systematic theology), there is an overt privileging of a contextual approach to theology (contextual theology). In the words of Felix Wilfred, “There is a fragmentary sense to all kinds of South Asian theologies as they try to come to terms with ever new and challenging situations calling forth fresh faith responses.”² There is an evident tension between the “givenness” and/or the need for the “reconstruction” of theological anthropology. Wilfred observes the “irruption of historical consciousness in the West”³ primarily by way of prioritizing historical-critical method in biblical interpretation, which eventually gives way to “temporality” as the normative ecosystem for the articulation of theological themes. In his assessment, South Asian theologians, rather than going by historical consciousness or temporality, proceed by way of addressing questions that emerge from the immediate context, which “do not have any precedents or models in Christian history to go by.”⁴ He makes the contentious yet insightful observation that South Asian theologians are “less attracted by issues of orthodoxy and heterodoxy than by a sense of fidelity to the gospel and the truth as revealed through the realities of their context.”⁵

Simon Chan shares a similar line of thought. He problematizes the starting point of theological imagination, especially in relation to what he terms as “elitist theologians.”⁶ He faults Western scholars for their “highly selective approach”⁷ to understanding Asian theology, which is partly informed by Asian ecumenical theologians. Chan’s primary concern is that theology in the Asian context, rather than being a product of elitist theological imagination(s), must emerge from the grassroots. However, he insists that instead of deriving theology solely from Asian cultural resources, Asian theological understanding must be outlined in the light of the larger Christian tradition.⁸ Chan is careful to dodge the trap of the distinction between the Eastern and Western ways of thinking. He categorically dismisses such binaries as “neither helpful nor accurate.”⁹ He observes:

A more pertinent question we need to ask in order to develop a contextual or local theology in an Asian context is: what spiritual and intellectual resources of the Christian faith can we bring to bear on the Asian context such that an authentic Christian faith can be effectively communicated and received? Implied in this question is a fundamental theological presupposition: an Asian theology is about the Christian faith in Asia. This presupposition may be phrased in different ways, but it runs through diverse Christian traditions, including Catholicism, Orthodoxy, evangelicalism and Pentecostalism.¹⁰

Both Wilfred (a Catholic) and Chan (an evangelical) share the common concern of constructing theology from the contextual realities/grassroots of the Asian people yet in faithfulness to the gospel and the global Christian tradition. Reverting back to Wilfred, against “temporality,” he argues for “spatiality” as the epistemological starting point for constructing theological anthropology. By spatiality he means the interplay of culture, sociopolitics, tradition, language, etc.¹¹ There is an evident and inevitable tension in determining the epistemological starting point for the reimagination of theological anthropology, raising the question of an appropriate methodological framework. This tension provides the scope for envisioning theological anthropology afresh in the Asian context. Before addressing this further, it is imperative to discuss the concerns that are inherent to the Asian discourse on what it means to be human (theological anthropology).

II. Theological Anthropology and the Asian Concern for Humanization

While speaking of “Asian theologies,” it is customary to refer to liberationist strands of theology like Dalit theology, Minjung theology, Pyithu-Dukkha theology, Filipino People’s Theology, or Adivasi/Tribal theology, among others. Apart from these strands, Asian theology is associated with the contributions of prominent theologians like Kazoh Kitamori, Kosuke Koyama, C. S. Song, M. M. Thomas, Stanley J. Samartha, Felix Wilfred, and Kwok Pui-Lan. In relation to theological anthropology, a common denominator to all forms of Asian discussions is the context of dehumanization against which diverse forms of humanization theologies emerged.¹² In simple terms “dehumanization” refers to forces that deny humanity their human rights, dignity, identity, and social justice.¹³ Here I limit the discussion to two theologians in particular, Paulos Mar Gregorios (1922–1996) and M. M. Thomas (1916–1996). In the context of dehumanization, Gregorios proposed “Sacramental Humanism” from the perspective of Orthodox tradition. M. M. Thomas, who initiated a contextual approach to theology as a whole, called for a “Secular Humanism.”

