Follow-up Question on the Nature of Spiritual Life: On Being Embodied Spirit

[[Sister Laurel, I always thought that spirituality had to do with our spirits and flesh had to do with the material "stuff" of our bodies, but you have turned all of that on its head with the way you talk about Paul's language!!  If you are right, then where does the practice of dividing people into spirit and flesh come from? And then to hear Paul doing the same thing, I mean, where does the idea of spirit as the non-material in us and flesh as the material in us come from? Were you taught the same division into flesh and spirit as this, or were you taught the Pauline sense of these terms? What about our immortal souls, aren't they the spiritual part of us?]]

I think the way you have summarized things is the way most people think of spirit and flesh. It is also a seriously distorted way that we have to get over when reading St Paul. If we read his Letters aright, not only with regard to these two terms, but also in regard to his understanding of the change in reality Jesus' death and resurrection bring about, and the way he understands God's project for the future of both heaven and earth together, we will be much farther along. The Scripture scholar and historian doing the most focused work on all of this today is NT Wright, and those interested in this should read his 1) Surprised by Hope, and 2) his new sequel, God's Homecoming, the Forgotten Promise of Future Renewal. I am reading the second volume now, and am really grateful Wright has done this sequel. Similar work has been done by Gerhard Lohfink in, Is This All There Is? On Resurrection and Eternal Life.

The tendency to divide reality into the spiritual as the "more real", and the material as the "less real" (or unreal) and dispensable part of us is Platonic, that is, it comes from Plato's notion of forms or "ideas" as the most real, and it gives us a dualistic notion of the human being. Sometimes people will add the notion that the material of our world is evil and needs to be separated from the spirit or the spiritual. This even more radically dualistic approach is Gnostic. Further, some people think that some have a special kind of knowledge (γνωσις, gnosis) that makes them more spiritual than other folks, or that is the key to salvation. That too is Gnostic and has been with us since the days of the early Church. Finally, the notion that human beings have an immortal soul that will and should one day be separated from the body and exist disembodied in heaven is neither Christian nor Biblical. The eschatology (theology of last things) present in Scripture is vastly different than this.

I was raised mainly in a Christian Science church until Junior High, so I heard this stuff in its purest, contemporary form quite regularly. Christian Science is Platonic through and through, and also profoundly Gnostic (Mary Baker Eddy's "principles" qualify as a form of gnosis, γνωσις, or "knowledge") --- though I doubt any Christian Scientists would admit this. Every Sunday, we recited Mary Baker Eddy's "Scientific Statement of Being" (SSB) and discussed it and our lives in light of it. We also read Scripture in light of it, which, I didn't realize at the time, ensured we misinterpreted Scripture during each class. When I return occasionally to Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures today, what is most striking about the way Christian Science reads Scripture is its complete failure to take historical existence seriously. Historical persons are analogized as abstract "principles". The SSB that drives this approach goes like this (and yes, I still know it by heart all these years later), [[There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite mind in its infinite manifestations, for God is All-in-all. Spirit is immortal truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal. Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness. Therefore, man is not material; he is spiritual.]] Emphasis added.

While I had a basic, nagging conviction that "this just can't be right" and looked elsewhere from Junior High School on, I did not have the theological sophistication or categories necessary to understand how un-Christian this "theology" (and Platonism itself) is, nor to truly counter its errors until sometime after graduate school. Yes, I was given the most important pieces necessary for doing so in both my undergraduate and graduate studies, but it all really came together as I spent more time reading Scripture and exegetes who reminded readers of the Pauline meaning of terms like flesh and spirit (ψυχή, psyche) and who also began to take on the theology of a new heaven and new earth. Part of this "coming together" also came through presentations of the Lord's Prayer and the petition that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven (God's domain), and further work of my own on prayer and the will of God, always involving God's commitment to be Emmanuel, God With Us. The background to all of this included chronic illness and disability, with their challenge to take my entire self, both physical and spiritual, seriously in spite of limitations and obstacles --- something Platonism (or Christian Science) could never have done.

There were some really pivotal theological lessons throughout my schooling that made Christian Science and its "Scientific Statement of Being" impossible to accept. The first was a lesson on the distinction between Christianity and other religions, where I was taught that Christianity is the only faith that has God coming to us rather than us trying to get back to God!! The corollary to that was a lesson on the historical nature of Christianity and the Christ Event; this lesson reminded me that the Incarnation and any truly sufficient theology of the sacraments support a deeply positive evaluation of materiality, but also underscored that God comes to us in history and transfigures all He touches. 

