Part 4: Proposed Explanations 601
P a r t 4 Proposed Explanations F or a worldview that accepts both natural and supernatural factors (and attributes even nature's origin to supernatural causation), natural and supernatural explanations need not be incompatible. Nevertheless, uncommitted observers are generally more likely to acknowledge supernatural factors where natural factors prove insufficient to account for events. Often natural factors prove sufficient to account for recoveries, coincidences, and the like, even when some individual cases appear unusual. But is this always the case?
For most Western observers, the interpreter's assumptions determine how improbable natural explanations must be before supernatural explanations will be considered. Some rule out all evidence that they could explain by some other means, no matter how improbable the other explanations are, because they presuppose that supernatural explanations are always more improbable than even the weakest natural ones. In this case, they do not merely assign the burden of proof wholly to the supernaturalists, despite antisupernaturalism being the minority position historically and globally. They also demand a standard of evidence impossible for any position to meet, because evidence that contradicts one's position can virtually always be explained away. Those who reject this antisupernaturalistic bias, common though it may be, recognize that sometimes supernatural factors offer a more parsimonious explanation that skeptics dismiss too readily. In such cases, neutral observers should deem supernatural factors the best specific explanation available. That is the secondary, more controversial argument of the book, but I can address it more concisely than the arguments of previous sections because this argument builds on much of the information that I have already discussed in the previous chapters.
Nonsupernatural Causes . . . magic, charms, spells and amulets. Cures, by these means, were recorded both in ecclesiastical and medical circles. The facts need not be questioned. It was the explanation of the facts which was wrong. They were mental and faith cures and not miracles. —George Gordon Dawson1 A s we noted earlier, if even a handful of miracle claims prove far more probable than not, Hume's argument fails, removing the initial setting of wholesale skepticism against miracles. Without a special burden of proof against miracle claims, they can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by normal laws of evidence like any other claims. Even on this basis, however, not all unusual claims require special divine action to be true; some may reflect the ordinary (or even unusual) process of nature.
Many cures stem from natural causes, even if, as most theists affirm, divine purpose stands somewhere behind nature. Many cures lack sufficient clear indications of divine activity to offer by themselves clear evidence for the latter for those who do not already believe it. Affirming the reality of miracles also does not give us the right to ignore the fact that miracles very often do not happen. Tragically and disappointingly, large numbers of people who seek supernatural (or natural) healing are not healed.2 This observation seems to hold empirically true even in 1. Dawson, Healing, 188.
2. For examples and theological discussion, see further Crump, Knocking, 10–14, 42–45 and passim. For some further specific examples, see Benson, Not Healed; Eareckson with Musser, Joni; Bergunder, "Miracle
Healing," 302 (noting that the same faith nevertheless enabled the woman to face death bravely). Joni
Eareckson believed that she would be healed (Eareckson with Musser, Joni, 59, 62, 65, 69, 79, 113, 187–88); but while she recognizes that God sometimes does heal (187, 189–90), she was not physically healed herself.
Instead she came to terms with her disability; indeed, few would doubt that her disability has allowed her to touch more lives than most other people touch (cf. e.g., 219–22, 228, and her subsequent advocacy for the disabled). Black, Homiletic, 52–53, 181, rightly emphasizes sensitivity toward the many persons not physically cured in healing services. Hiebert, Reflections, 200–201, notes his deep disappointment when
Proposed Explanations
ministries that claim much supernatural healing, as most proponents of supernatural healing acknowledge.3
Likewise, some remissions prove disappointingly temporary, despite the shortterm benefit they do provide.4 Testimonies from too soon after the cure5 typically do not leave room to test the permanence of the cure; even cases that a doctor reasonably believed healed based on present evidence might prove temporary.6 (It should be noted, however, that even some early testimonies have been revisited decades or even a half century later and proved enduring.7) Whether temporary improvements can function as evidence of healing depends on the case and on a child for whom he as a missionary prayed died, but that the funeral ended up glorifying God in the community. By contrast, although Lindsay, Not Healed, allows for it to be someone's time to die (15–16), he usually attributes a person's lack of healing to sin (8–12), unbelief (17–18), or the like, going beyond biblical evidence; one might as well blame the healing ministers for inadequate faith (cf. Jas 5:14–15).
3. E.g., Gardner, Healing Miracles, 155–74, esp. 165–69; also 206; Neal, Power, x–xi, 1–8; Bennett,
Morning, 151; Stewart, Only Believe, 145, 147 (also 76 and 165, on the healing evangelists; also ibid., 152, on a school for the deaf in Liberia founded by Stewart's ministry); Alexander, Signs, 10–13; Woldu, Gifts,
158–59; Tari, "Preface," 11 (noting that they pray for healing only when led to do so; cf. Breeze, 55–57);
Martin, Healing, 53; Ogilvie, Healing, 36–37; Lawrence, Healing, 43–44; Kirby, "Recovery," 119–20; Rogge,
"Relationship," 384–90; Benson, Not Healed, passim; Lucas, "Foundations," 31–37; Reyes, "Framework,"
114–43; Kraft, "Years," 120; Pytches, Come, 22, 162; cf. Winston, Faith, 47–49; Pytches, Thundered,
55, 82–83; Alamino, Footsteps, 51 (blind), 57–58 (deaf); Woodard, Faith, 48–58; Gee, Trophimus (in McGee, Miracles, 196); helpful historical discussion in Hardesty, Faith Cure, 129–37; for Latin American
Pentecostalism, see Petersen, Might, 102–4 (noting trust in God's sovereignty, 102). This was clearly true even of noted healing evangelists; for example, many close to Wigglesworth were not healed (Warner,
"Introduction," 19), and his own three-year agony with gallstones made his later ministry gentler than before (Gee, "Foreword," 13; Warner, "Introduction," 22–23); Oral Roberts's informal estimate of 10 percent healed (Stewart, Only Believe, 58); in the modern faith movement, see Barron, Gospel, 125–36.
Van Brenk, "Wagner," 257, cites 29 percent completely healed for Wagner (which would be quite high).
4. E.g., Salmon, Heals, 113–16 (in ch. 16, "Disappointments"). Some also view even temporary recoveries as often helpful, extending life at least partly (a view noted in Ogilbee and Riess, Pilgrimage,
49; cf. the incidents in Stibbe, Prophetic Evangelism, 2–3; Cunningham, Holiness, 154–55). Harry Hock
(Miracles) benefited greatly from his dramatic recovery in 1965, but he did pass away in late 1969 (when his wife, at least, was in her sixties; see http://www.genealogybuff.com/pa/pa-mifflin-obits14.htm; accessed
Dec. 6, 2010); for another productive reprieve of three and a half years, see Hock, Miracles, 53–54, 69; in Maddocks, Call, 36–37, a clearly dying man recovered after anointing, yet died of the same disease two years later; in Ising, Blumhardt, 212, a man dying of lung disease returned to his work healthy but died two years later. Baxter, Healing, 260–61, notes that some, especially older persons, not unexpectedly pass away several years after healing; he emphasizes that present physical healings, in contrast to future resurrection, are not intended to cure human mortality. Cf. also the report that Kimbangu warned one man named
Yankala not to sin again, and when Yankala did so his blindness returned (McClenon, "Miracles," 187).
5. Some testimonies come from soon after the cure (e.g., the cancer recovery testimony of J. W. Guthrie,
Akron, Ohio, "Healed," comes from only two years after the diagnosis; the testimony in Lederer, "Healing," of Elyria, Ohio, comes only months after the remarkable tuberculosis recovery). Early Pentecostals recognized that some recoveries were temporary and sought to explain these theologically (e.g., Clifford, "Permanent"; reprinted as Clifford, "Healings").
6. May, "Miracles," 151, points out that two of Gardner's twenty-two healing examples (about 9 percent) died the year that Gardner's book (Healing Miracles) was published.
7. E.g., Warner, "Still Healed" (after fifty-two years); Warner, "Living by Faith" (after sixty-five to seventy-five years). Clara Shannon, mentioned earlier, temporarily succumbed again to the affliction from which she had been dying, but after more prayer, she remained healthy for at least forty more years
(Hurst, "Healings").
Nonsupernatural Causes
the bar the observer requires as evidence, but many would not establish the case by themselves.8
Finally, that everyone dies shows that no one, regardless of one's theology, will always be healed.9 That is, whether remissions are permanent or not, death is inevitable for everyone. Not only are many not healed (as noted above), many have died without healing even in movements that emphasize healing, despite abundant prayer for them.10 In some movements, a number of persons have even died precisely because, waiting for miraculous intervention, they neglected medical intervention already available to them.11
8. Bishop's dismissal of temporary cures as violating the definition of miracle (Bishop, Healing, 203) begs the question, since there is no agreed-on definition; moreover, even in medicine, when the original cause of an ailment is not removed, the ailment may return (e.g., one with a genetic predisposition to cancer may be genuinely cured and not merely in temporary remission but may succumb to cancer later). Even in some cases of relapses after a few years (such as rarely happen in connection with Lourdes), the original healing remains medically inexplicable (Cranston, Miracle, 185). But temporary cures, while beneficial, are often too ambiguous to function as evidence. Ancient conceptions of some kinds of miracles or magic allowed for reversal (see examples in Bertman, "Note"), but these were not normally eliminations of benefits conferred and therefore would not be relevant to this case.
9. So also Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 61; Choy, Murray, 158; Pink, Healing, 24; cf. Lim,
"Evaluation," 189; Spraggett, Kuhlman, 109 (citing Dr. Don Gross); Robertson, Miracles, 109 (acknowledging that it is sometimes God's will to "take" someone); Christians being ready for death in Neal, Power, 12–17; some early Church of God Pentecostals in Alexander, Healing, 112–13. Some even cite cases where they believe sickness (German, "Mysterious Ways"; Numbere, Vision, 337 [sickness preventing taking a fatal flight]; Alamino, Footsteps, 48 [sickness protecting from false accusation]; Ten Boom, Tramp, 176; Bredesen,
Miracle, 69) or other problems (Smith, "Breakdowns") proved providential, restraining them from a situation that could have led instead to death. In Anderson, Miracles, 156, the lack of supernatural healing saved the patient's marriage (the surgery brought the family together, preventing the divorce); earlier, J. Hudson
Taylor experienced his greatest advances through physical affliction (Miller, Miracle of Healing, 66–67 [cf. also 87–89]; cf. Ps 119:67, 71), though he also experienced dramatic recoveries (ibid., 15–16, 87).
10. As a test case, during the 1918 flu epidemic, early Pentecostals claimed that many escaped death and were healed; their obituaries nevertheless show that many did die. At least some sources treated the deceased as having died in faith and overcome (Alexander, Healing, 222). For reports of both deaths and healings during that epidemic, see Olena, Horton, 43. The reality of death in spite of prayer clearly jarred a young and idealistic Aimee Semple MacPherson regarding her first husband (Blumhofer, Sister,
91–94); "faith" may have even encouraged the original deficiency in hygiene that helped precipitate the death (91). Charismatic leaders like David Watson have died from illness despite the prayers and faith of many (Storms, Healing, 34–35); note also, e.g., the godly Elberta Bennett (Bennett, Morning, 118–21).
Though this present book emphasizes those who have been healed, many with whom I have talked during this period have shared about other loved ones who experienced tragic deaths despite fervent prayers; e.g., Genti Rexho (his mother; personal correspondence, May 25, 2009); Dick and Debbie Riffle (their son; personal correspondence, Dec. 13, 2007); cf. also Reed, Surgery, 16, 36. I am aware of a rare circle of teaching that has promised physical immortality (I have had particular concern regarding this version of "Manifested Sons" teaching), but such circles presumably die out over time with their most extreme advocates. Manifested Sons teachers like Bill Britton have died, though expecting elite Christians to be glorified on earth during the final tribulation (Jesus the Pattern Son [Springfield, Mo.: Bill Britton, 1967],
73–75; idem, Sons of God—Awake! [Springfield, Mo.: Bill Britton, 1966], 1–17, 64–83); the more radical
Manifested Sons teacher Sam Fife died in 1979 ("Body Loses Head"; Taft, "Crash"; Scott, "Sect Leader").
Father Divine apparently taught that following him properly cured all sickness and could ideally prevent death (Fauset, Gods, 63).
11. E.g., Reed, Surgery, 41–42; Oursler, Power, 252; see esp. examples in May, "Miracles," 145; on Hobart
Freeman, see, e.g., Barron, Gospel, 14–33; cf. Sweet, Health, 160; Wagner and Higdon, "Issues"; Alexander,
Proposed Explanations
One cannot fairly count such observations against the testimony of the Gospels, however.12 The Gospels nowhere imply continuous healing leading to immortality and have rarely been construed as implying this.13 Nor do they appear to envisage a situation in this age where all the disabled are healed (cf. Luke 14:13–14); many of those who pray for the sick affirm that, no matter how many blessings of the kingdom are at work in the present, some still await the future era.14 For early
Christians, signs of the kingdom represented samples of the future age, not its fullness. Indeed, texts from the Pauline corpus indicate that even some persons in Paul's circle remained sick.15 Paul apparently saw no contradiction between such illnesses and his claim that God performed signs through his ministry (2 Cor
12:12; Rom 15:19). Granted such observations, how should we respond to more dramatic healing claims such as many of those that we have noted?
Epistemological Premises I believe that the book's primary and less controversial thesis, that eyewitnesses report healings (even rather dramatic ones), is already safely established. But how should these claims be understood? If one starts with the assumption that miracles happen, one will construe many of these reports as miracles. If one starts with the assumption that miracles do not happen, one will interpret all these stories differently. If we leave both options open and look for the most
Fire, 302. (Many of these writers critique an excess, not all charismatic healing; Reed's sister, for example, is charismatic leader Rita Bennett; Bennett, Morning, 141.) For some African churches' failure to address
AIDS prevention adequately, see, e.g., Togarasei, "HIV/AIDS," 13–15; cf. Wanyama et al., "Belief." News stories about religiously based criminal neglect in cases of children's health abound: e.g., Rose French,
"Courts Face New Challenges in Faith Healing Cases," Associated Press, June 30, 2009, http://news
.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re/us_rel_faith_healing_law; accessed June 30, 2009; Robert Imrie,
"Wis. Jury: Father Guilty in Prayer Death Case," Associated Press, Aug. 1, 2009, http://news.yahoo.com/s
/ap/20090802/ap_on_re_us/us_prayer_death; accessed Aug. 1, 2009; Mensah M. Dean, "Faith-healing
Parents Charged in Death of Infant Son," Philadelphia Daily News, http://www.philly.com/philly/hp
/news_update/20091008_Faith-healing_parents_charged_in_death_of_infant_son.html; accessed
Oct. 8, 2009; already a case in 1915 noted in Wacker, "Living," 434.
12. Some cite evil in the world as justification for rejecting theism (the position hypothetically noted in Basinger, "Evidence," 57–58; contrast Larmer, "Explanations," 11), but it is an idealized theism distinct from any form of theism offered in Jewish, Christian, or Islamic Scriptures.
13. Cho, "Foundation," 86, cites Oswald J. Smith (Physician, 57, 64), warning against building doctrine against healing on those who are not healed, since even Jesus did not heal all.
14. What many call the "already/not yet" of the kingdom, or "inaugurated" vs. consummated eschatology. See, e.g., Blue, Authority, 107–16; Lucas, "Foundations," 32; Dunkerley, Healing Evangelism,
51–55; Nolivos, "Paradigm," 233; Hudson, "British Pentecostals," 298 (though noting on 299–300 that this was not widely accepted in early British Pentecostalism); Cho, "Foundation," 94.
15. Many rightly cite Gal 4:13–14; Phil 2:27; 1 Tim 5:23; 2 Tim 4:20 (e.g., Blue, Authority, 107–8;
Lucas, "Foundations," 31–32; Storms, Healing, 95–100). The thorn in the flesh of 2 Cor 12:7 that many cite, however, is more debatable (see Num 33:55; Josh 23:13; Judg 2:3; e.g., Keener, Corinthians, 240;
Kwon, "Foundations," 164–65; Bartow, Adventures, 103), and while Gal 4:13 probably refers to sickness, it does not indicate an eye disease (pace many; see Keener, "Notes," 47–49). See also 1 Kgs 1:1; 14:4;
2 Kgs 13:14.
Nonsupernatural Causes
plausible explanation in any given case, different cases may require different explanations.
Regardless of one's assumptions about the possibility of supernatural causation, however, virtually everyone will agree that some claims are not miraculous and that many others do not offer evidence compelling enough by themselves to surmount a very high bar of evidence (for some starting with mostly Humean assumptions yet willing to accept strong evidence). Nevertheless, I will argue, especially in chapters 14–15, that there is some sufficiently strong evidence today to meet an open-minded nonsupernaturalist's bar of proof, if never that of a closed-minded antisupernaturalist. This is the secondary and more controversial argument of this book.
Epistemic Agnosticism Thoroughgoing epistemological skepticism becomes impractically cumbersome when applied to daily life and often fails to allow for degrees of probability. For example, at an extreme, some aver that one cannot claim to have met with someone else but only to have inferred that one met with someone else. Yet people in everyday life, as well as historians, do not and cannot function with such a narrow epistemological skepticism.16 Demanding absolute certainty of the sort available in mathematics before making any sort of claims ignores the degrees of probability that we judge sufficient for various activities; it prejudices the case a priori against any assertions.17 Many philosophers do not embrace such a limited epistemology, including regarding miracles.18
16. See Baxter, "Historical Judgment," 24–25. Baxter is critiquing those who so portray the disciples' resurrection experiences, noting that this epistemological skepticism so treats all encounters, transcendent or not. See also Maxwell, "Theories," 28–29, advocating a "structural realism" that accepts probable inferences, against an epistemological skepticism with which no one acts consistently. Descartes himself did not intend for skepticism to be applied with such rigor (Landesman, Epistemology, 78–81). Scientific theories involve both paradigms, which can be subjective, and data, on much of which observers usually agree (Barbour, Religion and Science, 127). Against extreme relativists, who treat scientific theories as more socially constructed than Kuhn, see Barbour, Religion and Science, 144–46; Baghramian, "Relativism"; against relativistic applications of Kuhn, cf. Musgrave, "Thoughts," 49; Stegmüller, "Theory Change," 86–87.
Although social pragmatism is an inadequate epistemic foundation, it may also be worth noting that pure relativism would make it impossible to justify the Nuremberg trials (cf. Jaki, Patterns, 21) or to condemn the Nazi Holocaust and other atrocities except for social utility, itself ultimately difficult to justify without appeal to a higher principle. Between those who neglect social constructions and those who deny even the possibility of concrete data exist a range of "critical realist" positions (Templeton, "Introduction," 9; cf. Polkinghorne, Physics, 5–6, situating critical realism between modernism and postmodernism). On scientists' preference for critical realism, see Polkinghorne, Reality, 1–6, 15, 35; Devitt, "Realism."
17. Cf. Polanyi, Knowledge, 273–74, suggesting that Kant's demand for suspending judgment in pure mathematics in the absence of certain knowledge (though he accepted a prioris there) is itself a premise for which one cannot claim certain knowledge. Cf. also his argument about genuine patterns in nature, the degree of objectivity concerning which may be quantified by its order insofar as that differs from expectations of randomness (Polanyi, Knowledge, 33–40, esp. 36–37). On provisionality and probability in warrant, see also Templeton, "Introduction," 9–10.
18. Without embracing miracles, Levine, Problem, 186, concludes, "Contemporary epistemic theory, including reliabilism, is neutral with regard to the type of evaluative and normative question about the
Proposed Explanations
According to one stringent modern approach to epistemology, we can describe human experiences, but we cannot know whether or what supernatural activity might stand behind them.19 This supposedly neutral approach provides a common ground for academic discourse on history (namely, human experience open to investigators regardless of presuppositions), so it is useful. It does not, however, provide for dialogue regarding legitimate questions of theology or philosophy and is limited in the sphere in which it can make pronouncements. Such an approach, if its agnosticism functions as a definitive presupposition rather than as an adaptable heuristic tool, forecloses a priori the possibility of some potential interpretations. Though science labels potential grids for interpreting its data as hypotheses, it does not rule out the usefulness of such grids. Employing a common language for history need not require us to rule out a priori the possibility of some metahistorical hypotheses proving more satisfactory than others in explaining the data. In chapters 5–6, I argued that supernatural explanations like theism should not be a priori ruled out as potential explanatory hypotheses.
Since science depends on observation and experimentation, and since a "miracle is by definition an irreproducible" experience,20 even documented miracle cures by definition cannot fit precisely the expectations of science as it has been most narrowly defined.21 While affirming miracles, one scholar warns that "miracles cannot be investigated by the usual scientific methods since we cannot control the variables and perform experiments."22 This does not mean that claims about such events are not falsifiable; it simply means that they must be investigated by means of the appropriate methodology, one suited for individual events.23 Miracles are distinct acts in history (on theistic premises, actions of an intelligent agent) and thus no more subject to experimentation than other historical events like Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo.24 As I noted earlier, science depends on predictions of the physical world; its method is not meant to provide mathematical predictions possibility of justified belief in miracles that we have been examining." Hume could not accept miracles due to "his peculiarly narrow philosophical empiricism" (186; cf. 52).
19. Haacker, Theology, 9. In fact, there is no single consensus approach to epistemology today
(Landesman, Epistemology, 191–92).
20. Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 144; cf. Laato, "Miracles," 68. Hirschberg and Barasch note
(Recovery, 277) that many scientists treat "miracles" as anomalies that need not be explained; they are statistically possible but not central for the practice of medicine. McClenon, Events, 7, notes that anomalous events "need not be experimentally validated" to have real sociological effects.
21. Definitions of science vary; see Okello, Case, 13. No one actually conducts his or her life along lines of the stricter definitions; virtually all knowledge on which we act in daily life involves probabilities of varying degrees. Between excessive caution and uncritical acceptance of all claims lie various critical approaches.
Here I am simply specifying a methodological limitation of a particular approach to epistemology.
22. Wilson, "Miracle Events," 266.
23. If evaluated in a larger class of events, it would be the class of other miraculous events, once one has established the likelihood of a miracle in a given case. The closest one comes to a control group is nonmiraculous events; the closest one comes to predictions is that they occur more often in faith contexts, but firm specific predictions are not possible here (or in history more generally, which deals with individual events).
24. Clark, "Miracles and Law," 31.
Nonsupernatural Causes
of human (or divine) actions. Nevertheless, healing reports make claims about empirical reality that often can be tested,25 and hypotheses may be formed about their most plausible explanations without necessarily unfairly prejudicing the case for or against faith. Their interpretation, however, is complicated by the evaluators' philosophic a prioris that often screen out possible explanations, as I suggested in chapters 5–6.
Genuine Anomalies Although this chapter will explore natural explanations for many recoveries, some recoveries are anomalous. Whatever the reasons, extraordinary cures do occur and should not be minimized. Patrick McNamara, director of the Evolutionary Neurobehavior Laboratory at Boston University School of Medicine, and Reka Szent-Imrey, research associate at the Institute for the Biocultural Study of Religion, challenge the traditional intellectual goal of merely debunking miracle claims rather than learning from them. In this "scenario the hero-scientist" informs the recovering person that no real cure is occurring, "that instead he is gullible, stupid," and should appreciate the heroic scientist for informing the patient of this truth. By contrast, these authors contend, extraordinary healings do occur, especially in religious contexts. While agnostic about supernatural causation, they insist that scholars should study and learn from these cures.26
Statistically, extraordinary unexpected events sometimes happen; in ten million cases, one may expect to find about ten instances of any one-in-a-million unlikelihoods.27 What makes such anomalies harder to accommodate as mere statistical deviations is when the quality or quantity of their occurrence in a given sort of setting is also statistically improbable to a high degree; this accumulation of irregularities becomes significant if there are patterns in their occurrence. Further, some events are too unexpected, contravening observed patterns of nature to such an extent that they exceed mere irregularities (e.g., perhaps the nonmedical raising of someone who has not breathed for hours). Critics might respond to such cases by citing apparently analogous cases of such anomalies. These proposed analogies, however, beg the question, since they might be further instances of the matter in 25. See Smedes, Ministry, 59: healing claims must be open "to objective, rigorous, and scientifically responsible testing . . . over an adequate period of time and . . . open to critical examination of skeptics." Like believers, skeptics can explain away evidence to fit contrary paradigms; but science can pass judgment on whether the person was sick and whether the person is now cured (cf. John 9:25). Ideally (if sufficient studies are available), with regard to the recovery's evidential value, science may also compare the probabilities of this happening in given cases where supernaturalist explanations are not invoked (esp. by chance).
On nt epistemology treating miracles empirically, see Blessing, "Psychology," esp. 90–92, 97. Physical recoveries are not simply the subjective psychological experiences characterized as "mysticism" (cf. James,
Varieties, 379–429; James himself allows supernatural reality but rejects miracles [520–21], concurring with dominant philosophic dispositions of his era).
26. McNamara and Szent-Imrey, "Learn," 208–9. The observation about religious contexts begins on 210.
27. One cannot calculate these with any mathematical precision, however; events that are too rare offer insufficient data for statistical predictions.
Proposed Explanations
question (i.e., a possibly supernatural event), or at least much rarer outside the observed pattern of occurrence.
Likewise, the sort of event typically expected one in a million times may appear far more often (say, thirty cases in a million) under specified conditions (e.g., when prayer is offered), suggesting a pattern. When anomalies repeatedly surround particular persons, for example, multiple raising accounts in one circle (whether
Mama Jeanne, Albert and Julienne Bissouessoue, or Jesus of Nazareth), the pattern of occurrence is itself statistically improbable unless one takes into account some relationship with the pattern (e.g., here, one explanatory hypothesis would be supernatural causation).
Explanations may vary depending on how anomalous events are. The disappearance of a headache or even an unexpected deathbed recovery are more easily explained as random statistical irregularities than, say, the full restoration of a person whose systems have already shut down or (still more unexpectedly) the raising of a person dead for forty minutes. A person recovering unexpectedly or living longer than the doctor predicted could be attributed to chance, since predictions are fallible estimates based on limited knowledge.28 Anomalies are rarer than these, however, and the compounding of anomalies is itself anomalous. To simply dismiss such patterns as random irregularities is to evade the possibility of a supernatural explanation by fiat of definition ("anomalies" that do not require explanation rather than a possible miracle). The less common naturalistic alternative, to dismiss accounts as fabrications because they are too anomalous on naturalistic grounds, is simply to presuppose what one hopes to prove.
The Demand for Analogies Before turning to natural causes, I must address a reason often given for accepting only natural causes and also address my reasons for questioning that approach.
Some scholars will accept those extranormal claims in early Christian sources for which we have analogies today (such as healings and exorcisms), yet reject those that they regard as unparalleled and that cannot be explained naturalistically.29
That is, only naturalistic explanations are acceptable from the start. One of the most obvious test cases for claims that cannot be explained without supernatural causation is walking on water. Marcus Borg accepts reports of Jesus's healings and exorcisms because we have such reports for others conducting these types of activities but rejects reports of raising someone long dead, walking on water, or multiplying food. "As a historian," he insists, "I cannot accept that Jesus's ability to 'do the spectacular' was unique and without parallel."30 Likewise, Bart Ehrman
28. See, e.g., the case Joseph F. O'Donnell, an oncologist, cites in Lenzer, "Citizen" (the fifth page of my online version). The same page in Lenzer also correctly notes the "bias called the survivor effect": survivors offer testimonies, but even if they prayed beforehand, the dead tell no tales.
29. For a fuller discussion of Troeltsch and the principle of analogy in historiography, see ch. 6.
30. Borg, "Disagreement," 232; cf. similarly Price, Son of Man, 19–21, 131; Theissen and Merz, Guide,
310; particularly explicitly Montefiore, Miracles, 18: "it is difficult to believe that God intervened so often
Nonsupernatural Causes
points out that we know thousands of people, and they do not walk on water.31
And it cannot be denied that water-walking claims remain quite rare (though not unheard of)32 compared with healings and exorcisms.
Yet even here the inquiry starts from a premise that is not necessarily neutral.
Evaluating Jesus by the standards of widespread practice may fail to account for the fact that what we do know about him even based on purely secular historiographic grounds33 pushes him far beyond the category of "most people," even in terms of how he viewed himself.34 As noted in chapters 2–3, we cannot even compare him in this respect with typical sign prophets of his era, who failed to perform the promised signs.35 There are similarities and differences with other charismatic sages of his era (not least the historical attestation surrounding the latter),36 but they were rare, none of them clearly offered the sort of self-claims that Jesus almost certainly offered for himself,37 and for that matter, a supernaturalist might not a priori rule out the possibility that some of them experienced some supernatural agency as well. More important, most people with Jesus's self-claims do not offer healings, exorcisms, and the like, and if we compare Jesus with those who do, rather than people in general, this category includes few enough members that we cannot easily extrapolate from the others to Jesus. What if Jesus really was sent by God and attested by special supernatural signs? Is there more bias in raising the question or in dismissing it without examination? in the ministry of Jesus if intervention only very rarely occurs elsewhere" (a position assuming both that Jesus was not extraordinary and that intervention everywhere else is rare). We do have some parallel claims for each of these categories, especially for resuscitating dead persons (as noted in the previous chapter), but all these categories of claims are admittedly rare. For feeding miracles, see Gardner, Healing Miracles,
38, and other sources discussed earlier. I also argued earlier that historians do not need to presuppose atheism or deism (i.e., to rule out an active God) to talk about history.
31. Ehrman, Prophet, 196.
32. See, e.g., Dermawan, "Study," 256; on a popular level, see Crawford, Miracles, 26; Tari, Wind, 43–47
(citing multiple eyewitnesses he knew), regarding West Timor.
33. For studies at this level particularly well informed about Jesus's Jewish environment, to name only a few, see, e.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew; idem, Jesus and Judaism; idem, Religion; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism; idem, Figure; Meier, Marginal Jew; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism; Theissen and Merz,
Guide; Flusser, Sage; I offered my own contribution in Keener, Historical Jesus, chs. 17–19, 22. Not all of these scholars would agree with the degree of uniqueness I would attribute to Jesus in this respect, but I think that all would agree (as would, I think, even Borg and Ehrman, noted above) at least that Jesus's activities differed considerably from average.
34. Cf. Eve, Miracles, 378, 384–86; from a different angle, Bartholomew, Belief, 112, as cited in Licona,
Resurrection, 145n31. On the importance of the context of Jesus's life and claims for evaluating his miracle claims, cf. Swinburne, "Evidence," 205–6 (on the resurrection claim).
35. See further Eve, Miracles; Keener, Historical Jesus, 242–43, and the discussion in chs. 2–3 of the present book. The one ultimate promised sign in dispute is his resurrection (the most significant, and in my opinion the only viable, historical objection to considering which stems from antisupernaturalist assumptions); whether he expected the kingdom's consummation in tandem with judgment on Jerusalem chronologically or (as I think) only theologically is also a matter of dispute. But Jesus, unlike what we know of the sign prophets, performed many signs.
36. Again, see Eve, Miracles; our chs. 2–3.
37. See Keener, Historical Jesus, chs. 18–19, and sources cited there (notably Flusser, Judaism, 620).
Proposed Explanations
If one does not start with the premise that Jesus could not be unique (or at least highly extraordinary),38 the evidence does suggest that Jesus was sufficiently beyond the normal person for us to investigate unusual questions about him.39 To start with the premise that Jesus could not be sufficiently extraordinary as to invite extraordinary explanations (such as those that his earliest followers affirmed) is merely to state an assumption, not to offer an argument. That assumption might be more readily entertained if it did not simply rule out by fiat the very position that it purports to refute.
Having noted this point, however, I will maintain my focus here on the less controversial and more clearly documented cases of healings and exorcisms, rather than arguing Borg's and Ehrman's point here. Neither walking on water nor multiplying food are common or typical in the Gospels. I have noted some modern claims to nature miracles (ch. 12), but the majority of miracle claims today, as in the Gospels and Acts, involve unusual recoveries. And as noted in the previous chapter, there are a number of claims of raising the dead today, though the majority of those, like most in the Bible, do not address those who have been dead for extended periods of time.40
Introducing Nonsupernatural Causes Although experiences reported as miracle cures are significant to those who experience them, not all are genuinely anomalous medically. Moreover, whereas many observers will view some unusual recovery claims as quite plausible, virtually everyone will regard some miracle claims as fallacious, whether the error arises through deception or misunderstanding. Most of us have experienced either breaches of trust by some faulty witnesses (sometimes even deliberate con artists) or some witnesses' unsatisfactory interpretive assumptions about what must constitute supernatural activity. One cult leader,41 Sam Fife, built much of his claim
38. Borg, "Disagreement," 232, is explicit about his premise: "if I became convinced that at least a few people have been able to walk on water, then I would be willing to take seriously that Jesus may have done so. But as a historian, I find myself unable to say that the life of Jesus involved spectacular happenings of a magnitude without parallel anywhere else."
39. Cf. Polkinghorne, Reality, 68. Certainly for Christians who affirm the Creator's special activity in Jesus of Nazareth, "it would not be surprising if some quite remarkable things happened around him"
(Placher, Mark, 79, citing also Archbishop Rowan Williams, Tokens, 44–45). A priori accepting or rejecting this premise constitutes working from assumptions; to explore the possibility of the premise requires only an open mind.
40. Those resuscitated are not normally long dead (Price, Son of Man, 21: "the rotting dead"), but there is only one case of that even in biblical narrative (John 11:39, 43–44; cf. the urgency in 2 Kgs 4:29).
41. I define "cult" here in sociological rather than theological terms, though most theologians would consider both categories applicable in this case. Though resembling a radical charismatic group in some respects (and undoubtedly with much variation at the local level, and perhaps differing at different points in the movement's history), Sam Fife's "Body of Christ" went far beyond this, moving many people to wilderness farms (see, e.g., Taft, "Followers," 1; Watson, "Leader"; Buffington, "Leader"; "Body Loses Head";
Rudin and Rudin, Prison, 72–74, esp. 73; Scott, "Sect Leader," A5), allegedly breaking up families (e.g.,
Nonsupernatural Causes
for supernatural attestation of his ministry on an exorcism that he performed, supposedly delivering a woman from epilepsy, on account of which he was allegedly able to lecture the psychiatrists at Tulane University.42 When I inquired at Tulane several years later, psychologist David Reed, then in private practice, responded that "no EEG readings satisfactorily established epilepsy" and noted significant exaggeration on the leader's part (for example, they dialogued with Fife; he did not teach them).43
Some accounts of miracles raise suspicions even for those who accept some other kinds of miracles. Thus, for example, in one report blood mysteriously spattered onto a woman's white dress during a church service, but the stains equally mysteriously disappeared soon afterward.44 In another, people claimed to see
"bloodstained crosses floating across the night sky."45 Those prone to accept supernatural explanations can be tempted to explain more details than necessary in such terms. While one cannot a priori rule such unusual claims to be impossible, at the least they diverge from the pattern of the bulk of the analogies for more documented extranormal claims, and thus our first instinct, even on the premise that miracles do occur, will be to seek other explanatory categories.
Dunphy, "Marriage"; Taft, "Followers," 16) and on at least some farms beating, restraining, or otherwise abusing children (Dunphy, "Marriage," C1; Dettling, "Witness") and others (Watson, "Leader"; Buffington,
"Leader"; idem, "Routine") who were supposedly possessed. Other materials are also in my file (mostly numerous newspaper clippings and copies of interviews with ex-members shared with me by some local anticult activists several years after the reported events).
42. Sam Fife, Studies in Demonology (North Miami, Fla.: North Bible Center, n.d.), 35, 40; see her own more nuanced testimony in a mainstream setting in Miller, "Story" (noting on 177 that she had remained delivered for nearly twenty-seven years). Fife also circulated a tape of the woman's deliverance ("The Jane
Story: Deliverance from Demons").
43. Personal correspondence, May 27, 1980, noting that the staff there accurately predicted
Fife's own breakdown, which followed soon after. Reed's clinical evaluation appears in Smucker and Hostetler, "Case," 182 and passim; he asked Fife to share at Tulane what happened (187), believed that psychotherapy helped prepare her (189), and argued that her belief system helped make her susceptible to this method of cure (190). Although with less direct information, what information
Dr. Henry H. W. Miles at Tulane had available when I wrote them offered a quite different impression from Fife's exaggerated claims (personal correspondence, April 21, 1980). One might also note that most of Fife's specific prophecies (e.g., in his speech from Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, 1972, excerpts of which were provided me) did not come to pass. With regard to healing beliefs, "Tapes Prove," 1, quotes tapes in which sect leaders insist that one should believe the "truth" that one is already healed rather than the "facts" of one's sickness.
44. Wacker, Heaven Below, 93 (citing Robert A. Brown, in Latter Rain Evangel [July 1929]: 6). The "mysterious" character might reflect the incompleteness of the source and a misunderstanding at the source
(e.g., she began menstruating unexpectedly, something ruptured, or communion wine was spilled; the garment was cleaned; and someone who did not check interpreted this outcome as miraculous); but of course I am supplying a rationalist explanation for the report.
45. Wacker, Heaven Below, 93; cf. the reportedly widely seen vision of a cross in the sky, interrupting nighttime firing of weapons on both sides, in Boddy, "Cross" (citing his eyewitness sources). These might evoke the tradition of the appearance of Constantine's celestial cross (Eusebius Life of Constantine 1.27–32;
Smith, Comparative Miracles, 100–102). I have dealt elsewhere with the phenomenon of celestial apparitions, which seem most often susceptible to other explanations (above, 80–82; also Keener, John, 1187; cf. one modern discussion of classical examples in Strothers, "Objects").
Proposed Explanations
The abundance of magical charms attested in both Christian and non-Christian medical literature from the late fourth century suggests to some interpreters that many of the healings of that era were "mental and faith cures." This does not mean that people in antiquity did not experience these cures as genuine events,46 but a cure may be genuine without requiring direct supernatural causation. Many cure claims today can also reflect mental cures or fraud. I already noted (ch. 7) that a large proportion of on-the-spot healing testimonies in public meetings, at least in the West, involve matters that are not immediately visible to onlookers, and that some deceptive or self-deceived attention seekers may claim healings publicly that do not persist. In some cases, however, the healers themselves deceptively exploit their audiences.
Fraud Josephus thought that the sign prophets in his day (who did not focus on healing) were fraudulent, arguing that they failed to deliver the signs and wonders they promised.47 Such accusations continue to surface with regard to healers of various religious traditions.48 While many examples are debatable, clearly many faith healers are neither sincere nor effective, and this has probably been true as long as faith healing has been practiced.49 In extensive accounts of miracle stories,
46. Dawson, Healing, 188, citing evidence in Oribasius's Medical Collection in the late 300s; cf. Woolley,
Exorcism, 25–26. Church leaders sometimes complained about superstition among many Christians on a popular level (Woolley, Exorcism, 66–67). As noted above, others have tried to explain nt miracles by analogy to "paranormal" telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition (Montefiore, Miracles; Thouless,
"Miracles," 255–56; cf. Perry, "Believing," 341, cautiously); while the differences are significant (nt accounts suggest divine dependence rather than innate abilities), the analogy at least represents another attempt to get beyond typical Western assumptions.
47. Josephus Ant. 20.167–68. In antiquity, cf. doctors in Toner, Culture, 40.
48. E.g., Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, 147, report the "gossip" about some qigong practitioners faking healings; for traditional healers faking phenomena, see Edwards, "Medicine," 21; Frank, Persuasion,
44; for both fraudulent shamans and authentic "supernormal" phenomena in other cases, see Oesterreich,
Possession, 381; for charges of fraud in parapsychology, see, e.g., Charpak and Broch, Debunked, 127–28; in alternative medicine, Quackwatch (as cited in Lenzer, "Citizen"); in Theosophy, cf. Scott, "Publics."
Allison and Malony, "Surgery," 56–57, note that James Randi and others have shown how Filipino psychic surgery could be faked and note (on 60) that businessmen hired fakes to exploit tourists, leaving it difficult to ascertain how authentic the original version would have been. McClenon, who has "observed over 1,000 psychic surgeries in the Philippines," also suspects fraud, though not citing concrete evidence
("Healing," 44). By contrast, Licauco, "Psychic Healing," 96, argues that despite some fraud the genuine phenomenon occurs (with too many patients simultaneously for Randi's techniques to work). For one study on psychic surgery (regarding Brazil), see Greenfield, Spirits.
