Conclusiones

McFague's work in imagining the universe as God's body, and therefore asserting that all bodily existence is sacred, implies an entanglement of the traditional categories of “spirit” and “body”. Because God's knowledge of and relation to the Universe is not one of externalised “information about”, but rather intimate acquaintance of, new possibilities for understanding God's agency within the material is disclosed (McFague, 1987:73).

McFague (1987:74) indirectly acknowledges the agency of matter by stating,

[t]o love bodies, then, is to love not what is opposed to spirit but what is at one with it – which the model of the world as God’s body fully expresses.

82

McFague does offer a number of reinterpretations of God's agency within the model of the Universe as God's body. As argued in the previous chapter, McFague reinterprets God's presence as a transcendent immanence – the world revealing the “back of God”. Waschenfeler (2010:92) asserts that McFague's theology moves away from classical theism, incorporating notions of process theology, to imagine God as being itself, as well as the power of being.

McFague (1993:141) argues that a combination of the organic and agential models of God balances both the transcendence and immanence of God. The agency of God is primarily defined as God's action in and through the physical, historical and cultural evolutionary process. God's action is thus not external and periodic, but rather interior and caring.

The nature of God's agency is further expanded to signify the “lure of love”, which is ubiquitously present throughout the cosmos and also the Breath, behind the breath of every existing thing. This agency is also directed toward the flourishing of all beings (McFague, 2001:154).

McFague uses four further metaphors to illuminate the agency of God within the universe, namely: God as Mother, Lover, Friend, and Spirit. Wachenfelder (2010:95) argues that these are not necessarily meant to refer to God as personal being, but rather envisions God as the immanent presence of love, which permeates evolutionary processes. The emphasis in these metaphors are on the radically relational nature of God's presence - a presence that is mothering, loving and befriending. McFague uses three different Greek lexemes to accentuate different modes of God's agency, namely: Agape, Eros and Philia. God as Mother births creation out of herself through evolutionary unfolding, both originating and sustaining it by agape. God as Lover permeates the whole universe with Eros, desiring the well-being of all things. God as Friend invites humans through the power of Philia to be co-workers of God in extending fulfilment to all of creation. Lastly, God is also seen as the Spirit of Life, which enlivens the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7), as well as constantly renews and sustains everything.

McFague argues that the metaphors of Mother, Lover and Friend are central relationships necessary for being human, revealing important aspects of human

83

agency. She contends that imaging God in personal terms is appropriate37_{, since}

failing to do so leads to disembodied notions of agency (1993:142). McFague also chooses to speak separately of evolutionary history and social history, connecting the last with the work of the Holy Spirit.38 _{This unfortunately once again enforces the}

separation of nature and culture and leads to a split in vocabularies and values when reflecting on each.

McFague (1987:139) does express her choice for the Spirit of Creation as primary, non-anthropocentric metaphor, but this choice is not shown in her development of God's agency, which is mostly explained through anthropocentric metaphors – God as Mother, Lover, Friend.

McFague argues that the agential-organic model can be reworked in an understanding of the universe as the body of God. She maintains that the relationship between God and the cosmos is the same as that between spirit and body. This classification is peculiar since it easily can be interpreted as another dualism, in which body or the world is desacralised, and Spirit is seen as an unembodied power. Although McFague insists that God's presence is one of sacramental embodiment, the nature of the body, how it is constituted and how it acts is not carefully explained, making it susceptible to traditional, transcendent explanations of God's work.

McFague argues that an understanding of God as spirit maintains an understanding of God as personal agent. She (1993:143) relates spirit strongly to the Breath of life, as

the dynamic movement that creates, recreates and transcreates throughout the universe. Spirit, as wind, breath, life is the most basic and most inclusive way to express centred embodiment.

37 _{She (1993:142) argues that humans as “the outermost contemporary evolutionary phylum”,}

naturally imagine God in “their own image”. Both these statements can however be challenged in the view of modern evolutionary science and a critical view of what constitutes human bodies. Although humans are markedly different from other more-than-human species, to define humanity as the “outermost phylum” is not necessarily the only conclusion (especially when one critically engages the androcentric Western model of man). Jumping to this radical separation in kind and responsibility, may inadvertently lead to further hierarchies of domination.

38 _{McFague (1993:101) does argue elsewhere for a shift in emphasis to reflecting on the natural}

(spacial), rather than the historical (temporal), specifically because space highlights the relationship between ecological and justice issues.

84

She also develops other dimensions of the spirit, referring to a person's vigour, courage, strength or the collective energy of people at play (1993:143). McFague argues that this understanding of the Spirit is also found in traditional Christian Creeds, e.g. The Nicene Creed: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life.”

She argues that the combination of God as spirit and body binds both humans and more-than-human others' everyday experience of the world. She, however, does not specify how other forms of matter – rocks, sky, oceans etc., materialise as bodies and relate to God's body.