Another lesson occurred in a graduate class on grace with Kenan Osborn OFM. Kenan was trying to get across the idea that human beings are not dualistic. We are not platonic soul/body dualisms, but instead embodied spirit (or inspirited bodies); that is, we are unities of body and soul or spirit, he affirmed.  During this class, Kenan (a really diminutive man), picked up a chair and clutched it tightly to his side; then he walked up and down several rows of students, repeating, "I don't just HAVE a body, I AM my body!!" (Not that this is ALL we are, but it is an integral part of who we are and, especially, how we possess ourselves! In other words, embodiedness is integral to being truly human.) At the time, I didn't really understand the whole lesson he was teaching, but I never forgot the example nor ceased being challenged by it and its urgency for Kenan. Eventually, I came to understand it as I continued to read and do theology.

During ThD work, but especially thereafter, I read more Scriptural exegesis, pointing out God's will to create a new heaven and new earth, and in Christ, as well as in those who are baptised into Christ, God would be Emmanuel in our world. I went back to consider sacramental theology (especially in the Eastern Christian Churches) and came to recognize the way God's presence sanctifies even the most fundamental material reality (think sacraments here). It was combined with Christianity's most foundational belief in bodily resurrection (Jesus), with Catholicism's affirmation of bodily assumption (Mary) --- these both imply new forms of embodiedness --- with the affirmation that the intimate, dynamic love that flows between the Father and the Son is present to us in the Holy Spirit and, of course, with the theology of the New Testament that affirms that in Christ, God is in the midst of creating a new heaven and new earth, and science's discovery of our evolutionary universe.

What does all of this mean? Very briefly, it leads to a theology that allows us to take our whole selves and our world entirely seriously because, as it says in the book of Genesis, we are to be stewards of God's good creation. (Think how differently everything would be if we simply lived up to that vocation!) At the same time, this is a reality suffused with the presence and Spirit of God. "Heaven and earth are full of the glory of God!") Spirituality does not allow the denial or denigration of the material or the historical (the spatio-temporal), but rather, requires the affirmation of its potential in God. After all, taking the fundamental goodness of creation and the essential embodiedness of the human being completely seriously is what the Incarnation and affirmation of bodily resurrection demand of us. 

This is also what a theology of Sacraments and the sacramental demands of us, including our sense that the Church, flawed as it is in some ways, is "primordial sacrament". The world (God's good creation) is an evolving reality, and the Sacraments point to creation's potential to be transfigured and transformed by the Holy Spirit. Similarly, our belief in Jesus' "Coming Again" makes sense within this theology. Further, escapist mentalities that allow us to disengage with our Church and world as we focus on "getting to heaven" are entirely disallowed. (Also disallowed, then, are ways of seeing the world that allow us to begin wars to try and bring about Armageddon, a rather timely piece of wisdom regarding a particularly bad way of reading Scripture!!) 

Whatever you take from this post, I hope you will remember the fact that we are embodied spirit, and we neither can nor will remain disembodied. This is one lesson of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. (Following Thomas Aquinas, Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) once wrote that the soul is the form of the body (not the other way around!), and, reflecting on the future fulfillment of all creation, when God will be All in All, opined that even though disembodied at death, our soul or spirit yearns to build a body about itself once again! (Dogmatic Theology, Eschatology, vol 9) This is exactly contrary to the way so many have been taught to think of the relationship of soul to body and anticipates some New Testament eschatology. I also hope you will take with oyu Fr Kenan Osborne's lesson with the chair clutched to his body and his assertion that, "I do not just HAVE a body, I AM my body".

P.S. I realize I haven't really answered your last question, so I will do that in a separate post as possible. (If I can't do that, I will add a paragraph here later and let you know either way by email. Peace!)

Do Hermits Have Hobbies?

 

 [[Dear Sister,
     Do you have hobbies? Do hermits have hobbies? Are they allowed to do this or is your life all about work and prayer? Thanks.]]

