Many theologians have attempted to understand sin
in the context of God’s foreknowledge and predestination. The works of
Augustine, Scotus, and Calvin are examples of this line of thought. More
recently, some theologians have advocated a view of sinfulness in which God
(perhaps by choice) is without foreknowledge of our actions and thus moves and
suffers with us as we sin or evolve. Clark Pinnock, William Hasker, and David
Basinger are among those who argue for the “openness of God.”[1]
Just as Calvin and others would argue from
Scripture for the omniscience of God across eternity,[2] so
the advocates of “openness” argue from Scripture that a God who can change His
mind or regret an action cannot know the future.[3]
Both of these positions (and variations within them) can lead to paralysis in
healing prayer, the first because of the fear that everything is already
determined anyway, and the second because God may not be perceived as able or
willing to help. This paper acknowledges but will not attempt to critique or
weigh the relative merit of these contrasting views. Not only are the details
and areas of disagreement and debate substantial, but they are also outside the
scope of this project.
The approach in Resurrection’s training is
substantially and intentionally much simpler: Sin hurts people, and this has
lasting consequences. “Sin is not only an act of wrongdoing but a state of
alienation from God.… It signifies the rupture of a personal relationship with
God, a betrayal of the trust He places in us.”[4]
According to this definition, wrongdoing and the consequent alienation from God
are the essence of sin. The way it’s “supposed to be” is life as God designed
it: a holy, unfractured wholeness, with people in intimate communion with Him.
People are sinners because they commit wrongful acts, and these acts alienate
them from God.
While there may be sins that involve no physical
action (e.g., Matthew 5:28: “I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust
for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”), the sins in
view in this study are primarily those that involve the harm and exploitation
of others and the consequences that flow from what Cornelius Plantinga calls
“evil acts” that “violate shalom.”[5]
These consequences can be addressed through human acts (aid, counsel, and
medicine, for example) and by seeking—through prayer—direct intervention from
God. This understanding is accepted and testified to by those who minister
healing prayer, and it is taught during trainings.
Sin and Victims
There are two sides to sin: the sinners and the
sinned against. All people are both, sometimes even as the consequence of the
same sin. Nevertheless, the church must recognize that there are some, like
murderers and rapists, who are egregious sinners, and others, like victims of
rape or violence or those oppressed by evil regimes, who are profoundly sinned
against. For such individuals the issues of confession, forgiveness, salvation,
and sanctification take on extra dimensions and demand serious reexamination.
The ministry of Jesus eloquently testifies to this. The powerful, the
self-righteous, and those who cheated others were the targets of His anger,
while the poor, weak, and powerless—the suffering and oppressed—were the
principal audience for His proclamation of the Good News and were the primary
objects of His healing.[6]
Theologian
Andrew Park has given the West a name for the oppressed and their condition: han.[7] It
is a Korean word that as a common noun refers to a state of oppression and
victimization that is a consequence of sin against a person, whether the cause
is an individual or an institution. It also refers to those who suffer even in
the absence of someone who has sinned against them, such as victims of polio,
accidents, or natural disaster. As a proper noun, Han refers
to the victims of sin and other innocent sufferers.[8] It
also is used to refer to victims who are the cause of, or are complicit in,
their own suffering.
Though an extrabiblical term (not unlike Trinity), han is a useful, single, short word for
a broad category. Park explains it this
way:
There is hope at the very foundation of our existence.… Hope is the window of the soul. That is, when we look out and look forward, we can exist. When it is frustrated, hope turns into han, a psychosomatic pain. Han produces sadness, resentment, aggression, and helplessness.… It is the hardened heart that is grieved by oppression and injustice.… When people are betrayed by those they have trusted, they become hopeless and experience despair. Children who have been abused often mistrust their parents and fall into hopelessness and despair. This hopelessness is not sin but han.[9]
The book of Exodus provides an early and essential
insight into the nature of the Han. After the Israelites moved into
Egypt, the Egyptians, who had been saved from famine by Joseph’s prophecy and
wisdom, accepted them as neighbors, and the Israelites apparently enjoyed
comfortable lives. But later a king arose in Egypt who did not remember Joseph,
and he enslaved the Israelites and made their lives bitter and hard. God was
not punishing them, and they had done nothing to harm the Egyptians.
