> ACC Journal A journal of theology for the Apostolic Christian Church Volume 2 Number 1 Summer 1984 Editorial — page 2 Thoughts on Healing — page = The Apostolic Christian Church: A Friendly View from the Outside — page 4 Mark 9:14—-29: An Excercise in Reading the Gospels — page 1The ACC Journal is published quarterly by the editors. The Views expressed in articles or letters published in the Journal are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the editors, regular contributors, reviewers, or other members of the Apostolic Christian Church (ACC). The articles and letters selected by the editors are believed to be relevant to ACC members and generally helpful in improving the quality of church thought, discussion, and practice. ** Subscriptions to the Journal are $5.00 per 4 issues. All issues of the current volume will be included in the subscription. NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS: SUBSCRIPTIONS OVER—DUE For those who have not responded, to continue your Subscription, send $5.00 U.S. to either editor (addresses below). To assure continuous coverage, renew promptly. Thanks! 611 correspondence should be sent to either editor: Jim Fodor Dennis Feucht 3eiS 1144 St., Apt. So1 5275 Crown St. Edmonton, Alberta West Linn, OR Canada T&K 1NS U.S.A. 97068 Letters or articles for publication in the A Journal should be sent to an editor (addresses above). For more information on ACC Journal publication guidelines, please request an “Information for ACC Journal Authors" brochure. Regular Contributors/Reviewers: Rollen Easter} Tremont, IL Dennis Feuchts Portland, OR Jim Fodor} Edmonton, Alta. Joseph Haring? Pasadena, CA David Kapusinskis Nerton, OH Dan Simon3 Issaquah, WA John R. Swinford; Pasadena, CA The editors thankfully note appreciation of the extensive manuscript typing done by Dottie Feucht for this issue. If you have, or know of anyone who has, an Apple IT computer and is willing to type in manuscripts submitted to us, please contact one of the editors above. Thank you.Editorial Christian Faith and Politics fs elections in the U.S. approach it seems timely to comment on politics, one of the most neglected areas of Apostolic Christian concern. My observation is that the typical AC has very little to do with it. As with any other area of life, politics must also be brought under the authority of the Word of God by the Christian. We have an obligation before God to understand every area of life from his Perspective. As Christians especially, some understanding of politics is unavoidable. Our Leader himself was crucified on a political charge (that of sedition) and was called the “King of the Jews" (which he did not deny). This charge, written over the Cross, was punishable under Roman law by crucifixion. For Paul to preach “Christ crucified" immediately aroused suspicion among citizens of the Roman Empires what is true of the leader is probably true of his disciples. (See Acts 17:6, 7.) To the early church, politics was unavoidable. | Persecution of the church by Rome was based on the refusal of Christians to acknowledge the Emperor as an absolute power. They awed their allegiance to the kingdom of God instead. Today, we are not faced with tests of allegiance to Christ > or are we? The radical call by Christ for exclusive loyalty to his kingdom may be challenged in at least two ways in America today. First, because of the history of American religion, the temptation is particularly strong to identify the American cause with the cause of God. God becomes, in this view, the champion of America, endorsing American purposes and sustaining American might. (See Will Herberg: Protestant-Catholic-Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology.) Hence, this “civil religion" merges cross and flag, Christian faith and patriotism. It provides no grounds on which to call the nation into judgement before God since the American system is itself considered to-be ordained by God. @ second pitfall is to be offered choices for a political decision, all of which assume rejection of Christ’s principles. To illustrate, consider the involvement of Christians in war. @ common argument against non-involvement is that the U.S. must maintain its military strength to (destructively) deter aggression, and that unilateral disarmament is unrealistic in a fallen world. That, of course, is true as far as the Principles of this world go. But the Chistian has different political principles not acceptable to power politics. A Christian’s highest values are not those of political freedom and national self-determination, but of spiritual solidarity, courage when threatened, reconciliation, and suffering for righteousness. These are not popular principles and are often not even considered in weighing political issues. After all, who wants to exchange freedom for suffering or love one’senemies instead of preparing for the common defense against them? On this we can learn from the Poles, who have been demonstrating to the world the