Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.

2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

An Introduction to
‘Theological Anthropology’
Charles Cameron
[p.53]

Keywords: postchristian, postmodern, image of God, creation, sin, salvation, worship,

faithfulness, sovereignty, judgement, Adam, grace, relationship, faith, response,
redemption, knowledge, glory, transformation, revelation, emotion, understanding, will,
choice, community, stewardship, service, hope, kingdom of God

What lies behind the idea of producing a theological anthropology? Why is it so important
that there should be a distinctively theological anthropology? Anthropology concerns itself
with understanding human experience. Theology is concerned with God. God and
humanity―should not the two be left in quite separate compartments? Some would wish to
leave ‘God’ in a remote ‘ivory tower’. They want to get on with the business of human life
without having to be bothered with a ‘God’ who is, for them, a complete irrelevance. Others
pride themselves on their theological orthodoxy while showing little interest in getting to
grips with the many―sided complexities of human experience. There is a real need for an
anthropology, which adopts a distinctively theological point of view. Understanding human
experience―this is not something which theologians can safely leave to others. It is vitally
important for everyone. It concerns a better understanding of ourselves. We may write as
Theologians, who, affirming their faith in God, must speak as those who have their feet upon
this earth. The Anthropological vantage-point is undoubtedly ‘from below’. This must,
however, be accompanied by the bold affirmation that the Word of God has come to us ‘from
above’. Refusing to ‘put the cart before the horse’, to get so bogged down in this-worldly
concerns, Christian Theology must take care not to create God in its own image as a prelude
to forgetting about him altogether.

Any attempt to write a theological anthropology is a bold undertaking. Ours is a time when
nothing can be taken for granted. Many, who write about the meaning of human experience,
would be entirely dismissive of the very idea of God. If ever there was a time when Christians
ought to ‘give a reason’ for the faith which they hold (1 Peter 3:15), this is it.

Perhaps in previous generations, more could be taken for granted. This is certainly not the
case now. The present generation has been described in different ways: postchristian,
postmodern. Biblical descriptions of moral and spiritual chaos are particularly apt. With little
understanding of and respect for the biblical teaching that ‘the Lord is King’, ‘everyone does
what is right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21:25). In a time when many will listen only to what
they ‘want to hear’, there is a widespread ‘turning away from the truth’ (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
Writing a theological anthropology requires courage―the courage to say things that few other
commentators on human life are saying, the courage to make statements which are unlikely to
be well received within the academic community. This essay on theological anthropology
aims at being an academic piece of work, touching upon many different dimensions of human
experience. It does, however, adopt a starting-point which would be deemed unpopular within
the wider academic community. We affirm the reality of divine revelation. To the ancient
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

question, ‘Is there any word from the Lord?’ (Jeremiah 37:17), we answer, ‘Yes. God has
spoken’. This does not involve replacing anthropology with theology. This is an
anthropology, written from a theological perspective. We write from the standpoint of the
Christian faith. We do not speak of ‘an unknown God’ (Acts 17:23), a ‘God’ whose character
is shrouded in vagueness, a ‘God’ of whom we can say very little. Human experience is
understood in the light of the God of revelation, the God of redemption. We confess the
Christian faith: God has made himself known in Jesus Christ, his Son, our Saviour. Enquiring
about the meaning of human experience, we direct attention to God, our Creator and Saviour.
Enquiring further about God, we deepen our understanding of human experience.

The aim of the present discussion is to provide the theological foundations on which further
discussion needs to be built. Fundamental to our whole approach is the conviction that
humanity has been created in the image of God. For those who affirm the authority of
Scripture―as we do―the search for a true understanding of human experience involves
paying close attention to the teaching of the Bible.

[p.54]

Direct biblical references to this idea of ‘the image of God’ are, in fact, quite infrequent.
Before commenting on the meaning of this phrase, we need to set it within its full biblical
context, the ongoing story of God’s dealings with humanity. The Bible tells a story. It is the
greatest story ever told. It is a story which begins in eternity, a story which will continue
throughout eternity. It is a story which gives depth to human experience. It is a story which
gives hope to human experience. It does not begin with sinful humanity. It begins with the
eternal God, our Creator. It does not end with sinful humanity. Beyond all that we see and
know here on earth, there is the eternal God and the fulfilment of his purpose of redemption.
This is the divine backcloth to the human story. We are only part of the story, his story, the
story of God. This is the story, told by God himself in Scripture, his own Word. God himself
has told his story so that humanity might understand its own story. Within his story, there is
our story, the story of what he intended us to be in creation, the story of what we have become
through sin, the story of what he still intends us to become through salvation. Human experi-
ence, with all its complexities and ambiguities, is viewed from the standpoint of the biblical
story, which is both the story of sin and the story of glory, the glory of divine salvation.

The biblical story is the story of creation, sin and salvation. This is the story which informs
our theological understanding of human experience.

Creation
The story begins with creation. The Bible teaches us that God is our Creator, and we are his
creation. Highlighting the relationship between Creator and creature, the Bible raises both the
anthropological question―‘What is man?’―and the theological question―‘Who is God?’.
The anthropological question is asked in relation to God, and the theological question is asked
in relation to humanity.

