Praying For Healing

Some persons teach all sickness and misfortune is the result of sin. Persons of this persuasion have the capacity of putting a guilt trip on a sick person. That is most unfortunate.
In John 16: 33 Jesus said, “In this world you will have tribulation….” The Greek text literally means, “I guarantee you in this world you will have tribulation….” It is a part of the world system. Jesus continued, “…be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”
God never promised us immunity from difficulty or exemption from problems. He has promised to bless us regardless of conditions. He takes no pleasure in our problems, but He will take part in them. We are stewards even of our illnesses.
The children about to be put in the fiery furnace said, “Our God is able to deliver us.” They did not say He was going to deliver them. They knew He could but trusted His judgment as to whether to save them.
Regarding our illnesses it is proper to ask for healing and —– then trust the Lord.
James 5:14 is a misunderstood passage. It instructs us to anoint with oil and pray for the sick. This does not mean to put oil on the brow and pray. There are two Greek words for anoint. One means to put oil on the forehead as was done for prophets, priest, and kings. The other word meant to kneed or message into the body. This is the one used in James. Secular writing of the period tell of the medicinal qualities of olive oil. An example is found in the story of the Good Samaritan What the James passage teaches is we are to use the best medicine available, in their case olive oil, and pray. Then we will have done all God expects us to do. After doing so we are to trust God’s judgment.
For example I know chances are some day I will pray for God to heal me of something and He will not in a physical sense. Instead He will give me the ultimate healing —- a new body in heaven. That is when I will really be a winner.
Mark 11: 24 is a complex passage. It truly differentiates between self-intoxicating ideas that are beyond our capacity and often casts God in an improper light and genuine faith.
The “mountain” in Mark is not a reference to a physical mountain, but it is symbolical of any seemingly unresolvable problem. It was a common Jewish phrase referring to dealing with difficulties. It was used to describe good teachers who were capable of solving difficult situations. They were called mountain-removers.
Prayer in the Mark passage is represented as the power that can enable us to deal with any difficult situation.
Verse 24, must be understood in light of the general Bible principles of prayer expressed throughout Scripture. It must be viewed in light of:
Taking our problems to the Lord. We must act.
Submission to God’s will (Mark 14:36b; Matthew 5:43-45; 26-29). We must be willing to accept God’s will. It is unprofitable to ask for God’s will to be done unless we are first committed to doing whatever it is.
It must be “in Christ’s name,” that is, in harmony with the will of Christ. If it is in accord with His will it is natural He will answer affirmatively because He desires for His will to be done.
In faith we bow our head before our merciful God trusting His wisdom and love.
To be obedient we must pray and leave the response to God.
FOLLOWING IS A RESPONSE FROM THE BILLY GRAHAM ORGANIZATION TO A PERSON ENQUIRING REGARDING FAITH AND HEALING.
First John 5:14 offers the promise that God “will listen to us whenever we ask him for anything in line with his will” (NLT). But how do we ask “in line with his will”? The KNOWING JESUS PERSONALLY New Testament offers this explanation:
“Prayer is not getting your will in heaven. It is getting God’s will on earth. Prayer is not an argument with God in which you try to persuade him to move your way. Prayer is an exercise in which His Spirit enables you to move yourself his way. Prayer is not overcoming God’s reluctance. It is laying hold of his willingness.
“You have to first ‘stay in Christ’ by maintaining a healthy, ongoing relationship with him. When that happens, you will see your will coming in line with his, and your requests will begin to mirror what Christ wants to do in your life and the lives of those around you. At that point, you can be assured that God is listening to you and will answer your prayers.”
It is also important to remember that not everyone was healed by Jesus in the New Testament. A good example of this is the man healed at the pool of Bethesda (John, chapter 5). The Scripture is clear that there was “a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water” (verse 3). Yet, according to Scripture, only one person was healed.
It is good to know that we are in the hands of our wonderful Lord, who cares very deeply for us. At times God may not choose to heal. If this happens, we may be assured that He will provide adequate grace to endure the affliction (2 Corinthians 12:9). When God does not heal, He has a greater purpose in mind. We need to trust completely in His loving care, with the confidence that His ways are always best. Isaiah 55:9 states: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Eventually we will understand more clearly why God allows various situations in our lives. Until we see Him face to face, we need to trust fully in His plan for us.
We have remembered you in prayer, trusting the Lord to work mightily in your life. Remember that nothing is too hard for Him (Jeremiah 32:17). All things are possible with Him (Mark 10:27), and He “is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3:20, NIV).

