Might I suggest that perhaps instead of just giving our own thoughts, whether we are deaf or hearing, we go first to scripture and ask what God says about this. What indication does Jesus give about this? Whether deaf or hearing, our own thoughts will just be that: our own thoughts. Our own thoughts may have little bearing on the reality of what God has actually intended for us.
I will have to agree with b-ver on this. Jesus fulfilled prophecy while healing on earth, prophecies that can be also applied to our eternal life with Christ in the future, when our bodies are resurrected. The fact that Jesus had holes in his hands, was what made some of the disciples look more closely at his face, which they had never expected to see again on this earth. They were a sign of His voluntary obedient sacrifice for us, and not really to be compared to the sickness and blindness and other frailties and incompletenesses that we experience in our own lives. I don't think it would be right for us to compare our poor eyesight or lameness with the sacrifice that Jesus made for us, as if we had become blind or lame in order to be obedient to God in our service to others.
If our resurrected bodies were going to remain crippled and blind and lame and deaf, then it would not make much sense to rejoice in the healing that Jesus did while He was on earth, or even the healings that sometimes still occur today. Then we might as well just shrug our shoulders and say, "oh well. Whatever."
It is one thing entirely to "be content in whatever the circumstances". But it is another thing entirely to assume that all our circumstances today are divinely ordered permanent blessings in spite of their difficulties and trials. Even the book of Job suggests that his trials and troubles were temporary, and that God had something better in store for him in the future. In his case on earth; in our case perhaps not till heaven.
We often have the children's story before the service dealing with a similar passage or topic that the sermon will deal with later. This is great in one way, but sometimes takes away the element of surprise or "newness". Perhaps this might also happen sometimes with pre-sermon songs in the service sometimes, and that's why some preachers are not to worried about correlating the two so much.
I wonder.... do we equate sacraments with theology, or do they merely reflect theology? And why has our practice of sacraments often become a point of division, while we ignore the very real deleterious effects of disobedience in daily living? I'm reminded that no one in the new testament died for how they celebrated lord's supper or practiced baptism, yet Annanias and Sapphira died for lying in a desire to be accepted. So which is worse then? Which is the most significant aspect of our theology? Jesus offered the Lord's Supper to Judas who would deny and betray him, and to Peter who Jesus knew would betray him. Yet we would deny Lord's supper to those who only baptize adults? Where are our priorities?
Why is it that we choose to permit two opinions on women in office, against all the clear indications in scripture, and yet refuse to permit two opinions on infant baptism, a doctrine which requires a fairly convoluted argument (one I understand and hold to) to sustain, and on which scripture directly is relatively silent, neither directly for or against. Where are our priorities?
Does our confession of the covenant of believers depend on our practice of baptism? And conversely, is there the real danger that the practice of infant baptism can minimize the significance of living obediently in that covenant? Do we acknowledge that danger or do we minimize it? But even further to that, do we allow that some who hold to God's covenant promises still see infant baptism as a potential temptation to complacency rather than as an instruction of God's pre-eminent choice for us? I personally have often seen it used in the wrong way. I don't have a clear answer on this, but it just strikes me as odd as to how and when we accept diversity, and when we do not. I know I am treading on tricky ground, but the bible is much more clear on the sin of homosexuality, than it is on the necessity of infant baptism, yet we deny membership on the basis of one, and not on the other... or do we? how do we choose our priorities?
Often yes, it is a good idea to try to link things. But occassionally not linking things still results in very uplifting and encouraging worship. Often things will be linked without any planning taking place; that is the most amazing of all! An amusing kind of amazing... knowing that God works us and uses us for his glory, in spite of our limitations.
I appreciate some of your points about diversity etc., David. But I wonder about a couple of assumptions that you identified in your second paragraph.
"Are we keeping covenant with those who go through our seminary process when we allow our pulpits to be filled with those who come in through the “alternate route” I am not aware of a covenant process in this regard. And I am also wondering about who the "we" is. When a church looks for a preacher, it does not feel a covenant process with any particular seminarian, as far as I know. There may be a covenant process after it extends a call to someone, but not before.
" Couldn’t we service our waiting candidates immediately if we simply told these 17 newcomers that we have enough pastors already? """""" "
I'm confused about 'servicing candidates". What is that about? I thought that candidates were in ministry to service the churches. I'm not aware that churches exist or have a primary purpose of servicing or providing a place for seminarians to serve?