power of spiritual strength over militarism, just as the Christian church emerged victorious Sver a defeated Roman Empire. Christian faith is political, but its politic transcends that of the powers of this age- Dennis Feucht Thoughts on Healing Ruth Albu The responsibility given us in Matthew 10:8 is a great cone. @nd to be faithful in prayer for an ailing brother oF sister is truly to bear each other's burdens, as Christ Commanded. Mark 9:29 states that the power for carrying out this command is found only in prayer and fasting. But, this does not mean that healing will always occur. Therefore, is there a pattern we can follow? Health and healing, and health and wholeness, are not new areas of discussion in this past decade- Researchers in fedicine, sociology, and psychology have begun to see 3 Correlation between human health and the environment In the Garden of Eden, all was perfect. Health was a state of balance Between biological, emotional, and spiritual existence. Sin upset this balance: Does that then sean we can assume, like the man in John’s gospel (9:1), that sickness is from sin? The Israelites were promised health if they served the Lord and did net follow the ways of their heathen neighbors (Ex ier26, Deut 7:15). When certain illnesses were contracted, the Low gave specific instructions as to the treatment required for example, to quarantine or disinfect. Often, illness was 3 form of judgement from God because of an error. Tho examples Gf men involved in this kind of judgement are Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar. Sin was almost a sure precursor to illness. Job’s fricnds were) well sjustisdedies sol they thoughts fag their accusations. How quickssmen; ais! ta click;his: tongeeye Sisgust at an unfortunate) coulgthaterdstcnabinhale. 055 DFsanmae plagued by a poor resistance to infections, he shoulé eat Pitter, The cause, we conclude, is obvious. If chronic fatigue and mental instability plague a brother, we advise pia qe tie mores just the thing he cannot do. And so, as il! telth befalls him, we nod a reassuring "I told you so.” fonever, the cause/effect relationship is not that simple: Tp eee eeee bak (chap 10:46-52), it was faith again that healed a ree, but Jesus did not touch him. John shares another incident isof healing (921-12). The patient this time had to do something. The methods changed time and time agains the Practitioner remained the same. In Mark 2-25, Jesus spit on a man’s eyes, and he saw though he was blind. The power was not in the particular procedure Christ used, but in Jesus’ touching the man and the man’s faith. It is obvious that God does not "need" medicine but at times He chooses to work through it. The questions to be raised could be numerous. Does God “choose” affliction for His People? Joni Erickson, in her book # Step Further brings an interesting thought forward. We are no different from Job. Satan comes before God and asks Him what we can be tried with It may be a disastrous situation. It may be ill health. But the angels look on - expecting a victory. Why do people who have faith not become healed? We could leap to the conclusion of the man in John 9.1 and proclaim that lack of faith and sin are the causes but the reason is deeper. Such a proclamation usually only serves to degrade the afflicted and elevate the conscience of the person praying a method Job’s friends chose. Why does illness plague certain People and never attack others? Francis McKnutt offers some insights on these topics. I’m sure there are more. We are al created with a specific purpose or plan. Perhaps healing comes; perhaps it doesn’t. The lame man leaped in joy at his good fortune. Paul claimed the Lord’s grace to be sufficient The answer as to why sickness abounds is that we live in an imperfect world. God’s ways are mysterious; and yet one thing is sure: He desires perfection in the area of spiritua well-being for each of us. The Apostolic Christian Church: A&A Friendly View from the Outside Paul Blattner About nine years ago, I, along with Dennis Feucht, one of the editors of this journal, and another friend took an 8500 mile journey by car around North America. (We spent a good deal of time in Canada as well as in the U.S.). Although we visited my family and also camped out several times, many of our nights were spent in the homes of members of the Apostolic Christian Churches. I had previously visited the Portland. Oregon Church on one or two occasions and have also had similar opportunities in later years. But most of my exposure to Apostolic Christian Churches occurred duing that trip.That leads me to one of the first things about the AC Churches that has greatly impressed me. Shortly before our trip began, there was a wedding in Portland. — When we arrived in Washington, D.C. and visited the Church at a mid-week service, everyone knew about the wedding even though it took place 3000 miles away! It seemed as though you were all one family. And you were! That is the point. I have been impressed with the ability of Apostolic Christian people to be a true, loving community across this vast country. 