49. Cf. Robertson, "Epidauros to Lourdes," 188; for King Edward the Confessor (ca. 1051), see
Schwarz, Healing, 108–10. Also cf. the comparison of faith healing quacks and medical quacks in Frye,
"Faith Healing," 16–17; but faith healing quacks are presumably more common, because, unlike their medical analogues, they are unregulated. For a particularly egregious example, Jim Jones faked miracles
(Kerns, People's Temple, 47–50). For a fraudulent magnetism doctor, see Buskirk, Healing, 49–50. Some doubt that any faith healers cured (e.g., Boggs, Faith Healing, 35); others differentiate respectable versions such as Episcopalian Agnes Sanford from "extremes" like Father Divine and (on his view) Aimee Semple
McPherson (Gross, Spiritual Healing, 23–33). Some distinguish those with genuine cures from those with more abuses (e.g., Dr. Hoyt in Spraggett, Kuhlman, 64; Spraggett himself in 16–34).
Nonsupernatural Causes
it is therefore not unlikely that some will prove fraudulent even if others are not.50
One critical investigator, though his hostility openly betrays his own biases,51 has rightly identified some fraudulent faith healers in the United States.52 Others, who unlike Randi allow for genuinely supernatural and continuing gifts of healings, also acknowledge and challenge frauds and marketing gimmicks.53 An honest investigator shared with me several accounts of healing testimonies and discovered two of these cases to be likely fraudulent during the editing process of my book.
Nevertheless, while frauds exist and are probably common, one cannot extrapolate from a number of fraudulent claims to the conclusion that all miracle claims are fraudulent,54 since, as Philip Jenkins notes, "the great majority of churches work strenuously to suppress fraudulent claims."55 That is, many people are ready to expose and discipline fraud when they discover it. Healing researcher Candy
Gunther Brown offers psychological reasons that people tend to extrapolate from isolated cases of fraud to generalize about cure claims in general, but warns that the evidence does not support this generalization.56 Extrapolating from some claims being false to all claims being false involves a common logical fallacy: generalizing based on specific cases, hence illegitimate transference, that is, guilt by association.57 The fallacy is all the more suspect when those extrapolating have inflexibly rigid antisupernaturalist assumptions to defend. The logic is actually
50. E.g., Bredesen, Miracle, 128–30, cited a story from Michael Esses, presumably in good faith, but serious questions were later raised about Esses's veracity (esp. by DeBlase, Survivor).
51. While Randi accuses a physician of biases because he is charismatic (290; though the bias seems clear in this case), he ought to allow the charge of bias to cut the other way, since Randi himself is openly hostile. Pankratz, "Magician," and especially Schmidt, "Possession," place Randi's criticism in the historic context of magicians' conflict with charlatans. Schmidt, "Possession," 275, notes that modern magicians
(P. T. Barnum, Houdini, and James Randi) as exposers of "supernatural" claims reflect a trend since the late eighteenth century for magicians to function as Enlightenment "celebrities" rather than purveyors of the supernatural (though on the other side Houdini's objectivity is questioned in a case in McClenon, Events,
196). For magicians' rationalist exposés, see Schmidt, "Possession," 297–300 (esp. 299, on Spiritualists); on Enlightenment use of ventriloquism as trickery, see 279–92 (for entertainment, 292–97).
52. Randi, Faith Healers; some he treats, like Leroy Jenkins (89–98; see also Bishop, Healing, 30–44, esp. 42–43) and most obviously W. V. Grant (Randi, Faith Healers, 78, 81–82, 99–137) and Peter Popoff
(49, 76–78, 139–81; cf. Alnor, Heaven, 31; Carson, Scandalous, 150–51), are commonly regarded as fraudulent, although many would not go so far for some other evangelists that Randi lists, whatever their weaknesses. See also Pankratz, "Magician," 122, for some clear evidence for fraud. On mixed results for historical investigations of Spiritualists, see McClenon, Events, 189–96, and on a mixture of clear fraud and unexplained elements, see 226–27. Randi rejects miracles a priori (Prather, Miracles, 44).
53. E.g., Schwarz, Healing, 17–21, 46–47, 50–51, 53–66, 77, 84, 117, 185, 193–94; Oursler, Power,
253–56; cf. Witty, Healing, 18–19; Naswem, "Healing," 30–31; Frost, Healing, 183.
54. Probably implied in the argument of Hume, Miracles, 37; idem, "Miracles," 35.
55. Jenkins, New Faces, 122–23; cf. also Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 205, on "healing services";
Newman, Essays, 171; Ising, Blumhardt, 331. Mayhue, Healing, 90, gladly reports a charismatic magazine having to retract a healing story; but perhaps the proper lessons to be drawn might be that they were honest enough to retract what they found to be false and that they did not have to do so on a regular basis.
56. Candy Gunther Brown, personal correspondence, Jan. 1, 2011, based on forthcoming research.
57. This approach lumps all supernatural claims together as a single group, then evaluates the entire group based on some claims (essentially what Hume does in Miracles, 37); what members of the set share is simply supernatural claims (that is what defines the set), not necessarily fraud. Cf. the observation of
Proposed Explanations
more apt to problematize the other position: if a single claim proved true, the possibility of some other genuine healings would have to be granted regardless of the occurrence of false claims.58 Moreover, some of the fraudulent practices may have developed in imitation of authentic versions, reinforcing the danger of a generalization against genuine healing based on fraudulent or failed attempts.
(From my reading of many historical accounts, I suspect that many authentic extranormal events take place at times of great spiritual intensity, what modern church historians often call revival—and that some later successors try to manufacture events that look similar without the same spiritual reality behind them.)
It is likewise precarious to link together all extranormal claims in history without respect to the differing genres of the works that include them.59
In a different category from fraud, and more often relevant to self-descriptions of healings, are common reporting errors of anomalous experiences. Long-term memory usually preserves less detail than short-term memory;60 memories may be "reconstructed" to conform them to ordinary or sometimes extraordinary experience;61 the limitations of language for communicating experiences may inhibit full communication;62 and the like. These problems are, however, much more relevant to reports of subjective internal states than to actual changes in physical condition on which most of this book focuses.
That observation is also relevant regarding hallucinations and other necessarily private experiences. Many reports of "alien abductions," for example, emerged as "repressed memories" during hypnosis.63 Reports vary according to cultural expectations,64 but most significantly, there are "almost no instances in which an individual has been observed during" the alleged abduction experience.65 This situation is quite different from experiences of healing that are often public and often include changes in health before and after the cure. one speaker in Euripides Thyestes frg. 396: not only are persuasive falsehoods common, but so are truths that are typically not believed.
58. E.g., Smart, Philosophers, 33–34; Licona, "Historicity of Resurrection," 100; Keener, Gift, 90; cf.
Lawton, Miracles, 54; Frohock, Healing Powers, 135. Of course, those who inflexibly insist that such events cannot happen can claim that all evidence contrary to their position is false, just as such arguments can be offered to defend any strongly held assumptions against the possibility of contrary evidence.
59. An approach criticized in Licona, "Historicity of Resurrection," 100 (who contrasts the genre of the Gospels with that of Aesop's Fables; also in idem, Resurrection, 143).
60. Pekala and Cardeña, "Issues," 52. Studies of anomalous experiences often must depend on retrospective reporting (61). After noting such qualifications, however, Pekala and Cardeña are willing to use data with such qualifications in view.
61. Ibid., 52–53 (the character of "ordinary" sometimes being constructed according to culturally conditioned narratives, 52).
62. Ibid., 53.
63. See Appelle, Lynn, and Newman, "Experiences," 253–54 (for an example), 266 (for the observation that 70 percent of the stories involve hypnosis). The claims involve "subjectively real memories" (254).
Cf. also Walsh, Shamanism, 169, noting the frequent unreliability of hypnotically shaped memories.
64. Appelle, Lynn, and Newman, "Experiences," 259–60 (noting also the biasing influence of investigators' cues, 259).
65. Ibid., 257.
Nonsupernatural Causes
Emotional Arousal Here, however, we must look at some of the other natural explanations, which have varying degrees of explanatory power for various kinds of cases. Everyone is aware, for example, that some conditions heal on their own. Thus, for example,
Dr. Peter May observes that one kind of birthmark that was supposedly healed miraculously was the sort of birthmark known to disappear naturally over time.66
Likewise, while most theists affirm that God works through medical intervention,67 we would not likely classify most such events as miraculous in a more specific sense.68 May contends that a significant minority of those who develop epilepsy stop having seizures at some point in their lives.69
Inviting more discussion here, some apparent recoveries may stem from momentary excitement.70 Thus one scholar points to a woman he met who claimed that she had been "'healed' at a meeting with a famous guru, when she stood up unaided and took a few paces for the only time since the accident." The scholar notes that "she reverted immediately to her paralyzed state," although she remained convinced that her temporary cure had benefited her.71 Some examples suggest that such temporary cures may have a psychological benefit at times.72
Such incidents are reported among Christians as well. One scholar has warned against the phenomenon of designated wonder workers in some Indian Pentecostal circles, comparing analogous tactics of Hindu gurus.73 He offers his eyewitness
66. May, "Miracles," 151. Assuming that he refers to this same case, he notes that the birthmark in question remained visible though the child was twelve, which is unusual (154).
67. Note, e.g., the phone survey of 1,052 households in eastern North Carolina, where 87 percent affirmed belief in miracles and 80 percent affirmed that God works through physicians (Mansfield, Mitchell, and King,
"Doctor"; cited in Kub, "Miracles," 1275). Historically, see, e.g., Hickson in Mullin, Miracles, 241; Oral Roberts in Schwarz, Healing, 31–33; Kuhlman in Miracles, 15; others, e.g., Graham, Spirit, 160; Csordas, Self, 34–35
(Catholic charismatics); MacNutt, Healing, 14, 164–67; Martin, Healing, 34–35; Lawrence, Healing, 52–57;
Baxter, Healing, 288; Witty, Healing, 17; Gorsuch, "Limits," 286, 297; Pugh, "Medicine"; Pytches, Come, 163;
White, Adventure, 44–50; Dearing, Healing, 159–71; Wilkerson, Beyond, 126, 131; Neal, Power, 22–29; Althouse,
Healing, 57; Sweet, Health, 160; Rasolondraibe, "Ministry," 348; Godwin, Strategy, 19, 32, 46; Numbere, Vision,
293, 345; Hanciles, Beyond Christendom, 360–61 (African Christianity generally); Ayegboyin, "Heal," 237,
246 (on the Aladura); see the summary in Harrell, "Divine Healing," 227.
68. May, "Miracles," 151, notes one advertised healing of this nature.
69. Ibid., 154. Others note that this is less likely for long-term, severe epilepsy.
70. Ibid., 148; May warns about the hype of healing meetings, involving music and "zealous rantings," though cultures and faith traditions that appreciate emotive preaching or worship may well take umbrage at the latter characterization.
71. Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, 147.
72. E.g., although Elena Modina's husband died a week after the public cure (transcript of Elena
Modina, Jan. 7, 2005), he died now happy, converted, and no longer an invalid.
73. Bergunder, "Healing," 106–7, while acknowledging that the Pentecostal practice is not limited to India; he also notes on 103 that the formal parallels predominate in exorcism rather than healing proper; also idem, Movement, 126, 155, though some of his analogies, like Christians calling on Jesus's name or the afflicted falling to the ground, noted on 156, are already in the nt; idem, "Miracle Healing," 295. For rivalry between Hindu and Christian exorcists, see Bergunder, Movement, 157–58; Hinduism often expresses itself in different ways, however, e.g., a Hindu shaman having live coals poured over his head while in a state of possession trance (see Harper, "Pollution," 189). Cf. Hiebert, Reflections, 191; Sri Lankan Catholic
Proposed Explanations
account of a disabled elderly man who, in the emotional intensity of the Christian meeting, took several steps and testified of healing, yet afterward was carried out the back, exhausted.74 Nevertheless, the same researcher admits that such a case was exceptional75 and contends that most reported recoveries appear to be authentic, with participants believing they have been cured through prayer.76 (I have already noted people who were cured permanently at such meetings.) While
Western scholars would attribute many of these to "psychosomatic diseases or spontaneous cures," he notes, some cannot be readily explained in such terms.77 He notes that "healings do occur which are difficult to explain by the scientific means at present available to us."78 Even the analogies sometimes most closely offered for the claim of emotional manipulation, then, should not be taken as representative.
Neither, however, is it purely anomalous or limited to any one culture. Thus researcher Allen Spraggett, who came to adore Kathryn Kuhlman, reported bluntly the sad story of one boy who walked boldly without crutches on stage at another evangelist's request, only to be back on crutches by the end of the service.79 Some other apparent healings hailed by onlookers or hearers turned out to be something other than what they supposed.80 Terence Nichols warns that "everyone" has heard of disabled persons walking at healing crusades and afterward collapsing, though he argues that many genuine miracles do occur.81 demonology at Kudagama drawing on Hinduism and especially Sinhalese Buddhism (Stirrat, "Possession,"
137). One early Pentecostal Indian evangelist, unable to find other Western contacts, affiliated with William
Branham (Bergunder, "Evangelist," 363) and afterward eventually developed Branham's questionable theological legacy beyond Christianity (365–74; cf. idem, "Miracle Healing," 295).
74. Bergunder, "Healing," 108; idem, "Miracle Healing," 296. He notes that the rallies promise healing to all "but many go home unhealed." The emphasis of my present interest, that some are dramatically healed, should not detract from recognizing this other element. A number of healing evangelists in India are said to promise healing to everyone, a promise not realized, though there seems to be a general understanding that everyone knows that despite the rhetoric only some persons are healed (Bergunder, Movement, 161–62; idem, "Miracle Healing," 296). For other criticisms of inauthentic activity, see Thomas, "Issues," 148–50.
75. Bergunder, Movement, 162.
76. Ibid., 161; cf. also idem, "Miracle Healing," 296.
77. Bergunder, Movement, 161; idem, "Miracle Healing," 296. With respect to Western Christians, cf. Stedman, Life, 65, noting that persons sometimes improve temporarily due to emotional stimulation, but noting that genuine, quick, and permanent divine healings are "too well attested and documented to challenge."
78. Bergunder, "Healing," 108; idem, Miracles, 161. He provides verbatim testimony of someone whose younger sister was cured at a rally (108–9).
79. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 18. For some other failed claims, see, e.g., Nolen, Healing, 99 (on Kuhlman herself); Randi, Faith Healers, 288; Jeffries, "Healing," 72.
80. Many of those in wheelchairs in the front of some mid-twentieth-century healing meetings were persons simply with back problems who could not be left standing in the healing line, but this sometimes left onlookers with the impression of a healing that did not take place (Stewart, Only Believe, 115, 130, arguing that this impression was normally not deliberate). A man who claimed to be cured at Lourdes in 1875 was able to walk with crutches even before his healing, and postmortem examination showed that some evidence of the original injury remained (West, Miracles, 9–10), though remaining evidence of an original injury, such as scars, need not impair the functions for which healing is normally sought
(cf. even John 20:20, 25).
81. Nichols, "Miracles," 707.
Nonsupernatural Causes
Scientists could perhaps hire good actors to conduct a revival meeting in a setting where people were accustomed to this style of religion (perhaps university students in and from a heavily religious region). Emotional arousal and comfort, positive confidence, the placebo effect, and so forth might account for a number of cures. Such responses would not necessarily rule out supernatural activity in some cases—participants might encounter God where they expected to experience God regardless of the intention of the organizers. My point is merely that religious use of emotional stimulation can be employed with benevolent or exploitive intentions and does not by itself demonstrate supernatural activity.
The Power of Faith In some cases of purported healing, another nonsupernatural factor is at work.
Some convinced persons exercise what they believe is faith, but what some psychologists would consider denial. They act as though their symptoms do not exist, when in fact no medical change has taken place.82 While hope and the power of suggestion can exert a positive curative influence in many sorts of cases, as doctors also observe, this influence does not prove supernatural intervention.83 Suggestion can be effective even when the healing practitioner uses deception.84
More positively, science has clearly documented the power of faith, and most religious persons believe that God often works through faith, though God is not limited to it.85 A secular observer, however, might reasonably protest that faith's effectiveness need not guarantee the reality of faith's object. Thus I survey here some of the studies involving health and religious practice, including the positive confidence that often comes from it, typically without clear indication of direct divine causation.86 These helpful studies are not meant to address the question of supernatural miracles pro or con (their authors themselves hold a range of 82. Ludwig, Order Restored, 183. Some forms of teaching in the tradition of faith healing, going beyond more sober biblical examples of "acting on faith," contribute to this problem. Already this belief was causing problems in the late nineteenth century (Curtis, Faith, 113, 204). When sickness remained, early
Pentecostal leader E. N. Bell advised one to continue claiming healing, yet not to "lie in their testimonies"
(Reyes, "Framework," 85–86). Likewise, challenging the high cure rates some suppose for psychic healing,
McClenon, "Healing," 44–45, warns that many healers practice denial. As we have noted, even some
Christian healers believed to be effective on other occasions have on some other occasions practiced denial (Buckingham, Daughter, 129–32, 141, 149, 233–35).
83. Ludwig, Order Restored, 183. Ludwig himself emphasizes the value of psychological and emotional factors aiding the body's immune system and healing processes (141–59).
84. McClenon, "Healing," 46.
85. E.g., Benson, Healing, 204–6, attributes a remarkable cancer recovery to both faith and radiation therapy, though he notes (206) that neither place this in the category of miracle. For a psychological phenomenology of faith, see Brownell, "Faith," 219–26 (including developmental stages on 222; its relevance to belief in miracle on 231).
86. I should emphasize that the purpose of the medical studies is not to supplant faith in God with faith in faith (see, e.g., the caution of Benson, Healing, 190). I simply observe that demonstrating the healing effects of "faith" does not, by itself, prove supernatural or divine activity.
Proposed Explanations
perspectives), but we may take them into account in cases where recoveries are simply somewhat faster or more complete than usual.
Because in Scripture God often works through natural means, a biblical theist would find nothing incompatible with her views in emphasizing the power of faith or other factors in nature understood as the created order.87 Indeed, while God working through natural means would not fit Hume's definition of a miracle, it could certainly fit Augustine's. Yet insofar as miracles are defined as extraordinary, these natural factors by themselves do not demonstrate such extraordinary activity
(unless they are carried out in an extraordinary way, say, e.g., a recovery that would naturally take ten months taking half an hour). They normally provide instead a more "ordinary" context for religious elements in some recoveries (e.g., social support or reduced anxiety).
Religious Practice and Health When a religious person merely recovers faster than usual but not extraordinarily faster, sometimes this recovery may simply constitute a variation from the average. When this positive variation happens particularly frequently with religious people, it may reflect factors characteristic of the lifestyle or support systems of religious traditions. Thus studies suggest that some general health improvements may simply reflect the medically documented beneficial effects (on average) of religious conviction and practice;88 this observation differs from arguing for specifically and demonstrably supernatural causation.89 These general benefits do not of course explain cases of instantaneous or almost instantaneous bone regeneration or cataracts disappearing, but at least in the West these general benefits are probably more common than such striking miracles.
As Harold Koenig, Dale Matthews, David Larson, and many other medical scientists have publicized, a vast range of recent studies on religion and health
87. One would be hard-pressed to cite a biblical or modern miracle claim as dramatic as "DNA, a miraculous three-foot-long string curled up in its entirety in a cell no more than fifteen micrometers across"
(Frankenberry, Faith, xiv, with reference to Stephen Jay Gould, undoubtedly rightly).
88. See, e.g., Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor (e.g., 15–23); for one brief popular account, Wallis,
"Healing" (esp. 60); for a brief history, see Eames, "History." I have borrowed the vast majority of sources for this discussion from abstracts provided at http://www.dukespiritualityandhealth.org (accessed March
14, 2008), from the interdisciplinary Duke Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health, brought to my attention by my student Barbara McCall, a nurse, and again later noted to me by Margie Shealy of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. I have categorized them loosely here for readers who may wish the information without reading hundreds of abstracts. I cite only a fraction of the studies (about twelve hundred by the year 2000; see Koenig, McCullough, and Larson, Handbook, 514–89). In addition, see vast numbers of older resources not included here but abstracted at Duke Center's website; Matthews,
Larson, and Barry, Bibliography; Benn, "Correlation," and sources cited there (including Levin and Schiller,
"Factor," which uses more than "200 epidemiological studies"); and the bibliographies of the works cited.
Many researchers pursuing integration of religion and health probably have a faith tradition (Plante,
"Spirituality," 212–14), but this should not be assumed in all cases, especially given the vast number of them (so also Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 37).
89. Some scholars, however, do suggests links between the two; see Breggen, "Miracle Reports," 382, as well as sources cited there.
Nonsupernatural Causes
have frequently emphasized the positive benefits of religious activity. It has been increasingly recognized that religious issues cannot be avoided in medical treatment. Whereas less than 3 percent of North American medical schools had courses related to religion and spirituality in 1992, roughly 70 percent of them had such courses by 2006, and of these, 70 percent were mandatory courses.90 Religious issues appear important to many patients in treatment,91 and religion's social influence also often proves helpful for health education and intervention, especially in particular communities.92
In these studies, religion appears positively associated with psychological health93 (particularly emphasized in studies of depression94 and related sorts of 90. Koenig, Medicine, 24, 35–36. For some health curricula that now include a component on religion and health, see, e.g., Barnes, "Curriculum"; Glennon, "Religion."
91. Patients tended to value religious and spiritual concerns and dimensions of their illness or recovery
(Steinhauser et al., "Factors"; Balboni et al., "Religiousness"; Miller et al., "Needs"; Hamilton and Levine,
"Preferences" [regarding neopagans]; cf. Holmes, Rabow, and Dibble, "Screening") more than most of their physicians suspected or could easily accommodate (cf. Clark, Drain, and Malone, "Needs"; Curlin et al., "Association"; Huguelet et al., "Spirituality"; Monroe et al., "Preferences"; Silvestri et al., "Importance";
Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 271–72; though cf. McCauley et al., "Beliefs"). Frequently this disparity creates tension (Kub, "Miracles," 1273, on 1275–76 referring more specifically to Rushton and Russell,
"Language"; Silvestri et al., "Importance"; Sulmasy, "Issues"). Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 4, cites studies that two-thirds of patients want to discuss spiritual matters with their physicians (nationally, in USA Today Weekend and Time), and 48 percent want doctors to pray with them (in North Carolina, in King and Bushwick, "Beliefs"). Doctors remain divided on such issues, though more are open than opposed (Koenig, Medicine, 26–27).
92. E.g., Daniels et al., "Effectiveness"; Young and Stewart, "Intervention"; cf. Catanzaro et al., "Health
Ministries"; Falcone et al., "Development"; Koenig, Medicine, 34–35. Chaplain visitation was also associated with patients' lower anxiety and higher satisfaction (Iler, Obenshain, and Camac, "Impact") and reduced depression (Baker, "Investigation"); on the value of chaplains, see also Koenig, Medicine, 25.
93. E.g., Park, "Relations"; Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 83–104; Kendler and Liu et al.,
"Dimensions"; Saxena, "Study"; Krause, "Facets"; idem, "Meaning"; Dull and Skokan, "Model" (by providing meaning); Ciarrocchi and Deneke, "Hope"; Benjamins, "Religion"; Francis et al., "Correlation";
Francis and Kaldor, "Relationship"; Krupski et al., "Spirituality"; Rummans et al., "Quality"; Lechner et al., "Associations"; McIllmurray et al., "Needs"; Khouzam, Smith, and Bissett, "Therapy"; Willemsen et al., "Upbringing" (religious upbringing vs. neuroticism); Koenig, George, and Titus, "Ill Patients"; De
Orio, "Phenomenology"; Jonas and Fischer, "Management" (decreased fear of death); Wink and Scott,
"Religiousness" (decreased fear of death among the very religious, though increased among the more casually religious); Reyes-Ortiz et al., "Attendance" (decreased fear of falling); Bowen et al., "Religion"
(reducing perceived stress and panic disorder); Ai et al., "Pathways" (optimism and prayer as a coping strategy); Galea et al., "Abuse" (the benefit of spirituality for those who had experienced child abuse);
Hill et al., "Attendance" (cognitive functioning among older adults); Wollin et al., "Predictors" (a factor in children's preoperative anxiety); Schwartz et al., "Behaviors"; Geary, Ciarrocchi, and Scheers, "Spirituality"
(though not large); Fisch et al., "Assessment"; Hamrick and Diefenbach, "Religion." Cf. weakened faith and increased need for mental health services (Fontana and Rosenheck, "Trauma"); religious involvement's inverse relationship with dementia (Koenig, Medicine, 120–22).
94. E.g., Koenig, Medicine, 68–73 (and sources cited there), 147 (noting it as one of the leading disabilities); Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 24–26 (and sources cited there), 86–95; Koenig, "Remission"; idem, "Inpatients"; Mofidi et al., "Spirituality"; Ai et al., "Depression"; Yi et al., "Religion"; Kristeller et al.,
"Study"; Tarakeshwar, Pearce, and Sikkema, "Development"; Pearce et al., "Symptoms"; Wink, Larsen, and Dillon, "Religion"; Smith et al., "Religiousness"; Gillum, Sullivan, and Bybee, "Importance"; Baetz et al., "Commitment"; Murray-Swank et al., "Religiosity"; Alderete et al., "Symptoms"; Olphen et al.,
Proposed Explanations
issues),95 and is often correlated with other healthy dispositions.96 For example, in one 1990 study involving 451 African Americans, less religious men were nearly twice as prone to depression as their more religious peers.97 Other studies show that religiously committed persons tended to adjust more healthily to the death of a child or spouse.98 Religious commitment not only helps addiction prevention99 but also strengthens addiction recovery.100 For example, patients involved
"Involvement"; Miller and Gur, "Religiosity"; Patel et al., "Variables"; Drentea and Goldner, "Caregiving";
Watlington and Murphy, "Roles"; Lonczak et al., "Coping" (religious upbringing vs. depressive symptoms);
Hebert, Dang, and Schulz, "Beliefs" (esp. consistently for religious attenders); McClain, Rosenfeld, and Breithart, "Effect" (on the terminally ill; cf. McNichols and Feldman, "Spirituality," 197–98); Murphy et al., "Relation" (mediated via hope); Carrico et al., "Model" (seeking to explain positive religious coping vs. depressive symptoms); Braam et al., "Climate" (trust in divine sovereignty among Calvinists vs. depressive symptoms). Cf. perhaps differently Borg et al., "System" (but the study curiously included only fifteen participants). Although I was not looking for such examples, I did receive a testimony of a spiritual experience that quickly liberated one woman from postpartum depression earlier than expected
(Miyuki Yoshihara, interview, Jan. 30, 2009, regarding 2002; a testimony of instant deliverance from depression in 2007 appears on International House of Prayer's website); various psychological healings, including instant ones, have often been reported (e.g., Bosworth, Healer, 217–19); note also a progressive recovery from what was expected to be a lifelong, perhaps neurologically based, severe mental disorder in Lakshmi Devi, personal correspondence, Oct. 29, 2010 (referring to her young daughter).
95. For grief recovery, see Walsh et al., "Beliefs"; Murphy, Johnson, and Lohan, "Meaning"; for posttraumatic stress symptoms, Chen, "Expression"; Watlington and Murphy, "Roles"; Zehnder et al., "Study";
Schiff, "Shadow"; Key, Leppien, and Smith, "Model"; Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 153–56, 161–66.
96. Cf. the correlations of gratitude with emotional health and with religion or spirituality (McCullough et al., "Disposition"); religious commitment with optimism (Mattis et al., "Religiosity"; Koenig, Medicine,
79–80) and forgiveness (Mullet et al., "Involvement"); much earlier observations of regular attendance and health in Buskirk, Healing, 127–28.
97. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 25 (citing Brown, Ndubuisi, and Gary, "Religiosity"). On average,
African-Americans proved more apt than whites to affirm miracles and other theistic beliefs (see Johnson,
Elbert-Avila, and Tulsky, "Influence," summarized in Kub, "Miracles," 1276).
98. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 25–26 (citing Cook and Wimberley, "Commitment"; Rosik,
"Impact"), 105–33.
99. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 27, noting a study in which 89 percent of alcoholics had lost faith during adolescence in contrast to 20 percent of the control group (Larson and Wilson, "Religious
Life"); and another study in which relatively nonreligious high schoolers were four to five times likelier than highly religious peers to abuse illegal drugs (Hadaway, Elifson, and Peterson, "Involvement"). See also the wide-ranging study of Wallace and Forman, "Role," cited in Koenig, Medicine, 59; also numerous studies in Koenig, Medicine, 60–62.
100. Among many other sources, see, e.g., Flynn et al., "Dependence"; Mohr et al., "Integration";
Benda, "Factors"; Walsh et al., "Transcendence" (gambling addiction); Winkelman, "Spirituality" (altered states of consciousness induced by shamanic drumming); for some anecdotal examples from various religious traditions, see Wakefield, Miracle, 94–117. For whatever reasons, religious disinterest correlates significantly with substance abuse (see Schoeneberger et al, "Abuse"), and both religiosity (Wills, Yaeger, and Sandy, "Effect") and particular religious values (Kendler and Liu et al., "Dimensions") correlate with lower substance abuse (cf. also lower alcohol consumption among religious Israeli youth, Schiff,
"Shadow"). Syrdal, "Transcript," 18–19, observed the unusually high rate of addiction deliverance
(compared with purely secular models in the West) through Christian faith in early twentieth-century China.
For Christian testimonies of addiction deliverance, see, e.g., Wacker, Heaven, 65; Ramirez, "Faiths," 371;
Khai, "Pentecostalism," 269; Green, Asian Tigers, 99–100 (instantaneous release from heroin addiction);
Wilson, "Miracle Events," 274–75; Koch, Zulus, 128–32; Jones, Wonders, 73; Marszalek, Miracles, 118–19
(through the Salvation Army); Gutierrez, Mujer de Milagros, 12–13 (translated for me by Mayra Picos-Lee);
Nonsupernatural Causes
in religious programs proved nearly ten times likelier to continue abstaining from heroin a year after treatment.101
Somewhat fewer studies have examined the relationship between religious faith and physical health, but those that have done so fairly consistently correlate the two.102 Examples of such studies reveal favorable health correlations in matters related to hypertension,103 blood pressure,104 and heart disease.105 They also show correlations more generally to reduction in mortality,106 now noted even in popular
Neal, Power, 56–57; Baxter, Healing, 103; Anderson, Pelendo, 34–36, 95; Bredesen, Miracle, 43–52, 100;
DeGrandis, Miracles, 32; Robertson, Miracles, 67, 71–77, 92; for the therapeutic use of glossolalia in such deliverance, see Wilkerson, Cross, 154–68 (regarding Teen Challenge, the success rate of which has been supported by other studies; cf. Manuel, Factor; Wilson, "Miracle Events," 274); DeGrandis, Miracles, 46; and, regarding Jackie Pullinger's work in Hong Kong, Storms, Guide, 145–46; Pullinger, Dragon, 83, 149,
158–60, 166, 169, 173, and especially 174; external corroboration in sociologists Miller and Yamamori,
Pentecostalism, 99–105 (esp. 104, 109; against any supposition of their starting with favorable bias, see 99,
147). On Alcoholics Anonymous, see, e.g., Oursler, Power, 302–10; B., "Challenge."
101. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 26 (citing Desmond and Maddux, "Programs").
102. E.g., Maselko et al., "Attendance" (religious attendance predicting lower allostatic load in older women); Pargament et al., "Methods" (through positive coping); Tully et al., "Factors" (90 percent reduction in probability of meningococcal disease); Sephton et al., "Expression"; Kinney et al., "Involvement";
McCullough and Laurenceau, "Religiousness"; Dedert et al., "Practice"; Contrada et al., "Factors" (regarding postsurgical recovery); Krupski et al., "Spirituality"; Koenig, Religion, 77–99; cf. Harrison et al., "Pain"
(religious attendance vs. pain); Rew and Wong, "Review" (regarding health behaviors); Koenig, George, and Titus, "Ill Patients" (though with less connection than with mental health); Benjamins, "Religion and Health" (though only positively connected to attendance); Olphen et al., "Involvement" (esp. with attendance); Messina et al., "Study." For slower disease progression, see Ironson et al., "Increase." Cf. also the earlier observations regarding loving care and hope facilitating recovery (or at least comfort), even in some terminally ill patients, in Reed, Surgery, 111–16. Reed also offers the example of a coma patient previously deemed terminal recovering through prayer and faith (84).
103. Gillum and Ingram, "Frequency" (lower hypertension).
104. Al-Kandari, "Religiosity." Matthews, Larson, and Barry, Bibliography, cite earlier studies, e.g., lowered blood pressure for regular church attenders in Graham et al., "Frequency"; Larson et al., "Impact"
(with a small but significant decrease); Walsh, "Effect" (lower but not statistically significant).
105. King, Mainous, and Pearson, "Protein"; Benn, "Correlation," 141–43 (citing esp. Comstock and Partridge, "Attendance," with a 40 percent difference in mortality in a sample size of 91,000; Oxman,
Freeman, and Manheimer, "Participation"); for the cardiovascular system generally, see Koenig, Medicine,
96–112, and the many sources cited there (including Koenig, George, Cohen et al., "Relationship"; Newlin et al., "Relationship"; Olphen et al., "Involvement"; Steffen and Hinderliter, "Coping"; Gillum and Ingram,
"Frequency"). See the case study in Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 72–73, where prayer may have been a factor in the unexpectedly strong recovery.
106. Wong et al., "Factors"; Ellison et al., "Involvement"; Heuch, Jacobsen, and Fraser, "Study"
(among Seventh-Day Adventists, not surprisingly); Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 158–61; Koenig,
Medicine, 129–45; Lutgendorf et al., "Participation"; Musick, House, and Williams, "Attendance and Mortality"; Bagiella, Hong, and Sloan, "Attendance as Predictor"; Strawbridge et al., "Attendance";
Strawbridge et al., "Strength"; Cour, Avlund, and Schultz-Larsen, "Religion"; Hill et al., "Attendance and Mortality"; Helm et al., "Activity"; Krause, "Support"; Van Ness, Kasl, and Jones, "Religion"; Yeager et al., "Involvement"; Ironson et al., "Spirituality" (regarding AIDS); Eng et al., "Ties"; Oman et al.,
"Attendance"; Sears and Wallace, "Spirituality"; but cf. the more ambiguous results among Israelis in Kraut et al., "Association"; and negative results in Wrensch et al., "Factors" (though the sample size was fewer than 600 patients in one county). High attendance's association is indirect through lower levels of Interleukin-6 (Thoresen, "Health," 8). On will to live and "mature" religion, see Hedgespeth,
"Power." It might appear ironic that the mortality test was initially proposed in the 1870s by a skeptic
Proposed Explanations
media.107 One may take, for example, the combination of faith and healthy lifestyle advocated among Seventh-day Adventists; in a 1983 study in the Netherlands,108 male Adventists lived on average nine years longer than non-Adventist men (with a general average of four years in another study).109 The longevity difference is even higher in some other reports.110 One detailed statistical analysis concludes that the reduction in mortality associated with religious attendance in general is comparable to "regular physical exercise" and "statin-type therapy" (an average of two to five additional years of life).111
The following chart, adapted from Matthews, Larson, and Barry's Annotated Bibliography of Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects, and Herbert Benson's Timeless
Healing,112 illustrates visually the effects of studies already known by the early 1990s:
Proportion of these studies in which religion correlated positively with improvements Alcohol
89% Anxiety
73% Anxiety about death
67% Blood pressure
80% Depression
71% Drugs
100% Smoking
100% Health (general)
80% Life satisfaction
92% Quality of life (cancer patients)
88% Quality of life (heart patients)
67% Survival rates
89% Number of studies in which religion correlated positively with improvements Area of improvement, as defined by reduction in the following:
Number of studies eager to discredit any effects of faith (Opp, Lord for Body, 15), though his focus was prayer rather than religion more generally. On the logical coherency of prayer on theistic premises, see Stump, "Prayer"
(esp. the summary on 186); Young, "Petitioning"; Brümmer, Pray (esp. 33–55); cf. Polkinghorne and Beale, Questions, 94–95.
107. Kluger, "Biology," 62.
108. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 22 (citing for a Danish cancer study Jensen, "Risk"; and esp., for the life expectancy difference in the Netherlands, Berkel and Waard, "Mortality Pattern"). For an anecdotal observation, I was impressed with the proportion of healthy, active older Adventists in my visit to Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, Feb. 7–10, 2008.
109. Koenig, Medicine, 109 (Frazer et al., "Effects"). Adventists experience lower rates of stroke (Koenig,
Medicine, 119) and cancer (124–25) than in the average population.
110. An article from U.S. News and World Report summarizes Seventh-day Adventists in the United
States as averaging eighty-nine years in longevity, roughly a decade beyond the national average (http:// health.yahoo.com/featured/7/10–health-habits-that-will-help-you-live-to-100; accessed April 20,
2009).
111. Hall, "Attendance," 106, 108.
112. Matthews, Larson, and Barry, Bibliography, ii–iii; also Benson, Healing, 174–75, who is adapting the identical material from Matthews, Larson, and Barry's Bibliography in chart form (arranged differently here). Benson seems to be using a later published version (1994) differing from the bound version now available to me (1993).
Nonsupernatural Causes
Factors in Healthy Religious Practice The studies often note that the positive correlation usually remains even when other related factors are screened out.113 Personality was often a larger factor when separated from religion,114 but positive religious approaches presumably may affect that factor over time as well.115
Nevertheless, not all associations between religion (or aspects of religion) and better health need be causal.116 Where they are,117 some such effects may stem from social support118 (which is positively correlated with religious involvement);119 positive religious coping mechanisms120 (versus negative
113. E.g., in the United States, religious practice tends to be inversely proportional to cigarette smoking and some other unhealthy habits (Timberlake et al., "Effects"; Hill et al., "Behaviors"; Elizabeth et al.,
"Factors"; Roff et al., "Religiosity" [but not obesity]; Benn, "Correlation," 145; studies in Koenig, Medicine,
111), but controlled studies usually account for such factors (though in one study nonsmoking explained the effects of religious attendance; King et al., "Relationship"). Frequency of religious practice also correlates with higher math and reading scores (Regnerus, "Success").
114. E.g., Ciarrocchi and Deneke, "Happiness," though affirming the importance of both elements; cf. also Golden et al., "Spirituality."
115. E.g., altruism (often positively correlated with religion, e.g., in 60 percent of studies noted in Matthews, Larson, and Barry, Bibliography, iii; with spiritual practices, among scientists, in Ecklund, Science,
64–65; 70 percent of older adult volunteers in Koenig, Medicine, 65) is associated with greater well-being
(see, e.g., Benson, Healing, 181–82 [citing Luks, Power]; Koenig, Medicine, 49–52 [citing Hunter and Linn,
"Differences"; Schwartz et al., "Behaviors"; Morrow-Howell et al., "Effects"; Liang, Krause, and Bennett,
"Exchange"; Yuen, "Impact"; Moll et al., "Networks"; and many others]). Scholars debate the ultimate cause of altruism (cf. Haught, Atheism, 69–71).
116. Correlations are clear, but assertions of causality require a higher bar of proof (cf. Benn, "Correlation,"
141, 146–47; Thoresen, "Health," 6).
117. E.g., Koenig, Medicine, 149 (citing Idler and Kasl, "Religion"), argues that attendance tends to prevent disability more than the reverse.
118. E.g., Litwin, "Association"; cf. Jaffe et al., "Neighborhood" (on living in religiously affiliated neighborhoods); Patel et al., "Variables"; Benn, "Correlation," 145; Epperly, Touch, 229 (support groups and churches); Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 248–50 (but with greater benefits in specifically religious social networks, 251–53). Social isolation significantly increases mortality (Eng et al., "Ties"); in Hughes et al., "Support," religiosity appears related to lower anxiety to the same degree that social support is. The massive study of Canadian adults in Baetz et al., "Association," associates religious attendance with fewer depressive symptoms, but spirituality, which may include an introspective component, with more depressive symptoms.
"Spirituality" has proved difficult to define and measure, however (Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 185).
119. Koenig, Medicine, 56–57 (citing Koenig, McCullough, and Larson, Handbook, 525–26, noting this is the case in roughly 95 percent of studies). Nevertheless, only church-based social involvement displayed such outcomes, even when other factors were taken into account (Koenig, Medicine, 57, citing
Cutler, "Membership"; Krause, "Exploring"; Salsman et al., "Link"; Watlington and Murphy, "Roles"; cf.
Koenig, Moberg, and Kvale, "Activities").
