Ch 2 The Heart of Human Life and the Human Condition

Then God said, “Let us make humankind according to who, what and how we are.”

I recently saw a comic strip called “Half Full.” The image was cute: a mama and papa bear were tucked in a bed to go to sleep; the papa bear, however, was preoccupied, staring into a smartphone held in his paws. The message in this cartoon was profound: the mama bear tells the papa bear pointedly, “If you don’t put that thing away, we’ll never hibernate.”[1] Bears hibernate as a rule; it is in their nature and their natural way of life. And papa bear’s odd practice intrudes on their nature and interferes with their natural order. Indeed, mama bear got right their full identity and what needs to be “put away” for them to function right accordingly.

This cartoon symbolizes two essential issues for us and speaks profoundly to the heart of our practice in everyday life. The essential issues are:

1. What constitutes the human person and the integrity of human identity at the heart of its nature and natural order.

2. What contradicts the person and disrupts their natural order essential to the integrity of their basic human identity and function.

As mama bear did, we need to get right these issues in our theology and practice, in order to change existing conditions that reflect, reinforce and sustain the lack of justice and wholeness (peace) for all human life, all its persons and the human order of their relationships.

In the global community, the reality is that human diversity continues to define our identity in human life and determine its order and practice in everyday life. Our human diversity sustains the fragmentary human condition of the past and maintains its fragmentation in the present. Diversity rules as long as we don’t go deeper to the underlying heart of all human life, and thereby get right what integrally defines each of us as a human person and determines the wholeness integrating all of us as those persons together. Fragmented thinking and practice do not and cannot determine this wholeness. In his fight against such fragmentation among Christians, Paul makes it imperative that “the peace [wholeness] of Christ be the only determinant [rule] in the heart of your theology and practice” (Col 3:15). As Paul made definitive, this integral condition of peace (not common peace) cannot be fragmentary, nor does the sum of diverse parts equal this wholeness (Eph 2:14).

When we examine our basic human background and what underlies who, what and how we are as a person and persons together, our diversity shrinks and converges into a more unified perspective. Such unity, however, has a bipolar variation, each with its own process and outcome: (1) human life from the outside in, or (2) human life from the inside out. While outer-in and inner-out may each have their own variations, each remains basically distinct in its process and outcome.

What is characteristic about an outer-in approach is that it routinely doesn’t go “in” very deep. Even recent discoveries in the human brain and revelations of human function made by neuroscience may claim to get to the center of the human person, yet their quantitative focus neither gets to the heart of the person nor accounts for the whole person.[2]

The heart of human life is not centered in physical life, though its heart is neither separated from the physical nor understood apart from it. Likewise, from an inner-out approach, its heart cannot be limited to the spiritual (e.g. soul) as has been tradition. Rather its heart integrates the physical with the spiritual—that is, integrating both the quantitative and the qualitative dimensions of the integral heart of human life and the whole integrity of human persons. What is this heart of human life from inner out that distinguishes it from outer-in human life, which is essential for any human unity to be whole?

Wherever and however human life emerged, the process of human life is constituted by a specific source. This source then defines what goes into human life and determines the outcome of that defined life. I assert that we only have two possible alternatives of human origin from which to select as the constituting source of the human person in particular and of human life and its order in general. Both sources may be arguable and not necessarily mutually exclusive, though any hybrid between them must be qualified. The two alternatives for this process are either evolution or creation.

Evolution is biologically based and thus is only physically conceived, so its material orientation yields merely a quantitative account of the process and its outcome. Accordingly, the basis for evolution is drawn from a limited epistemic field, albeit a valid field of information and knowledge; and any conclusions made about the interrelations within the data and made beyond this field are theoretical, not merely descriptive accounts of the process and its outcome. Therefore, any conclusions from this source about the human person, life and its order strain to be of significance and lack any definitive account constituting the depth of their heart. Ironically for evolution, mama bear really can’t tell papa bear what is basic to and essential for bears.

What evolution does describe dramatically, however, is useful for defining the human condition and its operation in everyday life.[3] As evolution’s defining modus operandi (MO), ‘the survival of the fittest’ (also known as natural selection) is a core process composing the human condition, whose narrative routinely evolves with those having the most power, resources and influence. These are the ones most fit to survive, who dominate or control to emerge on top of any human order. Moreover, the underlying motivation for this survival evolved, of course, from the adapting workings of the human condition, which selectively develops a selfish process of the human gene pool for what biologist Richard Dawkins aptly calls “the selfish gene.”[4] This adapting narrative (still evolving today) is what we gain from the source of evolution—nothing deeper, without the prospect of anything further than the evolving process of the selfish gene in an ongoing survival for the fittest, thereby leaving anyone and everyone less in a hopeless state needing to be redeemed, along with those in the illusions and delusions of more. Perhaps this state is highlighted by all the selfie photos dominating so much human attention.

Thankfully, yet circumspectly, we have an alternative source to get to the heart of human life. The process and outcome of creation, however, have been commonly rehearsed without their heart in our theology and practice. This also composes a narrative often without much more of significance to distinguish than evolution, and, like evolution, it typically reflects more our human condition than what is essential to the human person from the inner out and for the heart of human life. Either this essential has been ignored, as papa bear demonstrates, or it simply hasn’t been understood as enacted by the Word in the beginning and later embodied for the new creation. Thus, as we engage this discussion on creation, be vulnerable with your person and whatever assumptions and biases you’ve had about creation and the Creator; and be prepared to be clarified and corrected as needed, and then to function as never before in our action as the whole-ly sentinels of human life only from inner out.

We cannot get right creation without first having right the Creator. In order to have the Creator right we need to understand more than the Creator’s identity and get to the heart of the Creator. The identity of the Creator is revealed generally in the physical world—as the psalmist declared (Ps 19:1-4) and as Paul explained the implications (Rom 1:20)—which is the basis for proposals of intelligent design identifying the source. But, since much more of significance has been specifically revealed deeply to us, we can’t stop merely with the correct Source and then move on to creation itself. If we do, we will neither get right creation nor even the Creator in our theology and practice.

Beyond the general revelations in the physical world disclosing the Creator, we are further exposed to ongoing revelations directly disclosed by Creator God. These self-disclosures vulnerably open up the heart of God. How we perceive God’s self-disclosures is critical to what we understand of God and thereby receive from God.

