What if Jesus Never Cured Anyone?

...the leper (Mark 1:40-44) who met Jesus had both a disease (say, psoriasis) and an illness, the personal and social stigma of uncleanness, isolation, and rejection. And as long as the disease stayed or got worse, the illness also would stay or get worse. In general, if the disease went, the illness went with it. What, however, if the disease could not be cured but the illness could somehow be healed?

This is the central problem of what Jesus was doing in his healing miracles. Was he curing the disease through an intervention in the physical world, or was he healing the illness through an intervention in the social world? I presume that Jesus, who did not and could not cure that disease or any other one, healed the poor man's illness by refusing to accept the disease's ritual uncleanness and social ostracization. Jesus thereby forced others either to reject him from their community or to accept the leper within it as well.

John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, (New York: Harper Collins, 1994), 82.

What if Jesus never cured anyone? What if the gospel writers embellished on the idea of people being cured of their diseases upon meeting Christ? At first glance, it seems highly blasphemous to even consider the thought. The gospels are loaded with examples and I have spent my entire church life hearing & believing that people were miraculously healed. What mattered was that the "blind see, lame walk, the leprous are cured, the deaf hear..." And yet - was that even close to what truly mattered to the heart of Jesus? And has that thinking led the modern church to become lazy & focused on the wrong type of prayer & approach for/to a hurting world?

I believe Jesus cared far more about the social world than we often see or want to believe in our modern world. Rather than following Him, though, the church & its followers have made the focus about the physical world. We worry about things & attempt to take care of things to impact the physical world around us (or if we are really spiritual - the physical world across the globe from our locations). Raising money, donating food items, helping with medical supplies, giving clean water, donating clothes, etc. The point is not that these are bad steps to take. In fact, they are often very useful & extremely helpful. The problem is that they merely take care of the tip of the iceberg of the human problem. I can clothe a poor man. I can feed that poor man. I can help that poor man get medical care. I can even get that poor man a job. But the problem remains that to me he remains "that poor man" instead of who he actually is as a child of God.

The social world is a far more difficult problem because it forces us to expand our communities & deal with social stigmas that all of us have worked together to create. We can't merely throw money & a quick photo opp at social problems and expect them to go away. We certainly feel better when we give the homeless person a meal through the window of our car. What the homeless person could use, though, would be a meal at our dining room tables. The social trumps the physical, in other words. Jesus sought to heal the illnesses of people - the conditions that prevented them from being part of the established society. Who cares if they could walk, see, hear or feel clean skin again? What mattered more was feeling the importance of being wanted, included & a part of something larger than themselves.

We must stop reading the Bible to see what we want to see. Jesus never focused on the physical problem. It was never the issue for Him. He always went much deeper - striking at the heart of the predicament. He healed illnesses by not allowing social boundaries to prevent relationships from developing. What if Christians decided to take that same step of depth? What if we stopped throwing money & supplies at physical problems and started worrying about how we might make a dent in the social ones? If we did, we might stop making people statistics that need "x amount of this" and "y amount of that" in order to live and instead help people actually feel loved. Now that would truly be Christlike.

Probability

Trying to find the actual Jesus is like trying, in atomic physics, to locate a submicroscopic particle and determine its charge. The particle cannot be seen directly, but on a photographic plate we see the lines left by the trajectories of larger particles it put in motion. By tracing these trajectories back to their common origin, and by calculating the force necessary to make these trajectories move as they did, we can locate and describe the invisible cause. Admittedly, history is more complex than physics; the lines connecting the original figure to the developed legends cannot be traced with mathematical accuracy; the intervention of unknown factors has to be allowed for. Consequently, results can never claim more than probability; but "probability," as Bishop Butler said, "is the very guide of life."

Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982)

People

Look at your life and see how you have filled emptiness with people. As a result they have a stranglehold on you. See how they control your behavior by their approval and disapproval. They hold the power to ease your loneliness with their company, to send your spirits soaring with their praise, to bring you down to the depths with their criticism and rejection. Take a look at yourself spending almost every waking moment of your day placating and pleasing people, whether they are living or dead. You live by their norms, conform to their standards, seek their company, desire their love, dread their ridicule, long for their applause, meekly submit to the guilt they lay upon you; you are terrified to go against the fashion in the way you dress or speak or act or even think. And observe how even when you control them you depend on them and are enslaved by them. People have become so much a part of your being that you cannot even imagine living a life that is unaffected or uncontrolled by them.

Anthony DeMello, The Way to Love (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 64.