Paulos Mar Gregorios rendered a philosophical understanding of theological anthropology in engagement with Gregory of Nyssa.¹⁴ In the context of the scientific-technological developments of his times, he was critical of human autonomy at the expense of the eclipse/death of God. Western Enlightenment ushered in abstract, rationalistic, and dualistic ways of thinking that created the God-human and human-nature binaries. He observed that science and technology alienated us from reality by presenting us two options: either to know it objectively or to manipulate it technologically. This attitude eventually leads to the “mastery” of nature or reality as a whole. As an alternate to this attitude of “mastery,” Gregorios vouched for the attitude of “mystery.”¹⁵ By mystery he means the initiation, participation, “mutual perichoresis in which God and the universe embrace and penetrate each other.”¹⁶ This is best expressed in the eucharistic sacrament. In the practice of mastery over nature, humanity uses technology to objectify and alienate nature to the point of losing its capacity for self-giving mutual love in its relationship with God and nature. This ultimately leads to the corruption of humanity’s own nature. Science and technology, instead of enhancing the life of humanity—especially for the less privileged—leads to the dehumanization of humanity.¹⁷ Humanity forgets that its primary responsibility is to offer to God in the act of eucharistic sacrament the whole of nature—which is our extended body. Through his death on the cross, Jesus Christ gave not just himself but also humanity and nature (creation) in the act of self-denying love to God. In the same manner, redeemed humanity, which is initiated into and called to participate in this eternal act of self-giving love, must use technology as a way of humanizing nature and offer it to God as an act of worship. This attitude of mystery begins by humanity’s offering of itself and nature via the responsible use of technology to God in love. This, in other words, is sacramental humanism. Sacramental humanism reminds humanity of its mediatorial role between God and nature, where it holds in tension the mastery of nature within the mystery of worship.

Thomas understands the dynamics between God (theology) and humanity (anthropology) in relational terms by categorically rejecting abstract, metaphysical, and scientifically isolated conceptions. He says:

I think the ultimate framework of reference for Christian thought is neither God nor man in the abstract, neither the metaphysics of God nor the science of man taken in isolation, but Jesus Christ who is God-Man or rather God-for-Man, or, to use Karl Barth’s expression, the Humanity of God.¹⁸

For Thomas the crucial issues were the call of the World Council of Churches (WCCC) at Uppsala in 1968 against dehumanizing forces and the criticism of Peter Beyerhaus,¹⁹ who held strong reservations against the Uppsala Assembly’s apparent epistemological shift from theology to anthropology. The underlying concern was the ecumenical emphasis on universalism, the interpretation of world history as history of salvation, and the orientation toward social activity in opposition to an orientation to soteriology, which was foundational to biblical evangelicalism.²⁰ Thomas responded to the criticisms of Beyerhaus in his Carey Memorial Lectures²¹ which were later published as Salvation and Humanisation. Thomas’s theology was driven by the conviction that the Christian community had to be fully engaged with and thoroughly involved in their contexts.²² Thomas’s immediate criteria of relevance were the Asian Revolution, secularization, and humanization.²³ Inasmuch as the Asian context was characterized by the transition in political, economic, and social structures and the major shift from village and rural structures to modernization and industrialization, the overarching concern was that of secular humanism. Secular humanism reflects a “secularistic” attitude that is not only closed to but also opposed to the idea of the Christian gospel and also devoid of a “comprehensive understanding” of the reality of humanity, which eventually becomes dehumanizing.²⁴ Thomas’s engagement with emerging ideologies—by which he meant the study of humanity or social anthropology—led him to a deeper, mature, well-informed, and sustained engagement with secular ideologies in India with the aim of making sense of the “secular” meaning of Christ.