When, in Psalm 8:4, the Psalmist asks the question, ‘What is man that you are mindful of
him... that you care for him’, he is not asking the anthropological question in the way that the
contemporary researcher might ask it. He is not giving the kind of answers that we might be
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

looking for. He is not providing a description of various characteristics of human life. He is

bowing before God in worship, praising him for his continuing love. Finding the question,
‘what is man…?’, within a psalm of praise to the God of constant love, serves to remind us
that our deepest significance lies not in ourselves but in God our Creator. Grappling with all
the complications and ambiguities of human experience, we look beyond all that, and we see
the God who cares, the God to whom we matter.

Micah asks the theological question―‘Who is God?’. Like the psalmist with his
‘anthropological’ question, the prophet is worshipping God, thanking him for his love. He
does not offer a comprehensive description of God. He does not attempt to say everything that
could possibly be said about God. He does not enquire about a detached, remote ‘God’, whose
existence is of little interest to us. He worships the God who cares for us. He asks the
question, ‘Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives ... transgression… ?.’ This is
not only a question. It is a testimony, a joyous celebration of the God who ‘delight(s) to show
mercy’ and ‘have compassion on us’ (7:18-19). From both the psalmist’s ‘anthropological’
question and the prophet’s theological question, we learn that God cares for us. He cares
enough to forgive our sins. This is the great declaration made by the prophet as he asks the
question of God.

When the two questions―‘What is man?’ and ‘Who is God?’―are asked in close connection
with each other, we see that theology and anthropology are not, as some would suggest,
worlds apart from each other. They are, in fact, very closely related to each other. The
anthropological question―understanding ourselves―raises the question of God, ‘Can human
experience be adequately understood without reference to God?’. Viewing humanity in
relation to God involves seeing everything in a quite different light―the light of his love.

The continuing love of God expresses his faithfulness. He does not abandon his creation.
While we may learn much about the relation between God, the Creator, and humanity, his
creation, from the constancy of God’s love, we should also go back to the beginning, to the
biblical statement that God created humanity in his own image (Genesis 1:26-27). Implicit
within this statement is this dual perspective―seeking to understand human experience raises
the question of God, and thinking about God helps us to understand ourselves. The question,
‘What does it mean to say that humanity has been created in God’s image?’, is, at one and the
same time, both theological and anthropological. It would be one-sided to say that it is
primarily a theological question or to suggest that it is essentially an anthropological question.
It is both―theological and anthropological. This is the question of theological anthropology.
This is the basic question with which we are concerned: What does it mean to say that
humanity has been created in God’s image?

In this phrase, ‘created in God’s image’, there are two fundamental distinctions being
drawn―between humanity and the animals (of humanity alone is this description given,
‘created in God’s image’), between God and humanity (we have been created in God’s image,
but we are not God). Immediately after the statement concerning creation in God’s image
there is the further thought of dominion: ‘Let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds
of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the
ground’ (v.26). Commenting on the relationship between creation and dominion, R. Davidson
writes, ‘Just as God is sovereign over all creation, including man, so man reflects this
sovereignty. He has sovereignty delegated to him.’ As a consequence of this ‘delegated
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

sovereignty’, humanity’ stands in a position of responsibility before God’.1 The unbreakable

connection between ‘delegated sovereignty’ and ‘responsibility before God’ is succinctly
expressed by D. Bonhoeffer: ‘There is no dominion without serving God.’2

Sin and Salvation

Saying that humanity has been created in God’s image is not all that has to be said in a
theological anthropology. We must also speak of sin and salvation. The creature rebels against

[p.55]

the Creator. The human will asserts itself over against the divine will. This leads to separation
from the Creator. By his own sinful choice, the creature places himself at a distance from the
Creator. Creation in the image of God is followed by the fall from God, brought about by sin
(Genesis 3). The fall was followed by the flood (Genesis 6-8), the judgement of God upon
humanity, whom he had created and by whom he had been ‘grieved’ and ‘filled with pain’
(Genesis 6:6-7). In view of the fall of humanity into sin and the consequent judgement of
God, the question must be asked, ‘How does this affect our view of humanity as created in
God’s image?’ After the fall and the flood, we have, in Genesis 9:6, the statement: ‘Whoever
sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God
made man.’ Here, ethical teaching is grounded in the idea that humanity has been created in
the image of God. There is no suggestion here that―consequent to the fall and the
flood―humanity is no longer ‘in the image of God’. Further study of Scripture provides no
explicit statement to the effect that ‘the image of God’, has been removed from humanity.

To highlight the phrase, ‘created in the image of God’, would be to present a lop-sided
theological anthropology. God is our Creator, and we are his creation. Alongside this, we
must say something else―we are sinners, and God is our Saviour. The fact of human sin must
be taken into account. This fact also entails our need of divine salvation. This theological
anthropology, seeks to draw attention to both creation and salvation. Any attempt to drive a
wedge between the two results in a loss of the fine biblical balance which it is so important to
maintain.

We are caught in the middle, between what we once were and what we will yet be―‘in the
middle, coming from the beginning and going towards the end’.3 We are ‘Adam, mankind, the
human race’,4 created in God’s image, but we are also Adam the sinner (Romans 5:12-21).
This is not, however, the end of the human story. Realistic about the increase of sin, the
Christian faith proclaims, with faith, the increase of grace, leading to the reign of grace,
reigning ‘through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Romans
5: 20-21). As well as emphasizing the human privilege―created in the image of God―we
also emphasize the human responsibility of coming in faith to Jesus Christ and, thus,
becoming a ‘new creation’ in him (2 Corinthians 5:17.