Tranformation

Robert was beginning a new life. As the director of a weapons laboratory that would integrate the diverse efforts of the far-flung sites of the Manhattan Project and mold them quickly into a usable atomic weapon, he would have to conjure up skills he did not yet have, deal with problems he had never imagined, develop work habits entirely at odds with his previous lifestyle, and adjust to attitudes and modes of behavior (such as security considerations) that were emotionally awkward and alien to his experience. It is not too much of an exaggeration to suggest that in order to succeed, at age thirty-nine, Robert Oppenheimer would have to remake a significant part of his personality if not his intellect, and he was going to have to do all this in short order. Every aspect of his new job was on a fast-track schedule. Very few things - including Oppenheimer's transformation - could meet that impossible schedule; yet it is a measure of his commitment and willpower that he came very close.

Kai Bird & Martin J. Sherwin, American Prometheus, (New York: Vintage Books, 2005), 205.

There were few things that changed & impacted life in the 1940s more than the work designed and developed in the so-called Manhattan Project. Not only was the impact felt in the enormous cost and amount of man-hours poured into the development of the atomic bomb, but in the obliteration of the two Japanese cities and the ushering in of the nuclear weapons era. For Robert Oppenheimer, it was the opportunity of a lifetime - one that would dramatically increase his social stature while simultaneously leaving an imprint upon his soul. However, before he reached the point of his personal battle in his contributions to a legacy of death, he faced a the challenge of leading something he was fully incapable of leading outside of his superior intellect.

That he succeeded, there can be no doubt. The bomb(s) was built and the cities in Japan were destroyed. The situation elevated the power of the United States while exploding the tension that would brew the Cold War. His leadership helped bridge the gap on questions, talents and personalities that all needed to be figured out in order for success to be found. He discovered administrative skills and work abilities that prior to the 40s had been either dormant or non-existent within himself. And he did it all while having the military, FBI and US government consistently watching, observing and looking for ways to trap him in a mistake. The pressure he must have felt cannot be explained or even imagined. Yet it is in that moment that all of the potential & ability of Oppenheimer was on display for (soon) the world to see.

So where does that leave us? Many of us will never face a situation even remotely close to that of directing the activities of the Manhattan Project. However, I would argue that we have much to gain from what Oppenheimer put on display. The first is found in his commitment and willpower. I face challenges on a daily basis: upset parents, lazy students, high educational standards, a family that needs time/attention, personal desires, previous commitments, and a variety of other lesser pulls upon my time, energy and resources. When pushed to the breaking point, it is easy to see why quitting is such an attractive offer for so many people. These are the moments when willpower & commitment are severely tested. Seeing my way through - even halfway successfully - is determined by how much I am willing to fight for it. It requires training, control, and steadfast refusal to give up. In the end, it was the daily showing up that made Oppenheimer so successful. Perhaps, the same could be said for myself in all that I face.

Reinvention. Its a popular topic for self-help gurus and yet at its core is the challenge to be willing to become someone you either currently aren't or quite possibly never have been before. Its the replacement of poor habits, development of new skills, and adjusting to the unfamiliar and certainly uncomfortable. It certainly requires you to deal with stuff you never saw or thought about before. In other words, its becoming a new you. That is not to say that the old you is bad, broken or useless. But if we want to tackle the world - we have to become people able to handle the challenge. Oppenheimer was not born supervising construction of the atomic bomb. And his previous 38 years did not adequately prepare him for the new challenge. And yet he superbly managed the task by changing, adapting and creating a new self. Can I do the same in my own life in order to take on the challenges on my horizon? What is coming into view that I know I am not capable of currently doing - but that with positive changes & reinvention will become possible accomplishing tomorrow? The awkward feelings & fears of failure are real. They refuse to leave or quiet down. And yet without being able to adjust - I'll never meet the challenges or will simply fail them in the same familiar patterns of my past.

And finally we can see that Oppenheimer did all of it in short order. He was put on the "fast-track schedule" where delays not only put himself in jeopardy but potentially the entire U.S. military strategy. The time crunch, though, was not his enemy. The real adversary was the human condition to take it slow & easy. You and I do not have enough time. And although there is some good in taking a minute to simply enjoy things - the challenges we face and will face in the future are not going away. They don't shrink just because we dawdle in taking them on. Maybe the best thing for us would be the same pressure to perform at a high level in an unrealistic amount of time. Sure its stressful - but when you feel the heat of a moment it will either force you to rise to the top or show you the strength you need to develop for your next "opponent."

