You don't "have" a soul. You "are" a soul. You "have" a body!
Recently, I came across the quotation I have just provided, which struck me with its importance, and now I can't remember where I got that. Such forgetfulness is not, I confess, an uncommon experience for me, nowadays. I remember things, all the time, but I don't remember where I heard them, or saw them, or found out about them. That can be frustrating, of course, but I tell myself that as long as I remember the "main thing," the circumstances surrounding my discovery of that "main thing" are of lesser import.
Just to be clear, though, and despite the picture above, I can tell you that Frank Sinatra was not involved in drawing my attention to the rather significant assertion I have quoted right under his picture. You can, though, click this link if you'd like to hear Frank sing the song.
As I attempted to track down the origin of the thought that we don't "have" a soul, but that we "are" souls, I found a website discussion that goes out of its way to deny that C.S. Lewis ever said this. Apparently, a claim that C.S. Lewis originated this saying is often made, but the Mere Orthodoxy website ends up tracking down the "you don't have a soul" assertion to some sort of Quaker source:
The British Friend, one of the two main British Quaker periodicals at the end of the 19th century, published a piece in 1892 on excessive mourning at funerals. The author believed that overly strong mourning kept people from remembering their hope in heaven. It is here, finally, where we find the quote attributed to George MacDonald. “Never tell a child,” said George Macdonald, ‘you have a soul. Teach him, you are a soul; you have a body.’ As we learn to think of things always in this order, that the body is but the temporary clothing of the soul, our views of death and the unbefittingness of customary mourning will approximate to those of Friends of earlier generations.”
Since I self-identify as a Quaker, I was rather pleased to learn that the observation about who we really "are" - "souls," not "bodies" - may well have originated with the Quakers. As for the thought itself, I do think it is an important one. It makes sense to me that we should all be trying to figure out who we "are," when we get right down to it, and if we embark upon an effort to do that, we might well conclude that we are best defined as "souls," not "bodies." Specifically, that way of thinking about it certainly helps us deal with that ever-difficult question of "death."
We do know, even if not yet from personal experience, that "bodies" die. "Souls," though, as we may envision them, might provide us a way to understand that it is entirely possible (as one of my favorite Bob Dylan songs asserts) that "Death Is Not The End."
Here is my own view: I, personally, think that "materialism" undershoots reality. If you don't believe me, try listening to Jimmy Carter as he ponders "materialism." In my view, there is something more going on in life than can be accounted for by the structured arrangements of atoms, faithful to the laws of physics (and biology). If pure materialism does not explain "life," and does not fully explain and account for our own existence in this world, it is very tempting (to me, at least) to decide that we "are," actually, "spiritual" beings. If I have to pick between "bodies" and "souls," I am going to go with the idea that we "are" souls, and that we "have" bodies, just as that Quaker-originated assertion says. There is a supremely important insight there!
On the other hand, I have never given up propounding what I call my "Two Worlds' Hypothesis." This is the name I have given to my claim that we live in two worlds, simultaneously. Most immediately, we live in a world created by human action. Ultimately, though, I am convinced that we live in a "World That God Created." This "world" is what I most usually call the "World of Nature." All our human efforts - and successes - in forging a reality for ourselves can have come into existence only because of our completely mysterious appearance and existence on Planet Earth. That "World" came first, and we depend upon it, utterly.
Given my own way of thinking about the world, which is founded upon both an appreciation of the significance of what we, as humans, have done, and can do, along with my understanding that all of our human accomplishments are, in the end, based on the Creation, which is our ultimate "reality," I am now prepared to think that we are both "bodies" and "souls." Trying to assign "primacy" might be a big mistake, given my overarching belief in a "Both/And" reality. For any Christians among those who might be reading this, I think it is worth noting that Christians deeply believe that Jesus was God, appearing in human form, and that Jesus' ressurection from the dead, as he appeared once more in his "body," does seem to go along with the idea that disavowing the "body," to give complete primacy to the "soul," may not be the Biblical way of looking at things.
Frank Sinatra, in other words, may well be on the mark in claiming that what ultimately and really counts is both "Body and Soul." That's what we have to give, the whole package, and that is what love requires. Again, click the link if you'd like to hear Frank Sinatra sing that song (with a full orchestral accompaniment, by the way)!
https://youtu.be/QplAkBysk-4?si=F0RvbJ1A5kh0nC94
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!