• Current • Older • Profile •
• Beliefs • Rings • Misc • Links •
• Notes • G-book • Awards • Design • Host •

Divine Healing
2004-02-14 - 2:35 p.m.

This is a subject that has been very much on my mind in recent months. That God both can and does heal people without the aid of human medicine is not something I doubt. However, I have a problem with some of the opinions people have about divine healing. Recently I met someone who expressed the common view that any Christian who is ill has only to pray and they will be healed. If they are not healed, it is because they did not have enough faith. This is one of the tenets of the "Gospel of Health and Wealth" movement, though it is also held by people who do not subscribe to that movement.

The major problem I have with this doctrine is that it is both unscriptural and needlessly cruel. Illness, particularly long-term illness, is a terrible burden to bear, and it is cruel to add to someone's burden by saying that on top of their illness, they are also unfaithful to God. We should be wary of any doctrine that causes pain to a fellow Christian - remembering that God is love.

The doctrine of healing-on-demand draws its inspiration the scriptures, from the many accounts of Jesus' healing ability, and from the healing of the apostles. It is indeed noticeable that when Jesus healed people, He generally said their faith had healed them. Add that to "whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" (Mark 11:24 RSV) and bob's your uncle, the doctrine of healing-on-demand is born.

While the doctrine does seem to have a scriptural base it makes several errors about God and is a classic instance of isogesis - finding proof-texts to support a doctrine rather than looking at the whole to see what it says. The most grevious error of the healing-on-demand doctrine is that it fails to regognise the sovereignty of God. God is our Father and our friend, He loves us but we must not forget that God is also the King of Kings, supreme Judge and Lord of the Universe. We must not make God a heavenly servant or celestial robot, there to do our will. Our model of prayer is the Lord's Prayer, of which we should note two things in particular here. Firstly, Jesus began by reverencing God - "hallowed be thy name", recognising that God is holy, supreme and awesome. Secondly Jesus said "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Thy will, not my will.

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."
-C S Lewis

No matter what we ask for in prayer, we may never demand anything from God. We supplicate God, asking in humility - rather than demanding, as though God must obey us. This really is far and away the biggest problem I have with this doctrine - it does not ask God to heal, but demands it as of right. We have no rights before God, He does not have to give us salvation - He chooses to do so, because He has promised. That is what grace is, and that is why I would say "sola gratia" rather than "sola fide" because God is not a slot dispenser - put in faith and salvation comes out. God chooses and we do not. When we ask for something in prayer, we submit that request to God's will. If and only if our request accords with God's plan, if it is His will to grant it, then it will be granted. We do not command God to do our will - whether our will be healing or anything else, including salvation.

"But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13 RSV)

I do not think the healing-on-demand doctrine could have grown up in earlier centuries than ours. We have lost our terms of reference, and live within a different worldview to our ancestors and the biblical authors. In England, the change in worldview came with the Civil War and in America, with the War of Independence. We no longer have kings. We may have a Queen in the UK, but we do not see her as the biblical authors saw their monarchs. When they described God as the King of Kings, their readership would have seen Him as mighty, powerful, inexpressibly great. When we think of Kings, we see pomp and pageantry; they saw the power of life and death. A subject asking his King for something would do so with humility and meekness - demand something from a King and you would die. The apostle Paul described himself as a slave for Christ (Romans 6:22) - absolutely dedicated to Him, body and soul, bound to obey Him. A slave has no rights in himself, save as he is granted them by his Master. God is a kindly master, and promises much - but He is still our Master. We now live in democracies, with rights that we must be given. If we feel our rights are infringed, we complain most vociferously. There is nothing wrong with that, but the Kingdom of Heaven is not a democracy, and God is not an elected ruler, subject to the will of the populace. We are supplicants, bound by God's will - not in a position to command Him to do anything.