In this regard, the cross plays a crucial role in his theological anthropology. Through the mediation of the cross of Christ, Thomas understands God’s identification with the sufferings of humanity and develops an understanding of “cruciform humanity in Christ as the ultimate destiny of mankind.”²⁵ His concern for the human condition led him to be vocal about the inefficiency and insufficiency of human achievements and moral standards to lift itself out of its human predicament. In the course of the influence of modernization and development, the cross serves as a critique of science and technology. Though science makes positive contributions toward human development, under the spell of optimism of its own nature and historical progress, it fails to recognize “the fact of evil in the higher self of man” and the “powerlessness of moral idealism.”²⁶ In the face of this reality, the cross stands as a reminder of “the spiritual evil” that is resident within the best of human institutions—religion, society, and state—constantly bearing witness to the human need for redemption by God. The cross, by demonstrating the self-emptying redemptive love of God, frees us to live in our history as people who are essentially models or patterns of a new humanity that is destined for an “eschatological humanization”²⁷ where all contrary forces to the fuller life of humanity will be removed. The ground of this universal influence of the cross is the historical cross, which is open to all by way of faith response.

In the context of our sociopolitical realities, the cross calls for discerning the “continuing work of the living Jesus Christ to awaken man to his true humanity, promised in Christ, and needing the discipline of the Gospel for its fulfillment.”²⁸ The crux of Thomas’s theological anthropology is a “positive secular humanism” that affirms the humanization of nature and the creativity of humanity in purposive history, seeking emancipation from oppressive structures and the realization of the importance of love and justice as mediated by the cross to direct human relations in every historical situation. In the process of engaging human concerns from a sociopolitical point of view (anthropology), priority is given to positive secular humanism characterized as “humanization” (soteriology). The basis for this engagement is the Christ event (Christology), which he reimagines as “new humanity.”

III. Theological Anthropology in the Context of Empire/Agency/Othering

Under the influence of postmodern/colonial theoretical developments in the Continental/Western context, the Asian context continues to witness radical forms of theological-anthropological discourses. Empire, agency, and othering are major issues within theological anthropology that are especially informed and funded by postcolonial and anti-imperial theories and theologies. Anti-empire rhetoric seeks to counter empire tendencies within the domain of theology. Joerg Rieger understands “empire” as the “massive concentrations of power that permeate all aspects of life and that cannot be controlled by any one actor alone.”²⁹ He states further:

Empire seeks to extend its control as far as possible; not geographically, politically, and economically … but also intellectually, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, culturally, and religiously. The problem with empire is not primarily a moral one—it is not that all empires are necessarily equally evil and wrong. Some empires and certain modes of colonialism claim to promote benevolent causes … The problem with empire has to do with forms of top-down control that are established on the back of the empire’s subjects and that do not allow those within its reach to pursue alternative purposes. The problem with this approach can be seen in Christology: in a situation of empire Christ becomes part of the system to such a degree that little or no room exists for the pursuit of alternative realities of Christ. Empire displays strong tendencies to domesticate Christ and anything else that poses a challenge to its powers.³⁰

This same approach is applied to theological anthropology in the postcolonial Asian context. In Asian theological anthropological conversations, we are witnessing counterimaginations to the de-imperializing theology that was bequeathed to us by our Western counterparts. All forms of such theologies are written off as products of colonialism.³¹ In the eagerness to reshape theological anthropology in a postcolonial sensibility,³² the primary quest is to rediscover identity. Inherent to the identity discourse are the issues of “othering,” “worlding,” and “agency/subjectivities.”³³ Asian theological anthropologies question tendencies towards the imposition and fixation of essential(ist) identities and vouch for the promotion of subjectivities instead. In such a context, the proposal is for a “planetary anthropology” where the emphasis in on intersubjectivity and embodiment.³⁴ By problematizing transcendent categories—which fosters othering—metaphysical discussions in relation to theological anthropology are rendered useless. The emphasis is on “radical relationality” that “relocates ethics in a materialistic plane of human relationship.”³⁵ Within this framework, there is no place for human sinfulness. Planetary ontology rejects all forms/theologies of human depravity to create space for diverse ways of becoming more human, or perhaps even posthuman to the point where the human element is eventually eclipsed, and the emphasis is more on “becoming.”³⁶ The common denominator to all these imaginations of postcolonial/planetary anthropology is the emphasis on intersubjectivity, interbeing, radical relationality, and planetarity.

