spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

etd.uovs.ac.za
from etd.uovs.ac.za More from this publisher
23.06.2013 Views

look forward. The direction is the future, and the process toward true health is rooted in God’s eternal love that transfigures the body (1992:95). Moltmann’s concern for the earth gave rise to his call for the reverence of the life of all the living, and led to the obvious inclusion of the human body in the liberation by the Spirit of the resurrection. The liberation of the body is about reaching true health, that is: mustering the strength to be human. In his Gifford lectures (1984/1985), Moltmann emphasized that health is not so much a condition of the body, but rather an attitude that reveals one’s humanity. True health, or vitality, is the power of the soul to deal with the difficulties and afflictions in life; it is the strength to live, to suffer, and even to die (see also Veenhof 2005:272). Consequently, it is attainable for anybody (regardless of age, presence of disease, or other kinds of disabilities) to possess health, because true health is grounded in vitality, in the affirmation of life, in the will to live in the light of hope. Evaluation of Moltmann’s approach to healing On the basis of his perception of healing as a charisma of the Spirit and as transfiguration through faith in Christ in light of the dawning kingdom, Moltmann’s approach to healing can be characterized as rather broad when it is considered that up to this point the theme of healing had hardly been addressed in Reformed theology. An initial point of interest in Moltmann’s approach is his view on healing as a charisma. It has become clear that Moltmann characterizes healing as a charisma or a gift of the Spirit. This charisma is determined by one’s being, because the way one is and comes before God is the equivalent of one’s gift to be used and lived out in the perspective of the coming Kingdom. One’s calling thus embraces one’s being, and the physical and social existence of the believer is brought under the reign of God. There seems, however, to be an inconsistency in Moltmann’s pneumatological approach to healing as a charisma: when Moltmann moves from explaining charismata or the charismatic experiences in life to healing experiences, he seems to shift from charisma as being to charisma as experiencing, and from charisma as something that needs to be lived out to charisma as something that can only be received. Charismata are defined by Moltmann as the way a human being is, but when it comes to healing Moltmann seems to suggest that the human being is a passive recipient rather than an active participant. This becomes particularly clear when he states: “in every grave illness ‘we fight for our lives’. In every healing we feel that ‘we have been restored to life’” (Moltmann 1992:190). A shift can be noticed: from ‘fighting’ as an active form, to ‘having been restored’ as a passive expression of 184

the verb. The implication is that healing as charisma can be experienced by the works of the Spirit, but somehow the embodied human being is not involved in the act of healing in the sense of putting his charisma in practice. The question is: if healing is fully and completely a divine activity, then what is the exact meaning of healing as a charisma, as the calling to honor the reign of God? This question is raised by the fact that Moltmann does not indicate clearly how the believer is actually involved in his or her healing process. Why, when following Moltmann’s line of thinking, would it be necessary for healing to become one’s charisma through one’s calling, when healing is understood as the work of the Spirit? Another question, evoked by Moltmann’s description of the charisma of the handicapped life, is why Moltmann treats healing as a particular gift of the Spirit when he also emphasizes that all handicapped, sick and disfigured life is already whole, good and beautiful in God’s sight (1992:192)? What is the function of emphasizing that healing is a gift that needs to be used when following Christ, when the absence of healing can also be used when following Christ? A third question about Moltmann’s healing as charisma concerns his explicit appreciation of the human body: how and when does healing, as a calling, include the actual full physicality of the believer? In other words, does Moltmann’s perception of healing refer to healing as an experience of being accepted or justified by God, whereby one’s (re)new(ed) Christian identity becomes a calling; or does this kind of healing involve physical transformation as well? A second cluster of thoughts and questions pertains to Moltmann’s perception of healing as transfiguration. On the basis of his pneumatology, Moltmann closely relates the event of justification (Christ) to the process of sanctification (Spirit of Christ), and is thus able to speak of healing as transfiguration. In keeping justification and sanctification together, Moltmann stands in the tradition of Augustine. He articulates explicitly that healing as transfiguration implies an ontological change: human life is placed in a new future in its entirety (identity and attributes, spirit and body), and the believer is invited to look forward within the frame of Christian hope. Moltmann’s perception of healing as transfiguration thus includes a materialistic and holistic dimension of health. On the one hand, his approach can be positively valued, because transfiguration of creation means that the empirical reality is seriously appreciated in relation to God’s future. On the other hand, Moltmann’s approach fails to clarify the basic and concrete meaning of the transfiguration of human life. If healing implies an ontological change and a qualitatively good attitude towards life (and not a condition of the body), then what does this actually mean for the believer? In Augustine’s approach, justification and transformation allow the believer to live according to God’s will; in Moltmann’s approach, justification and transformation are focused on the human capacity of coping with difficulties and afflictions in life. This means that the transformation of the believer is translated into a power of life and the 185

