Why Did God Make Man?

Upon finishing the work of creating, God's evaluation of all he had made, including mankind, was that everything was good, in fact, very good. Of all that he had created, humans alone were described as made in his image. Apart from all else, they could relate to God correspondingly, akin to Adam relating correspondingly to Eve after she was created. Those two were persons in a way analogous to God being a person and so were relational with God at a level akin to his.

If we understand Paul's description of completion in a well-known passage, we begin to understand God's ultimate aim in making mankind in the way that he did. Mankind was not intended to be a pet in a menagerie, but a friend and family member to God. God made man in his image, because man was intended to share life with God on his level. If that sounds like a reach, note the soaring language of Christ's high priestly prayer.

I don't think it was ever God's intention to sustain Adam, Eve and their offspring in blissful, everlasting state of innocence (really, ignorance). Failure from such a state is possible, even probable, and it is not what we are raised to at the end of time. In order to accomplish his ultimate aims, mankind would have to be let in on everything at some time. It seems that tree wasn't put in the garden just for show.

At the right moment, mankind would had to have been brought into the fullness of knowledge and into the realm of sight to fulfill God's aims. On the journey to that end, the essential quality that God was attempting to distill within the human race was faith. Faith does not germinate in the realm of sight, but only in the state of ignorance and in the experience of the not yet. In that state, it is the faith of the created in their Creator, their absolute trust in him, that allows God to ultimately share all that he is and has with them without the potential of failure afterwards.

When one trusts in God, God in turn can trust him or her. It's like the old Hollywood storyline of someone fabulously wealthy hiding his or her identity and then seeking true love and friendship in the ignorance and innocence of other people. Life on God's level can only truly be led by God, but for those who have true faith in him, such life can be shared with them without the inevitability of betrayal. And everlasting life with God at that level is what Jesus actually modelled and exactly what we've been made for.

God Chooses Faith

God has mercy on whom he will have mercy. For some, those words limn an arbitrary selection, made draft board-like by a God who keeps his own counsels. Though God speaks these words self-descriptively, are they meant to convey divine capriciousness? Considering that God says so much else about himself that is not capricious, I would say, no.

That God exerts his will to direct the course of history to a foregone conclusion does not mean that true independence amongst humankind has to be co-opted in order to accomplish his aims. In another post, I pointed out that God’s ultimate purpose in making us was to create family and friends that could relate to him on his level. Certainly, one aspect of that level is freedom of choice and action. I believe it is essential to God’s design in choosing ends that humans express freedom of choice and action.

Is faith even possible under any other conditions?

Paul tells us that faith is the crucial factor in God’s selecting. Faith is what includes us, unbelief is what excludes us. And just so we’re clear on this, faith is not the result of our desire or work, it is merely a reaction to God’s intervention. Apart from God interjecting himself into our lives and presenting us choices, no one would call on him. God sends word to us of possibilities with him, he asks us to trust him, to make a faith choice, a real choice. Who can get the credit for that but God? 

Those who get saved merely respond to God’s tap on their shoulder. Therefore, every single one who walks into the kingdom to come will be able to say they do so because they believed in what God said and did, even though they never could have without God's interposition. In God's scheme of things we’re not puppets or pets. He does not intend for us to walk in uncertainty, wondering whether or not we are one of those that he’s pre-wired for salvation, nor does he desire any of us to smugly rest on our laurels, certain that we are. 

God asks us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. Like faith itself, that's something God doesn't do for us, but that we do ourselves. It can serve little purpose, it seems to me, for folk to get lost in arcane theological conjectures concerning their election when, practically speaking, the point becomes moot if one believes and has experienced the reassuring work of the Holy Spirit. The only truly helpful thing for those who call upon the Lord to know about election is that God chooses faith.

Faith Is a Reaction, Not a Work

What child has not garnered impish delight in suddenly jumping out from some dark hiding place and yelling, "Boo!" Rolling on the floor in laughter over the bizarre behavior of the victim-- screaming, throwing hands in the air, taking a swing at unseen attackers, dropping stuff, spewing unpleasantries-- the perpetrator reaps ghoulish delight over the victim's reactions. Some of the accosted do nothing at all to the perplexity and consternation of their prodder. Bummer!

Who can blame the victims when they do act in such uncharacteristic or even ill-mannered ways? After all, it was just a reaction, not premeditated, not intended, not necessarily reflective of their disposition at all. It just happened: an action and an equal and opposite reaction. We're all wired to react to stimuli, we'd probably be dead if we didn't, but each of us reacts differently.

