Here is an interesting idea from my friend Dan, that I want to think about, which brings up the idea, if I’m understanding him right, of where “you” are in all of this.
“I think it means that if you think for yourself you go to hell, and if you follow what other people tell you is "The Spirit" you go to heaven. I don't buy in to the mind body split. There is no difference between your body and your mind.
If I am kind I could say that this passage is admonishing against pursuing simple desires. But if we apply ... See Morereason to desire we see that the pursuit of temporary pleasures yields less than the pursuit of actual happiness.
You are a verb, not a noun. You are defined by interactions, not states of being. Engender your interactions to be of happiness and you will be happy. Focus on yourself as anything other than a dynamic and ever changing process and you will, as this passage is using the term, "die."”
The first thing to talk about is the mind-body split. Is there one implied here? There is definitely a divide between the “flesh” and the “Spirit”. But I don’t think that we understand this in terms of mind and body, in that I think it’s very possible for the mind to be “living according to the flesh” and conversely, as it says later on in verse 11, for our mortal bodies to be given the life of the Spirit.
So, say that “you” are made up of a mind and a body. I think the dominant philosophy of the time (Plato’s school, I think, but I could be wrong on this) said that your spirit was good and your body bad, that your simple desires were fruits of your corrupted body, and the less you were defined by that (the more you acted according to intellect and the less you acted just selfishly based on what your body wanted) the higher of a being you were. I think that this passage is maybe borrowing some of this school’s vocabulary, but isn’t really talking about that at all.
The key is in, as says, “you are defined by interactions, not states of being.” This sheds good light on the idea of “walking according to the flesh/ Spirit”. Like I talked about in the last section, walking is a set of discrete thoughts and actions, but its greater principle/ purpose has to do with its direction and motivation. Walking is your interaction with the path you are on… it is an active thing, with a direction to it. You interact with your surroundings, all of them, but with a particular direction and intent. Yes, this passage calls us to be verbs.
But I think the fundamental point on which Dan and I disagree is the direction.
For my idea of direction, I have to go back to my plant metaphor. So we’re branches, cut off from the source of life and, by the nature of things, dying. We’re grafted onto the plant (justification) and then begin the long process of changing every part of our physiology, mind and body, which is in opposition to the life trying to infuse us (glorification). The direction, as I understand, is to be fully part of life as it was created to be… some of the characteristics of that life are that it is loving, meaningful, active, not isolated, cooperative and fruitful… but those are side effects, they aren’t what you aim for… you aim to love God more and know him more, to have the sap of his nature flowing more fully through you, transforming your mind and your body. This is why I can’t agree with the idea that “if you think for yourself you go to hell, and if you follow what other people tell you is "The Spirit" you go to heaven” , because it’s the most deeply personal process you can think of. If all you know about the Spirit is what other people tell you, you are very far away from heaven.
More later. Thanks Dan for the interesting comment!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Patricia,
Let me put aside my Atheist hat for a second and try and put my thoughts into Theistic terms. To "Know the Spirit" in modern times people refer to the Bible directly, or through some intermediary i.e. "The Church." Both of these vehicles are flawed as they are written, organized, and run by people. To truly Know the Spirit we must find a direct line. A way of analyzing our existence without introducing the faults of others into the dialogue.
This is where I disagree with the distinction between the Flesh and The Spirit. We can know ourselves and the world through the pursuit of Happiness and Joy directly. This is not simply chasing down the impermanent things "of the flesh," or what I called "states of being." Think of these as "being drunk," or "being in love." These are nouns.
Happiness is in the cultivation of our "verb self." The idea here is not to focus on the temporary things, but on the temporary events and interactions. We are happiest when we surround ourselves with loved ones, not when we are in love. Think of being in love without your lover and this becomes clear. This is why unrequited love is so painful.
God would not have created us without an instruction manual. This manual is called "Reason." It allows us to observe, analyze, form abstract thoughts, and test them out in the real world. We can realize what it takes to be happy if we apply this tool with patience and clarity. The only time God would need to intervene is when this tool is ignored.
Think about the prophets and Jesus. God did not create Man and then immediately send Angels and Prophets to guide him. It takes time before we see these influences. So either God forsook Man straight away after the Garden, or the tools for salvation and redemption were AND ARE there for you sans other people.
