Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology (Madang J Contextual Theol)
4
Weeks in Review
2
Weeks to Publication
Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology
Open access, Peer Reviewed
pISSN 1738-3196
eISSN 3091-7824
Weeks in Review
Weeks to Publication
Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology
Open access, Peer Reviewed
pISSN 1738-3196
eISSN 3091-7824
Chubatemsu Kichu
Scholar, MTh (Christian Theology), South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies, India
Correspondence to Chubatemsu Kichu, Email: Kichuchubatemsu@gmail.com, 2444.ck@saiacs.org
Volume 44, 103-123, December 2025.
Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology 2025;44:103-123. https://doi.org/10.58302/Madang.2025.44.8
Received on November 04, 2025, Revised on November 23, 2025, Accepted on December 27, 2025, Published on December 30, 2025.
Copyright © 2025 Author(s).
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
This paper explores the philosophical and theological divide between Classical Humanism, exemplified by Thomas Aquinas’s transcendent, anthropocentric ontology, and Posthumanism, represented by Gilles Deleuze’s immanent, eco-centric materialism. This interdisciplinary analysis reveals that, despite their fundamental opposition, a constructive convergence can emerge around a shared ‘ecological centre,’ encompassing a mutual concern for the agency of matter, ecological redemption, the protection of human identity, and the necessity for an ontological distinction and balance between humans and nonhuman entities. The paper advocates for an Eco-Cosmic Christology as the unifying ontological principle to bridge this divide. Focusing on the person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos who is equally immanent within creation and transcendent over it, this approach harmonises Deleuzian immanent Posthumanism with Thomistic transcendent Humanism. Ultimately, this Christological vision offers a coherent, optimistic cosmology that addresses the philosophical gaps in both traditions, a view supported by its resonance with Asian and Tribal eco-Christological theologies.
Thomistic Humanism, Deleuzian Posthumanism, Ecology, Eco-Cosmic Christology, Asian Tribal Theology
The 21st century is characterised by a philosophical tension between transcendent, humancentred humanism and immanent, eco-centred Posthumanism. This paper positions Thomas Aquinas’s Thomistic humanism and Gilles Deleuze’s Deleuzian Posthumanism as the quintessential representatives of this divide. Aquinas synthesises the Western humanist tradition, while Deleuze deconstructs its hierarchies, proposing a flat ontology where humans are one among many assemblages in a dynamic, material reality. Despite their radical opposition, this paper argues that a constructive convergence is possible. By identifying mutual concerns, such as the active potentiality of matter, the need for an ontological distinction between humans and non-human entities to prevent instrumentalisation of humans, and a shared vision for ecological redemption. From this ground, the paper proposes an Eco-Cosmic Christology as the unifying ontological principle. In the person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos, the Deleuzian celebration of fluidity, relationality, and material agency is harmonised with the Thomistic emphasis on telos, purpose, and divine order. An Asian tribal reading and study will subsequently situate this constructive vision in context.
Humanism can be understood in numerous ways, but for this paper, humanism is defined as the anthropocentric recognition of humankind as universally distinct from non-human entities. It values the integrity and identity of the human as unique beings, united by a shared rational and moral nature. In other words, humanism is anthropocentric, believing that humans are ontologically superior to non-human entities.1 Historically, Medieval scholasticism, particularly through Thomas Aquinas’s synthesis of Aristotelian metaphysics, institutionalised these anthropocentric views. He argued that humans, as rational beings made in God’s image, held the highest status in a hierarchical creation.2 Even within Indian Kanada, Marathi, and Tribal Naga cultures, humans were believed to be a co-existing agent, but since the 20th century, such narratives have been sidelined.3 According to Amitav Ghosh, the major reason was the prioritisation of the “I” within politics and literature, rather than a collective thought.4 This humanistic vision also reflects the broader Christian view of humanity as stewards of creation, seeking purpose and meaning within a divinely ordered world, a perspective that has shaped various philosophical and ontological perspectives.5
Today, Ontology is an established branch of philosophy that explores the nature of existence, including the kinds of objects, events, processes, and relations that comprise reality.6 For example, within Christianity, the human being is understood as a rational creature, created in the image of God, with a fusion of body (matter) and soul (form/essence).7 According to Aquinas, through human reasoning, one can conclude that a higher power, structure, and hierarchy exist, with God, the creator, as the hierarchical head. Here, the entire existence, being, and meaning within both the natural and the supernatural are dependent on God.8 Anselm of Canterbury also describes God as the ontological head of all creation.9 Many continued to uphold such an ontology. However, through the ages, this transcendent vision of humanism has been challenged.
Charles Taylor maps this challenge, noting that medieval anthropocentrism championed by Aquinas has been contested by naturalistic science.10 Scientific discoveries and postGalilean concepts of natural laws marginalised metaphysics, giving primacy to scientific reason and empiricism.11 In this light, Taylor notes that since the Enlightenment period, there has been a growing “detachment of the Aristotelian matrix,” towards an immanent (naturalistic non-transcendent) ontology.12 This trend continued to grow, and in the contemporary era, philosophers such as Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze adopted critical views of metaphysics for being overtly abstract and anthropocentric.13 Consequently, in the 1960s, led by thinkers like Deleuze, a materialistic wave emerged which prioritised the material world.14 Here, the ontological hierarchy and dependence on God are dismissed. This is so because their worldview is naturalistic and atheistic. The human is but another evolved creature. Therefore, the value difference between the living and the non-living, organic and non-organic is blurred.15 Therefore, all material elements take part in reality, starting from the rays of the sun, the heat, the gases, plants, animals, etc.16 In other words, the dialogue moved from the transcendentally charged humanism to Posthumanism: the “critique of the Western Humanist ideal of ‘Man’ as the universal centre of all things and also the rejection of species hierarchy and human exceptionalism.”17 This, in sum, is Deleuzian Posthumanism.
