Introduction
Per my second commitment, I am committed to this (physical) world. I believe this world is real and valuable, that our empirical experience generally leads to truth, and that embodied well-being matters. I believe these things for a number of reasons.
Physical Experience is Consistent and Trustworthy
Everyone experiences the physical world. These experiences are vivid and continuous. We are virtually always aware of our physical surroundings and sensations. These come to us unprompted and are difficult to ignore.
Not only does everyone experience a physical world, our experiences are broadly consistent with one another. For example, if I see a chair in the corner of the room, others will see and experience the same chair, right down to minute details. Indeed, one of the ways we infer that someone is hallucinating is if they think they are seeing something that no one else is able to see.
There might be minor variations between individuals and cultures. For example, some people are color blind. Some cultures that live in densely packed jungles misperceive far away objects as closer that they really are. And of course we all have slightly different angles of vision, emotional connotations associated with physical things, and awareness of the significance of various objects (e.g. an electric light might seem like magic to a primitive tribe but like a garden-variety light bulb to industrialized folk). But these differences are minor and fit easily within the general trustworthiness of physical experience.
Physical events happen predictably. Scientific study leads to consistent and meticulously accurate explanations and predictions. In many cases it has given us credible physical reinterpretations of once-thought superstitious or mythical explanations.
All of this is much different than religious experiences, which not everyone have and which are notoriously contradictory to each other. As a spiritual person, I believe there are core truths we can learn from religious experience. However, we need to approach it critically and bound what we accept from it by broad patterns of empirical experience and science. When rigorous science and religious dogma conflict, science has been proven to be right time and time again.
Good and Evil are (often) Tangible
Many of the greatest evils we recognize involve a tangible physical component. For example, rape, genocide, torture, slavery, starvation, and so on. Such things may transcend the merely physical (crushing the spirit), but there is an intractable physical dimension to them as well. And when we experience these things, we don’t want to be told that such (physical) events are illusionary or not all that important (on a physical plain). These things are impactful. They matter. And so does combatting them physically in the here and now.
When examining movements outside of our own, it is often more clear to us that when they call for actions that cause physical suffering or diminish the physical flourishing of others for no defensible reason, this is evil. For example, I think of the horrors of the terrorist group ISIS or India’s caste system. Many of the greatest evils stem from dogmatically siding with a metaphysical or esoteric viewpoint over tangible (physical) evidence of what harms or benefits us.
On the other hand, many of the greatest goods involve the physical. Not only does phsyical reality fit with our usual, hourly, typically unavoidable and undeniable experience; many of our experiences that strike us as most profoundly real and worthwhile involve the physical and relational.
For example, Ravi Zacharias once spoke about the experience of coming home after a trip and his young daughter – a toddler at the time – lurching with joy to embrace him. Zacharias notes, “In about that one solitary moment, I think I learned a lot more about life than a few dozen books I had read prior to that. There is a clue, a clue to meaning in life, and that clue comes in relationships.”
I’m inclined to agree. Many of my most profound, even sublime experiences have involved a tangible and often relational component. For example, playing in a field with my wife and neighborhood kids after our wedding, bonding deeply with senior and refugee clients at various commitments, eating a good meal with friends or family, appreciating great music (alone or with friends), and so on.
These experiences seem like microcosms of what the world is really like, what it is all about. To those of us who are spiritually inclined, they may seem like windows into a higher, more ideal realm of love, joy, and beauty. This realm might be different – higher, after all; but if these glimpses really bear similarity, analogy to that realm, it must mean that it is on the side of such experiences in some way. That beauty and relationality, for example, really are good and enduring. At least that would seem to be our presumption on the basis of them.
And as with evil, while these experiences may transcend the physical, there seems to be an indelible physical (or physical-like) component to them as well. As with evil, we don’t want to be told that such (physical) events are illusionary or not all that important (on a physical plain). These things are impactful. They matter. And so does legitimizing and promoting them in the here and now.
Wholistic Well-Being is Connected to the Physical
Relatedly, many of our spiritual or soulish characteristics or experiences tend to correlate with specific physical acts or states. For example, feelings of spiritual peace and euphoria tend to correlate with physical activity, experiencing nature, sexual pleasure, feeling rested or well fed, certain forms of worship or ritual, and “spiritual” disciplines like fasting and bodily mortification. Bad or “demonic” spiritual experiences tend to correlate with things like exhaustion, depression, an earthly community in chaos or bondage, and so on. Many activities traditionally associated with the soul seem to have a strong empirical connection to functions of the brain.
I believe there is more than just the physical, that we are more than just the physical. However, this close connection between the physical and spiritual – our nature as wholistic, integrated beings – should cause us to respect and attend to our physical needs and promote the physical (spiritual) disciplines that tend to open us up to spiritual well-being. At least all things being equal, this should be so. It should also cause us to combat the (physical) things that damage us as wholistic beings.