120. Positive religious coping is associated with life satisfaction (Mendonca et al., "Spirituality"; after AIDS diagnosis, Szaflarski et al., "Modeling"; Kremer and Ironson, "Spirituality"; Cotton et al.,
"Spirituality"; with advanced cancer, Tarakeshwar et al., "Coping"; with ovarian cancer, Canada et al.,
"Coping"; during caregiving, Pearce, Singer, and Prigerson, "Coping"; Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor,
142–44; positive coping in Koenig, Medicine, 72, 153–54, and satisfaction in 78–79; anecdotal examples of coping with terminal illness in Lesslie, Angels, 45–46, 222–23; for help with schizophrenia, Rogers and Risher, "Religion," 290–93); feeling better during and after treatment (Becker et al., "Belief"; cf. Thoresen,
"Health," 8; Masters, "Prayer," 20); and appears inversely related to depression (Bosworth et al., "Impact") and preand postoperative distress (Ai et al., "Mediation"). Adding a partner's positive religious coping
Proposed Explanations
ones,121 which appear to be much less common in the studies so far);122 likelier family cohesion;123 on-average better health behaviors;124 and perhaps reduction in anxiety because of greater emotional security and dependence on the transcendent.125 Outcomes usually varied according to the religious variables studied, with concrete factors such as religious attendance frequently being more prominent.126 Emotional and social causes of stress weaken the immune system and increase susceptibility to most diseases;127 positive religious practice can reduce such stress factors, with obviously positive health benefits.128 One cause of some cases of better average health could be some answers to prayer, but given apparently increases the effect (Yoshimoto et al., "Coping"). Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 31–32, notes that religion significantly facilitated coping with incarceration (Koenig, "Prison": 32 percent ranked it highest) and reduced recidivism (by more than three times; Johnson, Larson, and Pitts, "Programs"; cf.
Johnson, "Impact"; though some other studies appear inconclusive).
121. Negative religious coping appears associated with greater depression (Schanowitz and Nicassio,
"Predictors"), anxiety, and mortality (Pargament et al., "Religious Struggle"; more broadly, McConnell et al., "Links"). Some of the studies addressing positive effects of positive religious coping also underscore the harmful effects of negative religious coping (e.g., Tarakeshwar et al., "Coping"; Pargament et al., "Methods";
Mendonca et al., "Spirituality"; Lonczak et al., "Coping"; cf. Koenig, Medicine, 80; Schottenbauer,
Rodriguez, Glass, and Arnkoff, "Coping Research"). Koenig, Religion, 104–11, notes that negative use of religion reflects a neurotic approach to religion rather than characteristics intrinsic to religion itself (the same features are used positively by others); see also Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 52–56. Definitions of both religion and mental health do affect studies' outcomes (Lotufo and Lotufo-Neto, "Religiosity,"
287; Alcorta, "Adolescence," 61).
122. See, e.g., Mohr et al., "Integration." In Uganda, 1.2 percent of patients withdrew from AIDS treatment due to spiritual beliefs (Wanyama et al., "Belief"), and in the United States, religious beliefs can affect adherence to treatment positively or negatively (Parsons et al., "Beliefs"); but stronger religious or spiritual commitments are usually associated instead with willingness to seek examination and treatment
(e.g., Friedman et al., "Predictors"; Hill et al., "Behaviors"; for mental health care, see Harris, Edlund, and Larson, "Involvement"). Faith generally affects AIDS favorably (Kluger, "Biology," 62).
123. See, e.g., Regnerus and Burdette, "Change."
124. E.g., Koenig, Medicine, 127.
125. On reduced anxiety, see the studies in Koenig, Medicine, 76–78. Beliefs in afterlife were inversely associated with the severity of symptoms in a range of psychiatric problems in Flannelly et al., "Belief"; beliefs in a positive afterlife also reduced bereavement stress in Japan in Krause et al., "Death." Cf. endof-life "peace" (Steinhauser et al., "Peace"). For various factors, many framed in religious terms, see, e.g.,
Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 42–52.
126. See, e.g., Koenig et al., "Religion and Use"; Dezutter, Soenens, and Hutsebaut, "Religiosity";
Ardelt and Koenig, "Role"; Lesniak et al., "Distress"; Kaufman et al., "Decline" (private religiosity inversely associated with cognitive decline); Masters et al., "Orientation" (extrinsic vs. intrinsic religiosity). This variation sometimes appeared more prominently among Protestants, perhaps suggesting the influence of Protestant distinctions between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity (Cohen et al., "Religiosity"). It also obtains "only if that attendance is not driven by anxiety" (Hill, Kopp, and Bollinger, "Measures," 35 [cf.
31–32]). Active compassion (minus the stress of continual caregiving) is also associated with health
(Wachholtz and Pearce, "Compassion"), as is a sense of calling (i.e., purpose or motivation; Dreher and Plante, "Protocol").
127. Koenig, Medicine, 37–53; Alcorta, "Adolescence," 62–65. On psychosocial, apparently including religious, impact on healthy immune and endocrine function, see Koenig, Medicine, 82–95.
128. See Koenig, Medicine, 54–67. While not seeking cases of emotional healing (perhaps more common than dramatic physical healing) for this book, I encountered some, such as the significant testimony of Anglican deacon Anna Gulick (personal correspondence, May 4, 2009; interview, March 10,
2011).
Nonsupernatural Causes
other potential factors difficult to separate from positive religious faith, such as a spiritual sense of security, noted above, it seems difficult to demonstrate (or disprove) this claim by statistical means.
The general benefits of religious practice do not appear to be limited to Christian circles; those raised in or who find their home in many religious traditions find comfort and well-being there.129 The beneficial effect of religion on health is attested in Jewish,130 Islamic,131 and other faiths,132 as well as among Christians, although some studies so far are inconclusive133 or indicate negative effects in some religious communities.134 Meditation, emphasized more in some religious and cultural traditions than others (but usually valued, given an appropriate subject of meditation), generally offers significant health benefits.135
129. See Koenig, Medicine, 56. Some emphasize the role of religious experiences in restoring self-esteem
(Valla and Prince, "Experiences," esp. 164).
130. E.g., Billig, Kohn, and Levav, "Stress"; Jaffe et al., "Neighborhood"; Litwin, "Association"; Schiff,
"Shadow" (for post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] but not depression). One study associates religiosity with lower mortality for younger workers and higher mortality for older ones (Kraut et al., "Association," in a study of 3,638 Jewish Israeli men). Very religious Jewish Israeli physicians were more apt to prolong patients' life longer (Wenger and Carmel, "Religiosity").
131. Al-Sabwah and Abdel-Khalek, "Religiosity" (regarding lower death depression and anxiety);
Abdel-Khalek, "Happiness" (regarding both psychological and physical health); Koenig, Medicine, 56
(citing Kesselring et al., "Attitudes," noting Egyptian Muslim patients finding comfort in their faith); on benefits to Muslims of hearing the Qur'an recited, see the claims in Makarfi, "Bedrock," 68–69 (apparently dependent on work by Ahmad Elkadi; cf. also Ademola, "Attitude," 111).
132. Among Latter-day Saints, religious factors significantly reduced mortality in Ostbye et al.,
"Investigators." Contrary to some expectations, in one study Jehovah's Witnesses appear to lack significantly increased risk of trauma fatality (Varela et al., "Risk").
133. Krisanaprakornkit et al., "Therapy," conclude that most Transcendental Meditation studies so far prove inconclusive; but for a different perspective contrast studies below. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture had the same effect on depression (Allen et al., "Acupuncture"). Religious attitudes apparently did not affect obsessive-compulsive disorder in Iran (Assarian, Biqam, Asqarnejad, "Study").
Some emotional health studies may work from a bias that evaluates religious content (see Sica et al.,
"Religiousness"). Blumenthal et al., "Spirituality," found no correlation with physical health but noted that the data sample was too narrow to offer conclusions. The correlation between exercise and religious attendance in women over sixty (Gillum, "Frequency") might link activity or social support more generally; see studies on religion and exercise in Koenig, Medicine, 110–11 (so far apparently limited in number).
The Israeli sample in Schiff, "Shadow," shows reduced PTSD but not depression.
134. Cf. Yeager et al., "Involvement," for Taiwanese religious attendance (esp. among Taoists and Buddhists), though private religious practices and convictions were associated with worse health (on 2240, the researchers hypothetically attributed this to the specific nature of the beliefs). Naeem, "Culture," associates lack of control of diabetes partly with Islamic fatalism; less negatively, cf. Muslim submission to Allah's will in matters of health in Rozario, "Scientist." Results in Kraut et al., "Association," seem age-specific.
135. Buddhist meditation helped (Kabat-Zinn et al., "Influence"); use of mantras or prayers in any religion appear to have improved emotive states (Bormann et al., "Effects"; Bormann and Oman, "Repetition," 102–10; idem, "Mantram"); yoga and meditation also showed some possible positive effects in Harinath et al., "Effects"; Benson, Healing, 157, notes that Chinese chi gong helped relaxation in Huang, "Effects." For Transcendental Meditation, Paul-Labrador et al., "Effects," and earlier Castillo-Richmond et al., "Effects," cite positive effects; at Maharishi University, so also (in Koenig, Medicine, 105–6) Schneider et al, "Trial"; Wenneberg et al., "Study"; Schneider et al., "Year."
For meditation more generally, cf. Shapiro and Walsh, "Meditation"; Flinders, Oman, and Flinders,
Proposed Explanations
That the health benefit of religious practice is attested more in some ethnic communities136 than others or more commonly with a particular gender (women)137 may suggest cultural factors in how religion is appropriated.138 Likewise, more people in highly religious countries will find comfort in religion than those in highly secularized societies.139 For whatever reasons, religion in general could be a contributing factor in some gradual improvements in health, though it would not explain many of the sudden and dramatic changes I have noted, such as cases of instant healings of long-term blindness or deafness, the immediate repair of bones, or restoration to life after apparent death.
As I have noted, many religious observers would consider some positive benefits associated with religious involvement divinely designed; traditional Christian theology sees God as sovereign over and working through the course of nature as well as acting beyond it.140 Most religious observers today would also believe that God provided humans the wisdom for medical science and that God works through it;141 even in miracle stories in the Gospels, miracles seem to be reserved for when they are needed (cf. Mark 6:43–44; 8:11–12; John 6:12–13; elsewhere, cf. 1 Tim 5:23). Thus I have often received testimonies of those who attribute the "Program"; idem, "Meditation"; Oman and Thoresen, "Spiritual," 47–48, 50. Benson, Healing, 163–64
(citing idem, "Temperature Changes"), reports direct observation and testing of Tibetan monks generating paranormal heat in cold settings and (Healing, 166) metabolism drops of as much as 64 percent, beyond previously documented human examples. For meditation and healing Portsmouth,
Prayer, 56–61, draws on the contemplative Christian tradition. Particular forms of prayer, such as contemplation and thanksgiving, may correlate more with health benefits (Stanley, "Types," though the sample size is small).
136. Cf. Steffen and Hinderliter, "Coping"; Cooper et al., "Spirituality"; Balboni et al., "Religiousness";
Roff et al., "Limitations"; Drentea and Goldner, "Caregiving"; Koenig et al., "Care Use"; Kinney et al.,
"Involvement"; Kelly and Floyd, "Impact." Cf. the cultural variables in Franzini, Ribble, and Wingfield,
"Religion."
137. Saxena, "Study"; Chen, "Expression"; Contrada et al., "Factors"; Strawbridge et al., "Strength";
McCullough and Laurenceau, "Religiousness"; cf. Wink and Dillon, "Development"; among Kuwaiti
Muslims, Abdel-Khalek, "Happiness." This is not surprising, since women are on average more committed religiously than men (Matthews, Larson, and Barry, Bibliography, iii), though evangelical women scored lower in self-esteem than men (Aycock and Noaker, "Comparison," in Matthews, Larson, and Barry,
Bibliography, 12–13).
138. For example, cultural differences affect the processing of pain (Sternbach and Tusky, "Differences";
Bates, Edwards, and Anderson, "Influences"; both cited in Benson, Healing, 56–57).
139. Koenig, Medicine, 56 (citing Kesselring et al., "Attitudes," in which 38 percent of Swiss patients found support in religion, compared with 92 percent of Egyptian Muslim patients); cf. Benn, "Correlation,"
146.
140. Hiebert, Reflections, 234, notes that all healing is God's work, so to separate medical healing from prayer healing is to succumb to a dualistic worldview; see also Petersen, Might, 99–100 (on common
Pentecostal perspectives in Latin America); and González, Tribe, 94 (also for a Latin American perspective; cf., e.g., Durand and Massey, Miracles, 164–65, 176–77). In biblical theology, God did miracles when necessary and to reveal God's greatness and compassion, not to satisfy spiritual sensationalism. Empirical studies in the United States suggest that the healthiest approach combines medical and spiritual methods
(Koenig, "Afterword," 506).
141. Many argue persuasively for their compatibility, e.g., Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 53, 63,
67–68. Many conjoin prayer with medical procedures (e.g., Skinsnes, "Healed").
Nonsupernatural Causes
success of their uncertain treatments to God as well as to their doctors,142 and complementary approaches to recovery are probably more common where medical means are available. The radical Enlightenment may have defined "natural" over against "supernatural" (or likelier the reverse), but a biblical perspective would approach "nature" as the sphere of God's activity in creation. My point here is not to question such theological claims (with which I personally agree) but to note here that some religiously connected recoveries involve natural elements to the extent that distinctly extranatural causation is difficult to demonstrate apart from such general theological considerations.
We cannot rule out that the overall average better recovery rate for religious practitioners may also involve many individual answers to prayer, but proving causal links from this general data would be difficult, since one could not easily screen other factors out and prayer does not always lead to this outcome.
A rapid recovery or average lower mortality rate is not the same as cataracts instantly disappearing or a dead person being raised. In biblical terms, gifts of healings are for believers and need not be dramatic to be effective; their purpose is restoration, not evidence. Might not God answer prayers regarding health through medical means in medical cultures? By contrast, signs and wonders in the context of evangelism are often more dramatic, inviting attention toward the kingdom they represent; biblically we could allow for both kinds of healings without insisting that both have the same evidential value for extraordinary supernatural activity.
For that matter, how does one quantify effective prayer, and when prayers are backed by a life of faith and integrity, and whose prayers (out of multiple participants) proved particularly effective? I have known nonreligious persons, when faced with illness, to pray, and even agnostics to request prayer from deeply committed religious persons whose prayers might help. And theologically, who is to say that a deity would not reach out to a sincere agnostic who desperately prays or has a loved one pray for him or her? My point then is not that God is not at work, indirectly or even directly, in many cases in these surveys. My point is merely that interpreters will not all find here evidence for special divine action, especially if the data are taken in isolation from other evidence. These studies focus only on averages (as such studies by their nature must); many causal links are difficult to verify; scientific analysis is equipped to quantify natural rather than supernatural factors; and supernatural factors are impossible to fully quantify in any case,
142. E.g., my student Tamika Johnson, who twice received desperately needed liver transplants, one within sixteen hours after she had been given twenty-four to forty-eight hours to live (personal correspondence, Dec. 2, 3, 4, 2010); Joo Young Kim, interview, Jan. 24, 2009, after a prophecy about his recovery and treatment for serious chronic hepatitis B, which is sometimes, but not always, cured by treatment; in Uganda, Onesimus Asiimwe prayed for Henry Mugsha, who was blind (Onesimus Asiimwe, interview, Oct. 13, 2008), and the latter was able to have an operation that successfully complemented the prayer (Henry Mugsha, phone interview, Oct. 23, 2008). Mr. Mugsha no longer even needs glasses and now runs a nongovernmental organization (Onesimus Asiimwe, interview, Oct. 13, 2008; corroborated by Archbishop Henry Orombi, interview, Oct. 13, 2008).
Proposed Explanations
because we cannot know all the factors that a greater intelligence might take into account in limiting human mortality.
Psychosomatic Elements of Faith Cures Some recoveries clearly stem from emotional or mental cures, whether by strengthening the body's immune responses or by addressing psychological roots of the initial illness. This factor is widely recognized, including by commentators who also allow for organic supernatural cures.143 Thus when one doctor falsely informed three patients that a faith healer would pray for them at a particular time, all three improved dramatically, though only one permanently.144 But how far should such observations be pressed? After an extraordinary "faith cure" in 1889, some doctors pointed out that patients could be cured by faith in physicians no less than by faith in God—that "faith" brought healing regardless of its object.145 Their argument stemmed from the psychological theories of "magnetism" dominant in their era, attributing healings to religious hysteria and explaining them naturalistically as "mental influence on the nervous system."146
Some writers have compared the effectiveness of shamans and other healers to hypnosis and altered states of consciousness.147 Some early twentieth-century studies claimed that hypnotized patients could produce "blisters corresponding to imaginary burns" that could even bleed under suggestion, and that habitual bleeding could be cured by hypnosis.148 More recent studies have suggested that 143. Pennington, "Relationship," 160–61; Frost, Healing, 183; Kelsey, Healing, 243–77; Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 307; Rose, Faith Healing, 119–34, 176; Robertson, "Epidauros to Lourdes," 188
(though cf. also 189); McClenon, Events, 131 ("generally" psychosomatic); Bartow, Adventures, 43,
130–42; Robertson, Miracles, 144; Salmon, Heals, 33, 118; all those who pray for healing surveyed in Tilley, "Phenomenology," 565; on emotions' effects on the immune system and health, see Fountain,
Medicine, 71–82; Siegel, Medicine (esp. 65–124, though he may overestimate cure rates); in a religious context, Koenig, Medicine, 82–95. Tournier, Casebook, 209–10, cites here principles in Prov 3:7–8; 4:20,
22; 17:22 (and on 213, Jas 5:16). The argument of Pattison, "Meaning," that many use belief in faith healing as a moral coping mechanism, interprets his data through the grid of his theory and works with a sample size representing only one social group, not necessarily representative.
144. Frank, Persuasion, 61, emphasizing that patients were helped by a false belief.
145. Opp, Lord for Body, 79. Cf. the relevance of physicians' confidence to the placebo effect, below. For the importance of the relationship between doctors and patients in healing, see Jonas and Crawford, "Presence."
146. Opp, Lord for Body, 80; cf. Duffin, Miracles, 132–34. The psychology of the era attributed many healings to mind over matter (Opp, Lord for Body, 165–66), many ministers so explained modern healings
(Mullin, Miracles, 103), and many scholars so explained Jesus's healings (Tennant, Miracle, 31). Christian
Science flourished in this context in the early twentieth century (Mullin, Miracles, 181–83), and a physician reading the founder's testimonials argued that the cures were largely psychosomatic (Buskirk, Healing, 60, though conceding some organic cures on 60–61, which he nevertheless attributes to psychological causes).
147. McClenon, Healing, 61, 67, though noting on 79 that it is not proved for all kinds of cases, but merely a reasonable hypothesis; Greenfield, Spirits, 88. The primary common factor seems to be that shamans and people who are easily hypnotized are predisposed to enter trance states (see here also clearly Pekala and Cardeña, "Issues," 71). In the example that McClenon, Healing, offers on 79–81, an easily hypnotizable person can be led even in a different culture's ritual trance state through suggestion.
148. West, Miracles, 19, citing (as authoritative) Schindler, Nervensystem; see also Heim, Transformation,
178. Note the hypnotically induced stigmata in Krippner and Kirkwood, "Bleeding," 168–69 (following
Nonsupernatural Causes
hypnosis can help treat burns, especially within the first two hours, by limiting inflammation and reducing pain.149 They also may help skin conditions, warts, and psychosomatic problems; they do not, however, help every kind of ailment for which we have healing descriptions, and cannot explain most current reports of miraculous healings, which do not include dissociative states.150 (By contrast, some recent studies have argued that most observed effects of hypnosis involve the subjects' desire to present themselves as "good subjects" in anticipated hypnotic situations.151) In any case, the controlled clinical conditions of hypnotism differ starkly from Jesus's public ministry, as do the repetitive rituals of typical shamans.
Meanwhile, some documented cases of visual acuity improvement in spiritual contexts more like those in which Jesus ministered reveal effects on average far exceeding those in the most optimistic of hypnosis studies.152
More generally, however, some argue that culturally relevant images that communicate healing (by exorcism or the like) provide psychological codes that, converted biologically into neuropeptide signals, mobilize immune defenses and so forth.153 Psychological factors may thus be helpful in cures. For example, a researcher notes that one woman in Puerto Rico who "had not walked for several years" found that she enjoyed the attention given to her state, yet in a prayer meeting she found strength to walk home.154 While ability to walk with atrophied muscles is remarkable, a psychological factor might well also be at work in such a healing report. Similarly, a case of terminal, metastasized cancer remitted without surgery for eighteen years, the worst of it after a change in lifestyle;155 another case of advanced terminal cancer gradually remitted (over the course of a year) after lifestyle changes and never returned.156 Nevertheless, such remissions are quite
Lechler, Ratsel; Wilson, Bleeding Mind, esp. 97, 126); Heim, Transformation, 178 (who also cites abdominal swelling in imagined pregnancies).
149. McClenon, Healing, 75, citing Ewin, "Emergency Room Hypnosis"; idem, "Hypnosis in Surgery."
Krippner and Achterberg, "Experiences," 378, note that shifting of blood flow can aid burn recovery and that it can be controlled to some extent through biofeedback (on 377 they note a 1931 study linking it to spontaneous disappearance of warts). Pekala and Cardeña, "Issues," 55, note pain reduction; a doctor in Mensah, "Basis," 176, cites the success of hypnotism in allowing a biopsy without anesthesia.
150. McNamara and Szent-Imrey, "Learn," 211 (citing for the areas of cure Bowers and LeBaron,
"Hypnosis," and countering the relevance of McClenon's ritual healing theory to most modern reports).
151. Spanos, "Hypnosis," 97–102.
152. Brown, Mory, Williams, and McClymond, "Effects," 867: whereas improvements after hypnosis have averaged two to two and a half times' increase in the most optimistic studies (and none in others),
"The average visual acuity improvement measured" for those receiving prayer through the earlier mentioned ministry in Mozambique "was over tenfold."
153. Greenfield, Spirits, 18, 180, 201; suggested to me also by John Pilch, personal correspondence, Nov.
13, 2009; cf. also Johnson, "Neurotheology," 223–24. On the belief that a factor may help communicating with the immune system, and altered states of consciousness (ASCs) functioning hypnotically, see
Greenfield, Spirits, 189. Some allow for factors complementary to neurobiology (interpersonal psychology in Koss-Chioino, "Transformation," 64).
154. Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism, 119, emphasizing the psychological component of her cure.
155. Ellens, "Miracles and Process," 11, and idem, "God and Science," 13 (following Lenzer, "Citizen," 56).
156. Ellens, "Miracles and Process," 12 (following Lenzer, "Citizen," 58). Lenzer notes some conflicting studies, however, regarding cancer and mind-body connections (the fifth page of my online version).
Proposed Explanations
rare (usually estimated at around one case in sixty thousand to one case in one hundred thousand,157 though actual numbers may be higher),158 so that one would not expect them to occur repeatedly in a particular ministry circle purely by chance.
Psychosomatic Elements in Jesus's Ministry?
Such explanations have been used as analogies for Gospel miracles; some have even employed them to defend the historical claims of the Gospels, albeit at the expense of a supernatural explanation.159 Thus many have attributed Jesus's healing miracles to psychic abilities160 or the ailments cured to psychosomatic causes.161
As I have noted, this is a logical approach for those who explain all modern cures in these terms.162 Others argue, however, that such approaches prove inadequate to accommodate all the data.163 While we cannot rule out the curing of some psy157. Ellens, "Miracles and Process," 11 (following Lenzer, "Citizen," 56).
158. McNamara and Szent-Imrey, "Learn," 209, argue that real remission rates may be ten to twenty times greater than these estimates. Because anomalies do not fit reigning paradigms, they are inadequately reported and tracked. By contrast, some sources in Lenzer, "Citizen" (the second through fourth pages of my online version) appear to suggest that remission rates may be lower than usual estimates; she suggests
(my sixth page) that early remissions are fairly common, whereas late remissions "are as rare as hens' teeth."
159. Through at least the mid-twentieth century, many continued to cite psychic parallels in support of miracles (e.g., views noted in Lawton, Miracles, 57, 90, 169; earlier, in Johnson, "Miracles and History,"
544–45), though this could be viewed as grasping an available naturalistic explanation to continue denying a supernatural one.
160. Cf., e.g., M. C. van Mourik Broekman (1938; in Loos, Miracles, 30, 565–66); Jesus's expression of mana and the power of the unconscious mind in Tenzler, "Tiefenpsychologie." More recently Montefiore,
Miracles, has sought to explain nt miracles by analogy to "paranormal" telepathy (23–40), clairvoyance
(41–49), and precognition (51–65); this allows "natural" explanations (24), i.e., one acceptable within a Humean worldview. (He recognizes that his thesis will fail to persuade many [115–16], a point reiterated by a reviewer [Garrow, "Acts"].) Perry, "Miracles," 66–67, allows some but warns that such appeals can be "overdone." While the differences are significant (nt accounts suggest divine dependence rather than innate abilities), the analogy represents an attempt to get beyond typical Western assumptions. Heim,
Transformation, 184–85, believes that a powerful mind can affect distant bodies and matter (though he distinguishes this effect from more specifically divine activity; cf., e.g., 187, 193, 195). For a collection of more than one hundred anomaly reports, see Long, Ecology.
161. Many have long attributed Jesus's cures to psychosomatic causes (Matthew Arnold [in Boobyer, "Miracles," 33–34]; Fenner, Krankheit [as cited in Sabourin, Miracles, 246; Loos, Miracles,
109]; Capps, Village Psychiatrist, 5; Ellens, "Miracles and Process," 5–6; views cited but not necessarily endorsed in Wilson, "Miracles," 13; Loos, Miracles, 105, 107, 111; Burkill, "Miracle"; Remus, Healer,
114; cf. the question in Jaeger, "Suggestionstherapeut" [cited in Metzger, Index, 18]). Some earlier writers noted the likelihood of some "nervous" diseases without attributing all of them to this cause
(Wright, "Miracles," 189; Wilson, "Miracles," 28). Some argued that Jesus merely accommodated the opinions of his day, using mere psychosomatic healing; others objected that this explanation cannot account for some of the miracles (Dakin, "Belief," 38–39) or objected for theological reasons
(Everts, "Exorcist," 357–59).
162. As I noted in the case of nineteenth-century discussions, the alternative is usually inconsistency.
Thus May, "Miracles," 147, denies the plausibility of mere spontaneous remission in the healing of someone deaf and mute in the Gospels yet claims it in a more concretely documented case today (150–51).
163. E.g., Davey, "Healing," 62, noting the cluster of miracles surrounding Jesus and his theological interpretation; earlier, Johnson, "Miracles and History," 545–56. Carlston, "Question," 102, suggests that Jesus's miracles can be so construed, once "one strips away legendary accretions" (the criterion for what is legendary in this case presumably involving what is not plausible naturalistically). Carlston does not
Nonsupernatural Causes
chosomatic ailments in Jesus's ministry, the Gospel reports bear little resemblance to psychotherapy (or modern medicine); and if Jesus merely discerned which illnesses were psychosomatic, his widespread reputation as an extraordinary healer becomes more difficult to explain.164
Among the categories of disorders that multiple attestation suggests that Jesus cured are blindness, deafness, skin disorders ("leprosy"), and occasionally death.165
Some summaries (e.g., in Q , Matt 11:5//Luke 7:22), not to mention specific cases, suggest that Jesus healed multiple cases of blindness, deafness, leprosy, inability to walk, and death. Would he have encountered so many psychosomatic cases, and primarily psychosomatic cases, of such dramatic ailments, in a oneto three-year ministry in Galilee? Some suggest that Jesus's cures of blindness, paralysis, and the like reflect his cure of a particular psychiatric disorder;166 yet how many psychiatrists regularly cure cases of these afflictions (especially publicly and immediately)? If Jesus meanwhile would have regularly failed with irreversible organic cases of blindness and leprosy, yet could not distinguish which cases were organic beforehand, would we not find more defensive explanations (like the one in Nazareth, Mark 6:5–6)? Some detractors of the psychic powers line of interpretation also find it interesting that some observers are prepared to allow unproved psychic powers for humans that they reject as unacceptable violations of nature's uniformity if assigned to God.167 himself deny that God acted in Jesus but notes that "there are always alternative explanations." While not settling on this limitation, in 1905 Wilson, "Miracles," 28, allowed that social conditions in first-century
Palestine probably made nervous conditions common. He argued that whether one believes that Jesus did more than psychosomatic healings depends on one's Christology (Wilson, "Miracles," 14); I would add that it can also depend on one's view of supernatural causation more generally. Dod, "Healer," 174–76, believes that God could work through psychosomatic healing both in Jesus's day and subsequently but that miracles involving nature ceased after the apostolic period. Others highlight the psychiatric value of Jesus's ministry to those with anxiety-related ailments (Capps, Village Psychiatrist, passim, esp. xii–xiv;
Ellens, "Miracles and Process," 3–4).
164. Eve, Healer, 51–52.
165. E.g., blindness is cured in Q (Matt 11:5//Luke 7:22), Mark (8:22–25), Matthew (21:14), and John (9:6–7). All of these categories are also claimed today. For an argument in an ophthalmological journal that the descriptions of Jesus's eye healings in the Gospels appear plausible, see Mansour, MehioSibai, Walsh et al., "Jesus and Eye" (summarized in Kub, "Miracles," 1273–74).
166. See Davies, Healer, 70–72; Capps, Village Psychiatrist, 8; for paralysis, see 37–55 (esp. 43–46); for blindness, 57–80; he suggests (xiv) that Jesus understood and worked through natural law (presumably on a much higher level than people today). Ralph Waldo Emerson's temporary blindness may have remitted due to prayer, but Capps believes it was psychological (64–65). Of course, while emotional miracles (cf., e.g., in Johnson, "Psychotherapy") would not meet Hume's standard, they could nevertheless function biblically as signs to people open to them. Because the Gospels rarely specify causes, one could allow psychiatric causes in some cases (with Capps) without ruling out organic cases, which remain pervasive in traditional societies. Yet we should avoid double standards: no one wants doctors to view all cases as psychological. Hoffman and Kurzenberger, "Miraculous,"
81, note that this explanation for miracles of healing was a common modernist approach.
167. Cf. comments in Légasse, "L'Historien," 144. Parapsychology proponents tend to view the abilities as natural, yet have so far failed to offer natural mechanisms to account for claimed phenomena (Krippner and Achterberg, "Experiences," 380).
Proposed Explanations
The Gospels often do connect faith with healings (Matt 8:10, 13; 9:2, 6–7, 22, 28–29; 15:28; Mark 2:5, 11–12; 5:34, 36; 9:23–24; 10:52; Luke 5:20, 24–25; 7:9;
8:48, 50; 17:19; 18:42; John 4:50; 11:40; cf. Mark 16:17–18; Acts 3:16; 14:9) or other answers to prayer (Mark 11:23–24; Matt 14:28–31; 21:21–22; Luke
17:6; cf. Mark 16:17–18), and sometimes shortage of healings due to a culture of disbelief (Mark 6:5–6; Matt 13:58; Luke 9:41) or Jesus's agents' disbelief (Matt
17:20; cf. Mark 9:29; Luke 9:41). (John more typically emphasizes basic faith following signs; John 1:50; 2:11, 23; 4:39, 48, 53; 7:31; 11:15, 42, 45, 48; 12:11;
14:29; 16:30; 20:30–31; cf. John 9:35–38; 10:25; Acts 13:12.) Whether or not such receptivity plays a role in some cases, however, there is no thought that faith is efficacious only for events that could be explained psychosomatically (note secondary faith in Matt 8:13; 9:2; 15:28; Mark 2:5; Luke
7:9; John 4:50; death in Mark 5:36, 41–42; John 11:40–44; extrahuman effects in Mark 11:23–24; Matt 14:29; 21:21). Psychosomatic recovery is also not, as I have noted, the explanation most commonly applicable for some sorts of cures, such as the sudden stop of menorrhagia (Mark 5:34), long-term blindness (Mark
10:52), paralysis (Mark 2:11–12), and other conditions; had Jesus healed only psychosomatic ailments, he certainly would have failed publicly in many cases of organic blindness and the like, with no typical shamanic rituals to buffer the failure, and this could have reduced his crowds.
At least in the perspective of the Gospel writers, faith is not to be in one's amount of faith, as if it were a substance, but in God or Christ, who does the works (Mark 11:22; cf. Matt 18:6). Whereas Westerners after Kant tend to think of faith as a subjective feeling, the Gospels treat it more as a recognition of objective truth; the issue is less faith's finite possessor than its omnipotent object (Mark 11:22). The mention of faith is also missing in many accounts (e.g.,
Matt 8:14–15; 14:14; Mark 1:30–31; Luke 7:12–15; 13:11–13; John 5:6–9; 9:4–7); one dare not argue from silence, especially since Jesus himself supplied faith in many cases, but it is nevertheless clear that miracles can occur despite some participants' lack of faith (Matt 8:26; 14:17, 26; 16:8–10; Mark 4:40;
6:49; 8:4, 17–21; 9:24, 26; Luke 2:9; 5:4–9; 8:25; 11:14–15; especially Luke 1:20; cf. Luke 10:18). The disciples themselves are often the ones chided for their little faith (Mark 4:40; Luke 8:25; 12:28; cf. Luke 17:5), albeit especially in Matthew (6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20).168
While most historical Jesus scholars accept that Jesus performed acts that people believed to be cures, it is those drawing on medical anthropology (such as Pilch and Crossan) who most often emphasize that he did in fact cure illnesses. Their work offers extremely valuable insights from which I have learned. Yet some of these scholars contend that Jesus cured only culturally defined illnesses, not organic
168. Cotter's recent and excellent Portrait, thoroughly informed in ancient culture, helpfully highlights the petitioners and Jesus's response to them in some key Markan narratives and Q, often including the petitioners' boldness. For faith and its often bold expression in this work, see 6–7, 9, 12, 74–75, 100–102,
158, 254–55, 257.
Nonsupernatural Causes
disease.169 More recently, drawing on psychoimmunology, scholars have begun to recognize that curing the former could also affect the latter.170
Nevertheless, while this recognition is welcome, challenges ethnocentric readings, and may discern processes that Jesus may have sometimes used, even it still leaves some questions unanswered.171 Should we expect merely favorable immune responses to cure organic conditions like leprosy immediately? What of the raising of the dead? Such factors may be at work in many cures, but I believe that we still dance around an obvious question for some reports. It seems that scholarship is permitted to discuss any hypothesis—so long as we do not invoke God or other extrahuman intelligences.172 Why are we obligated to observe that rule, which is itself an ethnocentric imposition from a particular subculture? Granted that we can work within a discipline's circumscribed boundaries by not asking the question, the question is not consequently epistemologically illegitimate. Granted that not all our colleagues accept this approach, is there any reason why the hypothesis should not be allowed on the table (like other hypotheses on which scholars disagree among ourselves)?
Appropriately for those who see the Gospels as biographies about a person who lived not long before, Stevan Davies accepts larger than usual portions of their portrayal of Jesus as historically accurate because these can fit his spirit possession thesis. For him, Jesus was a healer employing the placebo effect.173 Yet the exclusion of anything genuinely supernatural is "a premise I accept absolutely," rendering impossible, for example, Jesus's resurrection.174 Whenever we come across a principle that some take as axiomatic (e.g., the insistence of some popular writers on a "literal" interpretation of Revelation), I ask my students, "Who made up that rule?" That is, is it a rule that we are obligated to follow or merely an idea that we take for granted? If the answer to who made up the rule is in this case
Hume, we have already surveyed evidence that raises serious questions about the logical value of his rule. Davies's careful approach allows him to accept more of the 169. Evaluating the dichotomy, see Capps, Village Psychiatrist, xv–xvi; Gaztambide, "Psychoimmunology,"
95–97. Capps, Village Psychiatrist, xvii–xviii, counters that in psychosomatic illness, emotional roots can create physical problems.
170. Gaztambide, "Psychoimmunology," 97–99, following Felix Just, Marcus Borg, and Donald Capps; developing the evidence further on 99–108; cf. information in Lenzer, "Citizen." This approach is more culturally open to ancient conceptions than most academic readings have been. Capps, Village Psychiatrist, xii, does not deny the involvement of genuine physical conditions, but avers that these are generated psychologically.
171. No approach is obligated to answer questions outside its purview, so my questions here are intended as supplemental rather than denying insights in this approach.
172. I am not contending that all those who make the above arguments deny God or supernatural activity. I am complaining rather that the constraints that limit usual academic inquiry should be open to challenge in view of significant evidence (though I work within such constraints as needed).
173. Davies, Healer, 77 (addressing anxiety-suppressed immune systems and psychogenic illnesses, 76).
174. Ibid., 16. Thus he rejects nature miracles, unlike healings, as legendary (67), because they cannot fit his paradigm; in principle he allows raisings, but only insofar as the persons may have been comatose or perhaps just recently dead. Contrast those who argue (as I do below) that refusing nontheistic constraints may yield a fuller picture of reality (e.g., Polkinghorne, Reality, 83, 88).
Proposed Explanations
early evidence than most scholars do; but admitting as possible also some cures that cannot be explained by the placebo effect would provide greater consistency in handling our sources. If it is natural to take most firstand second-generation reports as historically valuable, why screen out elements simply because they are contrary to a Humean worldview? Following the principle in logic known as Occam's razor, allowing supernatural activity provides the simplest interpretation for some of our other evidence that even Davies's interesting approach cannot accommodate.
The Placebo Effect Having introduced the supernatural question, however, we must return to natural factors. One cannot deny that psychological factors play a role in many cures. While "magnetic" and many hypnotic explanations are now dated, the value of psychological factors in recovery is well documented. Some researchers have estimated that as many as half, or even more than half, of patients lack organic causes for their ailments,175 although these estimates naturally include only those whose organic causes are diagnosed.176 Most ailments do improve on their own with or without medical or other treatment.177 The placebo effect often helps patients,178 so that even some alternative medicines without proven chemical efficacy have benefited patients through this effect.179 Some have even linked it to remission of 175. Frye, "Faith Healing," 18; Markle, "Body," 16–17; Baroody, "Healing," 87–88; Benson, Healing,
49; cf. Kelsey, Healing, 5; Buskirk, Healing, 25–44; Venter, Healing, 231; Robertson, Miracles, 144. Cf. even a reported case for deafness in Benson, Healing, 63. On psychosomatic cures, see also, e.g., Neal, Power,
77–78; Mayhue, Healing, 92–94; emotions in Frohock, Healing Powers, 133.
176. Remus, Healer, 109, notes that surveys suggest that clear diagnoses elude physicians in roughly half the occasions.
177. Frohock, Healing Powers, 133. Roberts, Coburn, 18, offers this observation based on his time in the Amazon rainforest, where most people lacked access to physicians.
178. See, e.g., Droege, Faith Factor, 15–33 (esp. 23–26; cf. also 9–12, on psychoneuroimmunology; on which see also Gaztambide, "Role," 303–6); Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 179–81; Gaztambide,
"Role"; Frank, Persuasion, 65–74; Benson, Healing, 117; Bishop, Healing, 25–27; Buskirk, Healing, 45–49,
89–119; Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 70; Eya, "Healing," 49 (citing, e.g., Beecher, "Placebo," though some of his work has subsequently generated controversy); Remus, Healer, 110–13; Beauregard and O'Leary, Brain, 144–50; Chesnut, Born Again in Brazil, 87; Schwarz, Healing, 169–70; Venter,
Healing, 62; Wallis, "Healing," 51; Epperly, Touch, 35–36. Benson, Healing, 21, found that attitudes of wellness could prove two or three times as effective as an ordinary placebo. Benson, Healing, 184–87, found apparent but not adequately replicable effects of "healers" even on animals, hypothesizing (186) that positive human pheromones may have played a part. Randi, Faith Healers, 283–84, offers this complaint about "faith healing" claims, though he lays the same essential charge against psychotherapy
(285–86); one might also wonder how spinal pressure could cure deafness (Bishop, Healing, 82–83, on early chiropractic). Cf. one comment (intended favorably) regarding African traditional healers:
"The therapeutic effect comes basically from the client's belief that the healer is a powerful person"
(Mkhwanazi, "Psychotherapist," 267).