Sam Mickey, taking the middle ground, argues that theologians can benefit from “rethinking the meaning of materiality from many different theoretical perspectives” because both Deleuzian materialism and classical theology address humanitarian, existential and ecological concerns.18 Likewise, Catherine Keller argues that we must create “Christian materialism,” seeking common ground.19 Furthermore, Christopher Ben Simpson critiques Aquinas’s overtly rationalistic stance and raises an important question: “How can Deleuze help us improve our theological understanding?”20 However, despite these tensions and calls for an integrated thought, limited engagement exists, creating a rich opportunity for exploration. Thus, the primary question would be, ‘despite the opposing views where one is immanently charged and the other embedded with metaphysics, can we construct a Christology that can ontologically bridge the gap between Humanism and Posthumanism?’
Thomistic Humanism is the anthropocentric philosophy and theological (theocentric) tradition upheld by Thomas Aquinas and Thomistic scholars. Deleuzian Posthumanism, on the other hand, refers to the Post-humanist perspectives of Gilles Deleuze, a French philosopher, and scholars influenced by him. In this light, understanding their core ontological foundations is key to grasping why a dialogue between them is necessary.
In Western tradition, Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century philosophical giant, is renowned for his anthropocentric and normative reasoning (theocentric). Normative reasoning assumes an ontology where objective, mind-independent truths exist regarding what is good and true.21 Aquinas argued by asking “whether God exists and what God is,”22 and maintained that the cosmos can be categorised into two ontological types: God and creatures. To him, God is an incorporeal being, while creatures are dualistic, comprising both corporeal (matter) and immaterial (form) elements.23 Aquinas examines this relationship through Aristotle’s hylomorphism, where matter is understood to possess potentiality or the capacity to become something or a being when it receives a form or identity (e.g., the human is a being with all its characteristics; matter is the body, and form is the spirit, identity, or soul).24 However, God is the cause and sustainer of all things.25 Therefore, Aquinas’s ontology is theocentric, positioning God as the ultimate causal source.
Aquinas’s ontology is notably anthropocentric. He maintained that while humankind shares the same genus as other animals, they are superior due to the possession of rationality.26 Additionally, he held that to maintain order in the world, humans act as intermediaries to the lower things.27 However, according to Aquinas, the male sex is considered superior to the female sex, arguing that the female sex is defective, created for the sole purpose of reproduction.28 Consequently, animals take second place after humans for lacking rationality. Vegetation, on the other hand, only has vegetative souls, because unlike animals, it possesses no sensation, communication or movement.29 Lastly, non-living matter possesses the lowest status. Yet, he held that all creation is interrelated, with every substance, living or non-living, having a role and a degree of agency.30 Here, Aquinas represents the classical ontological view where humankind is the prime species.
Gilles Deleuze was a poststructuralist philosopher. Among his influences are thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, Rosi Braidotti, Jane Bennett, Manuel DeLanda, etc., who all largely contribute to the post-structural and post-human framework of New Materialistic thought, which sees the world as active, fluid, and always changing.31 These perspectives emerged out of the realisation that the significance of materialistic naturalism has been neglected.32 Over time, Deleuzian thought developed as an ontology of pure immanence, notably through his rhizomatic model.
Before Plato, the term ‘rhizomata’ (meaning ‘roots’ that grow horizontally) was used to describe elements, reflecting a view that considers matter to be alive. Stoic philosophers also developed this view and saw the entire world as a living entity.33 Likewise, Deleuze expanded on this philosophy, asserting that all material aspects, including humans, are fluid and active, unbound by immaterial consciousness.34 Unlike Thomistic thought, being, form, and matter are fluid, always becoming (processing and evolving through material interaction). Likewise, Bennet speaks of matter as having ‘agentic capacity’ just as humans are composed of “the minerality of our bones…or the electricity of our neurons.”35 Deleuze also spoke of human assemblages with machines and non-bionic matter to create new realities and meaning.36 These philosophical perspectives may have once seemed absurd in the mid-20th century, but these ideas are now a lived reality: humans increasingly merge with technology, through prosthetics, artificial organs, and brain-computer interfaces like Neuralink, provoking traditional human boundaries.37 According to Indrajit Mukherjee, Deleuze’s vision of the post-human is being fulfilled worldwide today through the advancement of cybernetics and technology, where we are all becoming posthumans and some even cyborgs.38 Thus, a compelling question arises: where would Aquinas or classical thought place the Cyborg or the post-human in the ontological hierarchy/ pyramid?
To further illustrate Deleuze’s philosophy of assemblage and becoming, Korean kimchi offers a vivid example. Various vegetables, spices, and fish sauces ferment through anaerobic bacteria, transforming into a unique, ever-evolving whole. Its flavour, colour, and texture depend on countless interacting elements, so no kimchi batch is ever identical, and its taste arises from the collective process. Moreover, kimchi-making (Kimjang) unites communities, recognised by UNESCO as a ‘cultural heritage of humanity,’ promoting gastrodiplomacy (resolving conflicts through connection making).39 Here, kimchi is an active agentic assemblage in itself and in human society. Another vivid example of the ‘becoming’ aspect is the peppered moth’s shift from light to dark forms during the Industrial Revolution, a phenomenon known as industrial melanism. Dark-coloured moths became better camouflaged, increasing survival and reproduction, exemplifying natural selection as environmental changes support advantageous traits.40 This captures Deleuze’s view that all matter is agentic and becoming through material interactions.41
According to Anne Elvey, Deleuzian materialism has a strong “ecological thought” that affirms the earth as a “community of co-existent others.”42 Furthermore, for Elvey, humankind can be a ‘geological force’ that is responsible for the destruction of the world.43 Likewise, some view Deleuzian materialism as a “radical theological vision against false spirituality” and stand against human greed and dominance over nature.44Resonating with this, Dipesh Chakrabarty states that Deleuzian thought exposes that the “freedom of humans from…nature…projects of mastery over the natural world.”45 Deleuze also maintain that faith and theistic beliefs are virtual realities, while the ecological material world is the actual reality.46 Here, Mickey argues that the very core of classical humanism/anthropocentrism is challenged, for it affirms that humankind is ontologically indifferent to an ocean wave or a tree.47 Therefore, within Deleuzian Posthumanism, there is an attempt to displace the historical and religious position held by humankind and equalise it with the agentic power within the entire ecological space.
