Christian Anthropology

Robert Colquhoun
MA Pastoral Education

'God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he
created them.' (Gen 1:27 quoted at CCC 355).

a) Explain the implications of this statement for Christian anthropology, for how we are to
understand our relationships with God, ourselves, each other and creation. (1,500-2,500 words)

b) Examine any pastoral and/or educational implications of your analysis in Part (a) within a setting
of your choosing (1,500-2,500 words).

a) The doctrine of Imago Dei, according to Emil Bramer, “decides the destiny of all theology.”1 Von
|Balthasar and Barth believed that Imago Dei should have a major place not only with anthropology
but also with dogmatic theology.2 This doctrine has wide ranging implications for man's relationship
with God. As we are made in God's image and likeness, we are not a god, but a being made for
relationship. It reveals the dignity of the human person, the balance of body and soul, the
relationship between men and women and the individual in his interaction with the community.

Man was created in the image of God to do what God does – love.3 The first major observation from
the doctrine of Imago Dei is that man is a created being. He is not a cosmological fluke, nor does
his existence come by any other means except by creation ex nihilo from God. This puts man as a
recipient of the great, mysterious and gratuitous gift of creation.4 Creation then is a gift to man,
who emerges from love. Creation is a “call from nothingness to existence:”5 God is the giver and
man is the one who receives the gift. From this beginning, man is called to reciprocate this gift by
the disinterested gift of himself. This is why man “can fully discover his true self only in a sincere
giving of himself.”6

Various modern philosophies have attempted to reverse the notion of Imago Dei: Feuerbach, Marx
and Freud all held that God is nothing else than an image projected by man. The “conception of

1 According to Bramer (in Ouellet, 2006, p26).

2 Ibid.
3 Hogan and Levoir, Covenant of Love, 1992, p45.
4 Pope John Paul II, Theology of the body, p67.
5 Ibid. p59
6 Gaudium et Spes, n.24
man as a self constituted autonomous subject”7 would necessitate that atheism to be the only
adequate belief system for man. But Imago Dei shows man's fundamental orientation and
dependence on God, not as an isolated individual, but as a being made for relationships.

The account of God's gift of creation in Genesis tells us that “God speaks a human language, using
human concepts and images.”8 Whilst acknowledging that human language has multiple limitations,
we can guage that man is like God. Anthropomorphic expressions of God are acceptable, even
although he is the one who dwells in “inapproacable light.” (1 Tm 6:16). In the Old Testament, any
image of God was prohibited (Deut 4:12, 4:15-6). It was an endeavour of the early Christians to
reinterpret the prohibition of artistic representations of God (Ex 20:2, Dt 27:15).9 The Iconoclasm
was based on the assumption that anthropomorphism fosters idolatry. Whilst man is similar to God,
it is important to emphasize how God is also different and totally other. St Paul wrote of how we
can only see “indistinctly, as in a mirror.” (1 Cor 13:12). The image of God in man's understanding
is a distant and imperfect notion.10 Augustine held that Imago Dei could be seen as “A likeness
indeed, but a far distant image.. the image is one thing in the son, another in the mirror.”11 Our
yearning for full communion with God is only something that can be realised when we are 'face to
face' in heaven.

Although God created both male and female, God cannot be considered masculine or feminine, but
can only be compared with masculine of feminine qualities.12 God's love has been compared both
with the masculine love of a bridegroom and the feminine love of a mother. Scripture is rich with
anthropomorphic analogies of God as masculine or feminine,13 but God should only be considered
as a father in a “ultra corporeal, superhuman and completely divine sense.”14 Sexuality should
therefore not be assigned to the Godhead.15 At the same time, Jesus Christ was incarnated as a man.

