Question 168, from Allan

What is your perspective about the Holy Spirit and Divine healing?

There are several perspectives on healing in contemporary Christian thought. A stereotypical protestant liberal view would be that healing, like any miracle, will have a scientific explanation behind it (or be a ‘myth’ with a secondary meaning to reveal a theological truth). In more conservative traditions, such as Roman Catholicism and many Protestant churches, the possibility of Divine healing is held, although such events are regarded as rare.

Evangelicals in a ‘dispensationalist’ tradition would hold a view that healings and other supernatural signs and wonders belong to a previous ‘dispensation’ (period of time / revelation), and would be sceptical of any contemporary accounts of Divine healing. Pentecostal Christians and those in the charismatic traditions that arose in the late 20th century (such as the Vineyard movement) would hold a view that expects miracles to occur as proof of their beliefs.
(more…)

Question 135, from Nick, USA

I recently read Rabbi Kushner’s book When Bad Things Happen to Good People. I understand his logic on free will and how prayer shouldn’t be about asking for things like God is Santa. He mentions that he prays for patience, wisdom, and understanding before he counsels his patients. My question is how can you distinguish from the two types of prayers? You are still asking for something whether it is pious or selfish.

If Kushner is not “asking” but praying that he will be patient and understanding then doesn’t prayer become meditation? I understand that their is a difference between how and why you ask for something during prayer (i.e., selfish versus praying for God’s will). Perhaps I shouldn’t be looking for something absolute (asking is asking regardless of how or why you ask) because if we can’t ask then all we can do is thank and praise Him and He might get tired of that.

Prayer, in Christian practice, takes many different forms, including specifically asking for things. It has become quite popular to characterise prayer as ‘conversation between the believer and God’, with an emphasis on ‘listening for God’s reply’. In some senses this is very similar to meditation, and it may be possible that the ‘benefits’ of prayer are actually more to do with taking ‘time out’ to think through problems, or to ‘pass on responsibility’ for problems to an external source.

In his recent book Prayer: Does it Make any Difference?, popular theologian Philip Yancey actually discusses whether prayer is a form of therapy or not {op cit pp 280-1]. Whether the psychological benefits of prayer which some people experience should be attributed to general principles of meditation and reflection, or supernatural intervention, is a subjective decision.

In Christian tradition there is definitely an expectation that God hears prayer and acts on it. This does raise an interesting question: does the believer’s prayer change the situation, given that God knows what’s going to happen anyway?

Jesus’ teaching on prayer outlines this tension. According to Jesus, God (more…)

Question from LH, USA

In our church people have an opportunity to share their prayer concerns and joys. A lot of the time I feel these prayer requests are really just information sharing. Which I guess is okay because they can be prayers too and we all have pure and impure motives when we pray, we are a broken people! But now people would like a follow up to these concerns. They would like an elder to contact them after the prayer request and I guess see how it went. My question is: isn’t this taking the focus then away from God and putting it back on to us? Aren’t we then sort of checking up on God? And aren’t we then sending the message to the congregation that this is a time of information sharing and a call to have a pastoral visit, instead of focusing on God and asking Him alone to transform people? Or am I missing the point of the sharing time during corporate worship?

Corporate prayer in Christian religious services has a long history, stretching back to Peter’s prayer shortly before the selection of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts chapter 1, verses 24-25. However, it would seem that even among the earliest Christian gatherings, there were some difficulties when it came to corporate expressions of worship (see, for example, 1 Corinthians chapter 14, verses 26-40). As Christianity became more structured, corporate prayers were usually led by the recognised leaders, or priests, and this system is found in many traditional denominations today. However, there has been a move in recent years towards setting time aside in Christian services for ‘open prayer’. As is ever the case, freedom of expression can lead to problems.

