SOUL and SUBSTANCE: Spirit, Soul, and Substance--One Theologian's Perspective

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this blog is four-fold:
(1) to recognize that every person functions within a basic paradigm, which affects how all information is processed;
(2) to understand the paradigms of others;
(3) to discuss, in particular, paradigms which are related to science, religion, and philosophy.
(4) to reveal the paradigm shifts in my own life, a process that has completely changed the direction and purpose of my existence.

The purpose of this blog is NOT to convince anyone that their paradigms or beliefs are correct or incorrect. I am hoping for an honest dialog, but the discussions must remain respectful of others, even if there is profound disagreement. If any comments are not respectful, they will be removed.
(Revised 1/13/09)

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Spirit, Soul, and Substance--One Theologian's Perspective

Although the Chinese, Christian theologian who is discussed in the following excerpt held many controversial opinions, his distinctions among spirit, soul, and body may resonate with many eastern philosophies, as well as mainstream biblical scholarship.
-------------------------------------------
WATCHMAN NEE (1903 -1972) A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY
by Huelon Mountfort

Watchman Nee is considered one of the most important indigenous church leaders and thinkers in the history of Chinese Christianity. There are few leaders in the history of Chinese Christianity whose influence is as prevalent as Watchman Nee's....

Watchman Nee was born into a family with a Christian heritage. His grandfather, U Cheng Nee, was the one of the first ordained Chinese ministers of the Congregational missions in the Fukien Province of China. Nee was the third child of nine, but the first male child. Since Chinese tradition favors sons, relatives despised families with no male children. When Nee's mother was expecting the third child she prayed to God earnestly asking for a son and dedicated this third child to God similar to Hannah in 1 Samuel 1:1-20. God heard her prayer. On November 4, 1903, Nee Shu-Tsu (later known as Watchman Nee) was born. Nee later changed his name to "Duo Sheng" ("Watchman" in English) meaning, "sound of the gong," or a watchman to raise the people of God for service.

Throughout his youth, Nee attended schools founded by the Church Missionary Society in Fuzhow, China. And in all areas he showed extraordinary intellectual promise. When he was 18 years of age, Nee dedicated his life to Christ through the preaching of Miss Dora Yu, an ex-medical student, who forfeited a lucrative occupation and dedicated her life to the preaching of the word of Christ....

Nee and other students who had a common zeal for the spreading of the gospel among the young people in their town and local schools and colleges gathered in prayer and Bible study. They set up their own meetings and engaged in vigorous street evangelism. Between the years 1923-1928, Nee published the magazines Revival and Christian, as well as the book The Spiritual Man. Nee was instrumental in the spiritual revival among students at that time....

In 1928, Nee changed his name to Watchman and settled in Shanghai. During that time, he had a good measure of disdain for denominational churches of that day. In the magazine, Revival, he expressed that he believed the church was hindering the purpose of God. According to Nee, many ministries done "for the Lord," "in the name of God," "for the kingdom of God," "for the Church of Christ" were being done in the flesh. People are not seeking for God's will but the will of their own.... He saw that churches in China should be self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating.... It was at this time Nee set up the first independent assembly at Hardoon Road in Shanghai. He was the main speaker at the first Shanghai conference of this new movement, which was later known as the "Little Flock." ...

On October 1, 1949, the People's Republic of China was established. Despite others' entreaties, Nee and his wife returned again to Shanghai from overseas. Nee wanted to be with his brothers and sisters in Christ. For the first two years of the Communist rule, Nee was still able to do ministry, bringing 3- 4,000 people every Sunday, in the Shanghai church. But on April 10, 1952, Nee was arrested. He was accused of espionage, counter-revolutionary activities, financial and even moral irregularities. The indictment running 2,296 pages against Nee was made public in January 1956. Many Little Flock believers were arrested and churches throughout the country were closed by force. The Shanghai assembly was eventually closed and made into a factory.

Nee was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, however, he was not released in 1967, when his sentence was complete. It was common for prisoners who were considered 'unreformed' to be given an additional five to seven years of sentencing and on June 1, 1972, soon after he was moved from the Shanghai prison to a rural work camp, Watchman Nee died at age 69....