It is also possible to have a brief grasp of the trinity from an anthropological appreciation of man.
Pope John Paul was keen to emphasize that it is 'possible to glimpse' an image of the trinity in the
human family.16 Hilary held that “The plurality of divine persons is proven from the fact that man is

7 International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship, n13.

8 Mulieris Dignitatem, n. 8.
9 International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship, n.13.
10 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p278.
11 Aug. (Serm 52:17: cf. De Trin 9,17; 10, 19), in Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p278.
12 Mulieris Dignitatem, n. 8.
13 See Is 49:14-5, Is 66:13, Ps 131:2-3, Is 42:13, 46:3-4, Hs 11:1-4, Jer 3:4-19.
14 Mulieris Dignitatem, n.8.
15 Hauke, Women in the Priesthood?, p165.
16 John Paul II, Letter to Families, n. 6: “The original model of the family must be sought in God himself, in the
trinitarian mystery of his life.”
said to have been made in the image of God.”17 Richard of St Victor said that “if God is personal at
all, he must have some other person to relate to in love, since the very meaning of loving and person
implies an interpersonal term of relation.”18 We are invited to establish on earth an analogy of the
communion of divine persons in heaven (GS 24). God then is not solitary but a communion of
persons. Scott Hahn mentions that God refers to himself in the first person plural, and in doing so,
shows that in his deepest mystery he is a family of persons.19

All of anthropology has a Christological dimension, because Christ is the perfect image of God.20 A
Christian strives to be conformed to Christ (cf. Rm 8:29) as to “become” the image of God requires
active participation (cf. Col 3:10).21 As the “Son is the perfect man who restores the divine likeness
to the sons and daughters of Adam which was wounded by the sin of the first parents,” (GS 22) the
value of Imago Dei is not a denial of the grace that comes through the incarnation. Even though
Christ is not mentioned in Genesis, he himself refers to the 'beginning' in his refutations with the
Pharisees (Mt 19:3 and Mk 10:2). As Christ quotes Genesis 1:27, he gives it “an even more explicit
normative meaning.”22

Imago Dei has implications for man's understanding of himself. Philo held that the image of God
was only with the spiritual dimension.23 Both Aquinas and Irenaeus refuted this idea, holding that
the body is united with the soul. As the body is essential to personal identity, anthropologies that
claim that Imago Dei is only spiritual forget that the Bible attaches great importance to the body.
The evangelist John mentions that the 'Word was made flesh and dwelt among us' (Jn 1:14).
Gaudium et Spes maintains that man was created in the image of God to know and love his creator
(GS 12). This implies therefore that all of man has been made in the image of God as knowledge
must come through the body. Aquinas held the soul is the first principle of life, is everywhere in the
body and is immortal.24 Aquinas noted that man’s resemblance to God is shown in his intellect,
because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God’s relationship with his
creation.25 It is clear then that God resembles man in a spiritual and a social nature.26 Augustine
tells us, “Man is not a mere soul, nor a mere body, but both soul and body.”27

17 Hilary (De Trin iv) in Aquinas, Summa 1, 93, article 5.

18 Richard of St Victor in Clarke, Person, Being and St Thomas, p617.
19 Scott Hahn, First Comes Love, p40-43.
20 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15, Heb 1:3
21 International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship, n.12.
22 John Paul II, Theology of the body, p26.
23 Ouellet, Divine Likeness, p27.
24 Brown, Hudecki and Kennedy, Images of the Human, 1995, p136.
25 Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1.
26 Shivanandan, Crossing the threshold of love, p79.
27 Augustine, De Civ. Dei. XIX, 3 in Aquinas, Summa, 1a, 75, art 4.
Imago Dei has profound implications for the notion of personhood. It was Augustine who brought
the idea of person into prominence through his writings.28 This helped the development of Christian
anthropology to understand that to be a person is to be a relational being. As a person in relation,
man possesses self consciousness. This is because we are aware of ourselves and our actions.

