Sunday, April 24, 2011

Cannibals, Crocodiles and Corpses

An excerpt from my book Adventures in Orthodoxy--Twenty Short Chapters on the Apostles' Creed.

     Any school child that thinks about the resurrection of the body soon starts asking delightfully gruesome questions. After all, if they’ve ever seen a cat hit by a car, then been to a funeral and seen Uncle Mitch in the casket, and watched the coffin being lowered into the ground they have a pretty good idea what happens. It doesn’t take long to figure out that dead bodies decay and that Uncle Mitch, who sat them on his knee for a story and gave them huge bowls of ice cream now lies very still in a box going all gooey like the cat by the roadside.
    Therefore the difficulty of believing in the resurrection of the body soon hits home. To put it bluntly, how can the body be resurrected if worms have eaten it and turned it back into topsoil? The questions continue. What about Aunty Hazel who loved doing crosswords and amateur dramatics? She was cremated and her ashes can be seen in an urn on Uncle Bert’s mantelpiece. Will those ashes be magically put back together again into an all singing, all dancing, puzzle solving Aunty Hazel? Or what about people who were blown to bits by a bomb or were eaten by sharks or crocodiles or lions and tigers and bears; Oh my!
    We don’t want to insult God’s accounting practices. We know he keeps track of every hair on our head, and know when every sparrow falls, but is he really going to keep track of every molecule of Grandpa and Aunty Hazel and the missionaries who were eaten by cannibals? Will he track them all down and summon them all up to be put back together again like some vast cosmic jigsaw puzzle?
    The question is a good one, and ought to interest everyone because we all have a morbid curiosity about the gruesome details. That’s why we slow down at road accidents. There are really only three ways around it. First, faced with the poetic foolishness of such an idea we may simply opt for the atheist’s solution and say there is no such thing as life after death. This would put us in a minuscule minority when faced with the huge number of human beings who do believe in life after death, but nevertheless, the atheist solution, although it takes great faith and courage to adhere to, is one solution.
    The second solution is that there is no such thing as the resurrection of the body, and instead we continue to exist in a merely spiritual state. But when you stop to imagine such a state it is impossible to do so. At least, it is impossible to do so while still retaining any sense in which a particular person continues to exist as the same particular person. As soon as we start imagining Aunty Hazel existing on the other side, but without a body, she ceases to be Aunty Hazel and becomes an ectoplasm or an amoeba—just an amorphous something. We might try to imagine Aunty Hazel as just her personality or spirit, but as soon as we do, her smiling face appears, and we remember her belting out “There’s no business like show business.” In other words, Aunty Hazel can’t exist as just personality or spirit because Aunty Hazel was always more than just a personality. She was a person. So if we believe in life after death, but not the resurrection of the body, then we can’t say a particular person continues to exist as that particular person. That’s why some religions say that in the after life we get rid of bodies altogether and are simply absorbed back into the cosmic Spirit.
    The third option, is that we continue to exist as the people we are here and now, and to do that we have to have bodies of some sort. We have to have bodies to be who we are, because from day one who we are has always included a body. Therefore, if we say we believe in life after death, then somehow or other, no matter how ridiculous it seems, we also have to believe in the resurrection body.
    But maybe when we considered the problem of corpses that had turned to dust and ashes or been eaten by crocodiles and cannibals we were taking the physical solidity of our bodies a bit too seriously. This is easy to do because we are used to thinking of our bodies of this “too too solid flesh.” We imagine that this hairy, smelly, frustrating and funny body which we occupy right here and right now is the one we have always had, and that it is really quite a permanent fixture of the universe. But of course it isn’t. Not only will it turn to dust and ashes one day, but the body we have now isn’t the same one we’ve always had. In fact, every seven years or so, all the cells of our body are renewed, so in a very real sense, the body I have now is a completely different body than the one I had seven years ago. By looking at old photographs I can see that the body I have now has grown from that other one, but it is clearly a different body. Furthermore, the body I have today is a different one from the one I had yesterday. It hasn’t changed totally since yesterday, but it has changed a bit. Therefore, what we think of as a solid and permanent body is, in fact, quite a changeable thing. We are all shapeshifters. Our bodies are far more fluid and temporary than we think, and we mustn’t be mislead simply because the shapeshifting takes place over a relatively long period of time.