Now, does that mean I do not think that all things will be given to him who asks in faith? I do not go against scripture, but scripture sets qualifiers on this statement. That much is, I'm sure, obvious to everyone - how many children have prayed for rivers to be moved so that they could get their geography test right? How many evil men have prayed for God's aid in committing evil? Would we expect those requests to be granted? Of course not, God will not grant the second for it is against His nature, and the first because it is a foolish whim and the child will learn more by it not being granted. Yet healing-on-demand seems to take this scripture to mean God will honour our requests without taking a thought for God's will. If we do that in the matter of healing, what is to stop us from doing the same with other things? What the Bible says is that our requests to God will be granted if asked for when we are in unity of purpose with God (John 15:7). In other words - if it is God's will, our request will be granted. We are all on the path to perfection: on the way to perfect obedience to God and understanding of His will. I do not believe any of us will reach a state of perfection until death, for now we "see through a glass darkly", we do not know God fully, nor do we know His will perfectly. It will come, but not yet. Now, our will is not the same as His, which is why we ask God and submit ourselves to Him. There will be no more need for obedience in heaven, for no one will be disobedient; there will be no need of asking either, for all will move with the same will. All things that we ask in unity with God will be granted - but as yet we have too much of the natural man in us to know what is in unity with His purpose. People who pray for healing and do not receive it should not think that they lack faith - what they lack is knowledge of God's will. He knows that, and would have us come to Him as children come with all their requests, even those He wil not grant.

The Bible has many examples of those who were ill, and it is useful to look at them. One of them in particular shows us the purpose behind Jesus' miracles, and helps my point. That is the story of the man born blind in John 9. This firstly tells us that illnes is not the result of sin (a welcome comfort to those who are sick) and tells us why people become ill:

Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him." (verse 3)

Now, that sounds rather perverse, doesn't it? I wonder whether the disciples thought so? That a man would be born blind so that God would show Himself to the world? The clue is in what happened to that man. John's Gospel tells us why Jesus performed miracles when he calls them "signs". The miracles were to tell people Who Jesus was, to establish His power over the body, to make them realise at least that God worked through Him. After every miracle, people listened to Jesus' teaching. Well, wouldn't you? If someone came and gave sight to the blind, you would want to hear what He had to say. Of course, this is forgetting the person involved - Jesus was glorified not just in the action but in the witness of the healed. So we see that a healing was not done just because a person wanted it - there were thousands who wanted healing, but few who received it. Was it because all the others were disbelieving? (Have you ever seen Lourdes? Very ill people have a lot of faith in healing.) It was because there was a purpose behind the healing, not because it was desired, that the healings happened. A good example of God's will rather than man's will being done.

Another thing we ought to bear in mind is one question. The blind man was healed: how long was he not healed? It was not that Jesus had to be present, for God could always have healed him. It was not that he lacked faith - for according to the healing-on-demand doctrine, then the man could not have been healed then either. It was because God had a purpose - He decided that that man would be healed at that time and at no other time. Why, if God must heal at the time that it is asked, if there is faith enough, did the blind man remain blind? There is only one explanation - that God did not want to heal him until it suited His purpose to do so! Why then condemn those who are ill for unbelief when the man born blind was not so condemned? Miracles do not happen often (or they would not be miracles), illness (however God chooses to use it, in healing or not) is for the purpose of glorifying God.

We have yet another example of when God will not grant a person's prayers - not because the person is lacking in faith but because He chooses not to. That person is the apostle Paul. We know from his writings that Paul was given a "thorn":

"And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." (2 Corinthians 12:7-9 RSV)

Its a bit difficult, at this distance in time, to figure out what Paul's thorn actually was. Some people have suggested epilepsy (to explain away the Damascene conversion), homosexuality (to explain the prohibition against homosexuality) or other things. Generally people have assumed that Paul was referring to a physical illness rather than, say, to being burdened with someone he didn't like. One of the best suggestions seems to be that Paul suffered from some sort of eye problem there is a reference in the Septuagint to thorns pricking the eyes and it is noticeable that Paul rarely wrote his own letters. (For more on this hypothesis, see here and also ref: Galatians 4:11-13; 16:11). As an aside, some Catholics believe Paul was the first stigmatic. Whether or not Paul had a physical illness, the passage clearly goes against the healing-on-demand doctrine. Paul asked three times for his thorn to be removed, and God said no. I don't think we can say Paul was lacking in faith - and if he had asked, lacking in faith, we would expect the passage to reflect that.

