theatokos | The crux of my theology

Entry tags:

The crux of my theology

The Christian tradition has long struggled with keeping body and soul together and naming both good. The Church has long fought, not always successfully, against gnostic ideas that the body is false or bad, something to be spurned and separated from in the quest for the ultimate good in spirit. Many Christians even go down the path to keeping the flesh violently in check, an extreme form of discipline. But Genesis 1 repeatedly affirms two truths: that creation - physical and material, including human bodies - is good and that human beings are have the Divine breath of life within them. Whatever our faults, flaws or failures, these two truths remain constant. These two facts alone, if taken to heart, are radical, transformational and foundational underpinnings, profoundly effecting not just how we treat one another, but how we treat our environment and ourselves.

The Christian Church has long held that after death our bodies and souls will be reunited. While it is unclear (especially to me) exactly how this happens given the scientific reality that our bodies decompose and become part of the earth, therefore becoming part of the planet and future generations, this point of theology indicates a holistic view to the human person. We are not only our souls, neither are we only our bodies. Rather we are both, united in a complete complexity.

The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions also speak of a concept called deification, a process in which we grow ever closer to, and more and more like, God. This process is begun at baptism, but does not end when we die. This is part of what is possible thanks to the Divine spark, the breath of life within us. Because at our core, our nature and purpose is union with the Divine.

Jumping forward to Jesus as God incarnate, he is the ultimate example of complete union between creation and divinity. While we may never be able to reach this perfection, his example and especially the example of his mother, Mary (Theotokos, the God-bearer), who in her own flesh bore the union of creation and divinity, reveals to us the dignity and possibility of our humanity. As Sarah Boss says, it reveals to us "creation's capacity for glorification."

We do not miraculously attain perfection but we can confidently claim our dignity and divinity and move toward this union with God. We are all gods. This theology that divinity and creation, body and soul, spirit and matter, are not separated is a powerful corrective to damaging modern ideas that we completely control matter and/or that we are slaves to the tyranny and totality of our flesh, and to weak theologies that ask us to renounce this creation in favor of the "spiritual" and to hope only in the life to come.

The more I study theologies of the Virgin Mary, the more I realize what the crux of my theology rests on.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

To me a lot of this seems illogical. What seems more logical to me (Duh, as a Baha'i) is that the description of the afterlife that includes the physical body (such as the Bible's description) is not the most accurate representation of life after death. The reason why is because human beings have undoubtedly become more intellectually complex and have gained a greater capacity of understanding through out time. During the time after Jesus' death and when the Bible was written, human beings would not have been able to understand or accept a life "out-of-body".
Throughout God's manifestations, the description of life after death has become increasingly complex, and less dependent on physical identification. The next life will be a life that consists of components we can never imagine, and none of them physical components.

I guess its hard for me to even entertain the idea that something so trivial as our bodies, our physicality, will be necessary in the next life... where our mission to become one with God will eventually be fulfilled.

I think a big part of what Niki is saying is that our physicality is not at all trivial, and that the trivialization of the flesh is one of the pitfalls of Western philosophy. At least that's how I understood it, and that's my understanding of the body/soul relationship. Our bodies aren't mere containers for our Self, but our soul pervades (not a perfect word, but the best one I can come up with at the moment) our bodies, manifests in our bodies, the way God is pervasive and manifest in the universe. Soul and body are not separate, anymore than God and creation are. And yet one is eternal and one is not. Yay, paradox!

I have some weirdo beliefs about why this is, and what exactly the body is to the soul, but it's

ewigweibliche's post so I won't get technical.

I understand where you are coming from. Coming from my belief system, the body is trivial in many ways, (or at least comes across as so to me from what i've read).
I also understand what you mean by our soul pervading our bodies. But I recall from Baha'i Writings things that say essentially that there is both a soul and a spirit. We believe only humans have souls, and humans also have a spirit. However, animals only have spirits. Essentially, the spirit is the personality of the being.
And in the next life, we will have no physical bodies, however we will be able to identify each other by our spirits (personality) in a non-physical form.
So to me, the body is essential in the creation of the soul and the development of the soul through experiences, but the soul and spirit then become completely independent and no longer connected to physicality.
I guess the body is just the vehicle?

Sorry if this is really confusing/disjointed! I should probably just go to sleep!

Nope, I see what you mean. Just a very different way of looking at the body and the soul from mine--two different belief systems, two different precepts: one that the body is just a vehicle, the other that it is more essential to the self. Yours is probably more common, actually.

More common world wide I would say, but probably not more common in the States.

