Spirituality: Heavenly or Earthly?

From the start of the Christian movement to the present day, various segments within the Christian community have given expression to a pallid kind of aesthetic, otherworldly spirituality. In popular religious terminology, to be “spiritual” has usually connoted the idea of otherworldly piety. We have been taught that a “spiritual” person is one whose inner eyes are cast heavenward in prayer and contemplation, focusing on the joys of the life to come. To be “spiritual” implies that one is life-denying; it suggests communing with one’s heavenly Creator by focusing upon the invisible realities and eternal mysteries of God’s holiness. To live “spiritually” is often thought of in terms of passive detachment from this person is really consumed with one agenda: to win souls for the kingdom of heaven. All other activity, such as that which seeks to address the physical, material, and social needs of this world, is inferior and lacking in priority.

The above teaching about spirituality derives largely from the Greek understanding of the psyche, the “soul” or “spirit.” The Greeks taught that the psyche is the nonphysical, immortal part of a person. At death it espcapes the body and makes its way back to the world of eternal reality. Though Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora and hence doubtless familiar with the Greek perspective concerning the psyche, he “never conceives of the salvation of the soul apart from the body. Salvation means the redemption of the body of the whole created order as well (Rom. 8:21-23).”

In Hebrew thought, a person is a body-soul. He is viewed as a unity, a single entity, an indivisible whole. To the Hebrews, a person is not a soul or spirit which now inhabits and will at death desert a body. None of the Hebrew terms translated “soul” or “spirit” refers to the nonphysical part of a human being; this is dualistic Greek thinking, which, unfortunately, has influenced our understanding of these English terms. In Hebraic thought, “soul” or “spirit” refers to the whole person or the individual as a living being. It stands for the person himself. “The Old Testament view of man is that he is an animated body rather than an incarnated soul.” In short, human beings live as souls; they do not “have” souls.

[Here he goes into a brief study of the Hebrew words for soul and spirit. The primary point being “Man’s ‘soul’ is primarily his vitality, his life—never a separate ‘part’ of man.” Spirit carries the idea of animation, that which invigorates and brings to life the total person, body and soul. “[True piety] meant to be fully human, every fiber of one’s being alive, empowered in passionate and inspired service to God and humanity.”]

Westerners often define spirituality as denying oneself, being detached from earthly concerns, and being intent on otherworldly values. By contrast, the Hebrews experienced the world of the spirit as robust, life-affirming, and this-worldly in character. Such was the “spiritual” orientation of the Hebrews. So-called spirituality did not come by negating the richness of life’s experiences or withdrawing from the world. Instead, they affirmed creation by finding a sense of holiness in the here and now. There was no division between the sacred and the secular areas of life. It was all God’s world, and it was to be enjoyed without a sense of shame or guilt. In Paul’s words, “to the pure, all things are pure” (Tit. 1:15). As trustees and stewards of God’s world, human beings were to live within it and use it in accord with divine directives. Again, in Paul’s familiar Hebraic idiom, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men” (Col. 3:23; cf. Eccl. 9:10).

Unfortunately, the history of the Church reveals that when Christians have become fixated upon finding the God of that other world to come, they have often missed finding the God of earth and history, the Creator of this world, in the here and now. Unlike the Hebrews of Bible times, who looked up to heaven but kept both feet squarely on the ground, Christians have not always learned so to balance themselves. It is the age-old problem of how we can keep the invisible from consuming the visible, the spiritual from negating the material, the theoretical from eliminating the practical, and belief from making us blind to behavior.

- Our Father Abraham, Ch. 10 “Where The Church Went Wrong” by Marvin R. Wilson

Was it worth it?