The assertion that we are made in God's image means that man is not a god. As a created being,
man can neither fully claim ownership or authorship over his own existence, neither is he in charge
of his own destiny. This is not to deny the glory and splendour of the human condition, as the
Psalmist proclaims, “You have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and
honor.” (Ps 8:6). Therefore with Imago Dei, we do not have a closer relationship with divinity than
similitude, but St Athanasius dared to write, “God became man that man might become God.”29

As we are made in the image and likeness of God, we possess a profound dignity, not as a
“something but someone.” (CCC 357). The dignity of man rests in the fact that he is called to
communion with God. (GS 1). This dignity is inviolable, inalienable and intrinsic. To say that
dignity is inviolable is to say that it is independent of any individual condition and no human
community can grant or rescind that dignity.30 It is intrinsic because rights do not determine or grant
our nature, but it is our essence that gives us the ability to understand rights. The source of dignity
is in man himself and in God his creator. Dignity is universal as it is found in all human beings. It is
inalienable because “No one can legitimately deprive another person... since this would do violence
to their nature.”31 Therefore human dignity, “is a good toward which the only adequate response is
love. It is the kind of good that does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use or a
means to an end.”32

If we accept this principle of human dignity that is derived from our creation in the image and
likeness of God, one must believe that it exists from the moment of conception. The soul is created
directly by God.33 Psalm 139:11-18 describes the wonder of a God who created our inmost self and
knit us together in the womb. Our dignity is present from the very first moment of our life at
conception until natural death. The divine image does not differ from one individual to another for

28 P. Henry in Brown, Hudecki and Kennedy, Images of the Human, 1995, p107.
29 St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B; also Catechism of the Catholic
Church paragraph 460
30 World Youth Alliance Charter, http://www.wya.net/charter/index.html
31John Paul II, Message for the 1999 World Day of Peace, 3: AAS 91 (1999), 379.
32 Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), Love and Responsibility, trans. H. Willetts (New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux, 1981; reprinted, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), p. 41.
33 Pius XII, Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, n. 36.
in all is the same image.34 This is something which is impossible to grant or rescind because it is
given by God. Therefore, the intrinsic dignity of the human person is the foundation of every
human right. Anthropology has profound implications for ethics. Anthropology provides the
foundational stone of who the human person is. Ethics determines how we are to behave.

Dignity is something that can be ignored, forgotten or dismissed, but not eliminated.35 For this
reason man cannot be made a tool or slave of a system of this world without damaging a
fundamental component of his existence. The image of God cannot be destroyed by sin.36 Man has
this dignity because he is a creature of God (Ps 139:4-8) and he has a capacity for God. The root of
this dignity is the call to communion with God. As the life of man is sacred and inviolable (CCC
2258), man is in a relationship with himself and is able to reflect on himself. This is seen in the
opening chapters of Genesis with the original solitude of Adam who sought a helper fit for himself.

A true exegesis of Genesis reveals the importance of relationships with each other. God did not
create man as isolated individuals but as a relational being. St Aelred of Rievaulx wrote, “How
beautiful it is that the second human being was taken from the side of the first, so that nature might
teach that human beings are equal, and as it were, collateral, and that there is in human affairs
neither a superior or an inferior, a characteristic of true friendship.”37

One can deduce from Genesis that we are called to communion. The capacity for social existence,
the understanding that no man is an island, calls us to make a complete gift of ourselves through the
call to love. As we are rational, free and capable of knowing and loving God, we are called to exist
mutually for one another.

In Imago Dei it is seen that the sexes are different but equal. There is a personal, spiritual and
psychological complementarity between the sexes that should be derived from the reading of
Genesis.38 The Hebrew for helper, mentioned earlier in Genesis, is Eser kenegdo meaning
counterpart or mirror.39 The statement 'Male and female he created them' implies that one is called
to exist mutually for the other. Man can only find himself through the sincere gift of self through a
gift and communion of persons. The unity of two persons, united through a decision in the will
fulfills the calling to be in relationship with another, with a partner of the opposite sex.

