Familiar Conceptual Limitations

Many of us grew up in a Christian culture in which there were two different worlds or dimensions – the world of material and the world of the spirit; the visible and the invisible; this dimension of time and another dimension of eternity. These different worlds were in many ways the opposite of each other. This world constantly changed, but in timeless eternity there was stability and permanence. Imperfection surrounded us here, but there, changeless perfection defined everything. These ideas are familiar to many, but where do they come from?

Such a dualistic view naturally spilled over into how we understood ourselves: There is a part of me that is visible and part that is not. A part that is temporal, the physical body, and a part that is eternal, the spirit. And in many ways they too are the opposite of each other.

Within this context of understanding, humans consist of two different substances: a material substance and a spirit substance. This abstract concept of spirit substance also became known as substance metaphysics.

In further theological explorations, specifically soteriology, the spirit is seen as the part created and saved by God. That is the part that is made righteous and will continue to exist with God in changeless perfection.

This dichotomy promotes conflicting and hierarchical relationships within oneself – a part of me is temporal and prone to imperfection, but another part is perfect, eternal and should preferably be in control.

Are these ideas familiar to you? These are popular and foundational concepts assumed by many in describing what makes us human. The conceptual framework with which theology describes humanity and self in particular has a history. In this article we will give a short summary of this history and introduce alternative possibilities of understanding.

Much of the categories of understanding and terminology used in theology have been inherited from early conversations with ancient Hellenistic philosophers. These philosophers were immersed in the substance metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle. But another revolution has been brewing in this area of knowledge as well. As revolutionary as Copernicus’ ideas were to cosmology, so has been the philosophical movement from substance-metaphysics to relationality. However, much of theology is still stuck in the outdated abstract concepts of substance-metaphysics. Theological language needs an update!