The Physician: a Comparative Framework?

[PrimaVera]

We often compare and contrast religions in terms of the beliefs they enshrine and the practices of their adherents, but I wonder if those dimensions adequately capture what religion does to and/or for us. I was pondering this the yesterday, when I remembered this passage from the Baha'i Writings:

"The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity."

And, it occurred to me that perhaps this is another framework within which we might compare religions. Indeed, one could replace "Prophets of God" with "Founders of all religions", and expand the scope of the comparison.

Also, one could look at this from both the inner dimension of personal healing and the outer dimension of healing the ills of society. The social dimension also allows us to draw on history and the social sciences in some interesting ways.

Does this seem like an interesting framework to anyone but me? Thoughts? Feedback?

"Any questions? Any Answers? Anyone care for a mint?" -- Rita Rudner

[seattlegal]

It seems to fit into the Christian framework. Jesus referred to himself as a physician at Matt 9:10-13

10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Jesus also told his disciples to go out and to heal the sick.
~~~~
I also find it interesting how closely "confessional rituals" found in some religions resemble "pouring your soul out" on the psychologist's couch.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

I remembered this passage from the Baha'i Writings:

I don't believe that this would be applicable - the concept of a "global population" of humanity is pretty recent, and certainly in the Jewish tradition the impression given is not of generally addressing "all peoples" but instead the Jewish people in a very explicit way, not least for turning against guidance already given (Jonah is an interesting exception to this).

Though Christianity and Islam have especially moved away from the concept of addressing a people on a cultural basis, I would personally have difficulty seeing the quote as inclusively applied to both.

Ultimate, it could be said that the founders of religion do not bring people together, but instead create new identities that further divide humanity based not least on "us" and "them".

[wil]

It seems to me very rarely has anyone set out to or intnended to 'found' a religion. It often happens after they pass from their followers...and the followers followers. Those enlightened, connected, prophets spend their life teaching nuances of the religion they grew up in or the religion they studied and loved. They believed they found teachings that already existed which possibly had been misinterpretted previously but typically are not settting out to leave, but to grow within...to take part in the evoloution of their religion.

Earthly ego seems more involved in founding...and in some prophets.

[PrimaVera]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It seems to fit into the Christian framework. Jesus referred to himself as a physician at Matt 9:10-13

I believe it fits with Islam as well. In the Surih of Yunus, Yusuf 'Ali translates verse 57 as "O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts--and for those who believe, a Guidance and a Mercy." Muhammad Zafrulla Khan gives a similar translation, but lists it as verse 58.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I don't believe that this would be applicable - the concept of a "global population" of humanity is pretty recent, and certainly in the Jewish tradition the impression given is not of generally addressing "all peoples" but instead the Jewish people in a very explicit way, not least for turning against guidance already given (Jonah is an interesting exception to this).

In the context of the metaphor, though, couldn't the act of turning against guidance already given be equivalent to a failure to follow the Physician's advice?

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Though Christianity and Islam have especially moved away from the concept of addressing a people on a cultural basis, I would personally have difficulty seeing the quote as inclusively applied to both.

How so? Wouldn't we have to explore the meaning of the metaphor a bit more deeply before we can reasonably figure out whether or not the metaphor provides a sound framework for comparing religions?

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Ultimate, it could be said that the founders of religion do not bring people together, but instead create new identities that further divide humanity based not least on "us" and "them".

As I mentioned above, it would seem there are people who followed the advice of the Physician, and those who didn't. I guess I don't see how this obviates the use of the metaphor.

Perhaps a way to explore the meaning of the metaphor is to ask adherents of the various faiths what the metaphor means in the context of their religions? Might we not find a common meaning for the physician metaphor such that we can then use that understanding for comparative purposes?

[lunamoth]

I agree with seattlegal that the metaphor of the Divine Physician fits a Christian paradigm, and I love the quote she pulled up for this. Healing is part of the ministry of Christ, the ministry of His Church, the ministry of each one of us.

But I see Brian's point as well. I'm not sure about the founders of the various religions/religious movements, but it is apparent that many followers of any given religion prefer to emphasize judgement over healing, and would rather exclude or oppress others than embrace them.

6 "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness [a] will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.

9 Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.

11 The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.

12 Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

13 "If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the LORD's holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,

14 then you will find your joy in the LORD,
and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
The mouth of the LORD has spoken.

peace,
lunamoth

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

In the context of the metaphor, though, couldn't the act of turning against guidance already given be equivalent to a failure to follow the Physician's advice?