34 De Lubac, Catholicism, p29.

35 Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, n. 109, p63.
36 International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship, n24.
37 Spiritual Friendship, Cistercian Publications, 1:57.
38 Hauke, Women and the Priesthood, p149.
39 Hauke, Women and the Priesthood, p165.
John Paul reflected deeply on the nuptial meaning of the body. This is to say that man is a relational
and social being, finding realisation in human intimacy with a love that mirrors the communion of
the trinity. The mutual love poured out in creation and redemption is reflected in the love of a man
for a woman. Gender is an important aspect of personal identity. It belongs to identity according to
Imago Dei and is not a social construct. Sexual differences transcend more than just the physical,
and touch the mystery of the person.40 God gives man an equal personal dignity through the
invitation to recriprocal self giving. The call to love and communion is recognised in the procreative
union of husband and wife. Man and woman become co-creators with God in welcoming a new
soul into the world. Therefore, man shares in the procreative capacity of God in sharing his image.

A full appreciation of Genesis helps us to understand that we have a special relationship with
creation. “Man is the highpoint of the whole order of creation in the whole world.”41 The human
race is the pinnacle of the work of creation. Humanity is higher than the animals, being 'willed for
our own sake.' As a rational being, able to dominate other creatures through stewardship and
dominion, man has an awareness through his senses not only of himself, but also of his pastoral
responsibility towards the rest of creation. Augustine tells us, “Man's excellence consists in the fact
that God made him to his own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the
beasts of the field.”42 Claus Westermann argues that being made in the image of God means that we
are God's representatives on earth. God's call to dominion follows as a consequence of being made
in God's image. The universal destination of material goods implies a finite end for the created
world, we still have a responsibility and delegated duty to protect and sustain the environment.

Overall, Imago Dei helps us to reflect profoundly on God who created and sustained us for
relationships. As stewards of creation and creatures of dignity, we are called into communion with
each other through the gift of self.

b) The pastoral and educational setting chosen is travelling to schools to give talks on human
sexuality. As a component of the PSHE requirements for schools, sexual education can be defined
as the process of informing and encouraging beneficial and sustainable intellectual, emotional and
behavioural patterns regarding sexuality. The aim of this work is to promote a positive cultural
appreciation for married love and fidelity and to lay an educational foundation for intimate, happy
and enduring marriages. Every individual deserves to live in a sexual culture that promotes and aids
the realisation of authentic, personal sexual development. Recent legislative proposals from the

40 International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship, n. 36.

41 John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, n. 6.
42 Augustine (Gen. Ad lit. vi, 12) in Aquinas, Summa, 1a, 93, article 2.
government have attempted to create compulsory sexual education from the age of 15 without the
consent of parents. Never has the need for good quality sexual education been higher. Sexuality is a
fundamental and uniquely valuable component of every person's existence.43

Several truths that were ascertained in (a) were the importance of ethics, the value of human dignity
and the equality and complementarity of men and women. As mankind is made in the image and
likeness of God, men and women are equal but different. Both masculinity and femininity are
separate but beautiful manifestations of what it means to be human. Pope John Paul II said that the
“dignity and balance of human life depends at every moment of history and in every place upon
who man will be for woman, and who woman will be for man.”44 Despite the existence of
oppression between the sexes, men and women can both embrace the richness of their sexual
identity and live in harmony. All are equal in dignity as sons and daughters. Both men and women
have valuable contributions to be made in all areas of society. Both male and female complement
each other.

The following should therefore be taught with regards to sexual identity. Gender is something we
are given from the moment of conception, rather than a social construct. John Locke held a different
view. He believed that human beings came into the world as a 'blank piece of paper' without
intrinsic qualities. Men and women have an innate sexual identity in the bodily existence. There are
clear physical and biological differences between men and women. Females have two XX
chromosomes, and men have one X and one Y. Every cell in the body is either male or female. Men
tend to have more muscles than women and have more weight and height on average. Women tend
to live longer, as men are more likely to experience birth defects and disease. Overall, to be male or
female is intrinsic to the human person, because God created both male and female according to his
design and purpose.