One of the clearest examples of the misuse of public prayer found in the New Testament is in the parable where Jesus contrasts the motives of the ‘holy’ Pharisee and the ‘sinful’ tax collector (Luke chapter 18, verses 9-14). In this short fable, the Pharisee uses his prayer to tell others about his own holiness, while the sinner addresses only God and asks for forgiveness. The Pharisee thus abuses the prayer time and it does him no good in the eyes of God. Taking this parable and applying it to the scenario outlined in the question, it would seem that moving the focus of prayer from God to the needs of the person praying, is less than ideal.

However, and while it is not the place of freelance theology to criticise any particular form of Christian expression, it would appear that there is a genuine case of unmet pastoral needs in this given situation. It is probably the case that it is only when the pastoral needs of the church members are addressed adequately that the proper focus for corporate prayer will be rediscovered.

Thanks for your question, LH.

Question from CB, United Kingdom

Many sporting teams declare allegiance to Jesus and employ ordained staff to minister to their needs. Is it Biblical and/or ethical to pray for victory over another team in sporting contests? I ask this knowing that as a fan of Shrewsbury Town your only hope, at times, must be of supernatural intervention.

For those regular visitors to freelance theology from overseas, it is worth explaining that Shrewsbury Town are a soccer team currently residing in the fourth tier of the English league and this year finishing quite near the bottom of the division. Jon the freelance theologian spent a proportion of his childhood in Shrewsbury and supports the ‘mighty Shrews’, hence the way this question is phrased.

The question about whether it’s ethical or Biblical to pray for divine help is a good one. In many ways it is no different to the prayer of an earnest believer that they will get a job or promotion at the expense of other candidates, or that their project will find success. There are of course numerous Biblical examples of people committing their plans to God and receiving blessing as a result. In some ways, however, sport is frivolous and even the most die-hard enthusiast will be forced to admit that whatever sport is being played is ‘only a game’. Socially the rise in organised sports is a sign of indulgent affluence and increased leisure time and it could be argued (in fact it has been) that involvement in sport detracts from more important things and wastes the limited amount of time any believer has available to achieve something of eternal significance.

Having said that, sociologists have often commented on the way organised sport takes the place of tribal warfare in civilised societies. It can also be argued that some sports recreate primitive tribal religion – with the chosen few totemistically representing the tribe and warring against evil forces, represented by the ‘other’ (the outsider; those who do not belong to the tribe). The communality and shared ecstatic experience are also of interest to the student of religion as the emotions and experience bear similarity to charismatic religious experience. Sport therefore meets an emotional need in the same way that religion can, even though it does not provide the philosophical or moral insights provided by more advanced religions. The morality of sport is often to win at any cost. Playing ‘fair’ is regarded as important, but many fans will turn a blind eye to their own player’s indiscretions, while any perceived injustice in favour of the opposition will be greeted by accusations of cheating.

Christians will often be drawn towards sports because, in a way, they are usually naturally inclined towards religious activity. The question of whether you can bear allegiance to a football team and bear allegiance to Christ is one worth asking. The hate-filled chants that echo around European soccer grounds emphatically do not tally with Christ’s ethical teaching about how we should regard our enemies. The arena of sport does provide Christians with an opportunity to talk to people who are already selflessly engaged in something bigger than themselves, with some sort of religious experience (even if they are not aware that it is such an experience), so it can prove fertile ground for discussions about the meaning of life, belief, hope and faith. A non-Christian Shrewsbury Town fan will understand more about the concept of hope than an ardent materialist who never thinks beyond their own situation.

Praying for victory is perhaps unethical (although the good news for supporters of lowly teams is that the God of the Bible firmly favours the underdog). Praying for the safety of the players, that the match officials and referees will have a good game and that the best team will win leads to no ethical issues. Praying that the best team will turn out to be your team? You have to decide whether you can pray that with a clear conscience.

Thanks for your question, CB.

Question from FM, Zimbabwe

What is the explanation of post modernity or other theories on the HIV/AIDS in the Pentecostal churches. Pentecostals seem to stress the spiritual way of handling this pandemic instead of approaching it literally.

The spread of HIV/AIDS proves to be contentious for Christians, mainly because of the means of transmission. In the developed world, it is still largely confined to homosexual men, despite some ‘cross-over’ into the heterosexual community. It is also more common in injecting drug users who share needles.

