Question 171, from Simon B

I’m reading Luke chapter 8. Why did Jesus tell the Gerasene to tell everyone that he had been healed of his demon possession and Jairus to tell no one about the resurrection of his daughter?

These two stories in Luke chapter 8, along with the stories of the calming of the storm (verses 22-25) and the healing of the woman with permanent bleeding (verses 43-48) are key to establishing the various claims made about Jesus by his followers.

In order, Jesus is shown to be in charge of the natural world by stilling the storm on the Lake of Galilee, master of the ‘spiritual world’ by freeing a man of demon possession (verses 26-39), having authority over the law through his interaction with the woman who was bleeding and therefore ‘unclean’ according to the Torah, and finally, having the power to reverse the effects of death (verses 40-42 & 49-56).

The gospel writer is effectively setting out some (more…)

Question 168, from Allan

What is your perspective about the Holy Spirit and Divine healing?

There are several perspectives on healing in contemporary Christian thought. A stereotypical protestant liberal view would be that healing, like any miracle, will have a scientific explanation behind it (or be a ‘myth’ with a secondary meaning to reveal a theological truth). In more conservative traditions, such as Roman Catholicism and many Protestant churches, the possibility of Divine healing is held, although such events are regarded as rare.

Evangelicals in a ‘dispensationalist’ tradition would hold a view that healings and other supernatural signs and wonders belong to a previous ‘dispensation’ (period of time / revelation), and would be sceptical of any contemporary accounts of Divine healing. Pentecostal Christians and those in the charismatic traditions that arose in the late 20th century (such as the Vineyard movement) would hold a view that expects miracles to occur as proof of their beliefs.
(more…)

Question 140, from Mark, United Kingdom

Any thoughts on the latest ‘so called’ healing revival in Florida

I googled Todd Bentley and read and saw some worrying things, some are saying this is a false move as we are warned about in Matthew chapter 24, verse 24.

For those who don’t know, Todd Bentley is a Florida-based preacher who has recently been attracting much attention amid claims of dramatic spiritual manifestations, healings and angelic visitations. Recently Bentley’s ‘revival meetings’ have been broadcast in the United Kingdom on religious cable channels, and clips are also available on internet sites such as Youtube.

Naturally, in any situation where things appear to happen outside normal experience, questions are asked. Specifically, in this case, is this a revival? And, if not, is this the kind of deception foretold by Jesus in Matthew chapter 24, verse 24? (“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.”)

Some of the concerns raised about Bentley’s actions include, in no particular order:
~ The methodology used in ‘healings’, which includes physical impacts, such as punching and kicking
~ Association with a number of high-profile ‘prophets’, including some who were integral members of the group called the Kansas City Prophets in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The ministry and theology of some of the Kansas City Prophets has often been questioned, and there have been several accusations relating to “moral failure” (a eupehemism for sexual indiscretions).
~ Appeals for money/financial support, often with an attached promise of blessing on those who give money
~ An emphasis on angelic visitations, particularly with regard to “financial angels”

In the United Kingdom, the questions being asked about Todd Bentley’s ministry has provoked a response from the Evangelical Alliance, in the form of an open letter from director Joel Edwards. The solution the EA put forward is for people to ‘wait and see’ what the long-term effects of Bentley’s ministry will be[1].
(more…)

Question 137, from Emma, United Kingdom

What, if anything does the Bible say in regard to self-harm? What if the reason for self-harm was something that the person had no control over and is having to deal with later in life?

Although there are few direct references to self-harm in the Bible, there are several references to the Christian’s body belonging to God. In 1 Corinthains chapter 6, verses 19-20, Paul writes: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body.”

Paul makes that statement in the context of discussing sexual behaviour and morality. However, it does illustrate the Christian idea of a holistic salvation – the body is ‘saved’ or ‘redeemed’, as well as the soul.

Biblical references to deliberate self-mutilation are located (more…)

Jon the freelance theologian delivered this community talk on 12 June 2005. The reading was John chapter 9: the healing of the man who had been born blind.

