A central claim of the Christian faith is that Jesus is not only fully human (and fully God), but that he reveals true humanity to us. This requires that all of our anthropologies, in some way, ground themselves in Christology, providing a ‘Christological anthropology’. Consequently, any Christological anthropology requires some formulation of Christology proper. In light of this, the main contention of the present paper is that one cannot adequately formulate a Christological anthropology without including a pneumatic Christology. The justification (...) for this necessity can be articulated through the concept of fundamental need. The incarnate Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, fundamentally needed the Spirit in the same way that all human persons fundamentally need the Spirit. ‘Fundamental need’, as a technical concept, can help to clarify both the continuity and discontinuity between Jesus’ likeness to all humanity. This does not collapse the ‘who’ of the incarnation into the many ‘who’s’ of humanity since the incarnate Logos always possessed this Spirit as his own Spirit of Sonship, as opposed to how non-divinely hypostasized human persons must receive the Spirit of Sonship by adoption. The distinctiveness and similarity between Jesus and all of humanity can be most clearly seen by paying special attention to the difference between incarnation and indwelling. Thus, by examining incarnation and in-dwelling, as well as introducing fundamental need into theological discourse, the significance of the Spirit for informing both Christology and anthropology will be made clear. (shrink)

The flourishing life, summarised by Miroslav Volf and Matthew Croasmun, identifies three interconnected components to human flourishing: the life going well, the life led well, and the life feeling as it should. Further, they, alongside many theologians with a Christocentric focus, propose that Jesus is the epitome of the flourishing life. However, according to the Gospels, life did not always go well for Jesus, nor did it always feel as it should. Despite this, Jesus still embodies the life led well. (...) Yet this raises questions about the extent to which common human beings (those not hypostasised to the second Person of the Trinity) can emulate the kind of life that Jesus leads. To explore the possible similarity and dissimilarity between the life of Jesus and mere humans who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, this article will utilise a framework from within Self-Determination Theory as it relates specifically to human agency and motivation. The more internalised the motivation, the more agentic the person is, and the better the life is led. Yet this is not a flourishing for its own sake or for its own ends but is agency utilised for the sake of the other. (shrink)