A Creature Among Machines

Scripture Focus

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

• Proverbs 14:12 (ESV)

Thesis

Humans have often condensed our self understanding down to a particular set of salient attributes or primary drivers. This has normally served as a way to tame the inner ambiguity of our lived experience and set humans apart from other animals or “things”. Humans have also leaned in the other direction embracing full ambiguity, or some sense of wholeness, in order to try and hold the vast variety of our inner and outer self together. Both approaches seek to construct a coherent (or at least genuine) self-understanding. However, with the rapid churning of our world, both approaches seem to increasingly place us on the precipice of internal incoherence. This discussion seeks to reclaim the potter and clay self-understanding first put forward in Genesis 1 as a needed reorientation to reclaim and maintain our sense of humanity in the world today.

Thoughts proceeding these: Embodiment of Community

---

When I first began writing this essay more than a year ago, Artificial Intelligence (or AI) was just beginning to emerge as a buzz word. I had experimented with early versions of AI as one of Google’s beta “search lab” participants. It was fun and novel at first, but I quickly began writing because I knew I needed something in order to face this changing technology. There was a part of my self-understanding that was not prepared to live in the world of AI. And so the following essay has been written and rewritten as I have wrestled with what it means to be human in the midst of machines.

We live in an increasingly mechanized and machine driven world and environment. In the face of this ever changing landscape the answer to the question: What are you? is no longer one that is an interesting subject of academia. The givenness of being human has slowly leeched out of our culture to the point that picturing ourselves without machine language is becoming more and more difficult. The purpose of this discussion is to poke at some of the self assumptions that have been flying around our chaotic world and often pass as neutral. With the hope that we may reapproach the basic human definition offered in Genesis 1 as a completely different mental model and self-understanding.

A Brewing Crisis 

AI promises itself as the next technological revolution. Yet another total redefinition of the world and how it works. It comes on the heels of Modernity, the Industrial Revolution, Post-Modernism, the iPhone, etc… Ever since it’s early “success” (depending on what you count that as) it is now being bled into every piece of hardware and software imaginable. The rate of this diffusion is so rapid that one can scarcely ask the question IF you will use it but rather HOW you will react when it shows up in your browser, or on your phone, or comes knocking at your door (probably literally).
In many ways, Artificial Intelligence is jumping off the pages of science fiction into more and more everyday forms. At the time of writing, asking an AI for assistance with many tasks has reached the point of common conversation and adoption. Not to mention, well known Large Language Models like ChatGPT or Gemini are but one type of AI model arising from the underlying technology of Neural Networks. Theorists have clearly outlined the exponential nature of this kind of technological change.¹  Meaning that our projections of emerging AI should not follow a mindset of small regular improvements, but that of a snowball effect. This trend has already played out in the development of AI up to this point. Initial theorization and experimentation with the basic concepts behind today’s top AI models started in 1949 with Donald Hebb.² Here we are seventy five years later quickly passing many tipping points. No longer are developments measured in decades, or years, but every month there is a new announcement of a breakthrough and additional capability of some sort. Regardless of if these technologies ever reach the mythical level of Hal 9000 (or not) the overall trajectory and pace of change is clear. 

The Human Response

All of us have a certain capacity to healthily cope with change, but if our great grandparents, and grandparents struggled to adapt to the rate of technological change in their lifetime (from car to moon landing), this problem is set to be unimaginably worse in ours and our children’s generation. Even the companies developing these technologies do not always seem to have a clear picture of what they are building or why.   

Consequently, this burgeoning era of technology has brought with it an explosion in philosophies and attitudes used to approach AI. On one end we hear of proponents arguing for the grandiose emergence of AI sentience and AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). While on the other end a human centric approach sees AI as yet another tool to magnify data and augment human intelligence, productivity, and discovery.

Still others caution of danger for humans that “offload” and subsequently loose basic capabilities like critical thinking, reading, and writing. After all it does not really matter if AI is truly smart or not if humans willingly surrender to an unquestioned source of information (i.e. “let’s ask google”). Or completely outsource formative practices like reading and writing.