The key tension stems from their contrasting ontologies. Thomistic Humanism is anthropocentric and normatively transcendent, whereas Deleuze rejects normative transcendence, seeing humans as assemblages within a dynamic, flat ontology (pure immanence) where all entities share equal agency. These opposing views generate key criticisms and challenges in each perspective.
Today, the Thomistic thought that considers women as ‘defective’ is not sustainable. Likewise, the view on relegating vegetation beneath humans and animals simply based on lack of sensation and communication also needs revision. Today, research shows that trees and plants sense and communicate through vast root networks, exchanging nutrients and information as a form of ecological support, especially in response to threats like insect attacks or deforestation.48 This shows that vegetation and minerals have agency, can communicate, and respond to human and non-human actions, challenging Aquinas’s ontology. These insights call for classical theology to recognise nature’s agency and embrace a less hierarchical ecological view. In this vein, Kwok Pui-Lan critiques Eurocentric notions of nature, like those of Aquinas, for privileging men and humans over women and nature.49 Likewise, from a Tribal perspective, Wati Longchar highlights that Western theologies often neglect ecological concerns, distancing God from creation.50 Supporting Longchar, M. Maisuangdibou adds that humans attain redemption only in relation to creation, a vision captured within tribal theologies.51 Furthermore, Paul Santmire contends that Aquinas’s rigid view of God and humans fosters radical anthropocentrism and domination of nature.52 In this vein, Santmire challenges “Thomas’s hierarchical thinking” and calls for an evaluation.53 Like Longchar, Santmire argues that Aquinas’s anthropocentrism allows communion with nature to fade.54 He contends that to have a genuine ecological and cosmic community, classical theology must be retold by asking, apart from Adam and Eve, “What kind of relationship did the Lord God have with the tree?”55
Furthermore, Deleuze contends against such transcendental thinking, as it looks outside reality to explain the things within. He also challenges the age-old binary understanding of human vs. non-human, good vs. evil, to construct meaning,56 because he maintained that regarding faith and the material world, “one is actual, the other virtual; one is horizontal, the other vertical.”57 Consequently, Deleuze critiques theology, particularly for its analogical claim strongly upheld in Thomistic Ontology that humans cannot become anything other than what their essential forms determine. He argues that just as the devil (form) is believed to possess animals and human bodies (matter), it can transform the identity of a being (temporarily or permanently). In this light, they argue that the understanding of fixedness amongst theologians must be re-examined.58 In light of this, Daniel Barber rightly states that while Aquinas found power in divine creation, Deleuze locates power in the process of becoming through material reactions.59 Overall, Thomistic thought is criticised for being overtly transcendent and anthropocentric.
Deleuzian Posthumanism denies any ontological divide between humans and non-humans. Benjamin Boysen counters these concepts based on conceptual absurdity. Given such a scenario, he asserts that “electrons and magnetic fields must also be ‘sworn in’ when political dimensions are taken as ‘everything is, in a sense, alive.’”60 Similarly, Slavoj Žižek critiques Deleuzian perspectives as “a kind of spiritualism without Gods,” ironically creating a form of spirituality while rejecting it.61 He warns that post-human technologies like Neuralink, linking human brains to global networks, pose existential risks and strain energy resources.62 Bennett, despite being a Deleuzian Post-humanist, also adds that failing to recognise human uniqueness risks objectifying humanity, advocating that ontological distinction between human ‘subjects’ and non-human ‘objects’ is possible.63
Furthermore, Meenu Gupta argues that Deleuze fails to explain how the becoming aspect of the human into something different comes to be.64 Similarly, DeLanda observes that Deleuze cannot fully escape Aristotelian hylomorphism. By rejecting fixed essences of form and matter, Deleuzian thought struggles to explain the consistent stability and repetition of forms in nature, such as why a horse reliably develops four legs and herbivorous traits.65 Furthermore, it overlooks the discourse about the origin of matter itself, which is a significant limitation. In contrast, Aquinas situates a transcendent designer as the source of all matter and form, who actively participates in the sustenance of the immanent world with a teleological purpose resting in the incarnate Christ, who is both immanent and transcendent. Therefore, for Aquinas, in the discourse of God and the world, immanence cannot be divorced from transcendence.66 Thus, the absence of an account of origin, the neglect of hylomorphic order, and the lack of clear ontological distinctions between the human and the non-human within Deleuzian Posthumanism open up the space where a resourced Thomistic Ontology can intercede.
Charles Taylor also points out the emptiness of modern materialism, for it cannot sustain meaning, calling it the “malaises of immanence,” urging the “recovery of transcendence” to set things in order.67 Taylor stresses that without morality, order, and a purpose for humanity, which Deleuzian thought represents, it becomes mechanical and hopeless.68 For instance, Deleuze reduces the concept of human sex and violence to mere networks of desires, blurring the line between good and evil.69 Therefore, Taylor rejects Deleuze’s purely immanent vision, instead calling for a ‘nova,’ a middle way. Here, He cites Paul’s vision of unity where “in Christ is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, man nor woman” as a model of stability and balance. 70 ltimately, Taylor asks whether transcendence and immanence can together yield a universal ethic and an ontology that enables solidarity amid existential crises.71 The question thus arises: Is a convergence between the transcendent humanism of Aquinas and the immanent Posthumanism of Deleuze possible?
