Re: prayer and healing

Just out of curiosity: how many of you have ever gone to the elders
of your church when you were sick and had them lay hands on you, etc.
as instructed? As a last resort? as a first resort? ever at
all? I'm not trying to be a stick-in-the-mud as far as Biblical
literalism goes -- I am a Christian who really wants to know God's will
and I try to (do) take the entire Bible seriously as God's word. I'm
just wondering how many of us put our money (or health) where our mouth
is. Not that anything in the Bible prohibits us from using other
medical recourse as we can, but meanwhile this exortation is still there.

As C.S. Lewis once noted, Jesus' promise as given in Mark 11 (after
withered fig tree) is that whatever we ask for in prayer, if we believe
it, it will be done for us. No caveat that it must be within God's
will. No conditional that is has to be something 'good'. Just believe,
and it will be done. Lewis concludes that new believers should
certainly not be tantalized with passages like this before some maturity
of immersion in the wider body of scripture. But how do you literalists
deal with passages like this? Or at the end of Mark (I've been
reading Mark lately) -- the signs that WILL accompany those who
believe: they will handle snakes and drink deadly poison without
harm. How many sermons have you heard preached on that passage? I
view all scripture as authoritative from God, but I can sure understand
the eye-rolling delight agnostics get from passages like this and from
us in our "bend-over-backward" antics to explain why certain passages
"don't apply." Probably, I'll get a half dozen well polished reasons
from some of you about why snake-handling, etc. can be dismissed as a
cultural difference or some other thing. And I can guarantee you that
all such explanations (some of which may be entirely correct IMO) will
still elicit only condescending smiles from hostile challengers who will
only see the "convenience" of our dismissal. Out of a two thousand year
history of Christianity, has a mountain every been thrown into the
sea? Maybe nobody in Christendom has ever been able to "believe"
enough. Yes, I know, it's only metaphorical mountains that are cast
aside, we tell ourselves. "How convenient!" my athiest friend would
respond. (He's a literalist like some of you apparently are, and
extremely stubborn about it.) So how do we answer people in this mode
of thought?

--merv

Dick Fischer wrote:

> It's too bad they didn't have a fourth group where they actually did
> what the Bible says to do: /"Is any sick among you? let him call for
> the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him
> with oil in the name of the Lord"/ (Jas 5:14).
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer
>
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
>
>
>
> If the increase in complicaions in the third group is real, perhaps
> it will
>
> be cited as scientific confirmation of the command to pray in secret
> (Matt.
>
> 6:6).
>
> __
>
> Louise M. Freeman, PhD
>
> Psychology Dept
>
> Mary Baldwin College
>
> Staunton, VA 24401
>
> 540-887-7326
>
> FAX 540-887-7121
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:06:50 -0500
>
> Subject: prayer and healing
>
>
>
>> There are some interesting findings in a large study on the effects of
>
>> distant prayer on healing in today's "American Heart Journal":
>
>>
>
>> 1800 patients were randomized into three groups. One group was told
>
>> they
>
>> "might" be the object of distant prayer, and they were. Another group
>
>> was
>
>> told the same thing, but they were not. And the third group was
>
>> promised it
>
>> would receive prayer and did.
>
>>
>
>> The findings were interesting. Not only did distant prayer not help,
>
>> but
>
>> being told they were being prayed for seemed to increased
>
>> complications, the
>
>> most common complication being atrial fibrillation.
>
>>
>
>> The first two groups had the same complication rates, about 50%. The
>
>> third
>
>> group had a complication rate of 59%. The authors were not sure this
>
>> increased complication rate is real, and did little speculation on the
>
>> cause.
>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Mar 31 21:03:00 2006