The Partisan Paradox V: Walking The Razor's Edge

Never mind supporting a specific politician or political ideology...can individual Christians ever involve themselves in the political arena for the betterment of society? Should the Church look to the power of politics to effect moral reform within America? I believe that the following points may help to clarify the believer’s relationship to government and politics.

In truth we’re straddling the razors edge now. An individual Christian could conceivably involve themselves in the political arena as individuals, but it is not the place of the Church (corporately speaking) to change political/governmental institutions. There are tremendous risks involved. One slip and things get real messy. Irreparable harm can be done to the image of Christianity and one's self. 

If you personally feel compelled to become a politician yourself there is nothing that prevents that. There is a huge caveat though. You had better have a clean past (which most don’t) and shouldn't likely aligning to any specific party. It is best to remain independent or unaffiliated. You had better pray vehemently that you do not stumble in the public view. Based on the reasoning in previous posts in this series I have strong inclinations against Christian’s going into public office as you are obviously representing more than yourself and other human beings. You represent Christ. The probability of an inadvertent misstep is high. You're relationship with Christ should be paramount.

There are many in society that will be venomous towards a Christian. They will wait patiently for your first screw up and then will pounce, malign and attack viciously with the usual accusations of hypocrite and charlatan. Some may just attempt mis-characterization and slanderous accusation. I personally don't believe the risks warrant doing so. Nothing prevents a Christian from doing this in a non-partisan manner. Unfortunately, by not aligning you are going to be viewed with a jaundiced eye by both sides. They’ll both see you as a threat to their ideologies. Regardless, you should seek to be of impeccable character which the Bible calls you to regardless. He have to be above the fray of the quagmire you’ll be entering into.

It is my personal belief after much prayer that a leader within the church should not seek a public office. The leader of a specific church or Christian organization is representative of a specific peoples and runs the risk of alignment of that church to a political ideal that is not biblical.

Additionally, the idea of trying to create a theocracy by commandeering the American democratic process with spiritual leaders was tried before in the United States before the United States was even formed…and it failed miserably. Ask the Puritans. But interestingly, the individual outside of a spiritual leadership in church leadership can bring something into the American governmental institution. It might be a good way to engage the culture and have a positive affect on the culture.  You might have the opportunity to speak God’s truth to the issues to people unfamiliar with God’s design. You might be asked questions that will cause you to dig deeper into the Bible, thus building your faith. You could meet and develop relationships with others, of all sorts, in the community. Doors to other opportunities may be opened to you.

The downside is that “politics is dirty business.” Politicians, even those with the best of motives, are in danger of being corrupted by a system that deals in power. Those in political office, especially at the federal level, are courted by those who hope to gain favor in efforts to advance their own agendas. Special interest lobby groups like, ACLU, Big Pharma, NRA and Planned Parenthood others have deep pockets. In the case of groups like the NRA and Planned Parenthood there are even more political and moral ramifications. Wherever money and power are concentrated, greed and covetousness are always nearby. There is extreme danger for Christians who are involved in worldly political systems, and great care must be taken to be in that world, but not of it. Perhaps nowhere in life is it more true that “bad company corrupts good character” (1 Corinthians 15:33) than in the seats of political power.

Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). The kingdom of Christ is not connected with earthly political systems or national governments, all of which are in rebellion against God. The world Christians are to be concerned with is the spiritual realm, not the temporal. There is nothing wrong with Christians being involved in politics, as long as they remember that we are to be ambassadors for Christ on earth. Remember, we’re to engage not integrate to.

So again I ask, “Should a Christian run for political office?” For some Christians, the answer is a definite no; for others, a definite yes. This is a personal decision that requires prayer and the wisdom only God can provide (James 1:5). Christian politicians must remember that their duty to the Lord must take precedence over the duties of their office. If you don’t think yo can uphold your duty to public office you probably shouldn’t be entering into it. Paul tells us that whatever we do, we are to do it for the glory of the Lord, not our own (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17). If a Christian does seek office, it should only be if he/she can faithfully execute the duties of that office to the glory of God and without compromising Christian principles. I don’t care how much faith and spiritual fortitude you think you have. It will test the best Christian.

