YOU MAY NEED THIS ONE

You may need this one

This is my own personal interpretation of one of the stories about Jesus. I have not heard this interpretation of this passage before. I wasn't going to publish it, because I'm rather unsure about my  idea on this (since it does SEEM to contradict some of the statements in the passage), and because I think that the Lord generally wants to give revelations to each of us individually to let us know how much He loves us.
But I'm putting this interpretation out there for you to agree or disagree with, and maybe to be encouraged with:

Jesus was in a crowded house, teaching and healing. Four friends brought their bedridden friend to Jesus. They had to climb up on the roof, break open the roof, and lower their friend and his mat down to Jesus cuz' that was the only way they could think of to get friend to Jesus for healing.
The one who told the story, Matthew?, called the man "paralyzed" and said Jesus healed him. And maybe that was what happened. BUT Jesus' words in this case were: to the man lying on the mat, "Your sins have been forgiven."; To the crowd, especially His critics and enemies, "which is easier to say: 'your sins are forgiven'? or 'get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of man has authority to heal-, (to the paralyzed man AND for the benefit of the crowd) get up, take up your mat and walk."

So I notice here that Jesus does not specifically say, "Be healed."  He DOES refer to His authority to heal and how important that is as a sign of God's confirmation of what Jesus has claimed about Himself.
So I'd like to put forward my thinking in this. What if the man was not actually paralyzed? What if the man was just pretending to be paralyzed? Or partly pretending? We have heard of that sort of thing going on in more recent times. Maybe it was a possibility then, also.
So, if the man, in truth, was not paralyzed , but was faking it, he would have known whether or not Jesus knew the truth of the situation and his heart by what Jesus said. He personally would not have been convinced of Jesus' specialness if Jesus had simply said "Be healed!" when in truth what the man needed was to be truly known and forgiven. The man's heart would have remained untouched by Jesus. But, by making His first words to the man "your sins are forgiven", Jesus signaled to the man that He knew what the reality was and did this without "outing " the man. Indeed, if Jesus had tried to tell the crowd "Hey people, this man is faking!" The man would have had really bad feelings toward Jesus on account of Jesus making him look bad in the eyes of the community. Plus, this would have left the power in the situation in the hands of that man. He later could have- since he personally had not experienced Jesus' supernatural power- "relapsed " and said Jesus' healing didn't last! (Oops! That's not exactly right, is it? I said something that was not logical conclusion to previous two sentences. But let's continue.) If the man WAS a faker, Jesus saying what He did say was proof to the man that Jesus could read his heart, which is a supernatural thing just as healing is.
The way I came to this idea about the man brought to Jesus by his four friends was: 1)I was taught to carefully read the story of each of Jesus' recorded healings and to appreciate that Jesus healed each individual differently according to what they needed in order to receive His gift and according to the particular situation; 2) I had been studying with my neighbor Sister Kim's group about another healing that Jesus had done; and that other healing was quite different in its particulars from the one in telling of now.
The other healing is of a woman who was in a crowd around Jesus, who needed healing, but was too ashamed or scared to come out and ask Jesus to heal her. So she secretly touched Jesus' coat while holding the  thought that THAT would be the way she could be healed. Well, she WAS healed by touching Jesus' coat, but Jesus would not (in that case) let it be a secret, anonymous healing. He said, "Who touched My garment?"
Why did He do that?
Sister Kim had put much thought into that story, considering the afflicted woman who was healed. She came to the conclusion that Jesus wanted the healing to be public for two reasons: 1) So the woman would not feel that she had "stolen" a healing that "belonged" to another, but rather that healing was truly for her! (Because God loves her.) and, 2) Jesus wanted to help her draw close again to her community after her having been shut out of "polite society" (she could not attend any temple services with the ailment she was afflicted with. I don't know what else she could not do.)

THE BRILLIANT AND THE SPARKLING

The brilliant and the sparkling.

Two people groups have been particularly on my heart, the Japanese Christians who were forced to deny their faith in Christ as "Savior of all" in the 1700's or 1800's by their oppressive government; and the native people of what is now Turkey who were a major part of the early Christian Church but who were forced to deny their faith and embrace Islam when their country was conquered by the Ottomans.

(I am thinking of the Christians in that part of the world at the time when Paul of the NEW TESTAMENT was traveling and teaching about Jesus in the first century a.d.  Paul and John of REVELATION mention several names and communities in what is now Turkey. It is just around the corner of the Mediterranean from Israel, on the  way to Greece. So there WAS a Christian community there. How long did it florish? Were they faithful? did another persecution cause then to leave or disapate? Were there Christians there when the Ottomans and other Muslims invaded?)
In both of these communities, there were, I think, people who were able to remain true to Christ in the face of persecution. Maybe they could escape. But, I read that in Japan, at least, the oppressors designed the dire consequences of remaining true to Christ such that the Japanese Christians would have incurred cruelty upon their loved ones if they had continued to publicly proclaim Christ.

