Are you weary, are you heavy-hearted?
Tell it to Jesus, Tell it to Jesus;
Are you grieving over joys departed?
Tell it to Jesus alone.
Tell it to Jesus, Tell it to Jesus,
He is a friend that’s well known;
You’ve no other such a friend or brother
Tell it to Jesus alone.
–Tell it to Jesus, words by Jeremiah E. Rankin
Having grown up with the Baptist Hymnal (various editions), I remember singing this song a lot. And I remember liking it too—after all, it has an upbeat tune that’s catchy.
Yet, now as a pastor who has come to consider words more important than catchy tunes, this has become a song that I refuse to have our church sing as a part of our worship. Most of it is rather biblical—certainly we are to cast our cares upon the Lord because he cares for us (1 Peter 5:6-7, Philippians 4:6-7).
But there is one little word sung eight times (or 6 if you skip the third verse) that makes this a decidedly unbiblical song, despite everything else in it: alone.
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I do not know, by invoking us to “tell it to Jesus alone” the author encourages a keep-it-to-yourself Christianity. If you’re struggling, if you’ve failed, if you’re weary, if you’re anxious, if you’re whatever—tell it to Jesus alone, and thus cut out the family God has put around you to help you grow.
In our culture we already treat our salvation as individualistic. When we see someone in church, it’s like passing someone on the street: “How’s it going?” “Fine, how are you?” “Doing great.” I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: we’re either the most well-adjusted people ever or we’re a bunch of liars.
The embarrassment that we feel about our sins and struggles doesn’t help either. We tend to have this perception we want others to maintain about us: we are better people better off than we actually are. And when it comes to our temptations, surely Paul didn’t mean all the temptations we face are common to mankind (1 Corinthians 10:13). My temptations feel so uncommon.
It’s all part of Satan’s lie to keep us from getting the help we need.
Other than death and taxes, there is at least one thing we can be certain of for our lives: we cannot do this on our own. After all, what does the Holy Spirit inspired wisdom of Solomon say? “Two are better than one…for if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up!” (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10)
We must have accountability in our lives. But it’s not easy because we must fight against ourselves, especially our pride.
Yet this is a fight worth having. After all, the goal in life is not to exalt ourselves but to exalt the glory of God by becoming more like Jesus. And Jesus has given us plenty in his word to remind us of the need for accountability…
Matthew 18:15-17 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Romans 15:14 And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another.
Galatians 6:1-2 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
Hebrews 3:12-13 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
Let those verses sink in. Go, tell him his fault…admonish one another…restore…bear one another’s burdens…exhort one another…confess your sins to one another and pray…
These are the marks of accountability, opening up our burdens, struggles, and failures to others, and helping them with theirs.
A timely word for me. I’ve been deeply hurt at our church by a situation involving a friend of mine who is pursuing divorce for unbiblical reasons. Hebrews 3:12-13 has been on my mind a lot lately.
The post has limited information, but concerning your friend’s potential divorce, I would think his/her hurt far exceeds your own, even as you have empathy for him/her, but that he or she is heavily on your mind reveals your compassion, however, and it is to be admired. If he or she wishes to speak with you about the potential divorce, then he or she gets whatever is on your mind, but absent that, this is none of your business, notwithstanding ponderings on Hebrews. If the church is one in which marriages take place with the understanding that the faith community may comment on the relationship, then let it do so by one that is chosen via the community’s process for said situations.
bapticus hereticus,
I left the information limited for a reason. It is very much “my business” and not at all “yours”. If you believe I have little or no right to be involved in this situation, I wonder at how you feel justified telling me so.
How is another couple’s marriage your business? Yet, if you are counseling the couple or one of the individuals, it would be your business to some extent as the person allows such (and hopefully counsel would respect the other’s right to decide, rightly or wrongly). I would ask, why are you, then, writing about such in a public forum. Third, when you raise an issue in a public forum, you might expect someone to respond? Fourth, are pastors being trained today to make the marriages of others their business? It is one thing to preach and teach about marriage and be available for counseling, but it is quite another thing to take it upon one’s self to insert self into something that is between two other people and God, notwithstanding one’s perceived inadequacies in said relationship.