The revelation of God and the Word composes the unlimited epistemic field—in contrast to evolution’s limited epistemic field—which doesn’t merely inform us of the improbable but vulnerably discloses God in the distinguished context and process of God’s designed purpose and outcome. That is, the improbable trajectory of God emerges on God’s intrusive path, yet this context and process of God are distinguished only on certain terms that are irreplaceable, irreducible or nonnegotiable with any other terms. Paradoxically, the unlimited epistemic field of God limits the perception of God and contains our understanding of God’s self-disclosure to just the terms used by God—outside of which the perception and understanding of God are not right. How so?

The reality facing us, and that we need to embrace face to face, is this: The words and actions of God are composed exclusively with relational language. This reality excludes the most common human usage of referential language. Referential language and terms in ordinary usage function merely to transmit information, which at best is only secondary to the primary function and purpose of relationship—God’s top priority that is the essential design of creation. Referential language was not formed (or “designed”) for the development of qualitative communication in relationship; in reality referential language went in the opposite direction, taking us away from qualitative relational connection (see later discussion). Relational language, in contrast and conflict, serves the function of only communication in relationship, whereas in prevailing practice referential language serves merely to make discourse about something—the common and ordinary usage distinct in human life. Consider what takes place in your everyday conversations and where the focus is.

The non-interchangeable terms composing the distinction between relational language and referential language is crucial to understand and maintain for our theology and practice. We need to ongoingly apply this distinction to identify the language used by God in self-disclosure and that used in common theological discourse—have you ever engaged in theological study?—because the two languages have distinctly different levels of significance, if not meaning. In other words, language matters and our working language will mean the difference between whole-ly knowing and understanding God and the process and outcome of creation, or merely having fragmentary knowledge and referential information about them. And we cannot boast of having right the former on the basis of grasping the latter, no matter the quantity we possess (as distinguished in Jer 9:23-24).

Moreover, language matters because language both forms thought and makes functional any thought (notably human consciousness) antecedent to language. It has become increasingly apparent to modern scientific research that the language we speak shapes the way we see the world and even the way we think (not necessarily producing thought).[5] This points to the function of language not merely as a means of expression but also as a template imposing a constraint limiting what we see and the way we think. Consequently, the way we see and think theologically from the use of referential language can be and often is different from what God sees and contrary to what God thinks.

When God’s words and actions are replaced by, reduced to or negotiated with referential language, as commonly composes doctrine, they lose the heart essential to distinguish those words and actions person-ally as God’s. Our discourse about creation is the prime example of this lack or loss. Relational language, however, distinguishes God beyond a mere entity or quantity as an Object and reveals God as Subject. This irreducible and irreplaceable Subject was present and involved at creation with nothing less than the heart of God. Furthermore, the Subject is whole-ly (whole and holy-uncommon) in ontology and function, whose uncommon wholeness is constituted integrally with the Spirit (Gen 1:2) and the Word (Jn 1:1-3). The whole-ly Subject is distinguished in contrast to the common and ordinary, and thus contrary to the fragmentation intrinsic to referential language. God as Subject is vital for creation to be essential at the heart of human life; an Object reduces what is essential to God and thus essential for all humankind. Therefore, the reality of the language composing our theology and practice is this:

· The God you use is the creation you get—nothing more but perhaps variably less.

The emergence of human life is not detailed in the creation accounts (Gen 1-2). Yet, the origin of the human species clearly revealed that creation of the human person was conceived (contrary to evolution) by Subject God. This process of creation gives us an integrally quantitative and qualitative account, which doesn’t automatically preclude some aspects of biological evolution. Any inclusion of the latter, however, must defer to and be qualified by the primacy of Subject God’s creation words and actions in relational language.

As unequivocal Subject, God created human persons and their order of life to be inseparably (1) constituted irreducibly in God’s qualitative image and (2) integrated invariably in God’s relational likeness (Gen 1:26-27). The essential significance of God’s words and actions is transposed when the Creator is object-ified. As merely a creating Object, this qualitative image is fragmented into informational terms that idealize the person without functional significance in everyday life; additionally, this relational likeness is absent, if not lost, relegating the primacy of relationship together to a functionally insignificant priority both for God and human persons. Object-ified, God is rendered to a presence and involvement of virtual insignificance; and deism (functional, if not theological) is the common consequence we get from a creating Object—a God whose presence and involvement are elusive, perhaps aloof, though pantheism and panentheism are possible alternatives. More likely, in referential language Object God is routinely relegated to doctrine, which composes words and teaching that appear truthful but lack the substance essential for the heart of God, and therefore are unable to distinguish the heart of human persons, their relationships and order together. With language shaping the way we see the world and limiting the way we think, in our corresponding theology and practice where does such a God leave the integrity of human persons (both male and female) and what is essential to human life? How do you think that affects your person created in this God’s image and its outcome in in your everyday life?

When we relegate God to an object in our theology and practice, we distance or even detach the presence and involvement of God from their depth of significance as the heart of God. The revelations of God are no longer meaningful for the whole of who, what and how God is (the significance of God’s righteousness); and, consequently, God’s vulnerable self-disclosures are reduced and are no longer significant for relationship together in its functional primacy (not as ideals)—effectively reducing God to name only. Substituting functionally as an object, God becomes a symbol, becoming in effect like an idol we worship and pray to, and an ideal we serve.

Accordingly, from this God and language human persons are relegated to objects with or without the same image of Object God. Consider such persons in your experience and awareness. They function overtly or covertly with a presence and involvement of little if any substance in human life (e.g. as evidenced on the internet). Such persons are reduced subtly to a distant or detached involvement in relationships and a comparable relational position in the human order. In other words (notable referential terms), when God is object-ified and quantified to information, our person and other persons are object-ified and quantified. For example, how often do you see yourself merely from outer in, and look at others from this object-ified lens? Or, in quantified terms, have you ever been a statistic and viewed others as statistics, occupying a place without real presence and involvement?

· The God you use is the measure of the persons you get and the relationships they have.

In distinguishing contrast and not-always-apparent conflict, the heart of Subject God and the heart of human persons in their essential substance emerged integrally at creation. They only emerged, however, and could unfold by the just relational words and actions of Subject God. Only the Subject’s just words and actions constitute right the qualitative image and relational likeness, which unfold exclusively in human persons as subject. The Subject celebrated only the creation of like subjects (Gen 1:31) for the primary purpose of relationship together distinguished in likeness (Gen 2:18). Relational terms in the primacy of relationship together (both with God and with each other) make right and thus just the integral relational process and outcome of the Subject. When our persons, relationships together and integrating order emerge from the Subject, then who, what and how they unfold can be distinguished (beyond the common) in their right and just condition—with their ontology and function whole-ly in likeness to the Subject, nothing less and no substitutes.