I think religions like Hinduism could probably teach me a lot about this, seeing as they have a strong connection to the physical body (which I admit to being fascinated with).

In addition. I do see life on earth as being a place to connect your soul and body.
For example, I am very committed to yoga, and part of practicing asana is to unite the soul with the body in order to rid the self of duhkka (essentially, bad energy).

I do believe in the soul/body connection! Just not after our bodies are buried in the ground :)

i apologize for interjecting like this, but the hinduism thing made me stop and want to comment. in one sense i agree that hinduism seems to have a stronger connection to the body than the Baha'i beliefs you desribe, but i would also say that given the belief in reincarnation, it is not a connection to a specific body. in a basic sense they don't believe the body is inherently sinful, or that the desires of the flesh are evil and in and of themselves. instead they feel that the bodies and its senses are necessary for the spiritual journey, first experiencing things and then learning to see the temporal quality of material desires through many incarnations and experiences.

in this sense there would be no uniting of soul and body after death, because the soul would have moved on to a different body and after spiritual union with god the soul would be one with god and therefore one with all other souls and all bodies.

Right. I know all about their philosophy of reincarnation. I was not suggesting that they reunite with their original body. I was suggesting that since all worlds according to them, or all of their lives according to them, would involve a physical body... Where as my definition of living beyond this life would not include a physical body.

Additionally, physicality is embraced as actively engaging the soul/spirit in an uplifting way. (Example, their general beliefs about sex).

I was suggesting that since all worlds according to them, or all of their lives according to them, would involve a physical body... Where as my definition of living beyond this life would not include a physical body.

right except that the ultimate goal is spiritual union with god, which could be considered a life of sorts after this, and there is no physical body in that ultimate goal. bodies are for experiencing what you need to experience to achieve union, once union is achieved there is no physical body.

Additionally, physicality is embraced as actively engaging the soul/spirit in an uplifting way. (Example, their general beliefs about sex).

that is true. or at least it is true as far as the scripture, basics of the belief is concerned. as with most religions the reality of living within that belief system is a little different.*g*

Whether the body is only a temporary vehicle or one that is permanent (through eternity), keeping a holistic approach is important. I think many of the same challenges face both views if we look into the question of what happens after we're dead. I think that in some respects we are already resurrected - in the sense that my mother formed my flesh by eating food formed in the earth fertilized by the dead buried there before. So in some sense my flesh is already a reincarnation of many creatures that went before.

This idea makes is hard for me to think clearly about the classical Christian idea that our bodies are raised - so I'll look like me, only more so. What I really think this idea is pointing to is the totality of all flesh and spirit and that when we die we are still whole and part of the great cosmic fabric.

Or something.

I think that in some respects we are already resurrected - in the sense that my mother formed my flesh by eating food formed in the earth fertilized by the dead buried there before. So in some sense my flesh is already a reincarnation of many creatures that went before.

yes, that makes sense. it's just the use of resurrection and reincarnation as metaphors rather than kind of literal concepts. thinking of a religious concept as either metaphorical or literal definitely seems to effect a lot of theological discussions.

This idea makes is hard for me to think clearly about the classical Christian idea that our bodies are raised - so I'll look like me, only more so. What I really think this idea is pointing to is the totality of all flesh and spirit and that when we die we are still whole and part of the great cosmic fabric.

well then i guess the question i have is do you think the bible/christian scriptures were written with this metaphorical meaning in mind, or do you think it is something else?

I have to completely decline answering your question, as it is so out of my field of study or knowledge. It's a great question and one for which I'm not sure there is conclusive answer.

My understanding is that there are a lot of different styles in which the scriptures were written: allegory, history (mostly biased and inaccurate), poetry, etc. Each had its own intended audience and purpose. Most believers assume that scripture is the inspired word of God, as opposed to those who view it as the Absolute Accurate word of god.

Obviously, looking at the New Testament letters of Paul, much of what he is saying is specific, very little is metaphor. He was writing to specific communities answering questions (which we don't know). So that's much more literal than say, Revelation which is entirely metaphor/visionary.

I err on spirit of the law rather than the letter of it. I also just barely know what I'm talking about when it comes to biblical studies.

But why do you see the physical as trivial?

Since I see God as both immanent and transcendent, I like the model that suggest that, in a way, we are too -- that we are not *just* body or *just* mind, but both, complexly interrelated and united into one being.

I guess the western (at least) tendency to value the mind/spirit over the earth/body bothers me in part because of how extremely negative the consequences of that valuing have been, both for the people who are more strongly associated with the body (e.g women, third world people, people of color) and for people who are more strongly culturally associated with mind/spirit (e.g. men, first world people, white people). That split is profoundly destructive; surely if it were natural, it would not cause so much damage?

