The Doctrine of Human Being in Indian Conversations: An Evangelical Imagination

Abstract

The year 2025 commemorates the 1700th year of Nicaea. Ecumenical bodies across the globe are deliberating on making sense of the Nicene confession afresh in the contemporary context. At this juncture, it is appropriate to rethink the relevance of Nicaea in relation to the doctrine of human being. This article looks at the doctrine of human being, particularly in Indian conversations. Indian theologians have rendered their own understanding of human being. Notable among them are Paulos Mar Gregorios, who envisioned Sacramental Humanism, M. M. Thomas, who envisioned Secular Humanism, and Y. T. Vinayaraj, who envisions Intersubjective Humanism. Assuming the theme of ‘humanity’ to be inherent in the Nicene Creed, this article re-reads Nicaea through the lens of theologia crucis (theology of the cross), which in turn leads to a fresh imagination of the category ‘evangelical’. It repositions evangelical to mean ‘gospel-affirming’. In the light of an evangelical/gospel affirming imagination, it explores the relational nature and the critical function of doctrine in the Indian context. A relational–critical understanding of doctrine provides the scope to envision the doctrine of human being through the lens of humanitas crucis (humanity of the cross). The implications of an evangelical hermeneutic of humanitas crucis are explored in relation to the emerging digital cultural context.

1. Introduction

As the year 2025 commemorates the 1700th year of Nicaea, it is an opportune time to revisit the doctrine of human being. The Nicene creed gives us the outlines of our faith. However, one theme that is not fully spelled out in detail, but which is intrinsic to the creed, is the doctrine of human being. This article explores the contemporary relevance of the doctrine of human being, which is strongly embedded in the Nicene creed in relation to the Indian context. It begins by looking at the role of doctrine in Indian theological imaginations, followed by how the doctrine of human being is envisioned within the Indian context. In this regard, it discusses the ideas of sacramental humanism, secular humanism, and intersubjective humanism. By highlighting how these imaginations relate to the Nicene affirmation of human being, it proposes a re-reading of Nicaea through the lens of theologia crucis, which in turn presents to us an understanding of evangelical as ‘gospel affirming’. It argues that a gospel affirming (evangelical) approach understands the nature of doctrine to be relational and the function to be critical, toward the goal of being ecumenical (unity of faith). With this basic understanding, it presents an evangelical hermeneutic of human being in the form of humanitas crucis (humanity of the cross). The implications of this understanding are explored in relation to the emerging digital culture, which demands a fresh understanding of what it means to be human.

2. The Role of Doctrine in Indian Theological Imagination

At the first ecumenical council in Nicaea in 325 CE, the church affirmed her belief in “The one Lord, Jesus Christ… For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human”.1 The immediate context that necessitated the first ecumenical gathering was to resolve the question of how the church understood the relationship of the Son to the Father. The council spent a lot of energy deliberating on the divinity of the Son, yet not without affirming the humanity of the Son. However, it was only at the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE), that the humanity of the Son was discussed in more detail, leading to the affirmation of “the one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation”. (Kelly 1977, p. 340). Again, this was a Christological affirmation and not a statement on theological anthropology. However, we must note that without a proper doctrine of God (Theology) and Christ (Christology), the church cannot have a coherent and holistic understanding of the doctrine of human being (Theological Anthropology). This realization is underlined emphatically in Calvin’s opening statement in his monumental work Institutes of the Christian Religion, where he states that “The knowledge of God and that of ourselves are connected” (Calvin 1960, p. 35). According to Calvin, without the knowledge of self, there is no knowledge of God and vice versa. In the order of teaching, however, Calvin prioritized theology over anthropology.2 In the Indian context, such an epistemological assertion would be contested.

Before coming to this discussion, we need to ask, ‘What does it mean to be truly human?’ Although the Nicene creed remains silent regarding this matter, and the theme of theological anthropology is not explicitly stated, we must recognize that it is implicit within the Creed. In affirming the deity of the Son and his salvific work, it could not do so without reference to humanity in general (for us and for our salvation)3 and the humanity of the Son in particular (and became truly human). Two things that are especially intrinsic to being human are the aspect of being created in the image of God (imago Dei) and the reality of the fall. In affirming that the Son became truly human for our salvation, it assumes the reality of the fall. Prior to the Nicene council, the Early Church teachers of the faith strongly affirmed the doctrine of the imago Dei and the fall of humanity.4 In as much as these doctrines are fundamental to the Christian faith, they are understood and engaged differently in the Indian context, especially through the realities of dehumanization and Empire/Othering/Worlding.

This reality raises the question of how one approaches doctrine in context. Geoff Thompson’s proposal of understanding Christian doctrine is insightful in this regard. According to him, “Christian doctrine is communally recognized authoritative teaching of the Christian community about Christianity’s beliefs and practices” (Thompson 2020, p. 1). Thompson goes on to unpack this working definition in his monograph by rightly recognizing that doctrine is contingent on intellectual, cultural, socio-political, religious, and other related factors. Doctrinal deliberations in context open the space for being “conceptually innovative” (Thompson 2020, p. 26). They also appear as credal/liturgical statements and, at times, also as “a means of protest against deformations of the faith”.5 As Thompson highlights, my concern, too, is to discuss “the phenomenon of doctrine as a particular intellectual activity of the church” (Thompson 2020, p. vii).