Due to its associations with homosexuals and drug addicts, the initial reaction among fundamentalist Christians was to pronounce it as divine judgement on sinful lifestyles. There were some very unfortunate statements made that homosexuals almost ‘deserved’ to catch AIDS because they were ‘living outside the will of God.’ This opinion has generally been dropped within Christian circles in Europe, but is still sometimes heard in America.

In Africa, the situation is different and much more serious in terms of its effect on society. The devastation caused by AIDS in Africa is due to a number of different factors. Firstly, it is very common in the heterosexual community. Secondly, unlike in the developed world, contraception (‘safe sex’) is rarely practiced. Thirdly, pharmaceutical companies have protected their patents to prevent affordable life-extending drugs being available in the developing world. The combination of these three factors has led to a rapid spread of the disease and, in some places, the near-destruction of an entire adult generation.

The reaction of Pentecostal churches in Africa is different to the reaction of fundamentalists in Europe and America. Rather than being a symbol of divine judgement on sin, it is seen as being Satanic in origin. This does reflect popular Pentecostal attitudes towards sickness and disease as being ‘of the devil’.

In a way, this is true. Christian theology has always held that sickness entered the world as a result of human sin (‘the Fall of Man’); sin that was encouraged by Satan, if, as many Christians do, Satan can be identified with ‘the serpent’ of Genesis chapter 3. However, whether the origins of AIDS are seen as spiritual or not, it remains a physical disease. It exists within the body of the host, attacking the immune system and infecting others exposed to it. In that sense, it is a physical thing and needs to be dealt with in a physical way – ensuring blood-safe practices, ‘protected’ sex and so on. The best preventative method is through faithful commitment to one sexual partner, ironically the Christian ideal as found in the Bible.

If HIV/AIDS is regarded solely as a demonic or spiritual problem and nothing is done to address the physical (or literal) problem, then the disease will continue to spread, irrespective of what is said in any church.

Thank you for your question, FM – the first one from Africa to feature on freelance theology.

Question from MF, USA

Why, if The Holy Spirit is among us since Christ’s ascension into heaven, do we not pray to that figure but instead to Jesus – who is not currently among us and won’t be until he “comes again”?

There are a couple of theological points to make here. Firstly, in a Christian, Trinitarian model, praying to one person of the Godhead is the same as praying to all, due to the essential Unity of the Trinity (one God in three persons). This might sound confusing (and provoke all kinds of further questions), but it is worth bearing in mind. In technical doctrinal terms this is called coinherence, ‘perichoresis’ or mutual indwelling.

The second point is that we have a number of models of prayer in the New Testament. Jesus began his instructional prayer pattern ‘Father in Heaven’ (Matthew chapter 6, verse 9). In the first chapter of Acts, Peter addresses his prayer ‘Kyrios’, the Greek word for Lord used of Jesus earlier in the same section, which has led commentators to believe the prayer was addressed to the ascended Jesus (c.f. chapter 1 verse 6 with verse 24). However, this initial section of Acts immediately precedes the dramatic arrival of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

In Ephesians chapter 6, verse 18, Paul urges the Christians receiving his epistle to pray in the Spirit, not to the Spirit. The Spirit therefore acts as a guide to the Christian regarding what to pray, described in Romans chapter 8, verse 26 as the Spirit interceding. Paul’s understanding of Christian life was of a Spirit-led, Christ-centred, life so prayer naturally involved the Spirit.

Given these New Testament models, there has been a recent increase, in churches that style themselves as Spirit-led at least, to directly appeal to the Holy Spirit (as in the form of ‘Come Holy Spirit’ etc.). Whether this is doctrinally correct is moot given the first theological point made above. It probably has more to do with the intention of the person praying the prayer. If the person wants a manifestation of the Spirit’s power, or some kind of ‘sign’, then it would be obvious to address it directly to the Spirit. From a confirmed Trinitarian point of view, perhaps prayer should be addressed to all three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.