These are not mutually exclusive as Marc notes; the Churches in part define Christ, but also that means according to people’s personal feelings about him. Probably both of these are important in getting the overall picture.

These two would also by the way, fit into a scientific TA: as say 1) an “Institutional” analysis: what cultural Institutions like churches, say about Jesus; and 2) Cultural Psychology? How the collective, cultural Psychology influences the individual, to experience CHrist in a personal way, in deep psychological response.

But in addition to these two, by the way, a SCIENCE of Theological Anthropology would NOT simply accept the Church’s or the individual’s own accounts of their religion, as final and definitive. Rather a science would also add a critical context and perspective. Specifically, an Anthropologist would add the perspective of 3) how a particular culture or church’s religious ideas, compares to other cultures.

And 4) Anthropology would look to see whether what any given religion claims, can be verified by observation of objective material reality.

Personally, I prefer the multiple perspectives of a science of God. Though this means that the native account of religion, Christianity, has to confront, deal with, a Science that usually says that physical miracles are not real.

Contemporary theology to be sure, seems to deal with the problem of few miracles today, by suggesting in part, that the old promises of physical miracles are just metaphors for spiritual things. Though many might question this explanation.

The decentering of the individual is partially what I was going for above when I mentioned two ways that christology and ecclesiology could relate.

As I see it, way #(2) is concerned with being at the center. It leads to asking how we can be as the true human Jesus.

Way #(1) is an attempt to move away from the contemporary notion of an individualistic personal relation with Jesus by acknowledging the interdependency of Christ and his church (neither would exist without the other). That the church interprets the meaning of Christ places the church at the center of constructing ideas. “The church,” as I mean it, is necessarily decentered in existence because it is composed of many different people in different times, and only God can truly delimit the church.

But in any case, you apparently allow us to shift the focus of Theo Anthro, from interest just in Jesus himself, to the Spirit and so forth, now and then?

To be sure, probably a prevailing Humanistic theology would tend to favor finding Jesus in the center of everything; in order to place Man in the center. Still, most of us know men make mistakes. So this would not be out of simple reverence, but also a way of admitting that after all, even our holiest men were flawed too. (“All” have sinned). This epistemic modesty or humility, would allow in turn, the continuance of a critical, and flexbile, non-dogmatic, theology.

Still, even men are not everything; there are also ideas, God, spirits, and nature. All which help form a man, for that matter. These are extremely important; in fact these should occupy at least half, of any Theological Anthropology.

For these and other reasons, to prescribe Christ – or even a “trinitarian” Christology – as the center of TA, therefore, would not be quite correct, I would like to argue.

Unless someone out there has a better subject?

Your hesitation with #2 is (I think) driven by a concern that if we make Jesus our starting point, his historical particularity will limit our anthropological vision. But, that’s not the case. A christological starting point grounds the discussion, but it does not limit it. I actually think a properly christological anthropology has a far broader reach than other anthropological perspectives (just read Maximus). The trick is to be christocentric, but not christomonistic (something Barth always denied being).

God the Father seems relevant even to an “anthropology,” because he is man-like. And we are said to have been created in his “image” (cf. “Imago dei”?). Then too he is often characterized as a “father” and so forth.

But oddly enough, my particular interest even in a theological “anthropology,” might be in the Holy Spirit. A much more nebulous figure to be sure; and not at all anthropomorphic. But in my quest to find the God who fills “all things,” even all things in material nature, the Holy Spirit – as an invisible spirit or substance that can inhabit anything and everything – is an interesting ontological substance. One that might give divine approval, a kind of baptism, a divine occupation, even to material things, and to science. (Cf. Kyle’s interest in Jon. Edwards, similarly approving material nature, atoms, apparently?).

The Holy Spirit might oddly therefore open up religion a bit to science, and material matter, and … the science that studies it. In this case, in part, Anthropology.

Granted, the far more obvious candidate for a theological “anthropology” would be Jesus; God made man, made “flesh.” On the other hand, for a field of study to systematically neglect 2/3 of the Trinity, carries some hazards with it; and might ultimately offer a misleading “image” of God.

In particular, oddly enough, neglecting the study of a “spirit” that can occupy any and all material “bodies,” might prevent theology from growing in the direction of science, the study of material things. A direction it needs, I suggest.