The Book of Kalei

Adam as a “Living Battery”: Imago Dei, Dependence, and Technological Metaphor in Theological Anthropology

Abstract

Contemporary talk of being “drained,” “out of battery,” “charged,” or “plugged in” reflects a technologically saturated imaginary in which energy, dependence, and connection are mediated by devices, batteries, and circuits. Christian theological anthropology, however, often continues to describe human dependence on God using primarily pre‑technological metaphors, risking a gap between classical doctrine and lived experience. This article proposes “Adam as a living battery” as a technologically inflected metaphor for the imago Dei that renders creaturely dependence, sin, and restoration conceptually vivid without displacing classical doctrine. Drawing on Genesis 1–2 and recent work on the image of God in Zygon and related venues, it construes humans as structurally and vocationally ordered to receive, hold, and conduct divine life, so that sin may be depicted as a break in the “circuit” of relationship to God and grace and union with Christ as the restoration and deepening of that circuit. After sketching batteries and electrical circuits in everyday experience, the article develops the “living battery” metaphor in conversation with theological accounts of the imago Dei, sin, grace, and union with Christ, and with discussions of metaphor and analogy in theology. It argues that, when explicitly constrained by scriptural and doctrinal norms and held alongside richer biblical images such as body, bride, and vine and branches, the “living battery” can function as a responsible heuristic for religion‑and‑science discourse and as a pedagogical tool for spiritual formation in a technologically mediated culture.

**Keywords:** imago Dei; theological anthropology; metaphor; technology; union with Christ; sin; grace; religion and science

_____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction: Technological Imaginaries and Theological Anthropology

Late‑modern life is saturated with technological metaphors. People routinely describe themselves as “drained,” “out of battery,” “charged,” or “plugged in,” and they experience phones, laptops, and other devices as sites where energy, information, and connection either flow or fail. These everyday metaphors both reflect and reinforce shifting intuitions about human vulnerability, dependence, and relationality in a world shaped by electrochemical systems and digital networks.

Yet Christian theological anthropology, especially in treatments of the imago Dei, often still relies primarily on pre‑technological images when articulating what it means to be human before God. The resulting disjunction between lived technological imaginaries and traditional doctrinal language can obscure the resonance of classical themes such as creaturely dependence, sin as alienation, and grace as restored communion. In a culture where devices and circuits tacitly train people to think in terms of charge, connectivity, and burnout, theological language that does not engage these experiential schemas may struggle to communicate the depth of human dependence on God.

This article proposes that a technological metaphor drawn from everyday experience—”Adam as a living battery”—can serve as a theologically responsible and pedagogically fruitful way of articulating human dependence on God within an imago Dei framework. The metaphor does not claim that humans are literally batteries or that technological imagery replaces exegetical or doctrinal work; instead, it offers an imaginative analogue for creaturely contingency and vocation in conversation with Genesis 1–2 and recent theological accounts of the image of God. The central claim is that humans are structurally and vocationally ordered to receive, hold, and conduct divine life, so that sin may be depicted as a break in the “circuit” of relationship to God and grace and union with Christ as the restoration and deepening of that circuit.

Within the broader religion‑and‑science conversation, this article offers the “living battery” as a case study in technologically inflected theological anthropology. Section 2 sketches batteries and electrical circuits as they appear in everyday experience in order to establish the conceptual schema of structure, potential, connection, and function on which the metaphor draws. Section 3 turns to Genesis 1–2 and recent accounts of the imago Dei to frame human creatureliness as participatory dependence rather than autonomous possession. Section 4 engages discussions of metaphor and analogy in theology and articulates criteria for the responsible use of technological images in doctrinal reflection. Section 5 then develops the proposal of Adam as a “living battery,” applying it to sin, grace, and union with Christ as a broken and restored circuit, while Section 6 relates this imagery to technologically mediated experiences of burnout, connectivity, and spiritual formation. A final section gathers these threads to assess the promise and limits of the metaphor and to suggest avenues for further work on technological imaginaries in theological anthropology.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

2. Batteries and Circuits in Everyday Experience

For most contemporary users, batteries and circuits are not laboratory objects but intimate features of daily life. Phones die, laptops overheat, remote controls become unreliable; people speak casually of devices “losing charge,” “holding power,” or “not connecting,” and these experiences quietly shape how they imagine energy, dependence, and failure. Such language both reflects and reinforces a technologically inflected self‑understanding in which human beings often describe themselves as “burned out,” “recharged,” or “disconnected,” drawing implicitly on the behavior of electrochemical systems and networks.