It is also important to bear in mind that in the Indian context—by which I mean deliberations on human being limited to the discourse by Christian theologians from India—the terms doctrine and theology are used interchangeably, although there are clear differences between them. Both must be recognized as part of the intellectual activity of the church. Two recent works in the Indian context reflect this reality. First is the work by Y. T. Vinayaraj titled Faith in the Age of Empire (See Vinayaraj 2020), and the other is the monograph by David Muthukumar Sivasubramanian titled Introduction to Christian Doctrine (See Sivasubramanian 2024). Although Vinayaraj subtitles his work Christian Doctrine in a Postcolonial Sensibility, he attempts to deform Christian doctrine by employing a postcolonial theological method. Vinayaraj’s monograph moves towards a critical deconstruction of colonial formulations of Christian theology and attempts to reimagine doctrine from the lens of a postcolonial theoretical framework. David’s monograph, on the other hand, attempts to reimagine Christian doctrine using a postfoundationalist method.6 David’s postfoundationalist method critically engages with the extremes of foundationalist certainty and nonfoundationalist relativism. Apart from reflecting a resurgence in the phenomenon of Christian doctrine within the Indian context, a casual reading of both these works reflects the truth that it is hard to make a rigid distinction between doctrine and theology yet reiterating the view that both are unavoidable and important intellectual activities of the church.

For a helpful differentiation, I go with Colin Gunton’s observation that doctrines may be considered as “the officially agreed teaching” (Gunton 1997, p. 4) of the church. Theology, on the other hand, may be considered as an “open-ended activity” (Gunton 1997, p. 4) which “may or may not be accepted as doctrine” (Gunton 1997, p. 4). Gunton discourages making any absolute distinction between the two, noting that “Christian doctrines are theological, while theology is often centrally concerned with the church’s official doctrine” (Gunton 1997, p. 4). However, a key factor in the imagination of Christian doctrine within Indian discourse is the question of the epistemological starting point. Where does one begin when it comes to the Christian community’s recognition of authoritative teaching? Both Christian tradition and local contexts are important in the shaping of Christian doctrine. The challenge in the Indian context is how to hold this tension in equilibrium. Before addressing this tension, understanding the concerns inherent to Indian conversations on what it means to be human will be helpful.

3. Understanding Human Being in Indian Conversations

India offers fertile ground for the imagination, construction, and articulation of what it means to be human in context. In contradistinction from her counterparts in other parts of the globe, there is a strong critical consciousness of “doctrinal systems”. In the words of Felix Wilfred, “There is a fragmentary sense to all kinds of South Asian theologies as they try to come to terms with ever new and challenging situations calling forth fresh faith responses” (Wilfred 2024, p. 189). In his assessment, South Asian theologians, rather than going by historical consciousness or temporality, proceed by way of addressing questions which emerge from the immediate context which “do not have any precedents or models in Christian history to go by” (Wilfred 2024, p. 202). He makes the contentious yet insightful observation that South Asian theologians are “less attracted by issues of orthodoxy and heterodoxy than by a sense of fidelity to the gospel and the truth as revealed through the realities of their context” (Wilfred 2024, p. 202). In Wilfred’s scheme of thought, the epistemological starting point of doctrines is the space where there is an interplay of culture, socio-politics, tradition, and language (Wilfred 2024, p. 189). This raises the question of what we are to make of Scripture and Christian tradition. If Christian doctrine is ‘communally recognized and authoritative teaching of the Christian community’, do we see this as the exclusive local (Indian) community or the local (Indian) Christian community in continuity with and as part of the global/universal Christian community that spans across the whole of history? Questions like these provide the scope for revisioning the doctrine of human being afresh in Indian conversations. Before attempting an evangelical imagination of the doctrine of human being, it is imperative to discuss how it is conceptualized in Indian discourse. In discussing Sacramental Humanism by Paulos Mar Gregorios, Secular Humanism by M. M. Thomas, and Intersubjective Humanism by Y. T. Vinayaraj, I intend to show how the discourse on human being developed across the modern Indian theological landscape. Rather than reflecting a regional bias—as each of these theologians are from the Southern state of Kerala—it reflects the necessity of discussing how the doctrine of human being transitioned from a philosophical/systematic framework, through an intentionally contextual framework, to the current postmodern/colonial framework as represented by these theologians, respectively.

3.1. Paulos Mar Gregorios and Sacramental Humanism

Paulos Mar Gregorios rendered a philosophical understanding of what it means to be human in engagement with Gregory of Nyssa (See Gregorios 1988). In the context of the scientific-technological developments of his times, he was critical of human autonomy at the expense of the eclipse/death of God. Western enlightenment ushered in abstract, rationalistic, and dualistic ways of thinking, which created the God-human and human-nature binaries. He observed that science and technology alienated us from reality by presenting us two options: either to know it objectively or to manipulate it technologically. This attitude eventually leads to the ‘mastery’ of nature or reality as a whole. As an alternate to this attitude of ‘mastery’, Gregorios vouched for the attitude of ‘mystery’.7 By mystery, he means the initiation, participation, and “mutual perichoresis in which God and the universe embrace and penetrate each other” (Gregorios 1978, p. 88). This is best expressed in the eucharistic sacrament. In the practice of mastery over nature, humanity uses technology to objectify and alienate nature to the point of losing its capacity for self-giving mutual love in its relationship with God and nature. This ultimately leads to the corruption of humanity’s own nature. Science and technology, instead of enhancing the life of humanity—especially the less privileged—leads to the dehumanization of humanity.8 Humanity forgets that its primary responsibility is to offer to God in the act of eucharistic sacrament the whole of nature—which is our extended body. Through his death on the cross, Jesus Christ gave not just himself, but also humanity and nature (creation) in the act of self-denying love to God. In the same manner, redeemed humanity, which is initiated into and called to participate in this eternal act of self-giving love, must use technology as a way of humanizing nature and offer it to God as an act of worship. This attitude of mystery begins with humanity’s offering of itself and nature via the responsible use of technology to God in love. This, in other words, is sacramental humanism. Sacramental humanism reminds humanity of its mediatorial role between God and nature, where it holds in tension the mastery of nature within the mystery of worship.

