Friday is for Friends: "T"

I'm standing up and cheering! What a great post!

Here's hoping it starts a long-overdue conversation between missional and doin' the stuff folks.

You're crazy and a heretic!

Nah, not really. This is a really challenging post, thanks. These are the passages in the NT we most like to avoid. It's tough, because some of the exorcism stories seem to me Jesus healing a physical illness (epilepsy or something, say) and the gospel writers interpreting it as demonic activity according to their culture. Other times, however, there are clearly spiritual forces of darkness at work.

I agree, we shouldn't shun this central part of Jesus' activity. My only caveat is that any theology that ends up blaming people for their illnesses or suffering is bogus.

T,
When "doin' the stuff" is rooted firmly in the aim to extend the Lordship of Jesus over all of life (ie, advance the kingdom of God) and not to be cool or "third wave" or make a name for ourselves, I believe we are on firm biblical ground to comprehensively be like Jesus. So many who burned out in the '80s-'90s on the almost idolatry of 'stuff doin'' and who now call themselves post-charismatic might come back chastened and much more 'missional.' I am eager to see where this conversation goes.

John,

Yes, exactly. It's amazing how much fear there can be as we get started with doing this kind of stuff, and then how much pride can kick in when God actually does something miraculous through us. That's precisely why the monastic/anabaptist strand of missional could be helpful--grounding this work (and the workers) in the things you mention.

And Scot,

Of course I still use the crocs!--they're my shoes for when I come home from work or go out on the kayak. I'll post a long over due pic of the crocs in action soon!

Great post, T! I come from a Vineyard background and have often thought that the missional movement and a humble, simple expression of healing, etc. compliment and complete one another very nicely.

re: dopderbeck's comment...

I agree we ought to be aware of the "cultural embededness" of the first century, and the Gospel writers. But shouldn't we also be aware of our own cultural embededness, which tells us that belief in the supernatural in silly and backward? Isn't that just as much an assumption as believing all sickness is caused by demons?

Because of that, I think we should not be so quick to assume that the "cultural embededness" of the first century is any more naive than 21st century cultural embededness. If we are "always de-spiritualizing Jesus' encounters with the demonic" aren't we succumbing to what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery," where we assume people who lived long ago were ignorant and we know better now?

Most cultures for most of history have believed firmly in supernatural forces that have real influence in the world. Western Enlightenment culture is a bit of an anomaly in that regard. I think we ought to exercise a bit more hermeneutical humility before painting the Gospel writers' belief in the demonic a naive superstition. Maybe we're the ones with unfounded assumptions about the nature of reality?!?

T,

On the issue of blame, you raise the important point of Paul's advice to Timothy. Also instructive is Paul's "thorn" (whatever it is), which despite fervent prayer God does not remove.

I think it is always appropriate to pray (remembering that prayer is asking, not magic), even to expect, for Jesus to heal; to know that that healing is his nature and ultimate goal; and to trust that all will be healed, whether now or when the kingdom comes fully. What God does with our prayer is God's business. Without making excuses for God, life is mysterious, and our job is to appeal to our Father, who gives good gifts, although they are sometimes not what we expected.

That's my working theology, anyway. I'm interested to hear more of yours.

Travis,

Yes. I have very similar thoughts in my head.

Additionally, I think Wimber (and Jesus, for that matter) kept one ear and eye open to the Father for this kind of work (or for prophetic insights) as a way of life, , and not just for speaking engagements, because they were gripped by the story and agendas of the kingdom wherever they went. This was huge for Wimber, but not necessarily for those of us who learned to do these things from him at church. I'd love to wed (in my mind and in others') the missional church emphasis of incarnating Christ wherever we are (incarnating Jesus as a way of life, giving our whole selves to its story) with this habit of listening and looking for what God is willing to do in these ways. Wow.

If God informed us, during a seemingly random conversation outside of a church service, that he wanted to heal the person we were talking to, would we be willing to act upon it? Seriously. Think about this. Or are we, in our conversations at work, at the store, etc. more gripped by the exegencies of our kingdoms, our names & reputations to even hear or be willing to be used by God in such ways in such venues? Or do we see people who act on such things as weird, anti-rational, or otherwise not what we want to be. These are formational/character issues that are stopping the mission of God. I know because I have these issues (especially as a self-employed lawyer!). Meanwhile, the NT is full of these very occurances (about half--half!--of the synoptic gospels), and they are a picture of missional living in my mind. Where, exaclty, do we want the kingdom to come (and where would we prefer it not come)? How do we prefer to see it come (and how do we not prefer it to come)?

Craig,

Thanks for speaking up for the "this isn't what God is doing (much) today" crowd. FWIW, I agree that we can't force this. In my own experience with these kinds of things, though, like most things, there is a mix of grace (what God is willing to do) and human action and willingness. For my part, given the testimonies of our non-western brothers and sisters and my own inward resistance and the things I've seen personally, I tend to think that the issue in the West (where these things still happen in very significant numbers) is more about us than God.