1 don’ = aven know all the people in my own congregation much less feel like part of the same family. Don’t get me wrong. I do have close, family-like relationships with other Christians but you folks seem ta demonstrate it on a national end even international level. I am also impressed at the stable families produced in your Church. I haven’t seen any statistics but I’m sure you fave one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. When we travelled around the country together, it was apparently {though incorrectly) assumed that Dennis was looking for = wife. That seemed a little strange to me but I have no Criticism of a social system which produces stable families: with little or no “dating”. I have only seen something 1ike this once before when I became acquainted with several Christians from India, In that culture even Christian #=aaeoes arrange marriages. I seems to work well, probably because they Know that romantic love is not the essence of true love. Truly caring for your spouse and always choosing their best is the love that cements relationships. the fact about the AC people that impressed me most is that you take seriously the biblical command te “be given to hospitality" (Rom. 12:13). Eyarryishimgls peas aaa received as if we were long-lost foiemde: | Prom seseclc sce Washington, D.C. to Sunday morning crepes before church in Michigan, you proved the assertion I made above that you were a family. You made us feel like a part of that family. Now, permit me to make some theological points. In doing so, I know that my understanding of your theology is limited but I would like to share what I have seen. First, I have noticed your opposition to "easy believism” or cheap grace. There is no hint that just walking down the aisle or repeating seme words makes someone a Christian. In this you are to be Commended. But, if I read your publications correctly, you Sneist. that someone has to go through an almost prescribed spitual" of seeking the Lord that may extend for weeks or months. In this you run the great risk of centering the reality of your salvation on the conversion process rather than on the Cross. Remember, it is Christ’s death that saves us — not our experience, however precious that experience is- I Certainly do not mean to question anyone’s faith or the importance of conversion, but if a person sincerely trustsChrist for salvation and has truly repented, the Bible declares that that person is saved whether or not a long conversion Process or period of seeking has preceded salvation. Consider not only the thief on the cross but also the Philippian jailer. Paul baptized him the very night he first believed - no long Process there. But there was a true conversion. I realize that your emphasis on a period of seeking and conversion stems from both the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers’ insistence that all baptized children are Christians. But please consider that in stressing the conversion pracess to the extent that you do you are in danger of raising it to the status of a ritual! When we were traveling around the country, I noticed a Paper on the bulletin board of one church warning of the dangers of “fraternization". Now, I realize that the purpose of this is to protect the Faith, especially that of the young People. First, consider the word "“fraternization". The dictionary gives two definitions for fraternize. First, it means to “associate in a brotherly manner." It also can mean to "have friendly relations with the enemy." As I understood it, that paper on the bulletin board meant that members of the Church should not have fellowship with Christians of other denominations. This would either mean that we should not relate in a brotherly way to other believers because they go to the wrong Church or have some wrong views, or else it means that other Christians are considered to be “enemy.” Now, I don?t think that most of you would go along with the implication of my last sentence. (The way you treated me on the trip surely showed me that you don’t.) But, when Christians seek to keep the purity of the church by refusing to fellowship with other Christians, several unfortunate things happen. First, we deprive other believers of the insights that God has given tous. I truly value the things I have received from you. But most other believers have never had the opportunities that I have had to get to know you. Secondly, we give unbelievers the notion that Christians don’t love each other. Jesus said that the world would know that the Father had sent the Son by the fact that they could observe real love between Christians (John 17:23). Although visible love does exist within your churches, your policy of avoiding fellowship with other Christians does make Jesus’ Body look fragmented. I'm not talking about liberals and unbelievers. I’m not plugging for the Ecumenical Movement. Other churches (including mine) have plenty of problems both in doctrine and practice. But, don’t we need to help each other work through those problems? = The Lord is working around the world in many places you and I would not expect. If He has blessed us with insights into His Word isn’t it our obligation to share those insights with other believers? Lastly, let's come back to the issue of protecting the Faith by restricting contacts with other Christians. It’s truethat some groups may involve compromise, either morally or doctrinally and should be selectively avoideds = but I think these are the exceptions. And even these believers need our input and counsel when we have an opportunity to give it. But what are we doing on the defensive anyway?! I remember two hymns that illustrate what I am trying to say. One is “Hold the Fort." I think that this is one of the worst hymns ever written, not because it isn’t good singing. But it paints a picture of a few weary souls hidden away in the church trying to keep the world from totally winning. The other is much more biblical. The hymn, “I’m On The Battlefield For My Lord” paints the true picture. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18), Note that the gates never attack. The Lord assumed that we would be attacking. The best way that we can protect the church and the faith of our young people is to teach truth. The Bible is truth. We need to be well-educated in the Word. This means much more than Bible Class. It means hard work figuring out the implications of the faith for all areas of life. It means teaching our young people that Christianity is intellectually respectable. After all, God made our minds as well as our Spirits. This isn’t easy, but I know that it can be done. I haven’t had the chance to attend, but I understand that the Portland AC Church has made some positive steps in these educational areas. My Church needs to do the same. Please understand, my brothers and sisters, that I am sharing these concerns with you in love. You have given much to me and I want to give in return. May the Lord richly bless all of you. Mark 9:14—-29: An Excercise in Reading the Gospels Jim Fodor When we read the gospels it is helpful to bear in mind the process of selection that lies behind them, for the stories @bout Jesus which are included in the evangelists’ accounts Gre, as John 20:50 and 21:25 remind us, only a small selection of a much larger body of material. We read in John 20:30 that “...desus did many ether signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” and, in John 21:25, that "...there are also many other things which Jesus dids were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." What we find in our gospels, then is not an exhaustive account of Jesus’ life but a selective number of happeings in Jesus’ life which the respective evangelists have arranged in a particular order so as to convey certain 7important theological truths about our Lord. As with the writing of history, so with he writing of a gospel account, the process of selecting what mterials to include and what materials to omit plays a necessary and unavoidable part. For, after all, history writing cannot record ali the details} it cannot write down all the things done and all the words spoken during the time of which it deals. If history were written thus, then all our libraries would not be able to contain the occurrences of one single week in the life of the world. No history (and indeed no gospel account) can present us with a complete and exhaustive record of everything that actually happened in the life of Jesus. There is, consequently, a certain “art of selection” behind all history-writing and all gospel writing: and the finest histories are those “which exhibit such parts of the truth as most nearly produce the effect of the whole."* The selection process behind our gospels took place, of course, at many levels and at different stages. First of all, it took place at the level of the memory of the eyewitnesses: that is, only certain events that happened in Jesus” life made an indelible impression on the minds and hearts of those that witnessed them. Hence, only certain significant events tended to be remembered. Secondly, the selection process took place at the level of oral tradition. That is to say, while the Gospel was still being passed on orally and before it was *fixed’ in writing, there was a certain shaping and molding of the material by those who preached it. Thirdly, selection took place at the level of the compilation of any written sources the gospel writers might have had. In other words, the evangelists may have had access to certain documents (for example, collections of the sayings of Jesus) when they wrote their own gospels. Certainly a comparison between the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke? reveals a good deal of common material. This material is not only similar in content but much of it is identical in nature, even in its vocabulary and grammatical