If you stopped anyone on the street and asked them what the Bible was they’d probably end up telling you it was a religious book. So, it always amazes me how anti-religious the Bible can sometimes be. It seems ironic that the real villains of this section of Scripture are in fact the people who should be ‘in the know’. They are the holiest men from among God’s chosen people and yet the ruling religious elite seems to get things awfully wrong.

Looking at this passage of scripture we see that the set-up, as is so common in the gospel accounts, is a question: “Who sinned? Was it this man or his parents?” (verse 2). Usually when a question is asked it’s prefaced by a comment like ‘some of the teachers of the law were trying to trick Jesus so they asked him a tough question’, but here this isn’t a ‘test case’; it isn’t a semi-philosophical conundrum designed to catch Jesus out. It’s a genuine question from his disciples.

The common theory of the time was that usually sickness was a result of sin. In many ways the ‘health and wealth’ prosperity teaching that we have inflicted upon us by fundamentalist Bible preachers and satellite television is nothing new. The claim that ‘real believers don’t get sick’ – and it’s flipside: that if you do get sick, then you’re not a real believer – were as prevalent in Jesus’ day as they are now. And yet like many discerning believers today, such blanket claims and such patently false teaching was often questioned by those who had experienced life and knew that good people got sick and died while bad people seemed to prosper. This question from the disciples is a genuine one. They want to know what Jesus really thinks about this situation, because it seems ridiculously unfair.

What could a person have done – what sin was so great? – that they would be struck blind from birth? What did their parents do and, more importantly, what does it say about God’s justice that this man may be suffering as a result of someone else’s sin? It’s actually a hugely open-ended question and one that must have puzzled the disciples. They were used to hearing the religious types castigating the beggars and lepers as sinners (conveniently meaning you didn’t have to feel compassion or pity for them – they must deserve whatever sickness they are suffering from).

And in this religious worldview, the disciples presented Jesus with the two options they had heard – it was either this man or his parents who had sinned. Jesus could have picked one and gone on to do something else. All the other rabbis were giving a simplistic answer to the conundrum that besets the believer when faced by seemingly random evil. He didn’t take the easy option and get judgmental. But he did make a judgment call.

The disciples question masks the real question: what is God doing in the world when things like this happen? Why is this man blind? And Jesus’ response is to say ‘this is what God’s doing. If you need some sort of proof that God really does care, here it is.’ And then he spits on the ground, rubs the mud on the man’s eyes and sends him away to wash the mud off.

I don’t really know what was going through the guy’s head when he heard the conversation about sin and stuff. He was probably used to it, thinking ‘oh, here we go, another “holy man” going to tell me I’m a sinner’. He was probably used to people spitting on him too, so hearing Jesus getting some spit together (getting ready to huck a loogie as our transatlantic brethren would call it) wouldn’t have been too much of a surprise. He was probably quite glad that when Jesus spat he missed his target. He wasn’t to know that Jesus was aiming at the floor.

When Jesus healed lepers he broke one of society’s taboos and touched people, and reaching out and touching a beggar was also unusual – they were obviously ‘sinners after all! And I think it’s interesting that this blind man heard Jesus’ command to go and wash and followed it through. The author of John’s gospel, traditionally the apostle John, notes that the pool the blind man is sent to is called ‘sent’. There is a direct correlation between the man’s healing and his obedience when he hears the command of Jesus. As with the ministry of the apostles whom Jesus sends out to do the work of the Kingdom, the effects of the Kingdom of God, in this case – healing, dynamically break through into ordinary life when the man is sent. [And note he is actually sent away from Jesus. He had to leave the place he was in, the begging station he probably knew so well and go to a different part of the city; perhaps somewhere he didn’t know well. I don’t know if there’s any significance in that, but it’s also interesting.]