IV. Envisioning an Evangelical Hermeneutic of the Self

One thing that emerges from the above discussion is the urgency and need to make sense of theological anthropology in context. Though Wilfred is dismissive of orthodoxy, he underlines the need to articulate how the gospel addresses our immediate contexts. This is also the concern of Chan, Gregorios, Thomas, and the host of other Asian theologians. In the light of this shared concern, there is scope for articulating an “evangelical” theological anthropology that draws from the riches of Christian tradition and engages with contextual realities. At this stage it is important to note the distinction between “evangelical” and “evangelicalism(s).” Evangelicalism(s) is understood as the diverse interpretations or expressions of the evangelical faith.³⁷ “Evangelical,” on the other hand, means that which is “informed by the gospel of Jesus Christ.”³⁸ This is independent of the diverse interpretations or perspectives of the gospel account across history. The evangel (the gospel/good news) precedes evangelicalism(s). Hence evangelical may be further clarified to mean “gospel affirming.”

In vouching for an evangelical theological anthropology, I am vouching for a “theology of gospel affirmation,” or a “gospel-affirming” theological anthropology. At the heart of the gospel is an event—the Christ event. Were it not for the Christ event, there would be no evangel and hence no evangelical message/perspective or theology. It is the Christ event that funds and mediates to us the sum and substance of our theology. If evangelical theology is the product of the reflection by evangelicals on the gospel, then it is the Christ event alone that mediates to us the content or the “stuff” of our theology.³⁹ As far as theology is concerned, the Christ event is the decisive event. Every imagination of the gospel is based on this decisive event as given to us in the Gospel accounts and affirmed by apostolic tradition. This renders the meaning of the Christ event to be transcontextual. If a particular context is taken as “the” final horizon of understanding the gospel, it will inevitably lead to a particular typification of the gospel and theology. To avoid falling into the trap of theological typification or parochialism, Asian theology must derive its content from the actual Christ event so as to resonate with the local context. To develop a distinct or an authentic Asian theological anthropology, it is imperative to make sense of the actual Christ event afresh vis-à-vis the issues and questions emerging from the local context. In other words, what we need today is a gospel-affirming reimagination—an evangelical reimagination—of Asian theological anthropology.

It is on this basis that we need to revisit theological anthropology in the Asian context, especially by transcending the binary tension between the systematic-contextual approach. It is here that we need to explore the prospects of a hermeneutical approach to theological anthropology in the Asian context.⁴⁰ Hermeneutics, inasmuch as it is about engaging texts produced in another time and contexts from ours, is about how we understand and make sense of them in our respective contexts. It has the potential to bring the systematic and contextual approach into meaningful conversation to bring about new and fresh meaning. In the present context, we need a mechanism to theologize without falling into the trap of binary opposition between systematic and contextual theology. Contrary to a static, finished, or closed understanding of systematic theology, we must understand it as being dynamic, living, growing, and progressive in nature. All theologies arise out of particular contexts. It is the method or approach the theologian or the theologizing community takes that determines the nature of the theological expression. Diverse contexts provide the space to think through theology in a systematic manner. Systematic theology is a form of theological engagement in particular contexts, while contexts provide the space or the arena for the reimagination of dogmatic themes, hence the importance of contextual engagement. It is contextual realities that keep systematics alive, infusing it with life and energy. Systematic theology plays the role of a handmaid or servant to contextual realities.⁴¹ Systematic theology must not misunderstand the genuine intentions of contextual theology, and at the same time it must be critical of parochial tendencies inherent in certain forms of contextual theologies. There is a tendency to accentuate praxis at the expense of doctrinal content on one hand, while on the other hand, the tendency is to immerse oneself so much into doctrine without deliberation on its practical relevance.