1
Genesis 1-11 (Cambridge University Press, 1973), p.25.
2
Creation and Fall (S.C.M. Press Ltd., London, 1959), p.40.
3
ibid., p.14.
4
Davidson, op. cit., p.23.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

The human situation, in the beginning, was quite different from our present situation―‘Adam
knows neither what is good nor what is evil’.5 Adam walked with God, without shame
(Genesis 2:25). He did not know ‘evil’ as an inescapable fact of his everyday life. He did not
know ‘good’ as a kind of ‘elusive butterfly’ which always seemed to be just out of his reach.
Like Adam, we still stand before God. We live out our lives in the presence of the living God.
We, however, no longer stand before him without shame. There is no way of returning to the
situation of Adam before his fall. It cannot be done. We are simply not in a position to remove
ourselves to this paradise ‘beyond good and evil’.6 We are ‘separated from the life of God’
(Ephesians 4:18). Estranged from God, alienated from him, our situation would seem to be
utterly hopeless. Theological anthropology, must reckon with the harsh realities of this bleak
and unpromising situation. If, however, our theological anthropology is to be truly grounded
in the Christian faith, we must also reckon with something else―‘the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ’ (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Given the apparent hopelessness of the human situation - apart from the grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ―it becomes exceedingly difficult to define what is meant by ‘the image of God
in humanity’. It is difficult to be optimistic about the outcome of the search for some aspect of
human nature, which can be directly identified with ‘the image of God’. In search of The True
Image, P.E. Hughes highlights several features of human experience, which bear the imprint
of God’s image in humanity―personality, spirituality, rationality morality, authority,
creativity. He takes account of the effect of sin―disintegration, before moving on to explore
the effect of salvation―reintegration.7 Sin’s disintegrating effect on our lives means that we
can catch only fleeting glimpses of what our Creator originally intended us to be. Despite
human sin, God persists in his purpose of restoration. Through salvation in Christ, there is
reintegration. Whatever may be said about God’s original creation theological anthropology
must take account of the radical effect of sin on human life and place its major emphasis on
the transforming effect of Jesus Christ. God’s original intention is rediscovered through
Christ.

Apart from the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, humanity’s relationship to God is one of
estrangement rather than fellowship. This relationship characterized by sin, guilt and
condemnation, can be reversed, transformed into communion with God, only by divine grace.
The whole of human life is lived in relation to God―‘in him we live and move and have our
being’ (Acts 17:28). This relationship is expressed in the thought that ‘he is not far from each
one of us’. This is not, however, a comforting thought. It does not encourage complacency.
This God, who is ‘not far from each one of us’, relates to humanity through a word of warning
concerning’ a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed’, a
command ‘to repent’ and an invitation to ‘seek... and find him’ (Acts 17:27-31). When the
warning is heeded, the command is obeyed and the invitation is acted upon, the relationship
with God is no longer one of estrangement. It becomes the relationship for which we were
created―‘man is made for fellowship and communion with God’.8

A theological anthropology, which views humanity’s relationship to God in its various

dimensions, will speak of both sin and salvation, revolt against God and fellowship with God.

5
Bonhoeffer, op. cit., p.53.
6
ibid., p.57.
7
Eerdmans/I.V.P., Grand Rapids/Leicester, 1989.
8
N.H.G. Robinson, The Groundwork of Christian Ethics (Collins, London, 1971), p.218.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

In every aspect of human life, there is ambiguity. There are the actualities of human life,
deeply disturbed by sin, and there are the potentialities of human life, graciously called to
salvation. While touching upon a wide range of different aspects of human experience,
theological anthropology is not concerned with any one particular aspect in isolation from the
rest of our life. Its concern is with the entirety of human existence―‘the whole man is created
in God’s image’.9

Divine Calling, Human Response

In the entirety of our human life, there is the divine calling―‘it is man’s fundamental
vocation to be God’s child’. It is a divine calling which looks for human response. Realism

[p.56]

acknowledges that, as a ‘consequence of sin’, the ‘pure childlike relationship with God has
been broken’. Faith, affirming the persistence of God’s love, insists that the calling
remains―‘man’s fundamental vocation to be God’s child... is not lost―not even by sin,
because it rests upon God’s will and is, therefore, founded upon the creation’.10 The words of
Genesis 3:9, ‘the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”’, do not pronounce a word of
judgement in which God abandons sinful humanity. This is the call of mercy. God in grace, is
calling the sinner back to himself. There is a critical examination: ‘Where are you?’ implies
the searching question, ‘What have you done?’. There is also a compassionate appeal: ‘Where
are you?’ carries the further thought of ‘Will you not return to me?’. This is the divine calling,
looking for the human response.

Theological anthropology draws attention to God’s call for a response in the whole of life.
This is not primarily an academic exercise, an intellectual debate with theology’s rivals. The
main concern is not to challenge alternative interpretations of human experience. The current
intellectual climate must be taken into account. This generation has been described as
postmodernist. There has been so much change. It almost seems that the only constant feature
is change. Nothing remains the same. Everything changes. This seems to be the chief
characteristic of our postmodern age. Morally and spiritually, there seems to be nothing but
chaos, wherever we look. It appears that ‘anything goes’ has become the watchword of this
generation. It seems that the only thing to be taken for granted is that there are no certainties.
Many people live as though nothing really matters. Questions about belief and behaviour are
dismissed without any discussion. The approach of Christian theology is not exactly ‘state of
the art’. It belongs to a bygone age. It has no place within a postmodernist society. To adopt a
specifically theological starting-point in our study of human experience is to run counter to
the prevalent trend of our time. Theological anthropology calls in question the adequacy of
every approach which excludes God from the attempt to make sense of our life. Many protest
that to insist on a theological outlook is to hold back progress. The postmodernist age has
brought great progress in many areas of life. Nevertheless, it must be asked whether there has
been progress in the moral and spiritual areas of life. Christian theology persists in its
commitment to understanding human life in the light of the God ‘in whom we live and move
and have our being’ (Acts 17:28).