3.2. M. M. Thomas and Secular Humanism

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

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

(Thomas 1971, p. 7)

The immediate context was the call of the WCC at Uppsala in 1968 against dehumanizing forces and the criticism of Peter Beyerhaus,9 who held strong reservations against the Uppsala Assembly’s apparent epistemological shift from theology to anthropology. Beyerhaus criticized the ecumenical movement for its emphasis on universalism, the interpretation of world history as the history of salvation, and the orientation toward social activity as against an orientation to soteriology, which was foundational to biblical evangelicalism.10 By contrast, Thomas’ theology was driven by the conviction that the Christian community had to be fully engaged with and thoroughly involved in their contexts.11 Thomas’s immediate criteria of relevance were the Asian Revolution, Secularization, and Humanization.12 In as much as the Asian context was characterized by the transition in political, economic, and social structures, and the major shift from village and rural structures to modernization and industrialization, the overarching concern was that of secular humanism. Secular humanism reflects a “secularistic” attitude, which is not only closed to but also opposed to the idea of the Christian gospel, and also devoid of a “comprehensive understanding” of the reality of humanity and eventually becomes dehumanizing.13 Thomas’ engagement with emerging ideologies—by which he meant the study of humanity or social anthropology—led him to a deeper, mature, well-informed and sustained engagement with secular ideologies in India with the aim of making sense of the “secular” meaning of Christ.

In this regard, the cross plays a crucial role in his understanding of humanity. The cross of Christ is symbolic of God’s identification with the sufferings of humanity, and hence, it facilitates an understanding of “cruciform humanity in Christ as the ultimate destiny of mankind” (Thomas 1975, p. 38). His concern for the human condition led him to be vocal about the inefficiency and insufficiency of human achievements and moral standards to lift itself out of its human predicament. In the course of the influence of modernization and development, the cross serves as a critique of science and technology. Although science makes positive contributions toward human development, under the spell of optimism of its own nature and historical progress, it fails to recognize “the fact of evil in the higher self of man” and the “powerlessness of moral idealism” (Thomas 1976, p. 33). In the face of this reality, the cross stands as a reminder of “the spiritual evil” that is resident within the best of human institutions of religion, society, and state, constantly bearing witness to the human need for redemption by God. The cross, by demonstrating the self-emptying redemptive love of God, frees us to live in our history as people who are essentially models or patterns of a new humanity that is destined for an “eschatological humanization” (Thomas 1987, p. 113) where all contrary forces to the fuller life of humanity will be removed. The ground of this universal influence of the cross is the historical cross, which is open to all by way of faith–response.

In the context of our socio-political realities, the cross calls for discerning the “continuing work of the living Jesus Christ to awaken man to his true humanity, promised in Christ, and needing the discipline of the Gospel for its fulfillment” (van den Heuvel 1969, p. 92). Thomas eventually vouched for a doctrine of ‘positive secular humanism’ which affirms the humanization of nature, the creativity of humanity in purposive history, seeking emancipation from oppressive structures, and realization of the importance of love and justice as mediated by the cross to direct human relations in every historical situation. In the process of engaging human concerns from a sociopolitical point of view (anthropology), priority is given to positive secular humanism characterized as ‘humanization’ (soteriology). The basis for this engagement is the Christ-event (Christology), which he reimagines as ‘new humanity’.

3.3. Y. T. Vinayaraj and Intersubjective/Embodied Humanism

Under the influence of postmodern/colonial theoretical developments, the Indian context continues to witness radical forms of discourses regarding human being. Empire, Agency, and Othering are major issues within theological anthropology that are especially informed by postcolonial and anti-imperial theories and theologies. Anti-Empire rhetoric seeks to counter Empire tendencies within the domain of theology. Joerg Rieger understands ‘Empire’ as the “massive concentrations of power that permeate all aspects of life and that cannot be controlled by any one actor alone” (Rieger 2007, p. 2). He states further that

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

(Rieger 2007, pp. 2–3).

