As mentioned previously, I teach homeschoolers in a modified “great books” program. Right now we are reading C.S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man. It is, in many ways, Lewis argues that contemporary (to him) eduational philosophy makes students adopt two basic assumptions: (1) that the predicates of value refer to internal feelings and not to actual objects and (2) that these emotional states are unimportant. Lewis places himself directly in line with classical ethical formulations and argues that predicates of value are not merely emotional states and that correct emotional responses are essential to being man. “The head rules the belly through the chest,” writes Lewis.

As a student, I was intrigued by the notion of “developing right sentiments” and worked diligently to do so. However, now that I am an educator, I see the challenge quite differently. The task of being a part of this formative process is both daunting and exciting. I am interested in thoughts as to how the modern educator should go about “irrigating deserts,” as I have none.

Not “That” Man.

This man.

6 innings on a pieced together ankle in what was possibly his last World Series start (this year).

Gutsy. Just plain gutsy.

It’s amazing to see a pitcher who won’t let his team lose, as Schilling did against the Yankees and again tonight. Reverse the Curse indeed.

The potential bomb the blogosphere has been abuzz with has landed.

Suddenly in question is this quote, made by Kerry in the second presidential debate:

“This president hasn’t listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable.”

Joel Mowbray, in a special to the Washington Times, writes:

“But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries’ U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.”

The strength of Mowbray’s revelation is significantly weakened, however, by the admission by the (then) French UN Representative Jean-David Levitte that Kerry met with him and the British UN Rep. If Mowbray’s research is correct, then at most Kerry met with a “few” ambassadors on the Security Council and those in one-on-one meetings.

Two things to watch for:
1) It’s presumable (by virtue of the nature of the story) that the blog-world won’t be able to have the sort of “fact-checking” power or effect like they did with Rathergate. Rather, their influence will be limited to debating the effects of the revelation and parsing the statements by the various “players.”
2) This is going to be a blow to Kerry, even if it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) fly. I’m not convinced the charge (in this case) does. Kerry doesn’t claim (in the quote above) that he met them all at once. His claim that he did meet them “all” could be explained as a sort of “rhetorical overstatement” (the word for this, again, escapes me) of the sort that might be permissable in debates. If not permissable, it’s at the least traditional. Regardless, it will reinforce the shadows that hang over Kerry in a new way and give people something else to wonder about. Psychologically, the shadows that hang over Kerry will give this greater force in the voters mind.

At any rate, watch the blogosphere explode. My hope? Timid claims from the right. Mowbray’s article doesn’t demonstrate that Kerry was lying, but it does cast more doubt on his credibility. I doubt we will limit our claims to this, but one can hope.

Once again, I’ll move this out of comments on to the main page.

Why?

Because I’m wordy.

Jim said:

“You were surprised that such a bright student could hold a Gnostic belief; but does it really make a practical difference in that person’s–or any other person’s–life, especially since it’s just one out of a panoply? It seems, especially to an outsider, like such a minor heresy in the grand theological scheme of things. If you had never asked, would you have guessed?”

Again, the point of the “resurrection of the body” is that the whole person is redeemed. Christian doctrine also teaches that this “redempted life” of ‘heaven’ is available to us now, through the Spirit (see “already, but not yet” soteriology). Christian ethics can be summed up as “living the life of heaven now.”

If sanctification is “learning to live the life of heaven” and this life is corporeal, then our very sanctification is insufficient if not also corporeal (”offer your bodies as living sacrifices”). How does this play out in the Christian’s life?

1) Worship: The historical Christian church has always incorporated movement in their corporate worship services. Also, “sensory input” (I’m not sure what the word would be) has played prominent roles in numerous traditions (see incense, icons, rosaries, etc.). A Christian that does not think the body important will neglect the richness of these aids.

2) Disciplines: The historical Christian church has also advocated “spiritual disciplines” as means of developing one’s relationship with God. Ironically, these “spiritual disciplines” are often very physical (see fasting, solitude, silence). Personally, I experienced a much richer prayer life once I began praying on my knees and have also experienced significant spiritual growth while fasting. If the body is not viewed as an intrinsic part of our salvation, then it is difficult to see why these disciplines would “work.” Yet I have the testimony of 2000 years of Christian tradition (and personal experience) informing me that they do.