Good points, Neil, but I take issue with one statement you made: "A good liturgy clearly puts the person in the embrace of Christ and his work and blessing. "
I think this is a mis-nomer, or not a good way to say it. Maybe I am becoming a bit disenamoured with the emphasis on 'liturgy" as I find it too formulaic, too prosaic. Clearly liturgy will never put anyone in the embrace of Christ. It is God's grace that puts us in Christ's embrace, and nothing we say or do will make that happen. A liturgy may make us aware of God's grace and Christ's love. It may encourage us in the work and blessing that God has given us.
But even a good liturgy used poorly may dull our senses to God's grace and love; in healing we ought to seek God's will, and sometimes we can sense God's will through our reading of scripture and our understanding of God's purposes and the desire of our heart to follow God. We can ask boldly, but we must receive God's will humbly.
Having thought about the question as to whether we would see our friends and relatives again, I found it easy to over-spiritualize or to think that our human relationships would be non-existant (no giving in marriage, etc.). But in reality, even Moses and Elijah were recognized when they came back to earth briefly with Jesus on the mount. God saved and saves real people, not transparent clones. Although our relationships will be somewhat different, with less difference between friend and stranger, and less remembrance of sin, yet it would not make sense with God's love for us, nor with what scripture indicates, for us not to know and recognize people.
Mark, I hardly know what to say about your article. While appreciating your great concern and empathy for disabled people, I think you are perhaps focussing only on one side of the equation. Remember that Jesus said to John the Baptist something like, the Messiah has come to cause the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, and the blind to see. I think this is true in both a figurative and a literal sense. Whether we are blind physically or whether we do not see spiritually, Jesus can heal us. It is not a dimunition of disabled people to know that Jesus heals.
There is not a great deal of difference between someone who cannot walk, and someone who has terminal cancer, and someone who must wear glasses or a hearing aid. (and I really wish I did not have to wear glasses...) All can contribute, all can be spiritually enriched and help others in spiritual ways. Sometimes the disability, the sickness, or the life-changing horrors of war and abuse, can enable a deeper empathy or spiritual contribution (I'm reminded of Corrie Ten Boom and her message, or Paul and Silas in prison, or Joni Erickson-Tada). But in spite of the possible richness of experience and the potential contribution because of it, I don't think we ought to be diminishing the healing of Christ, whether spiritual or physical.
Christ died to make us new! We shall be like him! We shall see Him as He is! And to some extent, we are already somewhat like him if we trust in him, knowing that Christ too had to suffer physical pain and anguish and death for us. But Christ arose. Resurrected! New again! Therefore we can be content in all circumstances, recognizing that our weaknesses and problems, whether propensity to disease or disability or suffering from persecution, can still be used for good. And sometimes these weaknesses provide us with a special light, such as from those blind musicians who are able to concentrate their effort on their music and praise God in a way that is difficult for many sighted people. Or the boy with down's syndrome who can lead us in musical sign language, which I never have learned. And we thank God for those and similar blessings.
It is also true as you say, that physical perfection will not make us more Christ-like if our spirits are not Christ-like.
I believe Chad, that you are right about the guidance of the confessions. That is also why most people did not want the Belhar adopted as another confession or form of unity, because they saw it as non-essential - at least debatable. Many church order items also seem not to fall into the "essentials", which is why they can be relatively easily changed. Ironically, the idea that the non-essentials such as church order should not be debated outside of "proper" channels, is perhaps also debatable.... or is that idea also buried in our confessions somewhere?
Mark, Jesus was quite clear that the disabilities of some people were not due directly to the sin of the person or their parents, nor to their lack of faith. And the converse is also true, as in the question of the psalmist who asked, "why do the wicked prosper?" And the question about faith to heal is headed in the wrong direction. Jesus healed to demonstrate that he was the Christ. The apostles healed in Christ's name, to demonstrate that they were showing Christ's mercy and message. Faith to demonstrate Christ, is different than the faith to heal. Jesus did not heal everyone and neither did the apostles. And I believe the reason is found in the book of Job, which demonstrates that we cannot understand why for the present time, suffering must still occur.
I wouldn't worry too much about those who suggest that parents do not have enough faith for their children to be healed. Ask them if they have enough faith themselves to heal your daughter? None of us has enough faith, and no one needs to have a false pride about that. While some of my prayers are answered, other prayers are answered in the negative, and other times I do not even have enough faith to pray for some things. But I trust God knows what He wants to do, that He loves me, and that he turns evil for good, including imperfect eyesight and declining hearing.
I very much doubt that Lucado is suggesting that a person's sin, or lack of faith is the cause of his sickness or disability. Do you seriously think that he would be thinking that they are less Christian or less Christ-like?
