spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

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