    I make this point to introduce the idea that although my physical body of cells and molecules totally changes every seven years or so, there is nevertheless, another “body” which doesn’t change. There is a physical part of me that is always me despite the changes. That photograph of me as a child does not picture the same body, but it does picture the same person. This brings us to the meaning of the word “body”, In the Latin form of the creed, we do not profess belief in the Corporis Resurrectionem, but in CARNIS Resurrectionem. In other words, we don’t profess belief in the resurrection of the body, but the resurrection of the flesh. The theological definition of the word “flesh” comes from the Hebrews, who blessed the whole human race with a wonderfully sophisticated religious idea. They rejected the obvious idea that our bodies are shells or vehicles for our souls. Instead they thought that the flesh and the soul were permanently integrated and united.  For them “flesh” means much more than just the physical body. It means the whole person with all the gifts of body, mind and spirit fused into one physico-spiritual being.
    If this is so, then rather than the soul living in the body as a person lives in a house; we should think of the soul dwelling in every cell of the body. Increasingly the biologists understand the mind in this way. So the mind does not seem to be limited only to the brain, but it is spread by the nervous system throughout the whole body. The soul, then, does not exist in one part of the body, but infuses the entire body down to the tiniest cell and molecule. Evidence of this is in the weird things which sometimes happen with organ transplants. The recipients of new organs are known to inexplicably assume character traits and tastes which they never had before, but which their donor had when they were alive.
    So if the mind dwells in every cell, then maybe the soul does too. This is easy enough to suggest as a theory, but let us stand it on its head and say that if the soul dwells in every cell of the body, then maybe a bit of the body dwells in every part of the soul as well. After all, if we are a totally fused body and soul creation, then this would follow. We have all heard of the old soldier who still feels pain in his amputated leg even when it isn’t there. Sometimes he even reaches to scratch empty air because his absent leg itches so much. That indicates that just as the mind and soul inhabit the body, so the body (even when part of it has been cut off) inhabits the mind and the soul. If that is so, then there exists a kind of “soul body” which we could call the resurrection body. It has continuity with our mortal physical body, (like my boyhood body has continuity with the present fat and bald one) and it is derived from that body, but it is the soul version, and is not subject to decay and change.
This shouldn’t be so hard to imagine, because, as I’ve already pointed out, our bodies are changing all the time anyway. What if this “soul body” or resurrection body simply blossoms at the point of death? After all, our physical bodies have gone through lots of changes throughout the course of our lives. This may simply be the final one. As a seed falls into the ground and dies, in order to bring forth the flower, so our bodies fall into the ground and die to bring forth the resurrection body. And as the flower grows from the seed, but looks nothing like it, so it may be with our resurrection bodies. They are derived from these mortal bodies, but thrive and are alive with a new kind of life that has grown out of the old.
    If the resurrection of Jesus Christ is anything to go by, then this seems to be precisely what does happen. He rose from the dead, but they didn’t recognize him at first. In a way it was like seeing a boy at his college graduation who you haven’t seen for ten or twelve years. You scarcely recognise him, and yet you know the handsome, proud twenty one-year-old is the same person as the gawky, buck-toothed nine year old with a snotty nose. So it will be in our own resurrection. We will have blossomed. We will have grown up to the full maturity of our years. We will be in our prime, and will have reached that potential for which we were created.