This is especially evident in forms of Asian theological anthropology. In the eagerness to address the Asian quandary of dehumanization and counter apparent forms of colonial theologies, there is both a subtle and an overt tendency to overlook fundamental/biblical faith affirmations of what it means to be human. This is evident in relation to the image of God (imago dei) and the reality of the Fall. In the contemporary postcolonial Asian context, the emphasis is on multidisciplinarity, which privileges a deconstructive reading of theological anthropology. In this context, God is de-transcendentalized, by virtue of which the imago dei is reduced to the plane of mere becoming and intersubjectivity. Sin is located in the systems (sociopolitical, economic, etc.) that exploit the bodies and human rights of the colonial subjects. Imago dei is just an “agentic assemblage”⁴² in the sense that it is constituted and comprised of “an assemblage of microbes, animals, plants, metals, chemicals, word-sounds, and the like.”⁴³ The emphasis is more on a “materialistic political ontology of humanity.”⁴⁴ Rather than engaging in an apologetic or polemic response, an evangelical theological anthropology seeks to affirm what it means to be human in line with the larger Christ event. In contrast to the pessimistic view of humanity, which emphasizes the Fall and the sinfulness of humanity, and the optimistic view, which plays up the rational and potential self, evangelical theological anthropology emphasizes the “hermeneutical self.”

In his regard, Paul Ricœur becomes a key conversation partner. In contrast to the apparent pessimism of classical theology and obvious optimism of postmodern/colonial theology, Ricœur affirms the situated, fragile, and capable self (homo capax). The capable self is constituted in the idea of the embodiment (embodied self), the quest for meaning (hermeneutical self), sociality or entanglement (social self), and the capacity to encounter God (theological self).⁴⁵ Inherent in Ricœur’s idea of the capable self are concerns that resonate with Asian theological anthropology. Ricœur comes across as a fine example of how to hold in tension contextual situatedness and sustained systematic, philosophical, and intellectual engagement. By locating the human self in concrete contexts, he takes the materiality of humanity seriously and does not reduce it to mere spirituality. Recognizing the embodiment of the human calls for admitting the entanglement with other contingent factors like language, culture, and tradition, which shape our identity. This idea of being “inextricably entangled”⁴⁶ is in contrast to the Enlightenment idea of the “autonomous self.”

Yet, through embodiment and entanglement, the capable self uncompromisingly reiterates the fallenness of humanity.⁴⁷ Ricœur uses two words to address the Fall of humanity—fragile/fragility and disproportion. To echo the words of Dan Stiver, Ricœur holds the human self to be “a fragile equilibrium that easily falls apart.”⁴⁸ Ricœur is careful to affirm the factuality of the Fall, not in terms of the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve as the unique story of the first man and woman but in terms of reflecting the condition of every man and woman right from the beginning. He creatively interprets the fall (fault) as being preceded by fallibility. It is human fallibility that renders it conscious of its faults. There is an ontological priority to fallibility in relation to the existential reality of the Fall. Every human being is inherently fallible. For him the Genesis story provides a new lease on life to the universal reality of the Fall affirmed in and through the prevailing myths in other ancient cultures. Evil is present across cultures. In the Genesis story, this is symbolized by the serpent. Inasmuch as evil is present, the Fall is a choice we have made. The presence of evil must at least lead us to the awareness of our fall, though we may not have a full understanding of it.