Sincerely,
Jamie M. Adams (lw)
Christian Guidance Department
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
www.billygraham.org

The War Verses In The Koran

Very much in the news lately has been the issue of a couple of churches letting their facilities be used by Muslims as a temporary mosque. In trying to establish an opinion consider the following.
First, there are Muslims who know little more about the 6000 verses of the Koran than some Christians do the Bible. In countries where Islam is not dominant they are perfectly willing to live in harmony with persons of other faiths. They are not militant. In Muslim dominated countries many are open to coexistence with people of other faiths.
There is a challenge in differentiating who is what however.
In his Cairo speech President Obama said there are seven million Muslims in America. Eight percent of the Muslims participating in a recent survey said they believe suicide bombing is acceptable in defending Islam. Of those between the ages of 18-29, fifteen percent who participated agreed and sixty percent said they were Muslims first and Americans second.
The first part of the Koran has some beautiful passages and positive peaceful verses. The last part advocates acts of violence.
Sura 9, verse 5 states, “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them….”
Sura 9, verse 29, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day … until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Now here is a part that is confusing as to why groups would like to use churches. Sura 5, 51, “Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for our friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them in friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust.”
Here is a heavy verse, Sura 3, verse 28, relates to the subject of “taquiyya.” It is a doctrine that states that Muslims should not be friends with the infidel except as deception, always for the purpose of converting, subduing, or destroying them.
All of these verses are in the last part of the Koran and conflict with some in the first half. That conflict is explained by Muslims by the theory of abrogation which teaches that when there is a conflict the last statement on the subject should take precedent over the first statement.
Regarding the possibility of Christians and/or Jews using a Mosque an internationally known Muslim figure said they are welcome to come and experience the enlightenment. That is the same as saying to them you are welcome to our places of worship to be evangelized.
The above figures indicate there are 56,000 Muslims living in America who approve of suicide bombers.
Hopefully those Muslims who do not favor jihad will reason with those who do. In the meantime those Muslims who sense a stand-off spirit toward them by non-Muslims need to know the above verses cause that attitude and not mere religious bigotry.

Why Don’t Christians Speak Out?

John Locke, a seventeenth century philosopher, said there are three forms of law —- divine, civil, and opinion. He, considered the father of modern liberalism, claimed the law of opinion is the only one by which people really abide. It is the law governing what a person feels they can express without being in danger of isolation. This produces what Dr. Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, professor of communication research at the University of Mainz in Germany, calls a spiral of silence.
When put in an environment where person feel they might be laughed at or turned away in derision if they say what they really think the spiral begins. People want to avoid the social stigma that comes from having a different opinion on social issues. To avoid it they switch to a go-along-to-get-along mode even if they are considered to be a conformist. That is considered to be better than rejection. Most people want peace and contentment so badly they don’t speak out.
The electronic and print media give us most of our knowledge of the world around us. Most of the national media does not give a balanced insight into what people are thinking proportionate to the various opinions. The selective perception given primarily by TV makes it appear everyone thinks as they represent issues. The media’s sanctioned view tends to bias the nation’s judgement. This can make the minority appear to be the majority.
This is where the spiral starts. Those who hold the opinion fostered by the media are emboldened thereby and speak out all the more. Those who hold a view contrary to the media are silent in order to avoid ostracism.
Pick any one of several controversial social issues. A position on it in the media appears to be the accepted norm. Many people are unwilling to take an opposing view in a group for fear of rejection. Take as examples freedom of religious speech,  don’t-ask-don’t-tell or abortion. Does the media project what appears to be an accepted view on these subjects? Is it popular to speak out in opposition to the reported popular attitude? If one does speak out in a group that concurs with the image fostered by the media what is likely to be the reaction of the group? Does the person holding an opposing view risk getting a cold-shoulder? Who wants a cold-shoulder? Often the only way to avoid it is silence. The spiral is then complete.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in the nineteenth century gave this analysis of the decline of religion just before the French Revolution.
“People still clinging to the old faith were afraid of being the only ones who did so, and as they were more frightened of isolation than of committing an error, they joined the masses even though they did not agree with them. In this way, the opinion of only part of the population seemed to be the opinion of everybody.”
Could that be happening in the religious community in America today?
Nonconformist Henry David Thoreau wrote of his civil disobedience: “It is always easy to break the law, but even the Bedouins in the desert find it impossible to resist public opinion.” He seems to agree with Locke that people obey only the law of public opinion.
Fortunately there are those who have deep seated convictions who are willing to risk all to defend the divine law. They seek to obey and propagate it. Society can only be changed by those who are willing to risk isolation to defend their faith.

