“As we become more respectful of our bodies, we discover that God communicates with us through visceral, bodily sensations and experiences of tension, tears, energy drain, fear, etc.” – Ruth Haley Barton
Dallas Willard and the Body
These are preliminary thoughts on this topic; I may expand on it later. This focus on the body in Contemplative Spirituality (also known as the Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation, and Spiritual Practices) likely started with Dallas Willard. In his book, The Spirit of the Disciplines, and elsewhere, he writes about how the body relates to the disciplines. He cites First Timothy 4:7 to discuss what he calls the disciplines. But that passage does not support the disciplines promoted by Willard. However, it is evident from the context that it is about training one’s self in order to be discerning (see CANA article on this):
“In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness; for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.” (verses 6-8)
In fact, the passage in its full context makes it clear it is not about the body. But Willard seemed to think the body was part of a spiritual connection to God. In one essay, he seems to take some Scriptures out of context to make this point, such as citing 1 Corinthians 9:27, referring to Paul saying that he “beats my body to make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”
But the context is not about the body. Paul is speaking of being a slave to others (see verses 19-23) and to the gospel in order to do what God has led him to do. Paul writes:
“Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.” (vv. 24-27)
Paul is not writing about the body but about self-discipline in order to serve God. The race and boxing are metaphors. His words are followed by a call to remember those led by Moses in the wilderness and how they “were laid low” and “craved evil things” to the point of idolatry (1 Cor. 10:1-13).
As Christians, our bodies belong to God so we should not misuse them (or abuse them). But in order to try to justify the spiritual disciplines, Willard makes it about the body.
Is God Speaking Through Tears?
Ruth Haley Barton echoes and even expands on Willard’s body themes when she writes on the site of her Transforming Center:
“…. Honoring the body involves learning to experience our bodies as a place of prayer—a temple, as the New Testament refers to it. As we learn to care for and honor our bodies as a spiritual practice, we begin to sense God’s goodness and presence in and through our bodies. We are energized for the spiritual journey and for service to others. We are guided to pray in our bodies (kneeling, resting in God’s presence, engaging in creative movement, walking meditation, etc.). As we become more respectful of our bodies, we discover that God communicates with us through visceral, bodily sensations and experiences of tension, tears, energy drain, fear, etc. We find that we become more discerning as we learn to listen to the wisdom of the body.”
The problem is that nothing said by Barton here is supported in Scripture. Nobody needs to “experience the body as a place of prayer” in order to pray. Praying is simple; it only requires the desire to do so and to speak to God. There is no biblical justification to claim that one must “honor our bodies as a spiritual practice.” This is almost like a Pharisaical addition to how God instructs us in prayer through Scripture, including how Jesus taught the disciples to pray.
We can thank God for our bodies but we honor God, not our bodies. Here again, there is the need to bring the body into the spiritual disciplines. However, the body is neither necessary nor unnecessary; it simply is part of being a human being. So why so much about the body? My conclusion is that since prayer (and many of the disciplines) are elaborate practices involving the body in Contemplative teachings, a theology around the body is constructed to hold up the Contemplative edifice (since this edifice is not held up by Scripture).
Barton goes further to say that God is communicating through the body. The Christian’s body is a temple for the Holy Spirit because the Spirit indwells those who believe in Christ. But should one expect to “sense God’s presence in and through our bodies?” Barton specifically means that God is communicating with us through bodily sensations such as tears, fatigue, fear, etc. In truth, the body as a temple for the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Spirit is physically enmeshed with the body, and the indwelling Spirit does not make the body divine or sacred. I have to wonder if Barton believes that it is. That would be a Panentheistic view.
What seems forgotten is that all men are in fallen bodies that will one day be made into new bodies for those in Christ, just as with the resurrected body of Jesus. Tears and fear are likely coming from emotions; they are not necessarily communications from God.
There is no biblical directive on kneeling in order to pray and walking meditation is specifically Buddhist (Barton had a Buddhist mentor, Rose Mary Doughterty, at the Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation where she trained, so one may wonder what she is envisioning when she uses this term; I did walking meditation with Zen Buddhists as a New Ager).
Of course, one can kneel, lie down, sit in a chair or stand up to pray – that is not the point here. But Barton’s words make the body sound like a medium between us and God.
Walking meditation may make some Christians think of walking and praying or walking and pondering Scripture, which is not what Barton means, since meditation as used by Contemplatives like Barton is not biblical meditation. Barton uses the term “meditation” in the Contemplative context. For space and time reasons rather than an involved explanation of that that means, please see other CANA articles on this topic by putting the words contemplative in the search box on the CANA site.
Wisdom of the Body
Barton also references the “wisdom of the body.” This is starling as it is a very familiar term from this writer’s New Age days. New Agers believe the body has an innate wisdom or intelligence, an idea at the root of many New Age therapies and practices. Does Barton believe this? I do not know but since she used the term, it is a fair question.
Barton believes Christians should listen to the wisdom of the body, which begs the question such as what sort of wisdom? And secondly, how does the body have wisdom? Thirdly, what biblical principle supports this idea? These teachings seem closer to what God has warned about as “empty deception” and ideas “according to the tradition of men, ideas which have the “appearance of wisdom.”