9
G. von Rad, Genesis (S.C.M. Press Ltd., London, 1961), p.58.
10
Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1970), pp.413-414.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

While taking account of the postmodernist context within which we write, our chief intention
is to be constructive rather than polemical. The goal is to construct a theological anthropology
rather than launching an attack on contemporary society. Some intellectual debate is
unavoidable if there is to be a genuinely contemporary approach. The understanding we seek
to obtain is not, however, intellectual. There is a futility of thinking, a darkening of the under-
standing, an ignorance which has more to do with the hardening of the heart than any lack of
intellectual capacity (Ephesians 4:17-18). At the heart of the theological understanding of
human experience, there is the biblical principle: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). Studying anthropology within a theological context, does not
involve presenting a system of doctrine, to which the reader is required to give intellectual
assent. Taking account of the reality of the living God, in our thinking about human
experience, will always involve more than a merely intellectual response. Speaking of the
divine call for a response which affects the whole of life, H. Berkhof describes ‘man’ as ‘a
being who is made to encounter God, to respond to his word’.11 Understanding humanity in
terms of response to God need not imply that we do, in fact, always respond to him in faith
and obedience. Very often our response to him is rather different. Often the sinful way of
unbelief and disobedience is chosen. Whatever the nature of our response to God, it will
always touch upon much more than the intellectual aspect of our life.

The human response to God is shaped by sin and salvation. Sin draws us away from God:
through salvation God draws us back to himself. Theological anthropology, seeks to take
account of both the sin, which has so profoundly affected our experience of what it means to
be ‘created in the image of God’, and the glorious destiny, toward which God is still calling
humanity through the eternal salvation he has provided in Jesus Christ. The Bible speaks with
stark realism―‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’―and with glorious hope -
‘and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus’
(Romans 3:23-24). What a glorious beginning there was for humanity―‘created in the image
of God’. Now, sadly, there needs to be the honest confession―‘the glory has departed’ (1
Samuel 4:21). Humanity’s glory has been tarnished by sin. The restoration of the glory―this
is the purpose of God’s salvation.

Theological anthropology looks at human experience with a view to catching glimpses of

God’s glory, the glory of his purpose for humanity. Here, we echo the aim of P. Berger: ‘who
suggests that theological thought seek out what might be called signals of transcendence
within the empirically given situation’.12 Where God is excluded from anthropology every-
thing is viewed in terms of the horizontal dimension. In theological anthropology, we are
looking also at the vertical dimension, the reality of God in human experience. This divine
reality is not located within a single, clearly defined and limited part of human life. Rather we
see the whole of life being shaped by the fact that humanity is the creation―albeit fallen―of
God, the creation which he has not abandoned, the creation which he purposes to redeem. It is
with this wide-ranging view of the reality of God within human experience that we address
ourselves to the subject of theological anthropology. This is not a theology which is deeply
interested in God but only slightly interested in the life of humanity. We are interested in
both, the Creator and the creation, the Redeemer and the redeemed.

11
Christian Faith (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1979), p.181.
12
A Rumour of Angels (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1969), p.70.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

This dual perspective―the Creator and the creation, the Redeemer and the redeemed―is
found in the opening sentences of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion: ‘Our wisdom...
consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves ... it is not easy
to determine which of the two precedes, and gives birth to the other… no man can survey
himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and
moves’.13 This knowledge of God is much more than a purely intellectual knowledge. It is a
life-changing knowledge, a knowledge which results in a life which is lived for God’s glory.
Explor-

[p.57]

ing the ‘many ties’ which connect ‘our knowledge of God and of ourselves’, does not involve
a restriction of interest to specifically Christian experience of God. There is a relationship
between ‘man’ and God, even where this relationship has been perverted by sin, even where
‘man’ resents the fact that his whole life is lived in relation to God. Acknowledging that its
field of study is the whole range of human experience, theological anthropology reiterates the
challenging words of Calvin, words which invite a response, in which human life is redirected
towards God: ‘man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he has previously
contemplated the face of God’.14

Calvin may have written over four centuries ago, yet his insights are still very relevant to the
construction of a contemporary theological anthropology. Human life remains unfulfilled
apart from God. Our understanding of what it means to be human remains incomplete without
the perspective offered by the description, ‘created in the image of God’. Seeking a ‘true self-
knowledge’, we must also ‘contemplate the face of God’. Understanding what it means to be
‘created in the image of God’, involves learning what God is like. This, according to the
Christian faith, involves turning our attention to Jesus Christ. When Christ was asked, ‘Lord,
show us the Father’, he replied, ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:8-9).
Christian understanding of God does not end with his act of creation. God has not created the
world, and then abandoned it. He has not created humanity in his own image, and then
forgotten about us. Some suggest that our fleeting glimpses of God―so few and far
between―are hardly enough to encourage trust in a God who loves us. We would, however,
suggest that our awareness of God’s presence is so slight, precisely because we are so easily
bogged down within the situation of sinful humanity that we are inclined to forget that there is
a ‘rock’ for our faith (Psalm 40:1-3), the rock of our creation―created in the image of
God―the rock of our salvation―saved for a glorious destiny (1 John 3:1-2). Theological
anthropology involves learning what God is like as well as learning what we ourselves are
like.