I've had a couple of people ask me if college was what I expected it to be or was it better or worse. Guess I might as well write on it and then anyone can read it if they really want to know. Well, I'm not entirely sure what my expectations were. There's all the stuff you see in movies and on tv about college and the little bit your friends tell you, but I knew that wouldn't be my experience. After all, I was going to a tiny Christian, liberal arts school, not the ivy league giant of my dreams. Not to mention I went in knowing there was something wrong with me and after less than a month there, I knew that there was no way I was going to have the "normal" college experience. I suppose my expectations were that it would be very hard, my grades would drop some, and it would be difficult for me to make close friends. In regard to those, it was hard, my grades have taken a hit but not really dropped overall, and I made some close friends but they aren't always what I expect. I, of course, didn't expect to be so sick and had no idea the way it would change my life. But what I really didn't expect was the incredible amount of grace that has been extended to me. The grace of my family when I have been obnoxious, unreasonable, grumpy, and emotional. The grace of my professors for exams and papers and leaving class. The grace of my friends for trying to understand, listening to me complain, and meeting me where I am at even when it is a long way from where they are. The grace of God as I backed away from him and as I make hesitant and often bumbling steps back. The person who has extended the least amount of grace to me is myself. My perfectionist tendencies and my strict ideals have not allowed much grace for my short-comings. Part of my learning experience at college has been finding that not everything I thought was a fault is one and the ones that are won't be fixed by beating myself up. It is hard to become a graceful young women that extends grace to others when you cannot extend that same grace to yourself. So, to answer the original question. I didn't have enough expectations to have them broken or fulfilled. College, however, was incredible. I haven't regretted going for a single moment.

Once a queen of Narnia...

Warning: This has a few vague spoilers if you haven't seen the movie. I also take the Chronicles of Narnia kind of seriously so if you don't, just stop reading here.

So last night I went to see the premier of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Altogether, I loved it, possibly more than the first film. Yes, they did deviate from the book, but in most places that didn't bother me. The one place it did was with Susan. I loved Susan's character. She is the warrior queen, strong and beautiful. There aren't always enough of those kind of good characters in movies and books. There was also the romance between Caspian and Susan which didn't really bother me all that much either. However, as much as loved Susan's character, what bothered me was it wasn't Susan. Some of the very reasons she was my favorite character were done away with in the film.

It all started with me listening to the Chronicles of Narnia on my iPod this past year. The last time I had read any of them was a good ten years ago and I didn't remember anything. So, when I found out that Susan doesn't go back to Narnia in the end, it made me sad. I know it doesn't say anything about her future and I firmly believe that she makes it eventually, but I found so much of myself to be similar to her that it disappointed me. My impression of Susan from the books is that she is a very practical, mothering person. She is hesitant because she is careful and sensible. Susan is the one who is ready to turn back from Narnia and go home, to wish they never came, and to think it is a bad idea to chase the stag. Adventure is risky so it is better to turn back and be safe. I see that in myself. I want adventure but I am afraid to go forward. She is called Queen Susan the Gentle. That is why it bothers me that she is fighting. Not because I don't think she shouldn't participate in the battle but because that is not what Susan would do. She doesn't fight because she can't stand to harm anything. Perhaps my "gentleness" would arise more from fear, but I can't stand to watch fights and if it came to war I could be hiding inside, thank you very much. Susan is a practical, sensible, logical person and I can't say that I would have been much more likely to have believed Lucy. In The Last Battle we find out that she has become more interested in clothes and being the wrong kind of grown up and is "no longer a friend of Narnia." I don't think there was a time when I haven't been in danger of that myself. So why do I want Susan to remain as she was in the books even though she is "better" in the movie? Because in the book, I can be Susan. Me, who is not brave, who does not like fighting, who will turn back, who is too practical, who doesn't alway believe, who sometimes wants to be too grown-up, who cares too much about the way I look-that person can be a queen in Narnia. And for that same reason, I must believe that she makes it to Narnia in the end.

As for the romance, that's not why we go to Narnia and the movie could have been just as good without it.



What I did absolutely love about the movie that surprised me was Edmund. You could see the story of his redemption continuing. Now we see what Aslan knew all along-the person Edmund could become. He is a courageous and forgiving person who has learned from his mistakes. Edmund was easily my favorite person in the movie.



Though I must say that Lucy would have been a close second. She was absolutely wonderful. I think Georgie Henley captures the character of Lucy magnificently.

