Diversion

Taking a break from the discussion of the Scriptures for a couple of thoughts.

I’m a little confused by the fact that Jesus also seemed pretty unconcerned about “big issues.”

He fed 5,000, but didn’t really do anything to address world hunger. He headed many sick, but only a few by the pool at Bethesda (can you imagine being one of the sick there who didn't get healed?). I wonder why that is.

He healed people, but did not walk through the hospitals healing. He fed thousands, but did not address world hunger. He all but ignored political oppression.

It seems to me that if you read very carefully, Jesus seems to have this near-hesitation about healing. He does it. But in only one case that I can think of (Lazarus) does He go out of His way to do it.

In many cases, He sees to almost be unwilling or unconcerned about it. "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy." And they get healed only when others step in to say "please make them shut up." Or take the guy on the mat at Peter's house. Jesus doesn't even seem to intend to heal him until the Pharisees complain about the fact that Jesus pronounced forgiveness.

It wasn't as though Jesus doesn't seem to want to heal or that He is really unwilling. I'd say the feeling I get is more of indifference.

The Centurion's servant: the religious leaders seem to almost have to drag Jesus along -- not that I think He resisted, but it's not like He saw the Centurion coming from afar and jumped up to meet him.
The 10 lepers: Go show yourselves to the priests.
The pool of Siloam: Go wash off the clay.

It wasn't as though He ever said "no." But there just feels like He didn't go out of his way to say "yes" either.

Even the preaching. It's a story of Jesus trying to avoid the crowds as much as of His preaching to them. Time and time again, He's taking the disciples to sneak away. And when He preaches, it's because He has "compassion for the crowds because they were like sheep without a Shepard," not because He was anxious to impart wisdom to them. It's as though He didn't plan on saying anything, but the crowds just were so helpless and harassed, that He felt like He needed to.

I've wondered why. I think it's because His focus was just different. There's a verse in the King James which reads that Jesus "must needs" go to Jerusalem. I think that was what He was all about. The rest was just window dressing. It's not that He didn't care about the people, but He didn't come to do that. He didn't come to preach or heal, but to save.

If the gospel is just a single line in a book, if salvation is just a matter of “believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved”, if it all comes down to a fact that you have to hear and accept, then I suppose you could argue that God must not be a very good publicist.

If it all boils down to one line, one piece of information, one commitment, then shouldn’t Jesus have been born in time square on New Years of they year 1999? Rather than in an obscure village in a remote part of an ancient empire?
I mean, isn’t it almost as though God wasn’t very concerned about getting the word out – at least not quickly.
True, He sent the Apostles. But only a few, and they traveled on foot. What about the people who died on the earth before the gospel “got to them” ?

… Or maybe there’s more than that. Maybe the healing and the preaching and the timing is bigger than we see.
Maybe God is less concerned with the information you have and more concerned with what you do about it. The Great Commission itself doesn’t say “Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the gospel,” it says “Go ye therefore in to all the world and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.”
That’s a lot different from what we hear today. And maybe this explains why it’s all about the people who bring the gospel, rather than a list of facts. An angel could tell people “believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved,” but how could and angel teach those people how to obey all that He’s commanded? How could an add in the newspaper? Or a sign on a billboard?

Perhaps it is the same with all of Jesus' preaching. Sure, it was helpful. But it wasn't about the words "do unto others," it was about the cross that changes lives.
And maybe that was true of the healing too. It wasn't that Jesus was unwilling, perhaps, but that He had something else in mind. After all, what would be the point of healing without salvation? Or what would be the point of teaching without the example?

And, indeed, perhaps we can learn from this too. Perhaps it is not about the physical things we do, or the money we give , or even the people we help, but the spirit of love and renewal and rebirth with which we do it.
And perhaps it is not about filling our churches or getting people to sign doctrinal statements but about living inspired lives.

I've often wondered what would happen if we, like St. Francis, "preached the gospel always, even using words when really needed".

What if someone came to us and said they wanted to become a Christian. And rather than getting all exited and getting them to hurry up and pray before they changed their minds and walk down an aisle on Sunday morning... what if we said "no".
What if we said "you're not ready -- you don't understand what it means".
What if we said "consider the cost.... it is a narrow way you must come... to follow means to pick up your cross daily... to find your life, you must first loose it".

I wonder what the effect would be if we reacted more like the way Christ seem to sometimes (at least to me). If we said "oh? well... if you reeealllly want to be a Christian, then I guess I can help". It seems like we're so far to the other end of the extreme sometimes -- almost begging people or threatening them.

I wonder if we did this, if we would win more souls or fewer? Or perhaps the same? And I wonder if our churches would be more or less devoted.
Perhaps, you value what is hard to get? And you treasure what you really understand.