Nevertheless, they were stripped of rights, oppressed, and abused. They became
hopeless; they entered han; they
became Han.
Their attitudes were emblematic of Han: They did not believe that God would
rescue them, and when Moses interceded for them with Pharaoh, they accused him
of making their lives worse. They preferred to remain in han rather than endure the travail needed to free them, even though
God promised to prevail on their behalf. Even Moses, the one God called and
equipped to lead them to freedom and abundance, was afraid of the victimizers
and considered himself incompetent to lead the Israelites.
If sin is the state of the sinner, han is the state of the sinned against
and the suffering. There are sinners, and there are Han. Both need forgiveness, salvation, and loving, healing
ministry, but the nature of the ministry to each is quite different.
Acknowledging this can deepen insights gained from Scripture and may even open
up some Scriptures that, like Numbers 14, have previously seemed opaque,
confusing, or troubling, particularly as Scripture seldom testifies to a causal
connection between sin and the suffering of disease.[10]
The observation that all people are both sinners
and Han should not become an easy
excuse for perpetrators of evil acts. It will not do to say, “I could not help
myself. I am a victim, and I was acting out of my pain.” When victimhood is
real and deep, it needs to be acknowledged, but it should not serve as an
excuse for people who do not want to face up to their own sinfulness. When
people sin, they are culpable, and they need to be forthright in confessing it
regardless of their circumstances.
On the other hand, the victims of sin should not
be led to confess guilt or complicity if it is not there. Nor should they be
summarily dismissed because some people are unwilling to believe, for example,
that an upstanding, educated adult would sexually abuse a child, even though
that is often the case.[11]
This is self-evidently true in the lives of those who were abused as children,
but it is often true in other circumstances as well. It can be damaging to the
individual who was harmed, and to his or her understanding of God’s justice, to
imply or insist that he or she must have been a willing participant in a sin in
which he or she was simply a victim.
Thus, the sinned against must neither be pushed to
confess nor be condemned for something they did not cause. Equally, the victimizers
should not be carelessly excused because they claim victim status themselves. Both
issues must be dealt with in each person. Every individual is sinner and
sinned against, victimizer and victim, the cause of suffering and a sufferer.
Jesus demonstrated this caution in His encounter with a man blind from birth:
Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.” (John 9:1–3)
Here Jesus says that this man’s han, his suffering, is not the result of anyone’s sin. His
blindness is his condition, and Jesus heals it, revealing the works of God.
This should be a chastening reminder to those who believe in karma and imagine
that disease is always the outcome of or punishment for sin.[12]
All people who have understood their own sinfulness
and accepted the forgiveness offered freely through the sacrifice of Jesus
naturally want others to experience the freedom and release this brings.[13]
This is the reason Christians devote their lives to ministering in prisons,
working with addicts, supporting missions, and holding Bible studies in their
homes. It is the reason they gather with others to praise and worship God. They
have understood and accepted the Good News, and they want to share it. This is
the very foundation of our civilization, at least in principle.[14]
The Han—and
this includes the average person as well as those greatly sinned against—also
need this Good News. Like all people, they are sinners in need of redemption,
prisoners of their own sinfulness in need of freedom and release. But they are
also prisoners of the sin of others, bound spiritually, emotionally, and often
physically by the actions of others. This means they also need healing and
release from the sin done to them. Unfortunately, they are often invisible in
our congregations, their complaints seemingly unwelcome and their needs largely
ignored.[15]
Healing does not come automatically when the sinned
against confess their own sins; it is not a product of their being forgiven,
although being forgiven can be the beginning of the journey to healing.[16]
One illustration of the distinction between being forgiven and being healed is
found in all three synoptic gospels. Here it is as it appears in the book of
Mark:
Again He entered Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that He was in the house. Immediately many gathered together, so that there was no longer room to receive them, not even near the door. And He preached the word to them. Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men. And when they could not come near Him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where He was. So when they had broken through, they let down the bed on which the paralytic was lying. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.” And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!” (2:1–12)
This encounter is rich with implications, both for
forgiveness and healing. Jesus was preaching to
a crowd that filled a house and spilled into the street. After four of His
listeners heard the Word, they attempted to bring their paralytic friend closer
to Jesus. When they could not get themselves and the bed through the crowd,
they cleverly pulled open the roof and lowered their friend next to Jesus. They
had heard the Word and responded to it by faith, thinking that Jesus would heal
their friend. Instead, Jesus pronounced forgiveness: “When Jesus saw their
faith, He said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven you’” (v. 5).