The body has a natural design to be a gift for others. A man's body makes sense in light of a
woman's body: we are called to a relationship of complementarity. The gift of self is stamped into
the physical existence of our bodies. The male physical body might be considered an absurdity
without the female body to complement the gift of self. A man's body is stamped with signs that he
is to be an initiator of love. Women are made for relationships, possess deep beauty and have a deep
element of mystery. Men are called to be the initiators of human love and provide spiritual
leadership.

43 CCC 2232.
44 John Paul, Theology of the body, 43:7.
The call to both fatherhood and motherhood is universal. Parenthood has both a physical and a
spiritual dimension. We can be a role model even without children of one's own. An adult can be a
parental figure even if they are not a biological parent. Man has natural desires towards
reproduction as the propagation of the species is too important to be left down to mere chance. Part
of healthy living is the successful integration of our desires into our personality and the legitimate
expression of our desires in conformity with the dignity of the person.

Sexuality is not just a genital reality: we are 'sexual' beings in all our relationships. Our masculinity
and femininity affects every aspect of our existence. In this sense, sexuality is the essential
grounding of our capacity to love. This applies to the biological, psychological and emotional
spheres. Our sexual identity is an essential component of who we are. Part of this identity is the
realisation and appreciation of the differences between men and women. That is to say, men and
women also complement each other ontologically (in their nature of existence).

How then can men and women be both different, but equal? Can diversity exist in equality? Much
of contemporary western society has equated equality with 'sameness.' This fails to realise how men
and women can complement each other in all areas of society. Women are more likely to experience
the richness and depth of femininity in womanhood rather than aspiring towards the
'masculinization' of their sex. Equality can be realised in dignity: women should not have to imitate
men in aspiring towards equality. Women are particularly privileged to have the gift of life and to
care for the completely helpless child. Women can carry two or more souls in their body at the same
time. Women have a tremendous ability to humanize the family and they also have the ability to
make wonderful contributions in all areas of society.

Young people need a high quality sexual education according to a new standard based on the
principles, anthropology and beauty of Catholic social teaching. Studies have shown that sexual
morality has a deep influence on different areas of personal morality. The creation of a realistic and
healthy sexual ethic according to the teachings of the Church has value way beyond the area of
sexuality. Abstinence has been linked to an increase in educational achievement and academic
results45 as well as an increase in psychological well being and self worth. Purity is something that
is possible as living a pure live brings freedom, happiness respect, self esteem and greater fulfilment
later in life.

45 http://loveundefiled.blogspot.com/2009/11/linking-teenage-sexual-abstinence-and.html
These trends highlight that a culture of life develops in the light of the dignity of the human person.
When ethics are grounded in Christian anthropology, the value and worth of the human body is
fully taken account of. Without the reference point of human dignity, sexuality could become an
abstract array of choices and personal feelings devoid of any reference to ethics. The pro-choice
mantra “my body, my rights, my choice,” displays a profound misunderstanding not only of
anthropology but also of ethics. As created beings, “Purchased at a price” (I Cor 6:19-20), it is not
possible to claim complete ownership over the human body, because man did not create it, neither
can he have the power to have control of its destiny. Our dignity, as we can “share in the divine
nature” (2 Pet 1:4) leads us to value the immense worth of the human body with a sense of sublime
mystery. Our dignity rests on the principle that we are called to communion with God. (GS 1). The
body is something that is intrinsically good in Christianity, as the Fathers of the Church called us to
wake up to the dignity that is given to us through being made in the image of God. Allowing the
author of life into our lives, one is able to become the person God intended us to be, full of life and
love. Rather than approaching sexual education predominantly from a perspective of risk, an
appreciation of human dignity allows one to look at the real consequences of self giving love.

