God, or language about God, is subject of theology. What people of believe it is that is handed over (traditum) to them through generations makes up tradition of church. This tradition includes their persistent towards of life. True fullness, in biblical language, belongs to alone; to as embodiment of (Col. 1:9); in one case -- perhaps -- to church as body of (Eph. 1:22-23); and derivatively to all that earth contains (Ps. 24:1). At same time, believers may themselves move toward being filled with all of God (Eph. 3:9) and measured by the stature of of Christ (Eph. 4:13). What bearing do Christian traditions and theologies have on health? In this brief compass it would be foolish even to attempt to sample their content: World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett 1982:15) speaks of seven blocs, 156 ecclesiastical traditions, and 22,190 presumably major denominations. Instead I wish first to describe a challenge to Christian action and expressions that is put forward by contemporary preoccupations with health and healing and then to point to some of ways believers can draw upon theology and tradition, especially in North America. The focus on striving of narrows to another still immense subject: how does this relate to health and healing through response to grace of a fulfilling God? The thesaurus reminds us of challenge in classic terms by posing opposites to health: sickness, illness, disease, ailment, weakness, debility, infirmity, and frailty as part of human condition. It also lists antonyms to healing: wounding, hurting, injuring, harming, breaking, making worse, getting worse. These simple words call to mind ageless passion and drama of life, endless tears and blood, ceaseless cries of pain or dereliction, also by people of faith. The theology and tradition of church address these negatives even as they speak positively of presence of health and healing or of search them. If sickness and frailty are classic challenges, contemporary life has its own approach to them. For a generation an increasing number of North Americans, some of them disillusioned with scientific medicine and conventional care, have striven fullness or wholeness through what has come to be called health movement. This movement has made major news on that front where theology and church traditions face their temptations and opportunities. It was born in countercultures but now has found its place in mainstream as well (Alster 1989:5). One critic has offered these definitions: Holist: Minimally, someone who subscribes to thesis that an organic whole is more than sum of its parts, and who rejects mind/body dualism. Holistic health care: A system of health care predicated on above. Advocates of holistic care may agree on these ideas and very little else. Practices range from exotic to conventional; practitioners from suspect to those licensed as professionals (Alster 1989;47-48). An advocate, R.H. Svihus, provided further definition: Holistic health, then, is a state of integration of physical body and of mental and emotional soul-self, in harmony with spiritual self . . . . The concept refers to fact that whole of a person is greater than mere sum of his parts, and that there is an approach to whole person who is ill, instead of merely to his parts or to his illness as if they were separate from whole of him (Svihus 1979:480-81). Abraham Maslow (1970:xi), a champion, elaborated: Holism is obviously true -- after all, cosmos is one and interrelated; any society is one and interrelated; any person is one and interrelated, etc. One popular holist, Rosalyn Bruyere, spoke most in movement when she referred to which forms connection -- a key word -- between all things: for me, terms and energy are interchangeable. …
Read full abstract