Accesibilidad a la información y conocimiento

Science and Christian Scholar Hiebert (1997:133) aptly stated that we need to incorporate the concept of a ‘whole gospel’ at every level and in every dimension of our activities. This counters our modern tendency to specialise, and assign problems to different experts.

181 It goes against our professional training—against the doctor saying, I will heal people, and get someone else to evangelise them,” or, “I will preach to them and let doctors heal them.” It requires that we go back to biblical categories, which are not supernatural versus natural categories, but with the Creator and creation. The scripture begins with God, the Creator, and speaks of His creation.

Notice the difference when we speak of the creation—it carries not only the sense of dependency on God, but also of the oneness of creation. Angels are part of this creation and so are, animals, plants, atmosphere and nature. Body and soul are one and exist in community. ‘Miracles’ and ‘natural events’ are indistinguishable. This shift to a God-centred view of the world restores wholeness to creation. We need to minister to the body, soul and community together and sense the reality that God is a part of our everyday lives. He is here, now. We can draw on the natural and social sciences for insights and aid, but if we leave God out of our explanations, we fail. This return of the awareness of God must be more than an occasional experience of a miracle. We need to sense His guidance, and hear Him in prayer.

Finally, we need to develop a holistic model for analysing and dealing with the human dilemma. In the social sciences we are increasingly turning to a ‘system of systems’ approach. Our problem is also the way we look at people. We examine them in slices. The medical doctor sees them as biological creatures, the psychologist as psychological beings, the sociologist as social humans and the anthropologist as participants in culture, and theologians as spiritual beings. The way to integrate these is not a reductionism in which we reduce all these dimensions to one basic explanation—too often this is biological and the solution is drugs. Nor is the solution a stratigraphic approach in which we allocate them to different specialists who do not share the same views of humans. Integration requires that we understand each of these human systems, but also recognise that they are part of a larger ‘system of systems’—the whole human. Psychological problems have spiritual and physical consequences, just as spiritual illnesses have physical and social symptoms.

182 The following crucial question must be asked: “How do we deal with a mechanistic view of the world that governs our understanding of life”? Science and Christian scholar, Hiebert (1997), provides part of the answer:

In physics I was taught that the foundation of all things is particles, and if we understand them, we could understand and predict the world. So we looked for the fundamental particles that make up the universe. Schilling now says that we have no reason to believe there is the smallest particle. That shakes us up, because we can no longer build up our world from the bottom. The Bible starts not with fundamental particles, but with God, a living being. If we start with a being, we live in an organic world in which beings and relationships are central. In our ministries we must keep our focus and priority on people, rather than programs. People are what we are about, not programs, not so many patients treated and so many people fed. We are dealing with whole persons. Jesus summarized our task as loving God and loving our neighbour. We understand the need to worship God, but who is our neighbour? (p.134).

Generally, we see our neighbour as our kind of people, those of our class and ethnicity. Others are not neighbours, nor really fully human. However, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ challenges us to say that all humans are our neighbours. As humans, despite racial differences, class differences, and gender differences there is only ‘us.’ Jesus goes further and commands: “Love your enemies.” In one sweeping statement He reduces everyone to ‘us.’ There are no ‘others.’ If we look at anyone as other—as not us, there will always be a wall between us. We will never truly get together except in casual integration.

Kgatle (2017:8) quoting (Mathole 2005:259) in his article, “Practical theological approach to the challenge of poverty in post-1994 South Africa: Apostolic Faith Mission (AFM) as a case study” Confirms this cardinal notion of focusing on a holistic gospel when he says, the social involvement of the AFM should not be separated from their witness. It is not a matter of choosing between evangelism and social responsibility. These two are inseparable in the witness of AFM. They should not use their poverty alleviation initiatives as an incentive for the poor to get converted. They

183 should not lure the poor to Christ with these social welfare initiatives. They should be interested in the total person. They should model their ministry on Christ. Jesus was good to those who accepted and those who rejected His message.

If we start with the common humanity of all humans, we can get together as fallen people in need of God’s salvation. And we can get together in the church as one body. It is not easy to learn to see others as us, but this is what we must learn as Christians.

The approach of Jesus to affect change was not like that of the Zealots, the Essenes, the Herodian’s and Sadducees, and finally the Pharisees of His day. The Zealots used force as a means to bring about change. The Essenes will physically withdraw from society in order to get right with God. For the Herodian’s and Sadducees, they will maintain the status quo and preserve self-interest and their positions of privilege. For the Pharisees, devotion to God was the answer but divorces themselves from a concern for humankind. These approaches are also prevalent in our time. I have observed in my ministry how these approaches have placed people into compartments within the churches. Because of these approaches, people are lonely in the midst of other members. For Jesus, the best option to affect change is compassion. Love to God manifested in genuine concern for humankind, not divorced from reality, but essentially dealing with the issues that confront the community.