This same approach is applied to the doctrine of human being in the postcolonial Indian context. We are witnessing counter-imaginations (deformation of doctrine) that call for the de-imperializing of theology/doctrine that was bequeathed to us. All forms of such theologies are written off as products of colonialism (Vinayaraj 2020, p. xxvi). In the eagerness to reshape the doctrine of human being in a postcolonial sensibility,14 the primary quest is to rediscover identity. Inherent to identity discourse are the issues of ‘othering’, ‘worlding’, and ‘agency/subjectivities’.15 Postcolonial Indian conversations question tendencies towards imposition and fixation of essential(ist) identities and vouch for the promotion of subjectivities instead. In such a context, the tendency is to privilege a ‘planetary’ approach to the doctrine of human being where the emphasis is on intersubjectivity and embodiment.16 By problematizing transcendent categories—which fosters othering—metaphysical discussions in relation to the doctrine of human being are rendered useless. The emphasis is on “radical relationality, which “relocates ethics in a materialistic plane of human relationship” (Vinayaraj 2020, p. 50). Vinayaraj reduces the whole of existence to the plane of immanence. Existence is imagined and recognized only in relation to the immediate natural environment, and any notion of God as the “transcendent Other” or “Wholly Other” is denied. The claim is that this is not a denial of God, but the rejection of a particular understanding of God, viz., the transcendent God.17 God, rather than being the “Pantocrator”18, “expresses himself in all creatures internally” (Vinayaraj 2016, p. 101). Such an imagination is intentional in problematizing the hierarchical relation between God and humanity and prioritizing the interconnectivity between them, thus prioritizing intersubjectivity. Within this framework, the reality of human sinfulness is thoroughly eclipsed. Planetary ontology rejects all forms of doctrine that speak of human depravity to create space for diverse ways of becoming more human, or perhaps even posthuman, to the point where eventually the human element is eclipsed, and the emphasis is more on ‘becoming’.

4. Reimagining an Evangelical Hermeneutic of Human Being

One thing that emerges from the above discussion is that in Indian conversations, the prime concern is to make sense of Christian doctrine in conversation with contextual realities. Christian doctrines are not taken for granted. Rather, they play a key role in forming, deforming, and reforming Christian imagination. Another thing that stands out in Indian conversations is the way doctrines are seen in relation to each other. One cannot discuss the doctrine of human being in isolation from God and Jesus Christ. Although Wilfred is dismissive of orthodoxy, he underlines the need to articulate how the gospel addresses our immediate contexts. This is a common denominator to the thoughts of Gregorios, Thomas, and Vinayaraj. In the light of this shared concern, there is scope for articulating an ‘Evangelical’ hermeneutic of human being which draws on the riches of Christian tradition and engages with contextual realities. At this stage, it is important to note the distinction between ‘evangelical’ and ‘evangelicalism(s)’. Evangelicalism(s) is understood as the diverse interpretations or expressions of the evangelical faith.19 ‘Evangelical’, on the other hand, means that which is “informed by the gospel of Jesus Christ”.20 This is independent of the diverse interpretations or perspectives of the gospel account across history. The evangel (the gospel/good news) is prior to and precedes evangelicalism(s). Hence, evangelical may be further clarified to mean “gospel affirming”. This thought is deeply rooted in the framework of theologia crucis.

4.1. An Evangelical Approach to Christian Doctrine via Theologia Crucis

By theologia crucis, what I mean is that the whole of the Christian faith, and in that sense every aspect of Christian doctrine, is thought through the framework of the cross. Theologia crucis includes the whole Christ-event, that is, the incarnation—life, death, resurrection, ascension, and the continuous presence of Christ in the world looking forward to the parousia. The cross serves as a sign, a symbol, and the prism through which humanity comes to know and understand God. This knowing (epistemological) and understanding (hermeneutical) dimension is mediated not just through the event of the crucifixion of Christ (doctrine of atonement or the work of Christ) but by the whole Christ-event. Hence, theologia crucis is understood inclusively as the whole narrative of the life of Jesus Christ as found in the gospel accounts. By this standard, theologia crucis vouches for a ‘gospel affirming’ approach to Christian doctrine or an evangelical approach to doctrine. In other words, it reimagines Christian doctrine as ‘gospel affirmation’. The phenomenon of Christian doctrine as an intellectual activity of the Church is very much an evangelical/gospel affirming activity. At the heart of the gospel is an event—the Christ-event. Were it not for the Christ-event, there would be no evangel and hence no evangelical faith. It is the Christ-event that funds and mediates to us the sum and substance of our doctrines and faith affirmations. If evangelical theology is the product of the reflection by evangelicals on the gospel, then it is the Christ-event alone which mediates to us the content or the ‘stuff’ of our theology.21 As far as doctrine and theology are concerned, the Christ-event is the decisive event. Every imagination of the gospel is based on this decisive event as given to us in the gospel accounts and affirmed by Apostolic tradition.

When Christian doctrine is grounded on the Christ-event as a whole, it not only behaves in a relational manner with faith as a whole but also functions critically in relation to diverse hermeneutics of doctrines. Theologia crucis provides the scope to understand an evangelical approach to doctrine in a relational–critical manner. By this, what I mean is that the historical and decisive Christ-event not only resources but also relates to all interpretations of itself. Every Christian doctrine revolves around the Christ-event. Hence, an evangelical approach to doctrine interacts and relates with every imagination of itself. Going a step further, an evangelical approach to doctrine does not subsume diverse interpretations and imaginations of doctrine; rather, it critically examines and engages them in the light of the Christ-event. Although this approach debars and draws up space for contextual interpretation, no ‘single’ or ‘particular’ perspective is privileged to function as the final horizon for the construction of Christian doctrine. To avoid falling into the trap of doctrinal typification or parochialism, Indian conversations on doctrines, in general, and on human being, in particular, must derive their content from the actual Christ-event so as to resonate with the local context. An evangelical approach to doctrine renders the meaning of the Christ-event to be trans-contextual. To develop a distinct or an authentic understanding of human being in the Indian context, it is imperative to make sense of the actual Christ-event afresh vis-à-vis the issues and questions emerging from the local context. In other words, what we need today is a gospel affirming reimagination—an evangelical reimagination—of what it means to be a human being in the Indian context.