Along with the pervasive consequences of reducing God to an object with referential language and terms, when human persons are object-ified and quantified by anything less and any substitutes in everyday life, the human consequences prevail in two interlocking ways:

1. Persons are transposed from their primary identity (ontology) constituted from inner out to a secondary identity composed from outer in, which fragments their ontology created whole from inner out in God’s qualitative image, thereby rendering the image of God without everyday significance for defining the whole person.

2. The primary function of persons is transposed from the primacy of relationship together to secondary areas of life, just as their identity is, such that their ontology and function can no longer be distinguished whole (namely from the existing common) but are further reduced from the wholeness constituted by the relational likeness of God (the uncommon Trinity).

Rather than the relational outcome distinguishing the primary ontology and function of persons at creation by Subject God, the relational consequence is the distinct reduction of human ontology and function from their primacy in the qualitative image and relational likeness of Subject God—a condition prevailing in all persons with anything less and any substitutes. Therefore, in the everyday life of persons in fragmented identity and reduced function, what is essential integrally for the whole person and at the heart of human life and order is lost; and the inescapable reality is that persons, human life and its order are relegated to the intractable human condition—the core condition which lacks justice and peace (defined only as wholeness) and underlies all situations and circumstances of everyday life lacking justice and peace.

Before we discuss this human condition, we need to further clarify and correct the heart of creation.

The person created from inner out in God’s qualitative image is and always remains a whole person in the ontology and function just as a subject. Traditional theological anthropology has rendered the heart of this person as the soul (e.g. nephesh, taken out of context from Gen 2:7). Soul, however, has typically been used to fragment the whole person into a dichotomy (body and soul) or trichotomy (body, mind and soul), with the qualitative soul the primary, if not only, substance composing the human person. This traditional language has become the reference point central to the person, with the soul as the object of God’s focus. The referential reality is that Object God would create a fragmented person with a qualitative soul as primary in order to warrant detaching who is present and distancing what is involved in the condition of an object. The soul in its ethereal nature centers on the individual at its presumed heart, which creates both an ambiguous presence and a narrowed-down involvement discreetly lacking substantive connection with the non-spiritual elements of life, and thus subtly dismissing this soul-bearing individual of accountability in the everyday realities of the world. The primacy of the soul defines the object-person’s identity and determines the object-person’s essential function in these reduced terms.

At the same time, the person in the image of God cannot be centered on the quantitative—as valuable as neuroscience research has become. Nor is some variable hybrid between the qualitative and quantitative sufficient, since such a hybrid emerges from human theory speaking for God.[6]

If we use the epistemic field of creation, using the relational language of the Subject’s words and actions, there is an integral process and outcome that unfolds for our theology and practice to be whole. This epistemic field encompasses the relational words and actions of the Word in the beginning, who thereafter embodied and enacted the image of God in its complete fullness (pleroma, Col 1:15-21; 2 Cor 4:4). What is revealed from this relational context and process is the Subject’s whole ontology and function, which cannot be reduced or compartmentalized without transposing the Subject into an Object and thereby losing the essential depth of the image of God for our person, for other persons and for all persons.

In the beginning, Subject God enacted the relational context and process of creation for the relational purpose to create the human person also as a subject like Subject God. This subject was created from the inner out, constituted integrally by the qualitative heart of the inner person and the quantitative parameters of the outer person. The integration of the inner-outer person is irreducible and is invariable to any hybrid of the essential dimensions constituting the whole person as subject. Like Subject God, the integrity of this subject was created whole-ly:

That is, the person as subject is whole from inner out such that one is congruent with the wholeness of God; the whole person is also unlike the rest of creation such that this subject is uncommon and therefore compatible to the uncommon-holy God—the integral integrity of whole-ly that distinguishes the Subject-subjects of creation.

As a subject, the person was not created as a mere object controlled (perhaps like a robot) by the hands of God. As a whole-ly person, the only design and purpose of this subject is to live compatible to Subject God and congruent to the Subject’s function for the integral relational process and outcome of relationship together in wholeness—with nothing less and no substitutes sufficient to live this design and able to fulfill this purpose.

The Subject’s design and purpose further reveal two basic realities of creation that are essential for human life not to become virtual:

1. Subject God did not create the human person to have unilateral relationship with, which the Subject would determine and dominate—though the Subject does define the terms of the relationship but does not control the person as an object.

2. As a subject distinguished like God (as Subject, not Object), the human person functions just in reciprocal relationship with God, in which any subject has reciprocal responsibilities to fulfill—relational responsibilities in contrast to mere obligations—by their relational involvement in this relationship; in reciprocal response, this subject also neither defines the terms for the relationship (as if to speak for God) nor determines how the Subject will function.

· The Subject and subject we use will be the terms of reality for everyday life we get.

At creation the Subject communicated the relational terms essential for reciprocal relationship together. The Subject’s terms were composed only in relational language for the specific relational purpose of communication with the subjects in relationship together; and the Subject’s relational terms cannot be transposed to referential language merely to transmit commands for their information to fulfill their duty and obligations (Gen 2:15-17)—which commonly defines how we see and think about God’s commands. The Subject’s relational terms were later expanded (notably as the Ten Commandments), which were directly communicated only to subjects in relationship together. The sum of God’s commandments, laws, statutes, decrees and stipulations serves the sole purpose of relationship together (as summarized in Ps 119), and their reduction reduces the recipients to objects lacking wholeness (tāmiym, 119:1) that constituted the basis for covenant relationship together from the beginning (Gen 17:1).

Pause now and examine how you see and think about God’s commandments. Do they inform you of your duty and obligation to God, or do they bring you face to face with the Subject in reciprocal relationship? Remember, the language we use is how we see and think.

The presence and involvement of the Subject (and all subjects) are revealed only face to face in relational language (as in Num 12:6-8; Acts 9:4-5, cf. 2 Cor 4:6). Distinguished whole-ly in the beginning, the integral relational process and outcome of creation reveals to us the ongoing relational words and actions of the Subject, whom we need to get right in our theology and practice. Though the heart of God is qualitative, Subject God encompasses the quantitative, notably embracing physical creation without rendering it as bad, as some in tradition have seen and thought. The Subject is different (uncommon) and needs to be seen and thought of accordingly, because the whole of God as Subject is present and involved with all the quantitative and qualitative of life in order to distinguish right the whole who, what and how of creation, and then to integrate their subsequent reduction and fragmentation into the wholeness of the new creation (cf. Rom 8:19-21).