12 comments:

  1. You've really missed the boat in this post, especially in your theory of a "soul body". I suggest that you review the Summa and try again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Incredibly interesting stuff Father. I think we are even a part of our ancesters bodies. I mean, the egg that I hatched from (so to speak) was present in my grandmother's womb, because my mom's body as a baby in her mother's womb contained all the eggs that she would ovulate (or not). So it was from her mother that my egg bit of me formed, if that isn't too convolutedly expressed (someone is having a conversation with me, as I type). I also, sometimes talk to my child self, remembering events from the past and explaining to 'little' me what was going on from my adult perspective, but also listening to what I am saying as a child to my adult self.

    Happy Easter, by the way. I can't wait to be able to run again, fast, in heaven (please God). Middle aged women run in a really mad, almost trying to disguise the fact that they're in a hurry, sort of way......

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you. I really appreciated reading this at the end of Easter Sunday day.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is really not a satisfactory answer at all. Any attempt to get out of the obvious problem of people who were eaten by cannibals by fudging what "body" means runs into the problem of the empty tomb. It was important that Jesus did not just return in a "soul body" or take a new body (perhaps as a kind of reincarnation); the very same body that was laid in the tomb was resurrected. Also: His divinity was never separated from that body.

    A better and more honest answer is to say that we do not really understand all the details of how God will solve these problems, yet we know that he can and will solve them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not sure why you brought in Christ's resurrection. The empty tomb sort of turns your explanation on its head.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jesus' resurrection was unique and was a total physical resurrection.

    My own speculative piece is about how the Christian belief in the resurrection of the body might be true for those who's physical bodies have decayed and disappeared in some way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, then: The Resurrection of Jesus was unique.

    My next example is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Same thing: an empty tomb.

    Then again, the New Testament consistently uses the Resurrection of Jesus as the prototype (or "first fruits") of our own resurrection.

    Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God: and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when he shall appear we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2

    ReplyDelete
  8. THank you, Fr. L.

    Just FYI, not everyone slows down at an accident out of morbid curiosity -- some of us do so out of respect and concern for the emergency workers, the traffic congestion around the site, etc.

    As for bodily resurrection ... I'm curious about stuff like that, too, but I have chosen to cling to St. Paul's comment that our resurrected bodies will be glorified -- what does glorified mean? Well, guess we'll have to wait to find out the details, but we've gotta trust God to be on top of it -- from the context it seems clear that the glorified bodies won't be exactly identical with what we have now, but better. That's what I tell my kids anyhow.

    Blessed Easter!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re the bodily resurrection, I tell my Sunday Schoolers that Adam will be resurrected as he was made in the first place: from spirit & dirt.

    Re the fusion of bodynsoul: like molecules of water. When the oxygen & hydrogen are pried apart there's no more water unless and until they are re-fused to comprise water again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But Christ's resurrection was unique only because it was first: the Church has always believed that it is a foreshadowing of what the resurrection will be for all.

    Thus, pagans often seemed to believe that they could prevent Christians from enjoying the resurrection by destroying the corpses of martyrs. That's not a foreign concept to pagans: infidel and pagan beliefs are chock full of the idea that abuse of a corpse will have severe consequences for the soul in the afterlife.

    The difference for Catholics, of course, is that we actually believe in an omnipotent God. So while the body is an integral part of who we are, its physical destruction does not prevent God from re-creating or (probably more accurately) re-constituting it at the end of time. All the king's horses perhaps can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but God can. That is certainly the more straightforward response to the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Very nice piece, Father: thoughtful, witty, and profound. (And you know that I'm usually just not that into you.)

    I do also appreciate the point Howard makes, too, when he states: "A better and more honest answer is to say that we do not really understand all the details of how God will solve these problems, yet we know that he can and will solve them."

    One of the things I still love about Catholicism is the space it sometimes leaves for mystery. I have a good deal more respect for mystery that requires faith and trust, rather than legalistic brands of theology that attempt to ascribe to God all sorts of things we can't possibly know. But to your credit, Fr. L., you've avoided that type of approach here. Good post.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This was beautiful, and I loved every word. I realize its just speculation, but i ts the kind of speculation that I like.

    ReplyDelete