But that doesn't mean that someone not getting healed is someone's fault. Again, Paul didn't do this stuff at will (Timothy's sickness), but he was willing to do it, even outside of church meetings, as God led him to do it. I don't think we're as willing on many levels as our ancient or modern non-western brethren are in this activity, so our anticipation of failure becomes self-fulfilling. On a different level, we evangelicals aren't really listeners when we pray for the hurting or the sick, which is a part of doing these things that can help a great deal.

I love the way T put this. "Only someone with theological training and/or church experience would read the NT and think Jesus' disciples don't do that kind of stuff as they embody and announce him to others." It has been said that hermeneutics is the art of explaining why things in the Bible don't apply to us.

But figuring out how these things apply is not so easy. My son seems like the kind of child that Jesus would have simply healed. But I have never heard of anyone with his kinds of problems being healed.

Discussions about health, healing, and exorcisms can quickly get off track if we begin to quote scripture without remembering to assess both the historical and the theological witness it bears. We can easily miss the point if we let our own sensibilities get in the way of understanding the biblical message as it is set in a cultural context that is different from our own. The Ancient Near East (ANE) culture viewed and defined health, illness etc. very differently than we do. Additionally, the Bible is a theological witness- and it is a book that tells a story: of health, then dis-ease and broken relationships (vertical and thusly, horizontal), then healing and repair, then restoration. But the Bible defines these terms and events in God’s terms, which is often in stark contrast to the way we and the other people of the story define terms such as “health.”

In discussions like these, it’s always good to differentiate "curing” from “healing”. Let us remember the definition of the Greek work 'sozo' is "healing, wholeness, restoration, salvation." Additionally, the Greek word ‘therapeuo’ means: “to serve; to give help; take care of another by extension; to heal, cure.” This is the word used in Matthew 4:23 and Matthew 9:35 in which we see Jesus depicted as going forth “preaching, teaching, and healing.” I heartily agree with the exhortations to not forget the healing- we do often focus on the preaching and teaching aspects of ministry to the exclusion of the healing portion, thereby creating lopsided and often ineffective ministries, rather that effective, wholistic ones. But, by the same token, I think it equally important to fully grasp the scope of what “healing” meant in the ANE, and what it means in God’s terms. The kind of healing that Jesus did in Matthew 9:35 and 4:23 was not limited to demonic exorcisms, physical "curings" and resuscitations. His healings had their greatest benefit in the forgiveness of sins and restoration to community that occurred *every time* he did a physical curing (and often when he did not do a physical curing...e.g. the woman at the well, the woman to be stoned, dining with Zaccheus- these people were all healed of something- not cured- then were restored to community).

Healing in the Bible is always set within a “relational” framework- a relationship is always restored. Jesus never just performed a physical cure and said, “Go, run along now.” He always had an instruction or exhortation that addressed either their relationship to God (Your sins have been forgiven.) or their relationship to others (e.g. “Go show yourself to the Priest.” “Tell no one.” “Go to the Ten Cities.”) Hence, while being missional with regard to "healing" can certainly involve "doin' the stuff" as defined above, it is also about “doing” things like Cancer support groups, clinical pastoral education, celebrate recovery, listening to a divorced friend vent, sitting beside the bed of a dying person and listening to them review their life, teaching a homeless man to read and helping him get a job, and so on. These are all "therapeuo/sozo-activities" because they involve serving-healing and the critically essential piece of restoration to community, as well. Finally, what further differentiates a “missional” philosophy from a “justice based” philosophy is that restoration between humans and their Creator is also an incuded focus- otherwise the lopsidedness still exists.

An additional point to remember is that differentiating between a hard and fast distinction between physical vs. spiritual is rooted in the Platonic assumption of dualism...and this line of thinking is not necessarily scripturally validated.

Interesting Question to Ponder: Were the Geresene demoniac's problems physical, mental, spiritual or relational? Was his cure in the physical, spiritual, emotional or relational realm?
Answer: YES

John 14:12:

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do the stuff I've been doing. He will do even greater stuff than this because I am going to the father." (Okay, some slight editorial changes.)

Jesus seems to imply the stuff he did sets limited model for what is to come. What is the "greater stuff?

Is it possibly that Jesus heals a lame man. We wipe out polio.

Jesus visits the outcasts. We create communities where outcasts become a part of community.

Jesus gives bread and water to the hungry. We create economies that feed millions.

I'm not discounting the "stuff" you are talking about T, but it does seems to me that it is possible that it is ancillary to the "greater stuff," not the pinnacle.

...as an insider I thought I might add:

The Vineyard is not a homogenous movement when it comes to the way this gets played out. There are still those who bark like dogs (or wish those meetings would return), but there are also many who have a firm commitment to pray for the sick, and yet don't twitch while they do so...

This could look very different from one local Vineyard to another.