If we do not all realize that we are all diminished in the present in some way, we are missing out on the glorious transformation that God has in store for those who love Him. Disabled people may be diminished in some ways that are more obvious, but they are no more diminished in reality than any of the rest of us. Their physical problems are merely a metaphor for the things that disable us, whether it is our lack of understanding, our temper, our desires, our laziness, or our poor perception. And the ways that physically or mentally disabled people deal with their problems are often an example and a teacher to us, to realize that they and we are forgiven sinners, and can rejoice in God's grace.
Perhaps I appear too callous or un-caring when I suggest that yes, disabled people have problems. But it is naive and nonproductive and essentially uncaring to think otherwise. I say this having dealt with severely disabled people in different ways, to the point of building ramps for a wheelchair to enter our house. Of course there are additional problems. But that's okay. To hide this fact is to make the person less real, or to make the problem even more significant than it really is. Just as me having to make sure I wear my glasses, and having an extra pair with me, is more of a problem than for those who do not need glasses. So what? We all have our problems, even those who think they don't have problems. Maybe especially those who think they don't.
There is great joy in being able to help people with problems, regardless of what those problems are. To lessen their burden. To find joy in this life as a gift from God. To realize their problems are not insurmountable. To realize that their problems are not forever. That God is bigger than their/our problems, both in this life and the next. Sometimes those problems bring people closer together, precisely because there are problems and things are not so smooth. Sometimes they allow the expression of a love that would otherwise remain hidden.
If I can no longer walk, I would not want someone telling me I don't have a problem. I would want a wheelchair, and someone to help me up the steep slopes. Nice words will simply leave me at the bottom.
I wonder. Yes if we delight in God, then we will be compelled to share the gospel. But maybe the real thing is simply to experience God in our lives. It may be delight; it might be a sorrowful experience; it might simply be inspiring. But perhpas it cannot be merely theoretical delight. It needs to be as real as cutting your finger or spraining your knee or eating your desert. It needs to be real. And we have to make ourselves vulnerable. Pride, vanity, self-consciousness, fear must all disappear or be overcome. Your trust in God to provide must be real, if you lose your job, or if you lose chance of advancement or if you lose acceptance by peers. Remember Christ's suffering for us. (compared to that, our risks are very small).
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Might I suggest that perhaps instead of just giving our own thoughts, whether we are deaf or hearing, we go first to scripture and ask what God says about this. What indication does Jesus give about this? Whether deaf or hearing, our own thoughts will just be that: our own thoughts. Our own thoughts may have little bearing on the reality of what God has actually intended for us.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
I will have to agree with b-ver on this. Jesus fulfilled prophecy while healing on earth, prophecies that can be also applied to our eternal life with Christ in the future, when our bodies are resurrected. The fact that Jesus had holes in his hands, was what made some of the disciples look more closely at his face, which they had never expected to see again on this earth. They were a sign of His voluntary obedient sacrifice for us, and not really to be compared to the sickness and blindness and other frailties and incompletenesses that we experience in our own lives. I don't think it would be right for us to compare our poor eyesight or lameness with the sacrifice that Jesus made for us, as if we had become blind or lame in order to be obedient to God in our service to others.
If our resurrected bodies were going to remain crippled and blind and lame and deaf, then it would not make much sense to rejoice in the healing that Jesus did while He was on earth, or even the healings that sometimes still occur today. Then we might as well just shrug our shoulders and say, "oh well. Whatever."
It is one thing entirely to "be content in whatever the circumstances". But it is another thing entirely to assume that all our circumstances today are divinely ordered permanent blessings in spite of their difficulties and trials. Even the book of Job suggests that his trials and troubles were temporary, and that God had something better in store for him in the future. In his case on earth; in our case perhaps not till heaven.
Posted in: Worship Glue: Sticking the Pieces Together
We often have the children's story before the service dealing with a similar passage or topic that the sermon will deal with later. This is great in one way, but sometimes takes away the element of surprise or "newness". Perhaps this might also happen sometimes with pre-sermon songs in the service sometimes, and that's why some preachers are not to worried about correlating the two so much.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
I wonder.... do we equate sacraments with theology, or do they merely reflect theology? And why has our practice of sacraments often become a point of division, while we ignore the very real deleterious effects of disobedience in daily living? I'm reminded that no one in the new testament died for how they celebrated lord's supper or practiced baptism, yet Annanias and Sapphira died for lying in a desire to be accepted. So which is worse then? Which is the most significant aspect of our theology? Jesus offered the Lord's Supper to Judas who would deny and betray him, and to Peter who Jesus knew would betray him. Yet we would deny Lord's supper to those who only baptize adults? Where are our priorities?