Technically, a battery is a device that stores electrochemical potential energy and releases it when placed within a closed circuit joining two terminals of opposite polarity. When correctly seated and connected, the circuit allows current to flow and the device functions as designed; when the battery is drained, corroded, or removed, the structural form remains but its intended functions become unavailable. Everyday experience with “dead batteries” and open circuits thus offers a simple schema in which structure, potential, connection, and function belong together.

This schema is what the present proposal seeks to appropriate theologically, not the detailed physics of electrochemistry. The pattern of a structured form designed to receive and mediate power, whose proper functioning depends on sustained connection to a source, provides a conceptual grid on which classical Christian claims about human form, dependence on a divine Source, and the consequences of disconnection can be rendered vivid. In subsequent sections, this everyday technological experience will be placed in explicit conversation with Genesis 1–2 and accounts of the imago Dei, so that the familiar dynamics of batteries and circuits serve as a metaphorical lens for creaturely dependence and vocation before God.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Imago Dei and Creaturely Dependence

Genesis 1–2 situates humanity within a narrative that combines exalted status with radical dependence. In Genesis 1:26–27, humans are created “in” or “according to” the image and likeness of God and immediately entrusted with a vocation of dominion and stewardship over other creatures. Interpreters often distinguish structural, relational, and functional accounts of the imago Dei: structural approaches emphasize capacities such as reason or moral agency, relational accounts stress covenantal communion with God and others, and functional views tie the image to the exercise of representative rule.

Recent work in theological anthropology, including contributions in Zygon, tends to integrate these strands by presenting the image as a dynamic pattern of capacities, relationships, and vocations rather than a single property. Fergusson, for example, contends that the imago Dei is not a mysterious anthropological ingredient that humans possess but a “complex identity” established by God’s providential ordering of human life, requiring a holistic description that includes functional, relational, and practical elements.[1] This supports treating the image as an integrative reality ordered toward participation in God’s life and rule, which the “living battery” metaphor seeks to render as sustained, participatory dependence rather than static possession.

De Cruz and De Smedt highlight structural elements of humanity such as joint attention, empathy, moral sensibility, and symbolism, and argue that these emerge in, and depend upon, communal interaction rather than isolated minds.[2] In “living battery” terms, such shared capacities can be seen as the circuitry of communal life through which divine life is meant to flow, suggesting that the metaphor must be extended beyond individual piety to encompass social and ecclesial forms of connectivity.

Genesis 2:7 complements the royal portrait of Genesis 1 with a striking image of creaturely contingency: “the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Here the human is simultaneously dust—material, vulnerable, finite—and recipient of divine breath, a being whose life originates not in itself but in God’s giving. Other biblical texts reinforce this theme by ascribing breath and life explicitly to God’s ongoing action (e.g., Ps 104:29–30; Acts 17:25), portraying human existence as received and participatory rather than self‑sustaining.

Across structural, relational, and functional treatments, a shared insight emerges: the image‑bearer flourishes only in alignment with and empowerment from God. Structural capacities are ordered toward relationship and vocation; relational communion is sustained by divine initiative and grace; functional dominion is legitimate only as it reflects and depends upon God’s own rule. If the imago Dei is thus bound up with sustained, participatory dependence, then conceptual models that render dependence vivid—such as the technological schema of battery and circuit—may aid both academic reflection and spiritual formation, provided their limits are acknowledged and they remain explicitly subordinated to scriptural and doctrinal norms.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

4. Metaphor and Theological Method

Reflection on theological language has long recognized that doctrines are articulated through networks of metaphors and analogies rather than purely literal propositions. Metaphors are not merely ornamental; they structure imagination, guide inference, and shape practice, even as they remain partial and revisable. Accounts of religious language influenced by philosophical hermeneutics and analytic philosophy of language therefore emphasize that figurative speech enables believers to grasp and navigate realities that exceed direct description.