Our Lord did not give His Church a political agenda, but a spiritual mandate to proclaim the Gospel and disciple nations (Matthew 28:19-20). Such a mandate far outweighs any political obligation. Interestingly, the early church, living under a much more oppressive government than we in America, willingly submitted to Rome and never once attempted to form a political party or change Roman laws. They refused to allow any political crusade to take priority over the pure message of the Gospel. They weren’t merely interested necessary in making a better society; they wanted to completely transform it with the message of the Gospel.

In Their Own Words XXXIX: Heaven Will Be Boring

Isaac Asimov was an American writer and professor of biochemistry at Boston University but was mostly known for his works of science fiction and popular science. Asimov was a prolific writer who wrote or edited more than 500 books including I Robot and the Foundation series.

Isaac Asimov was an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist. He considered the term atheist inadequate, as it described what he did not believe rather than what he did. Eventually, he described himself as a "humanist" and considered that term more practical. He did not oppose religious conviction in others per se, but he frequently railed against superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs that tried to pass themselves off as ‘genuine’ science. So, knowing Asimov didn’t like his belief being described as something he didn’t believe…it is ironic that he would make the following statement describing his view of an afterlife…that he didn’t believe in.

I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse. ~ Isaac Asimov

Sometimes the statements of atheists are so blatantly in error that their mistake jumps off the page. Isaac Asimov so poorly understands the Christian faith here that it is virtually embarrassing and sadly for him...damning. Second, for a dude that had a Doctorate in Philosophy, he makes a surprisingly elementary error in thought and trips face-first into a logical fallacy. There is quite a bit to pick apart in this short statement so let's start...

Immediately Isaac states, “I don’t believe in an afterlife.” Well, just because someone doesn’t believe in something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I might not believe in electricity but if I stick a fork in a socket, my belief system is going to change pretty quickly. One of the fallacies here is the Argument from Incredulity. He has concluded that because he can't or refuses to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of argument from ignorance. The unwillingness to entertain ideas that one finds unbelievable is fallacious. The fallacy lies in the unstated premise. If a state of affairs seems impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Which is exactly the case with Asimov.

Secondly, he has started with a metaphysical statement. Belief is firmly in the realm of metaphysics and he appears to assume that it immediately removes it of its need for logical reasoning. If I assume his intent, it would’ve been more accurate to say, “I am not convinced of an afterlife by the evidence presented.” Otherwise he is merely stating an unsubstantiated opinion. The second idea falls out from the first or Asimov concluding the non-existence of something based on the lack of evidence for it is the argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

What is ironic is this statement is coming from Asimov who had a doctorate in Philosophy and should’ve clearly saw the inherent fallacies in such a banal atheistic statement. Asimov who was of scientific mind and should’ve saw the flaw in making a theological statement firmly in the realm of metaphysics and making a absolute conclusion with only a subjective point of view. A man of scientific inquiry making an absolute truth statement devoid of any logical reasoning. I mean, he should've at least given a logical syllogism to have a leg to stand on. Otherwise he was merely appealing to his own authority on a theological issue...a topic on which he had no authority.

However, in practice, he accepted the conclusion without evidence for or against because he simply trusted the source. Himself. This is generally a good heuristic (depending on the sources), but when it comes to any important issue (like eternity), he should've ditched the heuristic and been more methodical in his approach. His eternal salvation was at stake whether he knew it or not. Again, just because he is ignorant of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Asimov then makes a purely theological statement about Heaven (never mind Hell) that betrays his complete ignorance of Christian orthodoxy. A topic he understands little of and it is obvious. The statement:

“…I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse” [than Hell]

Asimov assumes boredom at the prospect of an eternity in Heaven. It is the idea that Heaven will be about doing things that he wants to do forever and that in so doing, he’ll inevitably do everything he wants to do when he wants to do it. He then assumes it will inevitably become painfully ordinary and tediously boring because he’ll end up repeating himself ad nauseum. This ironically is exactly how I would expect a godless mind to think. A godless mind not understanding and not grasping an eternal not fully fathomable God.