How is it not? Especially if that couple involves a friend and/or a brother and sister within his local body?
The whole point of my post is that ideas and attitudes in our culture that express what you are saying are highly unbiblical.
It is one thing to be concerned and be available and make said availability known, but it is something else to uninvitedly step inside a covenant that does not include one’s self.
Except as Christian brothers and sisters, especially those within a particular local body, it does include us.
We are the person’s accountability… Jesus didn’t say “When a person sins wait for the “person chosen via the community’s process” to act, he said go to them. In Galatians 6, Paul didn’t say, “You who are invited to give counsel” restore and bear one another’s burdens; he said “you who are spiritual.”
In Romans he didn’t say you who have counseling degrees or whatever are able to instruct one another, but “you my brothers and sisters.”
And of course Hebrews, which you already kinda mentioned.
It is a cultural conclusion and an anti-biblical assertion to imply that a marriage relationship is nobody else’s business unless you’re invited to give counsel–and probably a good chunk of the reason why so much sin goes unchecked and so many marriages fall apart even in churches.
Mike
You recognize that. I recognize that. However, since Nawm here is not a Christian and rejects the gospel, he can’t recognize that.
If one wishes to speak to someone’s behavior that is manifested in public, then have at it if one wishes (but be prepared for consequences that might be unanticipated), but when one uninvitingly inserts oneself in someone else’s marriage, whether it be pastor, laymen, best Christian in the world doing the inserting, one is out of line. Whether the marriage covenant is being honored or not, it is a covenant that is between two people and God, it is not between two people, a congregation, a brother and sister, mother and father, and whatever with God, and it is for these two people to decide how to maintain, and restore if needed, the relationship. If one’s congregation cannot live with their arrangement, it may remove said couple from the roll, but still, the congregation has no voice in the relationship other than what the couple allows. If one wishes to speak to me about a public behavior that I have engaged in that he or she does not like, I will honor the request, but if one then wishes to speak to my marriage without my consent, then I will show the individual the door. My guess is that most baptists would do the same.
I don’t believe that God is not coercive, thus I believe that it behooves God’s communities not to be coercive, as well.
Ack. An edit gone bad. The line should read:
I don’t believe that God is coercive ….
Oh… well… help me out here:
Where does such a standard come from that one is out of line to insert themselves and that the marriage covenant is between God, the husband, and wife only?
Because I can’t seem to find that standard in the Bible…
Mike, where does it say that the faith community, the pastor, anyone, has standing to uninvitedly enter into a covenant relationship between two people and God? Do we not undermine the notion that two people become one in a covenant relationship when we assert that others have rights in the relationship between these two people and God? I did not leave my parents to cleave to a community. I left my parents to form an identity with another in a covenant relationship and to express said relationship in a community. The community has integrated the relationship; it has not assimilated it. If the relationship does not fit the community, the community may continue to accept or it may reject it, but it has no standing on its own to step inside of it.
Every verse that’s already been quoted above. None of them make a distinction between public and private, personal and corporate, or whatever… they all have to do with life, period.
No. The Bible never separates the home life from the community of faith, but unites them together.
And again, Nawm proves to us why talking to someone about the faith who rejects propositional truth as found in the Bible is akin to trying to fry chicken in bleach or paint your house with buttermilk–it just won’t work. It’s like Paul says in I Corinthians 2–The natural mind cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually appraised.
Then in your view of scripture, everything in the community of faith should belong equally to everyone in the community of faith and there are to be no exclusions as to rights of that which is shared, or in your words, ‘never separate[d]’?