What a good question! I don't think anyone has ever asked this before and I know they have never asked it in this way --- with the reference to the work and prayer that structures Benedictine life. I don't know if any hermits refer to some of the things they do as "hobbies" (they certainly might and could) but I would say that every hermit I know engages in activities they consider literally recreational. Some may call such activities "hobbies" but I prefer to identify them in terms of their capacity to help "recreate" me by opening me to the Spirit. What I mean is that the activities I undertake here have some power to assist my prayer, to keep me open and responsive to the Spirit of God. I enjoy them, have fun with them, relax with these activities, explore new and different parts of myself, have the freedom to fail, to try again, and to grow with these activities.

So, what things do I do that fall into these categories? The first (but not the most important) activity is violin; I play violin both in the Oakland Civic Orchestra and with chamber groups composed of friends from the orchestra. I also sometimes play Celtic fiddle --- though less frequently than I once did. Violin used to be my primary recreational activity. These days it is secondary or even tertiary. I don't play every set with OCO or even every year these days --- though I have written violin into my Rule to be sure the time and things music empowers are protected. Secondly, I spend significant time each week writing. That may be blogging, writing poetry, journaling, or working on more substantial projects (articles, etc on prayer, eremitical life, or theology more generally). Sometimes it involves music composition. Some of this falls under the rubrics of work and even penance but the line between recreational writing and these others blurs considerably. That is especially true when writing becomes a form of ministry or part of the writing I consider "work." A third form of recreation is reading. This can sometimes mean fiction (Science fiction, fantasy, poetry, mysteries) but it also means theology; unfortunately, I don't always have time for the really "hard-core" theology I would like to be doing --- the kind that excites, energizes, challenges and renews me.

A fourth form of recreation I am coming to use more and more (because I am learning as I go) is drawing. Ordinarily what I draw illustrates liturgical seasons, Scriptural themes, important dimensions of spiritual direction, etc, but even then I am able to play a lot -- with different mediums, colors, and so forth --- and at the same time spend time reflecting and praying in ways I would be less able to do otherwise. Drawing has helped me a lot in journaling and in some of the inner work I am doing with my director. There are times when what we deal with is difficult to articulate; at such times drawing a picture may assist me more than pages and pages of writing. It may also invite my director or delegate into the reality I am seeking to share more profoundly than words are able. Moreover, drawing taps into parts of myself writing alone does not do (the same is true of music!) so it is important to pay attention to those parts of myself and find ways to allow them to speak. All of this is part of being a contemplative and hermit. Finally, recreation includes physical exercise --- mainly walking and some exercise on gym equipment (total gym, time works, treadmill).

You asked if all I do is work and pray. The answer to that is sometimes not so straightforward. Clearly there is room for recreation; in fact, recreation is necessary --- not only for my own physical and intellectual well-being but also spiritually so that I can actually live a life of ora et labora (prayer and work). At bottom everything is meant to serve prayer and thus empower the dignity and integrity of my Self in God. Lines blur because my life is not compartmentalized in the way some people's lives are. Spirituality is not a separate activity I undertake. Neither, in some ways, is prayer. Moreover they each have different dimensions and forms. Work is part of my spirituality; recreation is part of my spirituality; rest and prayer are dimensions of my spirituality. Work (especially reading and writing serious Theology) is profoundly recreational. Work, recreation, and rest all contribute to and segue into prayer. Prayer is both my work and a profound form of rest and recreation (though not in the common sense of that word). Recreation (more usually music, drawing, reading and writing) involves both work (intellectual, spiritual) and prayer. And so it goes!! As you can see, things don't "divvy up" or fall very easily into neat categories! They tend instead to flow into or contribute to one another.

By the way, what I am "allowed" to do is what serves prayer and my capacity for wholeness and love as a solitary hermit. I discern what I need to be doing and include those things in my Rule. The Rule is approved by my bishop. It is first read by my director and delegate --- and sometimes by other religious or monastics who can assist in this way; discernment of what is included is undertaken with the assistance of these folks. I cannot simply do whatever I like, but at the same time my own discernment (provided I have really undertaken this!) is something which tends to be trusted by all involved. The larger questions are not so much what I choose to do but rather, (1) how does this genuinely contribute to my life as a contemplative and solitary canonical hermit along with (2) how is this joined in a balanced or healthy way to the rest of my life?

I hope this answer has been helpful to you! Thanks again for your own question.