Peter, on the other hand, was obnoxiously arrogant. It was his turn to learn a lesson. I didn't like him but I didn't mind that they did it. What I found to be very realistic was his fight in the train station. When Susan reminds him that they are kids, Peter's response is that he wasn't always. I think that's exactly how he would be. Once you have been the high king of a nation, why would you want to bow and scrape before others? For the same reason, I can sympathize with Susan when she says that she has just adjusted to life in England again. She had done the sensible thing and learned to make the best of the life she was left with. I can think of many times when a good thing has been denied and I resign myself to it and then it is thrust on me. It annoys me. Why couldn't I be given it before I had resigned myself? Of course I am happy, but still annoyed.



This was a great movie and I'm sorry that this has been really long. Kudos to you if you made it through the whole thing.

Winter Ball

Here are some pictures of the winter ball that my school held the Friday right after we came back. It was at a yacht club near here. I was too tired to dance very much but everyone else kept it up the whole time. We hit the cheesecake factory afterwards, of course. :)

The crazy dancing ladies (minus Steph who was still dancing)

Ali, need I say more?

This is what we really do on the weekends.

New Fashion trend...I'm all for it

I'm thinking "Where in the world did I find these two?"

(Part of) my lovely floor

Great advertisement for Gordon College right there...yup..

We love Ali!

My date :)

My roommate(s)

Something of a life update

I'm always disappointed when I visit a friend's blog and they haven't updated in a while. So, in case there are some reading my blog who feel the same sometimes, here is an update on my life.

Those of you who know about my recent bout of illness might being wondering how that is going. Weeeell, I wish I could say that the medicine worked instantly and that I am marvelously all better, however, reality has a way of bursting that bubble. In view of some lingering symptoms we are guessing that the medicine either hasn't built up in my system yet or the dosage needs to be upped or both. Also, I am still learning to adjust to this body that is now mine and accept that it will probably never be the one I had just a year and a half ago. It requires me to deal with things I had hoped to put off for a good twenty or thirty years and that is frustrating for someone whose body has always be able to do what she's told it to and sometimes even more than she's asked of it. Don't worry though, it hasn't been a waste. As a teenager I have learned what very few do...that I am not invincible. And now that I have lived, if only for a short time, with a body that felt (and was in many respects) about forty years older than it should have been, I appreciate every step I take that brings me closer to being nineteen again. It is true that you rarely know what a good thing you have until it is gone. If any of you can run, jump, play sports, exercise, breathe, feel your heart beat steadily, have a pillow fight, drive a car, walk in the woods, climb stairs, go a day without taking a pill... then thank God for it. Ok, I've finished my melodramatic sermon. Hey, I'm entitled to one every now and then.

On a completely different topic...I must admit that very pathetically I haven't been able to give anyone a satisfactory answer as to who my candidate is for this election. Honestly I don't have an opinion that I can call my own at this point. I've tried to refrain from discussing it since I haven't done my research yet. I do plan on voting this November, but I don't plan on making a decision before I have carefully looked at all of my options. At this time, I'd only be parroting the opinions of my family and that doesn't allow for intelligent conversation. So, for those who have asked, please be patient with me and I will be happy to share my opinions with you when they actually have some substance behind them.

As to what I have been doing on my break....nothing. Or almost nothing. I didn't really expect it to be productive but I was hoping I might have something to show for it. Sadly enough I really don't think I do. I have gotten to hang out with some great people and had a lot of fun with them. I've even read a book or two and started a load more. People keep telling me I deserve to be lazy for a while (my body has a way of agreeing with them) but laziness just doesn't sit well with me. I'm going to get too used to it and next week the craziness ensues once more. If I can get past my dread of new professors, harder classes, and sleep deprivation, then I am really looking forward to being at Gordon again. The challenges scare me but I know that the grace of God will get me through the next four months just as he got me through the last four. I absolutely loved my last semester and I'm very proud of what I accomplished. Hopefully I can say the same come the end of May.

