Healing Miracles - P2

This is a continuation of my partial review of Ken Blue’s book “Authority to Heal.” The basic goal of the book is to address the topic of healing miracles amidst the present-day American culture (both inside and outside the Church) and to make a case that healing ministries (where people pray for the sick and see them healed miraculously) are a legitimate option for Christians to pursue.

In chapters 2-4, Blue addresses three ideas which he believes can create obstacles to healing ministries. I include a summary of each chapter’s subject matter and some of my own thoughts. Sometimes this doesn’t require me to say much because some of the ideas are becoming increasingly obsolete theological views.

Ch. 2) Divine Determinism.
This is the view that God causes everything to happen. In more precise language, God is the ultimate and efficient cause of all events. If a rain drop falls from the sky and lands on a puddle, this is because God has caused it to do so. If I buy a $20 cigar, God has caused me to do so. I think that this view does deny free will, although some might try a more limited form in which God causes everything except what human beings (and other free-willed beings like angels and demons) do.

The problem that this view creates is to see sickness as caused by God, therefore, what’s the use of praying? If God has made someone sick, then he will make the person well if he chooses. It is all under the control and sovereignty of God.

I, personally, am not sure how people come up with these kinds of doctrines. I’m not sure what passages of the Bible they would refer to (perhaps Exodus 7:3 and similar ones about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart?) in support of their view. In any event, few enough people believe in this doctrine that I don’t see any strong need to thoroughly address it.

There is, however, a way to show that Divine Determinism is ultimately irrelevant to our decision-making when it comes to prayer for healing. Consider a hypothetical case in which a hospital patient, call him Fred, is sick. I am trying to decide whether or not to pray for Fred. My thinking goes along these lines:

“I can do one of two things: A) Pray for Fred, or B) Refrain from praying for Fred. If I pray for Fred, then it’s because God has caused me to pray for Fred. Likewise if I do not pray for him. Therefore, what do I do? It seems that no matter what I do, God has caused it. Therefore, the knowledge that God causes everything to happen does not help me to make a decision about what to actually do. I know that God will cause whatever I do, but I do not now know what action God will cause.”

Unfortunately, many people still believe that God causes all things – like the sickness and death of their children – which turn them against him. Therefore, this doctrine is not difficult to refute, but it is important to do so where it is encountered.

Ch. 3) Faith Formula
Blue provides a nice summary:

“‘Faith-formula’ thinking is based on the theory that there is a strict causality between faith and healing. It holds that all divine blessings, such as health and prosperity, are constantly and fully available to all Christians. These benefits, which are supposedly available to every and any child of God, may be instantly appropriated, provided the individual Christian knows enough and believes enough.” (42).

This is another doctrine with mysterious origins. I can’t find a passage in the Bible that would support this kind of theology because it reduces to this fundamental assumption:

A: God will heal any sickness if there is sufficient faith.

This is thin soup and pretty easy to address. God becomes too much of a robot – you believe hard enough and he will heal you. Further, this assumes that God wants to heal all sickness, or, alternatively put, that God does not use sickness to mature and grow us. I personally believe that he can, though I agree with Blue that sickness should not be equated with persecution (see below: http://sesosmenos.blogspot.com/2008/12/to-those-who-reject-healing-miracles.html) The “faith-formula” view says that if a person can believe hard enough, then God will heal them. Even if they remain impenitent, not desiring to learn from God through their suffering – God will heal them instantly if they believe hard enough.

Ch. 4) The Secular Worldview
Blue cites the Secular Worldview as a “theological hindrance” (20) to miracles of healing. I don’t think much needs to be said on this other than to observe that it is obviously true. If you don’t believe in God (or some kind of god), you won’t believe in miracles – simple enough.

What I think is particularly important for Christians in America, however, is to not allow the barrage of non-Christian viewpoints to lull them into implicitly thinking of God as a bored and distant landlord (and then to emulate him in this regard). Some people say that science has proven that miracles cannot happen. This is plainly false, as it is not the job of science to make claims as to what is possible if non-physical things (such as the God of Christianity) exist and influence the physical world. If one accepts methodological naturalism – which is basically the view that science can only talk about natural objects and how they affect each other – then science simply does not address the question of what happens to the natural world when non-natural entities start interacting with it. Science remains neutral. I’ve never been a big fan of methodological naturalism, however, so think that science can include miracles, but that’s a different topic. The main point here is that science, as it generally proceeds, is silent on the possibility of miracles.

To Those Who Reject Healing Miracles

The latest book that I picked up is called “Authority to Heal” and it’s written by Ken Blue. The basic idea behind the book can be captured by the questions on the front cover, which I assume it attempts to answer: “Does God heal today? Why are some healed and some not? Isn’t healing sometimes against God’s will?”

From what I can tell, Blue’s discussion of healing is specific to the idea of a healing ministry where people actively seek to pray for as many people as possible to be healed – mainly through one-on-one interaction. There is an account in the introduction of various healing ministries in which he’s participated, with real live miracles and real live people not knowing how to respond. Further, Blue himself has experienced healing – and has had to change his theology as a result.