look forward. The direction is <strong>the</strong> future, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> process toward true health is rooted <strong>in</strong> God’s<br />

eternal love that transfigures <strong>the</strong> body (1992:95).<br />

Moltmann’s concern for <strong>the</strong> earth gave rise to his call for <strong>the</strong> reverence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> life <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong><br />

liv<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> led to <strong>the</strong> obvious <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> human body <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> liberation by <strong>the</strong> Spirit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

resurrection. The liberation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> body is about reach<strong>in</strong>g true health, that is: muster<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />

strength to be human. In his Gifford lectures (1984/1985), Moltmann emphasized that health is<br />

not so much a condition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> body, but ra<strong>the</strong>r an attitude that reveals one’s humanity. True<br />

health, or vitality, is <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soul to deal with <strong>the</strong> difficulties <strong>and</strong> afflictions <strong>in</strong> life; it is<br />

<strong>the</strong> strength to live, to suffer, <strong>and</strong> even to die (see also Veenh<strong>of</strong> 2005:272). Consequently, it is<br />

atta<strong>in</strong>able for anybody (regardless <strong>of</strong> age, presence <strong>of</strong> disease, or o<strong>the</strong>r k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> disabilities) to<br />

possess health, because true health is grounded <strong>in</strong> vitality, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> affirmation <strong>of</strong> life, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> will to<br />

live <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> hope.<br />

Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Moltmann’s approach to <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />

On <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> his perception <strong>of</strong> <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> as a charisma <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit <strong>and</strong> as transfiguration<br />

through faith <strong>in</strong> Christ <strong>in</strong> light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dawn<strong>in</strong>g k<strong>in</strong>gdom, Moltmann’s approach to <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> can be<br />

characterized as ra<strong>the</strong>r broad when it is considered that up to this po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>me <strong>of</strong> <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> had<br />

hardly been addressed <strong>in</strong> Reformed <strong>the</strong>ology.<br />

An <strong>in</strong>itial po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> Moltmann’s approach is his view on <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> as a charisma. It has<br />

become clear that Moltmann characterizes <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> as a charisma or a gift <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Spirit. This<br />

charisma is determ<strong>in</strong>ed by one’s be<strong>in</strong>g, because <strong>the</strong> way one is <strong>and</strong> comes before God is <strong>the</strong><br />

equivalent <strong>of</strong> one’s gift to be used <strong>and</strong> lived out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> perspective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> com<strong>in</strong>g K<strong>in</strong>gdom.<br />

One’s call<strong>in</strong>g thus embraces one’s be<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> physical <strong>and</strong> social existence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> believer is<br />

brought under <strong>the</strong> reign <strong>of</strong> God. There seems, however, to be an <strong>in</strong>consistency <strong>in</strong> Moltmann’s<br />

pneumatological approach to <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> as a charisma: when Moltmann moves from expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />

charismata or <strong>the</strong> charismatic experiences <strong>in</strong> life to <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> experiences, he seems to shift from<br />

charisma as be<strong>in</strong>g to charisma as experienc<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> from charisma as someth<strong>in</strong>g that needs to be<br />

lived out to charisma as someth<strong>in</strong>g that can only be received. Charismata are def<strong>in</strong>ed by<br />

Moltmann as <strong>the</strong> way a human be<strong>in</strong>g is, but when it comes to <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> Moltmann seems to<br />

suggest that <strong>the</strong> human be<strong>in</strong>g is a passive recipient ra<strong>the</strong>r than an active participant. This<br />

becomes particularly clear when he states: “<strong>in</strong> every grave illness ‘we fight for our lives’. In<br />

every <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> we feel that ‘we have been restored to life’” (Moltmann 1992:190). A shift can be<br />

noticed: from ‘fight<strong>in</strong>g’ as an active form, to ‘hav<strong>in</strong>g been restored’ as a passive expression <strong>of</strong><br />

184

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!