I'll leave you with this picture of my (mostly) adorable girls. If only they could be this cute all of the time....

This is my paper that I did for my philosophy class, Antiquities. This is the second draft and while it could use another draft still, I was graded on this one and don't really have the time to do it. Hope you enjoy and please, feel free to give me your opinion on it. The assignment was to write an argumentative paper about something from Plato's Five Dialogues.

The Problem With Truth

Lyndsi Marzolf

Lyndsi: Who are you?

Simplicio: My name is Simplicio.

L: What are you doing here?

S: I'm looking for truth and I was hoping you could help me.

L: Why me?

S: You are taking a philosophy class, are you not?

L: Well, yes, I am.

S: So, you'd think that after studying the same texts for a couple thousand years somebody would have gotten to the bottom of it by now.

L: All right, since you put it that way, I'll give it a shot. I suppose I've got as good a chance as the next person. I should warn you though, we have been studying Plato's Five Dialogues, so I will probably talk about it a lot. After all, it was Socrates who said, "There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." But first I'd like to know why you are searching for truth.

S: Well, isn't that what you're supposed to do?

L: Please don't tell me that you are looking for truth only because you think you are supposed to.

S: No! I have another reason.

L: What is it then?

S: I want to know how life works and when you have the truth you know this.

L: Is that so? Why do you want to know how life works?

S: I guess because you need to know how life works in order to live the right way.

L: So, you don't think you are living the right way now?

S: If I was, then I wouldn't be looking for truth.

L: Why do you need to live the right way?

S: Living the right way or knowing truth, can make us prosperous. It gives us insight into the world to help us succeed. Also, knowing truth could help bring about justice and a better world. If we had truth, we could rid the world of deceit and without deceit most of the other vices wouldn't exist.

L: That is an admirable reason but what about truth just for the sake of truth? As soon as truth is used as a means to an end, I would say that it has lost its value because using truth for something is the same as manipulating it or sullying the purity of it which makes it, in a way, no longer truth.

S: I never thought of it that way.

L: Now that you've something to think about, let's move on. To begin with, what you think truth is?

S: I would say that truth is the thing that is reliable and that doesn't ever change.

L: It sounds like you agree with Plato's theory of Forms--that the Beautiful itself, or in your case the Truth itself, the thing that the beautiful, or true, here on earth participates in, cannot be changed in any way. In other words, what you are saying is that truth will always be the same as it is now. What was true at the beginning of time is still true today and will be true forever. It is upon this kind of truth that we may rely. Do you think that there can be more than one kind of truth? Is there any truth which changes from time to time?

S: No, truth cannot change. If it did it would no longer be true; it would be something else.

L: Would it be false or simply a statement that is neither true nor false but just is.

S: If it is not true then it must be false.

L: So you would say that my age, being 18 and some months at the moment, is false because it is always changing. From day to day I am not the same age as I was yesterday nor as I will be tomorrow. Does this make my age false? And what of time itself? From moment to moment it moves relentlessly on, never stopping, always changing. These things embody change, but it does not follow that they are false. By saying that truth never changes you have, in a way, boxed it in by time because things can change over time.

S: All right, my definition obviously didn't work, so now it's your turn.

L: My definition can pretty much be summed up by the word "absolute."

S: What in the world does that mean?

L: What I mean is that if something is absolute it is the ultimate, the foundation, unable to be divided or separated any more.

S: If truth is some kind of foundation, then what is it supporting?

L: Truth supports knowledge while at the same time knowledge reveals truth. Consider that scientists say that the atom, or whatever is the smallest known unit now, is what composes the physical part of our world. It makes up nature, the human body, and all of the other things we find tangible in creation, as well as a few intangible ones like gases and such. This does not hold true when it comes to the sound of music or the beauty of a sunset. Truth must then support things which are conceptual and that exist in the mind. Knowledge is what our minds hold. However, it takes knowledge to get to the truth.

S: I still don't get it.