I see faith in God, at least it's initial stage, in a similar vein. It is a metaphysical reaction by people to a word from God. Faith, it seems to me, starts with a head turn in response to God’s tap on one’s metaphorical shoulder. Abraham, the model for what faith can accomplish, found his one day when God’s word came to him and he believed. I believe everyone is wired with this capacity, hence God's command that all respond coupled with the outpouring of His spirit on all flesh. 

Everyone, however, reacts with varying degrees of responsiveness. Some, like the unmoved prudes in the example above, don't give so much as a rise to the word’s impetus. Others go hog wild. God's word, the seed of transformation, falls upon varying kinds of the soil of faith in its hearers, the rain of the Spirit falling on all. The result: abundant fruit to hard indifference. Does the soil have something to say about it's response? I think it does, but even if you don't, the principle of faith generation is the same regardless.

The Bible leads me to understand that faith is not a work, hence the contrast in that all too famous passage (as well as this one). Works are the fruit of will exerting effort, whereas faith is the soul's reaction to God's interposition. Faith is a reaction, not a work. We have all heard faith described as a leap, which is a reasonable perception, so long, that is, as one envisions that leap as resulting from the Holy Spirit saying, "Boo!".

When Grace Leads to Universalism

What can we know about God's heart? About what drives him, what moves him, what makes him draw lines in the sand? The answer of course is the Bible, our source for all that is indisputable regarding God. I suppose we can come to know these sorts of things experientially in a more personally relevant way through our fellowship with his Spirit within us, but any and every thing we can know beyond doubt arises from the Word.

Some passages I've always found particularly salient in this regard are 2 Peter 3:9

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11, which virtually say the same thing (the latter is copied here)

"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live."

and I Timothy 2:4

"God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

What these verses tell me, indisputably, is that God wants people, all people, saved. There is no joy in his heart over anyone being lost. I submit that there isn't anything necessary to his glory in it. There will not be one person thrown into eternal torment whom the Lord would not rather have by his side in glory. 

Which leads to another thought-- why can't God have what he wants? I mean he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnitemporal. What stands in the way of him getting what he desires? Certainly, if he desires a thing, such as all people getting saved, that thing is good by virtue of the one who alone is good wanting it.

As some fashion them, the so-called doctrines of grace declare that people get saved because of a sovereign act of God. Before the human race born of Adam even came into existence, God chose those who were to be saved, and then fashioned existence to effect that choice. The benefactors of that choice believe and persevere, irresistibly, as they come into being. Under such a regimen, the only thing that leads to people ending up in heaven is God instilling a grace enablement within the souls of the chosen. Once elected, salvation is inevitable.

Is that a problem? Yes, if we actually take what God has told us about himself to be true! He has said of himself that he doesn't want anyone to be lost. The scripture is clear about this. If all it took to accomplish his desire was his own act, how would he act? Since I'm not willing to see God as schizophrenic, I must answer that He would save everyone. God would have to be schizophrenic to state a particular desire that must be good, and yet not be able to bring his considerable skills, power and goodness to bear upon accomplishing it.

We know from the Word that not everyone will be saved. Therefore, there must be some other factor in the equation that God is not willing or able to circumvent for that to be so. Some will, other than God's, must be in play and allowed by God to be decisive in determining who gets saved. Otherwise, God's desire would be decisive and everyone would, in fact, get saved. 

It seems clear to me, that for one to hold on to sovereign election as promulgated in the doctrines of grace and yet also accept God's testimony about his desire and his power, that one is forced, logically, to adopt universalism. If God's will is the only effectual one, then everyone will be saved. Perhaps that explains the universalist drift in the history of Calvinistic churches in New England.

Thankfully, I'm not a Calvinist, so I just accept the testimony of the Word and experience no contradiction at all.

Church As Family

The word says that God sets the lonely in families. Families are a mark of his compassion and grace. Of all his inventions for the benefit of humanity, in my my mind, none beats the family. In America, however, we suffer a debilitating disease, which infects the broader West as well-- family has lost it's cachet and is not valued as highly as it once was. We have actually become anti-family in many ways, and our disease is wasting our society.

That situation is not limited to our families of birth but applies to our families of rebirth as well.

There seems to me to be a panic among religious prognosticators in the West concerning the future of Church. They read the tea leaves and blare their trumpets, "if something isn't done soon, we'll lose the next generation!" So, much discussion has ensued about the proper paradigm for the church in our day. What can be done to make the church relevant, resilient, and resurgent in the generations coming of age?