This wholeness cannot be reduced to merely the spiritual because it integrates all the dimensions of life into the ontological image of God’s heart and according to the functional likeness primary to Subject God. The primary function of Subject God is constituted with the Spirit and the Word (as in creation) in the primacy of relationship together as the Trinity. The whole of God (whole-ly God) is the Trinity, whose heart is constituted by the primacy of relationship together. Only the Subject functions in this primacy, which can be neither spiritualized nor idealized—moreover, neither quantified nor object-ified. I’m not sure what the Object does here but it’s not to function in this primacy. Examine deeper how you see and think about God. What does God’s function signify to you, and how does that function define what is primary to you and thereby determine your practice in everyday life?

On the reality of this primacy alone, the Subject created human persons to have this primary function in the relational likeness of the Trinity. No other function has primacy for human persons according to creation. This primacy, however, eludes what is primary in most theology and practice, though information in referential language and its terms may allude to it. In relational language and terms, the heart of creation distinguishes explicitly the following:

1. Defines the essential identity of the human person beyond a mere individual, yet never losing the integrity of the individual as a whole person.

2. Necessitates by this whole nature the vulnerable involvement of persons with each other in relationship together, in order to fulfill their created ontology to be whole, and their created function in wholeness (as constituted in Gen 2:18 and demonstrated in 2:25).

Nothing less and no substitutes can define the whole person in the qualitative image of Subject God and can determine the wholeness of persons together in the relational likeness of the Trinity.

Therefore, the irreducible and invariable reality essential to distinguish all persons, without exception or distinction, is this: The heart of their created image and likeness is human ontology and function “according to who, what and how the Trinity is.”

When we fail to get right the heart of creation in our theology and to have right its heart in our practice, we fall into the prevailing condition of human life that has only one solution to restore it right. This human condition disables persons from functioning as subjects, unable to be right in their created integrity. As a further consequence, disabled Christians functioning in everyday life commonly serve as enablers of this condition, subtly enabling others (whether in the church or the world) to live without their created integrity—namely without their whole person in the primacy of relationship together; those so enabled thereby reflect the human condition instead of the image and likeness of God, whereby such enablers reinforce and sustain the human condition rather than function whole-ly as the sentinels of human life. Consider further: can enablers function in evangelism and/or social action when they are in reality enabling others to continue in the human condition?

The reality of the human condition has been skewed in human thinking and practice. Urgently then, we need to get right the heart of this prevailing condition in order to understand the change necessary for the essential justice and peace of human life in its full scope at all its levels.

Many consider the existing human condition to be a result of the evolution of human life. This result can be considered natural and to be taken in stride, or as a condition needing further human adaptation. Either conclusion has only exasperated the condition and amplified the human desire to fill a void, to fulfill an insatiable need. While most Christians don’t subscribe to this account of the human condition, they live everyday with similar desires and need. This raises another basic question that all of us need to face:

Where do we live? That is, do we live in the created world of God or the evolving world of human development and so-called progress?

Part of answering this question involves knowing what the human condition is and understanding how this condition subtly envelops our life and infects us to determine our condition. The everyday reality of human life is that its unavoidable condition is intractable, and that this condition by its nature disables human persons from being whole and functioning in wholeness. If this indeed is the reality of our condition, what is at the heart of this condition and how does it pivotally affect the heart of human life?

The modern awareness of how the language we speak shapes the way we see the world and even the way we think (as noted above) points back to human origins. This critical awareness provides us with some understanding of the dynamic of referential language—how it works and what effect it has—that was set in motion from the primordial garden (or “the garden of Eden,” Gen 3:1-5). The origination of referential language unfolded when God’s relational language was narrowed down and God’s command (sawah, Gen 2:16-17) was redefined from communication in God’s relational terms to the transmission of information in referential terms. Detaching the command from Subject God (or de-relationalizing it) removes God’s words from their primary purpose only for relationship together. The command was clearly God’s communication for the wholeness of their relationship together, not the mere transmission of information (the purpose of referential language) for humans to know merely what to do (the focus of referential terms). This inaugural referentialization of God’s words (command) was extended later by the people of Israel whenever they transposed the commandments from God’s relational language to referential language, and consequently shaped the covenant in narrow referential terms—essentially de-relationalizing the covenant from ongoing relationship with Subject God.

The shift to referential language opened the door to shape, redefine or reconstruct this so-called information transmitted by God to narrowed-down interpretation implying what God really meant by that (“your eyes will be opened”). That is, this subtle shift transposed God’s relational message to reduced referential terms, which implies speaking for God on our own terms (signified in “to make one wise,” 3:6). When referential language is the prevailing interpretive framework for our perceptual-interpretive lens, then this shapes the way we see God’s revelation and the way we think about God’s words—as modern science is rediscovering about language. Conjointly and inseparably, referential language also puts a constraint on our lens, thereby restricting what we see of God’s revelation and limiting how we think about God’s words (“you will not…”). In other words, there is a relational disconnect with God that now centers the focus on us, even as we make reference to God and God’s words.

When we examine the dynamic unfolded in the primordial garden much deeper, what emerges gets into the heart of the human condition. Satan challenged the relational words of Subject God by raising what appeared as a reasonable question: “Did God say…?” His purpose was neither to clarify nor correct what God commanded, but rather to transpose God’s words, redefine their meaning, and to construct a subtle alternative with appealing information. The underlying outcome in his purpose was to distance or detach said subjects as inner-out persons from their reciprocal relational involvement with Subject God, and thereby relegate these persons to objects now redefined subtly from outer in. How so?

First of all, this pivotal exchange in the primordial garden is interpreted by many in the theological task as allegory over history. Yet, that allegorical narrative points to the underlying reality that invaded human life. Whether seen as history or allegory, the significance of the reality depicted remains undiminished and both views present the unavoidable reality at the heart of the intractable human condition.

Any discussion of the narrative of this encounter in the primordial garden must take place in the full narrative of the relational context and process of creation. To understand the depth of what transpired in this encounter and its consequence requires keeping in clear focus the relational outcome of the Subject’s creation in relational language and terms: whole persons, from inner out, distinguished in ontology and function by the Subject’s image and likeness, involved whole-ly as subjects in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together both with Subject God and with each other. Who and what emerged from this relational outcome must be in juxtaposition throughout this encounter in order to understand its significance and get to the heart of its consequence.