William Carroll offers significant insight into the theological trajectory of this discussion. He affirms that Aquinas views “all things coming from and returning to God,” and that the entire universe, spiritual and material, possesses a dynamic character.72 For Aquinas, God is not a competing cause against naturalistic processes,73 because for him, matter is active, having the potential to change and evolve.74 Contrary to Santmire, who sees Aquinas as viewing creation as a past event, Carroll argues that for Thomas, creation is the continuous act by which God sustains all existence, from quantum processes to human thoughts.75 Thus, Aquinas would not oppose Deleuze’s notion of matter as active, relational, and becoming, but he would locate its source in divine providence. Similarly, Deleuze’s idea of human and non-human assemblage leading to transformation resonates with Aquinas’s openness to the enhancement of human capacities.76 John Boyer and Geoffrey Meadows argue that Aquinas could defend transhumanism, since he recognises that bodily refinement can enhance intellectual capacity (De Anima II).77 They contend that transhumanism merely enhances human potential rather than creating a new species.78 Aquinas’s hylomorphism, therefore, allows for change within the form and matter potentiality, aligning him, in part, with Deleuze’s materialism. Both envision a form of becoming: the only difference being, Aquinas points it toward a redemptive consummation in Christ. In this vein, Brower and Meadows argue that Aquinas’s hylomorphism offers a unique and underappreciated philosophical perspective for contemporary discourse.79
Deleuzian posthumanism is eco-centric, seeking to redeem the ontological status of nonhuman entities. Likewise, Thomistic thought, when carefully read, reveals an eco-centric vision. In his interpretation of Genesis 2:7, Aquinas notes that “God made man of the slime of the earth,” affirming that all things are contained in God as “one simple whole.”80 He held that humans are a “little world” in which all creatures are represented.81 Thus, human redemption implies cosmic redemption: because Christ assumed full human nature,82 and all creation is symbolically present in humanity, the salvation of the entire cosmos becomes inevitable. Commenting on Isaiah 65:17 and Romans 8:21-23, Aquinas envisions both humanity and the earth renewed, with all creation delivered from corruption into divine glory.83 Despite maintaining ontological distinctions, his eschatological vision anticipates a liberated materiality, like Deleuzian posthumanism.
Moreover, Aquinas held that the soul is undifferentiated across genders.84 Rosemary Radford argues that, though Aquinas’s hierarchy subordinates women, this inferiority dissolves in redemption, where all souls share equal capacity for divine transformation.85 Similarly, while Aquinas distinguishes between humans, animals, and matter, his soteriology implies the collective redemption of all creation. Viewed through this lens, Aquinas’s hierarchy becomes more fluid.86 Hence, if the cosmos and all creatures await redemption alongside humanity, strict ontological hierarchies warrant re-evaluation. As Bennett suggests, the distinction between humans and the non-human can remain, but with a certain balance. Through such re-evaluation, Thomistic humanism and Deleuzian posthumanism may converge on a shared, eco-cosmic vision of creation, redemption, and becoming.
Deleuzian posthumanism asserts that there is no ontological divide between a wave, a bird, and a human being. Yet, several Deleuzian scholars now recognise the need for distinction due to existential and ethical concerns. Bennett calls for an ontological human-non-human divide to prevent human objectification, while Clive Hamilton advocates a renewed anthropocentrism that upholds both human and ecological integrity.87 Deleuze himself warned against societies of control, where technology monitors, manipulates, and governs human life through digital systems, corporations, and surveillance, urging future generations to discover “new forms of resistance.”88 Thus, within Deleuzian thought, there is an emerging call for balance between anthropocentrism/humanism and eco-centrism and for an introduction of Aristotelian hylomorphism to explain material origins, order, and structure.
According to Petra Hroc, Deleuze’s emphasis on creating “a new earth and a new people” to resist material domination89 is a call for a new creative ontology to emerge.90 This paper seeks to ground that creative ontology in Thomistic thought and contextual theologies, a vision restoring origin, purpose, and structure often absent in Posthumanism. As Bennett, Taylor, and Žižek caution, Posthumanism’s emphasis on non-human agency risks overshadowing humanity. In contrast, from a biblical and Thomistic view, Jesus Christ affirms both distinction and unity: in Matthew 10:31, humans are of greater subjects than sparrows, yet both are tenderly cared for by God. Aquinas extends this vision, teaching that all creation will share in simultaneous redemption through Christ. Hence, the reading of Thomistic thought through an Eco-Cosmic perspective provides what Deleuze’s system lacks: a balanced vision of anthropocentrism and eco-centrism, immanence and transcendence, grounded in stewardship and co-existence rather than domination, with purpose, and orientation towards a redemptive whole. Thus, both frameworks converge at an ecological centre, a ‘Middle Way’ (Taylor), where humans and nonhumans participate in a shared cosmic destiny.
The Ecological Centre where both Thomistic Ontology and Rhizomatic Ontology agree that matter and ecological space are active, and where the need for material ecological redemption is acknowledged (though from different perspectives). This is a mutual conceptual space. Furthermore, both frameworks maintain the ontological divide between the human and nonhumans, even as they converge to prevent the instrumentalisation of humankind. Thus, the ecological centre serves as the meeting point where Thomism’s transcendent ontology and New Deleuzian immanent ontology intersect, laying the groundwork for a new creative ontology to emerge, as Deleuze suggests. This ecological centre is the fertile ground from which an EcoCosmic Christology can develop, a convergent vision where Thomism’s desire for a less rigid hierarchy and Deleuzian pursuit of a telos, human-non-human divide, and hylomorphic order can be mutually addressed. Moreover, this convergence gains depth and practical force when it is embodied within a Tribal Christological framework, where these unifying principles are already lived out in relational, ecological, and cosmological forms.