If the people had a wedding, then they explicitly invite people to hold them accountable to the vows that they take. That’s the purpose of a wedding.
Christian commitment is necessarily public. That’s why someone can’t take the Lord’s Supper on his own or baptize himself. Submission to baptism is a public commitment to the Christian life and the witness of the body of Christ is the accountability the Body affords to that one. This is why Peter, for example, talks about being built together into a spiritual house.
Christian marriage is the same. We leave and cleave to form an exclusive union with another, but the Body of Christ is there to support that union in a very practical way – by holding them accountable. Inasmuch as a married person flees from accountability in their marriage, they reveal their deceit in making vows in a public wedding when they refuse to submit to the witnesses – even thought those witnesses may change for any reason.
Jim, your view draws a distinction that Mike’s view does not, for his is seemingly dissolves any separation of public and private rights. A high congruence of public and private rights is more prevalent in collective societies, but such an approach is a difficult sell in individualistic cultures, such as our own. For me, the governance structures and processes of churches found in the Christian scriptures are not normative, even if they are instructive. What I do find as normative is that these churches took seriously their responsibility to develop structures and processes perceived suitable to their needs. That is, churches, then, as now, struggled and continue to struggle in developing models that aided and aid the purposes of worship, proclamation, education, and ministry. They did not all agree on a single form or process, but they seemed to agree that community-specific models were important for sustaining their missions. Yet even then, we see a tension among the individual and the community. It is in this tension that on-going creativity and effectiveness is assured.
That churches wish to hold couples accountable for their marriage is inconsistent with the way that people marry in said churches. The ceremonies are only sometimes congregational events, and even then, such is usually due to the couple inviting the congregation to attend. Otherwise, there would be the expectation that weddings are calls for the community to meet, experience and affirm the vows of the couple, and to enter into a covenant (yet I would argue for a limited covenant) with the couple concerning their marriage. In the main, in this country, this is not done, even in accountability-centered congregations. Thus, is it unusual that when people hear talk of accountability it is perceived as “this is what ‘we’ can do to sanction ‘you’ given X, instead of “this is how far ‘we’ are prepared to go for ‘you’”? Second, we do not receive married couples for membership; we receive individuals that are married.
Whereas the couple functions as a couple and as individuals in the congregation, and do what it and they can to respect the needs of the community, apart from encouragement and sharing burdens that are given to share, the institution of the church, while in relationship with the institution of marriage, respects its autonomy. If the faith community does not affirm the nature of the marriage and issues related to such, the community may do as it wishes concerning such, given its autonomy, but it cannot claim any authority for stepping inside this institution. Nor is the couple obligated to share the details of its marriage with church members or ministers, nor entertain attempts from the church to gain said knowledge. Just as there are limits as to what one or a couple can demand or expect of any community, the same may be asserted about the community for the individual and the couple. That there are limits does not preclude a responsible and healthy individual, married, or community life.
As baptists, we live with the tension of the needs of the congregation and the autonomy of the individual before God. While we work very hard to balance this tension, if more weight is given to one side, it will usually be given (but not grossly so) to the individual and its autonomy before God. And with this understanding it is not difficult to see why baptist ministerial education has traditionally stressed a dynamic, interrelated, yet ordered, God, family, and community (e.g., church) priority. It seems to me the accountability issue here is redefining this ordering as God, community (e.g., church), family.
You seem to beg the question that what we practice defines what should be normative. But I’m holding up what we practice against the Bible. My observation with weddings is that the wedding, and the law, have always recognized that the need for witnesses means that marriage is a public affair. Given the call the “leave and cleave” the families of the Bride and groom in the time of Christ were always involved. The parables and other references that Jesus made to weddings specifically spoke of the influence of the families and friends on the bride and groom. The idea that only the Father knows when the Son will return is in reference to the fact that the groom was to build a home for his new bride as an addition to the home of his parents and could only return to bring his bride there when his father approved the completion of the construction.