By asking “Did God say that?” Satan introduces the inaugural persons (and us today) to a compelling alternative for their lives. Along with transposing Subject God’s relational language to referential language, Satan interjects alternative terms to the relational terms already communicated definitively by the Subject. The relational terms for the primacy of reciprocal relationship are unequivocal, as those persons knew (Gen 3:2-3). What is transpiring, however, goes deeper than the terms for relationship, which we need to understand beyond the mere issue of disobedience commonly ascribed to those persons as their sin.

When God said, “Function by my relational terms, or you shall die” (Gen 2:16-17), as noted about the commandments earlier, it is crucial to examine how we see and think about death. Here again, we have to keep this pivotal encounter in the relational context and process that already constituted whole persons and relationships in wholeness. Satan counters God’s words with “you will not die”—a relative proposal, whose significance commonly eludes most Christians (even church leaders and scholars) because of how we see and think about death. In this narrative, did the inaugural persons die after they partook? No, that is, unless you see and think about dying and death in the full context and process of creation.

In fact, Satan proposes in his alternative that persons will see and think with the perspicacity of God, going beyond merely being in the image of God, and further having the revered resource of “knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:4-5). How appealing is this resource for those seeking justice and working for peace? It appealed to the inaugural persons also, since it “was to be desired to make one wise” (3:6), a better person, one better able to serve God—or so the thinking goes. Consider becoming such a person. Would you consider that person disobedient, much less a person who dies?

What evolves in this encounter is the ongoing dynamic at the heart of the human condition. God certainly wants us to be wise, to know good and evil, and to flourish to the full capacity of our person—and obviously not to die. Yet, that is not what is offered in Satan’s proposal. Who and what were these inaugural persons already from creation? As whole persons, what more could they be than those subjects? And what could they gain as persons from inner out by consuming an outer-in alternative for an inner-out resource? In the relational language of what solely is primary, nothing. In the referential language of what is at best secondary, a qualified something; and it is this thing that has subtly appealed to those in the primary and seduced them into anything less and any substitutes. This pervasive influence needs to be exposed.

The consequence from this prevailing dynamic only has significance as it collides with the heart of creation. First, Subject God is reduced to Object, shaped by human terms regulating (not denying) who, what and how God is. Next, the whole human person from inner out (as in Gen 2:25) is reduced to outer in (as in 3:7), typically functioning merely as an object shaped by surrounding influences and alternatives. Then, these reduced persons no longer function whole-ly in their primacy of relationship together, but they resort to and become preoccupied in secondary matters that reduce their presence and involvement in relationships down to common fragmentary ways (as in 3:7-10). This often subtle dynamic has only this common consequence:

The reduction of creation at the heart of human life, which compromises the essential integrity of the whole person and fragments the wholeness of persons in their primacy of relationship together.

What we need to understand about the inaugural persons is the alternative they fell for by choice and thus fell into as a consequence. Their sin in the garden was solely and nothing less than the sin of reductionism, which set in motion the human condition. Our view of sin has to go beyond merely disobedience and encompass sin as reductionism, and nothing less in our theology and practice. Otherwise we have a weak view of sin—a view that lacks the scope of injustice because it lacks understanding justice, a view that doesn’t serve for the depth of peace because it lacks wholeness. Reductionism is at the heart, the fragmentary heart of the human condition. The human condition that emerged from the primordial garden composes sin, but only the sin of reductionism. A weaker view of sin neither gets to the fragmentary heart of the human condition nor gets right our human condition and our own sin, even as we seek justice and work for peace.

In all the ways noted above, with all their subsequent refinements and evolving progress, reductionism has composed all persons, peoples and nations with the human condition lacking the justice and without the peace created for human life by the Subject. Reductionism quantifies persons (e.g. by the quantity of their knowledge of “good and evil”) by transposing their inner-out qualitative image of God to quantitative measures from outer in (e.g. having resources like God), and thus reductionism object-ifies the integrity of persons as subjects and fragments their wholeness (both individually and collectively).

The evolving reality of reductionism disables the whole person by quantifying their essential identity, for example, with physical characteristics/distinctions from outer in (as with color, sex, appearance), with the development of their intellect by knowledge and information (as in idolizing education), or simply with the extent of their abilities and resources (as the primary source defining human identity and determining human function). Quantifying the person based on such measures basically object-ifies the person created as subject by the Subject; and this reduction disables the person by fragmenting the whole person into variable parts of who, what and how the person should be in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Subject. This quantification and object-ification of persons happens in multiple ways in human life and its order, and each reduction generates a lack of justice. When the integrity essential to persons is compromised and their wholeness together fragmented, there is no justice and peace in which all of human life was created by the Subject. And no matter how many variable parts of this fragmentation can claim to make one a better person, wiser, and even better able to serve others and contribute to humanity, the sum of those parts does not, will not and cannot add up to enable the person to be whole and persons together to live in wholeness. The synergy of life cannot emerge from reductionism but only from creation by the Subject. Therefore, the reality that we need to embrace at its heart is unmistakable:

Reductionism and wholeness are incompatible, an object and a subject are incongruent; and any effort to conflate the latter with the former will disable the latter and render it without its essential significance.

When we don’t understand sin as reductionism, we don’t get to the fragmentary heart of the human condition, our human condition. How we see and think in this condition lacks justice and disables us from getting right what is wrong, unfair, and/or unjust in everyday life. How we live in this condition every day lacks peace, even in the absence of conflict, because our wholeness is fragmented. And the sad fact compounding this existing reality is that we commonly fail to realize this dynamic of reductionism in our theology and practice.

The measure of reductionism in all its variations is anything less and any substitutes for the whole person as subject from inner out, and for those persons in the primacy of reciprocal relationship together in wholeness. This is the common measure found in anything less and any substitutes for persons in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Subject. The genius of reductionism is that these variations are composed in referential language. Referential language can make these variations appear to be the same as if from the Subject’s relational language by using similar terms (such as whole person, relationship, wholeness, image of God), but with distinctly different meaning. Falling for and into whatever variation of reductionism involves such persons unavoidably in a process of fragmentation, otherwise described as the process of dying in the loss of wholeness.

In so many ways of everyday life, Satan falsely assures us with alternative facts that “you will not die”—even as reductionism pervades human life at all levels to compromise our essential integrity, and prevails in the human order to compose the fragmentary heart of the (our) human condition. One enveloping example where all this converges for the global community is on the internet, namely as follows: By how this technology is quantifying our everyday life, and how social media is object-ifying our persons in our identity and fragmenting our relationships in our function, and on and on in cyberspace. Would you call this pervasive condition injustice? This is less about expanding the parameters of injustice and more about getting to the heart of justice, and thus about getting right persons and relationships in everyday life. (Recall the cartoon at the beginning of this chap.).