The future from these various perspectives are wildly different. One approach imagines a world where human workers are by and large replaced by AI agents. While the other imagines AI as a trusty partner. The apocalyptic scenario is easily floated around as well. Yet no matter one’s chosen approach, picturing human flourishing in the midst of this new world relies on underlying assumptions of what a human is and what humans should be doing. 

To Be Human

A major foundation for what makes humans human has traditionally been a list of unique human abilities. Whether that be reason, art, language, etc. Humans have an impressive list of things that only we can do in the larger scope of the animal kingdom. A potential side effect of the AI boom is that the list of human abilities that make us unique are positioned to become fewer and fewer. I doubt we are prepared to live as humans in a world where our reason, creativity, and productivity (to name a few) are dwarfed by the sear force of an emerging never sleeping AI. Even if only in perception, this sentiment will most likely grow into full blown reliance on AI in one capacity or another. What will it be like to watch our prized abilities be set aside or “out classed” in as yet unseen ways by the machines around us? How will be maintain a sense of our humanity?

Not only this, but we live in a world where questions of identity are increasingly subjective and vague. For example, the already overwhelming reality of puberty is made even more difficult with additional “decisions” surrounding sexual orientation, and even “species” as evidenced by the presence of litter boxes in public school bathrooms. 

All of these, and many other swirling realities, make answering questions of human anthropology and identity from a Christian (and more specifically Lutheran) perspective more important than ever. These kinds of foundational answers shape our understanding of the world around us in deeply meaningful, yet often subliminal ways. For example, I have been surprised to hear individuals near death proclaim a stalwart platonic ideal of shedding this prison of flesh in order to float up to heaven. It is often in these deeply liminal moments (like death and birth) that we get glimpses into an individual’s basic assumptions about what it means to be human. 

Yet not only during key times do these foundational beliefs bear weight on the path of an individual.  Everything we do, including the way we approach theology and practice, are affected by our basic answer to the question of human anthropology.

No Going Back

The world we live in does not lend itself as easily as ages past to clean and tidy arguments and frameworks. The air tight perspective of modernity has largely cracked and crumbled under the chaos of our postmodern world. Many look back longingly to repristinate the classical perspectives of hopeful progress common before the world wars. That was a world where enlightenment style reason, rights, and liberty promised a limitless and bright future. While such a sure perspective is no doubt attractive, it will no doubt continue to fail as badly as the pacification of Hitler. Therefore, a monolithic and “clean” definition of the world and humanity has been seen to fail miserably and is, therefore, an unfit hope for the future.

However, the fluidity of postmodern thought places humans in an equally vulnerable position as we enter another age. As we see evidenced by the continued fracturing and polarizing atmosphere of the world. Afterall, the lose of any sense of universal truth leaves the question of what makes us human completely unanswerable without the unending subjectivity and inner chaos that has become characteristic of many. To put it another way, modern society (especially modern Christians) cannot go back to the world philosophies of the 1600 to 1800s nor can we say in the flood of postmodernism without drowning in the rising tides of our world. We must look for a completely different foundation if we hope to maintain a sense of our humanity. Further thoughts on this can be found in: Making Sense of Our Moment in History and Emerging (Reemerging) World Pictures 

Yet losing our sense of humanity has been a danger in every era. Each new moment in history simply plays out our same selfish sins in a different set of clothes. Just think of all the child labor working the great turn of the century industrial lines - some kind of progress that was! Even so, maintaining a sense of our humanity is all the more pressing today as our era couples a rapid rate of technological change, cultural obfuscation of human identity, with a general postmodern milieu that has created a recipe for mass confusion and disillusionment. All this to say:

We live in a world moving too fast and in too many directions for anyone to catch a breath. As we meet more and more people gasping for breath because of this. What will we tell them?

What Makes Me Human?