In doing this, Jesus challenged their
understanding of who He is. The Good News of God’s willingness to forgive was
proclaimed, sinners in faith accepted it, and forgiveness was granted. It is a
familiar pattern to modern believers as this is exactly what sinners throughout
the world have experienced, generation after generation. It is what we believe
and teach about God’s provision for sinners. But it was a new teaching then,
and some of the scribes present considered it blasphemy: “Some of the scribes
were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, ‘Why does this Man speak
blasphemies like this?’” (v. 6).
Why blasphemy? Because according to the Law, only
the sinned against or God can forgive sins, and since this man had not sinned
against Jesus, His forgiveness of the man’s sins was an assertion that He was
God. And this, the scribes reasoned, was blasphemy.
The paralytic was still on his bed, not healed,
and Jesus knew what the scribes were thinking, so He challenged them even
further: “Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier,
to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise, take
up your bed and walk’?” (v. 8–9).
Well, which is easier to say? It does not take any
power simply to say, “Your sins are forgiven you,” but it clearly takes divine
power to heal a paralytic and send him walking home carrying his own litter.
And so Jesus healed the man and proved His point: “‘But that you may know that
the Son of Man has power on earth to
forgive sins’—He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, arise, take up your
bed, and go to your house’” (vv. 10–11, emphasis added).
Jesus
made explicit what the scribes had reasoned in their hearts. He claimed the
power to forgive sins, and He demonstrated it by showing that He had the power
to do what they reasoned would be more difficult. He miraculously healed the
paralytic, something they knew had to come supernaturally from God. Those
present realized the implications: “All were amazed and glorified God, saying,
‘We never saw anything like this!’” (v.12).
Consider
what had happened: The Word was proclaimed; it was accepted in faith; sins were
forgiven; and then the paralytic was healed. Scripture does not reveal the
reason for the man’s paralysis. It may have been the result of a birth defect,
a disease, an accident, or an injury caused by another. We do not know. But we
do know that his suffering, his han, did
not end with his coming to faith. His healing was a separate and miraculous
event that occurred in the presence of the power of God. It was a divine act.[17]
Scripture is replete with examples of healing at
the hands of Jesus and His followers. A review would easily demonstrate that
healing is not an instant consequence of faith in Jesus, though faith and
healing regularly lead to each other. In the case of the blind man in John 9,
his acknowledgment of Jesus as Son of God happened quite some time after his
healing; in other cases, healing comes after faith; in still others, healing
comes because of faith. Faith and healing are related, but not in a mechanistic
or necessarily sequential way.
The abused must also discover the freedom that
comes from forgiving their abusers. Why is this important? Because the wounded,
and the many areas where healing is needed, are almost always tightly bound to
the perpetrator, and victims of abuse do not receive full healing until they
choose to forgive their abusers. They have legitimate claims against those who
harmed them, and in addition to the crippling effects of the han they experience, they are tied to
their victimizers by these claims. It is an issue that requires considerable
sensitivity, particularly if action is required to prevent further abuse of
others.
However, forgiveness is not always forthcoming. It
has long been understood by the church and taught in Scripture that victims
often desire revenge. This desire is a powerful one, and so Paul teaches:
Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17–21)
John Chrysostom (a.d.
347–407), in commenting on Moses’ plea for Miriam’s healing in Numbers 12:9–16,
says:
Miriam and her company spoke evil of Moses, and he immediately begged them off from their punishment. No, he would not so much as let it be known that his cause was avenged. But not so we. On the contrary, this is what we most desire; to have everyone know that they have not passed unpunished.[18]
That is, Moses would not even let their sin be
known, but today we want the sin not only exposed, but also avenged. But
desiring revenge is not the way God directs victims to act, and it is often
harmful to their own healing.