Author Phillip Yancey described in his  book SOUL SURVIVORS the Japanese government's (1700's or 1800's) persecution of Christians. I want to explain how things went: the persecutors gave the Christians the choice of either trampling on an image of Christ, a plaque, or having family members be tortured horribly. When I read Yancey's description I wondered about the
second commandment of the Ten Commandments. God said, "do not make for yourself an image or idol in the form of a creature in heaven, on Earth or under the Earth. Do not bow down to an image or idol." Some Christian churches have lost that knowledge that our Creator God has commanded that we not make and bow to images. The Catholics are the largest church that does not follow that second commandment of the Ten Commandments. I can't help but think that one thing God was doing by that commandment was protecting His followers from that type of coersion.  If you do not have and worship a physical (and man-made) image of God, an oppressor cannot force you to dishonor God and deny your God by breaking that thing. God is good; and His mercies endure forever!

"The brilliant and the sparkling" of this title refers to the Christians of Asia Minor and Japan that were persecuted.
Jesus said, "Blessed are you when men insult you and persecute you for my name's sake. Great is your reward in heaven." (MATTHEW 5:11)
Some of those maybe could not stay the course. In the case of the persecution of the Japanese Christians, the way the persecution was designed would need to be taken into account. God is good. Those people are not forgotten.

Comment on NOT YET UPON A TIME

Comment on not yet upon a time

Luke 14:28-29
Jesus tells a wise saying that if a man would build a tower, first he must count the costs to make sure he has sufficient resources to complete the project.
Did Jesus think about the massive project of bringing God's kingdom and righteousness on this Earth, working thru obedient believers? Jesus knew everything, so he knew! Two thousand years is a long time to wait (and work?) for the completion. And what are God's resources? He IS infinite, Maker of the universe, all- powerful, all- wise, all- knowing. His obstacles are the wavering hearts of even the most loyal followers. Is that true? Am I projecting my own uneven performance as a follower of Jesus onto all those who call themselves by Christ Jesus' name and whom  God sees as His family and servants?
I remember hearing a few times a quote maybe from Dwight L. Moody where he said he knew God could accomplish so very much if God has just one person who is 100% sold out to God.

SOMETIMES YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN YOU'VE LOST SOMETHING

Sometimes you don't even know when you've lost something!

Thinking of Dad. I LOVE him so much. Benevolent dictator. FIRST memory is his game, when we were riding in the car, of giving prize of one dime to the one who first sees and shares the news of "I see a rainbow!" and "I see the lake" (we were traveling to). That instilled in me (I don't know about my brother and sisters) the sense of anticipation instead of irritation and impatience; and a sense of joy in sharing the news of a joyful event of creation. Oooh! What a sweet lesson Dad taught. Did he know how sweet and wonderful that lesson was?

Other memories: he presided over our saying prayers at bedtime for a time, at least. That made me realize it must be a good thing to pray to God. In church, he enforced a "no fidgeting" rule by holding my two (fidgeting) hands in his ONE big hand closest to me. I don't know if that was necessarily good. It sounds odd, now, that a parent would  object to a child fidgeting in church. But the combination of his expressing in that way that church is important AND paying some attention to me, the youngest of 4 children -that was helpful to me, I think. I think there was a peaceful security in his calm insistence on this stillness while he listened to the sermon, etc.

I was envious of my older siblings, that they got to have Dad involved in their homework (I remember watching as Dad and David constructed replica of Jefferson's home or something, using an upside-down wooden bowl for the rotunda. And Dad went on Boy scouts camping and canoeing.) BUT, I really enjoyed bonding with Dad while I helped him by holding a board end while he sawed, or helping bundle up branches or yard clippings on warm summer days. That was MY opportunity to bond with Dad.

And Dad was the one who pushed and prodded me to get a job after college graduation, and gave me a direction to go in. Maybe it wasn't the best direction for me. Or maybe it WAS. After all, maybe he noticed that I enjoyed making mudpies in the backyard when I was a child. And he did see that I got a degree in soil and crop science at A&M. So a job as a soil lab tech was a good guess for me.

I'm not sure what I was going to talk about that was lost. Let me list a few things.
1) well, when my Dad died, I DID mourn and grieve him so. I was almost more devastated that my children would not know him than for my loss of my father.
But one thing that many children (myself included) of reticent parents regret is not asking their parents more about THEIR lives and decisions and growing up years and wisdom and hopes and dreams. Yes, I wish I could have known him better.