Nee was aware of ways in which the Christian missionary movement was compromised by its entanglement with Western imperialism and denominational controversies. He was also keenly aware of the inability of the church in general to satisfy the spiritual need of the people. Against such a background, Nee developed a wholly independent Chinese Christian movement by returning to a more simple, New Testament model of Christianity. Therefore, the movement was the combination of old biblical principles and the new ardent nationalism....

According to J.A. Lee[1], an expert in theological structure of Watchman Nee, Nee's theology is systematic, with all aspects, even his unique ecclesiology, centering on his anthropology.... Nee is a trichotomist. Throughout his writings, he has categorized man into three parts: body, soul and spirit. To Nee's understanding, the spirit has the highest value, the physical body has the lowest, while the soul is intermediary. From the aspect of redemption, Nee explains that these three parts (body, soul and spirit) have "functional relationships". Namely, the spirit controls the soul and the soul controls the body. Not only is there a functional relationship among the three, there is also a hierarchical relationship. The spirit is higher than the soul, the soul is higher than the body. From these relationships, Nee determines his doctrines of the Fall, regeneration and sanctification. According to Nee, God's original intention is for the spirit to control the body, through the soul. However, after the fall of Adam and Eve, this order is reversed. The Fall results in the body controlling man's soul, which in turn controls the spirit. Regeneration for Nee involves the spirit only, not the soul or the body, because "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (John 3:6)....

According to Lee, Nee holds to ethicoreligious dualism. Nee polarized the kingdom of God and the world (cosmos). The world and God are in opposition, with the world controlled by Satan. Satan uses all activities, i.e., culture, business, and economy to lure Christians into his world system to be his slaves.... Thus, in Nee's teachings, Christians should separate from the world, cut off relations with the world. Even though the Christian is the light of the world, this only pertains to sharing the gospel and Christ to the world.... In his critique of Nee's cosmology, Lee asserts that Nee's position lacks the awareness of the Christian's cultural mandate to this world.... We need to remain in contact with our culture and at the same time use the truth of the Bible to enlighten, challenge, and transcend our culture. Lee points out that Nee’s "spiritual man" is not one who is only concerned with the growth of his spirit but also his body; the concern for the whole person. Whether one divides a man into a trichotomy or dichotomy, a man is not complete if he lacks any part of his mind, emotions and thoughts....

Nee's influence on the Chinese Churches is not limited to Asia. His theological influences are alive and well to this day. No doubt that Nee was truly a dedicated Christian leader who "wanted nothing for himself and everything for his Lord, who sought throughout all his life to be a spiritual man even unto death". Yet, just like any Christian leader, he was not perfect. We should be deeply inspired by his love and devotion for Christ, and at the same time be keenly aware of the aspects of his teachings that are extreme to the point of being erroneous.

As Nee’s nephew wrote:
Many spiritual leaders have failed and were weak. However, the Bible was always truthful without covering over the failures of these people whom God used. The failures of Abraham, Moses and Gideon were recorded in the Bible. God did not put these events for us to see how great and successful and worthy of our worship these people were, but to allow us to see His marvelous works manifested through a bunch of useless vessels to accomplish His good will. Likewise, my uncle had failures. Yet those things will not deny the truth of how God has used him mightily. He is among the lowly, he is incomplete, yet he was truly used by God mightily and he was a vessel filled with precious treasure[2].

[1] Jian An Lee, Theological Critique of the Contemporary Chinese Church-A Study of Watchman Nee's Theology (Reformed Institute, Washington D.C., 1998)
[2] Stephen C.T. Chan, My Uncle, Watchman Nee. Chinese edition. (HongKong: Golden Lampstand Publishing Society Ltd., 1999)

IIIM Magazine Online,Volume 4, Number 19, May 13 to May 20, 2002
http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/hue_mountfort/CH.Mountfort.watchman.nee.bio.html

2 comments:

Unknown said...: One of my very best friends is absolutely enamored by Watchman Nee.; May 20, 2008 at 5:14 AM
LucyS said...: He has written some very interesting books.; May 20, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Post a Comment

What is Occam's Razor?