The shorthand explanation for why I’m reading the book – because its immaterial to what I want to talk about – is that I am curious about the subject, the evidence for such healing ministries (and thus an assessment of their plausibility), and because I recently have come to know some people that have been a part of healing ministries. As such, I have some good personal reasons for investigating the matter, in addition to the fact that I think healing could be a powerful witness to God’s power for both Christians and non-Christians alike.

What I plan to talk about is the first chapter, which seems to be an attempt to answer the last question above: “Isn’t healing sometimes against God’s will?” I have never encountered anyone who took this view, but apparently Blue (and some people that I know) has encountered Christians who actually reject the idea of being healed because they believe that their sickness or condition is God’s will. Now this apparently is something that is specific to sickness, injury, or similar situations, where people are suffering and believe that God has brought the suffering upon them for the sake of personal growth.

Blue thinks this is a confusion, which he traces back to the days of the early Christian Church (2nd – 4th centuries A.D.) in which suffering from persecution was highly esteemed and gained the sufferer a privileged status. When Constantine become emperor of the Roman Empire in 306 A.D. and required religious tolerance through the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. When the persecution decreased, Christians began seeking other forms of suffering through which to achieve spiritual growth and, apparently, higher status in their communities as a result. Sickness eventually came to be viewed as a means of achieving maturity, and thus healing was discouraged.

Blue’s point in all of this is that this misunderstanding of the nature of sickness developed into a confusion of sickness and suffering from persecution. Blue maintains that there is a very stark contrast between these two ideas, and it can mainly be seen in the appropriate attitudes towards the two kinds of suffering. If someone suffers as a Christian, he is to count it as a blessing because it is a mark of true discipleship (c.f. 1 Peter 4:12-16 where suffering as a Christian is contrasted with suffering as a wrongdoer).

So if one knows that he is suffering as a Christian, that is a cause for rejoicing. This is not so with sickness. Nothing about suffering from illness implies that one is a sincere follower of Christ – which is obvious when we are reminded that non-Christians suffer from illness as well. But some people apparently do think that sickness is an indication of true discipleship in the same way as suffering related to persecution. This leads to all sorts of problems. People can become arrogant or proud of themselves in their suffering, and they can begin to see sickness itself as a fundamentally good thing rather than an evil that is not a part of God’s Kingdom.

There is one catch in all of this. Often times the results and circumstances of sickness and those of suffering from persecution can be pretty similar. I can imagine a scenario in which one is suffering from persecution, believing it an indication of his discipleship in following Christ, when in fact the two are unrelated. Indeed, Blue mentions precisely this on p.22-23 where he talks about the martyrdom cults of early Christianity wherein high status could be gained by dying at Roman hands for the sake of Christ. Surely it is possible for someone to die a martyr and not be a true follower of Christ – even if they claim to be and sincerely think that they are. Thus, just as suffering from sickness may not be an indication of true discipleship, so I think suffering from persecution can be the same way.

Further, I know that many people have experienced periods of intense growth in their relationship with God through sickness. Thus sickness can be used by God in the life of a true disciple of Christ to increase his or her maturity.

In closing this point, it would be important to summarize the state of the argument. There is no guarantee that suffering from either sickness or persecution is doing related to one’s genuine faith in Christ, while it is possible for God to use both in the lives of believers to mature them. From what can be gathered about sickness and persecution in the Bible, only the latter has a strong association with true discipleship. Therefore, we are best to not make the same assumptions about sickness in relationship to sincere belief in Christ.

Now to the practical. I think that there is a very straightforward approach towards responding to people who don’t want to be healed. If the issue is one of God’s will, then there is a very direct question to be asked here: If you trust that God knows what he is doing in making you sick, would you not trust him all the same if he made you well? Only God can heal you miraculously, and so if it is his will that you be sick, then only by his will can you be made well. In either case, the result would be the will of God. I do not think that it demonstrates a lack of trust in God to seek healing for sickness – in fact it may be the catalyst for far more change that the sickness ever brought about. That this is a possibility – that healing may bring about more good than change – suggests that the humblest and most trusting attitude that we can take towards God is to follow the Biblical model as we best understand it, and to make our pleas in acknowledgement that he is trustworthy no matter the results.

I fear that many may shrink from healing because they don’t believe that God is active to perform miracles and demonstrate his power today. Further, they would rather suffer in their condition than pray to God, and have to trust him no matter the results. Indeed, it may be quite traumatic to desire something so greatly and for God to not respond as we would wish. Our response might be anger, distrust, rebellion, etc., and I can only say that I have a fair amount of my own experience with each of these. However, our God is very big God, he is not insecure and his feeling aren’t easily hurt, and he responds with grace and humility towards his people, therefore he is able to bare the brunt even of our worst attitudes towards him. I worry that being afraid of distrusting God may be the greatest obstacle that many people face in learning to trust him more.