Science, Worship, and Fasting (RJS)

"Fasting is not a way to get something from God - nor is it a means to battle the (worldly) body."

I don't think we can underestimate the impact of the common use and interpretation of the term "flesh", as used by Paul. Many, especially within Christianity, will think of the body in negative terms, due to the contemporary use and emphasis on "flesh".

To overcome dualism, that perception and understanding needs to change, which would also mean dealing with some difficult questions.
For example, looking at the Sermon on the Mount, at what point does anger become sin? When does observing become lust? When does eating become gluttony? Envy? etc...

The teachings of "self-control", as stated by Paul and in 1 Peter, become key.

In regards to worship, the incense smell I remember in my childhood was overpowering at times, but I do miss that (or any) odor in contemporary worship.

Rick #2 -

Amen, brother... Amen! I like the way Frost and Hirsch talk about "Messainic Spirituality" in their book "The Shape of Things to Come" Their claim is that Jesus did not spiritualize, internalize, privatize, or individualize the gospel. Rather he sought to embody true spirituality in the world. This is why we are taught to pray "Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven". We are not just praying to be pious people who pray a lot. We are praying that God's will be done on earth!

Rodney,

I think that is exactly right - sometimes we need to grieve, over personal sin and over corporate sin. Scot's book on fasting is quite good here - it provides an interesting way to think about fasting. But the ideas should go beyond this - to encompass everything we do as individual Christians and as a part of the Church.

I actually think that this idea - embraced in agreement with biblical teaching - would revolutionize our church.

Sorry, 7 is me. The captcha erased my name.

"there is a duality about humans, but there is not a dualism. We are one person with an inner and outer dimension, but we are not comprised of two parts." As I've said elsewhere, this reminds me of Plato's strict dualism ("I am soul. I have a body") vis-a-vis Aristotle's integrated dualism ("I am a soul with a body"). Both fall short of the duality of which Scott speaks, but Aristotle comes closer than Plato.

Sadly today, many if not most (in America at least) treat the body as an organ for pleasure. It's to be used merely as a mechanism unto the sensate side of existence without respect to any sacred means. Instead, our physical existence is an instrument through which the disciplines of virtue are to be exercised. I believe Dallas Willard has spoken a great deal about this and J. P. Moreland as well.

Thus we must care for the whole person in salvation and in sanctification and the Church would do well to design discipleship programs that include the body too. For example, obedience is not only a heart condition but a bodily one. What we do with our eyes and hands matters.

Scot,

This has gotten little comment today - not sufficiently controversial I guess.

But I think that it should be controversial - because your question about dualism really nails it. And the question I closed with should start everyone thinking (although I must have put it poorly).

I think we see dualism in truncated gospel, emphasis on show, consumer church, lack of concern over transformation (because "salvation" is all that really matters and is separable from transformation) and I could go on.

RJS,

I would still love to hear how you and/or Scot think about the problem of translating "proskuneo."

I like the concept of the the body speaking for the spirit, but how does that mesh with Jesus' commands about fasting, where he told his listeners to oil their hair, and keep their appearance tidy, so that they were not putting on a display?

He was, no doubt, curbing excess and speaking to those who were simply putting on a show for the sake of other's opinions of them - but his comments would also apply to one who was genuinely fasting would they not?

I think even in this discussion, the dualism between "body and mind" however phrased (eg heart, mind, emotional, rational) is so ingrained in us that we have a difficult time staying out of that pit. I wish I could think of something controversial to say so that this post gets more contributors but I can't. I just know one thing: the benefits of fasting only become apparent while fasting. We can read all about it or listen to others who fast but there is only one way to know.
Brian @9: I'm not sure where you got the idea that fasting is bad for you. If you are pregnant, have diabetes, or some other medical condition that precludes fasting, then yes, it can be bad. Otherwise, there are certain health benefits. But that's not why we fast now is it?

Has someone already mentioned that the first couple chapters of Willard's Spirit of the Disciplines has some profound things to say about this topic? It is also very rewarding reading.