A question that has been looking for an answer since sin shattered the human creature. Yet it is a question that observes a kind of universal need (at some level) to explain and explore the constitution of our human experience. Which is ironic since every one of us experiences being human every single day. Yet defining ourselves is maddeningly complex, and simple, all at the same time.

This seems to explain the main move many schools of thought make in describing the human creature. Rather than take on the impossible task of explaining all facets of humanity, why not seek after the “essence” of what makes us human? Since after all, we do share many commonalities with animals. Why not narrow the search to things that make us distinct? 

In this quest, many seats of human essence have been elucidated. The Platonic soul trumping the evil flesh. The Enlightenment mind overcoming lesser superstitions and emotions. The Romantic’s love and self-conviction burning a true path through conventions and restrictions. The Pietist’s reliance on a holy attitude and way of life. The Hedonist’s surrender to any and every bodily urge. The list goes on and has filled many books and lectures. Yet, no matter the school, all attempts to describe humanity in this way seek to find a primary driver or set of characteristics.  

A Human Essence?

To get a sense of this variety and commonality, let us walk through three examples. The first of which is the famous philosophy of René Descartes.  “I think, therefore I am.” This ubiquitous phrase cleanly sums up his reliance on human reason as the core of being.³

In contrast, the work of Frank Senn returns to a model of embodiment. Senn summarizes his perspective by citing the work of Pope John Paul II: “I do not have a body, I am a body.”⁴ From this perspective, the human creature is defined primarily through the lens of embodiment. This perspective has an eye toward a more holistic approach but still reduces the essence of a human person down to a body. This is true even to the extent that mental state is primarily attributed to bodily state.

Finally, the work of James K. A. Smith pushes for a more expansive model. Yet still conceptualizes the human creature as formed and oriented by a core of desire or as he summarizes it: “I am What I Love.”⁵ This slightly shifts away from defining humanity based on the executive function of a particular element, yet it still defines a general primary driver. 

As can be seen, despite their differences, all of these perspectives attempt to organize the human creature around a singular center of gravity. While both Senn and Smith are concerned to avoid the reductionism of other philosophies, they nonetheless still come back to locating the human creature within a kind of “essence.”

This no doubt offers a cleaner framework and sense of security by narrowing one’s philosophical focus. However, they still suffer from the inability to adequately address the true complexities of life. In other words, the major problem with these approaches is found in their constriction of definition. In attempting to find a conceptually sound and reasonable framework, each perspective more or less jettisons unhelpful aspects of the human person. Descartes disposes of all but reason, Senn more or less diminishes any “unembodied” elements of a person, and Smith is almost there but still dismisses much of the complexity between human reason, emotion, etc. in favor of placing desire as the primary driver. 

A Costly Oversimplification

As we have seen, the quest for a primary driver, or “essence” of humanity, has produced many definitions of the human creature.  The unfortunate outgrowth of each approach’s confidence in their identified seat of “power” (for lack of a better term) is that adherents begin to think of themselves, and others, in terms of a mere subset of our constitution. In other words, in attempting to understand who and what we are, we end up sketching caricatures rather than the vibrant reality. By defining a unilateral center, we excluded the importance and integration of other parts of the human person. 

The untenability of these reductions can be seen all throughout our daily life. For example, all of us have experience being “driven” by different aspects of our being. Reacting in an emotionally charged situation is very different from a calm discussion over tea. From moment to moment, we may be more or less driven by any part of our being. Emotions, our body’s physical state, mental reasoning, memory, etc. all weave together to form our experience of each and every moment. Therefore, to say that any one part of the human creature can be unequivocally identified as a primary driver is to flatten and do away with the variety of our lived experience. 

A simple case study in this is sleep deprivation (a physical state). Anyone who is a parent (or finds themselves sleep deprived for other reasons) knows that this singular environmental factor deeply affects everything from patience levels to thinking speed. Yet one would scarcely argue that sleep is a comprehensive human driver. Instead, a more comprehensive approach that can acknowledge the multifactor nature of human existence and motivation is needed.   

