Sunday, March 18, 2007
Got Soul?
This week, at the suggestion of fellow blogger and peace enthusiast Michael L. Westmoreland-White, I just finished reading "Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies" by Nancey Murphy. Murphey is professor of Christian Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. Overall I enjoyed the book. It gives a comprehensive but yet readable summary of the history of human philosophy as it relates to our struggle to understand our "souls" and how that understanding has molded our interpretation of the Gospel.
Murphy makes a very compelling argument for a more modern physicalist approach as opposed to a more traditional dualist philosophy. I echo her understanding and felt comfortable with her reasoning of this approach.
Now, at great risk of oversimplification, I am suggesting that the adoption of a dualist anthropology in the early centuries of the church was largely responsible for changing Christians' conception of what Christianity is basically all about. I am suggesting that original Christianity is better understood in socio-political terms than in terms of what is currently thought of as religious or metaphysical. The adoption of a dualistic anthropology provided something differnt - different from socio-political and ethical concerns - with which Christians became primarily concerned.Murphy convincingly shows that there is no such thing as "the" anthropology of the Bible or of the Christian tradition and argues the fact that though the Bible seems to teach dualism it is largely a result of poor translations. Once the translations are repaired, "it is hard to find any clear teaching on the metaphysical make-up of the person" in the Bible at all. The Bible has been intepreted in Christian tradition through the lens of dualism, but the Bible is not intended as a defense of dualism but rather an expression how each of the authors and thier communities were searching for God through their own particular paradigm. We should read the Bible in a way that allows us to understand the message without having to adopt their particular ancient world-views.
The only part of the book that I found issue with is that in her conclusion she seemed to take a huge leap about after-life without any explanation for how she arrived there. My guess is that it is something she brings as a "given" based on her religious background or maybe it is just what you have to do to keep a job at a seminary. She allows herself to argue for a modern physicalist view of body/mind but she doesn't allow for the possibility that there is no literal after-life even though her own words hint that the concept may distract our theological and social development. It is interesting to me that she would take so much time and research to deconstruct ancient understanding of our souls but not also look to deconstruct the ideas of after-life that would seem to go hand in hand. It would seem that a critical look at our traditional view of our concept of humanity would also bring a critial look at our traditional view of God.
I think every Christian is always afraid that if they go one more step or ask one more difficult theological question the whole paradigm might crash to the ground and we will be left with no reason for faith. Are we afraid that if we question our understanding of Metaphysical things that God might disappear? I guess at some level is does feel like maybe God is being pushed out of our paradigm, but I tend to view it as a welcome revelation of a much larger picture of God. In my journey (you might call it deconstruction or a critical search) I don't feel that God is being pushed out but that God is being ushered in to replace the narrow idols and misgivings which I have always used to represent the wonder of the universe. I personally don't fear asking that next question. Actually I find it good to let those ideas crash, not for the purpose of destroying faith, but for the purpose of rebuilding a more robust faith on a more solid footing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'm a huge fan of Murphy, and got to know her through her "Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism". As a student of philosophy who's come to physicalism apart from what my faith tradition has taught me, I sense a kindred spirit with her.
Could you clarify what you mean when you talk about her view of the 'afterlife' though? From what I've read of her, she emphasizes resurrection, which is very unlike the traditional Evangelical doctrine of 'heaven'. Now you may take issue with that because you've come to disbelieve in Jesus' resurrection, but for those of us who still believe in it, it seems quite fitting.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Mike,
Nice overview of Nancey's book. I'll have to get ahold of it. She came to Fuller after I'd finished my M.Div. -- to succeed Jack Rogers. I know that her view of the soul is a controversial one at the seminary.
As for the after-life, I admit I too cling to some sense of it. The doctrine of resurrection, even if at times undefined for me, remains potent. I would like to see where Nancey goes with all of this.