And of course he’s healed. His friends and neighbours were mystified. Not even sure if he was the same guy. Was this some kind of trick? But note the reaction of the religious leaders as the news started to spread. The man had been taken to the Pharisees. We aren’t told why. Perhaps it was to have the miracle authenticated. We don’t know. But we do know that the Pharisees weren’t best pleased. I think there is something crucial here that I’d like to explore over three points.

Firstly: this healing has occurred, but there is scepticism at work, rooted in the fact that it’s happened on the Sabbath. This is an objection to Jesus’ actions that came up again and again – how could you do the things of God if it meant working on the Sabbath? We might think it’s a bit daft, but given that the Sabbath had been divinely instituted – it features in the core of God’s law as revealed in the early part of the Old Testament, when Yahweh God give his Ten Commandments to Moses – it throws up a quandary. If Jesus is healing through the power of Yahweh God, then why is he doing this ‘work’ on the Sabbath, as Yahweh God told people to preserve the Sabbath as a holy day of rest?

Well, perhaps it’s down to a misunderstanding as to what the Sabbath is really about and people not realising who Jesus really is. Elsewhere in the gospels Jesus tells the religious leaders that the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around (see Mark chapter 2, verse 27). In other words the Sabbath is important because human beings need to rest and take time out to consider God’s priorities. The problem was that ‘observing the Sabbath’ had taken priority – the thing that was there to meet the needs of the people had become this thing that placed extra demands on the people.

Societal structures often have a habit of doing that. The welfare state is a fantastic, and I believe God-honouring idea, but too often those who depend most heavily on it have to spend far too much time filling in forms and going to interviews and examinations. What has happened is that something that was designed to serve vulnerable people has started making demands on those people and they have to jump through the various hoops imposed on them. The principle of government is another example. We vote for people who become servants of the people in their constituency, but our relationship with the ‘Government’ is one of oppression and being made to conform to certain rules. The institution that was created to protect and benefit society now demands we serve it.

But compared to religious structures, other societal institutions that exercise wrongful authority pale into insignificance. What has happened here? The religious leaders have substituted cast-iron rules and regulations instead of a personal love for the ways of God. It is the bane of religion that it is so much easier to create a checklist of do’s and don’ts that will dictate whether you are holy or not. It is so easy to substitute ‘morality’ (usually based on God’s ideals, but still only a way of living, when it comes down to it) for a genuine relationship with God.

And that’s what has happened in this situation. The religious leaders know that the Sabbath rules have been broken so they quiz the man. When they don’t get any satisfactory answers from him, they question his parents. I feel for his parents. They have suffered years of shame from having a son who was born blind – the whispers, the word ‘sinners’ muttered behind their back – and then when this incredible event happens, the religious people who had condemned them as sinful don’t even give these parents the opportunity to rejoice in their son’s healing before dragging them into the synagogue and giving them the third degree. The parents deflect the questions back to their son out of fear. (It’s sad, isn’t it, how religion intimidates people?)

So then the Pharisees ask the man the questions again and at this point he starts getting annoyed and eventually gets facetious, as all sensible people tend to when faced by hardcore religious dogmatists, asking if they’re interested because they want to be his disciples too (verse 27). And he gets sarcastic: “That’s really strange that you don’t know [whether he’s from God or not]. Well, God doesn’t listen to sinners, but he does listen to people who do his will” (verses 30-31). That’s a direct challenge to the Pharisees – ‘you say you know God, but you couldn’t heal me!’

Then they chuck him out, reaffirming that he’s a sinner. (“You were born in sin!” -verse 34.) Despite the miracle and despite the fact that the ‘evidence’ for calling him a sinner (his blindness) is no longer there, the things he says do not mesh with their worldview. And they aren’t willing to question their own doctrinal certainties. What a travesty. There is the comparison a few verses on when the insight of the ex-blind man is contrasted directly with the closed-mindedness of those who could physically see. The author of John’s gospel is a master of irony and he pulls this point out at the end of the chapter that we read earlier. Those who should have seen God’s hand in the day’s events, refused to recognise it, but a sinner and outcast truly saw what was going on.