3) Sexual ethics: See 1 Corinthians. This was the whole problem. They didn’t consider the general resurrection to be physical and subsequently thought they had license to act (sexually) however they wished. This was also Jonathan’s point in the comments to my first post.

Are those specific enough? I could give a more specific outline of the role of the body in (specifically) Pauline theology, but these seem to be some of the many applications. I’ll sum up: if salvation is body and soul, that has ramifications for sanctification. If a Christian does not affirm the former doctrine, then they will not adopt certain methods for the latter. Hope this is helpful.

Does anyone else hear the slow, steady approach of Fate? Computer chip implants have been approved by the FDA to be inserted in to some humans for the sake of quick identification in medical emergencies. These tiny chips, the size of a grain of rice, are easily implanted in twenty minutes without stitches. They convey a small amount of information that is decoded by a scanner. This is the wave of the future, folks. I become leery of such easy identification devices, they are relatively basic now but how far off can micro- GPS technology be?, that can be implanted against people’s will or without their knowledge. It will… interesting, to say the least, to see how this technology develops. I must bone up on my knowledge of the last written work of John.

Don’t be.

Powerline has a tip that a paper (Washington Post?) is going to run a front page story Monday that will allegedly damage Kerry’s credibility. Hewitt continues to predict sound defeat for Kerry and I’m inclined to agree. I heard the mayor (Democrat) of Youngstown, Ohio on the radio the other day and (presuming it was actually him) he reported that Kerry has visited Youngstown some four times this election season. If Kerry visited Youngstown, a Democratic hot, four times then he’s probably worried about his own base voting for him.

One more advantage of blogging? They create excitement around news stories that haven’t broken yet. Yes, the story will be in MSM, but blogging creates the “word of mouth” phenomena that can make “big” stories “huge.”

I once read (I think it was in an edition of Newsweek) that the term “shawshanked” was being adopted by “the youth of America” as a slang word. Inspired by the movie “The Shawshank Redemption,” the term meant something like “receiving an injustice.”

In line with this tradition of creating words, a roommate (Matt Coombe) and I have decided to introduce a new verb into American parlance:

Yankee.

Used in the active voice, it will mean “to self-destruct, implode. ”

“Man, that guy “Yankeed.”

Other historical examples of this phenomenon can be found in Greg Norman’s “yankee” at the ‘96 Masters and the Sonics “yankee” in 94 against the lowly Nuggets.

Yes, anachronistic references are permissible.

I was going to post this in the comments, but it was too lengthy to leave there. Original comments are included in their entirety.

Jim,

As always, good thoughts and questions.

“Mr. Chesterton, in all fairness to your students, Paul’s words on the subject (especially 1 Corinthians 15) aren’t perfectly clear.”

I realize Paul isn’t perfectly clear. The historical Christian tradition, however, is. Out of the three basic Creeds of Christendom (Nicene, Apostles, Athanasian), two explictly mention “the resurrection of the body” and the third (Nicene) looks “forward to the resurrection of the dead.” In context, this means dead. At the least, 2/3 explicitly mention the resurrection of the body. That’s not conclusive, but it provides grounds to pause when no one in the class has any sort of understanding of that doctrine. But, I recognize this was a throwaway defense of my students (who I love).

As for your other (more substantial and interesting) criticisms, the most interesting is this:

“Paul seems to want to have it both ways–the resurrection is “real,” but not “physical” in the normal sense.”

The clause might give the criticism away–what is the “normal sense” of physical? If the resurrection happened, then this “normal sense” might not obtain. To quote Lewis (in the same essay), “It is the present life which is the diminuation, the symbol, the etiolated, the (as it were) “vegetarian” substitute. If flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, that is not because they are too solid, too gross, too distinct, too “illustrious with being.” They are too flimsy, too transitory, too phantasmal.”