179. Marilynn Marchione, "Experts: Placebo Power Behind Many Natural Cures," Associated Press,
Nov. 10, 2009, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/ap_on_he_me/med_unproven_remedies
_placebo; accessed Nov. 10, 2009. She cites sources claiming that the placebo effect accounts for a third of the benefits even in the case of accepted medicines.
Nonsupernatural Causes
some cases of cancer180 or used it to explain faith cures of tuberculosis,181 though it should be noted that confidence does not always produce such effects. In some cases, the placebo effect has made a genuine difference between life and death.182 It is said that self-hypnosis has sometimes alleviated nonpsychosomatic, congenital ailments, though normally partially, gradually, and with need for the treatment to continue.183
Through history, many religio-medical folk practices offered no pharmaceutical benefit but apparently did provide significant placebo effects.184 Thus on the medical side eighteenth-century patients often improved after bloodletting, which we now know to be harmful; patients expected to improve because the medical establishment of the day supported the practice.185 Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical
School notes that because of confidence in physicians' orders, participants in one five-year study who neglected most of their prescribed placebos were almost twice as likely to die as those who took them.186 Other medically worthless treatments have displayed objectively documented higher improvement rates—until the treatments were shown to be ineffective.187 Other personal factors can be important; for example, physicians' personal concern for patients aids the recovery process.188 In the case of one ailment where placebos proved as effective as medicines, confident physicians proved some 30 percent more effective than skeptical ones.189 Mental health helps mobilize immune responses and facilitate physical recovery, and various kinds of meditation or religiously sanctioned expressions of confidence can aid in this process.190
Whether the placebo effect stands behind a particular healing, of course, remains open to question. An Asian physician for whom a pastor prayed noted that before the prayer he could not bend down because his back had been sprained.
After prayer, he was fine, with no need for pain medication, and went running 180. Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 277–78; cf. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 40. Preliminary studies can suggest a generally positive correlation of spirituality with cancer coping and improvement, though more research is needed (cf. Sherman and Simonton, "Spirituality and Cancer" [for one ambiguity, see, e.g.,
164]; Koenig, Medicine, 124–27).
181. Melinsky, Miracles, 98–100 (esp. the story of Pauline on 99–100), 163; Spraggett, Kuhlman, 39–40.
182. Althouse, Healing, 107–9.
183. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 47–48.
184. Benson, Healing, 107–10 (citing Shapiro, "History"; Hand, Magical Medicine; Vogel, Medicine).
185. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 179. Bloodletting also appears in some Native American traditional medicine (Hultkrantz, Healing, 33–34, 66, 95).
186. Benson, Healing, 45 (citing Benson and McCallie, "Placebo Effect"; Horwitz et al., "Adherence").
For the negative version of the placebo effect, see, e.g., Benson, Healing, 39, 42, 53, 59, 62.
187. Benson, Healing, 34, 36–37. On other occasions, medicines or procedures work but not for the reasons theorists initially suppose (see, e.g., Clark, Philosophy of Science, 92–93, 112–13).
188. Cassell, Miracles, 215–18 (esp. 215, based on interviews with surgeons).
189. Moerman, Meaning, 38–39, as cited in Pilch, "Usefulness," 99–100.
190. See, e.g., Benson, Healing, 16–21 and passim; cf. Althouse, Healing, 117–21 (on Christian meditation); Krippner and Achterberg, "Experiences," 382 (on the biological benefits of "positive emotional changes" more generally); for Christian spirituality benefiting mental health, see, e.g., Joubert, "Spirituality";
Hoffman, Moriarty and Williamson, "Dynamics."
Proposed Explanations
the next day. The doctor noted that he had originally thought that the placebo effect accounted for all healings but said that he could not explain his own case in those terms.191 Some scientists recognize that extraordinary cures labeled miracles "go way beyond mere placebo effects," and even more powerful "expectation effects."192 While in some cases psychosomatic explanations are probable, in some other cases they are futile: the healing of babies, the raising of the dead, or the stilling of storms.193
As for explanations that depend on psychic human abilities, these explanations grow weak in cases of cures where faith was lacking, as sometimes reported at Lourdes and elsewhere (note also various other examples throughout this book).194
Appeal to latent human powers195 (even to still storms), like appeal to God or other superhuman forces, is ultimately an appeal beyond materialistic naturalism as we know it. That some find it appealing as an alternative to divine or other superhuman explanations, even when cures immediately follow prayer, suggests again the presuppositions that I have noted stand behind much of the modern antipathy toward miracles: atheism and deism.
Religion and Psychological Elements in Healing Religion may support psychological elements in healing. Suggestibility (or, on a less charitable reading, gullibility) may account for some psychic healing claims.196 Many studies link spiritual healing to altered states of consciousness.197
Confidence can produce relaxation, which provides an immune system advantage.198
A Japanese hypnotherapist observing shamans and Christian healers compared the trance behavior involved with hypnosis, regarding these practices as potentially
191. Bruce Collins, phone interview, April 11, 2009. Bruce provided me the doctor's correspondence
(dated Feb. 9, 2009) and the names involved, which I omit in print for the sake of privacy.
192. McNamara and Szent-Imrey, "Learn," 210, complaining that too little research has been done on the nature of religious faith in extraordinary cures. They use "costly signaling theory" to address forms of human illness and recovery in ibid., 213–18.
193. Cf. ibid., 213: "we have no [scientific] explanation for the miraculous healing of an infant."
194. E.g., the story of Elaine Panelo's raising in ch. 12.
195. Over half a century ago, Ikin, Concepts, 115–37, sought to bring together spiritual healing with the "new physics," suggesting a latent power within nature (perhaps as a religious attempt to bridge to secular language). With some others, she suggested that psychic processes were as normal as physical ones (151–58).
196. Allison and Malony, "Surgery," 54–55 (on Filipino psychic surgery; see also the sleight of hand argument in McClenon, Events, 107–15). McClenon and Nooney, "Experiences," 47, note the evolutionary approach in which more suggestible persons were more often cured in shamanic rituals, hence perpetuated their suggestibility genes.
197. See McClenon, Healing, 67, and sources in his notes. On 87–88 he notes the different brain activity during altered states of consciousness; on 89–91, brain activity and anomalous experiences; on 92, brain activity and hypnosis; on 92–93, hypnosis and anomalous experiences; and on 95–96, hypnosis and spiritual healing. Despite the empirical aspects of these studies, the specific configuration of connections may require more study. On altered states of consciousness, see brief discussions in appendixes B and E.
198. McClenon, Healing, 76, suggesting that rituals can facilitate this increased confidence.
Nonsupernatural Causes
therapeutic.199 (One should note, however, that in a number of cultures it is the healer rather than the patient who typically enters a trance.)
In some cultures today, "indigenous folk-healers" offer a higher cure rate than Western medical practitioners there, especially in treating the many mental causes of illness.200 Some studies found that most cases involving the studied shamans were cured, partly or fully, with significantly higher average patient satisfaction than in the West.201 Certainly traditional healers are more affordable and accessible than Western medicine.202 Noting the inadequate medical help available for most
Africans, many modern Western scholars thus praise the health support offered by traditional African healers and African Independent Churches (AICs) as a significant benefit to society, whether or not it involves supernatural elements.203
Some also complain that Western insensitivity toward nonorganic causes drives traditional Africans to faith healers and traditional healers, where such causes are taken seriously.204 Health workers generally affirm that these healers help people and fulfill a genuine social role,205 and many studies contend that they are even more effective in treating psychological disorders than psychotherapy is.206 Zambia's
199. Cited in McClenon, Healing, 59.
200. Eve, Miracles, 354 (citing Kleinman, Healers, 71–82, 139–40, 366, especially regarding the Taiwanese shaman, or tâng-ki). This would not be relevant for many illnesses reported cured in the nt, however, such as leprosy or most cases of paralysis and blindness. Eve, Miracles, 355–56, also notes that the nt reports do not allow time for the sort of "folk psychotherapy" attested in these other accounts.
201. McClenon, Healing, 62–63, cites regarding patient satisfaction Kleinman and Sung, "Practitioners," though noting that their small study found no evidence for healing that could not be explained psychologically
(and that half of doctors' caseloads in the West deal with similar issues). On most cases being cured in one study, again allowing psychological explanations, McClenon, Healing, 63, cites Curley, Elders.
202. See, e.g., Amutabi, "Pharmacology," 154, noting also that there are traditional practitioners for every two hundred to three hundred people, but only one trained medical person for thirty thousand people.
203. Many address the psychosomatic or positive psychotherapeutic value of traditional African healing forms: in AICs, see, e.g., Oosthuizen, "Healing," 87; idem, "Baptism," 187–88; idem, Healer-Prophet, 193;
Mkhize, "Prayer-Healer"; Ayegboyin, "Heal," 244, 245 (while also noting serious problems, 244–45);
Edwards, "Healing," 343–44; cf. Motala, "Influence"; in traditional religion, Mkhwanazi, "Psychotherapist"
(on the therapeutic relationship, see 277); Ademilokun, "Contribution," 131; Adeyemi, "Healing Systems,"
145–46; Cheetham and Griffiths, "Psychotherapist"; Benson, Healing, 110 (citing Gelfand, Witch Doctor).
Given faith healing's benefit for mental care, Peltzer, "Faith Healing," 399, contends that it should be accepted as part of health care in South Africa (though noting on 404 that many of its remedies, even for STDs, are spiritual and essentially homeopathic). Cf., e.g., the South African Pentecostal cure of a woman's anorexia in Denis, "Religion," 187. Others also recommend sensitivity to local mental health taxonomies (e.g., for South African Muslims in Ally and Laher, "Perceptions"). Although some traditional diagnoses may simply defer problems or project them (hindering relationships), African traditional healing has an advantage from a systems perspective in that it treats the entire social context of a person's psychological distress, in contrast to traditional Western psychiatry (Crawford and Lipsedge, "Help," 143). Zionists and Pentecostals promote more faithful sexual behavior, helpful against HIV (Scorgie, "Weapons," 89); Zionists provide communal support and emotional catharsis (91–93), and some non-Zionists come for ministry also (96).
204. Daneel, Zionism, 22–23, 57. Cf. a similar Native American case in Hultkrantz, Healing, 151.
Some doctors, however, have claimed that "fetish priests" have tried to attack them "spiritually since I was destroying their livelihood" (Mensah, "Basis," 177).
205. McClenon, Healing, 63.
206. See studies cited in McClenon, Healing, 62–67; for the placebo effect as a possible factor in shamanic healing, see Walsh, Shamanism, 212–14; West, Sorcery, 43–44, 92–93.
Proposed Explanations
government legally certifies herbalist folk healers,207 and the World Health Organization (WHO) has trained many "native healers, sometimes incorporating them into Western medical clinics and hospitals" to make health accessible to more people.208 Nor are indigenous medicines limited to Africa; for example, one study of a tribe in the Philippines urges that folk medicine be continued there so long as scientific medicine remains unavailable.209 (Some have suggested that charismatic
Christian healing also should be accepted as an alternative therapy "in contexts where access to conventional treatment is limited."210)
Even apart from the question of supernatural elements, however, not all effects of traditional African medicine are psychosomatic.211 Some traditional herbal remedies, for example, are natural remedies that may be chemically effective.212
Local experience may yield some substances that prove helpful in addressing local ailments;213 some have even suggested that African medicine pioneered the use of immunizations even before Western medicine.214 Herbal remedies are not, when employed only naturally, incompatible with the claims of different religions, including Christianity;215 the questions are often more pharmaceuti207. Jules-Rosette, "Healers," 128–29 (cf. also acceptance of spirit healers there, in Luig, "Worlds,"
132–33). Although illegal for a time in Mozambique, traditional healers are now legal there (Roque,
"Mafumo," 186) and sometimes even celebrated (West, Sorcery, 39).
208. Krippner, "Medicine," 195. For differences, commonalities, and dialogue between Western medicine and African traditional practices in Africa, see Merwe, "Relevance," 61–62.
209. Angel, "Craft," 135 (again, based on herbal remedies, many of them not yet known or studied outside their context; cf. iv–v).
210. Brown, Mory, Williams, and McClymond, "Effects," 864, 868.
211. Religious healing usually coexists "with naturalistic treatment" (Frank, Persuasion, 37). Traditional herbalists often have belief systems about spirits (see, e.g., Jules-Rosette, "Healers," 128–29; Hultkrantz,
Healing, 52, 94, 158) or practice divination (Jules-Rosette, "Healers," 132–33; mediums in Emmons,
Ghosts, 224), but these may be distinguished from some of the herbs they use.
212. Cf. Amutabi, "Pharmacology," 155 (noting roots and herbs on 165–70); for "naturalistic" traditional medicine, including herbs and surgery, see Sofowora, Traditional Medicine. Sofowora distinguishes "occult" spirit activities from traditional medicine and treatments (43–44), though noting that they have often overlapped (e.g., 3–5, 44). For use of herbs, cf. also, e.g., Umeh, Dibia, 121–36 (esp. 126–30); ByaruhangaAkiiki and Kealotswe, Healing, 164–74 (on some Asian remedies), 182–87 (in Africa); Crawford and Lipsedge, "Help," 138–39 (among the Zulu); Abioye, "Faith," 4; Akintan, "Priest," 137–38; Haar and Ellis, "Possession," 199–200; Roque, "Mafumo," 184–89; Katz, Energy, 39, 51 (among the !Kung); in Caribbean healing, Hurbon, "Pentecostalism," 134; in Haiti, Beauvoir, "Herbs," 115–25 (suggesting chemical effectiveness); Native American herbalists in Hultkrantz, Healing, 33, 36, 94, 111–12, 147, 158; cf. traditional Japanese herbal remedies in Nakasone, "Healing," 289; indigenous folk remedies in part of the Philippines in Castro, "Practices," 309–67, and Angel, "Craft," e.g., iv–v; some in indigenous Mexican culture in Heinrich, "Medicines." The majority of students at the University of Zululand believed that diviners and herbalists were helpful for the sick (Nene, "Analysis," 37–41, esp. 40), though some thought them more helpful for the "superstitious" (41).
213. Also other treatments, e.g., of snakebite by cutting open the wound and applying a tourniquet
(Reynolds, Magic, 67).
214. McNaughton, Blacksmiths, 57–58, although the evidence cited is limited.
215. See, e.g., Gaiser, Healing, 57–58; the concession of William Wadé Harris in Walls, Movement, 98–99.
Western Christians have sometimes collaborated with traditional healers (e.g., Seale, "Collaboration"; a missionary and an herbalist in Olson, Bruchko, 126–29), although generally more open to their more
"naturalistic" methods such as herbs than competing supernatural approaches (Seale, "Collaboration,"
Nonsupernatural Causes
cal than religious.216 (Some treatments involve water more than herbs.217) In an era when Western medicine was far less dependable than today, John Wesley, for example, advocated traditional herbs and other folk remedies.218 When Wesley seemed on his deathbed at the age of fifty-one, at the hour that some were praying for him, he had a poultice of sulfur and egg white on brown paper applied to his side. "The pain ceased in five minutes," he declared, "the fever in half an hour,"
316–17). Kyomo, "Healing," 146–47, tells of Danieli Kamwela, a traditional medicine man who devoted his traditional medical practice to Christ's service after becoming a Christian (cf. the healing of a missionary's daughter through these means, and the missionary's subsequent support, 145–46). Members of some indigenous churches resort to both Christian faith healing and to herbalists, but to the latter as a later resort and with the emphatic caveat that the herbalists they consulted were not using non-Christian religion
(Jules-Rosette, "Healers," 130). Some groups, like the church of John Maranke, reject both traditional and modern medicines (Jules-Rosette, "Healers," 134–35). Views of Muslims toward traditional medicine of various kinds varies also (see Kareem, "Attitude," 79–81; cf. Ademola, "Attitude," 110).
216. Emphasized to me by my brother-in-law Emmanuel Moussounga, who has a PhD in chemistry from Paris as well as a master's degree in pharmacology. He has explored these issues locally and hopes to pursue more research as the funding becomes available. Benson, Healing, 109 (citing Ackerknecht, Medicine and Ethnology), suggests that many local herbs contained agents useful for healing but that these agents were often delivered in an inadequately therapeutic way. That many committed Christians prescribe local herbal remedies, often with claims of supernatural discernment, was clear to me during my interviews in Congo (July 2008); other African Christians believe such traditional concoctions unnecessary (Onesimus
Asiimwe, interview, Oct. 12, 2008, though he was not against genuinely medicinal substances). Some elements may be symbolic (Oosthuizen, Healer-Prophet, 76), and some who employ such substances regard them as merely props for faith, regarding faith as the important element (Mkhize, "Prayer-Healer,"
289, on a woman who attributed her gift to both God and ancestors). Church history is replete with many such healing symbols (such as oil, e.g., Crisafulli and Nesbitt, Miracles, 22, 160–61; a revealed remedy of vinegar and salt, Crisafulli and Nesbitt, Miracles, 12; berries, in a dream, 222–25), often borrowed from surrounding cultures. With many herbs, however, a pharmacological element is also in view.
217. In some parts of Africa, indigenous church healers use holy water rather than herbs (Wessels,
"Practices," 94, noting that they also avoid using bones, killing medicine, and snuff, probably more widespread prohibitions; for divergent views of traditional medicines among AIC prophets, see Oosthuizen,
Healer-Prophet, 174). The Aladura view of water somewhat resembles its role in Yoruba traditional religion
(Ayegboyin, "Heal," 238); for use of water and other substances in Zionist healing practices, see Dube,
"Search," 122; Daneel, "Zionism," 29; Edwards, "Healing," 341; Oosthuizen, Healer-Prophet, 40, 59–60, 75,
76 (vinegar and brown sugar), 89; Okoye, "Healing," 23; sacred baptismal water in Oosthuizen, "Baptism," comparing Roman Catholic and Orthodox rituals; idem, Healer-Prophet, 149–64, 169 (for healing, esp.
44–46); among the Karanga, Shoko, Religion, 54 (sprinkling of holy water); among West African Seraphim,
Parrinder, Religion, 121; for water and Vaseline among the amaNazaretha, see Moodley, Shembe, 173–75
(though Vimbeni Shembe attributes the healing to faith and prayer, 161); for oil, orange juice, eggs, and smoke in some "apostolic" churches, Shoko, Religion, 53. Traditional cults also emphasize water and washing
(e.g., Beauvoir, "Herbs," 132, on Haiti), although Christians would look to other precedents (2 Kgs 5:10;
John 9:7). The symbol is culturally intelligible in many cultures; baths (Pliny Ep. 7.21.3; Fronto Eloq. 1.4) and hot springs (Vitruvius Arch. 8.3.4; Pliny Nat. 31.31.59–61; Philostratus Hrk. 23.30) were considered therapeutic in the ancient Mediterranean world (see comment in ch. 2).
218. See Pickstone, "Systems," 171 (referring to his Primitive Physick). This approach in a sense empowered the poor with regard to their health, though we now know that many of these folk cures, like many of those of that era's medical establishment, were not dependable (see, e.g., Wigger, Saint, 67–68, 75, 229,
248–49, 275, 329–30). On the social context of the Primitive Physick, as an act of pastoral concern, see Rack,
"Healing," 138–40, 143–46, though Asbury did not follow its prescriptions (Wigger, Saint, 264); for Wesley's mixed record on contemporary science, see Brooke, Science, 189–91. In North America, some traditional faith healers in Appalachia have also employed herbs alongside prayer (Wigginton, Foxfire Book, 356).
Proposed Explanations
and he began to recover.219 Today we would doubt that the poultice did much, at least physically, for his rapid recovery, but neither would we think that it harmed him or compromised his faith.220
Nevertheless, in many cases of recoveries associated with religion or traditional culture, Western observers believe that psychological elements play a role. One study in Switzerland showed that when a faith healer laid hands on 532 smokers to pray for their deliverance, fully 40 percent remained smoke-free after four months
(compared with 2 percent success for "behavior-modification techniques" and "13% for those using nicotine-replacement therapy"), though this figure fell to 20 percent after five years, undoubtedly due to factors that made smoking attractive in the first place. While one could explain the outcomes in terms of extraordinary supernatural causation, one could also cite psychological factors. Those with stronger religious belief in the efficacy of laying on of hands had a higher long-term cure rate, perhaps suggesting the element many religious people call faith.221 In keeping with such an approach, one paralysis cured by emotional change was assumed to be functional rather than organic.222
When some clearly organic conditions have been cured, however, it seems reductionist to reduce all reports of healings to psychosomatic cures of functional limitations. This allowance for mind cures of a functional nature, while denying organic ones, long persisted as a traditional compromise with antisupernaturalist assumptions.223 Early twentieth-century modernist Christians could accept God acting by natural means through the human "mind and spirit" far more readily than God "intervening directly in physical nature."224
Reductionism aside, we readily acknowledge that many cures may involve these natural factors. Most theists, including those affirming miraculous healing, can
219. Wesley, Journal (1974), 198 (Nov. 28, 1753). He was healthy enough to begin riding the next day (198), but apparently recovered full strength only gradually (199).
220. By contrast, the decoction of bark he ingested on Dec. 20 of the same year apparently set him back a few days (Wesley, Journal [1974], 199). In Olson, Bruchko, 148, Motilone Indians successfully employed antibiotics and prayer against snake venom, unaware that the antibiotics were useless for snake poison.
Like Wesley, they used the best medicine they knew while depending on God. Jones, Wonders, 110, notes a similar combination of a worthless remedy and helpful faith and (114–15, 126) acknowledges recoveries after remedies he considers unhelpful.
221. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 28–29 (citing Gmur and Tschopp, "Factors"; for the 2 percent success rate, Law and Tang, "Analysis"); for an anecdotal report of instant supernatural healing from cigarette addiction, see Carothers, Prison, 49. Mainstream media also report the usefulness of religion in combating nicotine addiction; see Jeff Levine, "Study: Religion Helps Smokers Kick the Habit" (CNN,
May 15, 1996), http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9605/15/nfm/holy.smokes/index.html; accessed June
22, 2009, via Dr. David Larson's website.
222. Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 111–12. Note also the case in May, "Miracles," 148.
223. Mullin, Miracles, 183 (on 184 noting liberal Christians' earlier contrast made between healing and the more problematic nature miracles); cf. L. W. Grensted's critique of Hickson in Mews, "Revival,"
330; also Wright, Miracle, 150–57, 167–69 (though he allows that Jesus's miracles may be of a different character, 145–46, 169–70). Thouless, "Miracles," 257, contends that "mental healing" can explain even organic cures but admits that the cases available so far had not yet proved amenable "to experimental study."
224. Mullin, Miracles, 184.
Nonsupernatural Causes
affirm that God frequently works through such psychological factors for recovery.225
Indeed, some Christians focus especially on spiritual healing, with various degrees of efficacy.226 Most persons with disabilities are not miraculously healed, but many find strength in their faith to cope with their disabilities (cf. 1 Kgs 14:4–6; 2 Kgs
13:14; Luke 14:13, 21); from a believer's or a friend's standpoint, this ability may reflect divine grace. Nevertheless, for the purposes under discussion here, in these cases unconvinced observers will not view such recoveries as indisputable empirical evidence for extranormal divine activity.227
In the middle of the twentieth century, British Methodist theologian Leslie Weatherhead acknowledged psychological means of healing, including Mes merism,228 hypnotism,229 and suggestion.230 Yet while psychological means were useful, he urged that the church must also "recover the lost art of healing through the direct activity of God."231 While affirming the value of medicine and psychology, he lamented that the church "has lost the supernatural gift of healing."
Though Christ used psychological principles, he insisted, psychology alone is not the fullness of Christ's supernatural power.232
Some narratives, such as raisings and nature miracles, are not as susceptible to this sort of explanation. These events are less frequent than faith cures but are often based on the same sort of eyewitness testimonies, often by individuals whose trustworthiness should not be in dispute. The frequent practice today of admitting the possibility of faith cures in the Gospels and Acts, while denying claims that would seem to require supernatural action (or at least highly improbable,
225. See, e.g., Mount, "Miracles?" 19; Brown, "Spiritual Healing," 115–17; cf. De Orio, "Phenomenology,"
123–24. Some healings, MacNutt notes (Power, 68–70), work "through purely natural forces released in prayer," although he notes extraordinary activity (70–74), including healing of nerve damage and the straightening of teeth (76–77). The high proportion of ailments that have psychological roots will also require cures that address those roots (MacNutt, Power, 79). Even in Scripture, God typically worked through natural processes—which, after all, God created (problematizing the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"); even in Exod 14:21, God swept back the sea through an east wind, though this was not a random event. Some contend that the historic combination of spiritual and medical approaches in healing has been enjoying a resurgence after several scientific studies (cited in Cherry, Healing Prayer,
3–17; cf. Neal, Smoke, 126–34).
226. Csordas, "Healing," recounts two case studies with a charismatic Catholic priest and psychologist; the second case (129–32) acknowledged minimal improvement, although the client's resistance would have made psychiatric progress equally difficult.
227. Some, of course, will not be convinced by any arguments. Moreover, even some unusual cures provide limited evidence. Spontaneous remission can happen with or without prayer (Mount, "Miracles?"
19). The exception would be a sufficient collocation of natural factors as to be too improbable naturally to attribute to coincidence (Corduan, "Miracle," 104). While this collocation may be miraculous, it is not as often disputed as the sort of event inexplicable without some sort of supernatural agency (see discussion in Dietl, "Miracles," 130). Moreover, even in the Gospels Jesus sometimes healed from compassion without a prior request when he was present (Luke 7:13–15).
228. Weatherhead, Psychology, 105–8.
229. Ibid., 109–21.
230. Ibid., 122–28.
231. Ibid., 485.
232. Ibid., 486.
Proposed Explanations
extraordinary coincidences), is acceptable on nonsupernatural grounds. (Biblical supernaturalists can accept both miraculous and more natural faith cures, since, as I have repeatedly noted, God in Scripture often worked through nature, albeit usually doing so in extraordinary ways when the objective involved signs.) But if, as I argued in chapters 5–6, the case for antisupernaturalism is largely circular, then an open-minded approach should be willing to consider also those claims that do not fit this paradigm (including babies, raisings, and particularly extraordinary cures). One need not presuppose that miracles happen to be open to the possibility; by contrast, to foreclose the possibility a priori and without exploration rests on a closed-minded, hence uncritically held, presupposition. For an ideal, neutral observer not schooled in antisupernaturalism, which way would the totality of the evidence, including claims of raisings and nature miracles, point?
Conclusion Based on the preceding discussion, even an atheist could affirm that many people believed themselves healed and experienced recovery through Jesus's and his first followers' ministry. That is, the primary, historical claim of this book would be sufficiently established even apart from a theistic perspective. Nevertheless, I believe that it is possible to strengthen the historical claim still further, as well as advance the book's secondary argument, by looking at the other side of some of the evidence.
Biased Standards?
The ground rules that the commissions established in order to validate a healing as miraculous—that is, that it could not merely be inexplicable, but also had to be unique and not found in the annals of either medicine or other religions—almost ensured that no healings would be deemed "miracles." —Robert Bruce Mullin1
. . . have concluded that she must have been misdiagnosed and mistreated for the past twenty years. These conscientious and competent doctors have risked a possible malpractice suit rather than admit the possibility of divine healing. —Ken Blue2
W e have looked at various plausible naturalistic factors in recoveries sometimes associated with faith. Since the God of Scripture most often appears to work with natural factors, there is nothing in these observations that necessarily challenges a position grounded in Scripture, even theologically. Neither, however, would such activity convince an open-minded agnostic of a deity's extranormal activity. Many Western Christian scholars in recent centuries have appropriately discovered God's greatness in the regularity of nature, but those who take nature's regularity for granted may find extraordinary works more persuasive than natural ones. In general terms, how might such extraordinary works be identified?
Keep in mind this book's earlier discussion regarding Hume and Western skepticism toward miracles. Despite its shaky foundations, this Humean skepticism provides a starting bias in much of the traditional Western evaluation of the evidence for miracles, a bias that often screens out all evidence not in its favor.
Reductionism?
Clearly natural factors are at work in much healing, but some observers contend that attributing all medically unexplained recovery claims to exclusively psychological
1. Mullin, Miracles, 248.
2. Blue, Authority, 58.
Proposed Explanations
causes, when other proposed factors may be at work, is reductionist.3 This warning surely applies to a number of the sorts of extranormal recoveries recounted earlier in this book, including healings of babies and the restoration of dead persons, for which a theological explanation is normally more supportable than a psychosomatic one.
One should also consider the cumulative factor: a specific coincidence appears increasingly less coincidental as its incidence level increases; the explanatory power of coincidence is not unlimited (as even David Hume recognized).4 One
Western observer protests, "It strains the credulity of anyone who has seen literally countless instances of healing following prayer to be told that these instances are always" due to chance or psychological factors.5 Thus in one report, when a girl immobilized in her lower limbs by polio was, after a prayer of faith, promptly able to walk "holding only her father's arm," one professor derided the experience as a coincidence. To this remark her father, also a professor, responded that if her healing was a coincidence, it was surely a miraculous one.6 If some people find all of these reports incredible, they should remember that the basis for their skepticism is the premise that such events cannot happen. They should also remember, as I argued earlier, that premise is only an assumption, not the conclusion of an examination of all (or normally even of many) miracle claims.
Avoiding a reductionist approach, a recent academic work in the sociology of religion notes that some of the reports of miracles that the authors collected could involve spontaneous remission, psychosomatic illnesses, or exaggerated rumors, yet other reports defied such naturalistic explanations and would be regarded by believers as supernatural.7 They allow that many cases may allow "complementary explanations"—both social and theological, both human and suprahuman elements.8 One need not rule out the usual sociological variables, they note, by 3. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 29–31, acknowledging psychosomatic ailments, and that mental attitudes can improve cure rates but denying that these explanations cover many of the cases he notes; cf. Frohock,
Healing Powers, 135–36. Hickson, Heal, 72, cites the published letter of Bishop Herbert J. Molony of Chekiang Province in China, dated June 14, 1921: "many of the cures are not to be accounted for on any theory of 'suggestion.' This plays its part, as in all hope-inspiring medical practice, but it cannot account for some of the things I have seen." Others have also claimed some healing of organic, congenital, or "incurable" ailments (e.g., Shaub, "Analysis," 85, regarding Price, "Healing," 13, in the early period of World War II).
Against reductionism more generally, see, e.g., Davies, "Preface," xi–xii; Polkinghorne, Reality, 8–9, 29–30,
37 (observing that particle physics does not explain every level of reality).
4. Hume, Miracles, 31–32: healing is not always a miracle, but if it is conjoined causally with a specific command to be healed it is a miracle. It is not miraculous if the conjunction can be explained as coincidence, but miraculous if coincidence is disproved (presumably with respect to the frequency of collocation visà-vis the level of infrequency of comparable cures apart from such collocation).
5. Puxley, "Experience," 171. The context of prayer fits the sort of religious context often applied in evaluating miracles, noted in ch. 5.
6. Edmunds, "Sick."
7. Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 152–53, citing favorably also the similar opinion of a theologian in Hong Kong. They critique Durkheim's approach as too reductionist ("or at least a bit arrogant"; 219).
8. Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 158. Some others have also allowed this approach (e.g.,
Spraggett, Kuhlman, 40).
Biased Standards?
adding another that may be at work at times: what they call "the realm of the Spirit."9 The stark division that some drive between such explanations, assuming them to be incompatible in all cases, reflects the milieu in which such a division originated.10 That is, the division reflects historically conditioned assumptions that are not deemed self-evident to all cultures. It is that either-or, forced-choice logic that I seek to avoid in my evaluation of proposed explanations. Some cases are explicable purely naturally; some are not explicable purely naturally; many are cumulatively more explicable with supernatural elements, although the degree of their persuasiveness varies according to the observer's presuppositions more generally. From a theistic perspective, a divine act need not involve creation ex nihilo to be dramatic; signs could often expedite or employ natural processes or functions (whether psychological, physical, or both) to achieve results that chance in nature would not produce on its own.
A Historic Bias against Faith?
While natural factors such as those noted earlier caution us against taking all faith healing claims at face value, and even more so against using all of them as incontrovertible evidence of divine activity, unspoken factors are often at work in setting the bar of proof impossibly high. Hume's position demands "overwhelming evidence"11 before accepting the validity of a miracle. Yet Hume deliberately sets the standard of "overwhelming" as virtually impossible, rejecting virtually any historical or present testimony. As one scholar points out, "In the nature of the case it is rarely possible to obtain such overwhelming evidence for any historical event." Hence, many presume "that the kinds of things that demonstrably do not happen most of the time, never have happened."12 Following this paradigm, research sometimes works with an interpretive grid that dismisses potential evidence.13
9. Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 159; cf. also 219–20.
10. See Mullin, Miracles, passim, esp. 223–24. In addition to the intellectual milieu more generally, professional specialization and disciplinary boundaries augmented the dichotomy (103–4, 246–47).
Research shows that most people who affirm divine healing accept medical explanations of disease and normal means of recovery but additionally affirm a higher metaphysical level; that is, they do not treat the spheres as incompatible or express hostility toward medicine (Poloma, Assemblies, 58–60).
11. The degree to which such evidence is deemed "overwhelming" varies according to the individual critic's standard; one presupposing supernatural activity may require less evidence in a particular case than someone more skeptical of this. Likewise, the more dogmatic one's antisupernaturalism the less any amount of documentation will appear convincing, regardless of its effect on a more neutral observer.
12. Hesse, "Miracles," 40. For a response to the presuppositions informing Hume's approach, see also
Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 61–63; the summary of J. Houston's arguments, and my other treatments of Hume in chs. 5–6 earlier. Virtually no report persuades those unwilling to be persuaded; even the most public sort of claim, such as a reported event at Fatima in front of seventy thousand people (cited in Hoffman and McGuire, "Miracles," 225), is disputed (in this case, at least on the level of interpretation).
13. As warned by, e.g., Wink, "Write," 6.
Proposed Explanations
The Biased Vancouver Study Some scholars today still cite against miraculous healing claims a supposedly objective committee that dismissed as exaggerated or deceptive 350 Pentecostal healing claims—in a study conducted in 1925.14 This study illustrates well the problem of bias against healing that effectively screens out any evidence potentially favoring it. The study conceded only five cures, all of which it claimed could have been effected medically, and thirty-eight cases of some improvement, while five persons, it reported emphatically, "had become insane."15 Undoubtedly a large proportion of the claims did prove false or exaggerated,16 but one also suspects that the study did not proceed without guiding premises and that it proved what its authors expected it to.
Historian James Opp has recently probed the presuppositions of this supposedly objective study, which concerned the results of Charles Price's 1923 meetings in Vancouver. Although the only public study of its era to collect much data on faith healers,17 its approach to the data is deeply marred by a predetermined allegiance to the idea, explicitly stated in the study's introduction, that God works only through natural causes.18 The reader will recall from my historical survey that this perspective reflected a dominant viewpoint in academic circles of that era.
Nearly "all of the ministers in Vancouver who had publicly opposed the faith healer" were members of this committee, the most prominent being A. E. Cooke.19
Cooke had initially invited Price to the city but then turned against him as stoking false hopes. What Cooke did not say publicly, yet was understood by all who knew him, was that his daughter had failed to be cured in the meetings.20 Cooke thus had understandable yet subjective personal incentive for his hostility—appropriately never directed, however, toward the medical establishment's inability
14. Anderson, Vision, 93; followed more recently by Hunter and Chan, Protestantism, 146. Academia and the cultural establishment more generally were largely hostile to Pentecostalism in 1925, in contrast to the generally more open posture today. Cf. the 1932 committee challenging healing claims of the heterodox A. H. Dallimore (Guy, "Miracles," 458–59). Journalist Margaret Macpherson claimed to have been instantly healed of twenty years of lumbago in his meetings (offering the claim three years later;
462), but doctors thought that Dallimore cured by suggestion (461).
15. Anderson, Vision, 93–94. Thus, for example, one patient with a previous history of mental illness had become "insane" after prayer and "died a week later from 'the exhaustion of acute mania'" (Opp, Lord for Body, 181). A very similar complaint was lodged against Bosworth, again reflecting older nineteenthcentury psychological theories (Opp, Lord for Body, 165).
16. Anderson, Vision, 94, cites Stanley Frodsham and Donald Gee, early Pentecostal leaders who were in a position to know (but who also may have been stating their positions forcefully to make a point to uncritical members of their own faith community) as objecting to inadequate documentation and complaining that only a small proportion of miracle claims proved demonstrably true. One should note, however, that these authors nevertheless maintained that genuine miracles did occur (see, e.g., Frodsham, Apostle).
17. Opp, Lord for Body, 178.
18. Ibid., 179. The study did have the beneficial effect of making "Pentecostal editors . . . more careful in publishing reports without substantiation" (Reyes, "Framework," 88–89).
19. Opp, Lord for Body, 178.
20. Ibid., 162.
Biased Standards?
to cure the same daughter. The most significant physician on the committee had previously worked with Cooke in discrediting chiropractic.21 The committee had an agenda to discredit both faith healing and Price22 and urged that laws should be passed allowing only physicians, not ministers, to practice curative
"hypnotism."23
Given the dominance of his critics on the committee, it is hardly surprising that Price and his supporters declined to cooperate with it; several ministers supportive of him withdrew from the committee once its predisposition was obvious.
Likewise, the local Baptist Ministerial Association "passed a resolution refusing to cooperate and protested that too many critics of the campaign were now investigating it."24 Because of the consequent shortage of cooperative subjects, the committee investigated not just claimed healings but anyone who had received prayer, depending on newspaper appeals for information.25
Two Methodist ministers who remained on the committee protested the majority perspective and issued a minority report. They noted that the committee investigated less than 6 percent of those anointed and that the study was not representative because those claiming cures viewed the committee as hostile and therefore refused to cooperate.26 The minority report complained that the committee did not actually directly listen to the testimonies of those who claimed to be healed, and assumed that those claiming healing could not properly evaluate whether or not they had been cured.27
Even so, the committee found thirty-eight persons who experienced improvement after prayer (in addition to the five who recovered). Some of the "improvements" reported sound significant, but these were attributed to suggestion and mass hypnotism.28 (Public hypnosis was a favorite explanation of the era for healing claims.29) The committee clearly implied that the celebrated case of Ruby Dimmick was purely psychological, enraging "her father, Rev. J. F. Dimmick," who noted that "no one on the committee had actually interviewed him or Ruby, nor did they even discuss the case with Dr Hall." Rev. Dimmick pointed out that the orthopedic hospital would hardly have admitted her to begin with had her condition been
21. Ibid., 178.
22. Ibid., 176.
23. Ibid., 181.
24. Ibid., 179.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 182–83 (quotation from 183). They also challenged the committee's emphasis that 39 had died, showing this as nonrepresentative. Since those examined constituted only 6 percent of the total who received prayer, then 668 persons altogether should have died, yet "government statistics actually showed a decrease in the death rate over the seven months following the campaign when compared with the previous year" (183).
27. Ibid., 184. That this accusation accurately represents the perspective of the majority report is clear from Cooke's insistence that only "a trained expert" and not the patient could diagnose what if anything was wrong with the patient (184), and reflects the naturalistic medical premises then dominant (185).
28. Ibid., 180.
29. Ibid., 166–69. The claim also appears in Perry, "Reporting," 107.
Proposed Explanations
considered "hysteria" rather than a spinal problem!30 Although her physician at first had been skeptical, by 1926 he conceded in writing that a miracle had in fact taken place.31 The committee's ready dismissal of cases such as Dimmick's reveals the way that it sorted evidence.
One woman clearly had "improved motor function," but because X-rays showed that her bones were not healed, the "improved muscle function" that enabled her to walk better was dismissed as "functional" rather than "organic."32 To this objection that the cures were of nonorganic causes, the minority report pointed out that most cures by physicians could be dismissed by the same standards.33
Another observer who claimed to know members of the committee complained that they dismissed demonstrable healings "of previously diagnosed tuberculosis and cancer" by simply claiming "that the original diagnoses were mistaken"—so that they rejected even what empirical evidence they did have available.34 Rev.
W. J. Knott, well known in the city, "testified that he had been cured of [a] goiter from which he had been suffering for years," almost instantly; family members affectionately kissed "the place where the goiter had been."35
Understandably the committee emphasized the dashed hopes and disappointed faith of those not cured.36 Price himself did not, however, claim that everyone for whom he prayed recovered;37 people are not always cured medically, either. Some doctors supported Price,38 but a central issue at conflict with many other doctors and ministers of the era was epistemological:39 while faith healers (in contrast to Christian Science) did not deny the reality of natural causes, they also allowed (in contrast to antisupernaturalists) supernatural causes as well.