Considering the fragility/fallenness of embodied and entangled humans, our identities are “story-shaped.” However, like all stories, there is the scope for construction and deconstruction. Identity is formed and impacted by various contingencies. If identity is story shaped, then humans write their stories, and their stories are also written by other contingent factors. The self in a sense is a mystery to itself. It is dispossessed and fragile. This reality leads the self to constantly be on a path of self-discovery, trying to make sense of itself. It is always in an interpretative process. The human self is an interpreting self. In other words, it is hermeneutical in nature. Inherent to this hermeneutical self is the “capacity to encounter God or at least to be open to a religious and theological experience.”⁴⁹ This is what Ricœur means by the image of God—a “point of contact” of humanity with grace.⁵⁰

It is safe to infer that in line with the early church fathers, and Athanasius in particular, Ricœur affirms the imago dei as the very person of Jesus Christ himself.⁵¹ Ricœur provides a model for imagining the imago dei in concrete terms rather than in a metaphysical or philosophical sense. Intrinsic to the embodied and entangled human self is the idea of ethical responsibility. This eventually develops and concerns itself with the idea of justice in society at large. Ethics, by nature, are a social matter and not merely an individual or private matter. In the human encounter with God, humanity cannot escape its ethical responsibility. At its core, humanity’s ethical responsibility is to encounter Jesus Christ and to emulate Christ in the web of entanglement. Humanity is called to demonstrate Jesus Christ to a fragile and disproportionate world. In doing so, it demonstrates its true theological self. Failing to live up to our ethical responsibility is evidence of the inherent disproportionality and fragility of ourselves. Taking these cues from Ricœur, the following section attempts to explore an evangelical hermeneutic of the self by reading the story in Luke 10:25–37 as the story of the “Neighbouring” Samaritan.

V. The “Neighbouring” Samaritan and Evangelical Hermeneutic of the Self

In the Asian context, othering is a genuine concern. The situated and capable self is, in a sense, a given and accepted reality. The problem is with the fragility of the self. Though evangelical theological anthropology takes contextual engagement seriously, it builds/funds its content by recourse to the original evangel—the gospel/the Christ event. If Christ is the epistemological starting point of Christian ethics, then the object of the church’s ethical praxis must be the world, because the revelation of God’s reality is not only in the world but also for the world. From the Christ event itself, this truth stands out very clearly in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The context of the parable is the question of what needs to be done to inherit eternal life, which ultimately leads to the question of “Who is my neighbour?” In response, Jesus tells the questioner—in this case a lawyer—the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Though traditionally this story is known as the story of the “Good Samaritan,” from an evangelical hermeneutic point of view, I believe a more appropriate title would be the “Neighbouring Samaritan.”

In Luke 10:25–37, the question of the lawyer moves from a religious/theological one (about eternal life) to a social or relational one (who is my neighbour). At its core, this parable radically challenges and decentres the religious, social, and political order of the day. One wonders whether Jesus, by invoking Jerusalem and Jericho, was in a sense hinting at two centres of exclusivity—an exclusively religious centre (Jerusalem) and an exclusively social centre (Jericho).⁵² In describing the action of the priest and the Levite upon seeing the wounded man, Christ mentions that they “passed by on the other side.” They were guilty of “othering.” This conscious othering exposes their fragile nature to the point that they forget their ethical responsibility. They were so self-centred that they did not recognize themselves in the plight of the wounded traveller, whereas the Samaritan “came near … and went to him.” The action of the Samaritan moved from that of “othering” to “neighbouring.” The Samaritan reflected the image of God by his ethical actions. Through the story of the “neighbouring” Samaritan, Christ seems to be subverting the parochial and exclusive understanding of “Who is my neighbour?” Christ turns the lawyer’s understanding of neighbour on its head. The lawyer was more concerned about who his neighbour was in relation to himself as the point of reference (who is my neighbour?). Jesus subverts this approach by reminding him that we need to understand who we are in relation to others. The Samaritan, fragile as he was, demonstrates the true imago dei by his ethical capacity in the situation of violence. Many times, binary identity constructions blind us from discerning and addressing that which is common to all of us—our humanity.