Thomistic Humanism and Deleuzian Posthumanism share a strong ontological conflict, and as discussed, their divergence calls for an ontology that unites them within a coherent cosmological vision, which may be realised through an Eco-Cosmic Christology.
Thomas White suggests that while naturalism presents a flat immanent theory, Thomistic Ontology, culminating in the figure of the incarnate Christ, provides both immanent and transcendental purposes of creation.91 In response to modern naturalism, N.T. Wright also calls for a deeper Christian cosmology that recognises the active presence of Christ in His human nature throughout the entire cosmos.92 Consequently, Santmire, building on Joseph Sittler’s concept of ‘Cosmic Christology,’ argues that Christ has a redemptive purpose for the entire material world.93 He critiques Aquinas for distancing the creator from creation due to his understanding of God’s overtly transcendent and vertical governance over creation.94 He criticises Aquinas’s ontological perspectives by asserting that God is ‘not the above’ alone because God fills all things (Ephesians 4:10). This view revitalises nature, highlighting that all created entities partake equally in God.95 Santmire’s cosmic vision identifies Christ as both transcendent over and immanent within creation, re-enchanting nature and affirming that all entities partake in God. Reading Christ as the cosmic shepherd (John 10:11; Hebrews 1:3),96 he envisions Jesus as an ecological figure sustaining all things.97 Matthew Fox expands this vision, seeing the Cosmic Christ as present in the world’s pain, offering hope and redemption to the material space.98 Fox’s panentheistic vision resonates with Moltmann’s panentheism, affirming divine participation in the world while maintaining differentiation between Creator and creation.99 Both scholars propose that Christ binds matter, life, and spirit into one living cosmology where divine redemption is for the cosmos, not merely humans. According to Fox, the call here is to “reinvent the human species with worldviews and a moral commitment to Mother Earth and her non-human children.”100 Fox also maintains that for Aquinas, Christ is the source of renewal. Aquinas saw the cosmos as essentially friendly, warning that ignorance of our joyous place within it produces ‘cosmic anxiety,’ a false fear of natural forces. Deleuzian Posthumanism projects this fear for the future and fails to offer hope and purpose for both humanity and nonhuman entities. However, in Thomistic thought, it is understood that all of creation testifies to God’s goodness and beauty. The whole world is sacred, finding its future telos (goal/purpose) in the Cosmic Christ, who sustains all things, providing hope, order and purpose to the ecological space (encompassing both human and non-human).101
Aquinas, in his interpretation of Hebrews 4:12-13, argues that God reaches into the marrow and joints and the intents of the heart, and no creature is invisible to him.102 In this light, Fox argues that “The Cosmic Christ is a ‘pattern that connects’ proton and galaxy, human and neutron, human and supernovas…Cosmic Christ is the ‘pattern that connects’ all things in heaven and on earth and in between.”103 In this vein, Fox proposes the need for understanding the cosmic Christ as a pattern of connection that connects theory and practice, a living cosmology of religion and wisdom. He states that “embracing the Cosmic Christ will demand a paradigm shift… from personal salvation to communal healing…and…from theism (God outside us) to panentheism (God in and with us).”104 Overall, both Santmire and Fox recognise the activeness of matter and nature and the organic interconnectedness of human and nonhuman actions, ultimately relating it to Christ. Therefore, Cosmic Christology binds both the immanent and the transcendent reality. Moreover, the redemption of God is seen as both an interior and an exterior act, meaning that God sustains and redeems both form and matter of all beings.105 In the person of Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos (the transcendent source of all form and being) is united to a human nature (fully immersed in the material, historical, and biological processes of the cosmos). This provides a strong ontological model for this paper.106 Coincidentally, Deleuzian Posthumanism lacks an understanding of origin and telos, hylomorphism, purpose and meaning. It calls out from within for a new ontology and concepts that will answer the question of order and unity, existential crisis in today’s world and caution from material domination, an ontological call for a “new earth and people,” as Deleuze puts it.107
Eco-Cosmic Christology unites Deleuze’s celebration of relationality, fluidity and immanence with Aquinas’s emphasis on telos, purpose, and divine order. In Christ, all creation, human and non-human, material and spiritual, is integrated, resolving the tension between flat immanence and hierarchical transcendence. The cosmos thus participates in a redemptive movement toward unity, where anthropocentric and eco-centric dominations are reconciled and replaced with responsible stewardship and co-existence, and hope and ethics are grounded in both immanent and divine communion. This Christological convergence offers a panentheistic ontology that is both relational and purposeful, addressing the philosophical and ecological gaps in Deleuzian Posthumanism while preserving the soteriological and metaphysical depth of Thomistic Humanism. Eco-Cosmic Christology is not only a statement of belief but a philosophy that bridges the humanist and Posthuman debate with coherence, depth and vital philosophical and existential solutions that both Thomistic Humanism and Deleuzian Posthumanism require. In this light, we can look into a contextually constructed Christology that affirms this living cosmology and a unity that counters anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism.
The constructive vision of an Eco-Cosmic Christology is not merely a theoretical proposition for Western discourse. Its true impact is revealed when it amplifies the theological intuitions already lived in non-Western contexts. In Naga Tribal Christology in North East India, Wati Longchar expresses Jesus as Lijaba, where Li, meaning ‘land,’ and jaba, meaning ‘real,’ portray the supreme being as “the real soil.”108 According to Longchar, Lijaba is the “earth entering Supreme Being.”109 He affirms that this supreme being is the ever-present sustainer creator who is close to the people and the land.110 Similarly, Tekatemjen maintains that this Lijaba, as Christ enters the world and all its social and cultural layers, as the Ao Naga Folklore goes, Lijaba enters the home of two socially dejected orphan sisters and gives them prosperity by blessing their land and farms.111 Here, Lijaba is an active, immanent being who blesses the land (matter) and liberates the oppressed. This affirms the agency of matter and nature while grounding it in a theistic framework where Christ is the source of this blessing and liberation/redemption. Moreover, within Tribal theology, it is understood that “humans…can attain redemption only in relation to the rest of creation.”112 Likewise, Aquinas also maintained that redemption for humankind means redemption of the entire cosmos.113 Here, Christ’s co-suffering, the cosmic relationality of Christ with the land and the people, is ambitiously captured.