What Isaac Asimov fails to understand is the theological purpose for which a person/believer is saved to. He is thinking selfishly and only of his own ends. He is thinking myopically. Sadly, I find this to be the case with many outside (and inside) the faith. The purpose to which we are saved is to: 

(1) Bring glory to an infinite, eternal God. Both here on earth and in heaven. We will be saved to a place in the presence of a glorious eternal God. When we are saved we are literally brought into the Kingdom of God here and there. To bring glory to a wondrous God with infinite attributes in infinite amounts. We can never plumb the depths of the greatness of God. It will be like going back to a crystal clear well of water eternally drawing to drink of it in a divinely given thirst. I don’t know about other people but that first drop of water when one finds Living Water will never be fully satiated. It is the purpose for which we were made. 

(2) God wishes that none perish. Folks, God really does love us. It is grace by which we are saved. Grace that we don't deserve. He wants us to be with Him. Not because he needs us, He has the Trinity for that. He wants us to love Him because we want to. He has loved us first (John 3:16).

(3) Your resurrected body will come equipped with unimaginable capacity for joy (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). The Bible says you will have a resurrected body far better than anything you knew on earth. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, says that your body will be stronger, fuller, more spiritual, more glorious, and everlasting. Your delight, your knowledge, your intellect, and all your affections will be renewed and restored so that you might enjoy Christ with perfected bodies.

(4) In heaven, your capacity for joy will never cease to grow. Never. Never-ending. The implications of this are staggering. First, it pummels any idea of heaven becoming boring, static, or all-too-familiar. How can it? If your ability to enjoy God and his gifts are always expanding, your perception of heaven will always be fuller, deeper, and richer.  That means will never look upon the same reality twice without some new way in which to enjoy it. 

Sad is the irony of Asimov’s arrogant thinking. He merely dwells on himself in an insolent way. A Christian is called to think just the opposite of the way Asimov does. They are to be like Christ himself which was loving in selfless and humble manner. Christians are called to be a servant to do for others in the image of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). A Christian is to turn outwards to God and others in a communal wholeness. By turning inward Asimov was, less whole. By turning inward, he turned his back on God.

The Partisan Paradox IV: No One Can Serve Two Masters

 

There is an adage: “The church that marries the culture today will be a widow tomorrow.” This applies to the matter of Christians and Christian leaders endorsing political candidates or their churches identifying exclusively with one party or the other. It’s a warning to those who would dare to blur the line between human statecraft and divine mandate/instruction.

There are some important issues. I am not disputing that. Admittedly I sort of understand some of the arguments for actively endorsing a specific politician that is vocally anti-abortion or leans more towards old-fashioned values. The matter of immorality, abortion and how to deal with poverty looms largest on my own moral horizon as do a few other hot-button social issues. Furthermore, the economy/debt of this country and what this nation should be doing in the Middle East are crucial matters. There are moral aspects to these issues which Christian leaders and Christians can address and should be helping their people and brethren with.  By all means you should vote and participate in the democratic process.

But don’t be endorsing specific candidates. There is an obvious and inherent danger in doing so. Human leaders and humans in general are infamously fallible and will bring shame to themselves through their sins inevitably sinking their own ship. To saddle one’s self with that burden virtually guarantees you’ll go down with the ship too. You are effectively strapping on concrete boots. In so doing you are dragging the Gospel down with you as a Christian.

As critical as those issues are, none are as important as the church’s primary task of bringing the gospel to the community and the world. Plainly, some pastors have lost their way and some churches have forgotten their task. When they are willing to risk the salvation of lost people who wander into their services in order to get certain candidates elected, one must wonder if these men of God have forgotten their assignment from Matthew 28:18-20.

