Last night while flipping through the channels, I saw a preacher from the Hillsongs church in Australia. He was saying this: "I've seen a lot of the people I pray for healing for die, but however many of them die, I'm not going to let it shake my belief in what the Bible says about healing".
I am not sure if he was preaching on a specific verse, but if he was, it was probably this one:
James 5:14-15: Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.
I reacted to this with great puzzlement, because he was basically saying he was going to switch his brain off and ignore what was clearly happening: God was not answering every prayer for healing in the affirmative. This seems to be typical of the attitude of a lot of Christians: let's cling to what the Bible says in the face of all else. That will make us more spiritual. Let's not think about the obvious dissonance between some parts of the Bible and real life, because then our faith might crumble entirely.
It's as if thinking about things is deemed unspiritual, and you're only spiritual if you're a True Believer who exercises an almost blind faith. I'm sorry people, but if the Bible says God will always heal when you ask, and he doesn't always do it, you have a problem. What are you going to do, pretend it doesn't exist (the usual choice), or think about why that may be the case? (I am only using the healing thing as an example; there are countless others where the Bible and real life don't quite match up).
Let's see, what could the answer to this little conundrum be (still using healing as an example)? There are several possibilities:
a) The writer was a little over-zealous in his claims (possible; he was human after all)
b) The writer's experience was different from ours (maybe God worked more powerfully back then)
c) The writer was lying (unlikely; the book wouldn't have made it into the word of God in that case)
d) The people who pray for the sick today don't have enough faith (unlikely, because there are some amazing men and women of God around, but none of them can claim 100% success for healing)
We've excluded c and d, so the likely answer is a or b (or possibly something else I haven't thought of). B is unlikely, because God is the same "yesterday, today and forever". So, what if it's a? That means the writer of James (or wherever it talks about healing) was allowed to be human and fallible in his writing.
He is still communicating a broad truth (God loves to heal), but maybe being a little overzealous in his claim that God will always heal when asked. Still it's close enough to the truth to make it into the Word, and serves to inspire future generations to faith. So there it is, included in Scripture, handed down through the centuries and translated into modern English.
But, it has profound implications in how we Christians take and interact with the Word. Maybe we should also account for the humanity of the writers and the limitations of the translators. Maybe we shouldn't cling so absolutely to every word the Bible says. Maybe we should use it as food for thought, live by its broad principles (love God, be nice to people, trust Christ for salvation, help your brother who is in need), but not get hung up on every word and every detail.
Some may accuse me of questioning the Bible as the word of God. No, I'm not doing that. It is a monumental and awesome work, even from a purely literary standpoint. God's power, love for humanity, and purpose are clear. The main pillars of God's character are evident from beginning to end. But is it fallible? Sometimes, yes. Anyone with eyes, ears and a brain can tell that (provided they haven't switched their brain off). Should you therefore believe that God will heal someone if you pray (or even if the elders pray and anoint with oil)? You should believe that he MAY, based on the fact that he sometimes does and sometimes doesn't (an irrefutable fact). You should know that he loves you and and the person who needs healing dearly (also irrefutable and Biblical), and likes to give good gifts to his children.
Christians, use your eyes and ears, think about what's around you, watch the news, go to movies. Don't discount it when things happen that shouldn't, but think about why it may be. Let challenges to your world view become expansions of your world view. THINK about stuff, don't just blindly believe (but don't go to the other extreme of demanding proof for everything either, because you won't get it for everything in the Bible). Set your brains free. It is NOT unspiritual to acknowledge that something the Bible says might not be true, or completely true. Take challenges to your faith head-on, and revise your faith if necessary in order to stay true to yourself.
I am not sure if he was preaching on a specific verse, but if he was, it was probably this one:
James 5:14-15: Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up.
I reacted to this with great puzzlement, because he was basically saying he was going to switch his brain off and ignore what was clearly happening: God was not answering every prayer for healing in the affirmative. This seems to be typical of the attitude of a lot of Christians: let's cling to what the Bible says in the face of all else. That will make us more spiritual. Let's not think about the obvious dissonance between some parts of the Bible and real life, because then our faith might crumble entirely.
It's as if thinking about things is deemed unspiritual, and you're only spiritual if you're a True Believer who exercises an almost blind faith. I'm sorry people, but if the Bible says God will always heal when you ask, and he doesn't always do it, you have a problem. What are you going to do, pretend it doesn't exist (the usual choice), or think about why that may be the case? (I am only using the healing thing as an example; there are countless others where the Bible and real life don't quite match up).
Let's see, what could the answer to this little conundrum be (still using healing as an example)? There are several possibilities:
a) The writer was a little over-zealous in his claims (possible; he was human after all)
b) The writer's experience was different from ours (maybe God worked more powerfully back then)
c) The writer was lying (unlikely; the book wouldn't have made it into the word of God in that case)
d) The people who pray for the sick today don't have enough faith (unlikely, because there are some amazing men and women of God around, but none of them can claim 100% success for healing)
We've excluded c and d, so the likely answer is a or b (or possibly something else I haven't thought of). B is unlikely, because God is the same "yesterday, today and forever". So, what if it's a? That means the writer of James (or wherever it talks about healing) was allowed to be human and fallible in his writing.
He is still communicating a broad truth (God loves to heal), but maybe being a little overzealous in his claim that God will always heal when asked. Still it's close enough to the truth to make it into the Word, and serves to inspire future generations to faith. So there it is, included in Scripture, handed down through the centuries and translated into modern English.
But, it has profound implications in how we Christians take and interact with the Word. Maybe we should also account for the humanity of the writers and the limitations of the translators. Maybe we shouldn't cling so absolutely to every word the Bible says. Maybe we should use it as food for thought, live by its broad principles (love God, be nice to people, trust Christ for salvation, help your brother who is in need), but not get hung up on every word and every detail.
Some may accuse me of questioning the Bible as the word of God. No, I'm not doing that. It is a monumental and awesome work, even from a purely literary standpoint. God's power, love for humanity, and purpose are clear. The main pillars of God's character are evident from beginning to end. But is it fallible? Sometimes, yes. Anyone with eyes, ears and a brain can tell that (provided they haven't switched their brain off). Should you therefore believe that God will heal someone if you pray (or even if the elders pray and anoint with oil)? You should believe that he MAY, based on the fact that he sometimes does and sometimes doesn't (an irrefutable fact). You should know that he loves you and and the person who needs healing dearly (also irrefutable and Biblical), and likes to give good gifts to his children.
Christians, use your eyes and ears, think about what's around you, watch the news, go to movies. Don't discount it when things happen that shouldn't, but think about why it may be. Let challenges to your world view become expansions of your world view. THINK about stuff, don't just blindly believe (but don't go to the other extreme of demanding proof for everything either, because you won't get it for everything in the Bible). Set your brains free. It is NOT unspiritual to acknowledge that something the Bible says might not be true, or completely true. Take challenges to your faith head-on, and revise your faith if necessary in order to stay true to yourself.