The Mechanistic Universe

Even if we grant the above points, the reductionism of western thought is more deeply rooted than we may like to admit. The Philosopher/Architect Christopher Alexander lays out a fascinating explanation of this systemic reductionism penetrating all the way to our understanding of the universe and ultimately human anthropology. He argues that Descartes, Postmodernism, and much of Western thinking all share a mechanistic explanation of the universe. What this means is that the universe is viewed as something like a great clock (a mechanism) that ticks on by itself without any outside intervention.

All of these varying western perspectives debate our ability to perceive and interact with this universe, but the core of what makes up the universe stays the same across them all. Therefore, the key to understanding from this mechanistic perspective is to carefully break everything down into the various mechanisms that “make it go.” Whether those mechanism are internal, external, consistent, inconsistent, etc. The foundational assumption is that the world around us can be accurately described through the mechanisms at work within a system (be that a human, ecosystem, country, etc.).⁶

This mechanistic assumption drives us to ever be recording, measuring, and explaining the way things work around us in the hope that adding each piece of knowledge and perception together will one day equal a full understanding of everything in the universe. Scientific inquiry is the most clear example of this premise. The basic logic going something like this: scientists need to keep collecting observations so that they can put them together into theories. These theories can then be combined to build on, or replace old theories. The overall hope is that bit by bit all of this accumulated knowledge will form a comprehensive understanding of the universe.

A Squishy Machine?

We can see how this mechanistic perspective has been applied to Humans in the form of modern medicine. Just about every tiny piece of the human body has its own specialized doctor (even down to a retina specialist!). This has been generally motivated by the overarching conviction that if every little tiny part of the body can be studied, understood, and treated, then full health and wellness will be in reach.

While this approach has achieve many incredible feats of physical healing, it is worth noting that there are cracks in the facade. To be clear, this is not to say that scientific research or mechanistic inquiry is evil in and of itself. The specifics of how things work mechanistically can (and will always be) a worth while pursuit of science. However, as a comprehensive picture of the universe, the mechanistic worldview leaves us with an understanding of ourselves as little more than machines. Every machine runs off of a set of mechanisms. If the engine stops, so does the machine. Therefore even life itself becomes conceptualized as a kind of biproduct from a squishy machine.

This type of language and self understanding has deeply pervaded our thinking in ways not always conscious. Brains are easily equated to computers, digestive systems equated to an engine, etc. Health and wellness plans often operate from this perspective as well. If I can just get all the mechanics of my mind and body to work right, then I should have a happy and fulfilling life. Right? As simple and straightforward as this may seem, this wholesale reliance on the mechanics of our body and mind leave us with an empty picture of humanity. We become unreliable and broken down machines always in constant need of maintenance. The purpose of life quickly devolving into a mad rat race to maintain equilibrium. An equilibrium that always ends up going down hill in the end…

Other than being depressing, the main problem with this kind of reliance on the mechanistic worldview is that if you adhere to even a few bad mechanisms, your picture of the whole can get very distorted. An example of this is the very literal application of Darwinian Evolution by Nazi Social Darwinists. As it turns out (surprise surprise) survival of the fittest is not a kind moral axiom nor a worth while social foundation.

While extreme examples of misappropriated mechanisms may be easy to spot for the common observer. There is no actual foundation within the mechanistic perspective by which to make moral judgments. The only real judgement that can be objectively made about a mechanism is if it works or not. Which is impossible to know until you have tried it. This commitment to “try and see” has doomed whole generations to deal with the consequences of their predecessors’ experiments (think of colonialization or the early industrial revolution, both very effective mechanics but not very humane).

Even as Christians, we often operate with this same assumption. The world is running by its laws and physics and God “breaks into” things now and again. Yet the daily, moment by moment, participation and perceptible reality of God is often left in church. Therefore, the primary mover in the world around us is perceived to be non-personal mechanisms rather than any kind of deity or other “enchanted” things as was common for pre-enlightenment perspectives.

