1. Laura Marks’s description of the “skin of the film” influenced the structuring and rhythm of this paragraph. I also borrowed some of her words and wove them into this paragraph. This is what she writes about the skin of the film in The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000): The Skin of the Film offers a metaphor to emphasize the way film signifies through its materiality, through a contact between perceiver and object represented. It also suggests the way vision itself can be tactile, as though one were touching a film with one’s eyes: I term this haptic visuality. Finally, to think of film as a skin acknowledges the effect of a work’s circulation among different audiences, all of which mark it with their presence. The title is meant to suggest polemically that film may be thought of as impressionable and conductive, like skin. (xi–xii; italics in the original) The phrase “the elemental commons of charged social flesh” in the paragraph is an allusion to Sharon V. Betcher’s Spirit and Obligation of Social Flesh: A Secular Theology for the Secular City (New York: Fordham University Press, 2014), 7–11, 153–60, 192.
2. Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 151.
3. Vitor Westhelle, Eschatology and Space: The Lost Dimension of Theology Past and Present (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 25–26, 27, 34–36.
4. Amos Yong, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002), 106–9.
5. Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 178.