The context and process of the internet unavoidably quantifies human life into bits and addictively (by design) object-ifies persons and relationships in a virtual reality.[7] When the integrity of human persons is damaged, and their identity and function are fragmented and thus disabled, if this is not a condition of injustice what do you consider it? So, what else don’t you see or think of as injustice?

In whatever context, form or operation the dynamic of reductionism is found, that condition lacks justice whether we call it injustice or not. Inseparably, that condition lacks peace whether there is apparent conflict or not, and whether or not we call it wrong, unfair or unjust. In that condition, fragmentation in one way or another takes place as the prevailing consequence that determines the fragmentary heart of the human condition. Given the breadth and depth of what pervades human life today and prevails in its human order, the unavoidable reality facing us is that the human condition is inescapable.

But, the reality also staring at us face to face is that our human condition is not irreversible. In whole-ly presence and involvement, the Subject continues to communicate to us face to face, and heart to heart, with the clear direct relational message: “Function in my whole-ly relational terms, and don’t fall for and into reductionism or you will die”—keeping mind that whole-ly (whole and uncommon) can be neither fragmented nor common-ized, or that person is no longer whole-ly.

· The measure of the human condition you use will be the measure of injustice you have.

Indispensably then, along with our view of sin, our theological anthropology is pivotal for getting right our human condition. This will require further vulnerability from us about our existing theology and practice.

All Christians have a theological anthropology (TA) whether they are aware of it or not. We use our TA to define our basic identity and function as a human person—that is, unless our TA has been coopted by a secular anthropology. Furthermore, theological anthropology is directly interrelated to the human condition, which is directly correlated to our view of sin that shapes and is shaped by our TA. Of course, theological anthropology is primarily interrelated with creation, or at least that’s how its theory unfolds. The issue emerges, however, when the (our) human condition not only interrelates but more so interrupts the right formation of theological anthropology in general and our TA in particular by interfering with theological anthropology’s primary interrelation with creation. That is to say, our TA becomes shaped (unintentionally or inadvertently) by our human condition, thereby rendering how we see and think about creation to a secondary role in the theology and practice of our person and relationships. As discussed above, the consequences from this dynamic are far-reaching.

The pivotal issue in theological anthropology (past and still present) has been the language composing it. This unfolds or evolves in the paradigm that Jesus made definitive for our theology and practice (Mk 4:24):

· This measure of theological anthropology we use will measure how we see and think of persons and relationships.

· The measure used for how we see and think about persons and relationships will define who, what and how persons (ours and others) are in everyday life, and determine their function as those persons in relationships.

Referential language and relational language are the competing terms underlying the composition of all theological anthropology in general and our TA in particular. Reductionism is at the core of this process, therefore the issue pivots on the rigorous conflict between the fragmentary heart of the human condition and the integral heart of creation. This faces us with the reality that composing theological anthropology is a battle, which we should not take lightly if we want our TA to be right.

What emerges from this pivotal process is the crucial issue revolving around the most basic question for all persons in everyday life: Who is present in that context and what is involved in that moment?

In the cartoon, papa bear was present with mama bear alone together, yet who was present wasn’t papa bear’s whole presence and what was involved with mama bear wasn’t his natural function. In other words, only papa bear as an object was present and involved, which reduced his nature and function to a fragmented condition. As a divided or partitioned (fragmented) object, papa bear was neither present as a subject in his natural identity, nor involved as a subject distinguished by his natural function. An object merely re-acts in contexts and moments by receiving whatever first acts on them, going along with whatever is happening, and allowing that to influence, shape or control how they will act. Whereas a subject responds to all that based on the integrity of who, what and how they are without being defined and determined by all that as a re-acting object is.

The distinction between an object and a subject is critical to maintain for persons in everyday life in order to distinguish the essential from the insignificant, the primary from the secondary, the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, the just from the unjust—that is, the whole from the reduced and fragmentary. For persons, the most basic question centers on their presence and involvement as reduced object or whole subject, with fragmentation an ongoing issue for who and what to account for in how they live in every context and moment. Mama bear points us to who and what are essential and how to get right.

The human condition is composed by lies, alternative facts and their related reality (Gen 3:4-5; Jn 8:44), and enhanced by human persons promoting these lies with illusions of truth. In common fashion, we (individually and collectively) then readily believe these illusions of truth to define who and what we are (our basic identity) and to determine how we are (our basic function)—the who is present and what is involved. Now before you simply dismiss this as applying to your belief system, consider the matter of life lies competing in our everyday life. In your early formative years or still present today, what did you hear about yourself and/or related others that you believed as truth, when in reality it was only an illusion or lie? Messages such as:

“You are not good enough, or no good, unworthy or bad” versus “you are better, good, worthy, the best.” “You can’t do it, can’t think, not smart enough” versus “you can do anything, can solve anything, can outsmart anyone.” “As a female, you are less, weak in resources, limited in ability” versus “as a male you are more, stronger in resources, the sky’s the limit for your ability.” Add your own messages that you both received and gave to yourself or others.

How do you think life lies have impacted your life and others? Vulnerably examining who is present and what is involved as a result of life lies provides us vital feedback for the human condition of our person and relationships.

This list represents explicit and implicit life lies that to whatever extent we have internalized to define our person and determine how we could or couldn’t function. We all have had, and perhaps still have, life lies shaping our everyday life. And our practice of such lies and illusions of truth unavoidably reflect, reinforce and/or sustain our human condition and thus the fragmentary heart of the human condition, which inescapably reduces the created integrity of whole persons and fragments their wholeness in the primacy of relationship together. Only the integral truth of our TA rooted in the heart of creation will counteract the lies and illusions of this human condition and reverse its consequences in all our everyday lives.

Along with personal life lies, the human condition composes an encyclopedia of lies and illusions of truth. The explicit or implicit belief in any of them reinforces and sustains the human condition and its consequences for human life; and that in unaltered reality is the consuming purpose by the author of reductionism. When we address the scope of reductionism’s dynamic in the breadth and depth of the human condition, there are three major illusions (or delusions) that emerge:

1. individualism, giving primacy to the individual person over persons together in whatever formation—starting with the family, and including the church.

2. culturalism on the social level, and nationalism/tribalism on the political and economic levels, which single out, elevate, prioritize, aggrandize, and/or glorify one group at the cost or exclusion of others.