What if breaking humans down into composite parts, or obsessing over the innerworkings of this piece or that, is not the most productive or faithful way forward? In a world where machines are increasingly being made in our image, how do we perceive even a glimmer of God’s image in ourselves? Are we truly just squishy broken down machines? Destined to be outclassed by our own technological creations? Or is there another approach to express the constitution of a human person?

Breaking the Mental Mold

The thing about deeply ingrained cultural and anthropological perspectives, is that it often takes philosophy, or poetry, to break through our mental ruts. Over the remainder of this discussion, we will appeal to both philosophy and poetry as tools to dig out of the mechanical perspective within which we are all embedded.

First up is philosophy. Christopher Alexander posited an alternative perspective. He proposed completely flipping the direction of our common approach to the universe. Rather than seeking to put together our understanding like an erector set, he speaks in terms of “the wholeness.” From this perspective, to understand a human, we must first start with ״the wholeness” of humanity as a huge global entity.

He defines wholeness as the overall cohesiveness and interrelated nature of everything. For example, a building (he was an architect after all) functions as a whole. Missing a roof, or doors, or plumbing affects the ability of the whole to operate. Even the earth functions as a whole. Humans, as participant in this whole, effect it but are also affected by the environment in which we live. We are not unattached, but are to a certain extent influenced and contingent on our environment.

In Alexander’s more philosophical terms:

Nature of Order, Bk 1., p. 81

the wholeness in any part of space is the structure defined by all the various coherent entities that exist in that part of space, and the way these entities are nested in and overlap each other.

A metaphor that can help picture this difference is to think of two frogs. One is alive, whole, and hopping around a pond. The other is split open and pinned to a board in a laboratory.

Which frog gives you a better understanding of what a frog really is?

The dissected frog can teach you a lot about the mechanics of how a frog works internally. But if that perspective is the totality of your understanding and experience of a frog, you will never have a good idea about what a frog is like, or how it sounds, or where it lives. Nor will you understand any of the other things that makes a frog “a frog” as a whole created creature. Therefore, the mechanistic worldview is found deeply wanting for clarity and comprehensiveness.

Christopher Alexander continues from here to develop his philosophy in very interesting ways (not all of which are helpful to a biblical understanding of the world). For our purposes, however, that does not really matter. We have considered him as a brief alternative to the prevailing mechanistic perspective. He has helped us picture the possibility of another way. Now we are ready to return to the pages of Scripture with new eyes.

Starting from the Ground Up (Literally)

As we have been grappling with what it is to be human, we have seen many pitfalls in attempts to understand humanity. Many books and ponderings have been posited in this effort to track down the “essence” of our human constitution. But as we noted previously, such efforts always end up becoming reductionistic and flat. Likewise, even the supposed expansion to see humans as a collection of mechanisms and processes leaves out and tamps down the full-bodied earthiness of being human. This way of thinking has brought to light many insights about ourselves but also supplies its fare share of blind spots.

What then is the alternative? The wholeness spoken of by Christopher Alexander may be poetic and even compelling. But how does a broader perspective avoid becoming convoluted or paralyzed by the sheer volume of the human experience?

The making of a Nephesh

Scripture uses a variety of metaphors and images to describe humans and our relationship with the world and God, but none is as foundational as the description of humanity found in Genesis chapter 2. The forming of the man for dirt lays the foundation for our self understanding in a way that is metaphoric, poetic, historically accurate, and tangible all at once.

Genesis 2:7

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

This picture puts forward a simple yet deeply engaging picture of what pieces make up a human being. The “equation” if you will goes like this:

(Dust + Breath) Formed by God = Living Creature

To see how this picture begins to hook into all kind of places around scripture we need to keep in mind a few pieces of background.