A Biblical vow is nothing to take lightly and witnesses called as such should understand the weight of what they are called to. That doesn’t mean that the couple doesn’t have some autonomy, so I agree that there needs to be a balance. But using the Bible, particularly the way the Paul and Peter addressed communities of NT believers, I would say that we don’t have nearly as much accountability as we ought to have. Today’s western culture is exceedingly too individualistic.
In terms of practice, scripture does not express a single, normative voice, but it does present a record of communities seeking to define themselves in relation to what they believed, and doing so within the circumstance in which they found themselves. Such does not assume that what they decided upon was the best that could have been done, the only thing that could have been done, or that what they did must be followed by others or themselves for all times. Thus, the thing that was considered to be and is still considered normative among us, too, is to take commitment to God, self, family, and community seriously, for such effects abundant living. I don’t find in scripture that it is normative or that it advocates authority for lay people or ministers to insert themselves within another’s marriage, even if said marriage takes place and is expressed to some degree in the community. Such does not suggest that there is no relationship among these two institutions, but it does assert that each have properties that may be engaged only by consent of those within the respective institution.
If people wish to develop a community of faith around the concept of accountability as asserted by some on this forum, I see no reason for them not to develop such, but to do so, said individuals then agree that it is appropriate for the congregation to involve itself in one’s life that is not normative in Christian scripture, even if the decision to do so is normative for the community. If this form of accountability is what this community of faith understands and accepts as its proper way to develop and mature Christian commitment, then so be it.
“…it is appropriate for the congregation to involve itself in one’s life that is not normative in Christian scripture…”
I think in principle, we agree. We simply disagree on the degree to which it is suggested in the Bible that we hold each other accountable. We would have to go through and look at it exhaustively, which is not a good forum for this. As it is, I think it is rather a lack of submission to Biblical accountability where the Western Church has lost its strength. I think we’ve agreed in general that we want to have the appearance of a godly life while being able to be ungodly in private. That means that we need to be put-off when people of faith want to hold us accountable for sins that we want to stay private so we don’t have to repent of them. That’s what such statements as 1 Cor 12:19, 1 Tim 5:20, Heb 3:13 and their surrounding passages address.
Jim: I think we’ve agreed in general that we want to have the appearance of a godly life while being able to be ungodly in private. That means that we need to be put-off when people of faith want to hold us accountable for sins that we want to stay private so we don’t have to repent of them. That’s what such statements as 1 Cor 12:19, 1 Tim 5:20, Heb 3:13 and their surrounding passages address.
bapticus hereticus: Only in the sense that such may happen, given the “prone to wander” in all of us; that is, I don’t invoke privacy so that I can do otherwise to the gospel. Rather, I invoke privacy given that my marriage is a relationship that is between me and my wife, not us and the congregation, congregational commitment notwithstanding. Moreover, I have no issue with the passages that you cite, nor do I find my argument to be in conflict with them, either.
But to your larger point: congregational functioning. To encourage one another and function in a coherent, coordinated manner is much more difficult to do than it is to write about, but much of what is written about such suggesting “this is what is needed” is often lacking in understanding of what is known about organizational functioning. My suggestion would be for pastors to involve themselves, as a start, in graduate level work in organizational behavior and organization theory, for such may help improve their understanding and counsel toward building more effective congregations. The final chapter in these fields has not been written, of course, but a working knowledge of these fields might save the career of some pastors.
Well, I’m glad that you are perfect enough that you don’t need any accountability in your marriage. I myself have a great marriage. My wife is a great woman to go through all the trials of life with. (And we have had our share of trials.) Likewise, I do my best to be the husband that Paul admonished the Ephesians to be: one who gives his life to purify his wife in the same way that Christ purified the church; and the husband that Peter encourages Christians to be: one who lives with his wife in an understanding way so that his prayers are not hindered. Because of this, I wouldn’t dream of trying to do this without seeking out the accountability of godly Christian men in my life. I want them to interject themselves before I screw up royally because I well understand the nature of sin that still plagues me.