Similar Past Critiques of Other Public Healing Claims Similarly, a committee produced a devastating critique of James Moore Hickson's healings in England. Contemporaries, however, recognized that the committee
30. Opp, Lord for Body, 186. In the nineteenth century, "hysteria" was a common female affliction and diagnosis, but this largely vanished when it became culturally unacceptable (Buskirk, Healing, 35–36).
31. Opp, Lord for Body, 186; for his former skepticism, see 157. He had initially pronounced her cured even soon after the meeting ("Healings at Victoria," 15); another observer declared "that her spine was perfectly straight and there was a complete healing of the foot" ("Healings at Victoria," 15).
32. Opp, Lord for Body, 186–87. If Price's detractors produced public X-rays, in this case, Price displayed photos of those healed, holding their previous bandages and so forth (191–95).
33. Ibid., 183.
34. Ibid., 187.
35. "Healings at Victoria," 15, citing (see 9) the Victoria Daily Times. According to the article, Knott was expected to die because the goiter was now constricting his breathing ("to strangle him").
36. Opp, Lord for Body, 181. Lourdes works to guard against this response, so that most of the uncured nevertheless go away encouraged (Cranston, Miracle, 156–60).
37. Opp, Lord for Body, 159, 182 (though he did associate swooning with faith, 159). Cf. accusations that Francisco Olazábal did not heal everyone who requested prayer, and his response that God does the healing and did not heal everyone he prayed for (Espinosa, "Healing in Borderlands," 141).
38. Opp, Lord for Body, 182. A small number of physicians even shifted from medical practice to emphasizing divine healing (177, 195–202).
39. Ibid., passim, e.g., 208–10.
Biased Standards?
began with the commitment to discredit Hickson and that most local doctors involved refused to verify cures, claiming that those healed must have been simply misdiagnosed to begin with.40
Less reported was a similar study of miracles in Bangor, Maine, reported by a biblical scholar undoubtedly interested in parallels with nt miracles. He identifies the possibility of fraud: the campaign advertisement listed fifteen testimonials, at least nine with "addresses unknown to the postal authorities, and only two had local addresses."41 He rightly warned that an irrelevant cause could be attached to a person's recovery, and a person might not genuinely recover at all. Thus one girl with tuberculosis removed her cast to walk a week prematurely (Sept. 1925), and now she limps badly.42 Another woman, able to walk but not well without a crutch, went a few days without it until she became disillusioned with the healing minister and started using her crutch again.43 Clearly the reporter pinpoints those not healed who sometimes hope to be healed in such meetings.
The critic further viewed some recovery claims as too weak to count as favorable evidence: a man with a damaged knee had worn a bandage for three years; he removed the bandage, but he had been having no recurrence of symptoms.44
A woman was cured from "periodic attacks of vertigo and severe nausea," which had not recurred since the meetings.45 Although such cases do not provide strong evidence for supernatural healing, the examiner's verdict here is sarcastic: "Imaginary ailments, of course, disappear instantly."46
Even this critic is prepared to admit a few cures, yet he attributes these not to divine intervention but to encouragement. He complains about "self-deception": a young man with heart and lung problems, who had given up and was nearly bedridden, received so much courage from the meeting that he went back to work, though medically his condition was presumably unchanged.47 Likewise he noted
"an old woman almost completely crippled with rheumatism who is now doing her housework and knitting mittens."48 Most strangely, he relegates to a footnote the observation that a woman "claimed to have been entirely blind in one eye. She described how her sight was instantly restored at the meeting. She was found to be now able-bodied and apparently had fair eyesight, though in need of glasses."49
Later he places this testimony among psychological cures, despite her own claim:
40. Mews, "Revival," 330. Hickson accepted doctors (307), but while he praised doctors for what they accomplished, he also claimed that Jesus could cure what medicine could not (304).
41. Perry, "Reporting," 106n11. Maine had already seen some semi-cultic Pentecostal extremism; see, e.g., the account in Wacker, "Living," 432.
42. Perry, "Reporting," 105.
43. Ibid., 107. He attributes the healer's success to her "hypnotic personality."
44. Ibid., 106 and n. 5.
45. Ibid., 106 and n. 6.
46. Ibid., 106.
47. Ibid., 105–6 and n. 4, 108.
48. Ibid., 108.
49. Ibid., 105n3.
Proposed Explanations
"One old woman who says she was nearly blind before, tells how the dazzling light broke upon her all at once with the restoration of the sight of her useless eye."50
However one explains the other cures, restoration of sight to her eye seems like it should have given pause to someone not committed to an a priori skepticism.
Not everyone was cured, but assumptions about those who did claim healing do not seem to entertain all the possibilities. One further suspects some bias in reading the scholar's descriptions: such healing ideas "spread among the less intelligent all over the state, and even some of the educated clergy fell victims to it."51 He concludes that most "who received or sought healing were not closely connected with organized religion, but rather were folk of little knowledge and superficial exposure to religion." Lest one suppose he does not mean the description to denigrate them, he also speaks of their "washed-out, second-hand faith which was little more than superstition."52 That Jesus focused his ministry on outsiders, and that signs in Acts and subsequently appeared especially in the setting of outreach to nonbelievers, apparently escapes his notice. Nevertheless, his approach was common among members of the intellectual and often religious elite of his era.
In 1956, a British medical committee expressed skepticism about miraculous healing, although the report's own appendixes include statements from British physicians specifying some unusual recoveries. Thus, in one doctor's statement, two strokes had paralyzed and left speechless an aged woman; doctors diagnosed hemiplegia due to cerebral hemorrhage and counted her case hopeless. Within days after a healing service, she "was about again, and now thirteen years later, at the age of eighty-three, this patient is still walking to church twice every Sunday."53
In another statement, a gynecologist had declared a case of cervical cancer inoperable because of its extent; after prayer, the pain left quickly and the cancer was completely gone within two months. The patient died from pneumonia eight years later, with no recurrence of cancer.54 While cancers do remit, we should also remember that cancer treatments were far more limited in that era than today and that the cancer had already spread.
Nevertheless, the committee, while not denying a number of extraordinary cures,55 concluded that such cures were probably the result of misdiagnosis, "remission, or possibly of spontaneous cure."56 While the report plays down claims of healings by noting that most physicians responding to the query believed in divine healing and thus were "prejudiced in its favor,"57 one physician is duly quoted as warning that in 50. Ibid., 108.
51. Ibid., 106.
52. Ibid., 108.
53. Oursler, Power, 230.
54. Ibid., 231.
55. Ibid., 243, pointing out that the report seems to suggest that divine healings are not significant because physicians can achieve comparable results—an argument that is beside the point.
56. Ibid., 232.
57. Ibid., 240. Oursler complains that if they genuinely considered these physicians so severely prejudiced, they ought to demand that their licenses be withdrawn, since such prejudice would affect
Biased Standards?
cases where something appeared to be a miracle, it might simply reflect a law of nature not yet discovered.58 It was not the first time in history that those who presupposed the nonexistence of miracles questioned the competence of colleagues more directly acquainted with cases in question who had interpreted the evidence differently.59
While these nonsupernatural explanations are logically possible, one wonders what evidence, if any, even in cases much stronger than these, would be accepted for divine healing. Could not any unexplained recovery be simply called "spontaneous," without thereby explaining it?60 The burden of proof seems stacked impossibly against divine healing: any recovery that could be explained otherwise excludes divine healing, yet nearly any restoration noted in Scripture or today could potentially be explained on such terms.61 This criterion does not require the antisupernaturalist to offer a plausible explanation—just any explanation. Among viable explanations in the skeptic's arsenal is now that apparent miracles could reflect unknown laws of nature—a criterion that effectively excludes any appeal to evidence. Even if a person had been duly deemed dead by physicians and returned to life the next day (as in a case I noted earlier in the book), an antisupernaturalist might choose to insist that, despite lack of detectable cardiac or brain activity, the person was not really dead. The committee could dismiss the reports of most of the physicians responding to their query about healing as undoubtedly believing in healing and thus being biased, as in the case above. Could not a believer in divine healing ask the same question of the committee? Why was it stacked with those who would a priori rule out any claim to healing?
Are Nonsupernatural Interpretations Always Better?
More recently, one physician has studied a number of healing claims and dismissed all of them. His analysis is helpful on many points, since, as I have noted, fraud and false diagnoses occur, and I think it likely that he has identified some of these cases.62 But just as advocates for miracles could force all proposed cases to fit their paradigm, it is possible to force all cases to fit a contrary paradigm, especially when driven by "moral outrage," as this physician describes his commitment.63 their practice (243). He also wonders why the doctors on the committee should be accepted as less prejudiced than the doctors whose testimonies they dismiss as prejudiced (243).
58. Ibid., 241. Further suggesting the committee's prejudice, they mention how rare are certified cures at Lourdes (while praising the thoroughness of the Medical Bureau there), yet mention nothing of the considerable documentation for the few cures proclaimed (241–42).
59. See Duffin, Miracles, 113, 133–34, where physicians not present during cures proved adamant against the judgment of attending physicians, on the grounds that miracles cannot happen.
60. Krippner and Achterberg, "Experiences," 358, cites Simonton, Matthews-Simonton, and Creighton,
Getting Well, 21, to the effect that any normally inexplicable cure can be designated "spontaneous" "in much the same way as the term spontaneous generation covered medical ignorance during the late Middle Ages."
61. Cf. the same complaint regarding any paranormal claims more generally in McClenon, Events, 187; and the argument against other theistic claims addressed in Plantinga, "Science," 109, 112–13.
62. See esp. May, "Miracles," 145, 151.
63. Ibid., 146. May expresses this (often justifiable) "outrage" in comments about "bogus claims," healers doing "serious harm," and fund-raising techniques that "profoundly nauseate me" (and in many
Proposed Explanations
While there seems reason to concur that his criticisms of some figures may be justified, I believe that he too readily dismisses the healing claims of his fellow physician Rex Gardner as having secured "spurious credibility."64 He challenges
Gardner's case of instant healing of sensorineural hearing loss (see discussion in ch. 12) on the grounds that it is not absolutely unique;65 nevertheless, it is clearly extremely rare, not yet explained, and at least in this case (we do not hear details about others) instantaneous and associated with prayer.
This physician's study also works with the consistent approach of rejecting any supernatural claims for which a natural explanation is possible, even if the natural explanation is itself speculative.66 For example, he dismisses a claim of healed long-term blindness as possibly reflecting merely the person feeling better about her sight67 (though he would regard genuine restoration of sight as unusual).68
He seems to hold a double standard in some cases: when Jesus healed someone blind or deaf, these are incurable disorders that do not "spontaneously remit,"69 but as we have observed, he is less prepared to admit such claims today, even though they are sometimes better documented medically than the ancient cases could have been. While this author performs a useful service in challenging false or inadequate claims, therefore, I am inclined to suspect that his approach is too one-sided against contemporary healing claims.
Even his criticisms of healing evangelists' testimonies can appear one-sided. In one case he challenges the medical facts in an evangelist's video,70 arguing that Xrays showed no change in a woman's spine after her healing; he also notes that some claims in the original video include exaggerations or material not strictly relevant to the claims (that is, not all the operations involved the woman's spine). Some of cases the rest of us as well). Even some pure naturalists, however, recognize a valuable placebo effect in some healing beliefs (cf. even May himself, 155), so claims about "serious harm," while sometimes true, especially in the sorts of cases May emphasizes, should be balanced with benefits of some other ministries even aside from supernatural questions.
64. Ibid., 150.
65. Ibid., 150–51.
66. Ibid., 149–50, also challenges cases reported at Lourdes. While his argument regarding the lesion here is substantial, it is clearly one on which a number of doctors who certified the claim disagree, so the matter remains in dispute among experts. May has a newer article, too recent for me to obtain for this book, and it is possible that this approach is more balanced than in the earlier one.
67. Ibid., 154.
68. For genuine restoration being unusual, see, e.g., ibid., 147, 154.
69. Ibid., 147. The double standard also appears in Pullum, "Believe," 143, who notes that biblical miracles were empirically verifiable, whereas today "body parts are never regenerated like those cases in the Bible." I cannot think of cases of body parts regenerated in the Bible. This approach is virtually the opposite of that of Capps, Ellens, and others.
70. May, "Miracles," 152. Given May's one-sided approach, however (though to be fair, articulating one's thesis—in this case that the healing was not organic—does not require one to address every other issue), it is not surprising to me that the woman's physician, who on the video affirms the dramatic transformation and his own amazement, refused to cooperate with May. Also to be fair, my access to the woman's testimony is in sources more recent than May's, which may have clarified some matters in response to his or others' criticisms (I am working with the older article of May and the newer version of the cure account).
Biased Standards?
the ailments noted in the original video probably were not directly related to her spinal problems. While I am not qualified to comment on the specifically medical features of the case, however, the critic's argument seems one-sided. The woman clearly experienced a cure of some sort, whatever happened regarding her spine and some other details. Her family members, including a teenage daughter who had never known her to walk normally before and could not believe it when she bounded up the stairs, offer their testimony. Likewise, neighbors and others who witnessed the immediate change recount it; her own doctor also testifies to being astonished. Previously confined to walking sticks or a wheelchair for many years, she was immediately able to run, including when she returned home, and witnesses as well as video footage confirmed her regularly jogging, playing rugby, and swimming after the event. Any reader who might wish to criticize her transformation ought to give the footage a fair-minded viewing first.71 Why would a critic's report
(mostly read by people who would not see the video) focus exclusively on particular negative factors but not the obvious transformation, unless the critic simply had an agenda of disputing all miracle claims rather than a fair-minded approach that could grant credence to some elements of them? If he simply insists that a true miracle must be certifiably organic, if this case is not organic, one might want to dispute his definition of miracle. (Here the shadow of Hume's legacy—restricting miracles to violations of nature—is often difficult to evade.) But he also disputed the case of Gardner noted above, where the auditory nerve damage clearly was organic.
Such a prejudice sometimes continues to inform modern discussions of healing miracles. Ken Blue reports that one woman was healed through prayer from severe epilepsy and a brain disturbance that had plagued her from ages six to twenty-six.
Afterward, her EEG reading was normal, and her doctors, unable to believe the change, repeated the test two more times over the next few weeks. Finally they accepted that she was well but denied the possibility that she was healed through prayer.72 Now they "have concluded that she must have been misdiagnosed and mistreated for the past twenty years. These conscientious and competent doctors have risked a possible malpractice suit rather than admit the possibility of divine healing."73 He reports a different case in which tests showed highly advanced uterine cancer; despite the sense of those praying that God healed the woman, the doctors removed the uterus—and then found it without cancer. "Though
Brenda's doctors have no explanation themselves, they are not considering the possibility that God healed her."74
71. See Miracle Investigation (dated 2005), which includes the account; and Miraculous Healing (currently dated 2008, though including earlier elements). She had been scheduled for a fourth spinal surgery, with little hope of success, which was afterward canceled. She also cites a dream prior to the crusade, claiming that the evangelist (Reinhard Bonnke) and the location looked like what she saw in the dream; though the youth meeting was large, the evangelist independently felt that God had singled her out for a special healing.
72. Blue, Authority, 57.
73. Ibid., 58.
74. Ibid. In Dearing, Healing, 115–16, an urgent mastectomy was canceled due to healing; another case in Salmon, Heals, 38.
Proposed Explanations
Seth Ablorh, a Christian doctor in Ghana mentioned in chapter 9, admits that he himself struggled with this antisupernatural bias from his training. He was working alongside a visiting oncological surgeon from the United States. The surgeon examined a woman already diagnosed with rectal cancer, exploring the lesion, doing a colostomy, and the like. The woman insisted that she believed that God would heal her, and they gave what would presumably normally be good advice:
"God will heal you through surgery." When, however, they reached the theater to operate and the surgeon checked the lesion again, he could not discover it digitally or with a proctoscope. "We woke the patient up and discharged her saying we had missed the diagnosis though we were not the only ones who diagnosed her. She called it a miracle, but in our medical minds we were unwilling to accept that she had had divine healing."75 Misdiagnosis and remissions occur, but when these attributions are overused to explain away any possible evidence, the evidence is not being treated fairly. In the short term any naturally unexplained recovery could be called a remission, without thereby explaining it.
When a doctor reports that a condition is not genuinely cured or that it often resolves on its own, she speaks within her expertise and we should give heed.
When a doctor denies that a cure is miraculous based on a philosophic paradigm that excludes miracles, however, he speaks not as a doctor but as an amateur philosopher. In the latter case, the opinion merits no greater weight than that assigned to that of any other amateur philosopher.
The Demand for Medically Certified Testimony I do cite some medically certified healings in this book, but limiting testimonies to those that are medically certified produces at best a critical minimum of a particular sort of evidence, not the sum total of evidence one would accept in normal circumstances. Clearly most patients do not experience extraordinary healings, so doctors do not have reason to expect them on a normal basis (they would otherwise be considered normal recoveries).
Nevertheless, it is possible to sort evidence in such a way as to screen out all alternative explanations. Some people accept only claims that are medically certified as valid, even if it means dismissing all eyewitness claims, of which there are numerous significant ones, as inauthentic. Granted, those who are healed should seek not only medical confirmation of their recovery but also (ideally) medical documentation. Nevertheless, various obstacles involved in securing such documentation around the world mean that refusal to accept any evidence without this kind of documentation will end up screening out a large proportion, probably the majority, of genuine cures. Moreover, as we noted above, even once claims are medically certified their relevance is often dismissed if any other explanation is
75. Mensah, "Basis," 178.
Biased Standards?
possible. Insofar as one may argue that "anything is possible," virtually any claim may thus be dismissed, conveniently allowing any evidence to be ignored.
Securing Medical Documentation If one must have a doctor's certification that a recovery is a bona fide miracle, no recoveries will be classified as miracles provided one's doctor is reticent (whether out of skepticism or professional reserve) to deem it as such, or where no doctors were available to document the healing. Likewise, this approach refuses to grant even the slightest credence to any of the countless eyewitness testimonies from places where medical help was not available, yet on matters such as a person's previous blindness and subsequent ability to see, where one would expect intimate acquaintances to be reliable informants.76
Clearly medical documentation strengthens the case for a genuine healing, and some works I have cited by doctors have included such documentation.77 But what of a case in a traditional village where someone was publicly raised from death through prayer after many hours without detectable respiration or pulse?78 Even if we granted in each case the inability of people who live around death regularly to distinguish death from a coma with scarcely detectable pulse and respiration, we must grant their ability to recognize full recoveries from that state as unusual, and their observation of the rare event's significant association with prayer.79 Does their eyewitness testimony of instant recovery count for nothing, simply because the witnesses in the village do not have medical degrees or instruments available?80
Does not the probability of coincidence decrease with the rise in the number of such events during prayer, vis-à-vis how often they occur "spontaneously"?
(Repeated statistical unlikelihood can make outcomes appear "fixed" by another source.81 Others also complain about unmerited faith in "the unlimited possibili76. At least if all other factors are equal, an eyewitness's testimony should be preferred to a nonwitness interpreting the testimony (Levine, Problem, 111). If experience is reliable in knowing that water is normally not turned to wine, why would it not be reliable in recognizing when water is turned to wine? (Levine,
Problem, 126, agreeing with Kellenberger, "Miracles," 148 n.) 77. I have noted among others the sources in Gardner, Healing Miracles; Casdorph, Miracles; among non-physicians, such investigation is claimed, e.g., in Spraggett, Kuhlman. I have also found medical documentation for some healings (see ch. 15), though many others were from parts of the world where this was not even possible.
78. On the difficulties of obtaining medical documentation in financially poorer nations, cf. also
Duffin, Miracles, 136.
79. This is especially the case where consequent changes in religious affiliation demonstrate that observers experienced these events quite differently from the norm.
80. If one charges that eyewitnesses can lie, even colluding as a group, one could also contend that those in charge of medical documentation might forge it, or (more easily) colluding doctors could lie.
(Doctors deliberately falsifying information could lose their licenses, but many other witnesses also have a stake in maintaining their own credibility.) That is, one could use this approach of skepticism toward the evidence to dismiss any evidence one wished. While one expects some claimants to be false, one should not expect that to be the case for all of the huge numbers of claimants available today, including for many substantive reports.
81. Beckwith, "History," 45.
Proposed Explanations
ties of coincidence," such as in the familiar but statistically virtually impossible illustration of a million monkeys randomly typing the works of Shakespeare.82)
The cumulative weight of the stronger cases seems compelling.83
Moreover, of the people I interviewed who had been examined both before and after their recovery, most had no idea how to obtain medical documentation or initially even what I meant by it. One of the notable exceptions, though a doctor, had to go to some trouble to obtain it, not having it already in his possession. That even the most sincere people rarely request and retain before-and-after medical records of their recovery does not surprise me; I failed to collect it myself in years before I anticipated writing a book on the subject.84 Not only in cases of claims that I find weak but also in some that I find strong, some claimants (particularly in some cultures or subcultures) do not understand even my need as a researcher for such documentation.85 Granted that a case is stronger with such documentation, it need not follow that all cases are completely worthless without it.
As an investigative reporter discovered, though he originally wanted indisputable medical documentation for every case, this standard ultimately proved unreasonable. Doctors often disagree with one another; reports in medical journals are often not "infallibly documented"; and a mother does not need to have medical competence to testify that doctors explained that her child had a clubfoot.86 The 82. Bridge, Signs, 29–30. An event need not be impossible naturally to be improbable enough to elicit faith, depending on the degree of the burden of proof that one's assumptions require (Basinger and Basinger, "Concept," 167, allow it for believers). Ideally, a technical study could quantify how much more often extranormal cures occur in the context of prayers or specific kinds of or specific persons' prayers in contrast to such events in the general population (cf. the request for "quantitative [degree-yielding] criteria" for probabilities in Wykstra, "Problem," 156), but my sample size for the control group is too small, and I do not know of studies quantifying such events in the general population on these matters. A proper study would have to be massive, and the variables are probably too many for its success on these terms. Yet see comment on "coincidence" in ch. 15.
83. From a mathematical perspective, see De Poe, "Bayesian Approach." For the implausibility of cures at Lourdes being coincidental, see Cranston, Miracle, 259.
84. Though I was fairly aggressive in several cases where I hoped to get the documentation (and in some of these cases succeeded), I confess that my personality is not suited to pressing many busy informants beyond what they had already supplied. The very demand that people involved in cures adopt the researcher's critical posture can prove antithetical to the native faith that helped produce the cures (see Laurentin, Miracles, 95), and it is difficult for me to justify my "right to information" at that expense. Nevertheless, investigative reporters either confirming (e.g., Spraggett; Grazier; Neal) or debunking (Emery; again, Spraggett) healing claims have proved more successful in this area. Some people eagerly offered to supply me old documentation but subsequently failed to find it in their many boxes of old papers. Most people would not spend hours looking for it simply to help a professor writing a book; in one case, someone who knew me did spend more than a workday looking for it but had an entire garage full of boxes.
85. In their sphere of relationships, people take other people's word for what they have witnessed; to ask for documentation is to communicate hostile suspicion. I can eventually overcome much suspicion, but I cannot get them to re-create documentation they have long since discarded as irrelevant, even if they obtained it to begin with (which is usually not the case).
86. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 50. Spraggett himself doubted many healing evangelists but came to regard some evidence for supernatural healing as incontrovertible. Others also note that "instant medical confirmation" is rare but note that medical receptivity to allowing for divine healing is increasing (Lawrence, Practice, 32–33).
Biased Standards?
reporter provides an example where specialists disagreed about the sudden healing of a case of necrosis of the hip after prayer: an orthopedist insisted that "natural remissions" of this affliction "sometimes occur," whereas a radiologist insisted that, after "careful study of the case," that it was "medically extraordinary."87 Sometimes the written records also fail to elaborate on some key details that, in retrospect, would have been helpful in terms of evidence.
The reporter also discovered that medical documentation could be difficult to procure for logistical reasons, such as one hospital destroying outpatient records after ten years, attending physicians having died, or particular physicians failing to respond to requests.88 When trying to follow up medical documentation (even more so for people from particular cultures), I discovered that people often did not know that they had a right to access their medical records.89 In some other cases, people requested documentation several times and were not able to obtain it within the months before my book was due to the publisher.90 Obtaining records might be among patients' rights, but that does not mean that busy professionals will always hasten to their assistance (in some cases perhaps especially if they fear that they might be cited in support of a professionally unusual conclusion in which they have no stake, or if apparent irregularities could even be potentially cited legally against them). In some cultures, patients lacked access to medical records, as the hospitals refused to share them.91 (In one unusual case, when the hospital finally acquiesced to give a copy, my friend who was to obtain it was obstructed because
87. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 51. He shows how a pathologist and a psychiatrist came to opposite conclusions as to which recoveries were genuinely remarkable (ibid.).
88. Ibid., 52. Spraggett notes all of these problems in the case on 82, but he found other nondocumentary corroborating evidence for the case in question (82–83, the type of braces earlier used counting as strong circumstantial evidence). My informants have also encountered some of these problems when seeking documentation for their situations.
89. Renae Yu-Ching Hsu noted that some international evangelical healing conferences and healed persons in Taiwan often seek medical confirmation (interview, Jan. 24, 2009), but also noted (based on her experience trying to secure information to help with my project) that many people do not know that they have a right to access their medical records (personal correspondence, May 10, 2009). Further, often "people cannot recognize that the [medical] documentation is part of their own testimonies," hence evidence provided often falls short of "the strict demand required for scientific proof" (personal correspondence,
June 29, 2009). In view of the obstacles, she observed that accumulating such evidence would take time and might be accommodated through something like an ongoing "online library" (personal correspondence,
June 13, 24, 2009), a valuable proposal that perhaps others will develop further.
90. As in some cases I know where, after several months and more than one attempt, an individual was still trying (phone follow-up, Dec. 15, 2009; another case, e.g., June 7; Sept. 1, 2010). Some institutions responded more quickly, as in the case of Carl Cocherell, though it took him time to get his information even from one of these institutions. Critics should not overestimate the ease of the process. One person had given his documentation away; at least two others who were sure that they had it discovered that they did not know which of their scores of boxes contained it; they naturally were not ready to expend days trying to help my research project.
91. This occurred in one case in Nigeria, where, however, through the intercession of another doctor we were able to secure at least a summary statement. This practice was also noted to me by Dr. Nonyem E.
Numbere, who collected some sources but noted that unlike in the United States, Nigerian hospitals retain all the records (phone interview, Dec. 14, 2009). This was also the case for part of the documentation for Yazmin Hommer in Mexico (Dec. 1, 2009), though she was able to obtain and share a sufficient amount.
Proposed Explanations
genuinely violent riots, widely documented in international media, broke out in that city for the duration of his visit there.)
With many of the same cultures I faced a language barrier; with some other cultures, medical help (and thus any form of medical documentation) was rarely available to begin with. Even sharing one's testimony was difficult for many individuals, more often in some cultures than in others, because it was so intensely personal. Other informants, often eager to help, have also gone to get records for me only to run into the problem of hospitals having already destroyed them.92
One catch-22 is that we normally give more credence to cures that have persisted over many years; the farther in the past the cure happened, however, the less likely it is that one can secure medical records unless one has kept copies, which most people have not. All this to say that while it is reasonable to expect that some cases will be medically documented (and they are), it is not reasonable to dismiss all firsthand testimonies that lack such documentation, especially in places where people cannot be expected to have access to it (or perhaps even to treatment).
The difficulties can come from the other side, too, where some medical personnel have witnessed extraordinary recoveries but cannot provide documentation apart from their word. As noted earlier, Donald Moore is a speech language pathologist, a clinical director of voice and swallowing disorders, and has fifteen years of clinical experience working with patients who suffered cerebral vascular accidents (i.e., strokes). He is not lightly persuaded of miracles, regarding many stroke improvements as normal rehabilitation progress (on his advice I condensed and qualified some material in this book 93). In February 2009, however, Donald had a fifty-twoyear-old patient who had suffered a severe brain stem stroke in the region of the medulla. Research shows that damage in the ability to swallow caused by medulla brain stem strokes is irreversible, and this case was quite a serious one. A video fluoroscopic swallow study confirmed that his dysphagia (inability to swallow) was so severe that the patient could not protect his airway during swallowing and thus "required alternate means of nutritional intake."
Several months later the same man "returned to have his swallow function reevaluated." Donald explained to him that he would not be able to resume eating, but the man replied that he had "been eating for the past few weeks." Donald protested
"that this was impossible given the nature of his stroke." The man then explained that he and his family had been praying and that he had been eating ever since.
Moved by the man's faith, but not anticipating significant improvement, Donald conducted the study. To the shock of both Donald and the radiologist, this person who had "suffered a large medulla brain stem stroke was able to swallow," now eating through the mouth without artificial means. Since the patient had already mentioned prayer, Donald began to comment, and the man finished his sentence
92. E.g., a hospital in Mexico after six years (Eduardo Lara Reyes, personal correspondence, Sept.
23, 2009).
93. Donald Moore (personal correspondence, Dec. 4, 2009; Jan. 3, 5, 2010).
Biased Standards?
with, "I know, it's a miracle." (This incident happened shortly before the story of Yesenia Robinson, whose story involving Donald I recount elsewhere in this book.)
Such cures are not common, at least in circles we know in the United States; Donald said that was the first case of it he had witnessed in fifteen years. Because of HIPAA laws protecting the release of a patient's information, however, Donald discovered that he could not request or obtain medical records. What he could offer me was his professional opinion about an anonymous case, and that is what he has done here. Had Donald not been taking my class and learned that I was interested in cases with medical documentation, I would not have had any access to this story, or it would have been dismissed by skeptics as merely the tale of another person claiming healing against the evidence.94
Beyond these matters, prejudiced approaches can deny the value of medical documentation even when it is available. Those who question supernatural healing claims often attribute the more convincing cases to an initial misdiagnosis.95
Although genuine misdiagnosis does occur at times,96 this approach sometimes has been used as a means to explain away extranormal healings retroactively,97 and sometimes the initial evidence is too firm to aver a misdiagnosis.98 (Recall the case above in which physicians preferred to claim that they must have misdiagnosed and mistreated the patient for twenty years rather than allow that the patient had been miraculously healed during prayer.99) To simply dismiss every cure as a case of prior misdiagnosis is to allow one's presupposition to determine the outcome, especially when it involves many cases and the prior diagnoses involve multiple physicians.100 One healing evangelist reasonably complains that if critics really believe that so many hundreds of healing cases result from initial misdiagnosis, they should be raising an outcry against such widespread misdiagnosis instead of against divine healing.101
94. Donald Moore (personal correspondence, Oct. 28, 2009; follow-up correspondence, Oct. 31,
2009), officially following up our earlier conversations.
95. A possibility noted in Frohock, Healing Powers, 133. The same explanation is sometimes given for other spontaneous remissions; see Lenzer, "Citizen" (while conceding some cases noted by Quackwatch).
96. See the probable example in Bishop, Healing, 177; the uncertain possibility in Alexander, Signs,
18. Remus, Healer, 109, even cites surveys arguing "that about half the time a firm diagnosis of illnesses is not possible," noting that even advanced tests can give wrong results; Downing, Death, 61, cites figures for frequently even fatal medical error and side effects. Again, this problem would not cover all healing reports I have noted (e.g., most cases of blindness), but it could well account for some of them.
97. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 28–29; cf. Melinsky, Miracles, 157.
98. E.g., Gardner, Healing Miracles, 21. Among more recent cures at Lourdes, the standards of documentation for case histories are too stringent for possible misdiagnoses to pass (Cranston, Miracle,
259).
99. Blue, Authority, 58.
100. The complaint in Braden, "Study," 232 (noting on 227 multiple confirmations in one case and in another that the cancer had spread to many organs).
101. Stewart, Only Believe, 66. Matt Marsak, phone interview, Aug. 21, 2010, noted that his surgeon found no trace of cancer, even though all the lab tests showed cancer. When Matt suggested that God had answered prayer and healed him, the surgeon insisted that he must have been misdiagnosed, implying that all the previous experts were wrong. Matt suggested that if he really did accept such a position it could
Proposed Explanations
Given the unpredictability of substantial healing claims and their dominance in places where they are most needed (i.e., where medical treatment is least available), it is not surprising that doctors are not usually personally present when a nonmedical healing occurs. (Many theists would argue that God in fact usually works through doctors when they are available.102 Both Scripture and the pattern of nature suggest that God does not usually lavish explicit miracles when natural means God has provided are available.) In some cases doctors are present, but how they interpret the cure can depend not only on whether or not such a cure took place (sometimes it really did not) but also on the learned assumptions through which the evidence is framed. Doctors who believe in supernatural healing are perhaps more likely to be present in such settings and will be more open to this explanation in cases where it can account for a cure. Since scientific training has traditionally focused solely on natural causes, however, it is not surprising that many doctors would try to exhaust all remotely possible natural explanations first. While considering natural explanations helps guard against credulity, it also risks serious bias when it must overlook or explain away what could constitute larger patterns of anomalies in the circles in question.103 I have already suggested in chapter 6, and argue more fully below, that creating an insurmountable burden of proof for only one position reflects bias, since it de facto rules out any opposing arguments a priori.
For example, could a baby who appeared dead start breathing again, without prayer?104 Undoubtedly it could. But it does not happen very often, so if it happens a number of times during prayer, why not consider whether a supernatural factor could be involved? Someone could argue that if it happens to 0.001 percent of babies (though this is a number I have simply invented for the sake of the argument), out of billions of babies born it must sometimes happen during prayer, even during prayers of intense faith. It does not happen commonly enough to allow a statistical perspective on what proportion of these occasions happen during prayer,105 but invite a malpractice suit, whereupon, he reports, the doctor quickly backed down from the misdiagnosis proposal. My point here is not that misdiagnosis does not occur, but that the verdict can sometimes involve retroactive interpretation after eliminating supernatural activity or an anomaly as an option.
102. See, e.g., Crandall, Raising, 41.
103. Cf. Weintraub, "Credibility," 374: some rule out theistic explanations a priori by arguing that any event must be explained naturalistically even if it can be explained theistically. "But this behaviouristic bias is no more tenable in divine psychology than it is in its human counterparts." This analogy might, however, offer little help to those whose view of human personality is purely materialistic (arguable, but an analogy not applicable to a Creator external to the universe).
104. By this I mean not that the baby would go limp and stop breathing for a few seconds, raising concern, but that it would apparently stop breathing for a few minutes and give signs of being dead, such as discoloration, raising panic or (more dramatically) mourning.
105. Shermer, "Miracle," notes that "one-in-a-million miracles happen 295 times a day in America," arguing that rare coincidences are still bound to occur; see the helpful probability calculations in Charpak and Broch, Debunked, 48–49, 56–60, 133–35 (note the positive but qualified review in Dyson, "One").
My imaginary estimate is one in one hundred thousand altogether, rather than one in a million per day, but to my knowledge there is no precise estimation of such cases available. What is much more unusual is that such incidents happen to show up (connected with prayer) in my very limited sample size. I address
Biased Standards?
if it happens during prayer a number of times (cf., e.g., the cluster of examples of raising testimonies around Mama Jeanne in ch. 12, and another in the family of the person who happens to be writing this book for unrelated reasons), is it not closed-minded to just dismiss or peremptorily explain away a possible relationship in these cases? I have not gathered all possible cases but only those I have come across; and some of these I came across unexpectedly in interviews, out of fewer than two hundred people I interviewed (none of them famous healers).106
Working with the dominant nonsupernatural paradigm of Western academia, one can "explain" almost any cure as a spontaneous remission or, in the most difficult cases, an anomaly (which by definition is not yet explained). But observers not committed to a methodology that a priori privileges any remotely possible naturalistic explanation over any supernatural one (i.e., observers not committed to the approach challenged in chs. 5–6) will not foreclose the possibility of supernatural explanations. One philosopher cites as an analogy G. E. Moore's refutation of idealist skepticism concerning the material world: he "held up his hand and claimed, 'here is my hand.'" Moore understood that the argument was more complex, but he also recognized "that common sense places a significant burden on the Idealists." Denials of miracles can become strained under some circumstances.107
The Demand's Epistemological Premise Again, some healing claims are medically documented. Here I merely address the question of why some critics will admit only this kind of evidence, and, as we have seen, often not even this. Naturally this observation is relevant to accounts in the Gospels and Acts. If we can accept cures as genuine only where modern Western medical documentation is available, then all cures in the Gospels and Acts, as well as any reported until perhaps a century ago, and the vast majority reported in most of the world's cultures today, can be dismissed by fiat. Such a methodology would not even allow one to offer educated guesses about what might have happened in the first century or in places where no medical documentation is available, but those employing a rigorously skeptical methodology sometimes employ it today.
In one case, for example, a woman testified to having "been miraculously healed after being blind for 16 years," yet a critic rejects this claim because no medical investigation was undertaken.108 He agrees that registered blindness does not go some sample probability calculations in ch. 15 and especially appendix E, but too many variables exist in the real world to quantify these with precision.
106. One might adjust this by noting that only a minority of people who knew that I was interested in information offered some; while some of these other people told me that they had miracle accounts (some of them dramatic, like raisings) and did not get back to me, I will ignore them for the sake of argument and multiply by as much as fifteen. Three thousand people still should not provide so many stories of this nature. Some were referrals from people I knew who knew them, but even if one multiplied by ten times more (a generous figure, since most cases were not referrals, and a number were merely confirmations of others' accounts), we are still talking about many extraordinary cases in a comparatively small sample size.
107. Kelly, "Miracle," 50.
108. May, "Miracle," 152–53.
Proposed Explanations
away without medical intervention but suggests that perhaps her vision simply improved; perhaps "she was depressed and now isn't," hence "feels better about her vision."109 I lack access to the source of the original report and therefore do not know the degree of blindness to which she refers; I grant that people sometimes make exaggerated claims, though, unless they are boldly lying, usually not this exaggerated. Nevertheless, I am more directly aware of some other claims of healed blindness (see ch. 12) where such charges would not hold up whether or not medical documents were available (in some cases they are).
In normal circumstances, we accept the claims of credible eyewitnesses who have much at stake; for most sorts of claims, no medical evidence or the like is available, but we do not for that reason disregard the claims.110 For example, we would not require photographic evidence that a particular driver involved in an accident ran a red light if sufficiently credible witnesses attest this claim. As I have noted, many discussions in philosophy and law, including philosophic discussions of miracles, support the acceptance of a reliable witness, and still more the cumulative force of multiple independent witnesses. A number of healing claims are of the sorts of conditions that do not require an advanced degree in medicine to verify. If we will not grant the competence of a person who is blind or her family to attest that she was blind and received sight unless we possess a doctor's certification to that effect, are we actually saying that only a physician is competent to diagnose blindness?
Physicians themselves would not make this claim,111 which is essentially a nowdisputed academic premise taken much too far.112 Courts, unlike the rest of us, can subpoena records, but if records were unavailable (say in the case of a person in a part of the world who had never been able to afford medical treatment), would we not ordinarily accept testimony that the person was blind?113
In cases where medical expertise is not necessary to pronounce a genuine cure, is a critic implying that only a certain class of people, namely physicians, can constitute reliable witnesses? (Again, physicians would certainly not make this claim.) Even here, some accept the testimony of physicians normally, but when the physicians are verifying cures at Lourdes, some skeptics will then challenge these physicians' integrity, even though not all the physicians testifying are even persons of faith.114
109. Ibid., 154.
110. This observation is certainly true in historiography, where few claims can "be verified scientifically"
(Licona, Resurrection, 171n119).
111. Dr. Tahira Adelekan, phone interview, April 24, 2009 (not in response to May's article, which I had not yet discovered). Indeed, when patients come to physicians for particular ailments, physicians normally ask their symptoms, although they can then run appropriately targeted medical tests to determine organic causes.
112. Tedlock, "Observation," 71, notes that traditional anthropology assumed "that a subject's way of knowing is incompatible with the scientist's way of knowing and that the domain of objectivity is the sole property of the outsider," an approach that has become increasingly controversial.
113. That we might be less inclined to do so if she or he were no longer blind, if she or he claimed divine rather than human medical intervention, works from the assumption that such divine interventions do not occur. Since that is the premise under dispute, it is not legitimate logically to assume it here.
114. See Cranston, Miracle, 186–87.
Biased Standards?
That is, one can never satisfy a closed mind, which can always find ways to exclude more and more evidence by narrowing the range of what is acceptable.