Spirit and Breath

First, the word breath of life, breath, Spirit all come from the same Hebrew word Ruah רוּח. This gives the image that God’s spirit is his breath that he breaths over creation and into human beings. So when we speak of spirit breath is right there with it

Clay in the Hands of the Potter

Isaiah 64:8

O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Next, word for formed is the same used to talk about potting

metaphor of a potter with clay a foundational one is that of a earthen pot

The picture of a person as a clay jar as an image to hold on to for this.

internal and external worlds are distinct yet deeply connected

how can you see the shape of the internal volume of a jar without the jar to give it shape?

likewise the internal contents of a jar can push and pull and even crack the external vessel

Offers a very clear picture of humans and our relationship with God and our internal relationship with ourselves

God is the one who forms and molds we do not have some kind of limitless ability to be something we are not

our body is a basic part of who we are. without our body we have no way to see or perceive the constitution of our internal world

Internal world is given shape by external vessel while internal break pushes and forms the external vessel as well

Gen 2:22 Word for making the woman means to build or construct בנה

Romans 9:20-21 assumed description of humans as lumps of clay formed by the potter

Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

Isaiah 44:24 God forms from the womb

Isaiah 45:9 “Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’ or ‘Your work has no handles’?

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.

Gen 3:14 dust to dust

Gen 18:27 Abraham self describes as dust and ashes

Psalm 103 What we are made of is dust

Job 10:8-9 Assumption of Job that he is made of clay Job 33:6 also the assumption of Job’s friend

John 9:6 mud on eyes is a creational miracle

Jeremiah 18:6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. - Ecclesiastes 12:7

Thus declares the Lord, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: - Zechariah 12

What’s in a Soul?

Platonic division of body and soul is not what is actually described in scripture

Example of Colossians 2:11 putting off the flesh has been used to support a Platonic dualism.

but we should get a broader perspective than that

A whole living being not a bunch of parts

In the ESV translation the word Soul occurs 236 times and 234 of those times the underlying word is nephesh.

For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. - Psalm 16:10

reference to the bodily resurrection not some kind of spiritualization of it.

a dead body is described as a טְמֵא־נֶפֶשׁ or basically a dead nephesh. not the classical way we usually talk about a soul that flies away from the body

so reading the world soul should not be just about some internal thing but the whole person body and spirit.

Differentiation of Man (Heart)

first introduced to heart in Gen 6:5-6 Man’s heart is evil and it grieves God’s heart

Psalm 31:12 - heart is broken and dying

Psalm 51:10 internal heart and spirit Psalm 33:15 God forms hearts same form as initial creation

Psalm 48 take to heart the geometry of the Jerusalem

Psalm 119:32 God broadens heart

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. - Deuteronomy 6:5

“You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. Deuteronomy 11:18

For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. - 2 Corinthians 4:6-7 (ESV)

heart also something you can lose in proverbs 6:32

proverbs also speaks of mind, emotions, and understanding as all thing located in the heart

Ec 1:13 I applied my heart (mind) to explore

May the Words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing to you, O Lord. - Psalm 19:14

Ideas

Question: Where is God in my life?

• External molder of me and my body
• Internal sustainer and animator of internal breath How am I put together?
• I have a clear inner and outer life. An earthen dirt based body, and a windy spirit contained and defined by that body.
• How do you know the shape of the space in a jar without the jar to shape it?

The Theology of Dirt

A Whole Nephesh and Lav

foundational division is not physical and non-physical

it is internal and external

a clay vessel as the core image to hold it all together

interesting that it is a piece of technology that a human could make with bare hands and dirt as opposed to all the machine imagery we usually picture ourselves with

these all become more compelling if we think about ourselves in this way:

To you, O Lord, I lift my soul - Psalm 25:1

To you I lift up my eyes - Psalm 123:1

I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother - Psalm 131:2

When my spirit faints within me, you know my way! - Psalm 142:3

spirit ends up really speaking to something that animates material

Unlike the anthropologies which seek a singular primary driver, the perspective we have begun to conceptualize sees the human person as an altogether complex, messy, and at many points mysterious creature. Rather than seeking to diminish perplexing parts of human experience, this perspective welcomes them. For it is only through the core picture of humans as an earthen vessel that we begin to place any smaller internal or external experiences.

