Fractured Saints - never beyond mending - a christian blog for the broken ones

What is the role of God’s church when confronted with the real suffering of a fellow Christian?

Relieve that suffering?  Don’t answer too quickly…

What if that suffering is for a reason?  Let’s suppose God is teaching and growing that Christian through the suffering.  But how are we to judge that and keep from interfering with His plan?  Should we even attempt to?

But I don’t recall the Lord saying anything about withholding aid from others in the church.  Am I missing something?

This is a very real and troubling question in my mind, right now, dealing with a very real and troubling situation… RIGHT NOW.

This Christian is in a destructive housing situation and has no way out on their own.  It appears to be heavily interfering with their growth as a Christian.  Add some mental illness in for good measure, and that is one sticky wicket.

One of our pastors is working with this person in a weekly counseling session; this seems way too circumspect an approach to me.

My instinct is to rush in and fix things, whatever I can, right now.  Get the church elders together and figure out how we’re going to help!  Can we not solve this?  But I realize this urge is not always the wisest move.

Is our church too timid?  Are we afraid to be bold in coming alongside this suffering, creating solutions instead of sympathy?

Or, are we going to hurt by helping?  Is the circumspect approach appropriate?  I’m not sold on it.

Where is the rest of my church?  Why is no one else befriending this person in a tangible way during the week?  Why aren’t we confronting our people, assigning people to get to know this person?!?  Surely that doesn’t cost anything, and can only help.

This person is crying out for help to me – I can’t solve this alone – what can I say?

For now I guess I’ll trust the pastor’s take on it.  But what if he’s WRONG?

Confused, befuddled and frustrated,

Dick Ness

Isn’t this country great, how we threw off the shackles of King George III to establish a government with principles inspired by God, securing God’s blessings and approval!

Is it?

I’ve been wrestling for some time with our revolution from a biblical perspective.  Was it justified?  Should we have rebelled in the first place?

If we look at Romans 13:1-7, maybe not.  It begins:

King George the III was, without a doubt, an authority.  And an authority, therefore, established by God.  So wasn’t our revolution a rebellion against God?

I hear the objection (and I’ve said it myself), “But the king was a tyrant!”

If we accept that he was a tyrant, does that justify our rebellion?  There were tyrannical Roman emperors, weren’t there?  Paul and Peter were martyred under Nero’s reign, a well known tyrant.

And wasn’t there taxation without representation in the Roman empire?  Is that enough of a reason to revolt?

In 1 Peter 2:13-14, we have a little different take on authority:

Interesting, isn’t it?  A distinction is made about governors and their role as an agent of justice.  But no mention is made of how to address an unjust governor.

Can anyone point me to a passage that proscribes our actions when governed unjustly?

The closest I can get is instruction on how to deal with taxation without representation:

Matthew 22:15-22 (New International Version)

So, no call to rebellion there at all, is there?  Quite the opposite.

Why are we special?  Are we special?

Why does God’s word seemingly not apply to our nation?

At what point do we transcend rebellion and enter a state of being established by God?

p.s. And I didn’t even go near the hyperbole that Hitler and the holocaust would’ve introduced.  I find it more interesting to explore the grey.