Worldview Consensus on the Physical Being Real and Valuable
Phyiscal reality and value are also backed up by a broad consensus. There are some worldviews such as Buddhism, Jainism, Gnosticism, and forms of Hinduism that deny that the physical world is real. But most worldviews believe that the physical world and phyiscal well-being are real and important. Christianity certainly does, as I will suggest below. Even folk expressions of religions that formally deny the physical are often very concerned with earthly matters such as health, provision, and romantic love.
Physical Needs Before Spiritual Ones
A number of sources from a variety of traditions recognize that, in normal situations, basic physical needs must be met before most people are able to nurture further moral and spiritual development.
It is possible to nurture goodness and spirituality in spite of daily conditions that make this extremely difficult. But my study and observations confirm that lacking basic physical necessities tends to put all other concerns on the back-burner and makes them exponentially harder to pursue. Conversely, having physical needs secured opens up space to pursue knowledge, enlightenment, and moral and spiritual transformation.
As a further and related point, policies that start out valuing embodied people, the physical world, and earthly justice are more open-ended and inclusive than ones that force people into world-denying, supposedly moral or religious modes of living. That is to say, if people are given access to stable and equal living conditions, they can always personally (or communally) choose to pursue a purportedly higher, world-denying Reality. If such a Reality is actual, the decision to embrace it is still there. But if this world, physical flourishing, and earthly justice are genuine realities and of great worth, then denying people access to them forces their lack on people. It restricts the inclusion and choice.
Perhaps some traditionalists would see public policies that promote empirical earthly good above traditional norms as a public breakdown of morality. They might say that protecting all peoples’ rights equally is detrimental to their heavenly reward, their karma, or their cosmic happiness. They might even claim that they are really “loving” people by seeking to socially, politically, or even physically force them to live out empirically harmful or discriminatory unequal roles (for example, under caste, patriarchy, slavery, homophobic laws, etc.). But most of us can see that this is not true and that for such counter-intuitive, apparently harmful norms to be enforced, the burden of proof needs to be on the one who claims this to demonstrate it in a publicly available way. Either that, or give up the “right” to force it on others. Instead, only convince others by persuasion.
The Goodness of the World In the Bible’s Overarching Narrative
Finally, I believe that the dominant message of the Bible also teaches the goodness of embodiment and of this physical world.
According to Genesis, when God originally created the world he declared it very good. God is said to have created human beings for the express purpose of “imaging” him in their benevolent rule over the earth. According to Exodus, Israel’s founding event was God’s physical liberation of the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery. The eschatological hope of the Old Testament is that God will return to Zion, restore the Jews from exile to the land of Israel, and there will finally be a time of peace and justice and plenty for all. In the New Testament, God’s people are redefined to include people from all nations and the land promises are expanding to encompass the whole earth. A few Old Testament texts anticipate physical resurrection from the dead along with final judgment and vindication. This theme becomes even more pronounced in the New Testament.
Turning to the New Testament, Jesus pursued a “wholistic” ministry of restoration, as he acted to make right all that was wrong in the world. This included imparting spiritual wisdom and forgiving sins. But it also included alleviating people’s physical ailments and hunger, challenging unjust practices and power structures, and calling his followers to also care for the tangible needs of others. The rest of the New Testament consistently echoes this concern for the tangible care of others. Jesus taught us to pray for God’s kingdom to come to earth. The New Testament’s picture of Jesus physically taking on flesh and being raised from the dead in a physical body shows God’s validation of our physicality. In its original context, passages about meeting Jesus in the air are not about escaping the earth to go to heaven, but about the saints escorting the coming King to earth. Paul taught that creation groans awaiting God’s full redemption. Revelation teaches, like Jesus, that God’s followers will inherit the earth. It teaches that those who destroy the earth will be punished. And it’s climactic picture is of the new Jerusalem coming down to earth in a restored Eden.
In spite of this, some Bible passages may naturally lend themselves to more otherworldly eschatological expectations. Further, the New Testament’s oft focus on invisible and future things, some of its more difficult ethical admonishments, and the negative way terms like “flesh” or “world” are often used, can lead to a practical undervaluing of this world and embodied well-being. In my view, such texts need to be viewed in light of both the Bible’s more dominant world-affirming message and our own reasoned reflection concerning the importance of this world and embodied well-being.
I have argued elsewhere that a commitment to this world and embodied well-being can be consistent with moral sacrifice and mystical spirituality.
Conclusion
My commitment to this physical world and embodied well-being means that I reject worldviews that denigrate or reject these things. That means I reject views such as Gnosticism and forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. But it also means I reject “escapist” Christian views which see this world as only going to burn and emphasize escaping this world to go to a spiritual heaven. It means my understanding of love must include our wholistic well-being – body, mind, and spirit/soul. This means that any teaching that purports to be “loving” but which violates our physical well-being is at face value, illegitimate (apart from compelling evidence to the contrary).
Post-conservative Orphan of God 