I never thought of it in terms of separating people. Nor have I ever thought of women/third world people/people of color as people strongly associated with the body versus the soul. Maybe that is because I don't generally associate the mind with the soul. Intelligence does not have a bearing on the soul I guess?
In that case, I have a hard time seeing it as destructive.

I do not believe that our souls have a physical vehicle after we die. And after we die we continue to travel "through the worlds of God" as I understand. Our souls continue to progress without our bodies, and eventually can become a part of God. I find the concept that eventually all souls can become a part of God as a beautiful explanation of the oneness of the universe. In that case, this important journey having been done bodiless makes me, personally, see the body as I guess *somewhat* trivial.

I agree with you that the separation can be destructive. It was for me, at least--I very much thought of the soul as "good" and the body as "weak" or "imperfect." I was into the mortification of the flesh as a young Christian. For me, as a woman, it was a crucial and healing discovery that my body was part of me, not just something that got in my way or that was less sacred.

Its weird because I never found the disconnection of the soul and body at death to make me feel the body is "weak" or "imperfect". Just trivial in the next world, where it is no longer needed as a vehicle.

That is really interesting how you found healing in the sacredness of the body.
As I said above, I feel I can achieve just that in my asana practice.

But your asana practice is physical. Yoga is about about the holistic understanding of the body and soul. Have I misunderstood you?

Also:
Something I find even more destructive is the fact that judgment is eternal, and there is essentially no progress in the afterlife. I feel like that is very belittling to people in less fortunate circumstances than myself. You only have one chance to get into heaven? What if you are too busy just trying to survive this life?
Christians associate heaven with physical pleasures and hell with physical punishment. This is another reason I have a hard time with physicality in relation to the soul. I don't believe for a moment that the mover of the universe, the one creator, could or would subject his creations to eternal punishment or being eternally bound to the flesh. I see death as a release from the prison of the flesh so to speak?

Again, if I am incoherent, please ignore. I have pregnant brain and I am oh so tired.

One more disclaimer: I am a continuously questioning Baha'i. I have issues with religion in general. But the Baha'i concept of life after death seems the most logical to me at the moment. :)

Don't feel like you have to anything other than Baha'i. Of those posting, I'm fairly certain I'm the only Christian, and I'm a pretty pagan one.

There is a lot of unfortunate double-speak about bodies and heaven/hell in Christianity. I'm still not sure what orthodox Christianity has to say about hell. Many priest and pastors have talked to me about hell being where God is not (and is that even possible, which may mean that hell has more to do with us than with God). Short of fundamentalism I've rarely heard fire and brimstone preached.

I think it's also important to look at those ideas (heaven=pleasure, hell=physical pain) in their historic contexts. For most of human existence life has been hard, dirty work. For most in the world it still is. So the hope of rest and peace was something that got people through the day. A lot of the hell language in the scripture comes from a very apocalyptic time in general. The Jewish community of the last few centuries BCE and the early CE were times of great social, political and religious upheaval. Many wanted revolution, if not in the present than in the life to come, and they wanted justice, which for many means punishment.

Seeing these contexts helps me to see where the ideas came from, who and how they might or may have served, and what's the core that ought to be retained (if at all).

"God as both immanent and transcendent"

There's a word for this: panentheism. I am whole heartedly a panentheist. I think Jesus is a great example of this (from a Christian perspective of course) - God is immanent in our physical world and in us, but still also the great fabric of being.

I think the Western philosophical split of mind and matter has been out of a desire to control our chaotic world. A natural tendency, with some good contributions, but ultimately it creates a false duality.

My main point was not to get into eschatology (end times/after life) but to raise the point of wholeness. I am seriously agnostic about what happens after death. I deeply believe that it shouldn't impact how we live now. BUT, some of the thinking is important, because if we view matter as insignificant it is easy to dismiss our lived, embodied experiences and other living beings, for example animals, which most religions believe to have spirits but not souls. And yet, all are part of the God's good creation.

What I really like this wholeness in the ideas I wrote about. Honestly, I can't wrap my brain around what it would be like to have our bodies resurrected, or to live in a more glorified form, etc. But, for me, that is a bridge to cross when I come to it! For now, I take refuge in the underlying idea that we are whole human beings.

Yes; like you, one of the things I *do* like about (actual) orthodoxy is that the world and the body are described as "very good;" that embodiment (incarnation) is central.