Learning what God is like, we catch glimpses of his glory. This glory is revealed in Jesus
Christ (John 1:14). It is a glory which transforms those who keep looking to Christ (2
Corinthians 3:18). There are many things which can be said about the glory of God. Above
all, and particularly in relation to humanity, the glory of his love may be highlighted. His act
of creation is an act of love. Expounding the idea, God the Creator’, K. Barth emphasizes,

13
One, I, 1.
14
ibid., One,1,2.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

‘Creation is grace… the ground of creation is God’s grace.’15 From the very beginning of
God’s dealings with humanity, there is love―he loves us, we are loved by him. If the world is
to be more truly and more fully, ‘The theatre of His glory’,16 there must be a restoration of the
glory of his love. A theological anthropology, which is truly grounded in Christ, will not be
content to peak only of the love of God, revealed in his act of creation. It will speak also of
the glory of the cross (Galatians 6:14). and the transforming power of Christ’s love, a love
which is t work in us, reproducing itself in us as ‘the fruit of the spirit’ (Galatians 5:22). This
is the restoration of God’s glory. is the glory of love―God’s own love―finding expression in
human life (1 John 4:6). Theological anthropology seeks to highlight the different areas of
life, where God is at work, restoring his glory within his creation. The aim is not to speculate
about what humanity might have been apart from and prior to the entrance of sin. Rather, it is
to draw attention to what humanity can become through the saving grace of God, in Jesus
Christ.

The restoration of the divine glory involves the transformation of human life: ‘we ... are being
transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord’ (2
Corinthians 3:18). This transformation of human life―personal and social―is produced
when, through salvation in Jesus Christ, God’s process of restoring the original relationship
between the Creator and his creation is set in motion.

Personal Transformation
God is concerned with personal transformation. God is not a superficial observer of human
experience: ‘Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart’ (1 Samuel
16:7). He looks at human life with a view to transforming it. This transformation is produced
by the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not, first of all, a change in the outward appearance of
things. It is a change of heart―‘outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being
renewed day by day’ (2 Corinthians 4:16). There are externally observable aspects of this
transformation. It begins, however, with the inner transformation―receiving the ‘new life’
which comes from ‘his Spirit who lives in you’ (Romans 6:4; 8:11). We are called ‘to put on
the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness’ (Ephesians 4:24). This
is not about a tinkering with this or that aspect of human life. It is the reproduction of the
divine character within his human creation. This personal transformation involves the
understanding, the emotions, and the will. These are closely connected aspects of our
transformation by God. Every tendency to pull them apart must be resisted.

The Understanding
Transformation of human life involves the renewal of the understanding. Emphasizing the
importance of the mind, this theological anthropology looks at human experience from the
standpoint of biblical revelation. This standpoint differs from that of mystical spirituality,
which proclaims a deep, religious experience of God as ‘Wholly Other’, a profound
awareness of the Divine, which cannot be articulated. We believe that there is a divine
revelation, expressed in human words. This is why we make it our goal to ‘speak... in words
taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words’ (1 Corinthians 2:13).

15
Dogmatics in Outline (S.C.M. Press Ltd., London, 1966), pp.54, 57.
16
ibid., p.58 (citing Calvin).
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

The starting-point is not that of phenomenonology: ‘an examination of man’s

consciousness’.17 With D.G. Bloesch, in his analysis of ‘Two Types of Spirit-
uality’―‘evangelical devotion’ and ‘mystical spirituality’, we stress that ‘our faith is
mediated through but not derived from experience’.18 Thus, its approach differs from that of
phenomenology which ‘attempts to describe’ and has no interest in the prescriptive question
concerning ‘how people ought to believe’.19

Similarly, theological anthropology does not begin from a starting-point of supposed

‘neutrality’. It is based on this

[p.58]

theological position: we believe in divine revelation, affirming that the God who has
expressed himself, in Jesus Christ, as the living Word, has given to us the Bible, his written
Word, so that, by the instruction of our minds, we may understand our human experience,
more fully and more truly, in the light of him who is both our Creator and our Redeemer.
With the Psalmist, we testify, ‘The entrance of your words gives light’, and we pray, ‘Give
me understanding according to your word’ (Psalm 119:130, 169).

The Emotions
The renewal of the understanding (Romans 12:2) needs to be held in balance with the
transforming of the emotions, and they need to be viewed in close connection with the
surrender of the will. The difference between a theological anthropology and an anthropology
which excludes God is much more than a different world-view. There is also the matter of
where the ‘heart’ is (Matthew 6:21). A truly theological anthropology will lead the ‘heart’ to
the Lord. If God is excluded, the ‘heart’ will remain with the world. The response of the
‘heart’, where it is real, is always much more than a purely emotional response. It is the
response of the whole person. The whole of life is given over to the Lord. An anthropology,
which is genuinely theological, will involve much more than a purely academic consideration
of human experience. There will be a real commitment to seeing every part of life in relation
to God: ‘we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5).