If God never said anything about the subject, our brainstorming might be appropriate, but he has spoken in his Word and we should at least have a clue. No model is offered there for church other than that of family. In any age, in any culture, church is meant to be seen as the family of God. Believers are brothers and sisters in the Lord, we all share one heavenly Father, and are instructed to love each other in a familial manner. If church is an institution, the institution it is has to be is the family.

The paradigm that works to produce the body God desires is the Church As Family. Fan clubs for religious superstars, social service agencies aiming to treat societal ills, social clubs giving members a place to belong, playgrounds, spas, mass entertainment venues, or religious businesses opening branches everywhere possible in an effort to dominate the market are not models taught by Jesus or described by the Word. Even if one found organizational success in adopting these unscriptural modalities, that would not equate to divine endorsement.

To be honest, I don't know why we even think in terms of trying to satisfy some element of population that isn't satisfied with a biblical paradigm. If those not satisfied don't drop their self-indulgent notions and submit to Christ as Lord and the Word as the rule of faith and conduct, do they even belong in the church? Church is the family of God, anyone not an actual brother or sister is merely a visitor. Some accommodation may be made for a visitor, but who turns their ongoing family-life upside down because a visitor drops in?

Some might say, "do it for evangelism," however, most evangelism doesn't occur within the confines of church services. Besides, evangelism is not presenting something other than Christ crucified and risen, nor calling for something less than repentance and faith concerning him. Believing in Christ and yielding to his Lordship is how we become part of the family. The unrepentant, the unyielding, those not surrendered, and the self-serving are not saved whether they're in church or out, accommodating them can only mean not accommodating Christ.  

Christianity isn't a popularity contest and following Christ isn't going to win anyone friends amongst those that don't follow Christ. The truth is what sets people free, and seeing brothers and sisters love one another is what makes the world know we're actually followers of Christ. If we actually want to build on the foundation Paul laid, then church has to be family. Anything else is wood, hay and stubble good for nothing but smoke and flame.

A Philosophy of Ministry

My mother is going through some health difficulties at the moment. It looked like cancer for a while, but that has now been eliminated as a cause. That leaves us with a bit of a mystery as far as diagnosis goes, but I'm trusting that God heard the prayers lifted up for her and cursed that thing. During this difficulty, I have become acutely aware of what a blessing family is. My three sisters, my brothers-in-law, nephews and nieces and my wife have all rallied as we've circled the wagons and prepared for a fight. How would we manage without each other at a time like this?

As a pastor, my philosophy of ministry has always seen the church not as an organization, not as an institution, but as family. We are brothers and sisters, we have one Father, and one dynamite big brother. We are not co-consumers or clientele of a religious supermarket, we're not lemmings following a spiritual guru, we're not activists pursuing a cause, nor even a social club of Jesus aficionados. Those viewpoints of the church are held by some either overtly or tacitly, and always end up reflected, practically, in the way they "do church." The problem with those ideas is not that they are necessarily intrinsically evil, but that they are not scriptural and therefore cannot produce church life that is reflective of the scripture.

There are problems with my viewpoint, especially in regard to marketing and corporate nimbleness. If one has a desire to do this church thing "big time" my viewpoint is a disaster; nonetheless, I'll stick with it. Christ has not called me to "win the world," or to "take my city," or to "launch a movement." I don't see one single scriptural reason to believe he would call anyone to such grandiose visions-- human ego will have to get the credit for that! He has adopted me into his family, to love my brothers and sisters and to be loved by them, like we were blood. And by word and deed, to persuade others to join this family of love.

Giving breath to that reality is what church life is about. If that idea doesn't appeal to you, the next time your life is in desperate turmoil, call a church shopper, who probably won't know you from Adam, and see how likely she is to lay down her life for a fellow shopper. Would you go to bat for another Wal-mart shopper just because she's a Wal-mart patron too? Probably not, who would? But to lay down your life for an eternal sister that Christ, whom you love, laid down his life for, that I'm betting you probably would be willing to do, because family beats business or institution any day.

Believers In Divine Healing Can Go to a Doctor

With this we finish the series on the subject of divine healing.

Show Yourself to a Priest
In modern western society, the professional tasked with certifying the health of individuals who have been sick is the doctor. In ancient Hebrew society that was not the case, the priests performed that function. According to Moses, a person who was ill (with certain symptoms anyhow) needed to have a priest pronounce them clean before they could rejoin the commerce of normal life. That is why Jesus told some of the folks he healed to show themselves to a priest. It was the way to verify that healing had taken place in that society according to the Mosaic law.