It’s a salutary warning to those of us who engage in church. To give it a more contemporary feel, although this is old news for many of us, the divisions and arguments caused by the spiritual awakening in the early 1990s that was dubbed the “Toronto Blessing”, is an apt example. Those of us who were in churches at the time will remember the debate about whether it was really from God and, interestingly, the debate never really moved beyond the scenario in John chapter 9. Those who opposed it did so on the basis of their theological disposition towards charismatic phenomena. They had their ‘certain truth’ and they were positive that God wouldn’t move in a way that seemed to go against His own Word, as they interpreted it.

Now I’m not going to stand here and say that they were completely wrong because there were serious issues in the way some churches were affected by the hype and decided they wanted to ‘do Toronto’ too. Egos did get involved and the whole thing fizzled out rather quickly when they did. Some of the wilder claims concerning revival still haven’t come true and we would be wise to hold certain Christian leaders to account for that and bear it in mind if we’re asked to weigh future pronouncements. So, yeah, there were issues. But nobody has the right to tell God that he can’t act in any way he sees fit, just because we think we know everything there is to know about the way God does things. It’s a sad fact that the majority of opposition we will face when ‘doing the stuff’ will probably come from other Christians.

I’m not a name-dropper. But recently I was at a media conference and ended up in a small-group conversation with Joel Edwards, the head of the Evangelical Alliance. He was saying how the world needed to see more empirical evidence of the good news, either through acts of kindness like ‘Soul in the City’, or supernatural acts of kindness like miraculous healing, to pique people’s curiosity. But, he said, the cynicism of the media and our current culture would soon dismiss whatever ‘proof’ we had.

I challenged him on that, because I think if someone went out on the streets of Cardiff and healed 50 lepers (not that we have a huge amount of lepers in Cardiff, but you know what I mean), the general public would be amazed and the media would definitely want to know more. In fact, I said to him, I think the biggest cynics would probably be among that non-Charismatic element within his own organisation, the Evangelical Alliance, who so sneeringly dismiss stories of healings, spiritual gifts and other aspects of the Kingdom life. “When,” I asked him, “are you going to convince some Christians that God can work supernaturally?” Joel Edwards, to his credit, is a very gracious man and he didn’t slap me for being so cheeky, but it is a real issue. Let’s not kid ourselves. If we go out on the streets to ‘do the stuff’, some religious people are going to take issue with us.

The second point to draw out of this chapter is that the religious people completely lost sight of the human being at the centre of it. They were asking questions, they wanted to get to the bottom of it, but they didn’t realise the real miracle.

As we mentioned the blind man was sent… and he went. The response was unnatural. If someone had rubbed spit-mud in your eyes would you then do what he told you to do? I don’t know if I would. And when he gets shirty with the Pharisees, he asks them if they want to be Jesus’ disciples too. Think about that – ‘do you want to be his disciples too?’ There’s an identification going on there. This man now thinks of himself as a follower of Jesus. Hardly surprising, considering that Jesus has transformed his life, doing what no other rabbi or holy teacher had been able to do.

But, just like they cannot see God’s involvement in this situation, the Pharisees have also lost sight of the human being at the centre. That’s something that we can do too. We should never substitute seeing God at work for a quest for doctrinal correctness. What that means is, we should never demand that people sign a statement of faith before we grudgingly admit that God has worked in their lives. We have to realise that everybody starts somewhere and – I’m a theologian, perhaps I shouldn’t be saying this – you don’t need to know the Bible backwards to hear God’s voice; you don’t need to spend three years at Bible school to pray effectively; you don’t need to understand the Nicene Creed, or even know what it is, to know that you need God in your life. I’m happy to talk you through the tough bits of the Bible, I’m happy to explain the development of Christian doctrine and even what the Nicene Creed is, but those of us who are learned should never allow our learning to become a source of pride and a barrier to God’s intentions. Otherwise what we will end up with is an arid intellectual faith that is technically correct on all it’s points, but is fundamentally hollow.