When Israel was in Babylon, God sent a message to His people through the prophet Jeremiah. “Work for the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile and pray on its behalf. For as it prospers, you will prosper." (Jeremiah 29:7)

In your town, state and country…work for it, pray for it. I even encourage people to be politically active of course. Just don’t bring the politicians and campaigns into the church building. And don’t donate the reputation of your Christian identity and the reputation of your faith to the politicians to be used as a tool. The church is a sanctuary not the other way around. The politicians should be coming to the church for wisdom and sanctuary, not the church going to the government and politicians. Christians should not be whoring their righteousness to those that will merely use it as a political or fiscal gain. There ought to be at least one place where we are protected from such.

Our allegiance is to the Gospel not to the systems of men. Anything that would seek to impose itself in the place of the Gospel or bring insult or offense to the Gospel and Scriptures is a resounding…NO. If your allegiance is not first to God, Gospel and Scripture you are effectively mixing God’s kingdom with a broken divided kingdom. We all know what the Bible says about the priority of the supremacy of God’s kingdom, divided kingdoms, mixing religions and serving two masters.

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Matthew 6:33

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. Matthew 6:24

If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. Mark 12:17

They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought. To this day they persist in their former practices. They neither worship the LORD nor adhere to the decrees and regulations, the laws and commands that the LORD gave the descendants of Jacob, whom he named Israel. When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: "Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. But the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. You must always be careful to keep the decrees and regulations, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies." They would not listen, however, but persisted in their former practices. Even while these people were worshiping the LORD, they were serving their idols. To this day their children and grandchildren continue to do as their ancestors did. 2 Kings 17:33-41

The Partisan Paradox III: The Only Ruler Who Matters

Politics should not shape religious identity. Your Christian identity should shape your politics. As I said, I am neither Conservative nor liberal. I am Christian. I am to engage the culture with my Christianity not conform to it. Because society has become so polarized that is getting harder and harder to do. 

Anything that continues to exacerbate the political divide should not be the goal of any Christian leader or Christian in general. If you see them doing so it is likely there is something to be gained out of it selfishly. We cannot allow the message of the Gospel to be hijacked by religious influence peddlers in political circles.

We must hold fast to God’s declaration in Genesis 1:27 that every person is made in his image. The Imago Dei is more than a theological statement about creation. It tells us that our attitudes toward others should reflect the love of God for them. Divisive politics doesn’t allow this. Regardless of our political views we must always acknowledge other people’s inherent dignity as created beings. On the other hand, remembering the Imago Dei in others does not mean we must agree with them. Christians are called to speak truth into a corrupted world. But we can do this in ways that don’t diminish human dignity and doesn’t incorporate politicking. Its called educating. Even education means being close enough to another person in idea and proximity to be able to communicate in a civil manner. The political division we currently have being fostered by our current brood of viperous politicians will prevent this from the POTUS down to the local township supervisor.

Second, we should listen—really actively listen—to our political opponents. In order for a pluralist society to thrive, citizens must seek to understand perspectives and views we believe are wrong. This is the only way there can be a balanced well-informed debate/argument/polemic. There should be a peaceful rational exchange of ideas not derogatory labels flung a one another from a distance like deadly projectiles. We need to stop sniping.

Again, this doesn’t mean Christians should be doormats on meaningful matters like abortion and immorality. What should come to the forefront is that our belief that God is the author of truth and social justice. We should be reasoning with political opposites with humility and grace not hostility and rancor.

Finally, we must put politics in its rightful place and not let it dominate our actions, relationships, or priorities in or outside our churches and homes. Political affiliation is not our true Christian identity.  We are to be Christians and embodiment of the Gospel in thought, word, and deed. No matter how often you hear that the next election is...“the most important election of our lifetime,” don’t buy into the perspective that the stakes are so great that it warrants compromising the Gospel. Don't buy the shtick that the false sense of urgency warrants aligning with and electing the ‘lesser of two evils’. In reality, we are still aligning ourselves to a sinful fallible human being regardless of how bad we’re in denial.

