Geraldine's and Spitfire's several questions have brought this topic to mind. I hope we will look very carefully into scripture to see 'where' 'when' and 'who' Jesus healed (as well as 'how') and compare this with our experience.For many years the preaching I heard did not address my need for inner healing, with a clarity which I could recognise through the fog of continual strivings to 'arrive' at a place of peace, where I could honestly say I knew God had given me what I believed could be received from Him (by way of salvation). I did not know what was missing, I just knew I did not have it! It was terrifying to begin to acknowledge the undeniable persistence of this indefinable issue to myself only. There were good reasons for this fear and partly, that is my point. Retrospectively, I can take full responsibility for my part in my deafness, but remain confident there are many more like me out there! I would like preachers to take greater responsibility for covering this aspect of gospel ground more thoroughly. Is that fair?Having eventually received many layers of healing over time, I am more convinced of its importance to the church, but, I have also heard of an evangelist who does not 'believe in' healing. I see this is as a reason some people don't enter the Kingdom more easily; then, they are branded - lovingly? - as 'sinners' 'disobedient' 'apathetic' or 'weak'. Subsequently, when those seriously in need have not had the life-changing experience they were promised, they rightly sense they have nothing to report despite putting their faith in Jesus for forgiveness of sin(s) and believing for eternal life. And then, those outside the church have even less chance of 'hearing' words which will connect them to a meaningful salvation.The effect of failing to make healing an area of expertise within the church is one reason church members seem to go hot and cold, show promise and enthusiasm - then run out of steam, lack motivation and find excuses not to serve. It cannot all be put down to pure selfishness or lack of vision. There are good spiritual reasons to get a handle on.Precisely because this could be an emotive discussion it's in the Lounge where I hope we can keep a relaxed and compassionate perspective on the issues which may arise if we are honest. I do want this to stir us up to greater faith and understanding. :)I found this useful extract on the internet...In both Hebrew and English, the word ‘healing’ is related to the word ‘whole’. In Greek, the word sozo means both to save and to heal.God identified himself to us from the beginning as a God who heals (Exodus 15.26). The healing he offers is a comprehensive one which eventually will touch spirit, soul and body (1 Thessalonians 5.23). To know God is to receive life, abundant life, spiritual life which may, even in this world of death, prove itself in the healing of both emotional and physical pain (John 10.37-38). That is a message which is of profound interest to the many people both inside and outside the church who are looking for a faith that works. Healing is both metaphor and reality, and it is not intended as an ‘in-house perk’ for Christians – it is a fundamental expression of the gospel itself.Back to the drawing boardIf healing and evangelism are to be regarded together as ways of offering the wholeness which God wishes to bring us, what implications does that carry for our own practice?..For the complete article: http://www.alisonmorgan.co.uk/Healing%20and%20evangelism.htm QuestionsHow much is it the responsibility of the individual believer to lay hold of the healing they need, from God Himself, after believing the gospel and, how much is it the responsiblity of the evangelist to declare and minister this truth to the uncommitted heart? Is there any scriptural reason we should require commitment from comers-to-Jesus-for-healing before they have received healing?