I understand, anecdotally, that Kathryn Kuhlman followed that pattern in her ministry. If someone was on medication or in treatment, she told them to show themselves to the doctor and let him or her see the healing for his or herself. I applaud that approach. Afterall, we are not promoting pretend healings (ones that are present in words but not in body) any more than we foist pretend deliverances (ones where spirits are roped and bound but the folk haven't changed).

To those who are fellow charismatics, let's be honest: a healing either has occurred or it hasn't. Some may be delayed in appearing, but we were never tasked with making excuses for the inactivity of God by using wispy exercises in semantics if they haven't. If a healing hasn't occurred, we say it hasn't happened, YET!  Having folks confess healings that haven't actually occurred is just plain lying and more worthy of rebuke than anything Jesus' disciples did.

Healing has also been turned into a carnival and a sleight-of-hand show by some. Whereas Jesus and the Apostles drew crowds when healing, they never resorted to revving them up nor manipulating them emotionally in order to "build faith". My point is this: nothing akin to what is often practiced today in the name of healing and deliverance was even remotely testified to in the Bible, and if not there then why here? Where are the demonstrable results, anyhow, for such antics when the dust settles after they're done? 

When a healing occurs in someone who has had a prior diagnosis, we should want it verified so that all the glory can go to God. Jesus did. A physician may not be able to admit that God was the cause, but at least he or she can verify that what was, no longer is. The faithless will posit everything other than God as the reason, but at least they won’t be able to justifiably deny that something actually did occur.

Use Your Head, and That of Others
God has been known to provide food miraculously, without toil and sweat, sowing and reaping. Just because he has chosen to do that at times, doesn't mean he chooses to do that at all times. So a sensible believer sows and reaps, eats a balanced diet, and prays that God will bless the efforts. Generally, he does and we eat with thanksgiving.

God has been known to miraculously zap folk from one place to another or to allow them to pass through or over things they could not otherwise get by. Just because he has chosen to do that at times, doesn't mean he chooses to do that at all times. So a sensible believer flies or drives, walks into the depths only with scuba gear, and prays that God will grant traveling mercies. Generally, he does, and we thank God for reaching our destinations.

Should we be too good to use the fruit of sensible efforts, and demand nothing but the miraculous? Good diets, good habits, joy in God and peace with people go a long way toward providing our bodies with what they need to function well. Even though we have the earnest of the invigorating Spirit of God sustaining our dying flesh; a fatty diet, a taste for tobacco, or disdain toward a brother or sister will likely produce less than optimum health. So we do what makes sense and trust God to bless us.

Generally, we see the clear sensibility of using our understanding of how things work to aid our journey through life, and we do so with thanks to God. To that end, what's the difference between spraying bodies of water with a pesticide oil to rid the environment of a pesky infestation of gnats, and taking an antibiotic to deal with a bodily infection? Bugs in the wilderness versus bugs in us. Does faith in God’s provision of healing preclude using the knowledge of the physician? Before we exclude using the sensible, shouldn't we ask ourselves whether doing so is truly faith in God or just hubris in us?

The Bottom Line
The last thing believers want to do is displace their faith in God with faith in men and women in lab coats. It is an unspeakable joy to know that God is willing to exert his awesome power to address our mundane needs. He has purposely made effective blessing in the here and now (healing in this case) part of the atonement of Christ. Can we let the wonder of that sink in for a moment!

Does that mean that the blessings won by Christ can only come to us by way of the miraculous? I don't see that kind of sentiment anywhere taught in scripture. Trusting God is what we're asked to do by God. So, in the words of an old Keith Green song, which I think we can apply to the subject of divine healing well enough, "keep doing your best, and pray that it's blessed, and Jesus takes care of the rest."

Even the Lame Can Limp Into Glory

Continuing with the subject of Divine Healing, with a review of some pertinent scripture verses: Isaiah 53:3-5; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10; Romans 8:10-11; Ephesians 1:13-14; John 9:1-3; Luke 10:1-12; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 12; Matthew 9:28-30; Mark 9:23-24; Mark 6:1-6; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; James 5:14-20; Revelation 22:1-3

We can certainly be grateful for the manifold blessings that God grants us in this life. Even a partial list is impressive: sins forgiven, reconciliation with God, regeneration, participation in the work of God, answers to prayer, provision, healing. The list is partial, but so is the receipt of these blessings while we're in these mortal coils born of Adam's race. In this life, we're only capable of receiving the earnest (i.e. down payment) of our inheritance in Christ. Nothing comes to us perfectly or completely, because what is mortal must be put off before what is immortal, or perfect, can be put on.