All the learning in the world is no use to anyone if you don’t love people, value them, cherish them, spend time with them, encourage them, build them up and appreciate the things God is doing in their lives. The soulless hole we see in so much religion comes from insisting on a tick-box attitude to faith – replacing a love for God that often comes from a flawed and broken life, with adherence to precise and correct points of belief.

The mistake we make is assuming that if we attain doctrinal purity, then behavioural purity will follow. We say ‘believe the right things and you’ll act the right way’ and when we do that we put our own theological systems in the place of God. Meet God and you’ll act the right way! Do what he tells you and you’ll be doing the right thing! It’s true that we all need pointers into hearing God’s voice, and we need good friends who will ask us if we’re doing the right thing, and hold us accountable in our actions, but our priority has to be to do God’s will, not understand the finer points of theology to the very last detail. (And that applies for those of us who love theology and can’t get enough of it!)

Another mistake we make is forgetting that the people we are called to love; those who don’t know God as their father yet, are precious to God. I hate the term ‘friendship evangelism’. I think it is easily the most pervasive heretical statement of the post-Modern era. I know it doesn’t mean this, but it sounds like we only want to be friends with people because we have an ulterior motive. Let me say something provocative (just for a change): the people you meet every day, who you work with, who you live with – they need friends, not ‘evangelists’ who want to be their friends and try and convert them all the time. They need to be valued as human beings, respected as creatures made in the image of God, in whom that image still flickers faintly. We should never become friends with anyone for any other reason than that they are worth it and that God thinks they are worth it. Otherwise we lose sight of the precious human being that Christ died for and we become hypocrites.

My third point is a short one. The question was raised and the disciples gave Jesus two options – is it this reason, or that reason? And Jesus wasn’t happy with either. Instead he took the discussion off into a whole new dimension that ended with a huge miracle, a huge controversy and a huge number of seriously pissed off religious people. Hallelujah!

When we ask questions of God, we should only ever expect an answer that will confound our limited expectations. God doesn’t tend to answer our questions directly. Often he just asks questions back (“whose image is on this coin?” Matthew 22.20) or sets tough challenges of his own (“Let anyone without sin cast the first stone” John 8.7). But even though he doesn’t answer the questions we set, he still has an answer. He presents his solution to the problem – in this case he heals a man born blind, something that had never been done before.

As we think about this chapter more and get into it, we see these applications:
Firstly, to not allow what we think God can do to get in the way of accepting what he actually does and to not elevate our human knowledge above its station. Secondly, to not lose sight of the human beings in whatever situation we find ourselves in. Thirdly, to anticipate the answer we don’t expect from the God who does things that have never been done before.

Question from FM, Zimbabwe

What is the explanation of post modernity or other theories on the HIV/AIDS in the Pentecostal churches. Pentecostals seem to stress the spiritual way of handling this pandemic instead of approaching it literally.

The spread of HIV/AIDS proves to be contentious for Christians, mainly because of the means of transmission. In the developed world, it is still largely confined to homosexual men, despite some ‘cross-over’ into the heterosexual community. It is also more common in injecting drug users who share needles.

Due to its associations with homosexuals and drug addicts, the initial reaction among fundamentalist Christians was to pronounce it as divine judgement on sinful lifestyles. There were some very unfortunate statements made that homosexuals almost ‘deserved’ to catch AIDS because they were ‘living outside the will of God.’ This opinion has generally been dropped within Christian circles in Europe, but is still sometimes heard in America.

In Africa, the situation is different and much more serious in terms of its effect on society. The devastation caused by AIDS in Africa is due to a number of different factors. Firstly, it is very common in the heterosexual community. Secondly, unlike in the developed world, contraception (‘safe sex’) is rarely practiced. Thirdly, pharmaceutical companies have protected their patents to prevent affordable life-extending drugs being available in the developing world. The combination of these three factors has led to a rapid spread of the disease and, in some places, the near-destruction of an entire adult generation.