Before proceeding to look at the doctrine of human being in Indian conversations, it would also help to clarify how to make sense of it in context. Here, we need to address the unfortunate polarization and tension between a systematic approach and/or a contextual approach to doctrine. A systematic approach to doctrine is generally understood to border along abstractions, leaning towards a rationalistic and objective approach to understanding the faith. It is projected as favouring the experiences and perspectives of the rich and the powerful, to the point of pressing for universal and perennial status. (Vashum 2020, pp. 68–69). Contrary to this understanding, the contextual approach understands itself as something that is proactive and done. It is understood more as a verb than a noun. The emphasis is on the doing or the praxis of doctrine or theology rather than on the static understanding of doctrine as a rational or intellectual discourse that is finished or closed. In the words of Samuel George, “To do theology is to contextualize one’s faith” (George 2016, p. vii). The fact is that contextual demands strongly influence the approach and content of doctrinal and theological imaginations in the Indian context. In such a situation, I believe that a hermeneutical approach offers better prospects for imagining doctrine in context.22 Although hermeneutics engages texts produced in another time and contexts from ours, it is also about how we understand and make sense of them in our current contexts. It has the potential to facilitate meaningful conversations between systematic and contextual approaches in order to bring about new and fresh meaning.

A hermeneutical approach to doctrine provides us with the mechanism to engage in the phenomenon of doctrine as an intellectual activity without falling into the trap of binary opposition between systematic and contextual theology. Contrary to a static, finished, or closed understanding of systematics, we must understand it as being dynamic, living, growing, and progressive in nature. All theologies and constructions of doctrine arise out of particular contexts. Diverse contexts provide the space to think through Christian doctrine in a systematic manner. A systematic approach to doctrine is a form of theological engagement in particular contexts, while contexts provide the space or the arena for the reimagination of dogmatic themes, and hence the importance of contextual engagement. It is contextual realities that keep systematics alive, infusing it with life and energy. A systematic method or approach plays the role of a handmaid or servant to contextual realities (Grenz and Franke 2001, pp. 17–18). Systematic theology must not misunderstand the genuine intentions of the contextual approach, while at the same time, it must be critical of parochial tendencies inherent in them. There is a tendency to accentuate praxis at the expense of doctrinal content on one hand, while on the other hand, the tendency is to immerse oneself so much into doctrine without deliberation on its practical relevance. Both orthodoxy and orthopraxy have to go together.

In the eagerness to address the quandary of dehumanization and counter apparent forms of colonial theologies, there is both a subtle and an overt tendency to overlook fundamental/biblical faith affirmations of what it means to be human. This is evident in relation to the image of God (imago Dei) and the reality of the fall. In the contemporary postcolonial Indian context, the emphasis is on multidisciplinarity, which privileges a deconstructive reading of human being. In this context, God is de-transcendentalized by virtue of which the imago Dei is reduced to the plane of mere becoming and intersubjectivity.23 Sin is located in the systems (socio-political, economic, etc.) that exploit the bodies and human rights of the colonial subjects. Imago Dei is just an “agentic assemblage” (See Bennet 2010, pp. 20–38) in the sense that it is constituted and comprised by “an assemblage of microbes, animals, plants, metals, chemicals, word-sounds, and the like”. (Bennet 2010, pp. 120–21). The emphasis is more on a “materialistic political ontology of humanity” (Vinayaraj 2020, p. 50). It is precisely at this juncture that we need to recognize the relational nature and critical function of doctrine in context.

Among the many functions of Christian doctrine—pastoral, didactic, catechetical, liturgical, ethical, apologetical—I want to emphasize the right teachings (orthodoxy) and the right practice (orthopraxis). What I propose to do in the following section is a reimagination of an evangelical hermeneutic of human being via the theology of the cross (theologia crucis) in relation to Nicaea. My basic argument is that embedded within the gospel accounts of the Christ-event are deep theological themes and truths. As I highlighted above, theologia crucis preoccupies itself with extracting and systemizing these themes via the criterion of the cross—which was the framework through which Jesus Christ envisioned his life and ministry. The cross—figuratively and literally—becomes the decisive criterion for making sense of the whole Christ-event in a concrete manner. Beyond that, it is also the decisive criterion for making sense of Christian doctrine in context.

4.2. An Evangelical Hermeneutic of Human Being via Theologia Crucis

Intrinsic to the Nicene Creed is the theology of the cross.24 Khaled Anatolios notes that two key works of Athanasius, viz., Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione, are “first and foremost an apologia crucis”.25 However, in my engagement with doctrine, I am reading Nicaea through the lens of theologia crucis, not toward an apologetical end but toward a hermeneutical end. The Indian contextual concerns of dehumanization and intersubjectivity raise valid questions regarding the image of God and the continuity of the relationship between God and humanity. In other words, this brings into focus the discussion about imago Dei and the reality of the fall/sin. Evangelical hermeneutic of human being by recourse to the Christ-event mediates how ‘grace’ functions to sustain the continuity between God and humanity despite the “ state of flux and dissolution”.26 By means of theologia crucis, it emphasizes the value of humanity to God. The Christ-event serves as the point of intersection between two worlds. In the words of Karl Barth, “the one known and the other unknown” (Barth 1968, p. 29). Humanity—or the known world—has fallen out of union with its Creator. There exists a disjunction between them.27 The world of the Creator—the unknown world—meets humanity at the intersection point of the Christ-event. The intersection between God and humanity in Christ “presses for recognition” (Barth 1968, p. 29). Nicaea recognized the true humanity of Jesus Christ to address the quandary of humanity.28 The basis for this was the deity of Jesus Christ.29 Without the Christ-event, God and humanity would forever remain in two separate planes.