Sometimes forgiveness is not forthcoming due to a
misunderstanding of what forgiveness is, the error commonly being the notion
that it is approval of the sinful act, which it is not.[19]
The word used in the New Testament for forgiveness (a;fesij,
aphesis) implies a giving up of a just claim, of leaving behind
the sin or injury. Forgiveness is not approving of or ignoring a wrong. It is
intentionally releasing a just claim against a sinner by the sinned against. Rightly understood, forgiveness is necessary
if the sinned against are to be truly free. John Bevere calls the refusal to
forgive “the bait of Satan” because it leaves its victims trapped.[20]
Further, forgiving others is central not just to the
healing of the abused, but also to the forgiveness of their own sins, whether
related to the abuse or not. Jesus taught this in the Lord’s Prayer:
Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. (see Matthew 6:5–13)
Here, Jesus teaches us to honor the Father and move
in His will, and He tells us that we must forgive those who have sinned against
us and toward whom we have rightful claims if we are to be forgiven by God, who
likewise has rightful claims against us. This is a constant theme in many of
Jesus’ parables and teachings (e.g., Matthew 5:23–24 and 18:21–35), and the
early church regularly reminded believers that they were not to take communion
until they had first forgiven all who had sinned against them.
[1]Clark
Pinnock et al., The Openness of God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1994. “Open theology” was anticipated by advocates of “process theology”
and the “social gospel,” including Herbert Spencer, Walter Rauschenbusch,
Alfred North Whitehead, and the Divinity School at the University of Chicago
(and even on through Pierre Theilhard de Chardin). In fact, this approach harks
back to the Greek Heraclitus in the sixth century B.C. See especially Alfred N.
Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York, N.Y.: The Macmillan Company,
1929).
[2]“In
conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that
by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom
he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction.” John
Calvin, Institutes of Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (London, England:
Arnold Hatfield, for Bonham Norton, 1599), book 3, chapter 21, section 7
[http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin /indxbk3.html].
[3]“Then
God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented
from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do
it” (Jonah 3:10). “The Lord was
sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart”
(Genesis 6:6).
[4]Walter
A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Book House, 1984), 1012.
[5]Cornelius
Plantinga, Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 10.
[6]James Moore Hickson, The Healing of Christ
in His Church (New York, N.Y.: Edwin S. Gorham, 1920), 17.
[7]Andrew
Sung Park, “The Bible and Han,” chapter 2 of The Other Side of Sin (Albany,
N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2001), 45.
[8]Innocent
here does not mean without sin; it means without culpability in this
particular suffering.
[9]Andrew
Sung Park, The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the
Christian Doctrine of Sin (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1993), 15–16.
Park has helped the church realize that in focusing primarily on the sinner and
salvation, for the most part it does not even see the sinned against.
[10]L
Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness, A Theological Analysis (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 197–204.
[11]Jennifer
J. Freyd, Betrayal Trauma (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1996), 36.
[12]Larry
Dossey, Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine (New
York, N.Y.: Harper Paperbacks, 1993), 19.
[13]Harold
G. Koenig, The Healing Power of Faith: Science Explores Medicine’s Last Great
Frontier (New York, N.Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1999), 77–79.
[14]Michael
E. McCullough et al., To Forgive Is Human: How to Put Your Past in the Past
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 16.
[15]Ruth
C. Duck, “Hospitality to Victims: A Challenge for Christian Worship,” chapter 9
of The Other Side of Sin (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press,
2001), 167.
[16]Robert
D. Enright, Forgiveness Is a Choice: A Step-by-Step Process for Resolving Anger
and Restoring Hope (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association,
2001), 4.
[17]Jeff
Levin, God, Faith and Health: Exploring the Spirituality-Healing Connection
(New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, 2001), 183.
[18]John
Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 4, ed. Joseph T. Lienhard, reprinted in Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, ed. Thomas C.
Owen (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 2001), 3:222.
[19]Robert
D. Enright defines the meaning, scope, and purpose of forgiveness in great
detail and with great clarity in Forgiveness Is a Choice (Washington,
D.C.: APA LifeTools, 2001). See especially chapter 2, “What Forgiveness Is…and
What It Is Not.”
[20]John
Bevere, The Bait of Satan: Your Response Determines Your Future (Lake
Mary, Fla.: Creation House, 1994).
No comments:
Post a Comment