Similarly, Yangkahao Vashum professes “Jesus as the Rooster,” as it is the lamb for the Hebrews, and also the “Ancestor.”114 Jesus is not only symbolised by a creature, but also as a timeless ancestor, meaning that his authority, wisdom and knowledge are paramount. The Eco-Cosmic vision of Christ must be noted here. Furthermore, just as Jesus is metaphorically understood as the vine, according to Nungshitula, in the Naga Tribal context, Jesus is metaphorically an au (Bamboo) because bamboo has great Socio-economic relevance to the people.115 Bamboo is used for the construction of houses and churches, grafts and cooking and hunting tools, as firewood, as a water container, and as a rope. Bamboo shoots are also a dietary delicacy for many. Thus, Jesus, like a bamboo, instils closeness to Christ for the Tribals and, in turn, creates greater ecological awareness. The Tribal depictions of Jesus as the ‘Rooster,’ the ‘Ancestor,’ or the au are not mere cultural analogies. They are ontological statements. To see Christ as Bamboo is to recognise Christ as the fundamental, sustaining material reality of daily life, the source of shelter, nourishment, and tool-making. This resonates powerfully with the concept of Christ as the sustainer of all hylomorphic compounds (form and matter), a key Thomistic insight that Deleuzian Posthumanism lacks. In these Tribal visions, Christ is not separate from the material world He sustains but also transcendentally preserved as the timeless God. This fulfils the panentheistic vision this paper suggests without collapsing into pantheism.
These contextual Christological visions express how God is understood immanently, as an active ecological figure, as Santmire rightly remarked, without compromising on the fact that Christ is transcendent. This captures Taylor’s vision of having a mutual tangible ontology that is both immanent and transcendent, given the tensions shared between Deleuzian thought (immanence) and classical theology (transcendence). Surprisingly, it also affirms Deleuzian focus on agency and activeness of matter and nature, and how, in doing so, they create awareness and love for nature, which is God’s own (which in itself is an ontology that resists material domination by respecting its value). This vision affirms both a personal and cosmic God, transcendent and immanent, who resists unjust hierarchies and anthropocentrism, offering hope and purpose to nature and humankind. As Taylor, Radford, and Mickey suggest, this is a constructive Christian materialism that is neither Posthuman nor distant from the classical view of humanism. It is a unified vision that converges at an ecological centre, perfected and finding its telos in Christ, who redeems all creation and all who believe in His Lordship.
This is a Christology, an alternate creative ontology that bridges Thomistic Humanism and Deleuzian Posthumanism. Though a full philosophical or theological convergence between the two may not be possible, because they look at these matters through different ontological lenses, both emphasise matter as active and agentic; the human and non-human ontological divide is maintained in both, and the redemptive aspect of matter is acknowledged. The need for origin, order, and purpose, as well as hylomorphic order, as suggested in both, is also preserved. However, all of this is made possible by creating a new ontology, as Deleuze suggests, to preserve the integrity of the human while uplifting the ontological status of the non-human to its rightful place. This constructive vision emerges through Eco-Cosmic Christology and finds its most compelling expression in the lived reality of Tribal Christology.
Today, the significance of an Eco-Cosmic Christology is many. Apart from the Tribal setting in India, we can consider a case scenario to explain why a Christological vision is universally necessary against a Posthuman frame of thought. In this light, Japan offers a cautionary example of a society immersed in immanent thought, revealing the existential crises that arise without a transcendent telos.
Japan is a highly secular, technologically advanced society where identity is often fluid and constructed through cultural assemblages: the virtual worlds of Manga and anime, the aesthetic of Kawaii (cuteness), and the formation of communities around cultural products like Pokémon.116 This reflects a Deleuzian Posthuman society. However, this vibrant immanence is accompanied by profound social disorder. In Japan, Hikikomori is a phenomenon where thousands of young people withdraw from social life. A strong reason is the unhealthy attachment to cybertechnology. Foreseeably, Japan faces severe issues of loneliness (kodokushi, or lonely death) and consistently ranks low on global happiness indexes.117
Is this the future projection of an immanent Posthuman world? This situation exemplifies the ‘malaises of immanence’ that Taylor describes. A world described only in immanent terms, for all its fluidity and technological wonder, can lead to a sense of aimlessness, isolation, and what Anand Daraj terms “cosmic homelessness.”118 Japan’s context is a powerful, realworld demonstration of why Deleuze call for ‘new forms of resistance’ and the need for ‘new creative ontologies’ is so urgent. By contrast, PEW data shows that people engaged in religious communities and dependence on God report greater happiness and life satisfaction.119 The EcoCosmic Christology, offering telos, a unifying hope, and a call to cosmic community, speaks directly into this void. It proposes that human cultures, no matter how technologically advanced, can be oriented towards an ultimate pattern of connection, hope, and redemption in Christ.
The Japanese society emphasises the need for a strong framework to promote technological stewardship and ethics. In this context, Deleuze’s call to resist material dominance provides a valuable lens for reconsidering technology within an Eco-Cosmic framework. While human life relies on technological systems for sustenance and communication, their misuse, such as addiction to digital devices and the weaponisation of drones as seen in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, reflects the domination Deleuze warned about. An Eco-Cosmic Christology responds by reinterpreting technology as part of creation, endowed with agency that requires ethical stewardship rather than control. This perspective advocates reverence and responsibility in engaging with both natural and artificial materiality, recognising that even digital systems are part of the broader cosmic order sustained in Christ.
