I Corinthians 9: 27 I treat my body hard and make it obey me.
Paul's interjection stands between two readings which are concerned with the healing of a sufferer from leprosy. It may be useful to review what we know about this disease today before trying to look at the events recounted in 2 Kings and Mark. Leprosy as a disease has been nearly eliminated from the world. The 5.2 million sufferers in 1985 have been reduced to less than 300,000 world wide at the end of 2004. It is caused by a bacillus which it was not possible to culture in vivo until 1960 when the first mouse model was developed. It is relatively easy to diagnoses in terms of acquiring sample for examination under the microscope. One common variety of leprosy eventually produces a cell mediated immunity and over the years may be cured by the body without additional treatment. It is most familiar in the form of several different skin eruptions but is also marked by a degeneration of the superficial nerves which produces a local anesthesia which makes the sufferer prone to damaging his extremities without being aware of what is happening. It is very slow to develop and seems to be contagious in a manner similar to TB that is through nasal and throat discharges and thus is spread by coughing and sneezing or having a runny nose. Treatment today is amazingly effective since the development of multi-drug therapy in the early 1960's. Through the WHO, all leprosy sufferers have available free access to these drugs.
In many cultures lepers were shunned for a number of reasons. Its cause was not known nor was there any effective treatment and many of its victims were horribly disfigured over time. Interestingly, this did not appear to be the practice in Aram where Naaman was obviously respected and allowed to continue as a military leader. Within Israel, the situation was somewhat different because the symptoms of leprosy were regarded as implying a spiritual state which made those with it, "unclean" that is unable to participate in the ongoing religious life of the community - whether they still had civil status is less clear. But it seems to be the case that many were permanently shunned by the rest of the community. The social "gate keepers" were the priests who had the power to declare lepers "clean" that is restored to participation in the community.
With this background let's move on to the two stories. The underlying issue was the power which Elisha and Jesus had to heal. The Elisha setting is quite primitive in that there remains in it an element of competition between the God of Aram and Yahweh. In a matter of speaking a kind of divine testosterone contest. Clearly, Yahweh's superiority was confirmed and his worship was vindicated. In our terms it is impossible to determine the nature of the physical healing which took place - I think the significance of the event can be simply stated - Naaman was now free to get on with his life. In the Gospel story is quite similar. It was important that Jesus should be seen as at least as powerful as the prophets such as Elijah and Elisha with whom he was being compared. The nature of the healing is not indicated - the real effect is that the man is able to be certified by the priests and restored to Israel and able to get on with his life. Clearly, healing is a restorative event but it is not necessarily a miraculous cure and it is this distinction that leads us to the comments of Paul.
I think that there is a general consensus that Paul was an epileptic and remained so until his death. There is no real mention in his writings of his having any great powers nor is there any real concern in them with miracle-working as a significant marker for the nature of the Church. His interest in the building up of the community is focused upon those issues which are a threat to the life in Christ. He does seem to have an awareness of the great difference between the peace brought about by roman conquest and the peace of God which is beyond human comprehension. Above all, he was aware of the way in which the needs of the human body intersect with the demands for identifiable characteristics which distinguish the community of Christ from the rest of the world. He specifically rejects the law of Israel as a means to this end. In this interlude at the end of Chapter 9, he inserts this quite remarkable insight that the race of life is a matter of living with your body! Can we deduce from this assertion an understanding that disease and deformity is not an affliction to be equated with evil but with life itself? I would say, "yes" and would like to go on to explore some of his implications.
As the Dean suggested two weeks ago - we now have to begin to think of God not as out there pulling levers and pressing buttons but as the very ground of being itself. One of the implications of this view of faith is that within the awesome dynamic structure that we call creation, it is not possible to account for every event but only know that which occurs with sufficient frequency to be able to determine its relationship with other events and thus to postulate causes and effects. The very condition of having a body and living with it produces challenges that very often make it appear not to be worth the effort. To think of the Church as a community of healing means we undertake a commitment to make possible living with our body no matter what be the circumstances.
The notion of curing disease is thus only a part of the more inclusive vocation of healing. Every event within our bodies offers the opportunity for healing even if it is not in instance of curing. In this sense, the ultimate outcome to paraphrase Paul is that death itself becomes subject to the healing power of Christ. This means finally that we make a commitment to live with a body that will die. We are surrounded by evidence of this paradigm in action. Many of the so-called miracles of modern medicine involve transforming a life threatening/ending condition into a chronic illness that can be managed through a life-long dependence on medical care. None of the breakthroughs in coronary care from heart transplantation to heart failure clinic offers a cure but only means for living with our bodies. The hundreds of troops who have been maimed in Iraq will never get back the bodies parts they have lost but living with their bodies is a challenge for them which is easy for us to ignore. The antiviral medication which helps controls the effect of Aids is a temporary measure that offers society an opportunity to reconstitute itself in the way in which men may find less destructive ways to live with their sexuality. The support required by persons and families who must live as non professional care-givers is the overlooked opportunity for the exercise of healing.
The way in which we as a church understand activities such a prayer and pastoral care needs to be placed in the context of our role as a healing community whose role is to enable us to live with our bodies. The final act of healing is over death itself and it is only in living with our bodies that we can overcome this ultimate challenge.
The Rev. Roger A. Balk, Ph.d.