The understanding and the emotions belong together. Here, we share P. Tillich’s insistence on
the vital connection between the two. He emphasizes that ‘receiving knowledge... includes the
emotional element’. Tillich contrasts ‘receiving knowledge’ with ‘controlling knowledge’
which ‘tries to detach itself as much as possible’. He maintains that there cannot be real
“understanding’ without emotional participation’. He points out that ‘nothing can be received
cognitively without emotion’. Describing the place of the emotions in our understanding, he
writes, ‘Emotion is the vehicle for receiving cognition. But the vehicle is far from making the
content itself emotional. The content is rational, something to be verified, to be looked at with

17
K.G. Howkins, ‘Phenomenology’ in S.B. Ferguson, D.F. Wright (editors), New Dictionary of Theology
(I.V.P., Leicester, 1988), p.508.
18
The Crisis of Piety (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 114-115.
19
R. Lints, ‘Phenomenology of Religion’ in J.D. Douglas (ed.), New 20th-Century Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1991), p. 649.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

critical caution.’20 In line with this emphasis on the unity of the understanding and the
emotions, we seek, in theological anthropology, to draw attention to the divine call for the
response of the whole person.

The Will
As well as the understanding and the emotions, an important part of our response to God
involves the act of the will. There may be understanding with the mind and a stirring of the
emotions without a full response to God. The message has been understood with the mind. It
has stirred the emotions. It must be acted upon. Discussing the meaning of ‘the much-abused
word ‘experience’, Tillich writes, ‘Experience unites insight into action.’21 If our experience
of God is to be more than the giving of intellectual assent and more than the stirring of our
emotions, there needs to be action. This action is vitally related to the understanding and the
emotions. There can be no acting upon a message that is not understood. There will be no
acting upon a message that has not stirred the emotions deeply. In the act of the will, we build
upon the understanding of the mind and the stirring of the emotions.

The act of the will does not stand alone. It is not an act of blind obedience. It is informed by
the understanding and it receives vitality from the emotions. The act of the will brings
completeness to the human response to God. The understanding can be reduced to mere
intellectual assent. The emotions can be no more than pious feelings. The surrender of the will
sets God’s transforming power fully into action. We are lifted out of passivity. Building upon
breadth of understanding and depth of emotion, we choose to do God’s will, and thus the full
process of personal transformation is set in motion. The Bible emphasizes the importance of
human choices―‘Choose this day whom you will serve’ (Joshua 24:15). The human situation
is vividly described in the words of Joel 3:14―‘Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of deci-
sion’. In an age where responsibility is not a very popular idea, the Bible insists that human
beings are responsible for the choices they make. They are commanded to do God’s will (Acts
17:30). We will be held responsible if we go our own way rather than God’s way.

Social Transformation
As well as personal transformation, there is also social transformation. Human life is life in
community. We are called to serve the wider community. This aspect of our response to God
cannot be ignored.

It is an important sociological maxim that ‘no man is an island’. Our life is lived in relation to
others. From the very outset, our life is lived in community. A newborn child, abandoned, is a
child left to die. From the beginning, we need one another. Our life is not to be lived in
isolation. We are a people in community. An important aspect of our life in community is
highlighted in the biblical account of our creation: ‘God created man in his own image,... male
and female he created them’ (Genesis 1:27). This life in community is expanded further in
v.28. For our first parents, their life in community was not a blissful existence, shared with
nobody else and nothing else. Their life in community was shared with the rest of God’s
creation, and it was to be shared with the next generation of human beings, the product of

20
Systematic Theology (University of Chicago Press, 1967). I, p.98.
21
ibid., I, p.92.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

their own obedience to the divine command―‘Be fruitful and increase in number’.
Theological anthropology, must give attention to those aspects of human life, which can be
described in terms of ‘life in community’.

This ‘life in community’ is a life of privileged responsibility. There is the privilege of being
created in the image of God and the responsibility of living as those who bear the divine
image. It is important that the right balance between privilege and responsibility is
maintained. The Westminster Shorter Catechism provides a helpful combination of privilege
and responsibility. In its statement, ‘Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him
forever’ it emphasizes the privilege of enjoying God and the responsibility of glorifying him.
Maintaining the true balance between the two is most important for all our human
relations―marriage, the family

[p.59]

and life in the wider society.

Theological anthropology takes the broad view of things. Its concern is not simply to develop
a ‘theology’ which can then be applied to community life within the clearly prescribed limits
of ‘the church’. It is concerned with the whole of life, looking at it from a theological point of
view. ‘Life in community’ involves more than human relationships. It involves humanity’s
relationship with the whole of creation. This divine calling―‘to rule over’ the rest of God’s
creation (Genesis 1:26, 28)―is to be exercised with a sense of both privilege and
responsibility. There is to be a humble acknowledgement of God’s gift, and a caring
commitment to exercise our God-given stewardship responsibly.

The principles involved in this responsible stewardship are precisely those which undergird
this whole exercise in theological anthropology. Scripture says that ‘The earth is the Lord’s,
and everything in it’ (Psalm 24:1). It also says that ‘The highest heavens belong to the Lord
but the earth he has given to man’ (Psalm 115:16). These two insights are taken together,
concentrating on God without forgetting about his creation, focusing on humanity and its
world without forgetting about God. The approach is genuinely anthropological. There is a
real concern with understanding human experience, and not simply producing a ‘theology’
which remains rather detached from life on earth. The approach is distinctively theological.
Humanity is not the sole focus of attention. We see ourselves as created by God and created
for God.