At the core of the Christ-event is the dispensation of the grace of God (John 1:16–17). Athanasius, in elaborating on the incarnation, presupposes the doctrine of creation by the Word. In Athanasius’s scheme of thought, humanity is incapable of “independent perseverance”. Yet, based on God’s ‘mercy,’30 humanity was given “an added grace, not simply creating men like all irrational animals on the earth, but making them in his own image and giving them also a share in the power of his own Word”. (Thompson 1971, p. 141). The crucial aspect of this “added grace” is that of ‘participation’.31 To be human is first and foremost to be in an image. For Athanasius, the quintessential truth of humanity is that it is created in the image of God. For him, the image of God was Jesus Christ (See Thompson 1971, pp. 7 and 131). To be created in the imago Dei is to share in the “image of the Image of God”. Anatolios observes that although Athanasius employs the terminology of governance (ἡγεμονία), he uses it primarily in relation to creation as a whole but never uses it to refer to “God’s activity in relation to humanity” (See Anatolios 2005, p. 60). Contrary to critical notions, there is reason to read Athanasius as privileging a ‘relational ontology’ as against a hierarchical ontology.32

The crux of Athanasius’s argument is that more than any metaphysical imagination of humanity, in the light of the incarnation, it is the ‘relational dimension’ that must be emphasized. Evangelical hermeneutic of human being helps us recognize that Nicaea’s affirmation of the deity and incarnation of Jesus Christ, rather than signifying a hierarchical ontology between God and humanity, signifies a relational ontology between them in the person of Jesus Christ. The prime concern was to safeguard the ontological relation of the Son with the Father so that humanity’s scope for redemption (salvation) would have a concrete basis. Taking our cues from Athanasius, in the light of the Christ-event, contrary to hierarchical or monistic ontology,33 ‘relational ontology’ serves as a meaningful framework to envision what it means to be human. Rather than prioritizing God or humanity over the other, the emphasis is on relationality, which is possible by the continuity of grace. Such an understanding not only has the potential to uphold the teachings/doctrines of the Early teachers of the faith but also helps to address the Indian contextual concerns of dehumanization and intersubjectivity. In other words, in continuity with Christian tradition, it makes sense in context. However, what is also important to note here is that the evangelical hermeneutic of human being is not constructed in isolation, but in relation to the understanding of God (Theology), the Son (Christology), and salvation (Soteriology). This doctrine of human being has implications for orthopraxis (right practice).

4.3. Evangelical Hermeneutic of Human Being and Reconciliative Praxis

Evangelical hermeneutic of human being presses for the recognition of reconciliative praxis. Without negating or over privileging the otherness/transcendence of God, it grounds the reality of God in a way that human experiences can relate to. Jesus Christ is not just the medium of correspondence to the redemptive activity of God, but he is also the one who enables humanity to be co-respondents to God’s redemptive and restorative purposes. This co-respondence is intrinsic to the imago Dei. In this regard, a viable alternate to intersubjective reality is proleptic existence.34 Proleptic existence accentuates the teleological dimension of humanity, viz., that humanity is God’s covenant partner and recipients of God’s grace. The paradox of humanity is that although it is radically corrupt (hamartiological dimension), it is also constituted by God’s covenant promises (teleological dimension). Through the reality of sin, it is grace that facilitates and preserves the continuity between God and humanity in Jesus Christ. In as much as it is imperative to recognize the fallen state of humanity, without trivializing, condoning, or absolutizing sin, we must see it to be relativized in the light of God’s telos for humanity. To echo the words of Barth,

If we do not want to exclude ourselves from the knowledge of grace, we must not absolutise sin, but that, even though we cannot relativise it of ourselves, we must regard it as relativised and secondary from the standpoint of divine grace (Barth 1960, p. 37). …What is the creaturely nature of man to the extent that, looking to the revealed grace of God and concretely to the man Jesus, we can see in it a continuum unbroken by sin, an essence which even sin does not and cannot change?

(Barth 1960, pp. 43–44)

Such an imagination reinforces humanity’s responsibility towards fellow humanity. A relational understanding of humanity must foster a reconciliative ethic in relation to fellow humanity. Today majority of Christians in India are from the marginal communities.35 The idea of reconciliative humanity stems from the idea of God’s reconciliative nature. This is especially true of the perichoretic relation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Beyond the understanding of ‘change or exchange’, reconciliation means to continuously reach out benevolently to the other (See Büchsel, “ἀλλάσσω”, TDNT I:254). The Triune God’s nature or being is such that the persons of the Godhead are always in a state of benevolent, reaching out, overflowing in a relationship of deep communion between them. God, being a communion of love, is benevolently and kindly disposed to the other. In other words, reconciliation is communion. This eternal benevolence, the communion and reconciliative nature of God, is made concrete and tangible through the true humanity of Jesus Christ, which is mediated through theologia crucis. However, intrinsic to theologia crucis is humanitas crucis or the humanity of the cross.

