Apophatic
Anthropology – Proposing a Non-Conclusive Take on Wo/man
 |
| courtesy: http://uconnhumanrightsinstitute.files.wordpress.com |
In our
early discussions on the subject Theological
Anthropology we were made known that one of the aims of the course was to help
us perceive the transcendental dimension of human beings. Accordingly, we learnt
that we were not mere ‘humans’ in the narrow sense of the term. The testimony
of scriptures from the judeo-christian tradition, the life and teachings of
Jesus of Nazareth, history of humanity were offered as standing proofs of the
divinity of humanity. As a consequence,
the call is to go beyond a materialistic, physical and psychological
anthropology to a ‘theological
anthropology’ for a holistic, intuitive, trans-empirical, trans-rational
and contemplative take on the mystery of human persons. In this effort, we
carefully avoid the latent fallacy of the traditional theology to ‘spiritualize’ anthropology. This
awareness of the trans-temporal dimension of creation revolutionizes our
conception of life, human person and reality as a whole. It is so fundamental a
shift it compels every science to revisit its foundational principles to gain
true insight about reality. With the rising inter-disciplinary interactions, (between
empirical and trans-empirical sciences) the renewal has already begun. There is
a welcome interaction between reason and intuition; knowledge and wisdom; and
logical thinking and meditation. I think, any careful observation of our inner
surging will confirm that we are eking out to transcend temporality. We can
confidently state that we are gradually growing in awareness of our tempeternity.
Here we intend to get back to this discussion reading Linda Woodhead’s
“Apophatic Anthropology”[1]
which presents a significant implication of this insight from the perspective
of an apophatic theology for theological anthropology.
We read
in the scripture “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according
to our likeness’ (Genesis 1.26). In its
attempt to makes sense of this passage, early Christian exegetical tradition
sought to clarify ‘how does one resemble God?’
In it, the Western Christian tradition mostly identified it (the
divinity/god) with the highest faculties of human person like reason, mind,
soul, or freedom. In the east, theologians argued that human being as a whole -
body and soul – resembles God as we are created in the image of God with both
body and soul.[2] Most contemporary
theologians, thinkers and mystics accept this and proceed further to affirm that
nothing in the universe is unholy. Discriminations and dislikes for one or the
other on different fronts manifest our ignorance. Their argument is that the
whole cosmos participates in the nature of its creator, its source – God/Divine.
This does not mean we are God - uncreated and infinite. It rather means that we
share the nature/mystery of god. Our journey towards the realization of our
nature (fullness of life) therefore, is our efforts to become like god. Subtly,
it means that our end is to become like god.
In his
interpretation of this passage, Aquinas explains that every human person is born
with the potency to reach the highest perfection i.e. god. But, it has to be
actualized through conscious individual effort. Irenaeus equates our potency to
the term ‘image’ in the passage and our efforts to attain it to ‘likeness’.[3]
In other words, we are actually becoming divine in and through our humanity, and
attain eternal life in and through history. The dualistic neglect or denial of
one for the other, for example turning to God at the expense wo/man, is
erroneous. Irrespective of ideologies and conceptions of life when we work for
a good meaningful life we actualize our potency for divinity. But for our resistance
in freedom, everyone experiences an ontological compulsion to participate in
this process. Spiritual traditions and theologians name this desire or inner
urge as the push of the divine energy or Holy Spirit or deep calling to deep. Not
just inspiration, this energy acts as encouragement and nourishment in this ‘spiritual’ journey. However, it is only
a handful (enlightened people) in history consciously pursues to attain the end/meaning/purpose
of our existence. Though there are many examples of such lives in history, as
Christians our touch stone is Jesus Christ. Woodhead names this effort to
actualize our potency, to realize full human nature as ‘process of
deification’. She writes, “human beings are created possessing the capacity to
be deified – a capacity that some Fathers identified with freedom to co-operate
with God’s will. This capacity belongs to the whole person, body and soul, and
it is the whole person who is also to be deified – in this life and in the
next.”[4]
This process is led by the spirit/the
divine energy.
The
problem comes when we try to understand this transformed and transforming human
nature i.e. the enlightened/deified persons and the humanity in this process of
enlightenment/deification. The issue is whether we can fully comprehend it as
it models divine nature which is beyond a total comprehension. In their quest to
experience and make sense of god/the divine nature, an important insight of the
theologians and mystics of Christian tradition was the impossibility of understanding
or speaking about it. This is apophatic theology. Apophaticism insists that the
divine nature is beyond words, concepts and understandings. However in the
history of traditional theology, it was lost in the confidence of positive
theology (cataphatic theology) which has given the images of father, son and
spirit to God. However this hasn’t exhausted the mystery. If applied to human
nature which is made in the image and likeness of god, we should be able to
humbly accept that we can never arrive at a definitive description of human
nature. Thus we cultivate a patient openness to the human person who is in the
process of deification. This is called as apophatic anthropology. This is so
vital an insight, here we find solutions for most personal, communal and
institutional conflicts. She writes, “The Spirit draws us into the unknowable
reality of God, into the mystery in which each unique human life finds its
fulfillment. Thus the question of human life and the definition of human
dignity must always be left open.”[5]
Thus we are open to the differences in
human nature. The differently abled, for example would be actually manifesting
some important aspects of human beings; similarly in all fields of science. This
does not mean anything goes. As we have mentioned above, in as far as we are
Catholics, our touchstone is Jesus Christ; we could also include others who
have lived Christic values.
On the
contrary, in its overall rigid, (narrow), suspicious and at times
discriminative approach to different
human persons – different physically, biologically, psychologically (in sexual
orientations) etc. – Catholicism betrays an impoverished anthropology that is
more physical, biological and corporal than theological. Consider for example
the rigid stands of church on women regarding its ministerial priesthood. It
sounds as if we are just bodies and biological selves. The problem with the
church is that with its inclination to define, describe and fix everything
(including god) it is bound to overstress physical aspects of human nature.
Another area, Woodhead brings to our notice, is Church’s frustration over the
developing medical assistance for child conceptions and births as contrary to
natural way of giving birth. Actually this is the way most of us understand
human persons. Take for example the case of physical disability, since majority
is not that way. We pity them. We do not really accept them as equals. Our
world is built in such a way that they feel guilty about their physical make
up. What prevents us from perceiving that they are fully human, probably
manifesting other dimensions of human mystery. We have a long way to go. There
are those, the enlightened handful, who fight for their equal respect and equal
right. The majority needs to become open. To cultivate this openness, Woodhead
proposes that aware of the mystery of the human nature and its development
guided by the Holy Spirit, we should take an apophatic approach (non-conclusive approach) towards human
beings. This requires, I quote, “ [that] we open ourselves to the unknown in
order to become more than we can possibly know. It is much safer and easier to
choose a route that has already been clearly mapped out – but that is not the
same as entering into Life.”[6]
-----------
No comments:
Post a Comment