L: Maybe some explanations and an example will clarify things. We can have knowledge of something that is made up of a number of facts. Facts are pieces of information that are valid. A bunch of these together constitute some knowledge. This knowledge can be misinterpreted or manipulated so that we perceive this knowledge wrongly. This leads to lies or falsehoods. Truth is reality, the way things really are regardless of how they are perceived. This reality cannot be changed in the sense that how we view it will not make it different then what it really is. In the Phaedo, Socrates describes truth as "all that is pure." In other words, it can't be affected by us. No matter how wrongly we perceive, the knowledge of what actually happened does not change and is not affected. Take a murder for instance. The fact that there is a dead body with a bullet hole in it, a gun lying on the floor, and blood all around would lead us to the conclusion or knowledge that the person was killed with a gun. Let's say that there is also the fact that Joe Schmoe will inherit a million dollars because of the murder. It may or may not mean that he committed the murder. For the sake of argument I will say that the truth is that he did not commit the murder and inheriting a million dollars has nothing to do with it. This can still be manipulated by someone to make him look guilty or it can be mistakenly misinterpreted, either one leading to a false belief or lie. However, the truth still is that he didn't do it and the inheritance doesn't matter. If the facts aren't manipulated we can use knowledge to get to the truth, so knowledge reveals truth. Truth supports knowledge in that knowledge itself is true and only through manipulation and misinterpretation is it false.

S: Yes, I suppose that does make more sense. It leaves room for truth to be right in every situation even if the next moment it is different. The problem is that there is one truth and the possibility of many falsehoods. That doesn't make the odds of finding the truth very good. If we are all searching for truth, then why would it be the hardest thing to find?

L: That also brings up the point of knowing truth when we see it. While having a conversation with Meno about the substance of virtue, Socrates describes something, he calls it true opinion, as a sort of knowledge that is unfounded but correct. It is as though it has been discovered by accident. If humanity possesses any kind of truth it is this true opinion which has been happened upon unintentionally. This only helps us when we have "guessed right" for as Meno wisely points out "the man who has knowledge will always succeed, whereas he who has true opinion will only succeed at times." The trouble being that we don't know when we have truth! True Opinion does not become knowledge until it has been justified. Often times we think we know something and then it is proved false. For example, people used to believe that the earth was the center of the solar system. Then along came a man named Galileo who discovered that the sun is the center of the solar system. Unfortunately he was forced to recant and to spend the rest of his life under house arrest, but that is beside the point. Our beliefs about the structure of an atom have changed over time as well. Also our knowledge of the inner workings of the human body have changed. Think of all the organs we used to believe were useless!! All these things we have at one point deemed knowledge that we knew to be true only to discover later that they were wrong. Can we really trust that we know anything for sure at all? Each of these ideas was ardently believed to be true but we now know (or think we know) it to be false. How many things do we hold as truth now that will one day be proved false? Maybe it is true that he is wisest who knows that he knows nothing.

S: Great, now I don't only not know what truth is but I also have to doubt everything!!

L: Wait, it gets better. Have you ever heard of the Liar's Paradox?

S: No. What is that?

L: Well, if you open the Bible to Titus chapter one and read the first part of verse twelve you will see that it says, "One of Crete's own prophets has said it: 'Cretans are always liars.'" Would you believe this statement?

S: Yes, I think he of all people would know what he was talking about.

L: That is just it! He just said that all Cretans are liars and yet he himself is a Cretan.

S: Then that would make him a liar.

L: This is where the paradox comes in. For if he is lying, then the opposite would be true, that all Cretans speak the truth. But, if he is lying, then all Cretans do not speak the truth. Yet, in saying that all Cretans lie he would be telling the truth. It just goes around and around.

S: That is extremely difficult to understand.

L: You should try explaining it sometime. Now, from what I have said, is the Cretan's statement true or false?

S: I have no idea.

L: Well, if the statement is true then he is a liar. If the statement is false then is not a liar. We don't really know which one he is, so is it possible that something is both true and false at the same time?

S: That can't be right!

L: Have you got a better answer? If Socrates was right when he said "the very good and the very wicked are both quite rare, and that most men are between those extremes," then maybe truth can have a little of the false in for we already know that falsehoods can possess a little truth.