The idea of the cross reminds us of the evil that is intrinsic to the human heart and the fall that is real to human experience. Yet, without the cross, it is not possible to effect reconciliation in the disjuncture between God and humanity. In this sense, the cross is for humanity. At its core, the humanity of the cross seeks to affirm the ‘human person’ in the contemporary context. Perhaps a glimpse of this idea can be demonstrated through a re-reading of the story of the good Samaritan in Lk. 10:25–37. In Luke 10:25–37, the question of the lawyer moves from a religious one (about eternal life) to a social one (who is my neighbour). Christ’s answer comes in the form of the parable of the good Samaritan, which radically challenges and decenteres the religious, social, and political order of the day.36 One wonders whether Jesus, by invoking Jerusalem and Jericho, was hinting at two centres of exclusivity, viz. Jerusalem, an exclusively religious centre, and Jericho, an exclusively social centre.37 It is evident from this that the test of true reconciliation is outside of our exclusive spaces. In describing the action of the priest and the Levite upon seeing the wounded man, Christ mentions that they “passed by on the other side”. They were guilty of ‘othering’. Whereas the Samaritan “came near… and went to him”. Contrary to the priest and Levite, the action of the Samaritan was an act of “neighbouring”. Through the story of the “neighbouring” Samaritan, Christ was literally subverting the parochial Jewish understanding of what it meant to be a neighbour.38 It is also interesting to note that this episode is recorded after Jesus Christ’s rejection by the Samaritans in Lk. 9:51–56. Luke gives a hint that Jesus’ rejection was linked to a religious-political reason—“because his face was set toward Jerusalem” (Lk. 9:53). Even in his earthly life, Jesus Christ remained reconciliative in his ministry, making no distinction between Gentile and Jew. Evangelical hermeneutic of human being fosters a reconciliative praxis or ethics where the call is to transcend ones’ narrow socio-religio-political perspectives to embrace the other, in the process of which the other is seen not as an other but as ones’ self, where one loves the neighbour as the self.

5. Evangelical Hermeneutic of Human Being and Digital Culture

Evangelical hermeneutic of human being assumes relevance especially in relation to the challenges posed by the emerging digital culture. As our world is transitioning through a posthuman condition, we are witnessing the emergence of the technosapien within a technocultural context. Posthumanism is generally understood as the merger of humans with technology “creating a new and superior posthuman species” (See Waters 2016, p. x; Wolf 2010; Nayar 2014; Mahon 2017; Braidotti 2019). Nayar differentiates between transhumanism, which is understood more in terms of prosthesis to human identity, and [critical] posthumanism, where technology is integral to human identity. In the words of Nayar, critical posthumanism is “the radical decentring of the traditional sovereign, coherent and autonomous human in order to demonstrate how the human is always already evolving with, constituted by and constitutive of multiple forms of life and machines”. (Nayar 2014, chap. 1).

Nicaea’s arguments were based on Neo-Platonic ontology, which played up the hierarchical distinctions and binary dualism between God and humanity.39 God was envisioned as absolutely transcendent in relation to creation. By invoking the category of logos and infusing it with the Christian affirmation of the ‘word became flesh’, they found a basis to affirm humanity’s affinity in relationship with God. Metaphysical dualistic categories eventually legitimized a hierarchical structure within patristic discourse on the understanding of human being. Although it is true that Nicene theology made recourse to Neo-Platonic ontology, in the context of their times, this was perhaps the best possible framework available to articulate the deity of the Son. However, as discussed above, at its core was a relational ontology.

In our contemporary context, with the blurring of the lines between the human and the machine or the natural and the artificial, the chorus for the recognition of the ‘posthuman’ is growing stronger. Posthumanism rejects the idea of a transcendent other (God). It argues for a continuum within the natural order, reducing the human to a mere ‘being’. Although the prime engagement of posthumanism emerged in the context of the relation between the human and the machine, recent discourse problematizes the narrative around “human exceptionalism”. By elevating themselves to a superior status in relation to creation and ‘othering’ it, humanity grossly abused and assaulted creation. This logic of domination and exploitation is funded by the vision of dualistic ontology that sustains a transcendence-immanence binary not only between God and humanity/creation but also between humanity and creation. Posthuman(ist) thinkers fault human exceptionalism of premodern and modern anthropology to be responsible for issues we face in our societies. In response to this realization, posthumanism questions hierarchical power relations between humans and creation by recourse to philosophies of immanence, where the emphasis is on multiplicities and interconnectedness.