3. exceptionalism, the ultimate outcome that evolves from the second illusion to construct this delusion about the group, which others must defer to or be controlled by.

These illusions and delusions are not mutually exclusive but could readily interrelate and overlap in the subtle dynamics of reductionism. For example, the U.S. has been entrenched in all three, which many (including Christians) are either in a fog about or simply accept as truth, even actively promote with biased assumptions.

The first illusion emerged from the primordial garden and has since adapted and been refined into a delusion. Ironically, this illusion is not recognized in a collectivist context, but the individual effectively determines the extent to which collective norms are performed. Certainly, this doesn’t mean that individualism exists in collectivist settings as in Western contexts (led by the U.S.); nevertheless, the individual’s self-determination shouldn’t be overlooked.

The second delusion emerged with the tower of Babel and overlaps into the illusion of Israel as nation-state; the latter reduced its true identity in covenant relationship with God, which caused its individuals to differ in their practice with conflicting identities (notably “the remnant,” vs. the majority, cf. Isa 11:11; Zec 8:12). The second illusion-delusion falls into the third delusion and evolved into Babylon, which then evolved into the Greek and Roman empires—eventually evolving into the delusional exceptionalism of the U.S, which most of its individuals explicitly or implicitly believe.

Underlying the lies, illusions of truth and inevitable delusions from the human condition is fundamental self-autonomy (the ability to choose the priority of self), which invariably is adapted by self-determination (the re-course for surviving or succeeding in everyday life). Or the converse dynamic, the re-course of self-determination provokes the priority given to self-autonomy. In either process, self can be individual or collective, but the process for all of the above centers on the secondary over the primary, at the expense or even the exclusion of the primary. Christians typically don’t affirm the illusion of self-autonomy (seeing it as disobedience); they routinely, however, don’t acknowledge the existing self-determination deluding their practice in its re-course for succeeding, if not surviving, in everyday life (thinking of it as necessity to supplement God’s grace). This re-course (from common notions about grace and faith) requires making the choice to give priority to one’s self (whether individual or collective such as family, church, culture, nation).

The issue of priorities is usually glossed over by our assumptions; of course God is the top priority. But when it actually comes to distinguishing the primary from the secondary in everyday life, many Christians don’t get right living accordingly, even in serving God and the church. We have it right as we practice the following process:

Integrating the secondary (any and all) into the primary—without reducing or renegotiating the primary—rather than fitting in the primary into the secondary as we are able or as is convenient.

The latter process centers the self on situations and circumstances, whereby they are given priority in the interest of self. Consider various situations of injustice that must have immediate priority in our thinking to fulfill our duty. This good intention is concerned about others while also centered on what self should do. Even with the urgency of situations, this focus reduces the person to outer in by such quantitative terms, revolved around well-meaning self-interests, who has been rendered to an object by and in the secondary. The consequence is analogous to “the injustice tail wagging the dog of justice,” which fragments the whole picture of justice by preoccupation in the secondary parts of injustice.

The former process, in contrast by integrating the secondary into the primary, maintains the integrity of a subject—the dog wags the tail. By not letting the surrounding influences determine their action (as the above object), this subject-person’s identity and function from inner out serve the right purpose and outcome for all persons and relationships to be whole. This process of integrating priorities (PIP) is crucial for getting right and vital for living right who, what and how we are as the subjects of creation in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity.

· How we live every day will be the measure of the person we get—both for our own person and for other persons.

How we see and think about the person throughout human life—in all its contexts and at all its levels—and thereby define and determine persons, condenses down to either a simple object or a complex subject. Reductionism simply simplifies things by breaking things down to make things simpler. More simple sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, that’s the “good and evil” from the primordial garden that has seduced how we see and think. Accordingly and subtly, reduced persons are simplified by being broken down into the various parts (i.e. fragments) of an object. Evolution, for example, simplifies the emergence of persons to natural selection, with those surviving simply better objects of this determining process. However appealing all the fragments of an object may appear, the person’s identity and function have become a simple object—even though the person is entangled in complicated dynamics. Complicated and complex are not synonymous and thus not interchangeable for the person.

A complex subject is neither complicated from the inner out nor fragmented by the outer in, yet the person created by the Trinity is a complex subject in the image and likeness of the Trinity. And this complex subject has been simplified, even oversimplified, in our TA and practice down to a simple object—with appealing parts from outer in and quantified attributes to define the identity and function of all persons, who inevitably are entangled in a complicated comparative process of human order. When persons lose being distinguished as complex subjects, the consequences on who, what and how they are simply are disabling. That will only become apparent when centered on the person from inner out over the secondary aspects of persons from outer in.

Reconsider the above life lies and examine how they have rendered your person and other persons; what have they relegated your persons to and thus motivated you to do? We cannot escape the quantifying of human life to the outer in, and the object-ifying of persons and fragmenting of relationships to the outer in—all reduced from the primary to the secondary or the tertiary, or to less. We may be able to ignore this reality, or even deny it with alternative facts and augmented reality. But the existence of quantifying and object-ifying inescapably imposes itself on us to influence, shape, determine or perhaps control the answers to the basic questions of where we live, and who is present and what is involved.

Nevertheless, a person treated as an object has a choice. A person capable of exercising volition doesn’t have to allow that mistreatment to define one’s person from inner out, even though this person may not be able to resist it overtly in that situation.[8] Whenever persons defer to the influence, shaping, determination or control of reductionism’s quantifying and object-ifying, they defer as objects both lacking justice from inner out and functioning in injustice from outer in.

In defining contrast and determining conflict, subjects resist treatment as an object and respond in their primary identity and with their whole function from inner out. As long as we live everyday not distinguished as a complex subject—the whole person from inner out distinguished in the qualitative image and relational likeness of the Trinity—we have by default chosen to live simply as an object. This default condition exists more than we currently see and think; and its consequence among us pervades our everyday life simply down to the core. The decision to quantify our primary identity and function, for example, by physical attributes, mental resources and abilities, and other comparative parts and conditions all relegate our person to an object of these fragmentary parts from outer in. Although intertwined in a complicated process, the choice by default remains centered on a simple object—made without awareness of or attention given to the consequences. The dis-illusioned reality, however, is this basic (not simple) truth:

Consciously or subconsciously, rehearsed or coerced in this choice, the condition of a simple object inescapably lacks the justice of one’s primary identity and thus functions unavoidably in the reduced condition of injustice, no matter what the situation and circumstances are.