(1) Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

[From Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor]

(2) Okham's RazorSharon Kaye
There are so many interesting theories about the nature of reality. How do we decide which to accept and which to reject? As we go through life, we examine new ideas and reexamine old ones in an attempt to establish a suitable collection of beliefs. Sometimes this process feels like walking through the a la carte line in a cafeteria where you can pick and choose any combination you want. Just as a smart eater will use healthy principles to make these choices, a smart thinker will use epistemic principles to evaluate beliefs.
Ockham’s Razor is one of the most important epistemic principles. It states that if you have to choose from some number of competing theories, choose the simplest theory because it is most likely to be true.
Suppose, for example, that the newspaper, which is delivered daily to your doorstep, is missing this morning. There are a number of possible explanations. The delivery person could be ill, the newspaper plant may have shut down, or outer space aliens may have stolen it for the purpose of spying on Earthlings. The obvious choice among these three possibilities is the first. The second and third choices seem increasingly unacceptable. But why? If the choice is mine, what is there to prevent me from accepting the alien theory?
The answer is that the alien theory is too complicated. The illness theory requires me to believe in the presence of a virus, something I already believe in for other reasons. The alien theory, in contrast, requires me to believe in something that I have no other reason to acknowledge. This is to say that the alien theory asks me to adopt more assumptions than does the illness theory.
One might still wonder why added assumptions constitute a problem. After all, it is not as though we are short on brain space. My interest in creativity and originality might lead me to take pride in developing a more complicated theory.
But this would be a mistake. Complication is not something to take pride in because it necessarily increases the risk of error. Each and every belief is a liability insofar as it carries the possibility that it may not be true. The more assumptions you adopt, therefore, the more likely it is that you have unknowingly committed yourself to a falsehood. Falsehood is the great enemy of intelligence. To live intelligently, we must minimize the risk of error as much as we can.
Ockham’s Razor does not state that the world is maximally simple. Clearly, the world is not simple. The world is so complex that it would not be entirely surprising if it turns out that outer space aliens do exist. The point is that we should not move to that conclusion until the evidence forces us there – until we are not able to explain what we observe in a simpler way.
Philosophers have used the Razor in many different ways. Sometimes they use it to defend traditional views. The great twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell appeals to the Razor in his refutation of idealism, the view that the external world does not exist. Russell writes:
Thus every principle of simplicity urges us to adopt the natural view, that there really are objects other than ourselves and our sense-data which have an existence not dependent upon our perceiving them. . . . Since this belief does not lead to any difficulties but on the contrary tends to simplify and systematize our account of our experiences, there seems no good reason for rejecting it. (The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1968, p. 24.)
On the other hand, philosophers have also used the Razor to attack traditional views. For example, atheists increasingly use it against theism. If we can now explain everything about the world that there is to be explained in purely natural terms, then there is no need for the supernatural assumption. Sure, you can still add it if you want, but it is no longer an intelligent choice.
As this last example suggests, there is room for disagreement over the use of Ockham’s Razor. After all, positing an extra entity can actually simplify a theory. (Imagine trying to do physics without the electron.) Richard Swinburne argues that the God hypothesis performs a similar function. Like any philosophical tool, the Razor is itself controversial, raising some interesting epistemological questions.
One question about the Razor that is rarely asked, however, is this: why is it called a Razor? When I ask my students this question, they often answer that it is called a Razor because it trims the fat. It is true that trimming the fat is an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes insofar as it signifies getting to the "meat of the matter," the essentials. But who uses a razor for trimming fat? Ask any butcher and you will learn that there are plenty of other more effective tools for such a procedure.
Ockham’s Razor is named after the fourteenth-century logician, William of Ockham. Although he did not invent the principle of simplicity, he used it so effectively and with such devastating effect, that it became indelibly associated with him. Did they use razors for trimming fat back in the Middle Ages?
Of course not. The primary use for the razor in the Middle Ages was the same as it is today: shaving. The problem is that, unlike trimming fat, shaving is not an apt metaphor for what the principle of simplicity accomplishes. Setting aside certain medical contexts, shaving is a cosmetic procedure. We shave to beautify ourselves, not to simplify ourselves. In fact, one could argue that shaving makes personal hygiene considerably more complicated. Nor do we shave to get down to the essentials as though a bald man is somehow more authentic than a hirsute. Shaving is a matter of personal preference. If the epistemic principle in question were about personal preference, then it should have been named the ‘principle of prettiness’. Granted, ‘elegance’ has long been regarded as a desirable quality in theories, and elegance is closely related to simplicity. But since when is hair inelegant? Just what were they thinking when they named Ockham’s Razor?
My own personal theory is that they were thinking about another use of the razor during the Middle Ages. At the end of the fourteenth century, paper was only just being introduced in Europe as a common writing material. Before then, everything was written on parchment, which is made from animal skins. The picture below features a typical medieval scribe:
Notice the tools he holds. In his right hand is a quill for applying ink. In his left hand is a razor. He uses the razor to scrape the parchment clean when he makes an error. His razor is an eraser.
I believe that we would all do well to be more conscious of the principle of simplicity. It is not a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of accuracy. Ockham’s Razor is the way to keep your mind neat and clean.
(Sharon Kaye is assistant professor in philosophy at John Carroll University Cleveland, Ohio)