Why is it that we choose to permit two opinions on women in office, against all the clear indications in scripture, and yet refuse to permit two opinions on infant baptism, a doctrine which requires a fairly convoluted argument (one I understand and hold to) to sustain, and on which scripture directly is relatively silent, neither directly for or against. Where are our priorities?
Does our confession of the covenant of believers depend on our practice of baptism? And conversely, is there the real danger that the practice of infant baptism can minimize the significance of living obediently in that covenant? Do we acknowledge that danger or do we minimize it? But even further to that, do we allow that some who hold to God's covenant promises still see infant baptism as a potential temptation to complacency rather than as an instruction of God's pre-eminent choice for us? I personally have often seen it used in the wrong way. I don't have a clear answer on this, but it just strikes me as odd as to how and when we accept diversity, and when we do not. I know I am treading on tricky ground, but the bible is much more clear on the sin of homosexuality, than it is on the necessity of infant baptism, yet we deny membership on the basis of one, and not on the other... or do we? how do we choose our priorities?
Just asking.
Posted in: Worship Glue: Sticking the Pieces Together
Often yes, it is a good idea to try to link things. But occassionally not linking things still results in very uplifting and encouraging worship. Often things will be linked without any planning taking place; that is the most amazing of all! An amusing kind of amazing... knowing that God works us and uses us for his glory, in spite of our limitations.
Posted in: Waiting Pastors, Counting Sheep and Counting Shepherds
I appreciate some of your points about diversity etc., David. But I wonder about a couple of assumptions that you identified in your second paragraph.
"Are we keeping covenant with those who go through our seminary process when we allow our pulpits to be filled with those who come in through the “alternate route” I am not aware of a covenant process in this regard. And I am also wondering about who the "we" is. When a church looks for a preacher, it does not feel a covenant process with any particular seminarian, as far as I know. There may be a covenant process after it extends a call to someone, but not before.
" Couldn’t we service our waiting candidates immediately if we simply told these 17 newcomers that we have enough pastors already? """""" "
I'm confused about 'servicing candidates". What is that about? I thought that candidates were in ministry to service the churches. I'm not aware that churches exist or have a primary purpose of servicing or providing a place for seminarians to serve?
Posted in: The Ministry of Healing and the Work of Elder
Good points, Neil, but I take issue with one statement you made: "A good liturgy clearly puts the person in the embrace of Christ and his work and blessing. "
I think this is a mis-nomer, or not a good way to say it. Maybe I am becoming a bit disenamoured with the emphasis on 'liturgy" as I find it too formulaic, too prosaic. Clearly liturgy will never put anyone in the embrace of Christ. It is God's grace that puts us in Christ's embrace, and nothing we say or do will make that happen. A liturgy may make us aware of God's grace and Christ's love. It may encourage us in the work and blessing that God has given us.
But even a good liturgy used poorly may dull our senses to God's grace and love; in healing we ought to seek God's will, and sometimes we can sense God's will through our reading of scripture and our understanding of God's purposes and the desire of our heart to follow God. We can ask boldly, but we must receive God's will humbly.
Posted in: Dealing with Death and Dying
Having thought about the question as to whether we would see our friends and relatives again, I found it easy to over-spiritualize or to think that our human relationships would be non-existant (no giving in marriage, etc.). But in reality, even Moses and Elijah were recognized when they came back to earth briefly with Jesus on the mount. God saved and saves real people, not transparent clones. Although our relationships will be somewhat different, with less difference between friend and stranger, and less remembrance of sin, yet it would not make sense with God's love for us, nor with what scripture indicates, for us not to know and recognize people.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Mark, I hardly know what to say about your article. While appreciating your great concern and empathy for disabled people, I think you are perhaps focussing only on one side of the equation. Remember that Jesus said to John the Baptist something like, the Messiah has come to cause the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, and the blind to see. I think this is true in both a figurative and a literal sense. Whether we are blind physically or whether we do not see spiritually, Jesus can heal us. It is not a dimunition of disabled people to know that Jesus heals.
There is not a great deal of difference between someone who cannot walk, and someone who has terminal cancer, and someone who must wear glasses or a hearing aid. (and I really wish I did not have to wear glasses...) All can contribute, all can be spiritually enriched and help others in spiritual ways. Sometimes the disability, the sickness, or the life-changing horrors of war and abuse, can enable a deeper empathy or spiritual contribution (I'm reminded of Corrie Ten Boom and her message, or Paul and Silas in prison, or Joni Erickson-Tada). But in spite of the possible richness of experience and the potential contribution because of it, I don't think we ought to be diminishing the healing of Christ, whether spiritual or physical.