This unavoidable condition is critical to understand and vital to get right in our TA and practice, which are essential for the complex subject of who, what and how we are. Until then, the sad reality is that a person who chooses to be an object cannot seek justice when treated as an object, no matter how wronged, unjustly treated and simply reduced by the secondary. This person has already chosen the secondary and compromised their integrity, so they cannot cry injustice at the hands of others. Any call for justice or cry of injustice from this default condition is dissonant, a contradiction to what is essential for justice. As a further consequence for those object-ified and quantified, such persons also cannot work for the justice of others, when in reality they are part of the problem and disabled to help with the solution. Stated succinctly without simplification:

· A simple object is incompatible with justice, and only a complex subject is congruent with justice and peace to be the sentinel of human life.

Reducing and fragmenting the person(s) to a simple object versus maintaining and growing the person(s) in the whole integrity of a complex subject is the ongoing tension, conflict and battle that the fragmentary heart of the human condition amplifies for the integral heart of human life. Reductionism simplifies by breaking things and persons down to make them simple. This has evolved at all levels of human life—from individualism, culturalism, tribalism, nationalism, to exceptionalism—even subtly developed under the scientific method and more subtly adapted in our theology and practice of the gospel (e.g. with Manifest Destiny, in a colonial mindset, and their variations, or simply by traditional evangelism).

Contrary to common Christian thinking, God doesn’t simply extend grace to us; only God as Object does that. That is to say, God doesn’t give grace simply to an object. The whole who, what and how of the Subject relationally responds with grace only to the subject, who doesn’t merely receive grace as an object but reciprocates congruent in relational response as a subject—in a reciprocal response compatible with the Subject. The relational outcome for an object and a subject are substantively different, though it may appear similar. Objects have associations to simulate relationship (e.g. as on the internet and social media), but only subjects make relational connection in the primacy of relationship—distinguished by face to face, with intimate connection made only by heart to heart.

Simplifying the complex Subject and complex subjects in likeness down to objects is the intensive work of reductionism, whose genius is beyond the human self(s) to solve, resolve and determine its right outcome. Given this prevailing yet subtle reality, what does this tell us about common efforts for justice and peace (and all related services), whose good intentions are motivated by Christian values and ethics but whose underlying impulse or ostensible impetus is generated effectively by self-determination?

If our view of sin is unable to see the object-ification of persons (both others and ours) in everyday life at all levels, along with exposing the quantifying of persons’ identity and function, and if our TA does not distinguish the complex subject of all persons without quantifying them, then we are faced with this unavoidable reality:

How we see, think and act will reflect, reinforce and sustain our human condition. Consequently, where we live is indeed domesticated in the common, who is present will continue to be reduced, and what is involved will further be fragmented.

How essential having this right is to our theology and practice cannot be overstated, nor can the consequence of not having it right be overestimated. If we hang onto our assumptions and biases, under the presumption of “knowing good and evil” and having the means “to make one wise,” we prevent the redemptive change of the gospel to emerge that will unfold the transformation of our immediate human condition, and the breadth of the human condition and the depth of its fragmentary human order. And the transposing of nothing less and no substitutes to anything less and any substitutes will continue to pervade our theology and prevail in our practice, therefore relegating us to objects determined in our everyday identity and function by the secondary over the primary.

So, here we are in the twenty-first century of the embodiment of the gospel. And whole-ly Jesus, the Subject of creation and the gospel, still wants to know from us: “Where are you in your person and relationships—who is present and what is involved?" and further pursues us for “What are you doing here with the subjects of creation and in the gospel?”

After all these years, the Subject grieves for the heart of creation to unfold (as in Gen 6:6; Lk 19:41-42; Eph 4:24,30)—the heart of which are the persons and relationships created in the image and likeness of the Trinity. Nothing less and no substitutes of this integral relational context and process will get right the Subject of who, what and how the Trinity is at creation’s heart and thus will have right the whole relational outcome of all persons as subjects and their integral order of relationship together—which the Subject further embodied and enacted for the whole gospel and its outcome. We have to account for anything less and any substitutes in our theology and practice.

In retrospect, we either hear the Object or listen to the Subject. In everyday life today, we either at best merely look at the face of the Object (even as idealized or idolized) or come face to face with the Subject. From this, Who is present and What is involved both ongoingly either simply exist in referential terms, or are embodied and enacted in relational terms with the heart of their whole Person. This reality pivots definitively for us as follows:

· The ‘who, what and how God is’ that we use will be the theological anthropology we get defining persons and relationships.[9]

· The measure of the TA we use to determine persons and relationships will be the measure of justice we get.

· The measure of justice we use will be the measure of injustice we see in everyday life and that we act on accordingly.

Listen only to the Subject face to face, and then relationally respond as subjects in reciprocal relationship. Nothing less and no substitutes compose the Word by whom the sentinels of human life are distinguished, with whom the sentinels of human life live whole in the primacy of relationship together, and for and to whom the sentinels of human life are accountable. Therefore, Who is ongoingly present and Who is irreducibly and nonnegotiably involved in order for the reciprocal who to be present and involved in likeness, so that the who, what and how persons and their relationships are can get right in the essential heart of human life and its integral order from inner out.

[1] Created by Maria Serivan, in Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2017.

[2] See, for example, the useful studies by John T. Cacioppo and William Patrick, loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008), and by Antonio Damasio, Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (New York: Pantheon Books, 2010).

[3] William T. Cavanaugh and James K.A. Smith, eds., engage this conversation in Evolution and the Fall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017).

[4] See Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

[5] Reported by Sharon Begley in “What’s in a Word?” Newsweek, July 20, 2009, 31. See also neuroscience researcher Iain McGilchrist’s account about language in The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Modern World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 105.

[6] Such hybrid views are found in nonreductive physicalism and supervenience. Discussed in Malcolm Jeeves, ed., From Cells to Souls—and Beyond: Changing Portraits of Human Nature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). Also in Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer, eds., In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005).

[7] Consider how Jaron Lanier, the father of virtual reality technology, now views this existing condition in You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010).

[8] For example, what was at the heart of many slave-based churches in the early U.S. was African American rejection of object-ification and quantifying to a deficit condition, thus they didn’t let that mistreatment determine their persons in the innermost. This perception of the early African American church can be gained from Cornel West and Eddie S. Claude, Jr., eds., African American Religious Thought: An Anthology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003).

[9] An expanded discussion of this theological anthropology and its theological task is found in my study The Person in Complete Context.