The modern world faces severe ecological destruction. Species extinction, pollution, and resource exploitation are driven by anthropocentric greed and industrial progress. Dan Story links these crises to millions of preventable deaths and calls for a distinctly Christian environmental stewardship rooted in God’s purpose for all creation. While many, especially youth, show deep concern for the planet, the church has often neglected this calling, perhaps due to dualistic views that privilege the spiritual over the material. Story proposes “environmental apologetics” as a new mission, uniting Christians and non-Christians around the common goal of planetary care.120 An Eco-Cosmic Christology strengthens these visions by affirming that all creation shares in God’s redemptive purpose. Seeing Christ as the Cosmic Shepherd who fills and sustains all things (including technology) inspires deeper stewardship and ecumenical unity. Thus, the Eco-Cosmic Christ offers a hopeful, unifying framework of restoration amid technological advancement, global fragmentation and ecological crisis.
In conclusion, an Eco-Cosmic Christology emerges as the unifying framework between Thomistic humanism and Deleuzian Posthumanism. It resolves the tension by locating in the person of Jesus Christ, the convergence of transcendence and immanence, hierarchy and flat Rhizomatic ontology, and human uniqueness and non-human agency. This Christological vision affirms the Deleuzian emphasis on a becoming, immanent, and agentic material world, while grounding it within the Thomistic understanding of a cosmos created, sustained, and redeemed by God. It acknowledges the valid ecological concerns of Posthumanism and the need to resist material domination, yet it counters the ‘malaises of immanence’ by providing a transcendent telos, a purposeful, hopeful movement toward cosmic redemption. By serving as the ultimate ‘pattern that connects,’ the Eco-Cosmic Christ validates the insights of both traditions: the Thomistic order, purpose, and distinction, and the Deleuzian fluidity, relationality, and activeness of matter. Moreover, situating this convergent vision within a Tribal contextual setting offers a coherent, living cosmology that addresses the existential and ecological crises of our time, providing a hopeful, purposeful vision for a groaning world awaiting liberation. Lastly, situating this unifying vision in Asian contextual settings, it affirms that the subject of Humanism and Posthumanism is not only a Western debate but a global affair.
Adorno, Theodor W. Ontology and Dialectics: 1960/61. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 1, Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Maryland: Christian Classics, 2000.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 3, Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Maryland: Christian Classics, 2000.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 4, Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Maryland: Christian Classics, 2000.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles: Book 3: Providence Part I / Providence. Part 1 / Saint Thomas Aquinas: Translated, with an Introduction and Notes by Vernon J. Bourke. Translated by Vernon J. Bourke. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2016.
Bennett, Jane. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. London: Duke University Press, 2010.
Boyer, John, and Geoffrey Meadows. “Thomas Aquinas: Teacher of Transhumanity?” In Thomas Aquinas: Teacher of Humanity, edited by John Hittinger and Daniel C. Wagner. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. https://philarchive.org/rec/BOYTAT-2.
Boysen, Benjamin. “The Embarrassment of Being Human.” Orbis Litterarum 73, no. 3 (2018): 225-42.
Boysen, Dr Benjamin, and Dr Jesper Lundsfryd Rasmussen, eds. Against New Materialisms: Craving for Reality. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023.
Brower, Jeffrey E. Aquinas’s Ontology of the Material World: Change, Hylomorphism, and Material Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Carroll, William E. “After Darwin: Aquinas: A Universe Created and Evolving.” In Darwin in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Phillip R. Sloan, Gerald Mckenny, and Kathleen Eggleson. Nature, Humanity, and God. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2015.
Carroll, William E. “Science and Creation: The Medieval Heritage.” In The Oxford Handbook of Abrahamic Religions, edited by Adam J. Silverstein and Gedaliahu A. G. Stroumsa. The Oxford Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Colucciello Barber, Daniel. Deleuze and the Naming of God: Post-Secularism and the Future of Immanence. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014.
Cook, L M, and I J Saccheri. “The Peppered Moth and Industrial Melanism: Evolution of a Natural Selection Case Study.” Heredity 110, no. 3 (2013): 207-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.92.
Crockett, Clayton, and Jeffrey W. Robbins. Religion, Politics, and the Earth: The New Materialism. Radical Theologies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Daigle, Christine, and Terrance H. McDonald. From Deleuze and Guattari to Posthumanism: Philosophies of Immanence. Theory in the New Humanities. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2022.
De Landa, Manuel. Assemblage Theory. Speculative Realism SPRE. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2022.
Deleuze, Gilles. Difference and Repetition. Translated by Paul Patton. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.
Deleuze, Gilles. “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” The MIT Press 59 (October 1992).
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. What Is Philosophy? European Perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.
Dolphijn, Rick, and Iris van der Tuin. New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies. New Metaphysics. Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press, 2012.
Elvey, Anne F. Reading with Earth: Contributions of the New Materialism to an Ecological Feminist Hermeneutics. New York: T&T Clark, 2022.
Fox, Matthew. The Coming of the Cosmic Christ: The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a Global Renaissance. San Franscisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Ghosh, Amitav. The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable. London: Penguin Books Limited, 2016.
Gupta, Meenu. “Reflections of Indian Philosophy in Deleuze’s ‘Body without Organs.’” Deleuze and Guattari Studies 12, no. 1 (2018): 13-28.
Hampton, Alexander J. B. “Transcendence and Immanence: Deciphering Their Relation through the Transcendentals in Aquinas and Kant.” Toronto Journal of Theology 34, no. 2 (2018): 187-98.