Yet if the reason for excluding nonphysicians' testimony about obvious cures is a matter not of competence but of testimonial reliability, one could apply this principle more broadly and admit as testimony in court only the verdicts of physicians. Such a practice would be absurd, hence should not be demanded in the sorts of healing accounts where the nature of the infirmity and its cure would be obvious, even without specialized training, to those involved (who sometimes, but not on average, happened to be physicians).
That some people will not accept a cure as genuine without medical documentation, and sometimes additionally reject medical documentation's validity if the doctor is known to accept the possibility of miracles, may say something about who has designed the rules of the game in their interests as well as about the nature of the evidence. Indeed, where some sort of medical documentation has been provided, some critics have rejected the appeal to "mere" medical documentation as unscientific without measurements of entire groups who seek healing.115 This latter approach presumes that if supernatural healing is true, everyone who seeks it should be healed—a straw-man view held by few of supernatural healing's actual proponents. Neither Scripture nor Christian theology uses miracles as an excuse to neglect wisdom (for us including medical science) or avoid working for justice and peace in the world. Miracles are portrayed as merely sample signs of a future age, a reminder of what the world can be like; they are not intended as a large-scale panacea for the world's problems.
Yet critics sometimes will dismiss even medical testimony or documentation if occurrences are not common. Thus, in response to a medically documented case of a man dead for thirty or forty minutes being raised when a renowned cardiologist prayed for him, a critic dismisses the case as isolated, hence anecdotal, not able to be counted scientifically.116 Technically, this objection may be correct for how the rules of science are written. Yet, as I have noted, no one in practice lives with such a constricted epistemology as if such rules are our only source of knowledge. The nature of some sorts of events remains significant even if they are documented only rarely. That is, simply because one epistemic method does not confirm something true does not mean that we cannot know it by other epistemic approaches that we
115. West, Miracles, 121; cf. Duffin, Miracles, 34. No large-scale study of such healings is possible, however, since the usual premises of scientific publication a priori exclude most cases from consideration
(Llewellyn, "Events," 253).
116. Dr. Richard Sloan (on Fox News's coverage of the raising; http://video.google.com/videoplay
?docid=268481614851027361&q=fox+news+miracle&to; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUJiD
_UFNCE; accessed May 9, 2009). Sloan reasonably protests that the man would not have revived without the additional electrical shock, and seems likely correct on this point. Nevertheless, the reverse is also true: had Dr. Crandall not felt compelled to raise the man who otherwise appeared beyond hope, no electrical shock would have been applied. (Certainly no one will make this case a new precedent for shocking bodies after forty minutes of death.) Moreover, a raising after so long a time is at best extraordinarily rare; the recovery and especially the lack of brain damage are medically inexplicable.
Proposed Explanations
employ on a regular basis, since the first epistemic method may be limited in its scope or the data available to it may be limited. Regarding the matter in question, let us hypothesize a figure that one in a quarter million persons is supernaturally raised after certified death in the West today. Yet we would not expect controlled studies to shed much light on the matter, since even hundreds of studies would likely lack reported examples useful for comparison, and exceptions could again be deemed isolated, hence (again) essentially anecdotal.
Even solid medical documentation is not adequate by itself to surmount strongly held presuppositions, because one may insist in every case (even if there are thousands of them) that another explanation is possible. My colleague in Hebrew Bible,
Emmanuel Itapson, was told that his third child had "the death chromosome" and would likely die before birth if not aborted. The family prayed, and the boy is now nine years old.117 Because 1 percent of those with this chromosome are known to live beyond infancy,118 one cannot prove beyond any doubt that prayer is the factor that helped him to live so long; yet I am prepared to grant that likelihood in view of the significant number of extraordinary answers to prayer in Emmanuel's circle, including one mentioned in chapter 9 and another in chapter 12.
Likewise, a child dying of fibrosing alveolitis was sent home to die but began to improve shortly after being taken to a British Pentecostal healing service. He eventually became a fully healthy boy. This diagnosis in a child's first year "is almost uniformly fatal," one physician notes, and the case is medically documented. The physicians involved believed that the cure "was the work of God, and it has been locally talked about as miraculous." Nevertheless, the writer, himself suspecting a miracle, warns that the expression "almost uniformly" is the catch. Demonstrating that a healing is miraculous is difficult because "medicine knows few absolutes," and a detractor can always claim an "inexplicable spontaneous remission."119 If one's worldview does not allow for a connection between prayer and healing, one might ignore the connection, even when the connection would prove frequent.
Still, this doctor notes that sufficient analogies can allow us to view "the direct intervention of God" as the most plausible explanation for those whose worldview allows this.120 If medically impossible cases like bone restoration and cataract disappearance are granted, and if we allow or infer supernatural involvement in 117. Emmanuel Itapson, phone interview, Dec. 15, 2009.
118. Some of which might also be answers to prayer, but this becomes difficult to quantify, since certainly more than 1 percent of families have prayed for their children's healing.
119. Gardner, "Miracles," 1928. May, "Miracles," 150, attributes one of Gardner's clearest cases to "spontaneous remission," while admitting that "the phenomenon . . . is ill-understood" (presently inexplicable). Faith, prayer, and the like are often present in spontaneous remissions where these factors (or results) have been noted (see Roberts, "Contributions," 248–49, citing O'Regan and Hirschberg, Remission,
45). Speed, Incurables, 23, notes that when a woman was suddenly and permanently healed after fifteen years of inability to walk unaided, despite nerve and muscle degeneration, some other doctors (besides
Speed) titled it a "remission."
120. Gardner, "Miracles," 1929, arguing that sources like Bede had sufficient reason to hold this perspective within their theological frame of reference.
Biased Standards?
such cases, we hardly dare assume that supernatural causes would be limited to cases where natural explanations are never possible.
Events in history are not repeatable in controlled studies; yet should we draw from that observation the inference that they are therefore not true? One is compelled to ask what kind of narrow epistemology would require us to rule out virtually any reliable information in history. When one employs a method of verifying miracles that insists that they be replicable in controlled settings, yet regards as natural and nonmiraculous any event that is so replicable,121 one has framed the method so as to secure the expected antisupernatural outcome. Moreover, a miraculous raising report does not actually appear in complete isolation. If we have a significant number of raisings reported in the specific context of prayer, is it sounder research to explore the common factor in such cases or to ignore it because we have already presupposed that religious elements do not count?
As I have noted, some people also respond to medical certification of an incurable condition that is afterward cured by claiming that the condition must have been initially misdiagnosed.122 The four consultants who examined a dying medical intern remain confident of their diagnosis, but because her subsequent healing is medically inexplicable, some critics still suggest that the doctors must have been mistaken.123 Events that surprise doctors, as often narrated by informants in previous chapters, need not be supernatural; none of us is omniscient, and all of us are sometimes surprised in our various disciplines. But some unexpected recoveries challenge conventional paradigms more than others do: for example, pleasant surprise about a skin condition improving differs from astonishment about badly damaged organs being completely healthy. While misdiagnosis occurs and might even be frequent,124 when it provides a ready answer to all healing claims one wonders if it is not simply used to sustain antisupernaturalistic presuppositions by dismissing all evidence.125 Given all the claims of healings in the world, attributing most of them to misdiagnosis would also present a very incompetent medical industry meriting far more pervasive lawsuits—an evaluation I think as wrong as the antisupernaturalism it would be constructed to support.
121. Cf. how Laato, "Miracles," 68, describes the usual scientific approach; the complaint in Gorsuch,
"Limits," 282; the suggestion in Pyysiäinen, "Fascination," 20, that naturally explicable events are not considered miracles. Llewellyn, "Events," 244, complains that skepticism is built into the usual scientific approach from the beginning.
122. E.g., Parker, "Suffering," 216; Blue, Authority, 58; Mews, "Revival," 330; Frohock, Healing Powers,
133.
123. Gardner, "Miracles," 1929.
124. Cf., e.g., Remus, Healer, 109. It is possible that I may have experienced at least one relevant case: after a doctor examined my swollen knee, which could not bend, he insisted I would never again be able to pray kneeling. At that time in my life, this verdict was unthinkable; the affliction departed after I prayed
(ca. 1981) and never recurred, but his designation for the condition (cellulitis) does not seem to fit his verdict. Possibly I simply misunderstood him. In some parts of the Majority World, our family and friends know firsthand that misdiagnosis (sometimes deliberate, for pecuniary motives) and mistreatment are common, in spite of many other devoted physicians serving altruistically there.
125. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 28–29.
Proposed Explanations
People who can explain away reliable eyewitness testimony of cataracts instantly disappearing (a recognition that should not require graduate training in ophthalmology) are people who have designed the rules so they can explain away whatever is necessary. In a culture shaped by Enlightenment assumptions about miracles,
Western skeptics could conceivably deny tens of thousands of claims by attributing all of them to misdiagnosis, misinterpretation, and so forth. Such dismissal of any possible evidence, at the expense of viewing malpractice as pervasive and coincidence as extraordinarily rife during prayers, makes the collection of any eyewitness claims and medical documentation superfluous; such skepticism is impervious to correction. One wonders if many of the Majority World perspectives noted earlier in the book are not more epistemically open-minded on such matters.
At the same time, it cannot be denied that most nonprofessionals are not in a good position to verify how extraordinary most sorts of recoveries might be.
Pursuing medical documentation also can helpfully explore whether some allegedly inexplicable healing claims are genuinely medically inexplicable; even many well-intentioned reports of better-than-expected recoveries can have plausible natural explanations, and some reports involve misunderstandings of the medical situation. Though I do think (and statistics suggest) that most of us would expect a pattern of multiple, instant cures of blindness, deafness, paralysis, and death to meet that standard, many different kinds of cures (e.g., headaches and insomnia, much as the cures are appreciated) may remain more debated ground. I shall return to these questions further below; I shall also call attention to some medical documentation with regard to Lourdes below and with regard to other cases in chapter 15. My point here is to note the dangers of bias.
Use of Videotapes?
I digress briefly to respond to the occasional complaint that more healings should be captured on videotape today if they are truly happening.126 The problem here, as with medical documentation, is that since one usually cannot predict where a healing will occur, one usually cannot film it in process.127 The exception could be mass healing meetings, which do produce some videos, but this is the sort of setting where critics also raise the most questions regarding motives and methods.
Videotaping interviews with those claiming healing is much easier, because one has already narrowed down the range of where to look; such sources do exist.128
126. A science professor reasonably raised this question during a public lecture I gave on the subject of this book at Wheaton College, March 16, 2009.
127. Compare the semimythical chupacabra; people claimed sightings or capturings, but many have refused to believe the witnesses because they took no photographs. Finally, someone produced a video of a strange animal that fits some of the typical descriptions (Mike Krumboltz, "The Chupacabra Caught?" http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92971?fp=1; accessed Sept. 2, 2009). My point is not whether the photographed animal is in fact the chupacabra but an observation about human nature: belief about the creature might change with the photograph, but its existence did not.
128. E.g., Dr. Candy Gunther Brown allowed me to view several tapes she had available, including one made immediately after the person's cure. Individual photos of testimonies, before-and-after healing
Biased Standards?
Most of the cures reported in this book also occur in places and at times when the average persons present lacked means to videotape, even had they known when to start videotaping. Moreover, medical documentation seems more reliable than what is normally observable on a video.
Nevertheless, for those interested in such sources, some cures in faith settings have been videotaped. Some may question the authenticity of all of these, but should not employ unfair standards: one should not ask for evidence that challenges one's worldview and then dismiss any evidence that does not easily fit it
(however else they might explain it). Some of these appear, for example, on a popular DVD called Finger of God.129 I have also noted some footage from a Baptist church in Ethiopia,130 and local examples like the latter could undoubtedly be multiplied today. Yet, as my (then) eleven-year-old son perceptively pointed out to me, even if a skeptic demands videos, if his skepticism is inflexible he will reject their value once produced, claiming that the footage was faked.131 In many kinds of cases, only those strongly committed to skepticism a priori would insist on such an approach. Fabrication can be fairly safely dismissed with Finger of God, whatever one's interpretation of some material in the film;132 nor would one expect the Bakers, involved in highly sacrificial ministry, to have been involved in faked footage. (As we have noted, limited medical documentation also supports the existence of dramatic cures in their ministry.) Because the Ethiopian example came to me through a trusted friend who has witnessed such events at the church,
I personally would not suspect fabrication in that video, either.
A video exists of a young man's instant healing from Guillain-Barré syndrome, in a midwestern U.S. church (though the camera is directed toward him only after commotion erupts). Previously, placing pressure on his feet caused intense pain, but he now left behind his wheelchair to run around the room. A friend of ours had known his condition for the previous few months and the genuineness of his recovery afterward, matching his own depiction of his condition before a minister prayed for him in faith.133 photos, and reproductions of X-rays are more common (e.g., Numbere, Vision, 152), and I have seen before-and-after photos even from close friends (Marie Brown, personal correspondence, May 31, 2006).
Of course, this technology has been available longer.
129. Finger of God, most notably the healing of deafness in Mozambique.
130. Pastor Dawit Molalegn, Atsheber DVD 2.
131. Some have even compared traditional miracles functionally with special effects' impact on humans, as in Vries, "Miracles," 51–52. Some psychic healers also have videotapes (e.g., the one noted in McClenon,
Events, 134; cf. psychic phenomena on 232).
132. For the most part it lacks dramatic special effects (cases involving "gold dust" as the only exceptions, and the part of the film most enigmatic to me) and involves people in informal, unplanned settings.
133. I viewed the video on May 3, 2010, at http://cmp.ihop.tv/gp.php?pid=zZzFzChe0FUVH7cy
_PIH9uCDBehUxVx; and Jonathan's subsequent testimony on May 6, 2010, at http://cmp.ihop.tv/gp.ph p?pid=zYsSrFPhHn_612mVuiLx14weh7Dp0woc. Lauren Mason confirmed the events for us in personal correspondence, May 3, 5, 6, 8; interview, June 3, 2010; confirmed also by the young man himself, in Jonathan Pollard (personal correspondence, May 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 2010), with some medical documentation (sent to me July 22, 2010).
Proposed Explanations
Likewise, a video captures the healing of Randy McKenzie at a conference in Abbotsford, British Columbia, on September 22, 2006. Moments after experiencing healing, he bends over and sideways repeatedly, pain-free, noting that he has not been able to do this for four years. Then he actually picks up his wife. How can we guarantee that Randy McKenzie was actually unable to do something like this before? The video provides what usual journalistic standards would treat as compelling evidence for his previous condition, with X-rays, interviews with his family and friends, and so forth.134 I was originally informed of this testimony and long-term healing through therapist and broadcaster Craig Miller, who knows the family, and Randy's wife, Susan, provided further information.135
Finally, a friend pointed me to an internet video of Delia Knox beginning to have feeling in her paralyzed legs and then walking with others supporting her, from August 30, 2010. Several days later, another video showed her walking several feet with no support. Such steps might not sound impressive, yet I discovered local news reports from two years earlier showing that she had indeed been organically paralyzed due to nerve damage from a car accident; in fact, she had not walked for more than two decades. Initially she was walking only haltingly while regaining strength. A new video on October 27, however, showed her walking normally as she prayed for others.136
Not knowing Hume, I do not know whether he would have balked at calling such an event a miracle (as his essay suggests) or would have altered his perspective had he been present and known the persons involved. Whatever nomenclature we use, Knox appears to have experienced an extraordinary change in her ability
134. The video ("McKenzie Story") also recounts earlier healing incidents; further information appears at http://www.teamfamilyonline.com/miracles/; www.RandyandSusan.org. The battery pack briefly mentioned in the video functioned only briefly (Susan McKenzie, personal correspondence, July 20, 2010).
135. Craig Miller (personal correspondence, July 12–13, 2010); Susan McKenzie (personal correspondence, July 14, 20, 2010).
136. These videos and other information appeared at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjM4xrw1ds,
Aug. 30, 2010; accessed Sept. 2, 2010; Press-Register staff, "Miracle in Mobile? Singer Delia Knox Says She Can
Walk Again after 22 Years Thanks to Revival," Sept. 2, 2010, http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/miracle_in
_mobile_singer_delia.html; accessed Sept. 2; http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/delia_knox_revival
.html, Sept. 4; accessed Sept. 4, 2010; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whk_14KIoKo&feature=player
_embedded#!; accessed Oct. 28, 2010 (my thanks to Jeff Lundblad for tech help here). "Delia Knox Walks,"
Thrive Magazine (Buffalo, N.Y.), Sept. 8, 2010, http://www.thrivebuffalo.org/delia-knox-walks/2010/9/8
/delia-knox-walks.html; accessed Dec. 29, 2010; "Paralysed for 23 Yrs, Woman Walks Again," The Times of India, Dec. 23, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7148516.cms?prtpage=1; accessed
Dec. 29, 2010. The paralyzing accident occurred on Dec. 25, 1987. I can imagine no way that her able locomotion in the Oct. 28 video could have been faked, and many suggestions of internet critics border on the absurd: the claim that she faked paralysis for twenty-two years for the sake of later claiming healing lacks any modicum of common sense; the suggestion that she was misdiagnosed for so many years and merely psychologically paralyzed would appear little better, attributing extraordinary incompetence to the medical profession (but I have not been able to obtain concrete information). The assertion of fraud by some unaware of her previous condition simply recycles presuppositions; aside from earlier public reports, I have reports from people who knew her when she was paralyzed (e.g., Alycia Wood, personal correspondence, Sept. 2 [via Michael Licona]; Nov. 1, 2010). Barring significant forthcoming evidence to the contrary, charges of fraud appear libelous special pleading.
Biased Standards?
to walk, and the earlier footage strongly suggests that this change began with a dramatic spiritual experience. The experience precedes the book's release too closely to allow further evaluation; unable to contact her (despite attempts) or view earlier medical records, I merely offer this example as a response to protests that cure experiences are never videotaped. Sometimes they are.
I defer to future researchers for their conclusions regarding videos circulated by some controversial circles with which I lack direct contact; for example, some have told me that, despite genuine healings occurring in Nigeria, evidence suggests faked documentation in at least some cases.137 Because, as I have noted, some people are hostile to supernatural beliefs altogether, it is not surprising that controversy surrounds many figures who emphasize healing; but controversies can also arise for legitimate reasons. One case disputed at the time of this book's writing involves a large church in Lagos, Nigeria, that has videotaped a number of dramatic, visible disorders and corresponding healing claims.138 Some critics have denied the church's credibility and argued that its videos are fabricated.139 Conversely, a medical expert argued, with some significant evidence, that some videos of medically inexplicable visible healings there involve what appear to be genuine medical conditions (though sometimes mislabeled by the church) and noted that during his visits there he witnessed some healings similar to those on the videos.140 Nor is his knowledge merely secondhand in this regard; he further noted that he himself was immediately healed of a chronic condition that had plagued him for seven years when he received prayer at the church.141
137. Dr. Gary Maxey, founder of West Africa Theological Seminary, affirms that many genuine miracles are occurring but that evidence is fairly compelling that at least one Nigerian preacher (different from the one in question in my context here) paid substantial money to have documentation faked (personal correspondence, May 25, 2009, and esp. May 26, 2009). See also the warning in Numbere, Vision, 433.
Most churches, of course, could not afford such fake documentation, but neither is fraud surprising; fake documentation of sorts is not a new problem (e.g., Josh 9:4–6; Lucian Alex. 12, 14, 26; Acts Pet. 8/28; cf. Scherrer, "Signs").
138. From the Synagogue Church of All Nations, video footage that I have watched includes (from the internet; also reported in Jackson, "Back," including a neurosurgeon's observations; questioned by detractors) the apparent resuscitation of a dead man, Moses Marule; and (from video materials shared with me by Dr. David Zaritzky) the healing of a man unable to walk (who appears surprised himself but eventually runs), what are said to be visible cancers of the lip, buttocks, and anus (Dr. David Zaritzky, phone interview, May 24, 2009, notes that he and other doctors watching identified them instead as a sort of venereal disease affecting the lips, and that he saw the woman's healed condition in a later video; severe decuvubitus ulcers; and a severe, infected rectal prolapse), and others. Raising of the dead also occurs on a Reinhard Bonnke video mentioned earlier.
139. See discussion in the next paragraph. More positive assessments appear in, e.g., Ajaero, "Life";
Achi, "Joshua"; the report in Phillips, "Chiluba," is neutral. Many Brazilian Pentecostals believe that the IURD's televised exorcisms in Brazil are "stage managed" (Shaw, Awakening, 145).
140. Dr. David Zaritzky notes that he showed the videos to some other doctors, and that the graphic details were accurate and one would not expect these to be faked in Africa (David Zaritzky, phone interview,
May 24, 2009). He had some even more graphic footage that he did not share with me.
141. David Zaritzky, personal correspondence, June 13, 2009, including his healing testimony that he plans as part of a forthcoming book. The condition involved both a serious back injury due to an
Proposed Explanations
Most sources in Nigeria that I have consulted outside the church, while acknowledging that many miracles occur in Nigeria, have noted frequent criticisms of this particular church.142 Some accusations that I have read could involve merely contextualization for an African setting; others, if true, are significant and could call into question the integrity of key leadership in the church.143 At the same time, the church has responded in detail to some charges, including a videotaped confession of one who claimed to be the source for some false rumors.144 I cannot offer firmer conclusions about this particular church without investigating personally on the scene, which I have not done.
In any case, herein lie limitations of videotapes. Even videotapes will not always persuade skeptics. Moreover, skepticism is not always unwarranted in particular cases. If less creditable evangelists of a former generation could fake healings,145 we cannot rule out that some sources, especially those designed to promote a particular healing ministry, might do the same today. There is in fact reason to affirm that in some settings some documentation has been faked,146 though the reasons accident and consequent long-term sleeplessness; he also noted a fairly specific prophecy that addressed and healed a deep pain in his life.
142. Because of the controversy, I solicited confidential opinions from a range of Nigerian church sources, both Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal. Both Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals also affirmed that many genuine miracles do occur in Nigeria.
143. Of particular concern are the allegations of Bayo Ajede (including allegations concerning sexual immorality), whom T. B. Joshua in one interview denied knowing, yet who clearly was his close associate
(Grady, "Followers," esp. 16). Further (and responded to in the next note) is a DVD circulated in Nigeria regarding Deception of the Age: The Rise of a Nigerian Antichrist, with accusations of sexual exploitation and fakery (from esp. two of his former associates, summarized in "Fear Grips T. B. Joshua," Diamond Christian
Magazine (May 20, 2009): 6–7, though some articles in this issue resemble typical tabloid journalism).
If true, these charges would effectively discredit this ministry; some elements do not appear to fit other footage I have seen, but I cannot speak to other charges. Lesser charges of authoritarian control appear likely (at least for the past) even from the church's responses.
144. See most extensively http://www.scoan.org/blasphemers.htm; accessed June 6, 2009; among other charges addressed here, charges of burying pregnant women for witchcraft at the church and (long ago) drug dealing seem trumped up. (Some have charged other churches with burying corpses and cult objects to gain power, as reported in Burgess, Revolution, 301n22. But while some do seek to gain power at the expense of others' welfare—see comments in appendix B—in a given case the charge seems more easily offered than proved.) Some responses appear to discredit the testimony of the accusers, focusing on those in the Deception video noted above, as effectively as any defense attorney would seek to do; some of this "discrediting" in these cases, however, depends on members' prior confessions, the circumstances of which are unclear (being largely limited to selections from what had been videotaped). David Zaritzky
(personal correspondence, June 13, 2009) noted that some of these charges were unfamiliar to him, but he answered some others from personal knowledge of some who ministered there. False rumors and accusations against ministries are common (e.g., Numbere, Vision, 175–76, 456); in this case, I lack means to sort out much of what is true from what is untrue.
145. Pullum, "Selling," 154–55, suggests that earlier media captured some dramatic public expressions of healing, yet he does not appear persuaded by them.
146. Shared with me as a general observation by those who also affirm that many genuine miracles are occurring in Nigeria, including Dr. Gary Maxey (personal correspondence, May 26, 2009); Dr. Danny
McCain (personal correspondence, June 1, 2009). At least in the past century and currently, I suspect that such faking has happened most often in settings of capitalist competition among healing ministers or individual claimants seeking to acquire attention. Yet, as I noted in ch. 13 and above, fraud has a long
Biased Standards?
for affirming this in some cases are irrelevant to the vast majority of documented cases I have cited. Having offered this concession, I would remind skeptics who will not accept any evidence to consider whether they may be privileging their presuppositions above evidence. At least some immediate healings have been recorded on videotape by creditable sources that should not be quickly dismissed.
How to Sort the Evidence Many of the recoveries listed in chapters 7–12 are compatible with but do not require a supernatural explanation. That is, if one prays for a thousand generically sick patients, the odds are good that many will recover with or without prayer and even with or without medical treatment, though instant cures of something like blindness would belong to a different category. Even in the case of serious illnesses, many cures could be the sort of spontaneous remissions that occur with or without prayer.147 While most believers would regard any recoveries as divine grace, directly or indirectly,148 it is more difficult to utilize them as indisputable proof of specifically divine activity.
It should be noted, however, that at least some "natural" remissions without reported prayer surely do involve prayer. One person whose ability to see changed measurably after prayer noted her optometrist's remark that he had seen these "inexplicable" cures of eyesight only three times previously in his practice, all related to prayer.149 But in many or most cures associated with prayer, this information is not shared with doctors. Research shows that those "who utilize non-medical forms of healing often do not tell their doctors for fear of irritating or losing them."150
Some persons whom I had interviewed had instantaneous "spontaneous recoveries during prayer, including one case in which other cases of such spontaneous recoveries were not known, but their doctors classified the recoveries as anomalies and refused to admit that a miracle had occurred. One doctor also told me of a dramatic, medically inexplicable healing that occurred after prayer, in which history; early Christian authors also felt uncomfortable with some miracle claims (Mark 13:22; Matt
7:22; 24:24; 2 Thess 2:9; Rev 13:13–15).
147. Cf. Frohock, Healing Powers, 134, countering one healing claimant's enthusiasm about his heart growing new veins by noting that this "is a common and natural phenomenon."
148. See, e.g., Rose, Faith Healing, 134–35; O'Connor, Movement, 163. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 14–15, notes that Christian theology could define as a miracle any answer to prayer; a definition acceptable to medical science, however, would be narrower.
149. Anna Gulick (personal correspondence, June 10, 2010, the day of the conversation). She reported that he said that "two were cataracts, and in one case the improvement was significant enough that surgery was canceled," though "in all three cases, the patient continued to receive some medical help" after the significant cure (hence explaining his continued knowledge of their situation).
150. Poloma, Assemblies, 57. Before reading Poloma's sociological study, I had already noted that some of those I interviewed had testified to their churches but admitted that they had not bothered to inform their physicians that they had prayed. Some patients on recovery have failed to even inform their doctors of their cure (see Duffin, Miracles, 131).
Proposed Explanations
case he was an eyewitness, but the surgeon was content to label it a "spontaneous healing."151 This approach to classifying data to fit existing naturalistic paradigms inevitably obscures all potential evidence in conflict with the paradigm. Because the specialist in one case was not willing to consider the recovery as miraculous, although it was unique and instantaneous during a prayer, the next time such a healing occurs, others could cite the first case as an anomaly and note that such remissions have "happened on other occasions." No mention of prayer is likely to appear in any of the medical records.152
Meanwhile, remissions and similar explanations cannot cover many other examples provided, such as most healings of blindness. Moreover, eliminating potential remissions can function as an unduly stringent criterion,153 if it disallows the cumulative import of a disproportionate number of remissions after prayer in circles where such prayers appear to prove particularly effective. One Christian physician notes that most miraculous healings could be dismissed as remissions, but it is significant that they happen so often immediately after prayers of faith in Jesus's name.154
I have omitted many reports of healings of cancer due to critics who explain such healings in terms of natural remissions, especially when the same person later experiences cancer again, but long-term healings without treatment are not so common. Some have even estimated that "the spontaneous remission rate for cancer is about one in 100,000."155 This figure could well overestimate the rareness of spontaneous remissions; yet because those diagnosed with cancer are normally taken into treatment immediately, hard figures for spontaneous remissions without 151. Tonye Briggs, phone interview, Dec. 16, 2009. In this case, a deep wound about 10–15 cm wide closed overnight, after prayer, a day before the medical student's arm was scheduled to be amputated, an instance for which there should be no medical explanation.
152. Similarly, talk about divine intervention is often screened out of public reports (as in the cases in, e.g., Malarkey, Boy, 201, 204–5; Gebru Woldu, interview, May 20, 2010). To correlate some anomalies with prayer is not to suggest a theology in which God acts only when people pray, or to suggest that all remissions involve prayer. But for the questions presently involved, prayer seems the most relevant potential factor to attempt to correlate.
153. The ways questions or assumptions are framed can affect outcomes. Thus, as I mention elsewhere in this book, one professor, when I asked him if he could believe in a genuine miracle if someone were raised from the dead in front of him, unhesitatingly responded, "No." Yet he considered me closed-minded for being a Christian, although I was a convert from atheism who had once myself discounted Christians' intelligence. Likewise, my brother, a physicist, tried to recount to a colleague his eyewitness knowledge of a healing personally known to him. His conversation partner refused to believe him and also refused to come meet the family or visit the circles where such phenomena appeared more frequent. Common as such an approach is, I believe that Gardner, Healing Miracles, 165, is right to contest its objectivity.
154. Ibid., 24–25. Most miracle reports involve prayer (Prather, Miracles, 214).
155. Flach, Faith, 92, though admitting that faith remissions are merely improbable naturally, not impossible. Flach is a physician here citing another doctor. The usual estimates range from one in sixty thousand to one in one hundred thousand (Ellens, "Miracles and Process," 11, following Lenzer, "Citizen,"
56). Dr. Nicole Matthews (personal correspondence, April 14, 2009, extending discussion from April
1) emphasized to me that genuine malignancies (as opposed to benign tumors) require treatment (even homeopathic therapy uses "herbs that have some cell growth limiting factors"); disappearance without treatment is thus extraordinary.
Biased Standards?
medical treatment are difficult to come by.156 The point is that they cannot be taken for granted; thus a case like the permanent healing of the three-year-old's untreated leukemia in Brazzaville, cited earlier,157 and in a context with other numerous attested healings attributed to divine activity,158 should still be deemed extraordinary.
One must also account for the smaller proportion (yet strikingly large number) of dramatic recoveries suggested above that are not readily amenable to such explanations even on an individual level, such as suddenly regaining sight or life.
Critics of Lourdes Because claims of cures associated with Lourdes cluster in one location rather than occur randomly throughout the world, Lourdes lends itself more readily to collecting medical documentation than most individual sources for healing claims do. This observation makes studies of Lourdes helpful for research even though the percentage of healing claims there is lower than the proportion in many other settings. Regardless of one's perspective on miracle claims at Lourdes, it thus offers a useful case study in methodology, as well as of both the importance and the difficulty of surmounting reductionism.159 Theologians may debate whether healings took place because of Lourdes or whether the same healings could have taken place anywhere through faith, but this question (also relevant to other healing contexts) is not necessary for the point we are investigating here.
The Catholic Church has strict evaluation criteria in place at Lourdes and in most generations has left the burden of proof heavily on the miracle claim. As we shall see, some standards are too stringent.160 Increasingly rigorous standards have reflected the Roman Catholic approach to all miracle claims since the CounterReformation. The approach does not imply that other claimed miracles may not have occurred, but seeks a secure minimum that withstands external scrutiny.161
156. Dr. Tahira Adelekan, phone interview, April 24, 2009; on spontaneous remission rates without treatment being unknown, see also Krippner and Achterberg, "Experiences," 358; for estimates of remissions being more common than the standard estimate, see McNamara and Szent-Imrey, "Learn," 209. Some clearly have recovered using alternate therapies of some sort, but natural recovery seems far from the norm.
157. From Jacques Vernaud, personal correspondence, Aug. 29, 2005.
158. Known to me far before I planned to write this book: Jacques Moussounga independently attested
Jacques Vernaud's ministry in healing, sharing this with his daughter Médine; Médine spoke of it shortly after we met (in our first extended conversation, Oct. 1, 1989), long before we considered marriage but after I already knew of the healing of Jacques Vernaud's daughter (from that daughter, confirmed by her father).
159. Others have also raised the discussion of Lourdes in connection with studies of biblical miracles
(cf., e.g., Légasse, "L'Historien," 141). Thus in his book regarding Jesus's miracles, Sabourin, Miracles,
162–63, suggests that miraculous cures there are likely but notes reasons for caution (esp. in the need to distinguish "normal" spontaneous cures from miraculous ones).
160. Cf. also Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism, 123–24; Williams, Doctor, 72, 75.
161. See Duffin, Miracles, passim. For the formative historical context of early Protestant skepticism and seminal medical thinkers in establishing the sorts of rigorous approach now in place (including the office of promotor fidei, i.e., "the devil's advocate"), see Duffin, Miracles, 19–35. On the minimalist evidential approach, without denying other miracles, see 35, 111. Critics today who, by contrast, reject any testimony without medical documentation, not merely for a minimally secure base of data but even to evaluate which claims might be deemed probable, rarely seek to defend their rejection of eyewitness testimony. This
Proposed Explanations
One critic of supernatural healing at Lourdes, D. J. West, censures the bias of the Medical Bureau there, but his own evaluation seems open to the same charge.
Since recoveries in real life are never instantaneous, West claims, doctors at Lourdes face "the necessity to distort facts to fit them in" and "fail utterly to preserve that detached frame of mind so essential to a fair consideration of the respective merits of all possible interpretations."162 I defer conclusions on medical points to those with medical competence; yet it must be noted, against the critic's concern about bias, that members of the Medical Bureau have included not only Catholics but also
Protestants and those who do not claim adherence to Christian faith or any faith.163
The bureau's responsibility is not to certify miracles but to certify cures and to determine whether they can be explained naturalistically.164 Three different panels of physicians examine each case, later panels screening out some cases accepted by the earlier panels.165 Responding to criticisms, the bureau has become increasingly strict in its standards, excluding even many medically inexplicable cases.166
One also does not need any particular medical expertise to observe that West's own language reflects his starting assumptions in this case. Assuming that natural recoveries are never instantaneous, he simply disallows evidence from Lourdes for instantaneous supernatural healing. That is, he will not accept as evidence what cannot be explained in purely natural terms, yet what can be explained in purely natural terms he can discount as not a true miracle. (Another example below will illustrate how his method effectively screens out evidence that does not match his presuppositions.) Further, he places the standard of proof so high that few ailments or recoveries can even be considered.167 A psychiatrist and parapsychologist, West affirms that "psychological influence plays some part in almost all illnesses and a behavior supports the suspicion that in most cases their epistemological approach is authority: accepting without argument a particular historically conditioned approach (while broadening its application).
162. West, Miracles, 123. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 33, calls West, a psychiatrist, a "friendly critic"; Sabourin,
Miracles, 158, offers a cordial critique, noting West's predisposition for psychic explanations based on his previous work.
163. Cranston, Miracle, 73–74, 186; Garner, "Regressions," 1257, notes that they prefer "documentation by non-Catholics." More than fifteen hundred doctors from all religious or nonreligious backgrounds participated in the examinations in 1953, the year for which figures are reported in Cranston, Miracle, 74,
80. At that time the bureau was supported by the dues of some five thousand physicians from roughly thirty nations (82, emphasizing that no money came from the church); note the international composition of the twenty-seven members of the International Medical Committee as of 1986 in Cranston, Miracle,
335. Religious diversity is even more true of doctors involved outside Lourdes (see, e.g., the astonished report of one agnostic physician in Cranston, Miracle, 182–83; the opinion of the Dutch Jewish neurologist in Cranston, Miracle, 249).
164. Wakefield, Miracle, 41. Of course, some will explain any event naturalistically, even if it is by insisting that a naturalistic explanation will someday be found; but the bar of evidence at Lourdes seems quite high, probably thereby even excluding many cures for which a naturalistic explanation, while possible, is nowhere close to the simplest option for a theist.
165. Garner, "Regressions," 1255.
166. Ibid., 1259, accounting for some reduction of the numbers. It might also be possible that greater dependence on medicine and scientific worldview has decreased some of potential supplicants' dependence on miracles, just as established Pentecostal denominations tend to give less attention to signs than initially.
167. See, e.g., West, Miracles, 22.
Biased Standards?
large part in many," including "organic" diseases.168 Since he attributes nearly anything to psychological factors, an approach that attributes to supernatural factors only what one cannot attempt to explain otherwise169 will have few cases to work with. Despite his argument for psychosomatic cures, many who have been cured were not expecting it;170 some were not Catholic; and some had no faith in any religion at the time of their cure.171 Nor do the vast majority of doctors expect suggestibility to instantly cure organic lesions, as in some reported cases.172
Of the just eleven cases that West examines, some do indeed seem disputable, but the book includes considerable "explaining away." Thus he avers that "lay witnesses" to a woman rising from being bedridden do not count scientifically without medical documentation of an organic cure.173 While strictly speaking this may mean that we cannot be sure of an organic cure (and I am not qualified to evaluate the case in question), few cases described as this one is in the records should be deemed purely psychological ailments. Because a person bedridden for six years cannot get up and immediately walk (even true of someone otherwise healthy who has been lying in bed for months), the author doubts this aspect of the claim.174 That is, he denies the possibility of instant cures because these rarely occur naturally (i.e., if they occurred it would be miraculous), yet would deny as 168. E.g., ibid., 20. Langford, "Problem," 49, thinks that healings at Lourdes fit psychosomatic explanations; he allows (52) that God works in psychosomatic ways but is skeptical of other miracles.
Suggesting psychological cures, Frank, Persuasion, 58, allows that Lourdes cures may be genuine without being miraculous; he emphasizes (59) that those cured were usually "simple" rather than critical people.
169. One feature implied in the dictionary definition cited by the person introducing Peter May in May, "Miracles," 144. As noted in ch. 5, definitions vary, but this one does not correspond well to any biblical conception.
170. Cranston, Miracle, 260 (and passim among examples in the book).
171. Ibid., 155. Note, e.g., Gabriel Gargam, a paralyzed atheist near death, was cured immediately, though still gaunt (gaining twenty pounds in days; 40–41, 269). Also Elie Auclair, an atheist before his cure, though in this case he later suffered physical relapse months after his conversion and maintained his postconversion faith (185–86). Louis Olivari, a half-paralyzed French Communist, was an atheist who went to Lourdes only at his Catholic wife's insistence; moved by the earnest faith of the ten-year-old blind boy next to him, praying for Olivari, he prayed that God, if he existed, would heal the boy; the boy was uncured, but the atheist was immediately and completely healed when he left the water. The Medical
Bureau refused to certify the cure without a long process of verifying that the change was organic, but Olivari was convinced and became a Christian (Oursler, Power, 59–61; Rose, Faith Healing, 95). Catholic miracle stories in recent centuries typically include the element of patients' surprise at their cure (Duffin,
Miracles, 177). Skeptics were also healed in Salmon's ministry (Salmon, Heals, 34). Similarly, a woman with eczema for thirty-five years decided two days after the healing meeting that she simply had lacked sufficient faith; the next morning she awoke healed (63–64).
172. See Cranston, Miracle, 260–61.
173. West, Miracles, 36.
174. Ibid., 41. Similarly, Hume dismissed a claimed miracle cure because a physician declared that such cures do not occur (naturally) as quickly as the eyewitnesses claimed; but this evaluation simply presupposes pure naturalism (deSilva, "Meaning," 14–15). For similar cases, see Duffin, Miracles, 133–34.
Frank, Persuasion, 57–58, views Lourdes cures as gradual; although the paralyzed may walk immediately or the blind see immediately, subsequent "actual tissue healing takes hours, days, or weeks," and weight gain is gradual. Yet why should we require instant healing of what is curable naturally in order for the curing of the naturally incurable aspect to be considered genuinely extraordinary?
Proposed Explanations
miraculous any cure that could happen naturally. In other words, he construes naturally explicable elements as pointing to a natural recovery but treats as false any elements that are not naturally explicable. This is a catch-22 in which the rules are so fixed as to rule out any evidence for miracles; the approach thus simply presupposes that no supernatural explanation is to be admitted.