This proves true for the Spirit of God, for our knowledge of God, for our faith in God, and for those bodily blessings made possible by Christ's death and resurrection. While in these dying frames, we live in the realm of the partial awaiting the day of the complete. Divine health is no exception to this rule! It has always been thus for the redeemed of God on fallen earth, and it will be so until the day we are raised to meet Christ in the air.

Look at those who have gone before: Paul had physical problems; Timothy had physical problems; Jacob had physical problems; David had physical problems. All of them had the same gracious Father we have, who granted them the same kinds of promises and benefits we depend upon. How can we avoid the same experience of bodily health they faced? If faith is the key, as I've claimed it is, which of us would seriously put our faith up against any of theirs?

We cannot avoid the thing (death itself) that more than anything else proves that this is not place of ultimate fulfillment. If death is unavoidable, then so is what comes as a result of it. Should we not walk in humility as we humbly accept what God will do for us while we are here? God can do virtually anything, that's certainly true, but how often, really, does he replace a detached limb, or separate a set of conjoined twins, or fuse a severed spine?

I have no doubt that there is an account of each of these kinds of conditions being miraculously healed somewhere at some time. Why not, is anything impossible with God? I see no reason not to believe that, should the Holy Spirit inspire the gift, any one of us could participate in such wonders being done today. That, however, is a far cry from saying we are guaranteed such results here and now, in this age where everything and everyone still dies.

Personally, I look in faith for the blessing of Moses and Caleb to be mine. Yet, in that pursuit I also know that a refusal to accept reality is not the same as faith, that bearing false testimony is not the same as confession, and that nothing in life is a reason to give up on God. So please, dear readers, don't settle for less than God's grace and faith provides, but understand this: even blind with only one arm to raise in praise, we can still limp into glory.

Addendum: A great post on this subject by a Southern Baptist missionary.

The Issue of Sin in Healing

Continuing with the subject of Divine Healing, with a review of some pertinent scripture verses: Isaiah 53:3-5; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10; Romans 8:10-11; Ephesians 1:13-14; John 9:1-3; Luke 10:1-12; Mark 16:15-18; 1 Corinthians 12; Matthew 9:28-30; Mark 9:23-24; Mark 6:1-6; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; James 5:14-20; Revelation 22:1-3

Experience tells me that what I am about to share with you will cause some of you some anguish. However, since my commitment in writing this is to be boldly scriptural, I'm going to tell you what I think is scripturally true come what may. So give this a read, and if it upsets you, leave a comment. We'll talk.

In dealing with the subject of sickness from a scriptural perspective, there is no avoiding the fact that Jesus, Paul and James all connect at least some sickness or disability to sin within the inspired scriptures. Jesus and Paul do so fairly directly, James merely implies it, but all connect the two, at least in some cases, beyond a shadow of a doubt. None offer the universal correlation: "if one sins, one consequently becomes ill," but cause and effect does exist in some cases.

Jesus implies that paralysis was associated with sin in the past and that replaying such would have an even worse result. James nebulously mentions that if a sick person has sinned he will be forgiven in the process of healing (so a causal link is implied). Paul leaves no doubt by specifically stating that the sin of eating and drinking from the Lord's table in an unworthy manner leads to sickness and even death.

The concept is nothing new. We looked into God's ancient pattern of governance earlier in the series to establish that God wants his people well. If we look there again, we'll see that the sin and sickness connection is long established under the rule of God. God doesn't blame the Devil, doesn't take the side of the believer against the sickness that may come his or her way-- he flat out admits that he, himself, will strike those who are disobedient with illness. 

Furthermore, Isaiah said that sin puts us at odds with God, even out of earshot. Does that not go some way toward explaining why sickness can follow sin in a believer's life? If we need to ask for healing, which is what I have asserted, and since sin interferes with our ability to be heard by God; sin could certainly affect our ability to receive all that God has made available to us. Whether Old Testament or New, obstinacy in sin is said to have the ability to keep us in affliction.

For those of you who would have trouble envisioning God making us ill, let me point out that he would not have to act directly against us for sickness to follow sin. He would merely have to leave us to our natural lot in this broken world and sickness would follow. Can God bless or withhold blessing as he sees fit? Would he even be God if he couldn't? It is a fearful thing...

This concept may put a chill down your spine, but don't let it get you down. Even though death is part of the possibilities that Paul brings up, James makes it clear that if sin is associated with the sickness someone is experiencing, it will be forgiven him when he calls for the elders and the church prays for him. So, mistreating your brothers and sisters may bring illness your way, but calling on those brothers and sisters to pray for you can bring forgiveness and healing.