Incidentaly, this explanation (that “physical” is not as substantial as we think it) would also explain Jesus’s ability to walk through walls on this earth. It’s like walking through a mirage.

“I’m curious as to how the distinction between material and spiritual is defined in any coherent sense.”

It seems as though the distinction between “emotion” and “nerves” is pretty coherent and if property dualism is plausible, it seems a short jump to substance dualism. After all, if my thoughts are distinct from my neurons, what is doing the thinking? How is that not coherent? Or is that not the distinction you were thinking of?

“I’m also curious as to why it “matters” (to use a horrible pun) whether the resurrected body is a material body, rather than a spiritual body.”

I’m curious as to what a “spiritual body” would be. I agree that there are spiritual substances, but “body” seems to be a term that is limited to matter.

Lest you think I am incoherent, I will offer an explanation of Paul’s use “spiritual body.” The genitive here can be a bit confusing. I think it implausible (given the nature of the argument and for other reasons) that Paul means by the term “body of spirit” or “non-physical body.” Rather, the “spiritual body” seems akin to the “spiritual man” of 1 Corinthians 2, the “man who lives through the Spirit.” Given all of Romans 8 and Paul’s use of “spiritual” in 1 Corinthians (as well as his statements about the body being a “temple” of the Spirit, the most natural meaning of “spiritual body” in 1 Corinthians 15 is “a body that is under control of the Spirit.”

This leads to your final question:

“I’m also curious as to why it “matters” (to use a horrible pun) whether the resurrected body is a material body, rather than a spiritual body. What difference does that “Gnosticizing” make to the average believer?”

I am tempted to list specific ways I think it makes a significant difference, but will refrain (unless asked). Athanasius’s “soteriological axiom” was, “That which was not assumed was not redeemed.” Christ took on the whole of man (body and soul) to redeem and transform him. If a Christian does not recognize that basic truth, I would suggest they have not yet learned to offer “their whole selves”, body and soul, to God. Do this: read Romans (in the NASB) and circle every time Paul mentions “body.” If you do, then 12:1 (perhaps the most quoted verse on sanctification) makes a lot more sense; “I urge you…to present your bodies…to God….which is your spiritual service of worship.” Present the bodies, have the minds renewed. The Christian spiritual life cannot stand on only one of these two pillars.

What are emotions?

…that I am re-discovering for myself what has been many times discovered by others.

But each man must learn for himself, so I am bold to propose the following thesis:

Everything to say has already been said.
Frankly, I want to be famous. Not famous for fame’s sake, but famous because of how much I have done for the world. It’s not so much a desire to be famous as it is a desire to contribute. (It just so happens that all the people I know of who’ve contributed are well-known) OK, so if I am to contribute I must find something to say. “Find a need and fill it” as my dad says, describing the formula for success in business. I must go out there with a message and speak it and thus contribute.

That was my plan until I realized: It’s too late for me. All the glory to be gained has be got. I have read the Lord’s prayer with a slant I’ve never heard anyone draw out before. At the end is “All glory, all honor, all dominion be yours for ever and ever, so be it.” Perhaps this is less a wish than a statement. All glory simply is his. “Ah, but that can’t be so, for what of the glory (the term used generally) of world leaders? What of the honor (an easier adjective to apply) given to them?” On this hypothesis, they would not really be honor and glory. Or it would be mere reflection. I don’t know yet. (Thoughts?)

So if the all-glorious already exists, and always has and always will, there is nothing left for me. Or rather, all that’s left for me is imitation. We are eternally stuck as an understudy. We’re backup. Ouch.

How can this not influence everything I think and do? If it is true that everything there is to say has already been said, that feels almost too intamitely influential a truth. I feel the desire to deny it because of it’s magnitude. I will deny that desire, though. I will think it true, as it seems to be, if God exists, until an argument persuade me otherwise.

If you know “the book” that talks about this exact topic by “The divine ‘he’s already done everything’ argument guy” or just the Bible quote that talks exactly about this, please quote, or cite, or point me in the right direction. I want to learn from others.