Mike: Well, I’m glad that you are perfect enough that you don’t need any accountability in your marriage. I myself … I wouldn’t dream of trying to do this [i.e., healthy marriage] without seeking out the accountability of godly Christian men in my life. I want them to interject themselves before I screw up royally because I well understand the nature of sin that still plagues me.
bapticus hereticus: But, Mike, I am accountable, but it is to my wife … and God … and to any that we choose to make our relationship accountable to, as is your want, as well. The degree that a couple is open to others involving themselves in its marriage is properly the decision of the couple. For me and my wife, if we want the involvement of others, we will ask, otherwise consider our relationship none of your business, church members or otherwise. We are open to the thoughts of others concerning marriage. We are not closed systems; but we retain all rights and responsibilities concerning how we engage our relationship or even if we wish to entertain one’s thoughts specifically on our relationship. If a group of people, congregation or otherwise, don’t wish to associate with us for our decision, then we respect said decision and will move on. If you desire a greater degree of openness and invite others to involve themselves at their discretion, such is a decision that you and your wife are free to make. I am/you are no more or less better than you/me for a differing decision.
What I am writing is status quo in every church that I have ever been associated, congregational dynamic notwithstanding. I would envision that when a big push in SBC begins for greater amounts of accountability and that people learn that such also pertains to the dynamics of their marriages, the pastor given to this degree of accountability might want to update his vita. From what I have gleaned, those most in favor of accountability, and especially of marriage, tend mostly to be 20-30something pastors, those that take their lead from some people whose pastoral experience is likely less than a good many of their 30something followers. Perhaps churches will change under their direction, but the safe money is that they will moderate their views. To date, accountability talk is more about control, conformity, and exclusion than about goal-oriented behavior and congregational coordination; and for this reason, it is probably best to slow down on implementing accountability programs and survive another day as an employed pastor. This is probably not a hill that is worth sacrificing a career, notwithstanding the praise of some national leaders that don’t have to face the consequences of their followers’ actions.
Please, forgive me for the above error. Above it should read Jim, not Mike. My apology.
Mike: As your self-appointed Accountability Partner for Blog Grammar, I must tell you your title needs work. 😉
Ain’t nothin wrong wit my grammar, ‘specially here in Mizeruh.
Mike,
I agree that the verses you’ve referenced here don’t offer an escape clause for “personal” matters. Because of this, we should be very careful that we are acting in accord with the Bible, not just meddling.
Ultimately people who refuse to be held accountable won’t be. In those cases we should remove people from our roles, as the Baptist heretic suggests. But to wait until that is our only course of action means a sin of omission regarding those verses you posted.
Mike, your not being realistic. The fact is that at the end of the day we really only have Jesus. There are times hwen others cvan be there for us. There are other times when they can’t or won’t. No one can share your pain or joy as you do individually. This is just human life. It’s part of the burden and the quest. Hymns merely reflect the Christian experience. There are hymns that speak to the sharing of burdens. Then there are those which speak to the silent suffering that Jesus alone knwos and cares about. If you remove hyumns like the one you mentioned, you’re excising a part of the reality of the faith. You may be setting people up for a false impression that the church will be there for them always, and that it’s a kind of safety net. It may be at tiems. But there will be times when you really are forced to throw yourself upon the Lord–and I sense he would have it so for obvious reasons.
The scriptures are saturated with accountability. Just because we don’t do it well doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. We OUGHT to be better than we are according to the Bible. The solution is not to lower our standards but to recognize the higher standard that we fail to meet up to. If we only have Jesus then we must recognize His work and presence among His Body of believers. If we fail to recognize the Body of Christ, we don’t have Jesus.
