BIBLE AND HEALTH

 

 

 

THE BIBLE AND HEALTH SERVICE

 

Fr. Mervyn Carapiet

The Bible’s Influence

            Two great factors have influenced modern (especially Western) medicine. One influence can be traced back to the classical Greek ideal. The other great influence has been the Bible. The classical Greek ideal is enshrined in the Hippocratic tradition, specially reinterpreted since the Renaissance. However, under the tutelage of Plato and Aristotle, the Greek medical mentality became pragmatic and self-centred. For instance, unwanted and weak babies were exposed, and the chronically ill neglected.

            The biblical tradition provided the corrective and leitmotiv. There is a transcendent God from whom we have received the world and our bodies in trust, and to whom, therefore, we are finally answerable. Faith implies accountability. This and the perception that every human being is destined for God produce the profound respect for the dignity and value of the individual created in the image of God. “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19,18) and the Golden Rule, “Do unto others...”(Mt 7, 12) sum up the responsibilities of Jewish and Christian faith in people’s relations with one another. From the standpoint of health care, this was admirably summed up in the prayer of the great Jewish physician, Maimonides (1135-1204 CE), “May I never see in my patient anything else than a fellow creature in pain.”

            The commandment to love is not an abstract principle, but a concrete demand, as illustrated in Jesus’ graphic parables, like the Good Samaritan. It is so recognisable, that the hearer/reader becomes a doer in his own context, feeling himself responsible even for what does not pertain to the strictly circumscribed terrain of his professional commitment. When someone has been educated in the Christian tradition, the narrative’s confrontation can often unexpectedly lead to creative initiatives originally thought impossible. The people in Jesus’ day did not attribute illness to diseases, germs and viruses, but rather to evil spirits (cf. Luke 4,33; 6,18; 7,21; 8,2,29; 9.39; 11,4; 13,11). Luke is at pains to present Jesus as one filled with the Holy Spirit from his very conception (1,15,17,35,80; 3,16,22; 4,1; 14,18). In his healing ministry, Jesus engages in a power struggle with demonic forces. In this struggle, the Holy Spirit, who fills Jesus, always prevails. Jesus’ healing power is evidence of a new in-breaking of the reign of God (Luke 11,20). This is evident, however, only to those who have faith.

            Such biblical narrative-precepts spurred the Church on to establishing hospitals for the sick, refuges for the blind, mentally ill and outcasts due to diseases, and dispensaries for the poor. At a much later stage, this concern led to missionary work in conjunction with, though not distinct from, evangelisation.

            In providing a moral basis for such development, the Bible has given to modern medicine a great deal more that it might now care to acknowledge. Even though the movement of secularisation separated the professional from the clerical, the centrality of respect for the person has become enshrined in modern medical codes, such as the Geneva Convention Code of Ethics (1948) and the Helsinki Convention (1964) of the World Medical Association.

 

Advancing Secularisation

            There were, however, adverse indications. As a result of certain interpretations, the Bible’s influence on medicine was not always positive. Lacking the notion of secondary causes, people tended to see illness as a divine punitive visitation for wrongdoing. Jesus corrected this slant on at least one occasion. There are but a few references to physicians in the Bible and these are uncomplimentary (cf. Mark 5,25-26; Luke 8,43), except for the allusion to Luke, “the beloved physician” (Col 4,14) and in Sirach 38, 1-15, where the reader is exhorted to “honour physicians for their services.” Even in these passages the emphasis is on the need for confession of sin before any true healing could take place, and on the role of God as healer. One may recall the much later dictum of Ambraise Paré (1510-1590): “I treated the patient, but God healed him.”

            In Israel ritual and religion dominated the field of medicine and healing. Physical disease made one ritually impure, and any healing was certified by a priest, not a doctor. Codes of hygiene were set within a religious framework. With poor perception of secondary causes, it was God alone who “sent” disease and disaster as a punishment for misdeeds; alternatively, he rewarded the good with health and well-being (cf. Exodus 15,26; Deuteronomy 7,12-15). Many of these ideas carried over into early and medieval Christianity. Medical treatment was minimal as compared to prayer and fasting in order to chasten the individual. This attitude can still be discerned in the discussion on A.I.D.S.  God’s continuous dialogue with us now assumes profound meaning. Could it be that A.I.D.S. is God’s judgement on a rebellious and salacious world and that here is an opportunity to assert traditional morality at a stroke?  People who talk like this may well be authoritarian and punitive figures seeking to control human behaviour by intimidation and threats of retribution. Others say that love and compassion are integral to God’s dialogue with us. Only love and compassion help realise the Kingdom. Both religion and science need to learn from this new situation.

            From the Renaissance onwards, medicine and theology drifted increasingly apart. Medicine developed on empirical lines of experimentation and conclusions, more and risky ventures and openness to new possibilities. Nevertheless, there always remained in Christianity  a healing ministry that still draws on the capital, albeit residual, of biblical values. In general, this has not been considered in competition with orthodox medicine but rather as complementary to it. Some more recent developments in healing ministries, derived from biblical literature, however, seem to be an exercise of a pre- scientific worldview, and will inevitably be in conflict with modern medical practice.