Several recent contributions propose criteria for the responsible use of metaphor in theology. First, metaphors should be anchored in Scripture and tradition, so that they echo rather than replace the primary patterns of biblical and doctrinal imagery. Second, their limits must be made explicit, including points at which the figurative mapping breaks down, in order to resist literalization or conceptual overreach. Third, metaphors should be employed in plurality, so that no single image bears the full weight of a doctrine and distortions can be corrected by other complementary figures. Fourth, proposed metaphors should be evaluated not only in academic discourse but also in the life of worship and spiritual formation, where their formative power becomes most evident.

Within this methodological frame, the “living battery” is offered explicitly as a heuristic and pedagogical metaphor rather than a replacement for classical images such as body, bride, vine and branches, or temple. Its legitimacy depends on how well it renders creaturely dependence and vocation without collapsing persons into mechanisms, and on how fruitfully it can be held in tension with the wider symbolic repertoire of Christian faith. These criteria will guide the following proposal, which applies the technological schema of battery and circuit to the biblical portrait of Adam and to subsequent doctrines of sin, grace, and union with Christ.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

5. Adam as a “Living Battery”: Metaphor and Meaning

The technological schema of battery and circuit can now be applied to the biblical portrait of Adam. In Genesis 2, the human is formed from dust—an inert substrate—and animated by divine breath, becoming a “living being” whose existence is at once material and gifted, analogous to a device whose physical configuration is designed to receive and mediate electrical potential. Adam is not presented as a self‑energizing entity but as a creature whose life and vocation depend on the sustained giving of God’s breath and word.

To speak of Adam as a “living battery” is therefore to propose that the human person is a living structure shaped to receive, hold, and conduct the life of God. This image intersects with, and reconfigures, familiar models of the imago Dei: substantive or structural accounts can be reframed in terms of “designed receptivity,” relational views find a natural analogue in closed or open circuits, and functional accounts appear as the “output” of a properly connected system. Seen this way, the metaphor supports integrative approaches that treat structural, relational, and functional dimensions as aspects of a single dynamic reality of participatory dependence and empowered vocation.

In this framework, key theological dispositions can be redescribed in “circuit” language without collapsing them into mechanics. Trust is like keeping the terminals clean and the battery properly seated: it sustains receptivity to divine life. Obedience is akin to the wiring that carries current: it is the concrete pattern through which divine life is expressed in action and relationship. Love corresponds to the device functioning as designed: it is what occurs when life genuinely flows from the Source through the creature toward others. Conversely, pride, fear, and self‑reliance resemble corrosion or miswiring: they obstruct or divert the flow, leaving the structure intact but the intended effect unrealized. These analogies are not precise mappings but heuristic parallels meant to render the interdependence of form, disposition, and vocation conceptually vivid in a technological age.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

6. Sin, Grace, and Restored Circuitry in Christ

Classical Christian hamartiology portrays sin not merely as discrete wrong acts but as a condition of alienation and misalignment in which love and attention are curved away from God toward the self. In biblical imagery, sinners are “dead” in trespasses and sins even while biologically alive, estranged from the life of God and unable to restore themselves to communion (Eph 2:1–5). Within the “living battery” framework, this condition is analogous to a broken or miswired circuit: the human form remains, along with many natural capacities and social functions, but the vital connection to the divine Source is disrupted, so that no genuine spiritual current flows.

Sin thus entails both dysfunction and misdirected connection. Pride imagines that the self can generate its own power; fear resists receiving from God; idolatry attempts to “wire” the self into false sources of life, whether other creatures, systems, or technologies. The result is spiritual death: the imago Dei persists structurally but is not functioning according to its deepest vocation of reflecting God’s character and sharing in God’s life. This translation of alienation, incapacity, and death into the language of open circuits, corroded terminals, and devices attached to the wrong power supply should not be taken literally, but it can render the depth of human disconnection from God imaginatively vivid in a technological age.

Christology and soteriology reconfigure this picture by presenting Christ as the perfect image of God whose “circuit” with the Father is never broken. In him, human life is lived in unbroken trust, obedience, and love; he is, to maintain the metaphor, the fully connected living battery whose alignment with the Source is complete (Col 1:15; Heb 4:15). Union‑with‑Christ theology maintains that all spiritual blessings—justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification—are given “in Christ,” that is, by participation in his relation to the Father through the Spirit. In metaphorical terms, salvation is not self‑charging but reconnection: by grace, humans are inserted into Christ’s intact circuit so that the life of God flows into and through them.

