The Soul and the Resurrection

While doing some research on the relationship between science and religion, I came across John Polkinghorne, a physicist and Anglican Priest. Like me, he does not believe in a disembodied soul or a resurrection of one’s actual body, in terms of the same cells or matter that currently constitute us. I came to this conclusion quite some time ago, but this is my first attempt to articulate it in written form.

First of all, the soul and a bodily resurrection are two separate and contradictory systems, two different views of the afterlife. The first, is a more Greek derived system that saw matter is more prison-like, unreal, or to be transcended. Such dualism still influences many Christians today. The latter affirmed the the necessary materiality of life. Good or bad, this is what we are. It didn’t depend on lofty views of ideals or forms. We live, we die, and God will faithfully restore our lives and communities in a time of redemption that includes, but is not limited to, political freedom. Being a believer in the resurrection of Christ, I naturally gravitated toward the resurrection, but if the resurrection is true, why bother with a soul that survives death and floats around in some temporary place while it waits for the body to be restored? I suppose purgatory might suffice as an explanation, but purgatory strikes me as a rather inane idea. It is too guilt-ridden and ecclesio-centric.

I would propose that if we are indeed bodies, and are so essentially, we do not need souls that inhabit our bodies (what would said souls do anyway?), nor that survive death. If God grants us new bodily life, why bother with souls? I simply see no reason for both a soul that survives death and the resurrection as well.

So, if we stick with the resurrection, is it the same bones, flesh, and everything else that is given life again? No, I don’t think so. Why not? Think of it this way: we never lose water. The water we are drinking now could be the water Jesus was baptized in. Water never disappears, it just changes locations, and sometimes forms, but it is never lost. Matter is the same (yes, I know, water is matter too). It can’t be created or destroyed (not by us at least, perhaps by God). Our cells are created using matter from a mother and father, which is supplemented by nutrients, which are also matter. We then grow by ingesting more matter, and then, eventually, we die. Our bodies decompose and give nutrients to the earth, feeding plants, which are eaten by animals, whether human or deer or whatever. There is an overlapping of matter. to say that the exact matter, the same cells I am now will be resurrected is naive, even if my example of the cycle of life is in need of some fine tuning.

So if we are not resurrected cell for cell, then what happens?  Like Polkinghorne, I believe in reconstitution. We will be made again. But wouldn’t that just be a copy since it isn’t the same cells? We replace our cells constantly. In fact, those of us who are adults remembering things when we were children should note that we do not share a single cell in common with ourselves at the time of our memory. They’ve all been replaced. And yet here we are. Despite having all new cells, we remember. It was still our experience. How does this work? How do we retain memories if we’ve been completely replaced? I don’t know. It doesn’t seem likely that we would ever be able to know such a thing, though I am clearly no scientist. Nonetheless, our selfhood does not depend on cellular continuity. What does it depend on? That’s a good question.

Virtuous Pagans

Gandhi was a good man. He certainly may have had his flaws, but he provided an example of what a life lived openly for the benefit of others looks like. He, of course, is not the only example, but he is an example nonetheless. Yet, despite his deep love and the goodness he brought about, many Christians would condemn him to hell. They need not. Though contemporary Christians practice rigid exclusivism, it was not always so. Justin Martyr, for example, writing in the second century, even called the ancient Greek Philosophers Christians because they lived reasonable lives. While we should not necessarily call them Christians, Justin's general line of thinking is both accessible and applicable.

If God is the Source of all Goodness through which all kinds of goodness originate, then nothing good either is or occurs apart from God. This is something I believe all Christians can agree on. How this can be applied is much more controversial. This means that there is no virtue apart from God, and that, therefore, the virtuous, whether pagan, atheist, or agnostic, participate in God through living virtuously, as Paul says in Romans 2. This does not mean that virtue causes one to participate in God, but because one cannot be separated from God by the nature of their very existence--since we exist in God, and God through us--virtue is what occurs when we either consciously or unconsciously assent to the Goodness that God is. When we seek Goodness, we find God, even if we don't acknowledge God as such.

