More and more, I am departing from the tripartite idea of integration. What if we just are? Why do we need to identify each part of ourselves? I wonder if we can talk about human becomings instead if human beings as I mention in some of my writing. So are we body and soul and spirit? Or, we just are what we are without parts that make a whole, but a whole in and of itself. If so, salvation is not of the soul, but if humanity, our humanity. I don’t know, these are just some thoughts I have had, and you reminded me if them. Thanks!
I can see that. I use tripartite, Anthrohead language to indicate the whole thing because of the way we have neglected the human body in favour of soul or spirit language and decided that some bodies are more human than others. I instinctively steer away from "becoming" language because it lays the foundation for some being regarded as "more human" than others, creating a new rumour of power dynamic we don't want.
Saying this, I agree. I'm not about to walk out into a field of flowers and regard them according their class and phylum but if I am making a study of them, this might be necessary if only to make sure I include everything that is flower and exclude anything that is not (flowers themselves largely disappear if we zoom out to an ecological view rather than a focus on individuals).
My study started as an attempt to discern the people of God and if there was anything leaching on to us, and there was, so my purpose in using tripartite language is not to take away from the idea that we "just are," my writings surrounding love and isness power speak to this. As a whole, we "just are," and our salvation is a whole salvation, but anything can be broken down into its parts or lumped together into a whole--I don't think we ought to be afraid of this.
To be fair, terms like body, soul and spirit likely exist because of brokenness theology. We could probably move beyond it, but there will always be people who believe the brokenness story and so we must be able to speak their language in a polemic sense in the way God speaks polemically into ours.
As with any breakdown of parts, we cannot address the body without addressing the soul or spirit and so there is no meaningful separation--as you say, they might not even exist, so why keep addressing them? This is an excellent question, one I don't have a good addition to, but leave it with me and perhaps together we can move beyond it in a way that removes the necessity for inclusion and exclusion and centres on wholeness.
"It is my view that true health among the people of God is found first in the integration of an individual’s body, soul and spirit, and then in that individual’s integration into a fellowship of other well-integrated people." Oh my gosh YES. This makes so much sense to me. This validates and affirms the journey I've been on. I just hate feeling like I'm crazy because most people in the organizational church just don't get this.
It's true, but it's also sadly true that it's not their fault. They (like us) were born into this. We are the (tragically) lucky few who have had our proverbial glasses knocked off and see the world differently than they do. Blessedly differently in my opinion.
More and more, I am departing from the tripartite idea of integration. What if we just are? Why do we need to identify each part of ourselves? I wonder if we can talk about human becomings instead if human beings as I mention in some of my writing. So are we body and soul and spirit? Or, we just are what we are without parts that make a whole, but a whole in and of itself. If so, salvation is not of the soul, but if humanity, our humanity. I don’t know, these are just some thoughts I have had, and you reminded me if them. Thanks!
I can see that. I use tripartite, Anthrohead language to indicate the whole thing because of the way we have neglected the human body in favour of soul or spirit language and decided that some bodies are more human than others. I instinctively steer away from "becoming" language because it lays the foundation for some being regarded as "more human" than others, creating a new rumour of power dynamic we don't want.
Saying this, I agree. I'm not about to walk out into a field of flowers and regard them according their class and phylum but if I am making a study of them, this might be necessary if only to make sure I include everything that is flower and exclude anything that is not (flowers themselves largely disappear if we zoom out to an ecological view rather than a focus on individuals).
My study started as an attempt to discern the people of God and if there was anything leaching on to us, and there was, so my purpose in using tripartite language is not to take away from the idea that we "just are," my writings surrounding love and isness power speak to this. As a whole, we "just are," and our salvation is a whole salvation, but anything can be broken down into its parts or lumped together into a whole--I don't think we ought to be afraid of this.
To be fair, terms like body, soul and spirit likely exist because of brokenness theology. We could probably move beyond it, but there will always be people who believe the brokenness story and so we must be able to speak their language in a polemic sense in the way God speaks polemically into ours.
As with any breakdown of parts, we cannot address the body without addressing the soul or spirit and so there is no meaningful separation--as you say, they might not even exist, so why keep addressing them? This is an excellent question, one I don't have a good addition to, but leave it with me and perhaps together we can move beyond it in a way that removes the necessity for inclusion and exclusion and centres on wholeness.
"It is my view that true health among the people of God is found first in the integration of an individual’s body, soul and spirit, and then in that individual’s integration into a fellowship of other well-integrated people." Oh my gosh YES. This makes so much sense to me. This validates and affirms the journey I've been on. I just hate feeling like I'm crazy because most people in the organizational church just don't get this.
It's true, but it's also sadly true that it's not their fault. They (like us) were born into this. We are the (tragically) lucky few who have had our proverbial glasses knocked off and see the world differently than they do. Blessedly differently in my opinion.
Oof, yes. 😞👌