Those who would recast Jesus as a humanist and social reformer must ask themselves why he, who could multiply small amounts of food to feed a multitude, and heal the sick, even raise the dead, did this kind of thing so rarely.
Modern attitudes, and I include many modern religious attitudes, regard philanthropy as the highest spiritual action. This, to such a mindset, is the practical working out of compassion. The relieving of worldly suffering is what all religious people are called to do as a spiritual duty. More than duty, it is evidence that they practise what they preach. If they don't actively support measures tending in this direction then how can they be called spiritual?
This is not what Jesus taught or demonstrated in his life. Yes, he did come to relieve suffering but he knew that the root of suffering lies far deeper than the body, and if you make that your focus you are really just covering up a wound with a plaster. Jesus loved human beings more than anyone before or since but he also knew what human beings actually are, that they are not material but spiritual beings who have lost sight of their spiritual origins and true nature. The philanthropist seeks to improve worldly life and remove suffering. He tries to ameliorate living conditions and bring about practical changes that will make people happier in this world, not just on a physical level but a psychological one too. But this did not appear to be of any concern to Jesus. For him, the problem of life had to be addressed in a totally different manner. He confronts human suffering at an existential level, seeing it fundamentally as alienation from God.
This is why the Christian talks so much of sin, to the disapproval of some who think that concentration on sin just focuses on the negative and we should focus instead on the positive in order to bring that out. But it is precisely sin, which is acting in opposition to God and the reality of our true being, that is the barrier to the real positive. You cannot see something that is obscured unless you remove that which obscures it. You cannot know spirit, however much you may talk of it and fill your mind with the idea of it, unless you remove that which stands in the way of its realisation, and that is sin.
Jesus came to this world to address the issue of human suffering which is why he took on the burden of suffering himself. But he knew that the cause of human suffering is sin, the identification with the ego in one of its many manifestations, and so this is what he asks us to confront in ourselves. He did sometimes heal the body but his real mission was to heal the soul. The two are not in opposition but they are radically different and this is something that the modern world frequently fails to understand.
9 comments:
@William - I saw somewhere recently the comment that Jesus healed only those who 1. asked for healing, and 2. had faith. In other words, healing in the modern sense was Not the purpose of his miracles. This fits with what you say above.
Yes, I think that must be right, Bruce. Those who were healed or who asked for healing on behalf of someone else had accepted the spiritual message that Jesus brought and so already indicated that they had spiritual health which was the primary thing.
"He did sometimes heal the body but his real mission was to heal the soul. The two are not in opposition but they are radically different and this is something that the modern world frequently fails to understand."
Not only frequently fails to understand, but I would argue certain segments of the modern world are actively conspiring to deny this difference and eradicate it altogether.
What you have touched upon here is of vital importance as far as I'm concerned. Organized Christianity has surrendered in its struggle against worldly socialism/altruism/philanthropy, to the point it is impossible to discern any differences between official church policies and those espoused by secular leftist organizations.
I recently came across calls for an increase in "social and political love" in order to precipitate "global healing." Of course, this global healing via love was exclusively material in nature. Needless to say, these calls came from one of the main Christian churches, and there wasn't even a whisper of spiritual/soul healing anywhere in the text.
Yes, that's just it, Francis. What's the difference between church and state, religious and secular now? None to speak of, and the capitulation is all on the part of the churches, certain honourable holdouts excepted.
What an interesting point! Thanks for writing about this, William.
Thank you, Rich.
@William - Another aspect of healing is that we are not given everything we ask for; because what we *want* may not be what we *need*; and what we need is defined against eternity, not only here and now. We (or someone else) may be intended to learn something from an illness, rather than be cured of it.
Absolutely, Bruce. Sometimes an ailing body may be just the cross we have to bear for the health of our soul.
As someone who has sinned many occasion, it's impossible not to see how it doesn't affect one's relationship with God. You simply cannot sin and have honest faith simultaneously. A work in progress. Thank you for this write up, it's greatly appreciated to have this reminder. -K
Post a Comment