The truth is that the body has no wisdom; the body is a material substance directed by the brain. God made the brain for thinking and for knowing wisdom. The concept of the body being able to offer wisdom is close to idolatry. The Bible is clear that wisdom comes from God and we can find it in his word and through prayer.
Dualism
Many in thee spiritual disciplines arena think that belief in communication with God primarily through the use of reason and rationality is dualistic. However, it is not dualistic to recognize a distinction between the body and mind or to recognize that one is saved spiritually when trusting in Christ, understanding that the redemption of the body is future. That is a distinction found in Scripture, not in dualism.
The dualism/nondualism paradigm is taught by Perennial Wisdom follower Richard Rohr, an influential figure in Contemplative Spirituality. It seems to have expanded into the area of the body and mind.
This charge of dualism is highly ironic since it is the Contemplatives who continuously make a supposed distinction between the mind (or reason) and heart (or inner experience). In the Bible, the word “heart” almost always refers to the person’s mind, will, morals, desires, and emotions. Scripturally speaking then, one’s thought life, feelings, and desires are one. That is why when Jesus says in Matthew 27 to love God with one’s “heart, soul, and mind,” he is referring to the whole person.
The Neo-Gnostics
I was told that at some Christian educational institutions where contemplative practices are rampant, if one seeks to understand through the mind using logic, that this is called “neo-Gnostic” because the person using reason is too intellectual. Rather, it is claimed, one needs avoid being dualistic by viewing the body-mind unity as an “embodied” spirituality or theology.
This charge of neo-Gnosticism is used in a progressive Sojourners article on Embodied Theology. Embodied Theology is a broad topic and appears to include many ideas — many of them mystical and Progressive as seen in this article. But is not the purpose of this article to discuss that topic. However, I do want to address the so-called neo-Gnostic charge.
Those who claim that using the intellect or reason is being “neo-Gnostic” are committing both the fallacies of a straw man argument and a false choice, as well as misunderstanding what Gnosticism is.
Using the mind and the desire to reason is not a rejection of the body; it is not anti-body to be intellectual. Nor is using the mind being dualistic, as some claim. Nobody is saying the mind is superior to the body by pointing out how our intellect can serve us in researching, reading, and understanding God’s word, for example. Nobody is Gnostic in using reason. Reason and logic, in fact, are rooted in the character of God. Language must be logical in order to communicate, so the Bible is full of logic by virtue of the fact that it is communication via language. One must use reason and logic to read the Bible.
Promoting the use of reason is not Gnostic. Gnostic refers to esoteric, private knowledge that cannot be known or expressed via the use of reason. If anything, using reason is very anti-Gnostic. Let it be said again: being intellectual, using the mind, or using reason is not Gnostic.
Ironically, it is the Contemplatives who are more prone to neo-Gnosticism because of their claims that private, inner experiences with God are more profound and intimate than biblical prayer and reading of Scripture. Moreover, the Contemplative practices that are taught involve methods from Eastern religions and from mystics who claimed extra-biblical knowledge. The 14th centuray anonymous work, The Cloud of Unknowing, one of the most beloved books of Contemplatives, is very Gnostic-like in its esotericism and mystical obscurity (I say this from firsthand knowledge since I read the book).
Beware of Panentheism
From what I have read, it seems most mystics were/are Panentheists. This is a view that God is in creation and creation is in God. Panentheism is a feature of Perennial Wisdom, and it seems many mystics were and are Panentheists. Richard Rohr is an open advocate of panentheism. Panentheism is not biblical because there is a distinction between God and his creation (and there is no division in God between his nature and his “energies” as claimed by the Eastern Orthodox, a view which is self-contradictory).
Since it seems many of the Contemplatives have views similar to or overlapping with Perennial Wisdom, this is another danger to be aware of. Even if one is not aware of what Panentheism or Perennial Wisdom are, the fallout from these beliefs include a lower or incorrect view of God, an incorrect view of who man is, an incorrect or lower view of Jesus and the atonement, and/or a wrong view of sanctification.
Fallout
This strange teaching about the body is only one fallout from the Contemplative movement. In case anyone thinks this writer is dismissing the body, I would like to point out that I have very vocally and publicly pointed out how the bodily resurrection of Jesus dismantles the many New Age and Gnostic views of the body. I have written a warning on the popular phrase, “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience,” an idea popular in the New Age which somehow started being popular in the church. We are created by God both material and immaterial. I have never discounted the body; I actually have written against doing so.
In my 20 plus years of looking into Contemplative teachings, what I have observed is that there is a misuse of Scripture, a focus on experiences, massive use of extra-biblical material and ideas (mostly from the mystics) over Scripture, a dismissal of the authority of the Bible, and a focus on self.
Although there is much talk about having intimacy with God and a “deeper” relationship with God through these practices, God is oddly not much of a focus. The focus is more on the experience you can have of feeling closer to God through practices taught by Contemplatives.
And nothing in the Bible suggests there is a way to be more intimate with God beyond knowing Christ, depending on the Lord, prayer, Bible reading/study, and worship. God has already laid down the means for having the best relationship with him.
Related
Spiritual Disciplines Revisited
CANA 2-part article on Ruth Haley Barton’s books, “Sacred Rhythms” and “Invitation to Silence and Solitude.”
Short link for article: https://shorturl.at/O4YVj