My question basically is, does theology need the soul? Many theologians and biblical scholars, including Nancey Murphy, Joel Green, and others say no. Most contemporary authors writing on theological anthropology see the soul as outdated or disproved by modern neuroscience. They're not without their critics though, as ethicists like J.P. Moreland or Thomists like Norris Clarke say an immaterial soul is a fundamental and non-negotiable part of Christian theology and ethics.
This debate has become very interesting to me (and I just presented a paper on it with more detail, especially on Aquinas, for others interested). It is interesting because I feel like those who subscribe to a rigorous "Thomist" philosophy or epistemology, I'm thinking of something like Jacques Maritain's ideas in Degrees of Knowledge here, have to wrestle at some point with what contemporary neuroscience is saying about the brain and epistemology.
I am also interested in arguing over whether or not there is a soul because of how the soul relates to soteriology. I suspect that a lot of the contemporary "practical" or "community"-based accounts of Christian salvation and the Church owe something to the way the Soul has fallen out of favor in theology in recent years. The question of the soul in theology, in a way, is partly the question "what happens to me when I become a Christian?" Does God come to dwell in the soul as a friend with me through created and uncreated grace? (John 14:23). Or is becoming a Christian only an incorporation into new bodily practices as part of a new community and way of living in the world?
Yet more evidence that I need to read Aquinas. Whether or not it's accurate (and I'm not even sure what 'accurate' means), the idea of a non-material soul being the "substantial form" of the human is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteAs for the concluding questions, I don't think becoming a Christian is "only" anything. And while bodily practices may be the normal means of incorporation into this human community we call church, that community must also include the Godhead. The incorporation is into Christ's body. The new way of living in the world is living in the kingdom of God in the world.
I think if I use the term, which I'm hesitant to do, it remains a relational concept.
ReplyDelete@Nick/taser - From what I understand, Aquinas's account of substantial form might be his most original contribution to theology. All the other psychologies of his time were heavily Augustinian (Bonaventure, for example) and thought that humans had multiple substantial forms: vegetative, animal, rational, and so on. A lot of Aquinas's theology is just reflection of scholastic questions and ideas or, especially in the tertia pars, patristic commentary on scripture. But substantial form in Aquinas I think is fairly original to him (maybe Albert too?).
ReplyDeleteServais Pinckaers says Aq's account of substantial form does a lot for his ethics in "Sources of Christian Ethics." Basically by saying our soul is our body's substantial form it means that for Aquinas it is improper to say that there are any bodily acts or passions that are "animal" as opposed to "spiritual." Neat stuff.
As for the last questions, I've been poking at this opposition for a while in my previous posts.
This doesn't address some of the other important substance of your post, but do you really want to keep the "only" in your last sentence?
ReplyDeleteIf you do, it seems that you're jousting with a caricature that few serious folks would own up to.
You should read Dr. K's book on evangelism (after the linguistic turn -- he doesn't call it that, of course) and see if you think your frustrations/concerns/critiques apply there and, if not, then where do they?
It seems to me like it's very difficult to affirm the first option (indwelling grace) while at the same time having a "post-metaphysical" or "relational" theological anthropology driving your work. In other words, how do you talk about grace without a soul, philosophically? I'm sure people do, but what are the underlying presuppositions behind what they say? Are they being consistent in the end?
ReplyDeleteMy opposition here between indwelling grace and participating in the kingdom through specific practices comes from the book by Nancey Murphy that I linked to above. She says that moving past a "Neo-Platonic" account of the soul will have the added benefit of moving away from an "individualistic" concept of salvation to an understanding of salvation as "bringing about God's reign on earth" (p.27). I'm sure Kberg is more nuanced, and I'll note that she's more a philosopher of science than a theologian by trade. But at least in the little bit of research I did for this project it seemed like this fit what people were saying.
I should also add that I just finally got around to listening to the NT Wright conference...wow all the presentations were on stuff we've been talking about this whole time.
ReplyDeleteKevin Vanhoozer's thing on "incorporation" and "adoption" as a bridge between Wright and Reformed theology solved a lot of problems for me. I may devote a blog post to it soon. Hays's lecture on Wright was really interesting as well.