In other words, this Creaturely Earthen-Spirit Anthropology defines a human not as differentiated by a particular primary driver, nor composed of discreet mechanisms, but as the interrelation and overlapping of formed earth and divine breath. All subsequent smaller parts or aspects of humanity must always be filtered through this foundational lens.

To put it more bluntly, Emotions by themselves do not make up a human, nor does Reason. Even a Body alone is not a human. Just as a frog on the dissection table is no longer living, so too are elements of a human when treated in utter isolation. Even one missing or malfunctioning aspect of the human creature leaves us marred and broken.  This perspective is quickly supported by even the most basic structures of the human body itself. For example, one missing chromosome is enough to deeply affect a person in ways scientists still do not fully understand. 

Granted, dividing a human into parts can be helpful for identifying and talking about specific aspects of the human experience. Yet the overarching picture of what we are helps us realize that the lines between individual parts are more blurry than we often admit. For instance, where exactly do my rational thoughts and emotional reactions begin and end? I know they are different but they can also be very similar. This is especially true in moments of high stress when their difference can be hard to distinguish. 

Within all of this is the human who is an Earthen-Spirit neither side is more important nor can they be separated

Therefore the answer to whether a human is made up of “heart, soul, mind, and strength,” or is a “living nephesh filled with the breath of life,” or is “spirit, soul, and body,” is - yes. All of these work off of and give further life to that foundational understanding of what we are.

When we look inside the jar we do not always understand everything we perceive and experience. We do not always understand every emotion, or thought that wanders through our consciousness.

Acknowledging this ambiguity is honest about our everyday lived experiences as well as matching the manner in which Scripture describes humanity. 

Creaturely Earthen-Spirit Anthropology gives us the core picture of how Scripture teaches us to see ourselves and the framework with which to test other ideas about ourselves

it gives us an honest foundation from which to address questions surrounding the meaning and purpose of our lives.

Yet so often alternative anthropological bases belittle or disqualify this scriptural metaphor or make it less important because it does not address their chosen primary driver. For example, reason and rational thought is not addressed by the metaphor of being built as living stones in 1 Peter 2:4-5. If reason is the most important aspect of your existence this description is not very helpful. Yet over and over Scripture proves the insufficiency of human reason. In fact it is often against and in spite of the logical rejections of humans that God is accomplishing the beautiful construction of His people. How often has God chosen the unexpected, lowly, unlikely options to accomplish His greatest acts of deliverance?

Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Psalm 1 and the Psalms in general, the parables of Jesus, Romans 12:4-5, Galatians 5:22-23, 1 Peter 2:4-5, and the book of Revelation to name a few, are all Scriptures that work from this foundation to continue to outline a whole host of metaphors through which to further picture the meaning and purpose of our human existence. Every single one of these metaphors holds a depth of wisdom to address and illuminate the question: what does it mean to be human?  Yet without this core foundation they can all get quickly twisted and misappropriated

Footnotes

1. Oliveira, A. (2017). The Exponential Nature of Technology. In The Digital Mind: How Science is Redefining Humanity (pp. 3-18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262036030.003.0002 on 29 February 2024. ↩

2. Oliveira, A. (2017). The Exponential Nature of Technology. In The Digital Mind: How Science is Redefining Humanity (pp. 3-18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262036030.003.0002 on 29 February 2024. ↩

3. Watson, R. A.. “René Descartes.” Encyclopedia Britannica, February 7, 2024. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rene-Descartes  on 4 March 2024. ↩

4. Senn, F. (2016). Embodied liturgy: lessons in Christian ritual. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/embodiedliturgyl0000senn/ on 4 March 2024. ↩

5. Smith, S. (2009). Desiring the kingdom : worship, worldview, and cultural formation. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/desiringkingdomw0000smit/ on 4 March 2024. ↩

6. Nature of Order Bk. 1, Christopher Alexander ↩