Human dignity implies and informs us to respect our own body and the body of others. It calls for
us to give importance to the meaning of the natural order, to respect our sexuality and not to turn it
into a desire machine. The attempt to create sexual and reproductive rights can be founded on the
assumption that sex is a desire machine. When one respects the dignity of others it is possible to
understand that human rights are innate and not given. On these principles, sexual education in
schools should not focus primarily on factual biological information, but rather on the true context
of sex and love. Sexual education should refer principally to marriage, the true context for sexual
activity. This should provide serious thinking and reflection on the issue, as sexual education should
not be taught divorced from an ethical framework, supported and sustained by an adequate
anthropology.

The nuptial meaning of the body teaches us that we fully find our realisation in human intimacy
mirroring the trinity. This means that we are relational and social beings who share in God's image
of being a community of persons. This has implications for sexual education: it means that our
bodies have been designed as a gift to each other - by living not just for ourselves we can give life
both physically and spiritually for others. We have a desire for greatness (to be great like God), a
desire to love and be loved, a desire to be honourable and also sexual desire. These desires, in and
of themselves, because they were made by God, are good. We have free will, with which we make
decisions and speak a language with the body. Our bodies can communicate with posture, dress,
signs and symbols. The call to love and communion is recognised in the procreative union between
husband and wife.

Overall, the theology of Imago Dei has pastoral implications: man has a participation in the divine
law and anthropology has a close relationship with moral theology. This points man towards the
pursuit of good in actions, an appreciation of human dignity and the difference but equality between
the sexes.
 Bibliography: Christian Anthropology
Magisterial Documents
The Holy See (1994): Catechism of the Catholic Church, Geoffrey Chapman, 27-49, 355-384,
1699-1715.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 1-33
Pope John Paul II, 1997, Theology of the body, Paulist Press
Pope John Paul II, 1997, Veritatis Splendor, Catholic Truth Society
Pope John Paul II, 1988, Mulieris Dignitatem, Catholic Truth Society
Pope John Paul II, 1978, Redemptor Hominis, Catholic Truth Society
Pontifical Council for Justice and peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004, Chapter 3.

Books and Articles:

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Q75-Q102
Belonick, D: 'The spirit of the female priesthood,' in T. Hopko (ed.): Women and the Priesthood, St
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983, p135-168
Brown, Hunter; Hudecki Dennis L; Kennedy Leonard A.; Snyder John J. (Eds.) Images in the
human: The philosophy of the human person in a religious context, Chicago, Loyola Press, 1995.
Clarke W.N: 'Person, being and St. Thomas,' Communio, 19, Winter 1992.
De Lubac, S.J. Catholicism, London, Burns and Oates, 1950, chapter 1.
Derrick, Sex and Sacredness, Ignatius, 1985.
Dominion, J: Proposals for a New Sexual Ethic, DLT, 1977.
Hahn, S: First Comes Love, Image, 2002.
Hauke, M: Women in the Priesthoood?, Ignatius Press, 1988, p345-6.
Hogan, R M and Levoir J M: Covenant of Love, Ignatius Press, 1992, p39-70.
International Theological Commission (2004): Communion and Stewardship: Human persons
created in the image of God, www.vatican.va
Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, 5th Rev. Ed., A&C Black, 1977, p271-9.
Ouellet, M, Divine Likeness, Towards a trinitarian anthropology of the family, Eerdmans.
Pinckaers, Servais, O.P., The Sources of Christian Ethics, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1995, Part 3,
'Freedom and the natural law,' p327-p457.
Quay, P: The Christian meaning of human sexuality, Ignatius Press 1985, Chapter 6.
Ratzinger, J: 'Concerning the notion of person in theology,' Communio 17, Fall 1990.
Schonborn Christof, God's human face, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994, chapter 1, section 2,
'towards a new understanding of personhood,' p14-34.
Shivanandan Mary, Crossing the threshold of Love, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1999, Chapter 2, 'The
philosophical foundation' p32-68, chapter 3 'The theological foundation.' p69-105.