A compromised witness from aligning to a tyrant or a fool (or both) taints the Gospel and demeans the name of Christ. We need to look at the larger time frame. Is four years in The White House or State Capital worth an eternity for other people in judgment. If so, by all means saddle yourself up to the next idiotic politician but it you find any value in the Imago Dei of your fellow human, compromise so that you can reach them with the Gospel. Keep the politicking outside the door of your witness. The only Ruler / Leader that warrants aligning ourselves to is the one whose feet at which all other kings will be casting their golden crowns anyway.

The Partisan Paradox II: Lobbing Rhetorical Grenades

Okay, so the sides in politics are miles apart and can’t communicate. No communication, no meaningful transfer of ideas. If there is little or no transfer of ideas there is little or no dissemination of the Gospel. It gets worse…

What’s worse is that by aligning myself to a specific political ideology, I defame the Gospel to 50% of my potential audience (+/- 3% margin of error). By aligning myself to a specific political ideology I create what I will refer to as a negative partnership. It is a form of impersonal codependence at a distance. People generally don’t delve down intellectually into every individual social/cultural issue dividing the parties. Parties, of which we are told there are only two which is a false polemic and false framing of reality. There are in reality many. 

Regardless, rarely do the general populace have an informed logical argument for every issue. It requires too much thought and too much effort. Instead, people attach to political parties in a negative partnership. Many just vote and think along party lines and the media caters to this mindset. As parties have grown more distinct, people have been more prone to view politics as simply a game to be won or enemy to be vanquished. Emphasis is placed on ideological policy achievements and not reforms. The focus is on making sure my “team” beats the other. 

At times it seems the issues of abortion, gun rights, social justice, racism and other hot button issues are deliberately kept in play to maintain a perpetual polemic to assure re-elections along these ideologies. Battles are won but they are meaningless because the war never ends. It is literally the endless war in Oceania and Eastasia in George Orwell's 1984. The sides just keep fighting on from farther and farther away against an enemy hard to define except by a stereotype and oversimplification. A so-called enemy that is much deeper, more intellectual and more compassionate than they'll ever be given credit for.

In a win-or-lose mentality there is no middle ground for the Gospel. No compromise. Its not about meeting in the middle to discuss commonalities, its about lobbing rhetorical grenades over unscalable walls to cause your opponent’s demise. Winning the ideological war isn’t the end goal anymore. It’s about destroying reputations and murdering character. What do we suppose happens to the message of the Gospel if we take a decidedly left or right stance? It destroys hearts. Why are we only allowed those two choices? Why does the media only portray two viable choices when there are many?

In a Christian and American system that depends on the transfer words, and a deliberate exchange of ideas, it is disconcerting. We might not agree on the ideologies but we need to at least agree to communicate with one another and agree on the meaning of words (Law of Identity). 

What is tolerance? What is life? What is love. What is hate?

The negative partnership poses a deeper and thornier problem for the Christian. Especially Christian leaders or those of Christian influence. It tempts us to show favoritism (James 2) and thereby diminish others that do not align to our party or our politician. It literally is a twisted form or Jesus’ words. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, eh, unless they belong to the other political party. If you align to a specific politician...everyone that doesn't like that politician loses the Gospel.

The Partisan Paradox I: The Gospel & God Are Always The Right Answer

Well, what I vowed I’d never write about on this blog...I am now writing about. Politics. No single word dredges up more loathing and eye-rolls than politics. Except maybe religion. No, I’m not joking. I really am going to do a series on politics. As a person of the Christian persuasion, writing about things Christian is second nature. Writing about things political in nature will make this series about as pleasant as running through a minefield with clown shoes on. One mention of politics and there is immediate polarization and nearly guaranteed polemic or argument. At best you’ll get a heated debate. At worst you’ll have emotive meltdowns and violence. Two things not conducive to communication. 