The reaction of Pentecostal churches in Africa is different to the reaction of fundamentalists in Europe and America. Rather than being a symbol of divine judgement on sin, it is seen as being Satanic in origin. This does reflect popular Pentecostal attitudes towards sickness and disease as being ‘of the devil’.

In a way, this is true. Christian theology has always held that sickness entered the world as a result of human sin (‘the Fall of Man’); sin that was encouraged by Satan, if, as many Christians do, Satan can be identified with ‘the serpent’ of Genesis chapter 3. However, whether the origins of AIDS are seen as spiritual or not, it remains a physical disease. It exists within the body of the host, attacking the immune system and infecting others exposed to it. In that sense, it is a physical thing and needs to be dealt with in a physical way – ensuring blood-safe practices, ‘protected’ sex and so on. The best preventative method is through faithful commitment to one sexual partner, ironically the Christian ideal as found in the Bible.

If HIV/AIDS is regarded solely as a demonic or spiritual problem and nothing is done to address the physical (or literal) problem, then the disease will continue to spread, irrespective of what is said in any church.

Thank you for your question, FM – the first one from Africa to feature on freelance theology.

Question from DM, United Kingdom

I have had health difficulties for nearly 5 years and no doctor can cure me (3rd consultant still bemused). Yet sometimes I hear people say we should “Live in the victory”. Can I “live in the victory” without getting better?

To ‘live in the victory’ is one of those Christian phrases that has become so divorced from reality that it frequently adds guilt to the suffering of believers in physical or emotional pain. Living ‘in the victory’ is best understood not as living a life without pain, but as holding onto faith despite pain and trouble.

The victory of Christ over those things that would separate humanity from God is seen in the cross and, as I said in the community talk I gave on Revelation, when we are living the life of victory we live out the crucifixion and that is obviously not a way of avoiding suffering. Perhaps the best way for us to understand suffering is to seek to understand the cross and it’s place in time and eternity.

Martin Luther was one of the first theologians to actively pursue a ‘theology of the cross’. He was keen to assert that God is seen in Christ and that God suffered at the crucifixion. Given that Christ suffered in his human nature and his divine nature, that means his suffering takes on an eternal dimension (hence his ‘one’ death, paying the price for many). Jurgen Moltmann, the twentieth century German theologian took this further, by saying that in his very being God has not only experienced pain and death but also experiences bereavement: the Father losing the Son to death. God therefore, in his eternal nature, somehow experiences pain, death and bereavement – the three worst aspects of mortal existence.

Given that suffering is a hallmark of Jesus’ life, as his followers we can only reproduce authentic Christ-likeness through sharing in his suffering. However, we are ‘citizens of Heaven’ and we are told that through baptism we die to the old life and are raised to the new (see e.g. Romans chapter 6). While this happens here in this life, it seems as though we are in another ‘Kingdom of God’ situation. By that I mean we experience it now and not quite yet, just as the Kingdom is here and is coming soon. Luther, again, faced up to this problem: why do the redeemed suffer? He noted that although we were made blameless in God’s sight, we still lived in a world of sin and were essentially sinful creatures that had ‘put on’ righteousness. We would not actually be made righteous until we were remade in the likeness of Christ with resurrection bodies.

It is therefore not hypocritical to ‘live the victory’ and feel pain. It is perhaps realistic to expect suffering as we should, as Christians, be aware that the world we live in is a fallen world full of sin and pain. Becoming a Christian is not a magic cure-all to the situations we find ourselves in. We follow a God who has chosen to reveal himself most fully in suffering and the only way to truly follow that example is to resolutely believe in the final victory of Christ over suffering, sickness and death even as we experience those things in our daily life.

I hope that this answer helps, DM. Thank you for contributing to freelance theology.