theatokos | 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

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.

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