Doctrine of Man (Part 1): Different Approaches to Anthropology

Different Approaches to Anthropology

Today we begin a new locus in our survey of Christian doctrine. For the past many months we have been studying the doctrine of creation. When you think that the doctrine of creation includes within its scope everything in existence apart from God himself, then it is no surprise that it would be a subject that would merit such a lengthy discussion. But having completed that locus now, we turn to a brand new section of the course devoted to the doctrine of man.

Psalm 8 raises the question, “What is man that thou art mindful of him?” There are different approaches to answering this fundamental question about the nature of man. Let’s compare and contrast varioua approaches to anthropology.

First, empirical anthropology. Empirical anthropology can be defined as a collection of sciences which respectively investigate different aspects of man through the observation of analyzable phenomena, through experimentation, and through the consequences of the data investigated. So, for example, empirical anthropology would include studies on the biological origins of man – where did the human species come from? It asks what, if anything, makes humans unique? What serves to differentiate humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom? It studies the relationship of the brain and states of consciousness – the famous mind-body problem. Psychoanalysis and psychology would be included in empirical anthropology, as would be social studies. All of these provide partial answers, at least, to the question “What is man?”

Philosophical anthropology, by contrast, tries to answer the question “Who is man?” If the empirical anthropologist tries to answer the question “What is man?” the philosophical anthropologist explores the question “Who is man?” That is to say, philosophical anthropology seeks a self-understanding of man in light of the analysis of what it is to be a human being. This will usually be bound up with ethical considerations – what our moral obligations and prohibitions are – and the intrinsic worth of human beings and fundamental human rights.

As you might well imagine, there are various approaches to philosophical anthropology. For example, one of these would be materialism or physicalism or naturalism. This viewpoint has a very long pedigree. Particularly influential in the modern notion of materialism would be conceptions of man like that of Julien Offray de La Mettrie[1] (1709 -1751). This French thinker characterized man as L’homme machine – “man the machine.” This is very similar to the characterization of humanity by Richard Dawkins in our own day – that we are basically machines for propagating DNA. L’homme machine is the notion of man as just a mechanistic device – a “moist robot” in the words of one contemporary naturalist. The German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach[2]  (1804 – 1872) had a very catchy way of expressing this materialistic view of man. Feuerbach’s aphorism was “der Mensch ist, was er isst” – that is to say, “man is what he eats” – in German, at least, a very nice pun. On this view, man is just a purely material organism.

In contrast to this view of philosophical anthropology would be a quite different perspective known as idealism. This is represented in German philosophy by G. W. F. Hegel[3] (1770 - 1831). For Hegel, it is the mind, or spirit, which is constitutive for man. What it means to be human is to be mind as opposed to the material.

Yet a third philosophical approach to anthropology would be existentialism. Existentialism emphasizes individual authentic existence achieved by a free choice through which a person realizes his uniqueness. So the emphasis in existentialism is on individual authenticity which is achieved through radical freedom. A good example of an existentialist would be the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980). Sartre was an atheistic existentialist.[4] He held that man is condemned to be free because there is no essence of man which precedes his existence and defines who he is. Rather, man is condemned to freely define his own existence, since he does not have an essence that is established by God in advance. Man determines his own meaning and value. So existentialism tends to lead to a sort of radical relativism about the meaning and value of human life.

Finally, one might mention Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. According to Marxism, society is constitutive for what it is to be a human being – not the individual but rather society. It postulates a kind of economic determinism and class struggle between oppressors and the oppressed. This view of man entails a view of human beings which implies the perfectibility of human existence. If the state can be made to respect and to work for the interests of the masses, then the masses can achieve a sort of perfect society – a perfect humanity if you will – so that there is no innate, sinful, fallenness of man which would prevent having a perfect society in which human beings live.

All of these examples are various philosophical approaches to the subject of anthropology seeking to answer the question, “Who is man?”

In contrast to both empirical and philosophical anthropology, theological anthropology approaches these questions with respect to man’s relationship to God. Like philosophical anthropology, it also seeks to answer the question, “Who is man?” What is the meaning and nature of human existence? But in contrast to empirical and philosophical anthropology, it sees the answer to the psalmist's question to be found fundamentally in our relationship with God. This usually involves two aspects: man as created in God’s image and then man as a fallen human being – a sinner – before God.

So theological anthropology – or the doctrine of man – typically includes within it two subsections. First would be man as created in the image of God. What is man by nature? Then secondly would be man as sinner – man in his fallen state of alienation from God.

A third state, namely, man justified in Christ and restored to his relationship with God, will typically come in the doctrine of salvation or soteriology, which we will look at later. So there tend to be two subsections in the doctrine of man – man in the image of God and then man as sinner. Man insofar as he is redeemed and restored to relationship with God (though it could be included here) is generally classed under the doctrine of salvation.

So man is created by nature to be in God’s image though he now stands in rebellion to God. There is a sort of paradox in Christian anthropology, if you will; namely, the so-called “natural man” is not really the natural man! That is to say, man as he was created to be, by nature, is in the image of God; he is innocent and not fallen – that is the way that Adam is presented in Genesis prior to the Fall. But what Paul calls the “natural man” is fallen humanity. So Paul’s natural man is not really the natural man. Sin doesn’t belong to man by nature; it is rather a perversion of human nature. Human nature in its uncorrupted form as it was created to be in proper relation to God.

What is the inter-relationship between these different approaches to the doctrine of man? Well, some persons think that theological anthropology has no role to play whatsoever and should be excluded. Obviously, if you are a materialist or a naturalist, then there simply is no room for answering these questions with respect to our relationship to God. For many people on the modern scene who are influenced by secular philosophical approaches, theological anthropology is simply out of the question.

Among those who do take a theological approach, it will be very frequently said that there is no relationship between theological anthropology and empirical anthropology. These thinkers try to separate empirical studies of man from theological approaches to this question in order that there might not be any conflict between the two. If these are utterly non-intersecting domains of study, then there can be no conflict arising for theological anthropology from the various empirical anthropological disciplines.

This, however, seems to me to be an abdication of responsibility on the part of theologians. It involves a retreat of theology into unverifiable and hence irrelevant sanctuaries. It achieves security and safety from the studies of empirical anthropology only at the expense of becoming irrelevant to the real world in which we live. It seems to me that theological anthropology does have empirical consequences. For example, consequences about the origin of humanity – was there an original human pair from whom we are all descended? Or, consequences about materialism and the mind-body relationship – are we simply chemical machines or is there an immaterial part of our nature? Or, consequences concerning freedom versus determinism – is everything that we think and do determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic makeup, or do we have genuine freedom of the will? In all of these ways, I think, empirical anthropology and theological anthropology have the potential of coming into conflict with each other and to either verification or falsification of theological positions.

Moreover, I think it is obvious that theological anthropology can come into conflict with philosophical anthropology. The philosopher seeks to answer the same question as the theologian, namely “Who is man?” – but he does so totally from the human side without taking any account of what God has to say about the matter or what difference God would make to the question “Who is man?” Whereas the theologian seeks God’s viewpoint on human nature and on who we are. So obviously conflict can arise between theological and philosophical approaches to anthropology.

So it seems to me that what we want to find is an integrative approach to these questions – a synoptic approach – which will take into account all of the insights of empirical, philosophical, and theological anthropology. The Christian worldview is properly a synoptic worldview that integrates all of our various sources of knowledge that we have in order to answer life’s deepest questions.