Mike,
I appreciate your article because this is such a needed thing in the church today and it certainly is the will of God as He laid it out in scripture. I can’t imagine why anyone with knowledge of the scriptures would have a problem with this. You gave a great list of scriptures but add to it chapters 5 and 6 of 1 Corinthians and Hebrews 10:24, 25. It’s clear the lone ranger Christian is foreign to the Bible.
John, it’s one-sided. He explained the community aspect while neglecting the other side to it: the truth that we are born into this world alone and exit it alone. And that we know joy and pain in between that is unknown to those we ourselves cannot know. We come to God and find that he is permanent while people are transient. We share our burdens and our sins with church members, and church members burden us and sin against us. So we go back to Jesus, the One who knows, and find out what Baptists should have known all along, that nobody knows the trouble we see but Jesus.
Sal,
One does not negate the other. The article was about our accountabilty in the local fellowship. Our solitary standing before God does not trump the truth of accountability. It does not trump the overwhelming amount of scripture that teaches we are to operate in those parameters.
Hi John,
What I said I said. I’m not talking about being a Christian and sinning and not wanting to confess that and seek forgiveness. What I’m talking about is the existential predicament that even the Christian faces. I’ve seen such darkness in churches (and such light) to know not to take the community of faith as seriously as I take my Lord. I have a responsiblity to support it, to love the people that comprise it, and to participate in its life. But we often find at the most difficult times that no one is there but Jesus.
Honestly, I don’t think I can agree with this statement from personal experience. Is Jesus my main comforter during dark times? Her certainly is. However, I find this is often accomplished by him bringing others form the body of Christ into my life who have suffered similar dark times to provide encouragement for me. I don’t think anyone is really saying that we don’t Jesus to get us through times of trouble.
Fletcher, thanks for your thoughts. They deserve an adequate response. Many people who come to church are hurt and continue to hurt, and that sometimes means they hurt others. Then, some people who continually come to church remain uncharitable for reasons I don’t entirely understand, though I suppose these issues are much less prominant in the SBC. I’ve known that Christians can remain dysfunctional for years, and some of that dysfunction is so overwhelming they just have to unload it onto someone else–and then someone else is hurt and so on. They often find healing and that’s a slow process. They find they’re beginning to experience a process of wholeness and reconciliation that takes time, they catch a glimpse of the restoration that awaits us, and that helps them along. But it’s all a process and usually a painful one. These people often cannot reach out to others because they are struggling so mightily to deal with their own predicaments. They don’t have the clear head or the ordered life required to understand and assist others. Sometimes they don’t have the intellect to understand life or other people well. Other times they’re just nasty. But God is always there for us. And no one but Jesus is really adequate to ‘save’ anyone else. If people can carry each other’s burdens that’s fabulous. I have seen that in conservative churches with older populations, and mainline churches that are liberal but have an old-time view of community. Just don’t expect that to always be the case.
Sal
While I agree completely about your point on accountability, I’m not quite sure this song is promoting an unaccountable life, especially in regard to the Bible verses you quoted. They all admonish believers to correct and rebuke each other, as well as to confess when appropriate, when facing sin together. The song does not make a reference to sin or unbiblical behavior. It is focused on trials and tribulations.
Although the song was an illustration and not a main point, I don’t think you can make a case for it being “unbiblical” on these grounds. The point of it is not to be overly individualistic, but to take problems, struggles, and burdens to Jesus over others. Perhaps the word “alone” in that repeated line is an overstatement, but how often do people do just the opposite and wine and complain to everyone about how bad things are, without actually taking it to the one who can do something about it?
As a pastor myself, I certainly understand having aversions to certain songs that seem to lean too far one way theologically, but I’ve had the opposite experience with this song. Through my walk with Christ, it has continually reminded me that my relationship with him is the most important one to maintain, especially in times of struggle and sorrow.
Just my two cents, for whatever it’s worth!