The success & challenge that faced Robert Oppenheimer awaits you and me. We either fight forward against the overwhelming odds and find some definition of success or we simply let the challenges defeat us and allow us to wallow in self-pity. We don't make names for ourselves by accomplishing the small. We leave legacies when no trial is too hard to take on.

Driven To Try

Robert later recalled that he still had 'very great misgivings about myself on all fronts, but I clearly was going to do theoretical physics if I could...I felt completely relieved of the responsibility to go back into a laboratory. I hadn't been good; I hadn't done anybody any good, and I hadn't had any fun whatever; and here was something I felt just driven to try.'

Kai Bird & Martin J. Sherwin, American Prometheus, (New York: Vintage Books, 2005), 55.

Robert Oppenheimer had an interesting life. He seemed to be destined for a life in the sciences - in particular with the study of physics. In his pursuit of knowledge & career he came across a dilemma when he realized that laboratory research (experimental physics) was not as fun as theoretical physics. His life hit a major wall at this point, and he suffered from depression, frustration, and high anxiety over where it was heading. As a result, he decided upon a path in pursuit of that which filled his cup as opposed to the standard one of working in a lab and doing that pro-typical "fit" for work in physics in his era. There were no guarantees in this choice - in fact he realized there were serious potential pitfalls to it. However, the alternative was to do something which wasn't fun, he did not feel particularly good at, and wasn't really beneficial to anyone in his mind. Even a crash & burn seemed a better option than simply sticking with the standard route. He was simply 'driven to try' that which excited him most.

How many people take a serious look at their lives and ask the questions of how much fun they are having, how good they are at what they are doing, and how beneficial it is to those around them? I truly believe people need to get more self-focused when choosing a job and vocation. To what benefit is it to give up dreams to simply choose the easiest, most comfortable, or most standard path? What has happened to our 'driven to try' mentality in this country?

I resonate so deeply with Oppenheimer's thoughts as I faced a similar crisis in my own life. I had hit a wall working for the church in which I found myself not having fun, not succeeding (at least on the definition of the leadership - which quite frankly is the only definition that matters in a job), and really not helping anyone. The option was to do something new - even though that meant a year of living with my inlaws & the real potential of not landing a job (one job opening had over 50 highly qualified people submit applications). Talk about having misgivings!! The funny thing is when I told my boss I was done - I felt completely relieved. I walked away from security to pursue that which was personally most exciting. And the reward on all 3 fronts (fun, performance, and giving to others) has been clearly seen, felt, and heard.

So what are we waiting on? Its time for a self-examination to see what we should do from here. Because the world is not bettered by people simply doing jobs for the sake of work. The world needs people that are driven to try in order to pursue their own self-interest that then rewards the environments around them.

Does Being "Nice, Gentle & Kind" Still Count?

"He is the nicest, gentlest, kindest guy you will ever meet … to everything except the baseball, he still hits that really hard." -Michael Cuddyer on Jim Thome

Jim Thome (see articles by Tim Kurkjian and Jayson Stark) hit his 600th homerun last night. Only 7 guys have done it besides him and 3 of those (Bonds, Sosa, and Rodriguez) have all been linked to steroid usage. He is one of the greatest power hitters of all time, and certainly deserves to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Remarkably he has not received a lot of press, more than likely because of his temperament and the fact that Cleveland and now Minnesota are not exactly big markets. But what seems to be most incredible about the guy is how other professional baseball players view him.

How many people are genuinely known to be nice, kind and gentle? To be more blunt, how many men are known for those characteristics? Today's American culture desires strong men, powerful men, and men who have "it" - whatever it might be. Rarely do you hear people seeking a nice guy. In fact the nice guy is at an all time low in terms of desirability. And yet here you have a prominent major league slugger who is known for his gentleness in personality if not his ability to hit a ball 500 feet. Teammates, opponents, coaches, members of the media, clubhouse workers, and the casual fan all encounter a guy who is so genuine and caring they are left deeply impressed. It might not get him front page press, but in the end he is the type of guy you want to be around, you want to emulate and you hope your kids turn out like. Perhaps its time we start re-evaluating our priorities and tastes in America. We need more men like Jim Thome - who recognize that being nice, gentle and kind is a helluva lot better than being an asshole...even if you lose out on publicity.

Aaron Rodgers

"I think if you're depressed about the current state of athletes - their greed, their ego, their selfishness - spend some time around Aaron Rodgers. He's what's right about sports."

-Peter King

(P.S. I loved his "People who live in Wisconsin and Minnesota must have a mandatory high school class in Pleasantness" comment as well!)