Communication that is necessary for the transfer of the Gospel. It's actually quite simple with me…its always about the Gospel. It’s the first, it’s the last and its everything. Everything for me falls out from that. It is my point of origin and point of departure. Where I fall in with how you think depends if your thinking is aligned with Scripture and the Gospel. Where I fall out with you is when your thinking is misaligned with Scripture and the Gospel. I always joke when I teach or preach in church ... if I ask you a question in the congregation and you yell out, “The Gospel!”, “Jesus!”  or “Scripture!” you’ll usually answer my questions correctly 95% of the time.

The political atmosphere is toxic. Too emotionally charged and too far apart. At least too far apart to communicate clearly and logically. This makes a bad environment for one to live out their faith without compromise. Alignment to either side runs the risk of permanently alienating the other side over non-essential issues. Hostility and over-emotiveness breeds rancor and allows people to quickly devolve into dehumanizing rhetoric and name-calling and epithets. 

Snowflake. Libtards. Trumpsters. MAGAbots. Trumpettes. Blah blah blah.

Aligning to one side or another in this political charged atmosphere creates a guilt by association. Conservative and Christian are inextricably linked together in the American lexicon because of the work of Ralph Reed in the 1980’s. His brainchild is the Christian Coalition. It might single-handedly have done more damage to tarnish Christianity than Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Harold Camping combined. People cannot see Christians as anything other than conservatives now. I am neither Liberal or Conservative. In today’s environment, this immediately erects an impenetrable incommunicable wall.

So, bottom-line, no communication, no Gospel transfer. The sides are so far apart there is no transfer of ideas or words. That’s bad. The Gospel is based in words. If something I'm doing inhibits conveyance of the Gospel, I shouldn’t be doing it as a Christian.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. Romans 10:17

I could literally stop my series here and be Biblically justified...but I won’t. I’ll make a more nuanced argument.

The Great Physician XIII: A God of Taxonomy & Systemic Divine Order

The God of the Bible is a God of order (1 Corinthians 14:33). In the Bible there is an order. There are rules. Laws. Hierarchies. Just as we see in life. In the Creation. There are also classifications. Things are grouped together by their characteristics. In modern times we call it taxonomy. Taxonomy which comes from the Greek word τάξις / taxis which means arrangement (tactics) and νόμος/ nomos or method/law. Arrangement method or laws. It is an order that is maintained by separations. Order through separations or more specifically categorization and isolation. Ceremonial Law. Civil Law. Moral Law. Pure-Impure. Holy-Unholy. Sinful-Righteous.

ולהבדיל בּין הקדש ובין החל ובין הטמא ובין הטהור׃

…and that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean ~ Leviticus 10:10

Within priestly ritual these categories were themselves identified and compartmentalized further in terms of space, time and position. These subcategories operated as a set of measurable factors in terms of separation so that there was proximal categorization of space/location: Separation of the Holy of Holies from all other places. There was proximal categorization of time like the separation of the Sabbath from all other days. The Day of Atonement and even just regular occurrence (Ecclesiastes 3). There is a categorization of position or status the separation of the priests from all other persons. There were even restrictions on who could wear mixed fabrics and who couldn't

...nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19

Mixing of wool and linen were prohibited...except in the case of priests. Why do you suppose the priest's Ephod was a mixture of linen and wool? Natural blended fabrics were slower to ignite near fire and considering priests were near ritual flame quite often its important. Wool is sheep hair and is made of protein which is more prone to melt or cauterize rather than burn. Additionally, linen when it is around a lot of heat breathes better than most fabrics and is very cool and it also is less likely to cling to the skin. In the event of fire this is a characteristic I would prefer in my clothes. Can anyone say burnt offering?

The priestly worldview and Jewish life was/is ordered and maintained through the zealous adherence to systemization, categorization and recognition / observance of specific boundaries. This of course lends itself greatly to medicine which prides itself on understanding systems and systematic ordering of thought through diagnosis and systems of elimination when a cure is attempting to be sought to a puzzling ailment or illness.