2) One painful family wound of my growing up years was my sister's decision to embrace a foreign strange religion. I know that she does not think of her religion that way. (I'm guessing that to her it makes sense as a religion, or did when she initially embraced it.) But although the tenets of her faith deny it, that belief system IS a denial- of Christ's choice to be a sacrifice; our sinfulness; and of His Divine nature.
My parents were mild, kind parents as far as I know. I don't know that they even tried to dissuade my sister in her choice. They may have been on the defensive when she made that decision. That's because part (most? all?) of her decision to leave Christianity was her realization of  and judgement of the racist attitudes that were a part of our parents' mentality and were generally (non verbally) promoted by the white "Christian" community that we were part of.
It maybe wasn't until later that they realized the magnitude of her choice, and the wrongness of their decision to forbid her from dating a young man who was African American. I say that because the methodists of that day (at least me personally) were not readers of the Bible, which is the foundation of the Christian faith and understanding and the main means through which God speaks to us.

VULNERABLE

Vulnerable

I just had an "ahah" moment and want to preserve it and share it here.

I am reading the Mick LaSalle review of HBO documentary "Robin Williams: Come Inside My Mind" (Houston Chronicle, 7-16-18) So toward the end of documentary and review we all contemplate that time in Robin's life leading up to his suicide. I had last night been talking to a friend about another friend's suicide years ago and that the unfortunate friend in my past had the affliction of hearing voices in her head. (God, bless that precious child of Yours.)

This is the important truth that just fell out of the mix: People are most open to our Creator God and trying to do things His way, including receiving the gift of forgiveness that God has made available through Jesus' sacrifice, when they have been diagnosed with a terminal or other horrible disease or have endured some other personal hardship.
(This connects in my mind with thoughts and a conversation I've had recently about some other really nice people I've known who seem to have had noticeably more than their share of  misfortune, but who seems, again, really nice and open and wise and open to our Creator God.)
What if people are, in fact, more vulnerable and open -to God- when they are in the midst of trouble; and
what if the devil -the Bible, including Jesus, speaks of the devil and demons- sees such ones and knows that they are most open to God then and so launches his greatest attacks at such times BECAUSE devil knows that person could be open to receive God's good then.

Wow! That thought is important to me.
The Christian establishment has accepted for centuries (two, at least) that times of trouble are times when people are most open to help. I don't know how long the concept of employing or commissioning a chaplain in war situations or military or hospitals or hospice- how long that's been going on. But I would say that the  chaplains' place in society is based on two truths (not one truth, as I previously thought): 1) people need extra  spiritual and mental help at these times of extremity, and 2) these times are also times of special opportunity for the hearts of the afflicted ones.
That last paragraph reminds me of something former president Obama said: "An obstacle is an opportunity." (Put correct quote here)

If the devil sees those difficult times as times of opportunity and acts vigorously to cut those times short (by screaming "kill yourself! there is no hope!" into the inner ear of these afflicted ones), we who have God's good answer should  also act vigorously for those ones.

So I need to act upon this truth.

Thank you, Jesus.

THE WRONG FIGHT AT THE WRONG TIME

The wrong fight at the wrong time

The church I have been a member of all these years -this church and these church leaders -have recently chosen to embrace as a church leader(?) a man who is living as a homosexual. In a "marriage". with a man.

I feel like I am accusing somebody, but I am just telling you what these church leaders and the man himself have declared as their choices.

I believe that God (still) thinks in terms of our obeying Him or choosing not to obey Him; He IS our Creator. He made us. We owe Him honor.
We owe Him the honor of following His laws the best that we can; NOT asking Him to "honor us and our choices".
---
I remember when the wrongness of the "Gay (et al) Pride" attitude and mentality came home to me. I was reading about the organization called FFLAG (friends and family of lesbians and gays). One of the members of that organization was saying that we need to learn to "respect and honor the choices that that loved one has made". It suddenly struck me how backwards that was. What about the "gay" person respecting and honoring his or her parent by at least not embracing and shouting from the rooftops his embracing of "gay lifestyle"? Why is that not spoken of? Why shouldn't the younger one respect the elder, who gave that one life and love and many things? Instead, the younger is asking the older to respect him (or her)?!?
---
Some, these days, believe that the set of actual "sins" is different than in the past. (I was in a meeting at our Methodist church today, 5-12-18, where an educated man pointed out that Jesus did not ever articulate condemnation of homosexuality. He never said anything about it. However, there are things spoken against homosexuality later in the NEW TESTAMENT. I wonder if that man considers those words as being in opposition to Jesus' teachings.) I agree that Jesus' and other New Testament parameters describing sin are less specific and more sweeping and love- oriented than the Old Testament "list". (Like: Don't walk down the street and only say to one in need "I love you,  brother. I wish you well. God bless you", but not do anything to help that one.)

However,  Jesus said to the woman guilty of adultery ("caught in adultery"), "Go and sin no more."
So, I guess Jesus was saying adultery is still a sin. I say homosexual behavior is a form of adultery. Here we get to what I consider is the (very!) WEAK SPOT in Christian condemnation of homosexuality.