The trouble with the healing metaphor is that physical healing is a far more objective process - someone is wounded, the wound heals, there is agreement that the wound has healed.

With religion, though, we're talking about a social form of expression, therefore any claim to healing is based on far more subjective cultural expression.

I'm curious, though - would a part of your argument not have to presume that where a new founder of a a religion arises, that therefore whatever they say is therefore to be accepted outright as a healing process for both the original religion and the good of humanity?

And if this founder is Baha'u'llah, therefore we must accept that as he claims to be the fulfillment of all major religions, that therefore his arrival and Baha'i faith is therefore the great act of healing for all religions that should be acknowledged?

[PrimaVera]

Brian,

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The trouble with the healing metaphor is that physical healing is a far more objective process - someone is wounded, the wound heals, there is agreement that the wound has healed.

With religion, though, we're talking about a social form of expression, therefore any claim to healing is based on far more subjective cultural expression.

Well, yes, evaluating social interactions, particularly in the absence of a clear understanding of even subtle cultural differences, is highly subjective. I should think you already know my stance on this. However, the subjective nature of the subject matter does not preclude our use of Phsychology, Economics, Political Science and Sociology.

For example. You've, no doubt, heard the expression that "sex sells." Arguably, we can correlate increases in sexually suggestive advertising to increased instances of promiscuity among youth, which, in turn, leads to increased instances of teen-aged pregnancy and the number of young, single-parent mothers who are unable to support their children through their own resources. All of this has been fairly well-established via good social science inquiry.

Nearly every religion promotes some notion of chastity. Can we not compare how those specific teachings on chastity might counter this effect?

I'm curious, though - would a part of your argument not have to presume that where a new founder of a a religion arises, that therefore whatever they say is therefore to be accepted outright as a healing process for both the original religion and the good of humanity?

First of all, I don't see any need to take the argument that far. I'm just wondering whether or not this aspect of physicianship offers an effective framework for comparing religions.

Secondly, were I to go that far with this argument, to say that a new religion ought to be "accepted outright as a healing process" begs the question. I'm not fond of circular arguments, and I do take care not to press them into service.

And if this founder is Baha'u'llah, therefore we must accept that as he claims to be the fulfillment of all major religions, that therefore his arrival and Baha'i faith is therefore the great act of healing for all religions that should be acknowledged?

Why would I press for people to acknowledge anything so universal about the Baha'i Faith? As I said, there's no reason to go that far. Indeed, It seems to me that this comparative framework has as much potential to lead people away from the Baha'i Faith as it has potential to lead people to accept the Baha'i Faith. Pressing such an argument would be tantamount to posting an article on how Baha'is might know that the Kitab-i-Aqdas is the Word of God.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

I'm just wondering whether or not this aspect of physicianship offers an effective framework for comparing religions.

It's more that you pointed the original issue specifically at the founders of religion as healing the worlds peoples - which implies that these founders had to cure the ills of existing society, where the existing religion failed to cure them.

And putting the original quote into context, although the Baha'i faith accepts the legitimacy of other religions at their time of founding, it also considers such religions to be clearly outdated and superceded.

Therefore there is a point of logic from the original post that infers that if people were to accept the presumption that religious founders

"should be regarded as physicians whose task is to ... heal the sickness of a divided humanity"

then the coup d'etat of the argument exists that as the Baha'i faith has the more recent founder, claims to be the fulfillment of the world's major religions, therefore the Baha'i faith's cures for society's ills are more relevant.

[PrimaVera]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

It's more that you pointed the original issue specifically at the founders of religion as healing the worlds peoples - which implies that these founders had to cure the ills of existing society, where the existing religion failed to cure them.

You're attributing to me an argument I've never pressed into service. As I said in the original post, the quote I provided was my inspiration for the idea of using this as a framework for comparing religions, and, as I've clarified my position, I think it's worth exploring the meaning of the metaphor for that purpose.

The Baha'i framework of progressive revelation is not the only way to view the succession of the founders of the various religions, and I would say that the inference you're drawing is almost procrustean. One could easily argue that the founders of the various religions heal the ills of society by providing alternative forms of treatment suitable to some segments of society but not others.

The Baha'i framework of progressive revelation is a way to understand the succession of prophets in terms of the physician metaphor, but not the only way, and I don't believe it's necessary to adopt the Baha'i point of view in order to explore the meaning of the metaphor. Do you see no value-neutral way to explore the meaning of the physician metaphor?

[I, Brian]

No problem at all - it was worth testing the argument to see how flexible it could be.

[PrimaVera]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

No problem at all - it was worth testing the argument to see how flexible it could be.

OK. So, do you have any thoughts on the meaning of the physician metaphor itself?