I haven’t made my mind up yet about soul sleep.

I’m not sure this is an accurate characterization of Cartesian dualism. Descartes did in fact believe that the body and brain can affect the soul and mind, e.g.:

“I remark, finally, that as each of the movements that are made in the part of the brain by which the mind is immediately affected, impresses it with but a single sensation, the most likely supposition in the circumstances is, that this movement causes the mind to experience, among all the sensations which it is capable of impressing upon it; that one which is the best fitted, and generally the most useful for the preservation of the human body when it is in full health.”
Meditation 6, Paragraph 22

etc. cf. http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/meditation6.html

In fact, my impression is that “Cartesian dualism” is synonymous with “substance dualism,” and in that sense you could be correctly called a Cartesian. So, it seems, could Paul.

Nick, that books seems interesting and I’d like to read it. Possibly I will blog about it at some point!

Another interesting option was held (though it is, admittedly, quite rare in contemporary discussion) by Enlightenment theologians such as Jonathan Edwards, George Berkeley and Nicholas Malebranche: namely, “idealism.” NOT idealism as it is popularly thought of today (i.e. referring to a person who is naively optimistic about the future in spite of the grim reality of existence), but rather, the metaphysical view that spiritual reality is primary & foundational and material substance is secondary & derivative from spiritual reality. It is actually the extreme polar opposite of materialism (!), which posits that what we think of as “spiritual” (i.e. the soul, emotions, thoughts) are completely derivative of our physical bodies (particularly brain activity).

Edwards and company held that all reality is actually an “idea” in the mind of God, much the same way that the fantasy scene–conjured up only in my own imagination–of a beautiful beach along the Atlantic ocean with a young boy and girl building a castle in the sand exists only in my head, though it can also be said at the same time that the boy and the girl in my thoughts are NOT ME but distinct from my own personal identity. In the same way, Edwards argued that we are an “idea” in God’s mind, and though distinguishable from Him (he zealously preserved the Creator/creature distinction), our physical existence nonetheless depends entirely on this prior spiritual reality and is indeed upheld by it, moment by moment. So you might say Edwards (and other idealists) are spiritual monists!

Enough for now! Joel Green, who is widely read in both biblical studies (he teaches at Fuller Seminary in California) and modern neuroscience, recently published a short book arguing for a Christian monism view. Check it out here:

http://www.amazon.com/Body-Soul-Human-Life-Interpretation/dp/0801035953/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245194502&sr=8-1

One apparent problem for any kind of Christian monism, in my mind, is how to handle the fairly overwhelming biblical evidence for an “intermediate” state for those who die in the Lord before the final consummation and future (physical) resurrection of the dead, when presumably we will be disembodied spirits in the presence of the Lord Himself. Seventh-Day Adventists can avoid this question because of their doctrine that we are “asleep” in between our death and Christ’s return, but most Christians have (rightly) rejected this view on the basis of texts such as II Corinthians 5:1-10, Philippians 1:21-23, Hebrews 12:23, etc. (and many more could be adduced!). I would be interested to hear from someone who holds to a form of Christian monism how they would handle this seeming dilemma. I think it can be done without abandoning the position wholesale, but nonetheless would love to hear the reflections of others!