Rigorous Standards at Lourdes By any standards, most ailing pilgrims at Lourdes are not cured there,175 but these numbers appear even smaller by Lourdes's own rigorous standards.176 While most of the diseases healed at Lourdes are also those known to sometimes undergo spontaneous remission in "secular" settings,177 the standards for evidence are very strict there.178 On extremely rare occasions doctors there (and elsewhere) have been duped,179 but in the vast majority of cases the Medical Bureau is able to screen out attempts at fraud immediately.180
Only a small minority of pilgrims reported healings, although not all pilgrims are ill to begin with. By some estimates, most groups of organized pilgrims in the first half century reported between 0.001 and 0.02 percent cures,181 certainly
175. One doctor directed patients there for twelve years without seeing any recoveries, but he observed a positive change in their mental attitude (Buskirk, Healing, 51–52; cf. Frank, Persuasion, 56, who believes that most are psychologically benefited); another reported a tuberculosis recovery, which he attributed to mental attitudes (Buskirk, Healing, 52). Hay, "Concept," 193, notes that while the Medical Bureau at Lourdes does not exaggerate, many believers in Lourdes overestimate the actual number of cures. West,
Miracles, 121, complains that merely giving medical documentation for cures is not scientific unless one studies entire groups; but this approach implicitly presupposes that Lourdes claims to cure everyone.
Amiotte-Suchet, "Egaux," argues that Catholics accept the rareness of miracles, expecting them less often than Pentecostals do (though sometimes exaggerating the latter's expectations).
176. For their very difficult standards, designed to secure a minimum of assured results, see, e.g.,
Cranston, Miracle, 75–79. Doctors are advised to be as rigorous as possible, erring on the side of skepticism rather than credulity (81).
177. Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 106–7; Melinsky, Miracles, 163 (on cancer and tuberculosis).
West, Miracles, 42, complains that "spontaneous recoveries" happen and these may thus happen with respect to pilgrimage to Lourdes only coincidentally.
178. See, e.g., Rose, Faith Healing, 96; Dearmer, Body and Soul, 307, 308–15. Other Christian traditions also have used healing locations, including in the United States (see Ogilbee and Riess, Pilgrimage, 3–50).
179. Some healings, such as that of Gabrielle Durand in the early twentieth century, are well verified
(Scherzer, Healing, 138–39), though on another occasion doctors there (as well as other doctors) were duped (139–40; Major, Faiths, 34–36).
180. See Cranston, Miracle, 186–90. In one case, a woman had been paid by an antireligious organization to claim a healing falsely that could then be publicized to discredit standards at Lourdes; instead, the examination physicians immediately recognized the falsehood (190). In his novel Lourdes, Zola deliberately fabricated external falsehoods about Lourdes (Cranston, Miracle, 190); nevertheless, he himself witnessed
"the overnight disappearance of horrendous leg and facial ulcers" that he could not explain naturally
(Garner, "Regressions," 1262).
181. See the statistics in Kselman, Miracles, 201–3. These figures do not specify how many pilgrims specifically sought cures and would not include all subsequent or any unreported cures; at the same time, they would include a number of cures that medical science would not find impressive. Warfield, Miracles,
107, who generously concedes as much as 10 percent cured (a much higher figure), focuses instead on the disappointment of those uncured, though this observation cannot discount genuine cures.
Biased Standards?
significantly lower than the expected reported cure rate through medical science.
If the point of Lourdes is to function as a theological sign rather than as a medical institution, however, comparison with medicine's cure rate is beside the point
(though comparison with rates of spontaneous remission need not be). Of millions of pilgrims over the years,182 with probably more than half a million sick,183 about five thousand miracle claims have been recorded (less than 1 percent). Of these, the medical committees evaluating cures there have judged a smaller number to be "medically inexplicable." Only these screened cures have been forwarded on to bishops for further discussion, and of these only sixty-five have survived the evaluation of all examiners and been pronounced certain "miracles."184 If the only genuine cures are those that have been deemed both medically inexplicable185 and religiously approved, the cure rate is abysmally low—perhaps no better than one would find in hospitals dealing with the same number of "incurable" patients. Even many who affirm that supernatural healings occur there do not contend that they should be expected very often.
When one examines the statistics, though, one should also examine the stringent criteria employed there—cures are more frequent than the critical minimum finally counted as miracles. The concern of many pilgrims is their travel and health, not obtaining documentation; to satisfy the Medical Bureau's investigation, however, they must have full medical documentation of their prior condition, including any available hospital records.186 Investigators cannot always obtain sufficient
182. Critics may also have exaggerated the number of pilgrims (Melinsky, Miracles, 162, though unsympathetic to attempts to evaluate and document miracles) but the average number probably exceeds three million annually (Marnham, Lourdes, 183); room exists to hold only one hundred thousand at a time at the torchlight procession (Cranston, Miracle, 103). However, only some of these are ill, and of these only those with medical certification can be examined by the bureau if cured, which reduces the figures considerably (in 1954, this was 33,276; Cranston, Miracle, 75).
183. Cranston, Miracle, 113, estimated that half a million sick had visited in the first 128 years. This estimate may be too low; it would suggest an average of only four thousand a year, though smaller numbers in the early years would skew that average for later years. Oursler, Power, 65, estimates that only 1 percent of annual pilgrims are ill, of which two hundred to three hundred claim cures.
184. Varying slightly regarding the number of initial claims, Marnham, Lourdes, viii; Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 107; MacNutt, Power, 66; Mullin, Miracles, 120. But apparently most do remain uncured
(cf. similar pilgrimages in Oktavec, Prayers, 37–38; more positively, 52); for a severe critique, doubting any of the cures, see Randi, Faith Healers, 20–30; also skeptical, Schwarz, Healing, 61–62; Bishop, Healing, 143–54.
185. A common definition for "miracle" today is "a permanently inexplicable event" (Basinger and Basinger, "Concept," 165; idem, Miracle, 23), but on this definition one denying a miracle could simply deny the permanence of its (nonsupernatural) inexplicability (Basinger and Basinger, "Concept," 166; idem, Miracle, 71; Basinger, "Apologetics," 352–53); see discussion of "God of the gaps" arguments below.
Apart from the question of actual supernatural causation, it is cognitively easier to explain apparently naturally inexplicable events in relation to known religious assumptions (Pyysiäinen, "Mind," in terms of mental processing of counterintuitive events; the article does not seek to resolve whether or not miracles in the strong sense might actually happen, which it avers [738–39] that science cannot address). On the neural and mental processing of such events, see also helpfully Paloutzian, Rogers, Swenson, and Lowe,
"Attributions"; a theist can construe such psychological structures providentially (e.g., Lawal, "Psychology,"
151–52). Recognizing events as miracles involves not a mere "feeling" of awe (Hume, Miracles, 35, notes that wonder tales feel pleasant) but a "cognitive process" (Rogers, "Miracles," 111).
186. Cranston, Miracle, 118; cf. Williams, Doctor, 72.
Proposed Explanations
documentation to proceed, since many doctors do not respond to requests for it, lacking interest and/or time.187 Tracking down the witnesses can be difficult if they have moved. If patients have taken medicine that could possibly have produced the cure, they are excluded from consideration.188 Most patients today, however, will seek the best of medicine as well as prayer. If one's ailment is not demonstrably organic, one is excluded, even though this excludes from consideration many genuine afflictions.189
Many people thus find themselves cured, yet if their cures cannot pass all the stringent criteria to achieve certainty, they are not pronounced miraculous by the church.190 For example, a Protestant doctor notes that he "saw with my own eyes" that a woman who had been suffering from "advanced ankylosing spondylitis of the spine" was now able to pick up objects from the floor "without the slightest pain or difficulty." Lourdes rejected this cure because X-rays showed that her spine remained diseased, but the doctor notes that her new ability defied scientific explanation.191 More than twelve hundred cures accepted by the Medical Bureau after multiple examinations lacked some (though usually not all) of the requisite documentation and thus were never processed.192 Anyone who has tried to collect medical documentation recognizes that factors beyond the researcher's control sometimes make this process difficult. Besides the fairly secure cures, the bureau knows of four thousand other probable cures.193 Many others were cured and never submitted any information to the bureau.194 Forty doctors confirmed the cure of a medically incurable, quadriplegic postencephalitic idiot—a child who went from complete insensibility and lack of control to intelligent normalcy—but because some documents were missing, the cure was never officially proclaimed.195
By the minimalist standards employed at Lourdes, it is likely that many of Jesus's miracles reported in the Gospels would have been screened out had they occurred instead at Lourdes.196
Unfair skepticism at any point in the process, whether from doctors or church leaders, can skew the results just as credulity throughout the process would. The 187. Cranston, Miracle, 119.
188. Ibid.
189. Ibid., 125; cf. Williams, Doctor, 75.
190. Cranston, Miracle, 119.
191. Woodard, Faith, 53 (noting that she had remained healed three years at the time that he met her and reviewed her case records; pure willpower could not produce such results).
192. Cranston, Miracle, 153. Sometimes doctors' records are not sufficiently precise; some other doctors refuse to provide requested information, whether out of prejudice against Lourdes or for other reasons (154). More recently, Garner, "Regressions," 1257, notes "nearly 1500 well documented cures, with case-notes, X-ray films and photographs," with another three thousand to four thousand lacking adequate data but presumably including many cures.
193. Cranston, Miracle, 154.
194. Ibid.
195. Ibid., 242–46, noting on 245 that none of the doctors had ever seen such a case in their medical careers.
196. Cf. a similar observation in Miller, "Miracle Worker," 21.
Biased Standards?
makeup of the committee and their philosophic predispositions, as well as those of bishops and diocesan councils, apparently plays a noteworthy role; some eras and regions include a number of reported healings, whereas others report barely any.197 For example, no healings were admitted "between 1913 and 1946."198 Yet between 1925 and 1946, thousands of reported cures appear in the Medical Bureau's records, of which eighty-nine were viewed as inexplicable;199 those responsible for evaluating them simply did not proclaim any of them as miracles during this period.
After the long hiatus, twenty-four miracle proclamations cluster in thirty-four years, starting, as one writer observes, "at about the same time as the reorganization of the Medical Bureau and the decision to encourage the simultaneous development of the Marian shrine of Fatima."200 The French church decided to acknowledge healings at Lourdes near the fiftieth anniversary; they proclaimed twenty-one cures, including some that had taken place earlier, over the span of a few months, a collection that even today remains roughly a third of those proclaimed there.201
That is to say, discerning an individual miracle can involve subjectivity, whether in affirming or denying it.202
Some Dramatic Cures at Lourdes Moreover, whatever one makes of some of the roughly six thousand claims offered, some (for which medical documentation remains available) seem rather impressive. Cures of tuberculosis peritonitis dominate many of the claims, and critics charge that these may reflect misdiagnosis or psychological recoveries.203
197. For those proclaimed miracles, by twenty-five-year periods: four appear in 1862–86; twentynine in 1887–1911 (twenty-eight proclamations, all between 1907–11); two in 1912–36; twenty in 1937–61; and two in 1962–79 (Marnham, Lourdes, 185). Meanwhile, Bishop, Healing, 148, highlights the "predominantly French Catholic" character of the medical committee, though one would expect
Catholics to be those with the greatest interest in serving on the committee. Yet he also notes that the committee is suspicious even of healings where the person expected healing beforehand, since the healing might be explained psychologically (Bishop, Healing, 151–52). Bishop's complaint that the water itself is not chemically special nor efficacious elsewhere (152–53) focuses on water rather than divine activity hence risks missing the point of why they are considered miracles.
198. Melinsky, Miracles, 162. Some of this period's dearth reflects the limitations imposed by two world wars (Cranston, Miracle, 114–15), especially 1939–46 (Cranston, Miracle, 207).
199. Marnham, Lourdes, 186. West, Miracles, 8, warns that the documentation kept in the bureau before 1946 was inadequate, a problem that also limited the scientific evidence with which he could securely work in his 1957 book. The Medical Bureau passed seventy-one cures between 1947 and 1988.
200. Marnham, Lourdes, 186.
201. Ibid., suggesting "political" factors. He also notes the high proportion of nuns and priests. External political factors also influenced miracle collections for canonizing saints; see Duffin, Miracles, 33 (Napoleon's influence on suppression of religion), 39, 178.
202. Cf. the struggle of Alexis Carrel, an agnostic medical researcher, to interpret and come to terms with what he witnessed at Lourdes (Flach, Faith, 38–40).
203. West, Miracles, 122; Major, Faiths, 37–38. Even Warfield, Miracles, 110, concedes that genuine cures at Lourdes are undeniable yet (111) attributes them mostly to "hysterosis," while leaving other cures
(117–18; such as the instant healing of a broken bone) as mere anomalies or falsehoods. One wonders why a theist must automatically prefer this kind of psychological explanations, which themselves lack experimental confirmation, to theological explanations.
Proposed Explanations
Tuberculosis did not lend itself to medical cures in that era, however, and if genuine was not cured by such means.204 Because scientists now know that tuberculosis sometimes is cured spontaneously (and medical treatments are now available),
Catholic miracle records of the past half century no longer include new cases.205
Nevertheless, some cases of cured cancer206 or tuberculosis207 seem too sudden, from near death to complete health in hours, to readily lend themselves to the suggestion of merely coincidental remissions. The clinical details of one cancer case were presented at a conference on bone sarcomata, with no one able to explain the case naturally; only afterward was it revealed that the cure occurred at Lourdes.208
Nevertheless, even if we explain these sorts of cures naturally, it is harder to naturally explain Francis Pascal, cured of "blindness" and "paralysis of the lower limbs," at the age of three years and ten months, on August 28, 1938.209 While the keenness of his vision remained less than the average person's,210 this child who had been completely blind before the cure was now an active reader and writer.211
Other blind persons were also cured of documented, organic optic atrophy, able thereafter to see.212 One might also consider Marie Bigot, cured of blindness, deafness, and hemiplegia, on October 10, 1954.213
A clear case of Hodgkin's disease was cured on May 31, 1950: the pilgrim felt warmth and was healed, with all traces of the disease gone from his body. The original diagnosis of the disease cannot be disputed, as "the original histological specimens have been repeatedly and thoroughly reviewed."214 Vittorio Micheli vis204. Garner, "Regressions," 1259.
205. Duffin, Miracles, 75–76.
206. Keep in mind that healings from cancer include medically documented, naturally inexplicable cases like Mlle Delot, whose cancer had spread, who had been given up by her physicians to die and was nearly dead, and who was instantly cured of cancer, even her damaged organs reforming (Cranston,
Miracle, 127–29).
207. Sometimes the tubercular patient had great abscesses and was dying, yet within hours was so fully healed that she could walk under her own power and the wounds had closed (Mlle Brosse, in Cranston,
Miracle, 180–84, including the astonished report of an agnostic physician, 182–83); the case of Jeanne
Fretel, cured Oct. 8, 1948 (209–16, 269), is also noteworthy. Nearly half the confirmed cures until 1948 involved tuberculosis, partly because this was a common and then not really curable disease that drew many pilgrims to Lourdes (281); cases of healed tuberculosis have also been verified at Lourdes in more recent times (284–85, 292–93, 300–302).
208. Ibid., 306. The full cure of a girl near death from Ewing's Sarcoma in 1976 is significant because it
"had never been found to regress spontaneously" (311). May, "Miracles," 149–50, however, questions this diagnosis (citing a specialist's conclusion based on slides) and further objects that it was partial and gradual.
209. Recognized as a miracle in 1949 (Marnham, Lourdes, 189; see Cranston, Miracle, 233–39, including her interviews with Pascal and his family; cf. Woodard, Faith, 57). For the full list of the persons and ailments cured, and dates, see Marnham, Lourdes, 187–91.
210. West, Miracles, 6.
211. Cranston, Miracle, 236, 237.
212. Ibid., 42–44, 227–33 (the second case, of Gerard Baillie, healed Sept. 27, 1947, was of a seven-year-old).
213. Marnham, Lourdes, 190 (for more on her, see 192–94; Cranston, Miracle, 293–95). She happens to have been captured on film just before and after her cure (Cranston, Miracle, 295).
214. Marnham, Lourdes, 191; see also Cranston, Miracle, 289–90.
Biased Standards?
ited Lourdes on May 24, 1963; on June 1, he felt that he was healed, and subsequent
X-rays showed "that the bony reconstruction of the parts destroyed was progressing steadily"—something that should not happen naturally.215 Unable to work and deemed an invalid due to verified physical causes, the nearly blind Serge Perrin visited Lourdes and on May 1, 1970, was anointed. He unexpectedly "experienced some sensation, felt even in his feet"; within hours his vision returned fully, and he was able to walk unaided.216 Doctors verified that no trace of his previous medical problems remained; six years later, in view of his continued health, the cure was recognized by the church as miraculous.217 The medically documented instantaneous healing of a swollen and paralyzed arm drew public attention and television coverage in France in 1954 and 1960.218 A paralyzed and nearly blind man was instantly, permanently, and unexpectedly cured on May 1, 1970.219
In 1902, Alexis Carrel, not believing in miracles himself but learning of his patients cured at Lourdes, decided to investigate. On the train he cared for a dying girl, Marie Bailly, who was also traveling there, noting that her abdomen was swollen and that she was in danger of dying at any moment. She had peritonitis and was deathly pale and skeletal.220 At Lourdes, she was removed from the train by a stretcher, with almost no pulse. To the "stupefaction" of the physicians, she was cured, the "tumors" vanishing in front of them; one astonished medical observer added that such a serious affliction "has never been cured [naturally] in a few hours like the case on record here."221 Because Carrel had become interested in miracles, the University of Lyons medical faculty rejected him in 1905; he joined the Rockefeller Institute instead and in 1912 received the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine, his memoir of the healing being published only later.222
In an academic journal article, Terence Nichols also recounts an earlier cure from 1878. The "gangrenous ulcer" on Joachime Dehant's right leg was twelve inches by six inches and had "penetrated to the bone." Her companions on the 215. Marnham, Lourdes, 195 (see more fully 195–96; his full dossier appears on 198–216). X-rays and army records showed that sarcoma had nearly destroyed his left pelvis, disconnecting it from the femur;
X-rays a few months later showed regression of the sarcoma and the pelvic bone regenerating. Many orthopedic surgeons were consulted who had dealt with bone cancer; none had "encountered a case of spontaneous cure of a malignant tumour of the bone" (Garner, "Regressions," 1259).
216. Marnham, Lourdes, 197. Mays, "Miracles," 150, thinks that this case was "psychosomatic," though on 155 he concedes that "it is very difficult to be sure whether a person is a hysteric or not."
217. Marnham, Lourdes, 197–98.
218. Cranston, Miracle, 295–96.
219. Ibid., 307–8.
220. Oursler, Power, 72; Nichols, "Miracles," 706.
221. Nichols, "Miracles," 706, citing the original sources (esp. in Carrel, Voyage; Boissarie, Healing).
Boissarie was one of the early physicians examining cases at Lourdes. See also the account in Cranston,
Miracle, 172–76; briefly, Woodard, Faith, 51.
222. Nichols, "Miracles," 707; Cranston, Miracle, 35. A Jewish neurologist became interested in Lourdes based on Carrel's testimony, noting that since he trusted his word on cardiological experiments he ought to trust his word on this matter as well (Cranston, Miracle, 249). Trusting his eyewitness testimony need not involve agreement with all his views; Carrel's advocacy of the then sometimes accepted idea of euthanasia for dangerous criminals would be at best extremely controversial today.
Proposed Explanations
train, nauseated by the odor, vomited. Nevertheless, the second time she bathed in the pool at Lourdes, she was healed, leaving only a scar. Investigators gathered testimony not only from physicians at Lourdes and her own physicians who had treated her for more than a decade but also from her traveling companions, family, and others who knew her in her hometown.223 Perhaps some skeptics would dismiss the evidence as being from a generation prior to our own, hence not directly observed by us; again, this approach would make historiography beyond the living memory of eyewitnesses impossible. Because the cure took two or three hours224 or because it left a scar,225 some critics might dismiss the supernatural element, but such criticisms seem petty in view of the recovery.
Only a small percentage of cures are officially pronounced, but many dramatic healings occur among the much larger body of healings that are not among the official cures. A Methodist visitor to Lourdes testifies of being instantly healed there of disabilities that are not known to be cured naturally in this way.226 An investigative reporter spoke with a woman who had been diagnosed as having "an inoperable malignancy located between her pulmonary artery and her heart" and told that she had six months to live. She was cured during her second time bathing in the water at Lourdes.227 She informed the reporter that about sixty cures had been reported in the half-year before his visit; one case involved the instant healing of a man whose cancer had eaten away "most of his hip bone," and she showed the reporter the X-rays confirming the full restoration of the bone.228 In a half-year period, some sixteen hundred physicians from thirty-two different nations and a diverse range of religious or nonreligious perspectives visited the Medical Bureau, where they are welcomed to examine the evidence for themselves.229 That infants and unbelievers have been healed works against purely psychosomatic explanations.230
223. Nichols, "Miracles," 707, following Boissarie, Healing, 2–9; see also Cranston, Miracle, 39.
224. Nichols, "Miracles," 708.
225. Many of the cures leave "some vestige to show that the original illness existed, e.g., scars or a bone in a slightly different position" (Cranston, Miracle, 119); cf. the dramatic case of Belgian Pierre De Rudder, where scarring indicated the injury but new, whiter bone tissue had connected what had been considered a medically incurable fracture (Oursler, Power, 71, noting on 72 that twenty-eight physicians were involved in certifying the cure). Vestiges of an original injury or illness do not seem objectionable from the standpoint of biblical theism (see Gen 32:25, 31–32; Lev 13:23, 28). In one account, however, a physician admits that he had refused to accept a cure as miraculous if he found a scar—and he found none (Duffin, Miracles, 137).
226. Heron, Channels, 142–43.
227. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 29. One dying woman had a massive tumor that was inoperable due to her heart condition; it disappeared immediately and without a period of convalescence, with visible changes
(Cranston, Miracle, 177–78).
228. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 30.
229. Ibid., 31–32.
230. Ibid., 32 (cf. also in Kuhlman's meetings, unbelievers on 165 and infants on 171). Healings include those who denied the supernatural (until the cure) and also Muslims and Jews at an extension site (Garner,
"Regressions," 1257). Frank, Persuasion, 59, counters that the skeptics healed at Lourdes probably had some "emotional conflict," thus explaining why they would become believers after they were cured. Since any but the most inflexible skeptic might find a cure persuasive (hence might well become a believer), one wonders if Frank's explanation does not force evidence (as in his complaints about psychoanalysis on 124).
Biased Standards?
Granted that most pilgrims are not healed, some extraordinary healings have been documented. What of those cures that have been excluded by the minimalist criteria in place? The exclusion of medically explicable cures is a time-honored approach, employed in the Middle Ages, when it did not limit as many claims.231
But in this era, it is difficult for doctors to call any healing medically inexplicable, since any given cure might have a potential secular explanation, whether or not that is the most plausible explanation for a given case. One English Catholic defender of miracles in 1914 complained that critics reckoned miracles at Lourdes impossible, and when evidence that such cures had occurred proved overwhelming, "it is given a big long name and called natural."232 Moreover, most people who might travel to Lourdes today could first seek medical treatment elsewhere, thereby usually removing them from the medical committee's potential list of "miracles."233
Proclaimed cures have thus declined as medical standards have risen.234 This trend might reflect not only more rigorous standards at Lourdes but also improved health in society; the extreme conditions often cured at Lourdes in the past, such as tuberculosis, are also much rarer than they once were.235
Whether one feels free to count the religious context at Lourdes affects one's interpretation of the results. One scholar skeptical of supernatural approaches readily grants that the healings occur. He affirms that "some utterly extraordinary cures" have occurred there,236 noting that enemies of the Catholic Church and leading medical scientists like Alexis Carrel have been persuaded by the data.237 He concedes that some cases cannot even be explained psychosomatically;238 among examples, he lists "the instant healing of a terribly disfigured face, and the instantaneous healing of a club foot on a two and one half year old child," shown by non-Catholics to be permanent.
Further, he cites a news article about a three-year-old with terminal cancer and the bones being eaten away; after the healing, even "the bones in her skull grew back.
Her doctor, a Protestant, said that 'miracle' would not be too strong a word to use."239
Yet this same scholar notes that scientists can reject the supernatural interpretation at Lourdes by suggesting that some sort of naturalistic interpretation would
231. See Lugt, "Incubus," 175–76.
232. Hillaire Belloc, in Mullin, Miracles, 219 (citing Chesterton, Miracles, 4, 11). Cf. the complaint of Larmer, "Explanations," 9: simply "calling an event a nonrepeatable counterinstance does not really explain its occurrence," and by labeling an event such an antisupernaturalist is merely rejecting "the theist's explanation," not providing an alternative explanation. Larmer counts multiple healings through a healer against calling them "nonrepeatable" (9–10), though miracles, like human actions, are not repeatable (cf. discussion in, e.g., Kellenberger, "Miracles," 149) or predictable in the sense expected in physics. Others might call them "a unique series of non-repeatable events" (Levine, Problem, 37, noting that Hume's epistemology would not accommodate these).
233. Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 108; Shorter, Witch Doctor, 218–19.
234. Cranston, Miracle, 115.
235. Ibid., 116.
236. Diamond, "Miracles," 311.
237. Ibid., 312; he notes on 313 that scientists "unanimously" concur that these healings take place there.
238. Ibid., 312.
239. Ibid., citing Newsweek, Aug. 9, 1971. For the cures of children at Lourdes, see Cranston, Miracle,
227–46.
Proposed Explanations
arise if only we had sufficient evidence. The collocation of natural factors in this case might occur together only one in ten million times, he argues, but, because he assumes the miraculous impossible, must have occurred here.240 Scientists need autonomy to do their work, he insists, not having to wait to see if theologians will pronounce some event miraculous.241 Some theologians might wish to retort that they need some autonomy to evaluate miracles without the theological premise of their entire discipline being ruled out by thinkers committed to antisupernaturalist assumptions. The scholar's antisupernatural assumptions in this case have made a fair evaluation of the data impossible.
Rigorous Standards, Hostile Assumptions Rigorous standards can reflect integrity, but to rule out any evidence that does not meet these standards risks giving too much ground to an antisupernaturalist worldview whose advocates generally assume rather than argue their case (see chs.
5–6). While allowing for a fairly certain critical minimum, such standards should not be used negatively, to argue that miracle claims not meeting these criteria are inauthentic. Exceptionally rigorous criteria may seek to meet an unreasonable standard required by skeptics who will accept very little evidence that could be construed as contrary to their case. Skeptics on the committee at Lourdes may reject even a particularly dramatic cure as "inexplicable" no matter how many tests are run, on the principle that one must always come up with a natural explanation, which can be produced sooner or later.242
One sociologist thus critiques the admitted methodology of a medical investigator who denies faith healing. If the person claiming healing has had any medical treatment (hence been deemed incurable before the healing), the investigator attributed the healing to this medical treatment no matter how unusual the recovery was. By contrast, if the person did not have medical treatment, the investigator dismissed the cure as not being properly diagnosed. In other words, the investigation demonstrated nothing except its own starting assumptions that had screened out the possibility of miraculous cures in advance.243
With reference to Lourdes, Francis MacNutt, a PhD in theology and a leader who has been influential in the healing ministry in the Roman Catholic Church,244 notes,
240. Diamond, "Miracles," 314–15, 323.
241. Ibid., 321.
242. Laurentin, Miracles, 91. He critiques the excessive rigor in the process at Lourdes with reasonable examples (ibid., 35, 90–91).
243. Poloma, Assemblies, 57–58. It is because of such clearly hostile studies that some of those involved in divine healing today are unwilling to cooperate with researchers (since those who cooperate can be misrepresented) or even see value in collecting medical documentation. Some investigators now urge practitioners of healing not to cooperate with research, since the very mind-set that strips cures of divine involvement is antithetical to the faith necessary to produce them (cf. Laurentin, Miracles, 95).
244. Csordas, Language, 32, describes him as "the first and most widely known among American
Catholic Charismatic healers"; see also MacNutt's influence in Csordas, Self, 25, 36, 42, 230–31. For his
PhD in theology, see MacNutt, Healing, 24.
Biased Standards?
"The doctors themselves were frustrated. Although they could see consistent evidence of God's healing power, most of these cures could not be proven as absolutely beyond the natural curative power of nature."245 Some sorts of healings I have noted also appear at times as medical anomalies.246 MacNutt notes that, by the standards of proof some require, proof is hard to come by: "Once, when I described to a group of doctors how I prayed and a tumor disappeared within an hour, one doctor responded that I couldn't prove that the prayer was what caused the tumor to go down. All I could legitimately claim was that I prayed and after that the tumor disappeared."
MacNutt admits that this objection is technically true;247 it fits the narrow epistemology used in some settings (though not in much of ordinary life). Nevertheless,
MacNutt contends that this pattern occurs frequently enough when he prays to invite the belief that more is at work than mere coincidence.248 As others have observed, the clustering of a significant number of occurrences around a particular factor logically reduces the likelihood of mere "coincidence."249 To the degree that a particular person's250 prayers (given a sufficient sample size) increases the likelihood of unusual recovery in a statistically significant way, the probability should to that degree favor a connection between that person's prayers (or something associated with them) and the outcome rather than favor mere coincidence—unless one's worldview excludes the former possibility. Naturally, some particularly dramatic miracles invite that consideration no matter how rare they may be.251
Yet even two external investigators who use the stringent criterion mentioned above (admitting as a demonstrable miracle only a claim that lacks a possible natural explanation) happened upon two extraordinary cases that they felt met it. A priest in a healing service told a man to walk; the man had been wheelchair-bound for 245. MacNutt, Power, 66.
246. Some of the recorded anomalies not specifically attributed to prayer may nevertheless occur in response to prayer; this connection is not normally noted in medical records.
247. MacNutt, Power, 66–67. For a defense of a miraculous interpretation of tumors disappearing when other explanations are less plausible, see Young, "Petitioning," 197.
248. MacNutt, Power, 79; at Lourdes, see Cranston, Miracle, 259. Similarly, Kraft, Power, 126–27, claims to have witnessed "hundreds of physical healings," though most were minor (he includes the healing of a neck injury, 78–79; a "serious 30-year back problem," 127; an ankle injury, 148).
249. See, e.g., Ashe, Miracles, 163–64, 185, though he attributes these patterns to "subconscious" knowledge and the realm of the mind (167, 190). While concurring with Ashe's principle regarding coincidence, I am less convinced by his particular example of Nostradamus, given ambiguities. In philosophy of science, cf. the frequent understanding that the whole is greater than the parts, with a higher level of complexity (Davies, "Preface," x).
250. I specify "a particular person" because it would be difficult to assume, including from biblical perspectives, that everyone shares equally a special sensitivity for this kind of prayer. That individuals are simply religious would not by itself constitute a certain basis for this sensitivity. Nevertheless, the most consistent settings for dramatic healing reports seem to be new evangelism contexts, which are not in statistically testable settings (bringing us back to the relevance of the case study approach for this kind of research). Many of those I interviewed concerning healings acknowledged God's sovereignty and recognized that healings were not disbursed according to merit.
251. Cf. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 61, arguing that paranormal healings were too common in Kuhlman's meetings to be attributed to mere chance. Avoiding theological explanations, Spraggett calls it simply,
"anti-chance" (62).
Proposed Explanations
twenty years, and his muscles and nerves could not sustain him walking. Yet he walked—though his astonished doctor found that his muscles and nerves still should be incapable of doing so—for three months until his muscles and nerves also were restored.252 Likewise, one healing of a four-year-old attributed to Mother Seton was not written up in a medical journal because the hematologist said (in 1993) that he was afraid to do so.253 The particular investigators to whom I refer here do not seem to offer these reports from the standpoint of traditional religious conviction: they allow that perhaps psychological factors were at work;254 perhaps God acted, they opine, but perhaps "God" is simply some sort of "extrabiological energy."255
Prejudice in the Academy?
Assumptions help shape how we read evidence as well as what evidence we acknowledge. Hostility toward recognizing unusual healings and even toward respecting supernatural interpretations as a legitimate academic perspective is less intense than it once was but still exists in some quarters. Many have complained about such prejudices, but bias and academic politics have a long history in no wise limited to this issue. Philosophic assumptions have frequently shaped even scientific paradigms. It has therefore always been important (though not always popular) for some observers to call to the academy's attention the uneven criteria we sometimes employ in evaluating paradigms.
Prejudice against Religion and Meteorites I have noted that a hematologist admitted that he feared to write about a religiously connected healing in a medical journal.256 By now the reader should be aware that while faith is often assumed to be a controlling bias,257 academic skepticism can also be a controlling and even coercive bias. This bias can include hostility toward faith perspectives, a demand for conformity with dominant academic beliefs,258 and the risk of "losing prestigious appointments";259 it has also been described as "the anti-tenure variable."260
252. Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 113–15. At Lourdes the functionality of an organ the functionality of which is medically impossible, such as seeing through eyes the optic nerves of which remain atrophied, appears as a special miracle (Cranston, Miracle, 136).
253. Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 137.
254. Ibid., 138 (but would this fit the four-year-old?).
255. Ibid., 144.
256. Ibid., 137.
257. Against treating faith as a bias that must be bracketed out (in contrast to biases such as anti-faith), see, e.g., Padgett, "Advice."
258. See nuanced discussion in Marsden, Outrageous Idea, 3–7, 13–24.
259. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 58. For one example, see the physician (who later won a Nobel
Prize elsewhere) in Nichols, "Miracles," 707; Cranston, Miracle, 35 (who also notes another medical student whose thesis was rejected because it studied cures at Lourdes).
260. David Larson, cited in Matthews, Larson, and Barry, Bibliography, ii; also see Sherrill and Larson,
"Anti-Tenure Factor." A naturalistic philosopher points out that scientific journals, as opposed to philosophic ones, will not accept articles arguing from theistic premises (Smith, "Metaphilosophy," 197).
Biased Standards?
A recent sociological study concludes that most religious scientists remain silent about their faith, fearing disdain from peers and discrimination in their career.261
Some whose convictions were known mentioned specific occasions of discrimination.262 Those dissociating faith from science feel less pressure to "closet" their convictions,263 even at times to the extent of warning that any students who might wish to express religious opinions should drop the class.264 In one study, only a third of professors in the natural sciences professed belief in God (in contrast to perhaps 95 percent of the general population).265 More than one-third of science professors at elite universities envisioned no "positive role for religious people, institutions, and ideas on their campuses."266 Despite the religious roots of many
Western universities and divinity schools at their own universities, some professors even maintain that the existence of divinity schools is dangerous, tantamount to endorsing religion and undermining science.267 While such avidly antireligious voices in elite research universities account for only 5 percent of the interviewees in the research study, they are a very vocal minority.268
Some scholars warn that typical academic discourse, far from being neutral, represents its own subculture "of disbelief,"269 and sociologist Andrew Greeley, who had also attended a pre-Vatican II seminary, complains that "the academy had its own dogmas at least as rigid" as in that seminary with respect to paranormal claims.270 Some scholars complain that belief in miracles has been marginalized
261. Ecklund, Science, 43–45; cf. religious scientists' concerns about marginalization on 73; experience or perceptions of discrimination, 116–22; closeted faith, on 76, 79, 100–102; one hostile scientist's active suppression of religious voices on 78. Some criticize expressly religious schools for "considering religion in hiring decisions," yet feared allowing known religious individuals to obtain jobs in their own department (ibid., 95).
262. Ibid., 117. Although the numbers were only 8 percent in the natural sciences and 12 percent in the social sciences, these percentages account for a significant percentage of those whose religious convictions are known (only 9 percent of scientists profess no doubt about God's existence; see ibid., 16).
263. Cf. ibid., 79–80, 83–84.
264. Ibid., 84 (noting the professor's open disdain even for sociologists of religion who simply research people's beliefs); cf. ibid., 154.
265. Llewellyn, "Events," 241. For scientists in general, surveys published in Nature have suggested that roughly 40 percent affirm a personal, prayer-answering God, but the proportion is significantly lower among scientists in elite universities; see Brooke, "Secularized," 231, following especially Larson and Witham, "Keeping"; Larson and Witham, "Reject."
266. Ecklund, Science, 91; cf. also some examples in ibid., 94–95. Conversely, 42 percent allowed for a positive role (often "supporting the private expression of religion"; ibid., 110).
267. Ibid., 97. Some others felt that such schools could exist, but "not to be given the same legitimacy or resources as science departments" (104). That concern, at least, is unfounded; in view of funding sources, there seems little danger of resource equity.
268. Ibid., 105–6.
269. McClenon, Events, 20. Statistically, skepticism about the paranormal increases with status in the scientific community, making deviance problematic there (xii), but in the United States, scientific training does not decrease the incidence of anomaly reports, and skepticism among elite scientists and academics does not dominate science undergraduates (35).
270. Greeley, Sociology, 5; cf. the new discussion in Yancey, Scholarship (59, 64, 66, 98–101, 116–19,
142, 153–54, 173). A nonpracticing Jewish scientist urged more openness to religious voices in academia, complaining, "the only diversity they [academics] don't like is intellectual diversity" (Ecklund, Science, 124).
Proposed Explanations
as virtually "heretical" in some academic circles.271 A psychologist notes that peer review normally precludes the publication of events without natural explanations or that are not replicable, so that miracles almost by definition are anomalies excluded from appearing in scientific publications.272 When their very possibility is in turn excluded in the name of science, because of self-restrictions in scientific epistemology, we are back to Hume's circular exclusion of miracles by definition.
One doctor who recounts miracles that have occurred in his practice also notes that the prejudice against miracle reports is so strong that even doctors who have seen miracles are often reluctant to risk their reputation to verify them. To include mention of prayer in the notes, which go to referral doctors and can be used by malpractice lawyers, carries serious risks in some places.273 More generally, beyond theistic premises, anthropologists have sometimes feared to publish "anomalous experiences" from their field work for fear of stigmatization.274
Less coercively, most of us in the academy (including myself) have been trained to work only with naturalistic methods. This training makes some sense in terms of dialogue on areas of common ground with our peers, yet it still predisposes us against attending to data that do not fit this paradigm or to viewing attempts to do so as of questionable academic value.275 One doctor complains that historians fail to ask the obvious question that doctors would ask of miracle accounts: "Were these patients healed as described or not?" He attributes this reticence to ask the obvious question to fear of "academic suicide."276
Keep in mind that the bias that I describe here is not that found in religious ministries openly committed to the premise of supernatural healing but rather in academic circles that publicly pride themselves on objectivity and a supposed antithesis to religiously conditioned biases. Philosopher Robert Larmer recounted to me an occasion when he was dialoguing with another professor, who considered belief in miracles nothing more than a "two-thousand year-old superstition" incompatible with science. When Professor Larmer pointed out that there are
271. Gregory, "Secular Bias," 138. Basil Mitchell, a long-time professor at Oxford, notes the "prevailing orthodoxy" against faith and danger to one's academic reputation (Clark, Philosophers, 40–41); I recall during my doctoral work one of my favorite religion professors insisting that any professor who publicly acknowledged belief in God should be fired (a view happily not promulgated by the department more generally, which tolerated more diversity).
272. Llewellyn, "Events," 253; cf. also Gorsuch, "Limits," 282. Ellens, "Conclusion," 301–2, suggests that scientific journals should in fact publish, hence collect, reports of paranormal experience, so they can be documented and examined together; he notes a small number of journals studying these anomalies.
273. Chauncey Crandall, phone interview, May 30, 2010; cf. idem, personal correspondence, Oct.
8, 2010.
274. McClenon and Nooney, "Experiences," 50 (citing Salamone, "Bori," 15). Turner, "Advances,"
37, notes that even as late as the 1970s, her husband, she, and other anthropologists felt the pressure to remain "mainstream" in print (i.e., avoiding paranormal claims) for the sake of job security. At the time, challenging the settled theories of Durkheim regarding religion was risky (Turner, "Advances," 39–40).
275. As one open-minded agnostic scientist honestly puts it, "As a result of my scientific studies, I have a deeply rooted belief in the philosophies of reductionism and materialism—the view that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts—even with respect to questions relating to life and mind" (Jastrow, "Forces," 48).
276. Gardner, "Miracles," 1928.
Biased Standards?
reports of miracles occurring today that can be subject to investigation, his detractor warned that it would waste scientists' time to check out such claims. Which of the two was really functioning on "blind faith"?277
Lest anyone (presumably outside the academy itself) suppose that scholarly consensus always follows data and proves impervious to bias, we can recall the history that I have already noted (ch. 6) concerning academic resistance to new scientific paradigms. Historically, many Enlightenment advances defined themselves over against popular superstition, which was often intertwined with popular religion. This background to the radical Enlightenment has unfortunately bequeathed a legacy of suspicion against claims more generally that could be associated with religion, regardless of other possible ways of reading the evidence.