construction! Finally, the process of selection took place at the level of the actual composition of the individual gospels as we now have them} that is, each gospel writer arranged his material in his own distinctive way to accomplish his individual purposes and therefore each gospel bears its own stylistic and theoretical features. Conscious and deliberate attention to this selection process is of great and indispensible value when reading our gospels. Whenever we come across an episode, a self-contained story in the life of Jesus (such as Mk 9.14-29), and if we want to understand his message for us today, then one of the most effective procedures is to ask ourselves what feature or features of this story would have struck the Christians of the first century as especially significant and so contributed to its preservation, particularly when so much was allowed to be forgotten? This story of Jesus’ healing of the boy with anevil spirit seems to have been remembered and preserved by the early church because it conveys three central truths of the Christian faith. I want te argue that this story tells us something of great value concerning (a) the person of Jesus Christ, (b) the nature of the coping of our Lord, and (c) the nature of faith. The Person of Jesus Christ It seems to me that the early Christians must have valued this story, first of all, for the light which it sheds upon the person of Jesus Christ. This miracle, like all the other miracles of Jesus, was a testimony to those who had faith of the mystery of his person. The fact of the miracle is, of course, not decisive in itself. There were many “miracle workers" and Jesus consistently refused the temptation to work miracles as proofs of his divine authority. We read that when the Pharisees came to Jesus to test Him by requesting of Him a sign from heaven, Jesus was deeply grieved and replied: "Why does this generation seek for assign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation." (Mk 8:12). Neither did Jesus work miracles in order to frighten unbelief into a sort of belief as, when dying on the cross, the bystanders reviled Him saying, "Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." (Mk 15:32) Miracle-working was not, for Jesus, a matter of cheap showmanship. But at the same time Jesus did regard His miracles as signs to those whe had eyes to see. On one occasion Jesus told those who witnessed His miracles to go and tell John the Baptist that “the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.“ (Mt 11:5). The underlying assumption here seems to be that from this evidence John was to infer something about the person of Jesus. Likewise, we too are being asked to infer something about the person of Jesus from His healing of this little boy. What was significant for the early church was the fact that the cure in itself bore witness to the divine authority and power important truth by a number of stylistic touches in his account of the incident. In v. 15 Mark tells us that the crowd was “greatly amazed" (exoqfes) | when they saw Jesus. This is a puzzling remark. Why should the crowd be “greatly amazed" at the sight of Jesus? Was it because Jesus’ face was still shining after the transfiguration on the mountain (Mk 9. 2-13) like Moses’ face shone after he came down to the people? Or was it because Jesus had come upon them so suddenly and unexpectedly, right in the middle of their intense discussion with the disciples, that the crowd was so alarmed? Although both of these suggestions are possible explanations, neither of them seems likely. Rather, we note that where expressions of fear and amazement occur in Mark’s gospel, they serve taemphasize some revelational content or point to the significance of the person of Jesus. For example, we read where Jesus went into a synagogue on the Sabbath and healed a man with an unclean spirit, that the people were all “amazed” (Mk 1:27), Or, after Jesus was teaching His disciples about how hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God, we read that the disciples were "amazed" at His words (Mk 10:24). Or, directly afterwards, when they were journeying on the road with Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, the disciples were once again “amazed” (Mk 10:32). Or after Jesus answered the Pharisees and Herodians when they tried te trap Him with subtle questions, we read how the disciples were amazed’ (Mk 12217). Or when the women entered Jesus’ tomb only to find Him gone, Mark tells us that they were “amazed” (Mk 16:5). The amazement of the multitude likewise seems to fall into this pattern; it suggests that the crowd recognized in Jesus something more than just an ordinary man. In fact, this is confirmed and reinforced by the words of Jesus Himself. In v. 23 the words, “all things are possible", are found on Jesus” lips. For Jesus, indeed, all things are possible. The same expression is used in Mk 10:27 with reference to God. "With man it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God." All-mightiness