Sadly, it was the human inability to maintain this order and categorization that was the Achilles Heel in the system of purity and holiness. Human shortcoming…the exact reason these systems for purity and cleanliness were given. It was sin, defilement and impurity that muddled the clear separation in these orders and classifications. God was giving mankind a way to reestablish the order before the Fall and man was incapable of obeying that system. God was restoring order through obedience and a sacrificial system. Through it humanity could be redeemed. Righted. The priestly order through the sacrificial system given by God inevitably pointed to and was fulfilled by God in Christ. It was never really about the law so much as it was the inability to meet the law that showed the need for a Redeemer. The Great Physician offered Himself as the cure to disease, the disease that is sin and even death. He was the Order. He was the Law. Where Jesus walked things righted themselves and the order of the the Kingdom shined in power. Where Jesus is people are healed.

As with the physician and a human body/life, the physician is attempting to categorize systems in the body, systems in the environment affecting the body, and systems of diagnosis to bring order to an otherwise chaotic out-of-control system.

Through systematization of symptoms conclusions can be arrived at with a modicum of certainty especially if there were precedents. Systems of treatment can then be devised for otherwise incurably complex systems because in reality, curing an illness or disease is a balance of wholeness of the systems and strategic ability to pinpoint within a system…the flaw. Just as the Bible and priest did with sin. Disease and sin muddy boundaries and categories thereby compromising the systems whether they be physical or spiritual. They are synonymous. Disease can result from sin and sin can be the result of disease. Both make things unwhole. Imperfect. Undoing God’s perfect order.

The priest like a physician is required to carry out specific duties to maintain the separations demanded to maintain order through categorization. Diseased-Healthy. Holy-Unholy. Priest and Physicians are called to do triage. Spiritual triage and Physical triage and respectively. Sometimes…they do both. Triage is the assignment or categorization of degrees of urgency/severity to wounds or illnesses (sin) to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties (or sinners). If they’re beyond saving…they are literally left to God. There is never one patient and there is never one sinner. Triage is essentially a way to preserve sacred space and time dedicated to healing which inevitably happens in the presence of God whether it be physical or spiritual.

Both a priest and physicians’ diagnosis are based on a systematic questioning. A system of juxtaposed questioning using a thesis / antithesis or yes / no inquiry. This then leads to what theologians / philosophers call a logical syllogism. Based on the answer they proceed another step until a root cause is found. Literally it is a logic fault chart. Order on top of order until no further questioning is possible. This is done to identify the error, sin, disease and determined the best way to either reverse it, heal it or cure it.

 “You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.” Leviticus 15:31

The priestly ritual is systematized behavior and systematized behavior is…ritualistic. Systematization and ritual create structure or order where there is little or none. Hence the need for triage. Order in chaos. Which is an emulation of God. Systematized behavior and ritual also are communal. The priest and physician must interact with others to perform their duties. There were also different types of rituals. There are preventative rituals which are to avoid danger of impurity or sin just as there is preventative medicine. There are maintenance rituals which are to preserve/maintain the established order just as maintenance medicine or physical exercise and healthy habits maintain physical health and bodily order. Finally, there are restoration rituals or rituals to restore the broken order of creation just as there are restorative, healing medicine and surgery to reverse the effects of disease and decay. All of this takes place within a proper space and proper time ordained/ordered.

All of this bespeaks of The Scientific Method and to lesser extent Root Cause Analysis and Defect Classification. The priests and the Jews might not have fully understood why they were practicing it but God did. The method existed over 3000 years before the Enlightenment. It just wasn't called Scientific Method. It was called the Mosaic Law.

The Great Physician XII: The Serendipitous Doctor

Doctor and the Doll
Norman Rockwell
1929

The aim of The Great Physician series was fallout or the end byproduct of me wanting to understand the medical significance of the Mosaic Law. There just hasn't been a lot of highly specific writing on it. I suppose it is because many theologians are not medically savvy and many physicians may not be theologically savvy. There have been a few that have tried to bridge this gap but not many.

I always knew in my heart that part of the reason God had put it there was for the health of the Jewish nation not just holiness. The health part fell out from the holiness or perfection of it. I just couldn’t find books that spoke to it thoroughly so I put it on myself to do the research and prove it out through root cause myself. It appears to me after reading the Levitical laws that there is a medical foundation in the law permitting the development of a rudimentary form of public healthcare but was given to establish and maintain sacramental hygiene and purity.