Harman, Graham. Object-Oriented Ontology. London: Pelican, 2018.
Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2013.
Heinrichs, J. Hendrik. “From Humanism to Meta-, Post, and Transhumanism?” Peter Lang, Beyond humanism, vol. 8 (2016).
Hroc, Petra. “Deleuze, Guattari, and Environmental Pedagogy and Politics.” In Deleuze & Guattari, Politics and Education: For a People-yet-to-Come, edited by Matthew Carlin and Jason J. Wallin. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Imataka, George, and Hideaki Shiraishi. “Youth Suicide in Japan: Exploring the Role of Subcultures, Internet Addiction, and Societal Pressures.” Diseases 13, no. 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases13010002.
Keller, Catherine, and Mary-Jane Rubenstein. Entangled Worlds: Religion, Science, and New Materialisms. Transdisciplinary Theological Colloquia. New York: Fordham University Press, 2017.
Kissmann, Ulrike, Joost van Loon, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie, and Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, eds. Discussing New Materialism: Methodological Implications for the Study of Materialities. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2019.
Longchar, Wati. An Emerging Asian Theology: Tribal Theology—Issue, Method and Perspective. Jorhat: Tribal Study Centre, 2000.
Longchar, Wati. “Tribal Theology: Nature and Method and Perspective.” Journal of Tribal Studies XIII, no. 1 (2001): 60-70.
Longchar, Wati, M.M. Ekka, and Hrangthan Chhungi. Doing Indigenous Theology in Asia: Towards New Frontiers. Nagpur: NCCI/GTC/SCEPTRE, 2012.
Mainichi Daily News. “Japan Ranks Lowest in Quality of Life Satisfaction among 30 Countries: Happiness Survey.” April 10, 2025. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20250410/p2a/00m/0na/010000c.
Maisuangdibou, M. Tribal Literature, Theology & Methodology: Reading Folklore for Developing Tribal Theological Hermeneutics and Literary Criticism. Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2022.
Mickey, Sam. New Materialism and Theology. Boston: BRILL, 2022.
Mitchell, Travis. “Religion’s Relationship to Happiness, Civic Engagement and Health Around the World.” Pew Research Center, January 31, 2019.
Mukherjee, Indrajit. “We Are All Cyborgs Now”: Disrupting Gender Identity through the Cyborg in Marge Piercy’s He, She and It.” In The Posthuman Imagination: Literature at the Edge of the Human, edited by Tanmoy Kundu and Saikat Sarkar. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publisher, 2021.
Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation. London: SCM Press, 2005.
Pui-lan, Kwok. Introducing Asian Feminist Theology. Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2000.
Roden, David. Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human. London: Routledge, 2015.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Gaia & God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. San Franscisco: Harper San Franscisco, 1992.
Santmire, H. Paul. Before Nature: A Christian Spirituality. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014.
Santmire, H. Paul. Nature Reborn: The Ecological and Cosmic Promise of Christian Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000.
Santmire, H. Paul. The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology. Theology and the Sciences. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Santmire, H. Paul. “Toward a Cosmic Christology: A Kerygmatic Proposal.” Theology and Science, Routledge 9, no. 3 (2011): 287-305.
Simpson, Christopher Ben. Deleuze and Theology. Philosophy and Theology. London: Bloomsbury, 2012.
Sisters, The Kitchen. “How South Korea Uses Kimchi to Connect to The World — And Beyond.” Hidden Kitchens: The Kitchen Sisters. NPR, August 22, 2016. https://www.npr.org/sections/ thesalt/2016/08/22/489805398/how-south-korea-uses-kimchi-to-connect-to-the-worldand-beyond.
“St. Thomas Aquinas: Of God and His Creatures – Christian Classics Ethereal Library.” Accessed June 7, 2025. https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.v.lxviii.html#fnf_v.lxviii-p1.2.
Story, Dan. Should Christians Be Environmentalists? Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2012.
Szatkowski, Mirosław, ed. Ontology of Theistic Beliefs. Philosophische Analyse = Philosophical Analysis, vol. 74. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018.
Takatemjen. Studies on Theology and Naga Culture. Delhi: ISPCK, 1998.
Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007.
Vashum, Yangkahao. Christology in Context: A Tribal-Indigenous Appraisal of North East India. Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2017.
Veeraraj, Anand. Green History of Religion. Bangalore: Centre for Contemporary Christianity, 2006.
Velde, Rudi A. te. Aquinas on God: The Divine Science of the “Summa Theologiae.” Ashgate Studies in the History of Philosophical Theology. Farnham: Ashgate, 2006.
Waldow, Daniel. “Aquinas on the Nature of Christ’s Punishment and Its Role in His Work of Satisfaction.” New Blackfriars 103, no. 1103 (2022): 7-28.
White, Thomas Joseph. The Incarnate Lord: A Thomistic Study in Christology. Thomistic Ressourcement Series, vol. 5. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2015.
Wielenberg, Erik J. Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Williams, Thomas. Anselm: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2022.
Wohlleben, Peter. The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate. Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2016.
Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: Harper One, 2008.
1 David Roden, Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human (London: Routledge, 2015), 10-11.
2 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Maryland: Christian Classics, 2000), 1:364-65.
3 Amitav Ghosh, The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable (London: Penguin Books Limited, 2016), 82-83.
4 Ghosh, The Great Derangement, 118-19.
5 David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2013), 17.
6 Mirosław Szatkowski, ed., Ontology of Theistic Beliefs, Philosophical Analysis, vol. 74 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018), 11.
7 Theodor W. Adorno, Ontology and Dialectics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018), 5-7.
8 Jeffrey E. Brower, Aquinas’s Ontology of the Material World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 2-4.
9 Thomas Williams, Anselm: A Very Short Introduction, vol. 721 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), 29.
10 Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 183.
11 Taylor, A Secular Age, 271.