Several weeks ago I attended an inspiring lecture by poetry professor Christine Perrin during which she said (something to the effect of) "...The church needs this, too. Often we're told that truth can occur without beauty and the soul without the body. It's a lie." (For the complete - and accurate - quote read The Bridge magazine! There's a plug...) So lately I've been contemplating the relationship of the physical, corporal to the divine. Growing up I learned to distinguish between the purported binary oppositions of "spirit" and "flesh," reciting "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" ad nauseam. Now, cognitively, I understand that the "flesh" refers to sinful nature, but, habitually, I still associate flesh - evil, sin - with everything corporal, physical. Assuming the things of this world are inherently tainted. I wonder if this is true.
From friends and lectures I've gleaned enough to know - and be intrigued by - Professor Perrin's emphasis on physical images. (Here's where I might diverge from her theory - I don't know enough to say) See, even in writing that sentence I'm tempted to type "emphasis on physical images to point to higher truth" . . . but what if the images are the higher truth? What if the physical world - the body, say - isn't comprised of mere symbols to stand for higher truth, but in itself is higher truth? Or, what if we need the body, not merely to enhance or house the soul, but because the soul is, in fact, nothing without the body?
Augustine writes about the value of signs, writing "things are learned by signs" and "A sign is a thing which causes us to think of something beyond the impression the thing itself makes upon the senses" (188). Even as I read I nod in agreement, concurring that, yes, Jesus' 'body and blood signify what he wished', and, yes, 'when the woman was healed by touching the hem of His garment, something was signified' (189). But what if those physical occurrences didn't just signify revelations but were, in fact, revelations themselves? That the physical act of touching Jesus' robe transformed the woman, not that the touching symbolized a higher transformation.
(I can hear my Sunday School teacher correcting me, "The woman wasn't transformed by the act of touching - Jesus wasn't magical as we think of it. She was transformed because she believed." I'm not asserting that Jesus' robe possessed magical powers. More like: the woman needed to touch, to act, to use her body, in order to believe. Something physical had to happen.)
We often quote "Faith without works is dead," where 'works' means 'action.' The popular interpretation is something like, 'It's not enough to believe. One must act on that belief." Essentially, one who professes belief must confirm it, do it, with the body. The corporal is integral to belief. The corporal maybe is belief.
We Christians often refer to corporal things - our aging bodies, frequently - as just 'signs of things to come' or 'shadows' or sub-par versions of the 'new bodies' that await us in Heaven. As if these 'shells' only house our spirits for the time being and will be discarded upon acquiring a more perfect model. But what if the connection between our bodies and our souls is, actually, a more integral connection? What if they can't be separated? What if they shouldn't be separated, cognitively, theologically, or otherwise?
A more articulate wording: "To put it simply, all the body is in the soul, and all the soul is in the body. Or, in chemical terms, if sodium is absorbed by human beings, they die. If chloride is absorbed into the human body, people die, however sodium chloride, or table salt, as two principles of being can be absorbed into the human system at will without any damage. Therefore, salt is proof positive of substantial change."
Maybe our souls can't understand without our bodies, and our bodies can't understand without our souls?
Neither one points to another, higher 'thing' to aid the other. They just exist together, a whole.
I wonder, does anyone know of any writings that pertain to this inquiry?
1 comment:
Hey, Anne-Marie. I really enjoyed your post, because I grew up thinking the same things, and I'm still working through the whole issue. I don't know of any books that specifically deal with this topic, but last semester I wrote a paper about John Milton, William Blake, and Philip Pullman, and this issue ended up being at the forefront of my discussion. Milton envisioned a paradise in which human beings, if they tried hard and behaved themselves, could someday transcend their physical bodies and become like the angels: pure spirit. But William Blake questioned this idea, and Pullman downright overturned it, and I can't help but feel that they (and you, and Professor Perrin) have a point. If God had wanted us to be spirit, then he would have created us as spirits, and not with bodies. Thanks for posting on this ... it was really interesting to read : )
Post a Comment