New vs Old

I had a conversation with a good friend today, you know, the type that always leaves you thinking way too hard about topics you'd never considered before. Well, he made an observation which is at the same time plainly obvious and quite perceptive.

Why is it that we, as a 21st century church, are more able (or willing) to believe for spiritual/emotional healing than physical healing? Why do we unerringly believe that God can help us through a 'bit of a rough patch' but we shy away from having the same faith for someone needing physical healing. Is it because the success or otherwise of prayer for a physical ailment is more easily seen? If they get better then it is obvious and, usually, medically verifiable. Conversely, it is entirely up to the individual to decide whether God healed them of their anxiety, etc.

Let us take a step back at this point for a little history lesson.

The rise of Modernity brought with it a rising faith in humanity and our ability to solve our own problems ourselves. The enligthenment, the industrial revolution and, later, the technological age led the world into an age where scientific proof was the measure of truth and the individuals opinion was of little matter in the whole scheme. Now, however, in this increasingly post-modern world the individual experience is quickly becoming the measure of truth, leaving any solid definition of truth slipping out of societies vocabulary.

Now back to the 21st century church. Could it be that we have, unwittingly or not, succumbed to the post-modernist mindset? Do we shy away from that which requires us to rely on absolutes as a measure of success? Are we afraid that absolute faith requires that we see absolute results?

I would hate to think that we have become so comfortable in our pseudo-spiritual, self-centred religiosity that we have lost sight of who this God person really is...