An evangelical hermeneutic of the self calls for revisioning what it means to be human by considering the life of Jesus Christ, who freely gave himself for others without in any way compromising his divine-human identity. In the Asian context, for meaningful engagement we would do well to focus primarily on the commonalities rather than on the differences—in this case our humanity and not theological leanings. This is not to suggest that we suspend or discard our theological convictions. In terms of praxis, the driving question must be How are we committed to the good news of the Christ event in the way we treat our neighbours of diverse faith and ideological/theological persuasions? Evangelical theological anthropology gains traction when it is anchored in the recognition and celebration of our humanity, reflecting our creation in the divine image by discharging our ethical responsibilities. But then how do we do this in the Asian context of diversity and plurality of theological views? Perhaps the larger context of the parable of the “neighbouring” Samaritan gives us some clues.

The story of the Samaritan is part of the “travelogue” of Luke. It is interesting to note that this episode is recorded after Jesus Christ’s rejection by the Samaritans in Luke 9:51–56. Luke gives a hint that Jesus’s rejection was linked to a religious-political reason—“because his face was set toward Jerusalem.” Even in his earthly life, Jesus Christ remained committed to and gave himself to and for the “other” despite rejection. In the contemporary Asian context, we need to concede that identity discourse is about transcending our narrow socioreligious/theological perspectives to embrace the other, in the process of which the other is seen not merely as “other” but as ones’ self, thereby loving the neighbour as the self. In the context of embodiment and entanglement, identities or our understanding of our selves are negotiated outside of exclusive confines. This is not to deny the credibility and particularity of an evangelical identity. Rather, it is about upholding the integrity of an evangelical hermeneutic of the self that follows the pattern of the Christ event and not rigid interpretations of it—be it evangelicalism or ecumenicalism—in the context of diversity and plurality.

VI. Evangelical Hermeneutic of the Self and Contemporary Engagements

In the contemporary context, this has relevance in at least two important areas—the contemporary relevance of Nicaea for theological anthropology and the challenges of the emerging digital culture. The intention is to highlight some concerns and suggest how an evangelical hermeneutic of the self can be resourceful in addressing these concerns. World over, ecumenical bodies are commemorating the 1,700th year of Nicaea in 2025. Though the theme of theological anthropology is not explicitly stated, it is implicit within the Nicene Creed. A major criticism against Nicaea is its propagation of an “elitist theology, which … could no longer be easily communicated to ordinary Christians.”⁵³ Another criticism is in regard to the language used in the Creed: C. H. Turner notes that older creeds were formulated primarily for catechumens and were local in character, while the new creed—Nicaea—was “a creed for bishops.”⁵⁴ Apart from the language, postmodern/colonial critics criticize the overtly metaphysical nature of the discussions in Nicaea. They especially problematize the apparent “hierarchical ontology” inherent to the creed. Herein lies the clue to Wilfred’s comment that Asian theologians are less interested in matters of orthodoxy.

However, evangelical theological anthropology helps us to realize that early church thinkers were more relational in their thinking than metaphysical. Nicaea affirms that the one Lord, Jesus Christ, “for us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.” It recognizes the true humanity of Jesus Christ to address the quandary of humanity.⁵⁵ At a time when the unity and identity of the Son with the Father came under threat, Athanasius not only safeguarded it in line with tradition but also emphasized an incarnational and relational ontology between God and humanity. The very idea of incarnation assumes and presupposes embodiment and entanglement. The Christ event is a situated event in the fragile and disproportionate atmosphere of human weakness and corruption. An evangelical hermeneutic of the self provides a model to revisit Nicene theology in relational and concrete terms, with the potential to address the reality of human fall. It’s necessary to explore the meaning of the Incarnation in relation to theological anthropology in the Asian context, not just by regurgitating any particular traditional bias of the Incarnation but by doing it in such a way that it addresses the ground-level realities of the Asian situation. The basic concerns of the Asian people are those of political turmoil and power rhetoric, economic disparity, ethnic conflicts, globalization, gender-based violence, and religious plurality, among others. If Nicaea is to have relevance in the contemporary context, evangelicals must revisit it in the light of local challenges and questions to reinforce an evangelical hermeneutic of what it means to be human.