Let me put my Atheist hat back on now to conclude. Throughout human history religion has been either created or co-opted for the guidance and control of people BY PEOPLE. The Council of Nicaea was created by Constantine to codify the religion. Angels didn't tell Constantine to do this. Constantine recognized the utility of having one single voice for the people to follow.
The Church and people will always sit between you and creation. I'm not saying between you and your creator as I don't believe there is a sentience creating stuff. But you ARE here, and you DO have the tools to build happiness into your life. But those tools are in you; they are in your body. Flesh is not less than soul or "mind." Flesh IS soul. Flesh IS mind. You see the world with your eyes. You hear with your ears. You breathe in reality with the very flesh people want you to ignore.
So ask yourself why you should reject the flesh. I would argue that you should reject the wanton pursuit of life without reason. This would be gathering the nouns in your life at the expense of the verbs.
I hope that clears up my schtick to some degree. I'm sorry if it doesn't.
What do you think?
I dont really see this passage more as descriptive than prescriptive...it is describing a particular state of affairs. The way I am reading this there appears to be an essential thing that God wants to happen: my translations is 'God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do....he condemned sin in the flesh....so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us'. The goal: that we would meet the just (right, reasonable) requirements of the law (the goal not being, in this case, happiness and joy...which is partially where I think Pat and Daniel may be misunderstanding each other). What is preventing that goal from being fulfilled: We are sinful. Why: our flesh is weak.
'he condemned sin in the flesh'...How do you read this? To me it sounds as if the flesh (not sure EXACTLY what the flesh is supposed to be, but it seems stand for us and all of our natural, human thoughts and desires and is subjected to all our natural weaknesses) is not the evil thing...the sin is. But it is the weakness of the flesh that makes sin such a chronic problem for us. The flesh that helps me to experience so much completely innocent and even (not sure the right adjective..holy?) pleasure, also tends to drive me to do things that make me and other people totally miserable, and makes me forget about God...and the fact that I am a (at least marginally) reasonable person and usually do know what I 'ought' to do doesnt always help... and from what I have seen of the world, I do not seem to be alone here. Dan has a lot more confidence in the flesh than I have. I would say that everyone in the world, or at least with very very few exceptions, is trying desparately hard, with all their natural faculties including reason, to be happy...and we don't even seem to be able to accomplish that! As I already said, I dont agree that happiness should be the goal (in fact I think making happiness the goal is part of the problem)...I'm just saying that, from what I have observed, reason is a good and useful tool, but it breaks down like all other human things.
'The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law...indeed it cannot'. Can I interpret 'mind set on the flesh' as the mind that relies completely on itself (human desires + reasoning powers) as an appropriate guide for life? Not only will it lead me to look away from God in the effort of figuring out what I want, what I like, what I need, but if I commit myself to obeying myself, eventually I will lead myself in the wrong way, because of my inherent weaknesses.
The salvation of the soul (unobstructed communion with God...which was what obeying his just law was supposed to accomplish in the first place) would then have to come from something outside of the flesh. (v. 2: for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. God has done what the law...could not do, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh).
So then, I think those 'who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit'....would mean those who agree that their flesh is weak and a poor guide, and acknowledge a need to be led by God. I'm not sure what this looks like, practically, but I agree with Daniel that this does not come from the church or from religion...it should come from God's Spirit, with nothing needed between you and him. 'Religion' is only valid insofar as it would aid and direct people towards a stronger and closer bond with God. But also I dont think the passage is telling people that they ought to walk according to the Spirit...it is just describing what people who have had the righteous requirements of the law fulfilled for them are in fact doing.
I've been reading Tozer lately, and it seems to me that one should not whitewash the fact that Christian life starts with the Cross. Which is death to the Flesh and new life in the Spirit. Not a reform, not some kind of re-tooling of the Flesh not an agreement with it, but the crucifixion of it and complete death before a new life begins. Romans 8 is the hymn of the resurrected life, there is no sense discussing it without the utter hopelessness of the condemned self starting from chapter 3 all the way to 7. So maybe the problem is we want to talk about the blessings before we talk about the curse.
Post a Comment