Within this framework, grace appears as divine initiative to restore connection rather than human repair of damaged wiring. Classical accounts present grace as God’s prior act of drawing, forgiving, and renewing, while faith is the receptive posture that consents to this reconnection rather than attempting to generate current by effort. Repentance can be pictured as acknowledging that the circuit is broken and turning back to the true Source; faith as trusting that God’s reconciling action in Christ is sufficient to restore connection; and sanctification as an ongoing process in which corrosion is cleaned from the terminals and resistance in the wiring is reduced, allowing more of God’s life to flow.

Used in this way, the “living battery” metaphor does not replace doctrinal formulations of sin, grace, and union with Christ, but reframes them in terms that resonate with technologically shaped experience of connection and disconnection. It underscores that the heart of salvation is restored participation in the life of the triune God through Christ, rather than the acquisition of an independent spiritual power supply, and prepares the way for exploring how this reconnection is imagined and practiced within digitally mediated cultures.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

7. Technological Culture and Spiritual Formation

The plausibility and fruitfulness of the “living battery” metaphor depend in part on its resonance with contemporary technological culture. Digital devices mediate a growing share of human experience, and terms like “charging,” “draining,” and “connecting” have become dominant ways of speaking about energy, attention, and relationship. In such a context, the image of humans as “living batteries” plugged into—or disconnected from—various sources of power can link theological claims about dependence and alienation to the felt phenomenology of always‑on, digitally mediated life.

Rather than importing esoteric scientific models, this approach appropriates everyday technological experience as a lens through which classical theological categories may be reimagined and communicated. Recent discussions in religion and science emphasize that technology is not merely a set of tools but a complex field in which spirituality, identity, and relationality are negotiated. Fernández‑Borsot’s call for a “hospitable conversation” between spirituality and technology—structured along the axes of transcendence, immanence, and relationality—resists both technophobia and technological utopianism, and provides a helpful horizon for situating the “living battery” metaphor.[3]

Within this horizon, the metaphor can name several characteristic features of spiritual life in a digital age. First, experiences of exhaustion and burnout can be redescribed as spiritual “drain” that signals not simply overuse but disordered patterns of connection: being constantly “plugged into” devices, feeds, and expectations that consume attention without replenishing it. Second, idolatry can be portrayed as misdirected connectivity, in which persons wire themselves into false sources of meaning and power—whether technological systems, social media recognition, or economic performance—rather than into the triune Source of life. Third, spiritual disciplines can be framed as practices that “clean terminals,” reduce noise, and re‑prioritize connection to God amid the competing currents of digital life.

For spiritual formation and religious education, especially among those whose days are patterned by smartphones and networks, this imagery can provide a bridge between doctrinal language and lived experience. Catechetical and pastoral practices might invite questions such as: To what am I connected most of the day? What drains my capacity to receive and respond to God? What habits corrode my terminals, increasing resistance to the flow of grace? At the same time, the metaphor can be embedded within wider theological frameworks that stress participation, relationality, and communal embodiment, preventing a purely individualistic or mechanistic understanding of spiritual life. Used in this way, technologically inflected metaphors become tools for critical spiritual reflection in a culture where technology profoundly shapes human self‑understanding and patterns of attention.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

8. Conclusion: Theological Prospects of a Technological Metaphor

This article has argued that a technological metaphor drawn from everyday experience—Adam as a “living battery”—can illuminate central themes of Christian theological anthropology when carefully constrained. Grounded in Genesis 1–2 and in contemporary accounts of the imago Dei, the metaphor portrays humans as structurally and vocationally ordered to receive, hold, and conduct divine life rather than as autonomous centers of power. Within this framework, sin appears as a break or distortion in the circuit of relationship to God, grace as divine initiative to restore connection, and union with Christ as participation in the intact circuit of the perfect image of God. Sanctification can be envisioned as the gradual removal of corrosion and resistance so that the life of God flows more freely through the believer and the community.