Another challenge facing the Asian context is the emerging digital culture. Recently, the Department of Asian Studies, Faculty of Arts, at the University of Ljubljana deliberated on the theme of “Humanism, Posthumanism and Transhumanism in the East Asian Past and Present.”⁵⁶ The range of topics discussed are so intriguing that they interrupt our anthropological slumber. William Brown, in his discussion of “subaltern” imaginings of artificial intelligence, observes how a (South) Indian movie like Enthiran (The Robot 2010) challenges Eurocentrism in science fiction and vouches for human and nonhuman codependency and connectedness, ultimately leading to an egalitarian world.⁵⁷ At the economic and development front, India is striving to enhance the quality of life by engaging cutting-edge technologies like AI, quantum computing, and semiconductors.⁵⁸ With Asian cultures being integrative and inclusive by nature, the idea of “interconnectedness” seems to have strong resonance. With the theology of intersubjectivity (de-transcendentalizing God) gaining traction, we are witnessing the loss of the integrity of the divine and human identity in the God-human relationship. Theologically speaking, it not only negates God’s aseity⁵⁹ but also discards the imago dei and constructs an entity that is other than human (trans/posthuman) based on aporetic constructions.⁶⁰ A theology of intersubjectivity shifts the focus from an ontology of being to an ontology of becoming, where the human is redundant.

Inasmuch as the emerging digital culture makes us aware of the tension in the human-machine relationship, it remains silent with regard to the reality of the Fall. An evangelical theological anthropology recognizes our entanglement within this digital web and seeks to provide a framework for reinforcing a relational hermeneutic of existence—in the sense that without negating or overprivileging the otherness/transcendence of God, it grounds the reality of God in a way that human experiences can relate to. Jesus Christ is not just the medium of correspondence to the redemptive activity of God, he is also the one who enables humanity to be co-respondents to God’s redemptive and restorative purposes. This co-respondence is intrinsic to the imago dei. This brings to light the teleological dimension of humanity—that humanity is God’s covenant partner and recipient of God’s grace. The paradox of humanity is that though it is radically corrupt (hamartiological dimension), it is also constituted by God’s covenant promises (teleological dimension). Through the reality of sin, it is grace that facilitates and preserves the continuity between God and humanity in Jesus Christ. Inasmuch as it is imperative to recognize the fallen state of humanity, without either trivializing and condoning sin or absolutizing it, we must see it to be relativized in the light of God’s telos for humanity.⁶¹ An evangelical hermeneutic of the self provides the model in this direction.

VII. Conclusion

In the Asian conversations, the theme of theological anthropology has much currency and demands constant engagement. In the light of the binary tension between the systematic and contextual approach, a hermeneutical approach provides the scope to bring the concerns of these approaches into meaningful and constructive conversations. An evangelical theological anthropology that is informed by the gospel of Jesus Christ leads to the imagination of an evangelical hermeneutic of the self. Within the contextual realities of embodiment and entanglement, an evangelical hermeneutic of the self prioritizes the evangel in its pristine form to reinforce the reality of the Fall and the distinction of humanity as the imago dei. A reading of Luke 10:25–37 through the lens of an evangelical theological anthropology demonstrates how contextual realities help to envision what it means to be neighbouring humans, especially by privileging the life of Jesus Christ as the epistemological starting point. The urgency for this approach is especially relevant in relation to making sense of the ancient Nicene Creed in the twenty-first-century context and the emerging digital culture. An evangelical hermeneutic of the self, by upholding biblical and apostolic affirmations of the self, provides a coherent framework for furthering the conversations on both theological anthropology in the Asian context and systematic engagement with the concerns of dehumanization and misconstrued forms of global theologies.