In reference to the body/soul connection:

I like to use the analogy of the baby in the womb. Right now you are carrying a little baby in your womb. The baby is developing eyes, ears, arms, legs, etc. These are all components that the baby NEEDS to survive when it is born. It has also developed inside of amniotic fluid, with a placenta to nourish it, and a cord to deliver those nutrients. When the baby is in the womb, its life is based on the womb, the placenta, and the umbilical cord. These are what the baby's existence relies on.
But when the baby is born, those things are no longer needed. In fact, the baby needs its eyes, ears, mouth, legs, etc. now that it has come into this world. These are all things the baby did not need to have to survive in the womb.
So now the baby is surviving using its physical self. But it is also developing in other ways it does not yet need. It develops a sense of love, a personality, emotions, and other things that it does not yet need to survive in its basic means. What we don't often realize is that love, friendship, personalities... these are our eyes and ears for when we are born into the next world. Since we will not have our bodies, the development of our soul in this world is extremely important for our survival in the next.

sorry for ranting and hijacking your post :/

No apologies! You are not hijacking at all!

I don't think this analogy works very well. In fact, I think your analogy helps prove my point of the process of deification. Even in the womb the baby is a whole creature, body and soul. Certain parts are growing and developing, preparing it for things to come. But once it is born it continues to be a whole person, body and soul, the body is stronger and helps it through this life and the soul continues to develop. Who's to say that when we die and pass into what is to come that don't continue to be a whole person, body and soul, only our soul is the strongest part helping us through?

Just as a fetus has no idea what is coming, neither can we prepare completely for what is to come. This is why I don't like to speculate too much on the afterlife. Basically, the best preparation a fetus can do is get strong and be a fetus. In this life, the best preparation we can do is live in the here and now (I could go into how Jesus talks about the kingdom being at hand and being now). If we live fully embodied in the now, with integrity and a full spirit, then that's the best way to prepare ourselves for what is to come. We begin to touch God in this life, but I can barely imagine union with God, so my plan is to let that mystery unfold when and if it does.

Holy discussions! Wow. This is so great. You all rule.

i´ve begun to think about religion again. it´s been awhile, like, 6 or 7 years since i really took a good hard look at what i believe. which i´m not exactly doing right now, but i´m starting to dip my toes into the water again. i´m reading the new testament. back 6 or 7 years ago i read the old testament and decided there was no way that this book could have anything to do with how i believed the world worked. i´m only about halfway through mark, but i´m already feeling the same way about the new testament.

i seem to remember that a lot of the frustration and annoyance that i felt back when i read the old testament had to do with my body. i love my body, i love how it lets me live and experience the world, and for the most part i trust it. i trust in what i can experience with my body more than i trust in any idea of a spirit or consciousness outside of my body. i don´t know how it works or how anybody elses works or how we ended up here with plastic, and puppies, and art, and dinosaur bones, and computers, and all sorts of things. i can´t explain that. what i do know is that i´m here, and not for very long. and what i believe is that once i´m gone, that´s it for me. it´s a scary thought, because for me it´s a big vast empty black void of nothingness afterwards. and i don´t know what that means. for me or for anyone else.

i got that far about 6 years ago and decided that denying the faith that i was brought up with and the beliefs of my family was enough at that point. so now i´m starting to think about moving on, but i don´t know how to get past that big scary vacuum. i´m not sure i ever will.

but i know that i can´t be separated from my body. and maybe that´s where the vacuum comes in, because if i feel that i can´t be separated from my body, then there must be nothing for me after my body is done.

so what´s the point? i´m not sure. so basically i live the life i want, try to be as happy as possible, and try not to decrease the happiness of those around me. but is that enough?

whew. i should stop here, since this is a comment on your post and not my own personal blab journal.

i guess what i´m trying to say is: i find a lot of what your write about your beliefs and mary very interesting, familiar, and thought provoking. thanks for posting.

You are welcome and you're not blabbing! I like it.

What I find fascinating is how so much of Christianity actually isn't based on scripture - at least, not overtly. Take Mary for instance, she has only a smattering of verses attached to her. Yes whole theologies can be unwound from the simple fact that if she is the Mother of God then certain important points follow. (How I love systematics!) Much what has developed over time with in any tradition is how lived experience has influenced the beliefs. Nobody but out right Fundamentalists live exactly by the book. In fact, I don't think any one can live exactly by the book.

When I read the bible for the first time I remember being moved and wowed by Jesus, but completely left cold by Paul. Of course, that was me at 12 and my opinions have changed somewhat (become more nuanced, I'm still no fan of Paul). Do you mind telling me what translation you're reading?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The crux of my theology

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

down at the bottom

Re: down at the bottom