Of specific medical interest to me is Leviticus 13 and 15. On the surface the Levitical priest appeared to have practiced a form of diagnostic and preventive medicine but acting as a physician as a therapeutic agent and the idea of cure may never have been considered. Priests became inadvertent doctors via obedience to God’s law. God can even work through the ignorance of men. The priest was concerned with issues of holiness. The doctor or nurse with health. But today we could potentially have both. Back then not so much. God knew that what HE was passing on to the priest and his people were medically beneficial but they likely didn’t understand the medical implications. It has taken until modern times to see the medical connection.

I believe Leviticus should be viewed as the first book of medical hygiene. I will also note that I am in no way a medical expert and by doing this series of posts I am literally attempting medical/biblical exegesis. In some posts I’m trying to diagnose or find the root cause of the symptoms the Levitical law was trying to prevent. No small feat for either a theologian or physician. Add to the mix the role of ancient historian an I believe I’ve bitten off more than I can chew. But onward I endeavor…

Simply put the ‘wholeness’ of Judaism’s ritual purity is prerequisite for holiness…so being holy meant being pure. As we can see down through history being pure or righteous by the law also meant being of good hygiene which was conducive to good health. Being healthy and being pure and controlling said conditions in themselves and others could make priests diagnostic doctors whether they realized it or not. The simplest notion of wholeness that they or we would understand was good health via holiness and the absence of disease and illness. The Levitical law served as a set of holy wellness programs.

It was a divine trifecta: Wholeness-Holiness-Healthiness.

Death and disease is essentially malfunctioning or degradation of a biological system. Disease when diagnosed is manifested by symptoms that an individual / patient reports, and signs that are observed or elicited by others whether they be a priest or physician. Illness and disease are medically different terms but the ancient Hebrews did not distinguish so neither will I. I will merely address the manifested symptoms and attempt to draw conclusions.

Botanical Medicine in ancient Israel would’ve likely been gleaned from surrounding existing sociocultural milieus but I will state outright that there is only about half a dozen places where I can find that plants are to be used medicinally.

Psalms 51:7 - Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow

Isaiah 38:21 - For Isaiah had said, Let them take a lump of figs, and lay [it] for a plaister upon the boil, and he shall recover.

 

Psalms 104:14-15 - He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine [that] makes glad the heart of man, [and] oil to make [his] face to shine, and bread [which] strengthens man's heart.

 

Ezekiel 47:12 Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear fruit, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing."

 

Revelation 22:2 - In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.

So…although the Bible mentions it only in passing, doesn’t mean it wasn’t used. We must always remember that the Bible is written for purposes of purity, holiness and salvation. It tells of how to avoid things but once disease was sustained it most certainly was treated not ignored….even by the Israelite people who were called to be holy. We need to distinguish that medicine is not necessarily equated with witchcraft in the Bible. It is witchcraft based on the intent of the practitioners / recipient’s heart/spiritual condition. Just as today Christians go to atheistic/agnostic doctors. Does this make them non-believers? No. Is it probable that priests administered some of the known cures of the time as they were men of education and social status. They were looked up to. The Bible doesn’t speak to it but it is likely those with Judaic/Christian beliefs including priests did medical/medicinal things. The Gospel of Luke was written by a physician.

“Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas” Colossians 4:14

Even Paul and Apostle recommends the use of alcohol, likely as an antiseptic in 1 Timothy. Paul was neither a physician or a priest but clearly believers used medicine or took things internally to cure ills.

“Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.” 1 Timothy 5:23

Please note that this is not pharmakia / φαρμακεία or drug use to alter one’s mind and reality which is usually associated to witchcraft or magic. It is medicine in the purest sense for the treatment of an observed disorder/disease. The Bible certainly draws these distinctions. Magic was not medicine. Unfortunately for the believer, both were in practice in the Old and New Testament.