Here I am going to jump right in to my thesis in this blog post: the mainline Christian churches weakened their position that homosexuality is unbiblical when we/ they chose to accept divorce and remarriage as "ok", not sinful.
DID YOU HEAR ME, PEOPLE? I SAID MAINLINE CHURCHES HAVE WEAKENED OUR ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY BY EMBRACING DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE BY MEMBERS OF CHURCHES. But it's not that simple.
The issue is complicated. First of all, somewhere along the line someone thought it was a good idea to have "no fault" divorce. So people in the community are discouraged from identifying one member of the marriage as being to blame for the divorce, either because that one divorced the partner for not a good reason or because the truly guilty party committed adultery or deserted the family in some way. (not trying to support your family is a desertion.)

So the church establishment of some denominations has chosen to not clarify the sins and issues of divorce, seeming to want to not ruffle feathers.

Also, marriages can have in them abuse large and small of various kinds. Pastors , on the whole, have chosen not to enter the private world of the marriage of others to correct sins on one or both sides. Hey! I don't know if this is true! I don't know if women come to their pastor and plead with the pastor to talk to the husband as a spiritual leader to try to get the husband to stop belittling the wife and/or children, or wasting the money the family needs, or not trying to get or keep a job, or  don't adultery. Maybe the women would be afraid that a man prone to violence would get violent. OR, maybe the wife is horribly dishonoring to her husband (well, maybe he deserves it, but . . .) Maybe she is a horrible lazy homemaker, and a complainer. What about that?
And what if the man really cannot get or keep a job? Does that ever happen?
It's too complicated!!

So what am I saying?
That even though the divorce and REMARRIAGE with maybe de facto adultery and tangled aspects to it is so hard for Christians to address, and help people in troubled marriages, Christian leaders have caused those in "homosexual camp" to stumble because in the back of their mind, the "HOMOSEXUALITY is ok" people are thinking, "those ones are being hypocritical because they say nothing about the Bible teaching on divorce and remarriage while pointing an accusing finger at us. Therefore, their condemnation of homosexuality is invalid."
Ok. That's what I wanted to say.

MY BAPTISM

My Baptism

This is May 12, 2018 when I am writing this. My husband and I have been getting to know a Church of Christ church for about 6 months while we study Isaiah, James and John with them. We really have come to love this group of people who are committed to showing God's love to others and remaining true to God as best they can.

One specific belief of the Churches of Christ group is that believers MUST express their commitment to Christ (immediately) as believers by immersion baptism. The intensity of their insistence that without baptism, one is not accepted by our God -that does bother me some. I mean, there could be extenuating circumstances where a person wasn't able to get to that occasion before that one died. Also, I consider believer's baptism as a natural response to saving faith in our Lord's gift of forgiveness by means of Christ's sacrifice.

My choice to be baptized as an adult  (about 1994) was for me an opportunity to express in this simple, humble way to the community that I believe in Christ as the Way God allows me to be reconciled to Himself so I can be with Him instead of without Him, now and for always.

The particulars of my life about this were that my husband's family were of a denomination that baptizes believers, not infants. (I grew up in Methodist Church and was baptized as infant and later went to a 4-session confirmation class as a 12 or 13-year-old. That was what was expected of me; not really a growing experience for me or  meeting God. It was later, in 1986, that I was faced with my sinfulness in a way I could understand and appreciate and at that point I understood what Jesus Christ had done for me and that I needed it and that I weren't going to be acceptable to God without our dear Jesus dying for the punishment for my sins.) So later, when my husband gently asked me if I thought I could consider being baptized as an adult (believer), I actually was happy for the opportunity and encouragement to do that. (Methodist Christians believe that one baptism is all that you need, whether it is done to you when you are baby or child, or you choose to be baptized as a youth or adult. So I needed a little push or permission to be baptized as an adult.)

One great regret I have in life (I have  MANY regrets, but this is one. I cry.) is that I didn't think to invite my mother to the service when I was baptized. When she heard later that I had done that, she expressed that she would have liked to have been there.
I prejudged her. I thought that she would be uncomfortable at or not interested in that service. I really didn't even think to ask her! I'm so sorry.

In the afternoon or evening  service- at Radiant Life Church, Assemblies of God (otherwise known as Longpoint Assembly of God)- I and a man, also in his thirties, were baptized with the pastor, Brother Leo Tippit, baptizing us. We were encouraged to say some faith-filled words. When it was my turn, I just said one sentence and then " . . . and I'm looking forward to the day when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." That part got some "amens ".

So that is the story of my baptism. One more thing. Our children, John and Karen, might have been in the service. Also, I guessed at the year that I was baptized. It was after my dad passed away (1991); and before my father-in-law passed away (1995).