[From Royal Institute of Philosophy: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=18)

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS

A list of USEFUL TERMS, from the University of Aberdeen, Philosophy, School of Philosophy, and Religious Studies, Old Brewery • High Street • Aberdeen • AB24 3UB http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
DETERMINISM The theory that whatever happens (including human acts) is caused by something else. Physical Determinism maintains that the ‘something else’ is a physical entity or event; Psychological Determinism maintains that the cause (at least, the immediate cause) of a human act is a psychological or mental entity or event (e.g. a desire, a decision).
EMPIRICISM The doctrine that knowledge comes from experience.
EPISTEMOLOGY The branch of philosophy that involves the study of knowledge.
ETHICS The branch of philosophy that deals with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: What is it right (or wrong) to do? Do the intentions behind an action determine its goodness or does the actual outcome of the action matter more? Are there any universal ethical rules?
FIDEISM Holds that religious beliefs can not be justified by rational means, but only through faith.
LOGIC The branch of philosophy that deals with the formal properties of arguments and the philosophical problems associated with them. Central questions in logic include: What is a good argument? How can we work out if an argument is good or not? What are paradoxes? Can they be resolved? How can we talk meaningfully about objects that don’t exist e.g. Sherlock Holmes, or unicorns?
METAPHYSICS The branch of philosophy which studies the underlying structure of reality. Central questions in metaphysics include: Can we act freely? What is it for something to exist? How are causes related to their effects? What is time? What is space? How is change possible?
NATURAL THEOLOGY Knowledge of God which is obtained by reason alone, without the aid of revelation.
ONTOLOGY The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the mind. Central questions in the philosophy of mind include: Is it possible for a machine to think? How is the mind related to the brain? Do animals have minds? How can I know that anyone else has a mind? (This last one is sometimes called the problem of other minds.)
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION The branch of philosophy which discusses the nature and existence of God. Central questions include: Does God exist? What sort of evidence could justify belief in God? If there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Is there life after death? Do we have souls? How could we know anything about God?
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The branch of philosophy which analyses the nature and results of scientific inquiry. Central questions include: Do scientist describe reality or just appearances? Can we have good reason to believe in the existence of unobservable entities (e.g. quarks)? What happens when one scientific theory replaces an older theory?
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY The branch of philosophy that discusses freedom, justice, rights, democracy and other political issues. Central questions include: Is democracy the best form of government? How can we balance rights and responsibilities?
RATIONALISM The doctrine that genuine knowledge, or at least the most significant kind of knowledge, is not established by sense-experience, or at least not by sense-experience alone.... Contrast EMPIRICISM
SOLIPSISM A form of SCEPTICISM. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind.
THEODICY An argument which tries to explain how a good and all-powerful God could create a world with suffering and evil in it.
UTILITARIANISM The doctrine that acts are right solely in so far as their consequences maximize the general happiness (in some versions: maximize the general pleasure; in some versions: maximize the general welfare). It is controversial whether the general happiness must be interpreted as the happiness of the majority.
VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE An account of meaningfulness which claims that all and only those sentences which can be empirically verified are meaningful.

SOUL and SUBSTANCE

PARADIGM

Statement of Purpose

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Spirit, Soul, and Substance--One Theologian's Perspective

2 comments:

Blog Archive

About Me

ShareThis

Followers

My Other Blogs

An Inspiring Blog.......

BlogCatalog

FAVORITE SITES CONCERNING SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY

Thought-Provoking Blogs

What is Occam's Razor?

GLOSSARY OF PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS