Bodies–The Exhibition

I’ve been seeing ads around Madison, in newsprint and on billboards, for this exhibition that is currently on display: Bodies–The Exhibition. A private company has apparently procured corpses from China, preserved them by replacing tissue with plastic, and displays them throughout the world in various poses. The exhibition is alleged to be educational and of scientific interest. I find the very notion macabre.

There has been considerable controversy over the years (the exhibition has opened in more than 70 cities worldwide). There are questions about where the bodies come from, with allegations concerning prisons, execution, and torture. Those are important questions, but for me, the most important question has to do with with what it says about our culture, particularly our understanding of bodies and death.

Scholars agree that one of the great appeals of Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity had to do with how both communities took care of the dead. They rejected cremation, the widespread practice in Greco-Roman culture, and saw to it that the bodies of all believers, even the poorest were cared for. This was done because both religious traditions took bodies seriously, especially that there was an unbreakable link between soul and body. Over the centuries, Christians have lost sight of that central doctrine, derived from the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of all the dead. I happen to think that cremation is an important alternative to traditional burial practices, on environmental and on personal grounds. We have become such a mobile culture that the notion of binding our bodies to one place after death seems quaint, and a burden on our descendants.

What’s fascinating to me is that on the one hand ours is a culture that is obsessed with bodies, our own and those of celebrities, yet we can apparently disassociate our essential selves so completely from our bodies that we can look at preserved bodies with relative detachment. Eerie.

Covenantal Developments

Canon Alison Burnett-Cowan, Directory of Unity, Faith, and Order of the Anglican Communion Office defends the Covenant, arguing that we should read it before criticizing it.

Responses: from the Mad Priest:

From the Episcopal Cafe: “It seems to this writer that people have read it very carefully and are not so willing to gloss over the words as easily as the ACO.”

And from Tobias Haller:

What sense, after all, does it make to turn an ad hoc impairment in communion into something that looks very much like an institutional severance in communion? Since participation in the Instruments is at least in part definitive for membership and participation in the Anglican Commuion, and as the Covenant declares as well, the means by which the members “are enabled to be conformed together to the mind of Christ” (3.1.2), anything remotely resembling permanent suspension by or from those Instruments as a “relational consequence” seems to indicate a serious and debilitating breach in the Anglican Communion and the body of Christ. And the Covenant provides a mechanism to promote it, and little in the way of helping to prevent it. It is the schema for an autoimmune disease in the Body of Christ.

This is a Bad Idea. Please, England, put it down.

And from the No Anglican Covenant blog: A point by point response to some of the more tendentious assertions

 

Covenantal Commentary

More blogging and op-ed pieces about the Covenant, especially from England. General Synod will be convening soon and this will be high on the agenda.

Paul Bagshaw: “What is the Covenant for?”

Bishop Alan Wilson: “Will the Covenant kill or cure?”

Some statistics on the covenant and other Anglican matters from the Simply Massing Priest

From the Modern Church:

This reveals their main dilemma: how to produce a text which on the one hand is forceful enough impose its demands on the provinces, but on the other will persuade them to sign it. Their solution is to present the Covenant as an entirely voluntary agreement which does not affect a province’s governance or autonomy. Provinces signing it would, as before, act as they wished – so long as no other province objected. Once the Standing Committee upheld an objection, it would impose ‘relational consequences’, which would generally mean treating them like non-signatories.

And more (written for the Church of England)

How would it affect my church?