A leading voice that informs posthuman immanence is Gilles Deleuze.40 A new ontology of immanence is derived from Deleuze’s rhizomatic approach to becoming in contrast to an arborescent mode of existence. A rhizome (think of a ginger) grows freely without being tied to any particular centre. It grows horizontally/non-hierarchically, reflecting a world of multiplicities without leaving traces of the source of its roots. In contrast, an arborescent mode of existence (think of a tree) is hierarchical in nature. This structure has a clear centre (root), which gives a sense of direction to the whole body. This structure moves from root to trunk to branch to leaf. Rhizomatic imaginations/thoughts have the potential to collapse all hierarchical modes of existence and open the possibility for all forms of becoming. The primary goal of the rhizomatic approach is to derail and problematize any and all forms of dualisms and to move beyond them to explore the world of multiplicities and interconnectedness. The main focus is to argue for the continuum between the entities of apparent binary structures. Hence, it is not human and/or machine, or even the hyphenated human–machine that is being argued for, but rather the idea of the humachine, the technosapien, or the Cyborg. In contrast to dualistic ontology, which was characteristic of Nicaea, posthuman immanentism à la Deleuze challenges human exceptionalism and vouches for the material embeddedness and interconnectedness of all beings.

Doctrinally speaking, the posthuman/digital culture demands a rethinking of the meaning of imago Dei and the reality of the fall or humanity’s “misdirected desire”.41 Although posthumanism faults human exceptionalism as the cause of all the chaos in the world, it remains silent regarding the fallen state of humanity. In denying the transcendence of God, it also negates God’s aseity, or the state or quality of being independent and autonomous.42 This leaves us with no option but to create and construct a posthuman based on aporetic constructions. In such a context, an evangelical hermeneutic of human being affirms the apostolic teachings of human being by addressing the genuine concerns of the emerging digital culture. Posthumanism raises a valid point in reminding us of the tensions in the human–machine (creation) relationship. Hence, it becomes all the more crucial to re-envision what it means to be human in a digital culture. In a world where emerging technologies are “playing God” in terms of creating new life43 and even replicating/substituting the human reasoning process (AI), the idea of the human person is becoming as fluid as ever. In this context, a leading crisis is that of ‘identity’. The digital culture fosters a subtle form of ‘othering’ between humans created in the imago Dei and the (post)human constructed according to imago posthumana. To echo the words of Faith and Order,

While metaphors of human beings as nothing more than information processing machines may be useful in a limited technical sense, they do not address the richness of the human condition and experience as manifest through specific cultural and social contexts. The human person is based on a network of relationships constituted through provisional, embodied, contingent, meaning-producing interactions with significant others. The human relationship with the Other who is God also has these characteristics.

(Faith and Order 2005, p. 11)

It states further that,

The vision of AI widely articulated through popular science fiction narratives ends either with idolatry (that ultimately we are obliged to serve the machines we have created) or hubris (that we find false salvation through our own heroic achievements). God’s salvation is an embodied event of human solidarity that is a counter witness. Still, the potential for sin is found within the bounded and contingent condition of being human.

(Faith and Order 2005, p. 11)

We are real humans living in a real world. To be truly human is to be conscious of and sensitive to the real issues (existential and spiritual) of humanity. In becoming truly human, Jesus Christ fully identified with us. The humanity of the cross radically transforms us to the point of seeing ourselves as one with those who are deprived of justice, equality, identity, dignity, and humanity itself. Vinayaraj highlights how posthumanism fails to address the questions raised by marginal communities about dehumanizing social systems and the phenomenologies of violence (Vinayaraj 2020, p. 48). The humanity of the cross serves to engage the “agonies of the colonial bodies of the world” (Vinayaraj 2020, p. 48). This realization must inevitably lead to the dispensation of our God given responsibility towards humanity.

This brings us to the second aspect—that of reminding ourselves of our responsibilities towards the world of technology (creation). Re-envisioning the doctrine of human being in the light of Nicaea via theologia crucis must reinforce an affirmative ethics of human responsibility towards the world of technology, which comes with immense prospects and potentialities. Yet, to share in the imago Dei comes with the privilege and responsibility of ethically and justly using technology for constructive and redemptive purposes.44 In as much as we are co-creators and co-responsible for technology, we must find ways to harmonize and synergize the potentialities of humanity and technology to serve humanity better. In line with Faith and Order’s affirmation,

We are called to a relationship of loving care with the wider creation, acknowledging and taking responsibility for our place within the dynamic interconnected and interdependent whole of creation. The fact that God created all things good means that this co-responsibility, however exacting it may be, will always occasion delight and celebration (Faith and Order 2005, p. 15).

6. Conclusions

In this 1700th year of Nicaea, it is appropriate to make explicit that which is implicit within the Nicene Creed, viz., the doctrine of human being. I began by exploring the role of doctrine in Indian theological imaginations. Doctrine, although used interchangeably with theology, is an intellectual activity of the church. After discussing the understanding of human being in the thoughts of Paulos Mar Gregorios, M. M. Thomas, and Y. T. Vinayaraj, I argued for the need to rethink the doctrine of human being via the lens of theologia crucis, which provides the scope for constructing an evangelical or a gospel affirming understanding of human being where the emphasis is on a relational ontology. Such an imagination helps us to understand the relational nature and critical function of Christian doctrine. In this regard, from a hermeneutical point of view, I argued that there is scope to envision the humanity of the cross (humanitas crucis), where the focus is on the human person. This becomes especially important in the context of the emerging digital culture. By way of reconciliative praxis, as we strive to navigate our way through a world of huge possibilities in the context of emerging digital culture, we must never forget that as we struggle to make sense of humanity in the context of violence, wars, poverty, pain and sufferings of various kinds, the good news of Jesus Christ is that he became incarnate “for us and for our salvation”. The doctrine of human being must facilitate this hope by constantly working towards the reconciliation between humans and machines by acknowledging the “one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen”.