Created by God and created for God, humanity is called by God and called to him. Invited to
come to him, invited to serve him―This is the human calling. We cannot serve God without
first coming to him. In serving God, we do not turn away from worshipping him. Our service
is grounded in worship. Worshipping God, we are equipped for serving him. Serving God is
not merely a theological action. It is a way of life, which is full of anthropological
significance. A real commitment to serving God will affect the way in which we understand
ourselves. It will transform our way of living here on earth. Serving God may be grounded in
worshipping him, but it does not mean floating around in a kind of ‘head in the clouds’
existence. It will mean involvement in a very human world. In so many different ways, it will
mean serving very ordinary people. Nevertheless, this service will not be ‘ordinary’. It will be
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

a special kind of service, the service of God, given in the name of the Lord, carried out with
the help of the Lord, and pursued with the object of restoring his glory to his world.

Thus, theological anthropology, aims to make a distinctive contribution to modern discussion

concerning the life of humanity: We speak as those who―‘in the temple’ (our own particular
field of theological study)―have caught a glimpse of the glory of God. In response to the
divine commission―‘Go and tell this people’,―we write so that our readers might see more
clearly that ‘the whole earth is full of his glory’. We are aware that many would dismiss us as
‘touched’. For them, any reference to God is to be excluded from the outset. We, who believe
in the importance of a theological foundation for anthropological understanding, freely
acknowledge that we are ‘touched’: ‘he touched my mouth and said, ‘See, this has touched
your lips” (Isaiah 6:1-9). Some assert that there is no place for God within the study of
anthropology. We do not see ourselves as ‘introducing’ God into anthropological study. We
hold that he is there already. Over against the idea that God has been created in humanity’s
own image, we affirm that it is humanity which has been created in God’s own image.
Theological anthropology is offered as an act of service―serving God by seeking to give him
his rightful place in his world and serving humanity by directing attention to the God of hope
who is the hope of the world. Calling attention to this aspect of hope is a most important
feature of this theological anthropology. In a world in which there seem to be so few signs of
hope, it is essential that theologians point the way to the rediscovery of hope. The restoration
of God’s glory has already begun―‘we... are being transformed into his likeness, with ever-
increasing glory’ (2 Corinthians 3:18)―but it will not be completed in this mortal life. The
Christian faith does not begin and end with humanity. It begins with God―‘In the beginning,
God…’ (Genesis 1:1). He is our hope for the future, our hope for eternity―‘He is the true
God and eternal life’ (1 John 5:20). This is the broad background of theological
anthropology―‘from beginning to end, God’. All of life is lived in the presence of God. This
is our hope, our ‘hope of glory’ (Colossians 1:27), our ‘goal’, ‘the prize for which God has
called (us) heavenward in Christ Jesus’ (Philippians 3:14).

Christian faith insists that our earthly present is not the last word on human experience. In the
present, we see ‘the presence of the future’.22 In the present, we see the unfolding of God’s
eternal kingdom. The eternal destiny, the glorious future, calls us on. We are to be a people of
hope, but we are not to be easy-going optimists who take lightly ‘the radical nature of evil’.
Believing that ‘God is the Lord of history’, we also recognize that ‘there are hostile elements,
opposing forces which seek to frustrate God’s rule’.23 Together with an ultimate optimism
concerning the final fulfilment of God’s eternal purpose, we speak with realism concerning
the present realities of our human situation. Our dual perspective―human sin, divine
salvation―has been well expressed in the words of H.Butt : ‘Everything is hopeless but God.
Everything is hopeful because of God... we and our societies are nothing compared with
God... we and our world are beloved of God.’24

This perspective on hope is useful to us as we seek to hold together the different concerns of
theology and anthropology. We do not concern ourselves so exclusively with God that we
lose interest in what is happening here on earth. We do not, on the other hand, allow ourselves
to get so caught up in the intricate complexities of anthropological study that we lose sight of
22
G.E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future ( Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1974).
23
ibid., p.333.
24
H. Butt with E. Wright, At the Edge of Hope (Seabury Press, New York, 1978), pp. 8-9.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

the God who gives to our human experience its true meaning, purpose and direction. Butt’s
approach forms a good basis for work which is both deeply theological and genuinely
anthropological. His words are well worth repeating:

Transcendent hope and… immanent hope... must cohere... in order to intersect and
overcome despair the loss of expectation, both expectation for God’s eternal Kingdom and
expectation for the improvement of this world... transcendent expectation and immanent
expectation form one complete Christian hope. The first says, turn to God because the
human prospect is so bleak; the second says, the human prospect can be

[p.60]

changed because of God.25

For the full revelation of the divine glory, we await his coming kingdom. This does not
prevent us from seeking glimpses of his glory here-and-now. Indeed, the hope of his glorious
kingdom encourages us to seek such glimpses of glory. Our experience of his glory can never
be more than partial. Nevertheless, we believe that it is a real anticipation of the glory, which
will be fully unveiled at the return of Jesus Christ.

Focusing attention on this future hope does not involve diverting attention away from our
present life. There is a vital connection between the two. The relevance of our future hope for
this present life has been well brought out by the German theologians, W. Pannenberg and J.
Moltmann. Their comments are well worth noting here.