Daniel,
The thing that seemed odd to me is that I wasn't expecting her to mention resurrection after reading the first 3/4 of the book. I just thought physicalism would go hand in hand with a questioning of afterlife. It seems I was wrong to assume that since you've also made a similar conclusion.
This book wasn't concerned with afterlife so she probably didn't see the need to support her view. It is also very possible that I somehow missed something or that I took the word "resurrection" out of context since she didn't take the care to unpack that idea in this book.
Murphy, who is actually Professor of Christian Philosophy, not theology, understands that dualism can mess around with "spiritual" resurrections or disembodied afterlife views. But if one is a physicalist (or holds to body-soul holism), then either one argues for a BODILY resurrection and the renewal of the heavens and earth, or one has no hope and Christianity no point at all.
Murphy's late husband, Jim McClendon, used to complain that Western Christians refused to believe that God would actually take MATTER seriously.
Thanks Michael. It sounds like my interpretation of her view was correct. As I've stated before I tend to view the resurrection and the renewal of the heavens and earth through a metaphorical lens.
I still find this book very helpful despite that difference of opinion on one issue which was NOT the main focus of the book.
There is metaphor in much of Scripture. But it is fairly clear that the resurrection was not thought of by the NT writers in a metaphorical matter--as it is in Ezekiel's prophecy of dry bones taking on new flesh, for example.
On resurrection, I go with Pannenberg--it is the prolepsis of the future and not simply a metaphor. If the resurrection didn't happen in time and space, Christianity has no progressive, revolutionary message at all. When Process Theologian David Ray Griffin (who thinks the resurrection of Jesus is an optional Christian belief) tried to sell his version of process theology to Latin American liberation theologians, I cheered when Gustavo Gutierrez replied, "We need a God who can actually raise Jesus from the dead!"
You are right that rez isn't the focus of this book--but Murphy makes clear elsewhere how essential it is to her physicalist views.
Michael,
you said: If the resurrection didn't happen in time and space, Christianity has no progressive, revolutionary message at all.
Are you suggesting that Christianity has no purpose outside of what happens in the next life? If it is, then I'm saddened. What about peace? Even if all we had from Jesus was a message of peace (I'm NOT suggesting that is all) then wouldn't that be enough to be radical? Isn't loving your neighbor and solving conflict non-violently a radical idea?
Can't you see how this idea of resurrection has harmed efforts of peace and non-violence within the Baptist denomination? I know when I was a part of it, I regularly heard the excuse that "it is not our job to make this life peaceful, God will fix those problems after we die".
I'm ok with letting people believe what they want about the empty tomb BUT I have seen that it causes problems motivating people toward action if they hold this idea that things will be fixed after they die. I'm torn with how hard I should push to reject this harmful doctrine.
What have been your experiences? Have you encountered this same rejection of peace and non-violence from Evangelicals?
The resurrection isn't about "the next life," but about the ability of God to radically work in history for good. It is the dualist "metaphorical" view of the resurrection that means that hope is possible only for a disembodied life in some other world.
Michael, you've peeked my curiosity. Can you explain how a metaphorical view of resurrection would realte to dualism?
I see myself very much as a metaphorical or non-literalist in that I value resurrection as a symbol that means our lives retain value (either good or bad)after they are over based on things done while you are alive and things that continue to happen as a result. I see resurrection as a declaration that the bad things that happen to us (oppression, domination, injustice) can be "reversed". I definately reject dualism, I reject a physical resurrection AND I reject a spriritual resurrection. That is the point of seeing these things as metaphorical. They are about deep social meanings but not literal physical OR literal spiritual meanings.
This is very different than a dualist that views mind as a separate thing from the brain (or in other words the soul is separate from the body). A dualist would disagree with a physical resurrection (he would say the body decays) but he would still see a very literal resurrection (or continuing) of a literal spiritual entity (the mind/soul).
Maybe you could explain because this is exactly the trouble I had with the last bit of Murphy's book and her combination of physicalism and literal resurrection.
I don't get it.
Post a Comment