It sounds as though, inasmuch as two pastors can disagree, that this hymn isn’t clear enough. Having gone through trials and tribulations, it tells me that I shouldn’t expect any fellowship from the others in the Body of Christ that would help address a difficult time in my life – that maybe I’m just better off keeping to myself and talking only to Jesus about it so I don’t disturb anyone else. How many times is this hymn properly contextualized to convey the right message from it?
Jim, I think you misunderstand it. What it seems to convey to me is that people simply can’t be there for you in the way that God can. To expect help from others will cause us to feel hurt when that assistance and understanding is not forthcoming. Some times it will come. Other times it won’t. God, however, is always there. I think that’s the message one would usually leave the hymn with. Lyrics should not be taken literally. I have a feeling that theologians are the only ones who do that. Lyrics are not sermons. They express something imprecisely and that’s fine. It’s human and worshipful to sing.
So, when I was feeling suicidal I shouldn’t have hoped for anyone at church to really care? God wasn’t going to send anyone to help me so I should just have taken my own life in a fit of irrational thought to go expedite my being with God?
I didn’t do that, thank God, because I did have a few that happened to be there that I could depend on to help me get the help I needed. They were there because God provided them just as Paul indicated in such places as 1 Cor 12. But too often we aren’t there as we ought to be. I’ve seen otherwise decent Christians leave this world because they didn’t have that kind of help.
You see, the issue isn’t simply academic; it’s very practical. It isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s there because the effects of sin in this world continue to haunt us, even in the community of faith.
Jim, I’d hope someone would be around wtih an ounce of charity to deal with someone in need. The problem often is that most people are struggling with emotional stuff and can’t seem to get it together enough to really help anyone else.
“I’d hope someone would be around wtih an ounce of charity to deal with someone in need.”
Unless someone took the Bible seriously enough to follow what it clearly says, there won’t be.
Thanks Matt, that was the idea I wanted to communicate. That lives don’t necesssarily overlap when it comes to tribulation. People’s worlds may remain opaque to each other. And when that happens, no one can help us but Jesus.
If a Christian friend is in trouble, so are his friends troubled for him and with him.
We are no longer in isolation in a Christian community. What hurts one, hurts all.
And the marriage of a Christian couple is a sacred bond that needs the support of a loving Christian community,
not in an ‘intrusive’ way . . . no.
But in the way that says . . . we care deeply for you both, and we are sad if you are hurting, and we pray for you both to find peace with each other and with the Lord, may it be so.
Your friend hurts, you hurt. That is ‘natural’.
If you are Christians, the burden of that pain is shared.
That is not always the case. Churches are made up of different kinds of people. Some churches have many competant members who are capable of ministry. Other churches are loaded with troubled people or people who are ill-equipped to get beyond themselves or their safety zone. Some churches have many people who would heal others if given the chance, while other churches have many people who would hurt others unknowingly if given the chance. Churches can offer solace as well as aggravation, depending on the particular situation and circumstances. The upshot is that we should try to carry each other’s burdens but ultimately cast ourselves upon God knowing he definately addresses us at all times.
SAL,
I’m think of Galatians 6:2, known as ‘the Royal Law’:
“Bear you one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”
And also of the idea that the Church contains those who are one body, one Spirit, one Lord . . . we pray for one another’s needs, and we help when and where we can, we help humbly, not intrusively. , , we serve . . . we serve Him. . . and our serving overflows to include all in need whom He has placed in our pathway.
Try to think of that helping in the frame of reference that to serve those in need is to serve Our Lord Himself:
to help in this way is a holy privilege and may become for us a source of great joy,
it is not a heavy burden at all, because in His service, we are strengthened by His grace.
Christiane, you are correct. That is true in theory. In practice, many people just don’t have the intellect or the healing within to reach out and help someone else. THey’re drowning in their own baggage. Sometimes someone can understand someone else and be there for them. That’s wonderful. Many times, however, people are caught up in their own stuff and have difficulty getting beyond it.