S: Fine, if we can't know what truth is then what is the point of there being any? According to what you've said, we can know what it is but never recognize when it is in front of us. Why do we keep searching for it?

L: Now that is a question worth considering. First of all it is a bit presumptuous to think that we could understand what truth is and to recognize it when we have so seemingly little experience with it. That aside, it could be that we are born with the need or desire for it. Or truth could be something that we live off of, a kind of food. Maybe truth is the food that our souls need to survive. When speaking of the immortal soul, Socrates says that when investigating by itself the soul "passes into the realm of what is pure." We've already seen that he calls this purity truth and that he considers the purpose of the soul to be separating itself from the body. So, it may be more likely that the search for truth is something we require. Maybe it does something for us that we are not aware of but that we desperately need. For all we know, it could be the entire purpose of our existence.

S: This is getting just a little bit depressing.

L: Don't say that! Who knows? Perhaps finding out why we need truth is more important than actually getting the truth.

Here are some of the fascinating things that I am learning in my Old Testament class. It's hard to believe I would never have learned these things if I hadn't come to Gordon!

- There are four different interpretations for the creation days. The word for day in Hebrew is Yom and this can be taken as a literal day or as a long or indefinite period of time. The four theories are the literal, Gap Hypothesis, Day-Age theory, and Framework Hypothesis. I had never heard of the Framework Hypothesis before. It believes that the order of creation is a literary framework that arranges things topically. It is from the viewpoint of an observer and so sees itself as the pinnacle of creation. The number seven is one of completion and perfected, hence seven days.

- In Genesis 2:18, the NIV and many other Bibles have translated in the God made a "helper suitable" for man. The Hebrew phrase is ezer kenegdo and the a better translation of it is "a power equal to him." (I wrote an entire paper on this one, so feel free to ask me about it!)

- The creation story is filled with literary puns that you can only catch if you know Hebrew. For instance, the word for ground or dust is adamah and the first man taken from dust is called Adam.

- There are three theories about the flood and how much land it covered. It was either geographically and ethnographically universal, geographically local and ethnographically universal, or geographically and ethnographically local.

- When Abraham is trying to buy the cave of Machpelah to bury his wife Sarah in, Ephron was pressing him to buy the land along with the cave because if the owner only sold part of it according to Hittite law he must continue to pay taxes and take care of military services.

- I now know how the Hebrew Bible is split up. The last book is 2 Chronicles because the last phrase in 2 Chronicles is "Let him go up!" referring to Jerusalem. The last verse in Micah is morbid and they didn't want a morbid verse to end their Bible.

- We've learned the translations of the Old Testament and a LOT about Hebrew culture.

- The Ten Commandments or Decalogue (as well as Deuteronomy) uses the format of a Hittite Suzerain Treaty (that is one of a lord to a vassal nation). There are six parts to this treaty and it follows it very closely.

- I know the laws that make things Kosher and the Holidays of the Jews both periodic and annual.

This may sound like bragging (I suppose in a way it is) but really I just want to share some of the awesome stuff I've learned about my Bible and we're only through Deuteronomy!! I'm not an expert by any means, but if any of this stuff interests you, let me know and I'd be happy to get you some more information. Don't miss out!!

A Love Worth Waiting For.....

A letter from husband Sullivan Ballou to his wife during the Civil War.

July 14, 1861
Camp Clark, Washington

My very dear Sarah:
The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days—perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write again, I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more . . .

I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how strongly American Civilization now leans on the triumph of the Government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and sufferings of the Revolution. And I am willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt . . .

Sarah my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me unresistibly on with all these chains to the battle field.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them for so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when, God willing, we might still have lived and loved together, and seen our sons grown up to honorable manhood, around us. I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me—perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar, that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battle field, it will whisper your name. Forgive my many faults and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have often times been! How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness . . .

But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the gladdest days and in the darkest nights . . . always, always, and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath, as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by. Sarah do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again . . .