What I find interesting about this passage is that it follows the pattern of the healing passages. The healings in the New Testament contain two parts: something for the person (healing/faith) and something for everyone (teaching). Paul's lack of healing is the same: something for him (the thorn was given to stop him being proud) and something for everyone (God's strength is made perfect in weakness - a teaching which applies on many levels). Healing is important, God works through it and teaches by it, but this passage shows us that God also works by and through illness.

It is a hard teaching to accept, that God can give illness and use it for the good. Certainly none of us would wish to be ill, would not seek it out, and that is why the healing-on-demand doctrine came about. It was not invented by evil-minded people, but those who wished to do good. Yet it illustrates a lack of faith (and patience) in God. When illness is heavy, it is difficult to accept God's teaching:

"We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28 RSV)

The human mind tends to revolt against applying this passage to everything. We can accept that persecution can work to our good - but only because scripture is very clear about it. With illness, because God can heal and there are healings in the Bible, we tend to exclude it from this scripture. Yet Paul gained by being ill - it stopped him from becoming prideful. Illness can bring us closer to God - everyone knows that we are more likely to call on God when we are in dire straits - hence the phrase, "there are no atheists in foxholes" and the surge in faith during times of war. We should remember that other passage in the Bible, that "The Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." (Hebrews 12:6 RSV) We are only becoming perfect, we are not perfect, and God sometimes teaches us through pain and illness as well as through love - as a child learns things like the danger of heat and that lemons are not good to eat. Thus God gives us unpleasant things that we may rise above them, having learned and become better. He promises that His trials will not be too much to bear. God is greater than we - and we must not forget that He has a plan for us - even if we cannot see it. We know that God is love, and even in the midst of illness, must try to trust in His purposes.

Illness is not necessarily a great evil. Through it, we can become more like God wants us to be. Some people are healed of their illnesses - but only when it is God's will that they should be. We may not demand healing or anything else from God. We should ask, yes, for if you do not ask you will certainly never receive, but we must not assume that just because we want healing, that we will get it. If you are ill, take comfort that God is with you, and allows it for your good. Rather than feeling guilty because He has not healed you, accept and try to seek His will in what He has given. Patience is one important lesson illness can teach us! God is good, and His will supreme.

In School

Susan Coolidge

"I used to go to a bright school
Where Youth and Frolic taught in turn;
But idle scholar that I was,
I liked to play, I would not learn;
So the Great Teacher did ordain
That I should try the School of Pain.

"One of the infant class I am
With little, easy lessons, set
In a great book; the higher class
Have harder ones than I, and yet
I find mine hard, and can't restrain
My tears while studying thus with Pain.

"There are two Teachers in the school,
One has a gentle voice and low,
And smiles upon her scholars, as
She softly passes to and fro.
Her name is Love; 'tis very plain
She shuns the sharper teacher, Pain.

"Or so I sometimes think; and then,
At other times, they meet and kiss,
And look so strangely like, that I
Am puzzled to tell how it is,
Or whence the change which makes it vain
To guess if it be--Love or Pain.

"They tell me if I study well,
And learn my lessons, I shall be
Moved upward to that higher class
Where dear Love teaches constantly;
And I work hard, in hopes to gain
Reward, and get away from Pain.

"Yet Pain is sometimes kind, and helps
Me on when I am very dull;
I thank him often in my heart;
But Love is far more beautiful;
Under her tender, gentle reign
I must learn faster than of Pain.

"So I will do my very best,
Nor chide the clock, nor call it slow;
That when the Teacher calls me up
To see if I am fit to go,
I may to Love's high class attain,
And bid a sweet good-by to Pain."

-HolyFool