At the same time, the analysis has underscored several limits and risks that require the metaphor to be used modestly. The battery imagery may suggest excessive passivity, neglecting the active, dialogical character of human response to God; it may oversimplify spiritual life into binary categories of connected and disconnected; and it may unintentionally reinforce a mechanistic view of persons if detached from richer biblical images of body, community, and pilgrimage. These concerns confirm that the “living battery” must function as one heuristic among many, explicitly subordinated to scriptural and doctrinal norms and placed in critical conversation with the wider symbolic repertoire of Christian faith.

Within the broader religion‑and‑science conversation, however, the case study points toward a constructive possibility. Rather than treating technology only as a problem for spirituality or as a neutral backdrop, theological anthropology can receive technological experience as a generative source of metaphors that both disclose and query human self‑understanding. The “living battery” invites renewed attention to creaturely dependence, alienation, and restored communion in terms that resonate with digital culture without reducing humans to machines. Future work might extend this exploration by considering communal and ecological analogues—grids, networks, and ecosystems of grace—and by testing how technologically inflected metaphors function in concrete practices of preaching, catechesis, and spiritual direction. In so doing, theologians can continue the task of articulating what it means to bear the image of God in a world increasingly defined by devices, data, and power flows.

—

## References

[1] Fergusson, David. 2013. “Humans Created According to the Imago Dei: An Alternative Proposal.” *Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science* 48(2): 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12014

[2] De Smedt, Johan, and Helen De Cruz. 2014. “The Imago Dei as a Work in Progress: A Perspective from Paleoanthropology.” *Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science* 49(1): 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12066

[3] Fernández‑Borsot, G. 2023. “Spirituality and Technology: A Threefold Philosophical Reflection.” *Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science* 58(1): 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12835

Heythrop Journal. 2024. “Theology and Theories of Metaphor: How We Talk When We Talk about God.” *Heythrop Journal* 65(2): [PAGE RANGE]. https://doi.org/%5BADD DOI]

“Image of God (Imago Dei).” 2025. *St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology*. https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/ImageofGod. Accessed January 12, 2026.

“Ligonier Ministries.” 2023. “Alienation from God.” https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/alienation-god. Accessed January 12, 2026.

“Ligonier Ministries.” 2025. “Union with Christ.” https://learn.ligonier.org/guides/union-with-christ. Accessed January 12, 2026.

Pastors.ai. 2024. “Divine Initiative and Grace in Salvation Theology.” https://pastors.ai/bible/verse/divine-initiative-and-grace-in-salvation-theology/. Accessed January 12, 2026.

Ryliskytė, Solveiga. 2022. “Metaphor and Analogy in Theology: A Choice between Lions and Butterflies?” *Theologica* 7(2): [PAGE RANGE]. https://doi.org/%5BADD DOI]

Threlfall, Adrian. 2019. “The Doctrine of the Imago Dei: The Biblical Data for an Integrated Approach.” *Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society* 62(3): 543–561.

Wall, Aron. 2025. “Metaphors in Theology.” *Undivided Looking*. http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/metaphors-in-theology/. Accessed January 12, 2026.

“The Washington Institute for Faith, Vocation, and Culture.” 2021. “Technology and Spiritual Formation.” https://washingtoninst.org/technology-and-spiritual-formation/. Accessed January 12, 2026.

—

## EDITOR NOTES

**Remaining tasks before final submission:**

1. **Complete incomplete references:** Fill in page ranges and DOIs for Heythrop Journal article and Ryliskytė (marked `[PAGE RANGE]` and `[ADD DOI]`).

2. **Verify all URLs:** Ensure all web links resolve and access dates remain current. Update access date to actual submission date if later than January 12, 2026.

3. **Add any missing sources:** If you cite additional scholarship in HTS, Peterson, or Faith Formation that is not yet listed, add full bibliographic details in consistent APA 7th edition format.

4. **Standardize bibliography formatting:** Ensure consistent italicization, punctuation, spacing, and capitalization throughout references section.

5. **Anonymize before submission:** Remove or anonymize any identifying details in the manuscript itself (author name, affiliation, etc.) as required by *Zygon*.

6. **Export to PDF:** After final corrections, export the document to PDF format for submission.

7. **Proofread:** One final pass for typos, consistency in terminology, and smooth flow between sections.

—

**Word count:** Approximately 5,400 words (excluding references and editor notes).

**Status:** Ready for editorial review and reference completion.

• WordPress