What does this mean? God does not belong to the Church alone. Though I would maintain that the Christian faith is unique in that it is founded upon the teachings and life of the One we believe is God come to us (Emanuel), this same God that became Jesus was not devoid of work elsewhere. Both the Psalms and the New Testament witness to the idea of God's revelation in nature—a nature common to us all no matter which part of earth we may reside in. This makes sense if Christ truly is the Logos/Sophia, the wisdom of God, the reason or rationale behind the universe, and the ordering principle of creation. If God is the Source of reason and wisdom (both of which are forms of goodness), then no reason or wisdom is spoken or thought apart from God. Searching the scriptures of other religious traditions, this should become clear. There is much overlap, such as the Golden rule. This is not to say that all revelation is equal. It certainly is not. But to say that certain theological ideas are mistaken, unclear, or even distorted is different than saying that a religious tradition is devoid of God or even founded by demons. While there may in fact be demonically inspired rituals, any ideals that contribute to love, peace, and justice should be attributed to God and God's Spirit working through people to make God''s kingdom a reality. This doesn't mean that the Spirit's words aren't misunderstood at times. They certainly are. The Church's life, unfortunately, is full of such mistakes.

So what does this ultimately mean for the Christian concept of soteriology? It means that God is more gracious than we are. Though spiritual healing and eternal life are only available through Christ, Christ is present in more than Jesus. And though Jesus is the highest form of the revelation of God, there are still things to be learned from other faith traditions, and even non-traditions as we encounter people who do not hold to an overarching system of spirituality or morality, and yet still maintain the highest moral standards. Where there is love, God's purposes and plans are coming to fruition. Where there is love God is at work, and people are responding to God's call, even if they are unaware that such a call is being made.

Moving Beyond Penal Models of Atonement

Nearly all fundamentalists and Evangelicals believe in a model of atonement whereby Jesus made an exchange with God for us. The exchange looks something like this. God has to punish us because retributive justice is God’s nature, but God also wants to forgive us because God loves us. in order to satisfy the conditions of God’s love and of God’s justice, God orchestrates the death of Jesus—the one for the many. God pours his wrath upon Jesus, who acts as a guilt offering. When we become Christians, then, are sins are forgiven because they have already been punished God’s punishment of Jesus.

This should raise many concerns. First of all, God is divided amidst God’s self. Does God want to forgive or punish? It can’t be both ways. If we forgive, we don’t punish. If a transgression is punished it is not forgiven. If we do adopt this model, we can’t say that God forgives sin. What we say instead is that Jesus made satisfaction for the sins of humanity. But how can we say that God is love if this is the case. Certainly love entails forgiveness, the scriptures state this clearly. but if penal models of atonement are true, then God does not forgive sin.

There are also ontological problems with the model. It leads to an unforgiving Father God demanding “justice” and a forgiving son pleading for mercy for his friends. How does that work with the Trinity? God is of one will, not a divided will. Either father and Son both want forgiveness or they both want punishment. You can’t have it both ways; the result is nonsense.

The problem is that an obscure passage from Leviticus is read into the passion story. It states that there is no forgiveness apart from the shedding of blood. However, Jesus explicitly forgave twp people in the NT apart from the shedding of blood! John the Baptist also baptized with a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? Wait, what’s that? repentance is the condition of forgiveness? But that undercuts all the metaphysical nonsense that makes the Incarnation necessary. A God/man had to die to forgive sins! No. In fact no one had to die, God simply had to proclaim forgiveness. That’s it. Of course, we have to do what’s right and make amends with those we’ve wronged. But there are no ontological magic tricks that make us “in” and others “out.”

Jesus didn’t die to make it possible for God to forgive sins. Such logic is a farce. Jesus died because he challenged the religious and political structures of his day. This made him dangerous. He knew that. He knew the people would revolt and make him king if he let them, and then the Romans would crush the revolt, as they did in 70 CE and again in 135 CE. Jesus dies because he proclaimed a radical and liberating kingdom that exists independent of institutions or borders or earthly kings. This certainly would have angered the earthly kings enough to have him done away with. God did not orchestrate Jesus death, but gave Jesus the courage to pursue his mission, to proclaim God’s kingdom. It is in this sense, and this sense only, that God desired that Jesus die. The mission required it. Not because of ontology, but because of the risks of peacefully challenging violent enemies.

When we understand Jesus’ life within a framework of non-violence, it takes on new depth. True love requires non-violence. If we love neighbors and enemies, there is no one to hate. And if there is no one to hate, there is no one to kill. The embodiment of such love is at-one-ment. When we seek to love all, just as God loves all, then we are at one with God. Otherwise, we are liars. For whoever does not love his brothers and sisters, whom we can see, cannot love God, whom we cannot see.