Home     l     Political Theology Study     l    Study on Music-like Theology     l    Bible Hermeneutics Study    l    Gender Equation Study      l    Justice Study

l    Whole-ly Disciples Study     l     Trinity Study    l    Global Church Study    l   Transformation Study   l   Theology Study   l    Integration Study    l     Paul Study

l   Christology Study    l    Wholeness Study    l     Essay on Wholeness   l    Discipleship Study    l    Spirituality Study  l     Essay on Spirituality

l    Uncommon Worship Study    l    Worship Study   l    Worship Language Study    l   Theology of Worship    l    Worship Perspectives    l    Worship Songs   

l    About Us    l    Support Services/Resources    l    DISCiple Explained     l    Contact Us


The Person in Complete Context

The Whole of Theological Anthropology Distinguished


Theological  Anthropology  Study



T. Dave Matsuo


©2014 TDM All rights reserved

No part of this manuscript may be reprinted without permission from the author

Contact: tdavematsuo@4X12.org


preFace and beginning Word


Ch 1

Ch 2

Ch 3

Ch 4

Ch 5

Ch 6

Ch 7

Printable pdf of entire study

Table of Contents


Scripture Index




            From the beginning, the human narrative has been composed in incomplete terms, by fragmentary accounts or with misinformation. From such human narrative there have been formulated inadequate explanations and misleading conclusions about the human person. Theological anthropology has not been exempt from such a human narrative and from formulating such explanations and conclusions. Yet, we should expect more from theological anthropology; and by its theological nature the discipline of theological anthropology must expect more from itself, or its discourse likely shifts to a humanistic anthropology.

            This study focuses on what we can and need to count on in theological anthropology, and therefore on what distinguishes the whole of theological anthropology. Accordingly, theological anthropology is responsible for definitive discourse on the uniqueness of the human person that distinguishes the whole person beyond any living species in the human context. To meet this responsibility, there are two main and vital issues any theological anthropology must answer:

  1. What does it mean to be the human person God created?
  2. What does God expect from this person?

            Assuming that all persons need, if not want, to know ‘where we came from, who we are, what we’re made of and for’, this study engages not only these questions but also these persons and their relationships—which certainly includes all of us directly engaged in theological anthropology discourse. For this theological and functional engagement to be fulfilled, theological anthropology must occupy the pivotal position and provide the vital function for the relational outcome that integrally constitutes the person in complete context: (1) to be whole together in the primacy of God’s relational context, and (2) to live whole ontology and function into the human context based ongoingly in the primacy of God’s relational process.

            Therefore, to distinguish whole persons and those persons together in whole relationships necessarily is the primary responsibility of theological anthropology. Our theological anthropology is critical for determining the theological process we engage and epistemic process we are involved in, and for composing their relational outcome of whole theology and practice, which is required to be the person God created and expects from this person. In other words, whether the person is distinguished in whole ontology and function is directly contingent on whether the whole of theological anthropology is distinguished, notably beyond humanistic anthropology and its limits. For theological anthropology to be distinguished whole-ly, it must occupy its pivotal position on the whole of God’s theological trajectory and must engage its vital function in the whole of Jesus’ relational path—whose vulnerable Face intimately intruded into human life by the embodied Word, in order (1) to compose the complete context necessary for the person to emerge whole and (2) to constitute the ontology and function necessary to live ‘new relationship together in wholeness’. Thus, the pressing challenge for theological anthropology is to take up the responsibility of its pivotal position and vital function by conjointly (1) composing its theological trajectory to be compatible with the whole of God, and (2) living its relational path to be congruent with the whole of Jesus. Indeed, theological anthropology must be lived as well as discoursed; and anything less and any substitutes for theological anthropology is on a different theological trajectory and relational path that can only be incomplete, fragmentary, inadequate or misleading.

            This study takes up this responsibility and engages the primacy of the relational context and process necessary to distinguish integrally the person in complete context and the whole of theological anthropology. Nothing less and no substitutes.


continue to Chapter One





©2014 T. Dave Matsuo

      back to top    home