Stressing that ‘We are not called to choose between concern for the Kingdom and concern for
society’, Pannenberg insists that ‘The Church… must take the present social and political
forms with greatest seriousness and appraise them in light of the coming Kingdom of God’.
Emphasizing that God should not be viewed in terms of ‘isolated transcendency’, he points to
‘God’s intention for the transformation of the world through his rule’, highlighting the
church’s role: ‘By witnessing to the future fulfilment of humanity in God’s Kingdom, the
Church helps to stir the imagination for social action’.26

Thinking of the ‘Church as constituted by its mission to the world in the service of the coming
universal Kingdom of God’, Moltmann views our future hope as ‘not an escapist dream, but a
critical, motivating perspective on the present’.27 Pointing out that ‘The theologian is not
concerned merely to supply a different interpretation of the world, of history and of human
nature, but to transform them in expectation of a divine transformation’, he maintains that
‘Christian theology “proves” itself ... in opening up future prospects for reality and initiating
movements towards these’.28 Seeking to ‘relate the expectation of an ultimate future to
hopeful activity in the present’, he highlights the ‘function’ of Christian ‘hope’ in ‘liberat(ing)
people’s thinking from the constraints of existing conditions’, ‘arousing hope and obedience’
and ‘produc(ing) anticipations of (the Kingdom of God) in history’.29
25
ibid., pp.6-7.
26
Theology and the Kingdom of God (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 84-85, 111.
27
R.J. Bauckham, Moltmann: Messianic Theology in the Making. (Marshall, Morgan and Scott, Basingstoke,
1987), pp.5, 13.
28
Theology of Hope, pp.84, 89, 94. (cited in Bauckham, op. cit., pp.14, 27).
29
Bauckham, op. cit., pp. 13, 43, 45.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

It should be observed, at this stage, that the insights of Pannenberg and Moltmann, while they
are most valuable, ought to be used with caution. It has been argued that, in some of
Moltmann’s writings, there is a ‘danger... of promoting a revolutionary political attitude in too
simplistic a way’.30 Aware of this kind of danger, Pannenberg stresses that ‘we should not be
carried away into saying that the Church must always be revolutionary’.31 In our theological
anthropology, we will confront many complex issues. We must not lose sight of the nature of
our Christian faith. It involves allegiance to Jesus Christ, but it may never be identified with
unqualified allegiance to any political system. Whatever may be said about contemporary
applications of Christian hope, it must be stressed that our future expectation centres on a real
return of Christ in the coming kingdom of God. Our present experience of God can be no
more than a ‘poor reflection’ of ‘the glory that will be revealed in us’―‘when he appears we
shall be like him’ (1 Corinthians 13:12; Romans 8:18; 1 John 3:2). Our world will be a new
world. Its renewal will be greater than we could ever imagine. It will be ‘a new heaven and a
new earth’ (Revelation 21:1).

An approach which is at one at one and the same time, both theological and anthropological,
will seek to avoid two pitfalls. There must be no attempt to speak purely ‘from above’. This
would be an authoritarian imposition of theology upon anthropology. There must be no
movement towards developing a ‘from below’ method which severely restricts the freedom of
theology to comment on human experience. This would be an over reaction to the danger of
theological authoritarianism. Speaking from the standpoint of a God who has fully involved
himself with his creation (John 1:14). theological anthropology emphasizes that human life
remains unfulfilled apart from this God. From the standpoint of God, there is an impulse
which moves him towards humanity―the impulse of his love. From the human standpoint,
there is a pull towards God―the pull of his love. God’s love propels him into action. His
initiative towards humanity is the initiative of love. God’s love calls humanity back to
himself. Even in all the many demands of a world which often seems to go on from day-to-
day, year to year, and even generation to generation, with little thought of God, still―there is
the call of God’s love, the ‘still, small voice’, the ‘gentle whisper’ of God’s voice (1 Kings
19:12).

In all the complexity and diversity of theological anthropology, there is one voice which must
be heard above all others, the voice of God. This theological anthropology will not be
speaking of God all of the time. Much of what is said will be very largely descriptive of
human experience. God will not be ‘hauled in’ at every opportunity. He is there at every
point. At no point is God absent. We live in his presence, even when we refuse to
acknowledge him. Theological anthropology is intended to be a real echo of the ancient
prophets and apostles―there is a word from the Lord, a ‘living and enduring word of God’
which modern men and women, in all their sophistication, still ignore at their peril, a ‘living
and enduring word of God’ which still points the way forward, the way of true progress for
the human race (1 Peter 1:23).

This grounding of our thinking and writing in divine revelation is, very important. It is vital
that strong theological foundations are laid so that the reader, grappling with a wide range of
30
Bauckham, op. cit., p.43 (citing F. Kerstiens, ‘The Theology of Hope in Germany Today’, Concilium 9/6
(1970), p.110.
31
Pannenberg, op cit., p.85.
Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel 23.2 (Summer 2005):
53-61.

anthropological material, will not miss the point of it all. A succinct and helpful summary of
the essential conviction, from which the present theological anthropology proceeds, may be
found in Augustine’s well-known prayer:

You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless
until they rest in you.32

© 2005 Evangel. Reproduced by permission. Rev. Dr. Charles M. Cameron is a Church of Scotland
minister in Dunfermline and a regular contributor to Evangel.

Prepared for the Web in October 2006 by Robert I. Bradshaw.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/

32
Confessions I.i.l.