Christ died to make us new! We shall be like him! We shall see Him as He is! And to some extent, we are already somewhat like him if we trust in him, knowing that Christ too had to suffer physical pain and anguish and death for us. But Christ arose. Resurrected! New again! Therefore we can be content in all circumstances, recognizing that our weaknesses and problems, whether propensity to disease or disability or suffering from persecution, can still be used for good. And sometimes these weaknesses provide us with a special light, such as from those blind musicians who are able to concentrate their effort on their music and praise God in a way that is difficult for many sighted people. Or the boy with down's syndrome who can lead us in musical sign language, which I never have learned. And we thank God for those and similar blessings.
It is also true as you say, that physical perfection will not make us more Christ-like if our spirits are not Christ-like.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
I believe Chad, that you are right about the guidance of the confessions. That is also why most people did not want the Belhar adopted as another confession or form of unity, because they saw it as non-essential - at least debatable. Many church order items also seem not to fall into the "essentials", which is why they can be relatively easily changed. Ironically, the idea that the non-essentials such as church order should not be debated outside of "proper" channels, is perhaps also debatable.... or is that idea also buried in our confessions somewhere?
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Mark, Jesus was quite clear that the disabilities of some people were not due directly to the sin of the person or their parents, nor to their lack of faith. And the converse is also true, as in the question of the psalmist who asked, "why do the wicked prosper?" And the question about faith to heal is headed in the wrong direction. Jesus healed to demonstrate that he was the Christ. The apostles healed in Christ's name, to demonstrate that they were showing Christ's mercy and message. Faith to demonstrate Christ, is different than the faith to heal. Jesus did not heal everyone and neither did the apostles. And I believe the reason is found in the book of Job, which demonstrates that we cannot understand why for the present time, suffering must still occur.
I wouldn't worry too much about those who suggest that parents do not have enough faith for their children to be healed. Ask them if they have enough faith themselves to heal your daughter? None of us has enough faith, and no one needs to have a false pride about that. While some of my prayers are answered, other prayers are answered in the negative, and other times I do not even have enough faith to pray for some things. But I trust God knows what He wants to do, that He loves me, and that he turns evil for good, including imperfect eyesight and declining hearing.
I very much doubt that Lucado is suggesting that a person's sin, or lack of faith is the cause of his sickness or disability. Do you seriously think that he would be thinking that they are less Christian or less Christ-like?
If we do not all realize that we are all diminished in the present in some way, we are missing out on the glorious transformation that God has in store for those who love Him. Disabled people may be diminished in some ways that are more obvious, but they are no more diminished in reality than any of the rest of us. Their physical problems are merely a metaphor for the things that disable us, whether it is our lack of understanding, our temper, our desires, our laziness, or our poor perception. And the ways that physically or mentally disabled people deal with their problems are often an example and a teacher to us, to realize that they and we are forgiven sinners, and can rejoice in God's grace.
Perhaps I appear too callous or un-caring when I suggest that yes, disabled people have problems. But it is naive and nonproductive and essentially uncaring to think otherwise. I say this having dealt with severely disabled people in different ways, to the point of building ramps for a wheelchair to enter our house. Of course there are additional problems. But that's okay. To hide this fact is to make the person less real, or to make the problem even more significant than it really is. Just as me having to make sure I wear my glasses, and having an extra pair with me, is more of a problem than for those who do not need glasses. So what? We all have our problems, even those who think they don't have problems. Maybe especially those who think they don't.
There is great joy in being able to help people with problems, regardless of what those problems are. To lessen their burden. To find joy in this life as a gift from God. To realize their problems are not insurmountable. To realize that their problems are not forever. That God is bigger than their/our problems, both in this life and the next. Sometimes those problems bring people closer together, precisely because there are problems and things are not so smooth. Sometimes they allow the expression of a love that would otherwise remain hidden.
If I can no longer walk, I would not want someone telling me I don't have a problem. I would want a wheelchair, and someone to help me up the steep slopes. Nice words will simply leave me at the bottom.
Posted in: Why Are Believers Not Declaring the Gospel?
I wonder. Yes if we delight in God, then we will be compelled to share the gospel. But maybe the real thing is simply to experience God in our lives. It may be delight; it might be a sorrowful experience; it might simply be inspiring. But perhpas it cannot be merely theoretical delight. It needs to be as real as cutting your finger or spraining your knee or eating your desert. It needs to be real. And we have to make ourselves vulnerable. Pride, vanity, self-consciousness, fear must all disappear or be overcome. Your trust in God to provide must be real, if you lose your job, or if you lose chance of advancement or if you lose acceptance by peers. Remember Christ's suffering for us. (compared to that, our risks are very small).