is a characteristic of God. For Jesus all things are possible precisely because He is God. It was God"s majesty that the crowd saw manifested in Jesus and this is what caused them te be “greatly amazed. The story also furnishes an indication of Christ’s motive for performing miracles. The father in his distress implores Jesus: "Have pity on us and help us." (v. 22) The fact that Jesus does help suggests that He has compassion. The verb "to have compassion" is, in Mark’s gospel, only used of Jesus (cf. 1:41, 6:34, 8:2, 9:2). It denotes not a mere sentiment, but something which expresses itself and shows itself in active assistance. Compassion always leads to help. We must see in this story and in other miracles of healing (and also to miracles of feeding) the motive of compassion. All are signs of divine pity. This story, then, was valued by the early church primarily because it was a testimony to the person of Christ. It told them of Jesus’ divine power and authority, of His Compassion for His people. And this part of its messge is no less true, no less relevant, for us. Indeed, we too can receive it as a Promise and an assurance that, just as Jesus was for this father and his son in their deep distress, so He still is and will be for us in our own times of affliction and need. But this miracle account also tells us something else about our Lord, namely, the nature of His coming. The Coming of Our Lord We have to realize that when Mark was writing his gospel, 10Jesus was no longer with His disciples in the old way. He had already ascended to be with God the Father. He was not with them as aman in flesh and blood, and they could no longer see or touch Him. Indeed, they must have know the temptations of wistful loneliness, of longing for the old days when Jesus had been with them in the flesh. There is, then, a special feature of this story which must have endeared it to them. Just as the time when Jesus had sent them on ahead in a boat across the lake after He had fed the 5000 and later came to them walking on the water at night, so too Jesus had once again come to His disciples after being away on the Mount of Transfiguration. In a sense, this story signified to them a precious promise of the coming of the Lord. It reminded the disciples of Jesus’ coming to them unseen, through the Holy Spirit and of His final coming in glory. Here again the feature that is likely to have struck the early church is also a clue to the story’s message for ourselves. It is still a promise of the coming Lord. — This passage challenges us to expect Jesus - not only at special times or appointed places (like on Sunday morning worship or at our evening prayers) - but whenever and wherever we, His disciples, are seeking to obey His commands and to be His witnesses. In fact, it is precisely during those times when the wind is against us or when we are faced, like the disciples of old, by the needs and distress of the world and are conscious of our powerlessness to meet it, that we are to be comforted and emboldened, just like the early church was, till at last He comes in glory. This, then, is the second feature of the story which probably caused it to be remembered and recorded by the evangelist. But there is yet a third characteristic to this account which no doubt impressed the early Christians. The Nature of Faith This episode, it seems to me, must have had much to tell the early Christians about the nature of faith. There is first of all a powerful lesson about the disciples” lack of faith. (cf. ve 19). While Jesus was away on the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples were faced with the desperation and need of the world in the persons of the father and his son — just as today we, the church, are faced with men’s distress and perplexity. The father had brought his boy to Jesus but, finding that Jesus is absent, he not unnaturally thinks that the disciples who are associatd with Him may be able to do something. Similarly, today men look to us who are associated with Christ, we who are called "Christians", with an anxious expectancy. Indeed, even the scorn and sarcasm that we often receive are only a thin disguise for a secret hope that perhaps the church may, in some way or other, be able to help. The disciples try to cast out the evil spirit, and fail. It was not that they did not expect ato succeed - they did. Their lack of faith did not consist in any failure to expect great things. On the contrary, they tried, because they thought that they would succeed. After all, had not Christ given them authority to heal the sick and to cast out demons? What is more, had they not themselves seen and witnessed and experienced the success of that power on many previous occasions? Had they not returned after being sent out two-by-two and excitedly reported ta Jesus all they had done and taught? (Mk 6:7-13) @nd now, having tried to cast the evil spirit out of the boy, they failed and were painfully embarassed. It would have been better for them had they not tried anything and had told the father to wait until Jesus came back. But, as it is, they are extremely discomfited. | Then Jesus returns and saves the situation. But afterwards, when they are in the house, the disciples ask Him, “Why could we nat cast it out?" We can almost hear the unspoken thoughts behind the disciples’ | question. “Why had He who had given them power before let them down now? Why had God’s gift proved inadequate and unreliable?" Jesus gives the answer: "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer."* By “prayer Jesus means not merely prayer as a pious exercise. It was not a lack of Pious practices that was the trouble, but something much more radical. It was a complete misunderstanding of the manner of God*s giving. They had thought that Christ’s gift was a matter of routine — they thought that His power was given to them in such a way that they culd dispose of it at will, they could produce it out of their sleeves when they wanted. But they had to learn that divine power is never given to men in that way. God’s power does not work like magic. Rather, it has ever to be asked for afresh ("by prayer") and received afresh. It can never be reduced to a matter of human routine. It is idle for us to imagine that we can possess it and store it up for future use. That is to make the same mistake as the Israelites made about the manna. (Ex 16) When they thought to store it for future use and to save themselves the bother of fresh gathering, it bred worms and began to smell. For us to trust in God's power in the sense that we imagine that we have it in cur control and at our disposal, is tantamount to unbelief for it is really to trust in ourselves instead of God. What Jesus means by “prayer", then, is the sense of complete dependence on God at alI times and in al1 circumstances. How relevant this is to our situation! How easily do we make the very mistake the disciples made! When we have tried to substitute our comfortably secure routine of making “prayers' for humble and continuous dependence on God, our pious phrases become a mere “abracadabra", and we are powerless to help others in their need. And when we experience failure, are we not prone to fall to questioning among ourselves, to blaming others for what went wrong or, worse still, to blaming our failures on to some inadequacy or unreliability of the gift Of Christ? Instead, we need to listen again to Christ”s answer ieand to bring ourselves and our Christian life under the criticism of this passage. How often are our hands so full of our splendid past successes and victories that we are unable to receive the gift that God wants to give us — anew? = This passage bids us take with full seriousness the warning of John 15:5 - “apart from Me you can do nothing" - realizing that it points to a relationship with Christ that is not a fossilized past experience or a stereotyped matter of routine, but that it is a constantly renewed personal relationship of humble dependence of asking and receiving. That is faithful prayer. The second thing that this passage has to say about faith is found in v. 23. During Jesus” absence an attitude of self-confidence had possessed the disciples but this only exposed them to failure. What is more, their inability to cure his son appears to have shaken the father’s confidence in Jesus’ ability to do anything. Thus he asks with some doubt and hesitation, "If you can do anything, have pity on us and help us." (v 22) Jesus seizes upon the father’s words and repeats them indignantly in order to rebuke the lack of faith to which they give expression. However, Jesus is more concerned te rally the father’s faith than to scold him for his doubt and unbelief. He is encouraging the father to that type of faith which had originally moved him to seek Jesus for help but which had been greviously damaged as aresult of the disciples’ failure. (Indeed, how often is it that men’s faith is damaged by our failures!) In other words, Jesus is unwilling to do what the father asks until He has re-established in him some measure of faith. Verse 23, then, can be paraphrased, “Why do you say, “if you can!? Why, all things are possible to him who believes." Jesus is addressing the father’s doubt about His ability to help his son and He is saying in effect that “everything depends upon your ability to believe, not on my ability to act." That is to say, the father is setting limits to what can be accomplished through the power of God, and what Jesus is attempting to do is revive this poor man’s faith. In the gospels faith is constantly mentioned in connection with Jesus’ miracles. This does not mean that Jesus could not heal a person unless the patient (or someone on his behalf) had faith. Jesus no doubt could work miracles for those who had no faith at all; but normally He did not, because He did not want to be a mere miracle-worker, but to save people. And for this a personal relationship between a person and Jesus was necessary; that