Faith Of Our Fathers” Our National Heritage

In the compendium of quotes by our Founding Fathers regarding our Christian heritage there are a few bogus quotes which tend to discredit legitimate ones. There are also persons who extract comments out of context and distort their meaning in an attempt to discredit the legitimate record of our heritage. However, the legacy of Christian influence on our emerging nation is valid.
For example few know that at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison, known as the Father of our Constitution, proposed the plan to divide our central government into three branches after reading Isaiah 33:22: “For the Lord is our judge, (Judiciary) the Lord is our lawgiver, (Legislative) the Lord is our King; (Executive) He will save us.” The parentheses are mine added for clarity.
Hear some of the founders as they yet speak for themselves from the grave.
Ben Franklin’s faith was evident in the 1749 plan he proposed for education saying the schools should teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient and modern.”
Alexander Hamilton was a founder of the Christian Constitutional Society the purpose of which was to help spread over the world the two things he said made America great; (1) Christianity and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
In 1828, Noah Webster wrote in the preface of his “American Dictionary of the English Language,” “No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
It is true some of our founders were more Deistic than Christian. They still believed in the Bible’s moral and ethical tenants. It is said George Washington was a Deist who never referred to God or Jesus Christ, but instead used the language of Deism in referring to a supernatural power.
Not so, he frequently made entries such as these in his prayer journal.
“I have sinned and done very wickedly, be merciful to me, O God, and pardon me for Jesus Christ sake.”
“Bless my family, kindred, friends, and country, be our God and guide this day and for ever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
If he were a Deist why did he summons his friend, the military chaplain and former pastor of First Baptist Church of New York, Reverend John Gano, and command him to baptize him in a river. This is attested to by an article in “Time” magazine in 1932, saying the baptism was witnessed by 42 individuals. Accounts from the era support the act as historical. Still today some try to deny it.
Proponents of the true meaning of separation of church and state have reason to be confident in the pre-revisionists’ record of the influence of the Bible and the Christian faith in our heritage. Some modern atheistic evangelists seek to deny it and refute it by distortions and misrepresentations of facts. A favorite tactic they use is to take a quote from a founder out of context and exploit it while denying the counter comments of the spokesman. Mendacity knows no bounds.
This column is merely a recounting of history not to advocate making our government a state/church or church/state as some have been known to try to make my writings. I believe in separation of church and state but not the ridiculous extent to which it has been taken.

Jefferson On Seperation Of Church And State

Thomas Jefferson in 1802 wrote a letter to the Banbury Baptist Association in response to their overture. They were concerned Congress might do as some states had already done and name a specific denomination as the official national denomination. The Baptists in Connecticut were chaffing over having to pay to support the Congregationalist church which was the official state church in their state.

Jefferson was a masterful politician. His opponents, the Federalists, accused him of being an atheist. He was at best a deist, perhaps an agnostic, and suspicioned of being an atheist. To counter the claims of him being an atheist he used pious tones assuring them of his prayers: “I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.”

The Baptists were his supporters and primarily voted Democratic-Republican. He wrote to appease and console them. Some states had state supported church like Connecticut. Some wanted an official national denomination.

The issue really was not Christianity, it was denominationalism. Jefferson’s position did not entail hostility toward religion in government. He even invited people to join him in prayer at his second inauguration.

He negotiated a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians designating federal money to build a church and provide ministers. Weigh that against today’s interpretation of the establishment clause.

Foreign to Jefferson’s concept today’s application of the principle of separation undercuts the idea of freedom of religion. If all freedoms noted in the First Amendment were interpreted to be restricted like the part related to religion, we would lose our freedom of speech, the press, the right of assembly and the right to petition Government for a redress of grievances. They are all grouped together in the First Amendment. Take for example the freedom of the press. Our free press is protected by the amendment from government interference. Banning the free press is a frightening thought. How would the public respond today if the right to petition the Government were prohibited?

Why Jefferson ever got involved in this debate is puzzling. He never used the phrase related to a wall of separation again. He was out of the country when the Constitution was adopted and the First Amendment debated. He never sat on the Supreme Court. Yet, one misunderstood statement in his letter to the Banbury Baptists is the dominant issue in the debate of separation of church and state. His metaphor, “a wall of separation” is the basis of today’s law on the subject.

Justice Hugo Black, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and arch anti-Christian issued the ruling in 1947 in the Everson v. Board of Education. In an amicus brief filed by Everson  he warned against turning the wall into an iron curtain.

It is worth hearing the great detective Sherlock Holmes again. He got it right when he said, “We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture, and hypothesis. The difficulty is to detach the framework of facts — of absolute fact — from the embellishment of theorists.”