Hey Brad,
An excellent post.  Very thought-provoking.  I have to think and pray about
this one before I reply.
Vinny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad D" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:19 PM
Subject: Affliction: God's doing or the devils?


> Reading the devotion Kathy posted, and the  various responses.  I wondered
> what do we know about affliction?  No offense to anyone, these are just
> observations that came to me again through passed studies and meditating
> on them. On one hand we say that God, regarding one certain
> affliction,  wants us this way and not to be healed, and on another hand
> holds yet another affliction, that we not ought have to live this
> way.  Are we selectively picking out afflictions for our own purposeful
> reason as to why they exist? Blindness is of god, and depression of the
> devil? Is not affliction simply affliction? Jesus healed those thrashing
> about in seizures, those blind, those with leprosy, those with lameness,
> deformed arms, bent over woman, woman with  a blood issue, not to mention
> raised a few from the dead as well. Peter, Paul, and OK Mary, since that
> is the trio you old timers were thinking anyway *smile*, Well Peter and
> Paul anyway and not Mary, followed suit in such healing. So what about
> affliction. Can we separate depression from blindness, from lameness, from
> blood disease, from cancer, from heart disease, from high blood pressure
> from acid reflux for that matter? Is God the maker and cause of them all?
> Is the devil the cause of them all? Can we selectively choose who we feel
> is the cause of them based upon our own particular situation or theology
> which we've adjusted to accommodate the tragedy? Can we choose to believe
> one affliction is of God and meant to be with us because we see no other
> way of rationalizing its eminant lack of healing? And can we see in yet
> another affliction, a potential cure or way out and so blame that one on
> the devil with reasonably reassurance it will be overcome through modern
> medicine. In short, hopeless cure equals God wants me this way, and
> reasonable to good chance a cure will be on  its way, so we safely
> proclaim victory over the devil's work. If  a man of God walked up to me
> and healed me of my blindness, can I say then that god made me blind for
> his glory, or do I say it is of God's glory I was healed. Do I read
> scripture in the old testament which says that blind, deaf, and afflicted,
> god made them all, and believe that to mean he made me blind, or simply
> that he made me, and my blindness is of  another cause. Over the years
> I've seen folks, particularly in the blind community I guess because I'm
> part of it, that folks tend to  start off with a faith that God can, will
> and is able to heal them, but cannot reason it out of "why", "why doesn't
> God do it then". And so make assumption that he wants us this way.
> Similarly to the depressed pastor in the article. I agree David had his
> moments of great depression, but just as much he had tremendous strength
> leadership and boldness. I'm not certain I'd want to follow a pastor who
> struggles to get up and lead his flock much less feed himself or go on
> with a normal day, and then to believe it takes more faith to endure it
> than be healed of it.  I do agree in one sense that it takes more faith to
> endure, that is true but that too does not equate a reason to cuddle the
> thoght God wants him this way. It takes more faith to endure the
> affliction than to give up to it and follow it's path of least resistance.
> In this case, this pastor would  lessen his faith and succumb to laying
> around in bed, show up unkempt where ever he goes, and perhaps even take
> his own life. That is no life of leisure and quite miserable, yet takes no
> faith. It does take faith to endure it, try to over come it, and in the
> case of the pastor, indeed there are ways to overcome it which I hope he
> does find. Relating to blindness how is this different? Do we not find it
> easier to succumb to the affliction as we see it remain in our lives and
> give up on seeking god's healing hand, and fall into the comfort zone of
> stating God wants me this way to use me? Sure God can use us where ever we
> are, but he certainly don't need me to be blind to minister to the blind,
> or sighted for that matter. It does however take tremendous faith to stand
> in faith that perhaps it is not necessarily our faith that is preventing
> us from being healed, but perhaps our lining up with god's will in our
> life? In James I believe it says that some will not get what they've asked
> for because they will use it for ways which are not of God's will or word.
> Is it possible that we yes, need to have faith to be healed, for without
> it we cannot be saved, why should we think differently of healing, and
> that perhaps we too need to continue to shout to god from the streets and
> seek to line up our lives towards his will and out of our persitence and
> obedicne to his word, he might one day in fact heal us. Now I will say
> that does not constitute the opposite, making healing our God and not God
> our god, that is not balance either. But what of it? Is our afflictions
> here on Earth of God? Of the devil? Or up to us to selectively plant
> responsibility on one or the other based upon how we wish to interpret it
> or have it fit our theology enough that we can reasonably find our way
> through life.
>
> Brad