is, faith. From this reluctance of Jesus to work miracles except where some faith is present, we may learn the lesson that Jesus will not be made use of for our own purposes; Jesus will not be used by us as a mere means to an end. Rather, He wants to enter into a personal faith-relationship with us. Therefore, as important as it is for us to help others in whatever way we can, we must not be content until we have helped them to a real faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, it is of no ultimate help to heal a 13person’s disease or lift him out of his poverty or free him from oppression if we cannot lead him to a personal faith in Jesus Christ. But there is still more about faith in v. 23. Jesus says to the father, “All things are possible to him who believes”, which is best taken to mean, "A man who has faith will not set any lamits to what I can do". That is, "If you had faith, you wouldf@ast doubts upon what I can do, you would net set limits to my power." The issue is not Jesus’ ability (for indeed all things are possible for Him), but the father’s uncertainty about what can be accomplished through the power of God. In Gther words, true Christian faith means believing that nothing fs impossible for Jesus Christ. Faith knows that a single word from Jesus is mightier than all the world beside. In this light what does our faith often look like? How often has our faith failed to grasp the full power of God? In fact, how often has our faith been little more than unbelief? Finally, the father’s cry, “I believes help my unbelief !", has something further to teach us about faith. Faith is indeed an energetic, insistent, grasping after the help of God, a grasping that will not take no for an answer, a wrestling with God like Jacob’s. Faith is an activity of the believer. But this is only one aspect of a much greater whole. The father does believe, but he is honest enough and realistic enough to know that his faith is but a poor, inadequate thing and mixed with unbelief. And that which he had to acknowledge, we need to acknowledge too. We are believers - yes, but at the same time unbelief is subtly inertwined with our faith. Because this is so we are not to put our trust in our own activity of trusting; we are not to believe in our own believings we are net to rely on our own hold on God. Rather, we are to trust in His grace and in fis hold onus. It is like a young child who is first learning to walk and who needs the support of his parent. The child grabs on to his father’s hand and ventures his first few steps. He squeezes his father’s hand tightly because he does not want to fall, but to walk! But it would be a mistake for the child to suppose that it was his grasp and not the father’s that actually holds him up. Likewise with our relationship to God: it is not so much cur hold on God by faith that sustains us but God’s hold on us by His faithfulness. We are to rely on God alone and not partly on our reliance on Him. We are not to elevate our own faith (insofar as it is our activity), our own experience of God, into an object of faith. When we do that, we are guilty of idolatry. The father in this episode believes. In fact, faith from his side seems to be a requisite for the healing of his sons but it is not upon the fact of his belief, but upon the love and compassion and pity of Jesus, that he ultimately relies. Conclusion Aside from the very important truths that Mk 4-29 has 14to teach us about the person of Jesus Christ, the nature of His coming and the nature of faith, this miracle account reflects a Process of selection that took place at various levels and at different stages in the life of the early church. A study of the process of gospel-formation is not to be regarded as of lesser value or of secondary interest in comparison to the explication or exposition of its theological teaching. Rather, the two are complementary and closely intertwined. It is hoped that this “exercise in readig the gospels" will help the reader to appreciate more fully the nature and the importance of each individual episode within the gospels and help him read it “under standingly- Notes 1. Thomas Babington Macaulay, Miscellaneous Essays & Lays of Ancient Rome (London: J.M. Dent & Sns, Ltd., 1860) p 8. 2. The Authorized Version and other earlier translations of the Bible add the phrase “and fasting" to the end of v 29. However, the best manuscript evidence does not support this reading. In light of the increasing stress in the early church on the necessity of fasting, it is understandable that xa: vrerecx is a gloss which found its way into most witnesses. The same sort of accretion has taken place in some of the manuscripts bearing witness to 1 Cor. 7:5. (cf. Bruce M. Metzger, @ Textual Compentary on the Greek New Testament, (United Bible Societies) third edition, p. 101. ACC Journal Subscription Form Please send me the ACC Journal. Enclosed is $5.00 to cover printing and mailing costs. Please print or type? NAME CITY/STATE _. _ ZIPCODE 15