What Michael Polanyi has observed about science is relevant to scholarship more generally. Science normally initially ignores claims that go against established consensus, he notes, thereby screening out of consideration a mass of claims or data likely to prove false or irrelevant. The problematic by-product of this necessary caution, however, is "the risk of occasionally disregarding thereby true evidence which conflicts (or seems to conflict) with the current teachings of science."278 As noted earlier, paradigm shifts normally meet initial resistance.279
Thus, for example, whereas today scientists study the natural effects of hypnotism, early investigators were barred from medical and scientific circles because of the technique's public associations with Mesmer and his followers.280 More dramatically, radical Enlightenment scientists reacted against popular supernaturalist interpretations of meteorites by denying the existence of meteorites altogether.
Polanyi observes, "During the eighteenth century the French Academy of Science stubbornly denied the evidence for the fall of meteorites, which seemed massively obvious to everybody else. Their opposition to the superstitious beliefs which a popular tradition attached to such heavenly intervention blinded them to the facts in question."281 Because Paris set the intellectual trends of the day, museums in at least five other European countries discarded their meteorites.282 One need
277. Robert Larmer, personal correspondence, Aug. 5, 2009.
278. Polanyi, Knowledge, 138.
279. E.g., Kuhn, Structure, 64–65, 107, 133, 169.
280. McClenon, Events, 188–89; Walsh, Shamanism, 179–80. Mesmer witnessed the ministry of Father Gassner but attributed the cures to animal magnetism, by which he sought to produce his own cures (Major, Faiths, 180–88).
281. Polanyi, Knowledge, 138; noted again on 274; see also McClenon, Events, 2. On the wide variety of natural phenomena often construed as portents in sixteenthand seventeenth-century popular sources, see Daston, "Facts," 102–3, 106; but theological agendas increasingly drove the rise of more natural interpretations for unexplained phenomena (Daston, "Facts," 107).
282. Polanyi, Knowledge, 138n2. This observation is not meant to deny that museums, like anyone else, are sometimes taken in by fraud; cf. Toby Sterling, "'Moon Rock' in Dutch Museum Is Just Petrified
Wood," Associated Press, Aug. 27, 2009, accessed at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on
_re_eu/eu_netherlands_not_moon_rock; accessed Aug. 27, 2009. Cf. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 54, regarding
Lavoisier; on 53–55, he also notes how other published scientific statements of certainty—such as the impossibility of blood circulation, chloroform, air flight, and space travel—were ultimately and sometimes quickly overturned by facts conveniently ignored by existing theories. One may also compare the
Proposed Explanations
not attach theological significance to meteorites to note that a bias against that interpretation functioned as a prejudice that disregarded facts. Would such a bias necessarily disappear in cases where facts might more readily support a supernatural interpretation than they did in the case of meteorites?
Philosophic Assumptions behind Scientific Paradigms While surveys reveal that even most "elite" scientists are not antireligious
(contrary to misinformed stereotypes), the proportion of those holding some particular religious views differs starkly from the general population.283 Some members of the more hostile minority affirm a priori that no "supernatural" explanation should even be discussed at a university.284 Scientists associated with top-ranked research universities are only about one-seventh as likely to strongly believe in God as the general U.S. population is.285 Yet the reasons for those views usually have little to do with science itself, and sometimes lack an intellectual basis.286 Sometimes they even reflect a stereotyping of religion based on its worst examples, expressing a form of "religious illiteracy."287 Many scientifically inclined persons who rule out supernatural explanations a priori may do so not because the data in their specialties demand this approach but because their initial plausibility structures reflect philosophic assumptions borrowed from outside their discipline.288 (Purely theological writers pontificating on matters of science naturally run the same risk.) seventeenth-century religious belief in spirit possession with the alternative contemporary "scientific" belief in "black humors," which proved unverifiable (Azouvi, "Rationalité").
283. E.g., Catholics compose 27 percent of the U.S. population, but only 9 percent (one-third that figure) among elite scientists; evangelical Protestants, 28 percent and 2 percent, respectively; and, most strikingly, black Protestants, 8 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively; they are about three times more likely to be religiously unaffiliated (Ecklund, Science, 15, 33, 152). Still, about a fifth of elite scientists attend religious services (often mainline Protestant) regularly (ibid., 151), and 39 percent claim that their religion or spirituality influences their interpersonal behavior (ibid., 76).
284. Ecklund, Science, 96.
285. See ibid., 16. More generally, 36 percent of elite scientists believe in God (ibid., 35), compared to 94 percent of the general U.S. population (ibid., 36); that is, others are two or three times more likely to believe in God. Nevertheless, over 20 percent of these scientists who do not view themselves as religious view themselves as "spiritual" (ibid., 51), and the rising, younger generation of scientists tends to be more religious than their seniors (ibid., 48).
286. Ibid., 17, 151. One chemist, a religious believer, complained that some of his colleagues react against religion in an "anti-intellectual" manner (120). Examples of reasons for religious skepticism were the belief that religion let them down (20–21) and bad experiences with religion (21–22). For one extreme example: one scientist friend, one of the most brilliant people I have ever met, confided in me (Aug. 7,
1988) that he was an agnostic (at that time) because he could not believe in a god who would have let his girlfriend break up with him.
287. Ecklund, Science, 154 (for misconceptions, see 152–55).
288. See our discussion of the earlier influence of philosophy of religion in chs. 5 and 6. Ecklund,
Science, 49, applies to the relationship between science and religion the sociological observation that groups with minimal contact tend to harbor greater prejudices. From a sociological standpoint, some scientists' critiques of religion serve a boundary function of exalting science at other disciplines' expense
(Wuthnow, "Contradictions," 163–64).
Biased Standards?
Philosophic approaches drove many paradigm shifts in science, both positively and negatively.289 Isaac Newton, for example, argued that matter was inert partly for theological reasons, to underline the distinction between creature and Creator.290
One may illustrate the matter more extensively from Johannes Kepler, the heliocentric astronomer who discovered the elliptical paths of planets and founded the modern approach to optics. Early in his career, Kepler was a theological student who found a job teaching mathematics.291 Like Galileo, he believed that science and the Bible could be harmonized without damage to either, partly by not taking every biblical passage literally.292
Kepler conceived some of his ideas by adopting alternative ancient philosophic premises that challenged current philosophic paradigms. Though not directly relevant to his famous discoveries, Kepler was obsessed "with the harmony of the [heavenly] spheres and the five Pythagorean solids."293 His original reasons for preferring Copernicus's barely known heliocentric theory were "metaphysical," based on an analogy to the Trinity in the heavens, which served his understanding of how the "heavens declare the glory of God" (Ps 19:1).294 Following ancient ideologies, Kepler sought to calculate the "music" of the "heavenly spheres"295 and 289. On modern science's metaphysical foundations, see, e.g., Burtt, Foundations.
290. Murphy, "Apologetics," 116. He also managed to subsume cosmic history within Archbishop
James Ussher's famous chronology, with creation in 4004 b.c.e. (Frankenberry, Faith, 103–4), a view we regard as astonishing today.
291. Koestler, "Kepler," 49. For Kepler, "perfect knowledge is always mathematical" (Burtt, Foundations,
67), though he insisted that the observable world would verify correct mathematical constructs (Burtt,
Foundations, 71). His later conflict with the Lutheran Church involved the Lord's Supper, not science.
292. Frankenberry, Faith, 38; for some of his explanations, see Kepler, Astronomy, 59–66, 385–86
(reproduced in Frankenberry, Faith, 47–53). Francis Bacon assigned faith and science to distinct yet valid epistemic spheres, science dealing with empirical data and religion appealing "to revelation and final causes"; nature could not, however, reveal God's character (ibid., 61). Bacon spoke of "our Saviour
Christ" and the Trinity (ibid., 64, 66, citing Bacon, Advancement, 112–13). Pascal was more emphatically
Christocentric (Frankenberry, Faith, 80), valuing experience with God over science for human existence
(material from Pensées in ibid., 100–101).
293. Koestler, "Kepler," 57; see also Frankenberry, Faith, 36–37. Copernicus's approach appealed to Pythagorean and Platonic principles as an alternative to Aristotelianism (Burtt, Foundations, 52–56).
Copernicus was a Catholic Church canon (albeit not a priest) suspected of sympathy with Lutheranism
(see Repcheck, Secret, 68–69, 106–7, 129–31, 163–68; Vanessa Gera, "Astronomer Copernicus reburied as hero," at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100522/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_copernicus_reburied; accessed May 22, 2010). He cited Scripture and, contrary to popular distortions, was supported by some
Protestant church leaders and scholars (Gingerich, "Copernicus," adapted from the then-forthcoming
Gingerich, Book). Copernicus also drew on prior heliocentric thought (Hart, Delusions, 60–62). Copernicus and those who embraced his views found no contradiction with their faith (Danielson, "Demoted"), including Kepler (Danielson, "Demoted," 55–56). Kepler was a Lutheran who preferred Calvin's approach to the Lord's Supper yet rejected predestination (Frankenberry, Faith, 38); he and Galileo both appealed to Plato as a source (Efron, "Christianity," 83), as did the later homology of Richard Owen, on which Darwin drew, and from which Owen inferred a form of theistic evolution (Rupke, "Theory," 140).
294. Koestler, "Kepler," 50; Gingerich, "Scientist," 28; Burtt, Foundations, 60–61; Frankenberry, Faith,
35–36.
295. Burtt, Foundations, 63; Frankenberry, Faith, 34–35 (cf. 56–57, citing Kepler, Harmony, 146–47).
Pythagoras reportedly calculated planetary distances in terms of music (Pliny Nat. 2.20.84); he allegedly meditated on the harmony of the heavenly spheres (Iamblichus V.P. 15.65–66). For the rhythm or music
Proposed Explanations
viewed as one of his crowning achievements his geometric calculations of planetary distances, which have proved faulty.296 His view that mathematics could elucidate the harmony of nature, in accordance with divine design, rests on ancient Greek philosophy.297 He also accepted the widespread notion of his day, astonishing to most readers today, that astrology offered some value.298
Yet despite the faulty premises of much of his sky physics, it led him to reject the widely accepted philosophic necessity of motion in circles, hence cosmic epicycles299 (a view linked with incorrect traditional views of planets' movements).
It also led him to articulate "the three correct laws of planetary motion."300 By contrast, while he came up with the theory of universal gravitation, his ideology led him, like Galileo and Descartes, to reject this theory. It did not serve his system, and gravity as a mysterious force seemed to be a return to medieval mysticism.301
That error could lead Kepler to reject truth is not surprising, but how did erroneous grounds lead him to some true conclusions? Rather than simply accepting consensus, Kepler followed intuitions, some accurate and some inaccurate, and allowed empirical facts to adjust his insights.302
Kepler's explorations illustrate Polanyi's insight about balancing competing tensions. "Unfettered intuitive speculation would lead to extravagant wishful conclusions; while rigorous fulfilment of any set of critical rules would completely paralyse discovery." Thus the scientist's conscience must arbitrate between the two.303
Scholarship should be not reproached for appropriate caution, but it must also be open to a paradigm shift if sufficient neglected evidence is brought to scholars' attention. Contrary to what many people suppose, even the most empirically of heavenly spheres, see, e.g., Cicero Pub. 6.18.18–19; Philo Creation 70; Lucian Dance 8; Maximus of Tyre 37.5 (citing Pythagoras); Menander Rhetor 2.17, 442.28–443.2; cf. Murray, Stages, 175. The praise of heavenly bodies in 1 En. 41:7 might but need not allude to this concept. Aristotle knew the Pythagorean view (Heavens 2.9, 290b.12–29) and argued against it (2.9, 290b.30–291a.26).
296. Burtt, Foundations, 62.
297. Ibid., 69. Similarly, Galileo, ignoring Kepler on planets' elliptical orbits, maintained the mathematically unworkable circular orbits of Copernicus (Hart, Delusions, 66). Meanwhile, Copernicus had maintained them on the ancient grounds that whatever was perfect was circular (62)—what thinkers today might consider circular reasoning.
298. Burtt, Foundations, 69n45, citing here especially Kepler's De Fundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus
(Opera 1.417ff.).
299. Koestler, "Kepler," 55.
300. Ibid., 54.
301. Ibid., 52–54, 57; cf. Frankenberry, Faith, 37.
302. Koestler, "Kepler," 56. For Kepler, error chanced on truth only rarely (McMullin, "Virtues," 499).
303. Polanyi, Science, 41. Licona, Resurrection, 104, cites MIT scientists who suggest that much exploration in science (like much in the humanities) follows the investigator's instincts. Polkinghorne,
Reality, 95, notes that experience (e.g., the quantum world) sometimes exceeds expectations of coherence with conventional theories. Montgomery, "Science," 150–52, complains about a system that forces all data to fit a naturalistic paradigm. Subordinating all particulars to the general, he argues, precludes discovery, and explains why it took science an unnecessary extra half century to discover xenon tetrafluoride and other compounds with inert gases; generalizations based on the periodic table seemed to preclude it. By definition miracles involve particularities hence cannot be dismissed by appealing to general patterns (cf.
Duffin, Miracles, 187).
Biased Standards?
minded disciplines must be open to revising hypotheses.304 I believe that the data available today invite a challenge to Hume's antisupernaturalism; they certainly challenge a major assumption on which Hume builds his case, namely, the denial of credible eyewitnesses.
Academic politics has long played a role in the acceptability of views. Galileo suffered at the hands of fellow academics, in that case with much church backing;305 others suffer from it today, often with much secular backing. Some seventeenthcentury scientists gained cultural prestige for scientific epistemology by demonstrating its utility for religion (hence inadvertently "modernizing" religion), but the social power situation has now reversed, with scientific epistemology not surprisingly holding greater cultural prestige.306 Cultural prestige helps shape the acceptability of views in circles that share those cultural predilections.
Not only philosophic shifts but also academic politics have created the common perception of hostility between science and faith. Yet it was the politics of knowledge, rather than an incompatibility between science and faith for many ordinary scientists and believers, that drove the dichotomy between science and faith.307 The history of that dichotomy has been severely distorted in antireligious polemic.308 Indeed, the myth of opposition between religion and science was cre304. Ecklund, Science, 108, cites physicist Sylvester James Gates Jr., director of String and Particle
Theory at the University of Maryland, as noting that scientists can revise their beliefs in light of new evidence; "Science is about measuring things. It is not about truth, but it is about reducing the falsity of our beliefs"; Polkinghorne, Reality, 3. Similarly, Stephen Jay Gould recognized intuition and cultural shaping as factors in science and why its views change (Mismeasure, 21–23, as cited in Frankenberry, Faith, 259).
305. Galileo and his supporters were no less men of the church than their accusers were (cf. my
141n202; Brooke, Science, 78–79); academic politics drove much of the debate (see, e.g., Hart, Delusions,
62–66; Brooke, Science, 37; Hummel, Connection). Galileo insisted that it was Scripture's interpreters in the church hierarchy, and not Scripture itself, that erred (Frankenberry, Faith, 4, 10, quoting him). His real nemesis was the dominant Aristotelianism (ibid., 8), and he expressly borrowed Augustine's approach to accommodation to articulate and defend his astronomical views as compatible with Scripture (see Lee,
"Galileo"; for Augustine's reading of Genesis in light of the science of his era, see Lindberg, "Rise," 18).
For commonalities between Galileo and Jesuit thinkers, see, e.g., Brooke, "Science," 8. Frankenberry, Faith,
6, contends that the heliocentrism Galileo advocated "was gaining the day within the Catholic hierarchy," but Galileo's overzealous pronouncement on Scripture interpretation created a political reaction. Even the Inquisition torturing or jailing Galileo was a rationalist myth (see Finocchiaro, "Galileo"; sources in Ecklund, Science, 208n1), though he did endure house arrest (Frankenberry, Faith, 6). Meanwhile, painting all religion with the brush of the Inquisition is somewhat analogous (though not in degree) to painting science with the brush of Nazi doctors like Josef Mengele; others (like Wuthnow, "Contradictions," 166) cite the Tuskegee experiment on syphilis-infected African-American men. (Despite the negative legacy of the Inquisition, cf. comments qualifying popular misconceptions in Hart, Delusions, 80–86, following
Kamen, Inquisition, 28–54, 73.) Similarly, many today underline the atheistic ideologies of Hitler and Stalin (e.g., Freeman Dyson's 2000 Templeton Speech [in Frankenberry, Faith, 379–80]; Polkinghorne,
Physics, 14), but one can hardly fault all atheists for their atrocities.
306. Harrison, "Miracles," 510.
307. See Poewe, "Rethinking," 253–54.
308. Cf., e.g., observations in Brooke, "Science," 19; idem, Reconstructing Nature; Barbour, Religion and Science, 24–29, 64–65; Welch, "Myths," 32–33, 35, 37; Wildman, "Quest," 48–49; Lindberg and Numbers,
Essays; Numbers, "Aggressors"; idem, Galileo; Livingstone, Hart, and Noll, Perspective; Livingstone,
Defenders. Note especially biologist Asa Gray, Darwin's contemporary defender in the United States and
Proposed Explanations
ated by some radical French Enlightenment thinkers in the eighteenth century to combat the conservative French Catholic Church, but it thoroughly misrepresents the history of science.309 Two propagandistic books in the late nineteenth century, no longer accepted as accurate accounts, popularized the myth for Anglophone readers.310 The arguments between many theologians and many scientists in some periods have been no greater than arguments among disciplines within the natural sciences themselves.311 What conflicts existed long ago are minimal today;312 indeed, whatever their personal faith, only about 15 percent of elite scientists today accept the conflict paradigm.313 In view of such factors, one may lament that some a committed evangelical; see Livingstone, Defenders, xi, 49, 60–64, 72–73, 76–77, 113, 171; Numbers,
"Aggressors," 28–29. Many evangelicals of Darwin's era (including Gray, Charles Hodge, and B. B. Warfield) viewed evolution as the clearest evidence of design; it was only the attribution of such patterns to pure chance to which they objected (e.g., Livingstone, Defenders, 49, 63–64, 95, 104–5, 116, 135–38; cf. Polkinghorne,
Reality, 39). Darwin himself originally marketed his theory as reflecting divine laws (Moore, "Darwin's
Faith," 146); his Origin of Species (1859) employed "creation and its cognates over one hundred times," opposing "miraculous creation" but affirming a theistic argument "for creation by law" (147). He lost his faith for personal theological reasons, not over evolution per se (146–48), but "never published a word directly against Christianity or belief in God" (151). The alleged witness of his deathbed conversion story is questionable, but she included personal details regarding Darwin's home life difficult for her to have known (148–49).
309. See Lindberg, Beginnings; concisely, idem, "Adversaries" (here esp. 44). On Rousseau and Voltaire and their different forms of deism, see concisely, e.g., Brown, Philosophy, 81–86 (on Voltaire, cf. also idem,
Thought, 288–94; on Rousseau, 294–99; Burne, "Rousseau," 145–47; on Voltaire's racial hierarchies and anti-Semitism, see Herrick, Mythologies, 164); on the influence of English deists on such authors, see Loos, Miracles, 14. On the myth of opposition more recently, see also, e.g., Polkinghorne and Beale,
Questions, 56, 141–42. Some see it as the dominant model (Wiebe, "Compatibility," 169, though going on to note various alternative models). Approaches to the relationship between "science" and "religion" often reify both categories into abstractions, severing them from actual scientists and persons of faith
(Frankenberry, Faith, vii).
310. Hart, Delusions, 56, noting that Draper and White felt free to invent evidence as needed. See
Numbers, "Introduction," 1–3, 6–7; idem, "Aggressors," 31–33; Shank, "Suppressed," 19; Cormack,
"Flat," 28–29; Park, "Dissection," 43, 47–49; Shackelford, "Bruno," 60–61; Principe, "Catholics," 99–100;
Schoepflin, "Anesthesia," 123, 129–30; Livingstone, "Huxley," 153–54; Brooke, Science, 34–36.
311. E.g., when in the nineteenth century physicists insisted (against geologists) that the earth was at most one hundred million years old, and physicists argued whether light consisted of particles or waves
(Gerhart and Russell, "Mathematics," 127). See further Numbers, "Aggressors," 50.
312. So Woodward, Miracles, 22. One might except from this particular spheres of inquiry, particularly arguments raised by young-earth creationists, but most theistic academics (including myself) do not hold that view. Indeed, contrary to popular misperceptions based on a novelistic drama, even populist
Democratic politician William Jennings Bryan, best known for his problematic response to evolution, did not hold that view (Larson, "Trial," 182–84).
313. Ecklund, Science, 19. Fewer than 5 percent are "extremely hostile" (78, 150). Stephen Jay Gould, a respectful agnostic, doubted that science and religion needed to experience conflict (although he denied any overlap in their spheres of inquiry; Gould, Rocks, 4, and Dinosaur, 48, as cited in Frankenberry, Faith,
254, 262; see also comment in Numbers, "Aggressors," 47–48). Although most scientists view fundamentalism (and evangelicalism, which they inaccurately identify with it) negatively, largely because of issues like young-earth creationism, most have a positive view of those seeking to reconcile science and religion
(Ecklund, Science, 46–47, who also notes on 155 that evangelicalism itself is changing). Comparing the views of trained scientists with those of rank-and-file churchgoers might be like comparing biblical scholars with amateur scientists lacking graduate training in science. On average, religious leaders appear more approving of scientific endeavor than scientists of religion (Duffin, Miracles, 185).
Biased Standards?
earlier theologians bought into the Kantian dichotomy between objective reason and subjective faith314 too easily.
Even apart from objections to defining away potential objective grounds for faith and treating God radically differently than less controversial objects of belief, many philosophers of science today recognize that even scientific inquiry is sometimes less than totally objective315 and that theoretical models, necessary as they are in science, inevitably both structure data and ignore some data.316 Although theories provide maps of data and correlations,317 they structure them318 and may be themselves semantically reframed in the light of new data.319 These observations concerning the philosophy of science are also relevant to academic paradigms more generally. Even direct psychological experiments can be distorted by research bias, since researchers' framing of questions or nonverbal cues can inadvertently direct participants toward desired responses.320 The widespread assumption of antisupernaturalism has been allowed to shape academic readings of the data, but scholars have rarely publicly revisited that data with alternative models in mind.
For example, two anthropologists observe that scientists who confine their study to "normal" phenomena reinforce traditional paradigms, but taking into account extensive "anomalous" or extranormal data not readily explained by these paradigms invites "scientific innovations."321
Uneven Criteria As I have attempted to illustrate (and will seek to illustrate concisely but more concretely in ch. 15), many scholars still explain away massive amounts of data based on Humean antisupernaturalism. This approach forces them to apply standards that are inconsistent (as well as hostile to the perspectives of most of the world's cultures). If one applied to the medical profession the criteria that most critics apply to supernatural claims—that is, discounting any cures or remissions that conceivably could occur without intervention—we might have few medical cures.322 Such a test would of course be patently unfair; medical technology dramati314. Cf., e.g., Barbour, Religion and Science, 46–47, for summary; Brown, Philosophy, 94–97; McGowan,
Authenticity, 53. The problem continues today; some speak of religion as "based on feeling" (e.g., d'Aubigne,
"Force," 157, though going on to affirm some value in this; cf. Karle, "No Way," 181–82; perhaps Holley,
"Existence").
315. Maxwell, "Theories," 31; Bird, "Turn," 76.
316. See Hesse, "Language," 72–73; Sankey, "Method," 249–50; cf. Worrall, "Change."
317. Hanson, "Theory," 273.
318. Ibid., 237. Empiricism observes facts, but arrangement and interpretation are necessary for significance (Lonergan, Insight, 411–12; cf. Meyer, Realism, 11–12).
319. Hanson, "Theory," 233–34. Barbour, Religion and Science, 108, warns that "all data are theoryladen" (emphasis his; cf. 125–27).
320. See Pekala and Cardeña, "Issues," 56 (on "demand characteristics").
321. McClenon and Nooney, "Experiences," 57.
322. In one study, treatment by prayer and laying on of hands (which was common, though not ubiquitous, in nt cases of healing) produced results regarding joint swelling comparable to that from some medical treatments and better than those of educational interventions, though this could be partly
Proposed Explanations
cally improves cure rates for most physical disorders. Yet some critics dismiss all claims of supernatural healing by arguing that there are or may be natural analogies to such recoveries on some occasions, a dismissal that seems particularly forced when applied to multiple cases of blind eyes healed or the dead resuscitated after prayer. Likewise, in evaluating cure rates, it is inappropriate to lump genuine physicians with quacks. Yet all supernatural healing claims and claimants are generally lumped together, when in fact cure rates may differ among them.
Some critics of supernatural healing curiously exclude the significance of any healing claims if medical technology could produce the same result.323 Yet this criterion makes little sense in cases where such medical technology was not applied.
The criterion in effect claims that anything that humans could do (even though they did not) cannot be attributed to divine agency, in effect excluding most of the evidence. Most conditions can be cured at least sometimes by medical technology now, and such technology is happily always improving; does this improvement logically reduce the miraculous character of cures earlier or independently occurring without such technology? If so, one could exclude not only cures that can also be duplicated naturally and medically but also those that might conceivably be cured in the future—that is, any cure. But would not such a criterion for miracles, which could effectively eliminate appeal to any claims, ultimately screen out any genuine cases of supernatural causation if there were some?
If so, the criterion decides the debate's outcome by default on the basis of a logically unrelated question; there is no necessary logical relationship between the possibility of an illness being cured medically and the possibility of it being cured supernaturally. That is, one can argue that a person who received curative medical treatment may have been cured by such treatment, but one cannot argue that a person who did not receive such treatment, yet was cured, was cured by such treatment. The potentially medical curability of an illness is therefore not a legitimate criterion for determining the possibility of supernatural involvement in the ailment's cure, when the medical cure was not applied.
Yet a similar prejudicial line of argumentation has long been privileged. Thus, for example, one nineteenth-century skeptic designed his argument to a priori psychosomatic (Matthews, Marlowe, and MacNutt, "Effects," 1185; for the susceptibility of rheumatoid arthritis to "psychosomatic improvements," see Lerman, "Arthritis," as cited in Brown, Mory, Williams, and McClymond, "Effects," 865). The analogy here is limited, since it is supernatural healing and not medical healing that is under dispute in much of our cultural setting. Moreover, it is precarious to cite the results of a single study as representative of what all studies would likely find. Nevertheless, it does illustrate how the criterion would unfairly screen out the vast majority of possible evidence. Further, metaphysical naturalism is disputed by more people in the world than supernatural cures are, so speaking of what is
"under dispute" presupposes particular starting assumptions.
323. Cf. the complaint in Melinsky, Miracles, 157. Critics of supernatural healing might suggest moreover that medical technology reduces a population's overall mortality more than the sum total of individual healings do (cf. Henson, Notes, 18), and where such technology is widely available I presume that this observation normally would be correct. But one should not compare apples and oranges: in Christian tradition miracles are meant to draw attention to God's activity and portend the kingdom, not to cure every affliction in the present.
Biased Standards?
exclude consideration of miracle claims by noting that a naturalistic explanation might eventually emerge.324 That the perpetual limitation of natural knowledge thereby unfairly screened out any possible evidence was not considered; he laid the burden of proof solely on supernatural claims and then placed the bar of proof for them impossibly high. Likewise, T. H. Huxley, following Hume's argument, doubted that any event could be extraordinary enough to justify the claim that its cause was supernatural.325 Some church commissions in the 1920s reflected the same bias, as historian Robert Bruce Mullin observes: "The ground rules that the commissions established in order to validate a healing as miraculous—that is, that it could not merely be inexplicable, but also had to be unique and not found in the annals of either medicine or other religions—almost ensured that no healings would be deemed 'miracles.'"326
By this approach, a skeptic can reject a supernatural explanation even when lacking a specific, plausible natural one by simply averring that a natural explanation may be forthcoming.327 The committed skeptic can then insist that this as-yet unfulfilled potentiality must be superior to any supernatural explanation. Yet with sufficient ingenuity and confidence that a naturalistic explanation is necessary, it is inevitable that naturalistic solutions (often competing, mutually contradictory ones) will emerge.328 That inevitability does not, however, guarantee that they will be good explanations or that they will not force too much of the evidence. As one scholar suggests, appealing to "as yet unknown laws of nature" to explain "even raisings from the dead" yields "a tremendous implausibility."329 Such deferred natural explanations are rendered the only possible interpretations merely by the a priori exclusion of the possibility of nonnatural interpretations.330
324. John Tyndall, in Mullin, Miracles, 42.
325. Ibid. Huxley's famous debate with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce reflected a generational conflict over how science should be conducted (Livingstone, "Huxley," 158); contrary to subsequent literary traditions, little is actually known of the content or outcome of the debate (Livingstone, "Huxley").
326. Mullin, Miracles, 248.
327. So Alexis Carrel regarding Lourdes, in Flach, Faith, 40; the position noted in Basinger and Basinger,
"Concept," 166; Phillips, "Miracles," 35 (demurring); Larmer, "Criteria" (arguing against it). Cf. Frank,
Persuasion, 58: the world is full of "inexplicable cures," so assumptions determine whether one views their cause as divine. Frank's objection (lodged against claims at Lourdes) is logically correct as far as it goes, but I believe that it neglects the cumulative weight of numerous such cures during prayer.
328. Because science by its historic nature is methodologically committed to finding natural explanations, it may view even the greatest of anomalies as having natural explanations (cf. Fern, "Critique,"
347–48). Some go so far as to concede that instant healings occur (Diamond, "Miracles," 311) but refuse to interpret them supernaturally lest naturalistic science be stripped of its autonomy (321). Because we have compartmentalized epistemological approaches in different disciplines, science that seeks naturalistic explanations is doing what it is designed to do, but we must correspondingly recognize that it is not designed to answer or pronounce on other (nonnaturalistic) questions. As noted in chs. 5–6, the view that there is no reality outside of naturalistic explanations is simply a presupposition.
329. Purtill, "Proofs," 48 (regarding raisings in the Gospels). Revising laws of nature to explain anomalies is sometimes harder than simply accepting anomalies (Levine, Problem, 180); see discussion in ch. 5.
330. Larmer, "Evidence," 51; cf. Duffin, Miracles, 186–87, 189, highlighting the fideism involved in such an approach.
Proposed Explanations
Thus, for example, one writer insists that cures at Lourdes so far never known to remit naturally might involve some exceedingly rare circumstance like the combination of a particular blood type with the chemical waters at Lourdes. Even if this combination went undetected because it occurred only "once in every ten million persons,"331 the author contends, once eventually discovered it could be subsumed under a new scientific rule. The author considers such a yet-undiscovered scientific explanation, which allows prediction, preferable to accepting as divine mystery the question of why some are healed and others are not.332 Despite possible theological solutions,333 he considers the theological quandary more difficult than the extraordinarily low probability of his alternate explanation and uses the former to justify supporting the latter.
That is, his approach simply rules out from the start the possibility of a supernatural explanation (the explanation normally offered by the event's immediate witnesses).
Nevertheless, perceptions of plausibility are shaped partly by presuppositions about what sorts of explanations are open to consideration. That is, the skeptic, as noted earlier, may in effect simply rule out the possibility of supernatural explanations a priori.334 That seems to be the case in the hypothetical example just offered.
Analyses show that there is nothing particularly unusual about the bathing water at Lourdes—except that it is heavily contaminated with bacteria that nevertheless seem to fail to infect the bathers.335 I am not Catholic, but I think that attributing the cures to chemical properties in the shrine's water is an extraordinarily implausible explanation.
Presuppositions and Burden of Proof Such a methodology typically dismisses appeals to supernatural explanations as a tenuous god-of-the-gaps approach, since a nonsupernatural explanation may eventually emerge.336 But when a supernatural explanation seems the most plau331. Diamond, "Miracles," 314.
332. Ibid., 315.
333. While I defer that extensive discussion to theologians, one historical and philosophic factor already noted may be kept in mind. I argued earlier that the behavior of personal beings, which function at a high level of complexity, is not predictable in terms of scientific laws in the same way that less complex nature
(e.g., particles) is. This unpredictability would be even more the case for a superintelligent personality not a part of nature. Miracles are meant to be special foretastes of the future kingdom rather than the new ordinary expectation of the present.
334. As noted in ch. 5, the skeptic who is inflexibly dogmatic against miracles in effect presupposes atheism or deism, hence cannot admit evidence contrary to his or her position.
335. Cranston, Miracle, 59, notes that "chemically . . . the water of the Spring at Lourdes contains no curative or medicinal properties whatever" (emphasis hers; cf. also 259); on 58–59, she gives reports showing that chemically it is merely normal mountain drinking water. One might expect the waters to breed infection rather than the reverse, with more than two thousand bathing per day, some afflicted by syphilis or tuberculosis (56–57); but she argues (56) that infections are not known to result. She notes (58–60) that the water is heavily polluted bacterially, yet testing showed that none of these microbes (some normally harmful) caused harm to test animals. On 60 she notes that test animals injected with water considered comparable did become infected. See also Woodard, Faith, 58–59.
336. E.g., Mott, "Science," 66, though he believes that theism is the only valid explanation for human consciousness, which he thinks will remain a permanent "gap." If "miracle" is defined only as what cannot be
Biased Standards?
sible explanation to the average observer genuinely not yet committed to either thoroughgoing naturalism or the possibility of supernatural action (in a case such as the raising of a dead person immediately after prayer), this objection may itself be susceptible to the label of a naturalism-of-the-gaps approach—except without any discernible gap.337 It rejects a plausible theistic explanation on the grounds explained based on current scientific knowledge, some argue, current "miracles of the gaps" could eventually be eliminated (Langford, "Problem," 47; cf. Basinger and Basinger, "Concept," 165–67). But again, even where natural explanations are possible for details, theism allows that God often (or even usually) works through nature; when this activity through nature cumulatively suggests purpose (as perhaps in the case of highly unusual miracles), the possibility of explaining mechanisms of particular details should not distract one from recognizing the larger structure of purpose (a recognition accepted, for example, with respect to cultivated fields or human inventions making intelligent use of natural substances).
337. See Moreland, "Miracles," 145–46; Licona, Resurrection, 586; cf. similar language on a different issue in Dembski and Wells, Atheist, 95. The objection is possible, but it is a defensive argument from silence and thus cannot be used to rule out the hypothesis of theism (esp. where an external intelligence best accounts for the composite activity of the first cells). A philosophically neutral approach cannot simply presuppose that there are no natural gaps (Collins, "Miracles," 26), any more than presupposing that there must be such gaps; cf. Geivett, "Value," 184: "Failure to eliminate the possibility of a naturalistic explanation does not entail that a naturalistic explanation currently exists or is close at hand." To rule out miraculous explanations a priori by appealing to as-yet undiscovered laws is to stack the deck of the debate unfairly.
An article in 1924 noted that appeals to "latent laws of nature" constituted de facto tacit admissions of the lack of a satisfactory alternative (Everts, "Exorcist," 360). In 1925, Tennant, Miracle, 29–30, 65, 67, suggested that on an empirical approach one could not prove miracles, because nature is not exhaustively known (noting that science as such can neither affirm nor deny divine activity). Yet Tennant also allowed
(cf. Miracle, 54–55, 58, 66) that miracles can more tentatively suggest faith. Without entering a debate about macroevolution more generally (many accept it as compatible with theism, though others have demurred), one may note that naturalistic critics of "god-of-the-gaps" approaches often fail to observe a similar tendency among some traditional evolutionary ethicists when they offer positive evolutionary "motives" for the emergence of each trait (cf. "teleonomy" in evolutionary biology, e.g., in Eccles, "Evolution," 117–18; complaint in Nickles, "Discovery," 447–48; against full "genetic determinism," see, e.g., Polkinghorne and Beale, Questions, 78–80, 149–50). That is, some evolutionary approaches almost suggest, despite their rejection of such language, positive evolutionary "design," in contrast to what one would expect from merely random mutations. In addition to some models today providing too much explanation, cf. the more explicitly goal-directed pre-Darwinian evolutionary models in Kuhn, Structure, 171; Barbour, Religion and Science, 54–55; or early theistic evolution in Livingstone, Defenders; Ramm, View, 186, 198–202. Many reject "laws" and speak only of evolutionary "trends" (e.g., Popper, Historicism, 107–8); nevertheless, even as a trend it seems significant that the complexity involved in human intelligence emerges (naturally much later in the process rather than earlier). Despite various levels of "conscious purpose" in higher mammals (cf. Eccles, "Evolution," 118–32), survival of the fittest alone seems an inadequate mechanism to explain high levels of abstract thinking, especially as achieved in a species less than a million years old.
(Davies, "Effectiveness," 55, thus asks what value human mathematical ability had for survival in the jungle). (Although other explanations are possible, some also protest naturalistic evolutionary attempts to explain the persistence of religion; see Haught, Atheism, 58–59.) Some therefore find theistic teleology in evolution, against others who define it as purely nondirected; see, e.g., Gingerich, "Scientist" (a Harvard professor of astronomy and history of science; he objects to the necessity of assigning all development to randomness, 30); Polkinghorne and Beale, Questions, 51; see extended and nuanced discussion (emphasizing "directionality") in McGrath, Universe, 183–201. Evolution seems to work randomly at a smaller level, but there is increasing information and complexity in some forms (see Barbour, Religion and Science,
237–40, also addressing theological approaches to this data; on 246–47 he sees God as designer of the selforganizing system; cf. Templeton, "Introduction," 11–12, 17–19; Davies, "Effectiveness," 56), like homo sapiens (the intellectual capabilities of which do not surface randomly throughout evolutionary history; however explained, the increasing complexity of some forms is "directional"). Polkinghorne, "Universe,"
Proposed Explanations
that a plausible nontheistic position may emerge. Nontheistic explanations frequently do emerge; while not all of these are indisputable (often they compete), often emerging natural solutions are correct (even if a theist would still see God ultimately behind them).
But to argue that because explanations based on special divine action have sometimes been rightly displaced that all supernatural explanations ought to be displaced reflects a logical fallacy (generalizing based on particular cases). Why then do we not have many cases of the reverse, nonsupernatural explanations being displaced in the academy by supernatural ones? One might suggest that some antisupernatural explanations for the instant healing of blind eyes or raising of dead persons might have been displaced by theistic explanations had the latter been an acceptable option within academia. When the academy explicitly excludes the possibility (or at least the academic respectability) of supernatural explanations, however, it is next to impossible to find an academic defense of such explanations, except in the few disciplines that allow them. This does not mean that such explanations are indefensible; it means that various specialties' exclusion of such an appeal from their purview at the start have made it impossible for them to address it. Recall again that those disciplines that often do allow evaluation of such explanations, such as theology, are often marginalized from the epistemological center of modern academia.
To rule out theistic explanations wherever a nontheist expects potential for a nontheistic explanation reflects a presupposed preference for any nontheistic explanation. Theists are within their epistemological rights to demur from such an approach. Were we to apply the principle of deferred certainty to knowledge in general, we could never offer claims about anything.338 Indeed, our inadequate knowledge of nature's positive limits does not mean that there are no cases where we cannot appeal to its negative ones; we may be fairly confident, for example, that some things are not explicable in terms of mere human ability.339 Thus, Christian
106, suggests that the place to discern design is "in the fundamental structure of the universe," the intelligence and benevolence implied in natural laws. Hearn, "Purpose," 69, employs the analogy between studying the chemical activity of pen, ink, and paper (for traditional scientific approaches) and the communication an author uses these mechanical processes to convey; cf. similarly Osmond, "Physiologist,"
163–64 (following MacKay, Science), for analogies of large-scale purpose not always seen at the level of detail. On "organized" complexity, suggesting information input, see, e.g., Davies, "Effectiveness," 45–46; at length, Dembski, Inference. Many argue that mere genetic accumulation of information in the course of evolution does not readily explain the initial infusion of information into the most basic organisms, apart from (on a theistic view) a preexisting superintelligence. Gaps in our knowledge do limit the completeness of our explanations (cf. Osmond, "Physiologist," 164–65, citing Goudge, Ascent, 127–28). To posit explanations for phenomena after the event (whether in terms of survival of the fittest or intelligence) can make sense within a coherent philosophic system, but such explanations lack the scientific persuasiveness offered in accurate predictions. (Theists and randomness advocates could both prescind from requiring such predictions of themselves, although they would do so for different reasons.)
338. See Tonquédec, Miracles, 56–57. The appropriateness of tentativeness must vary according to the strength of the information we have available.
339. Sabourin, Miracles, 16, doubting that a human command stilling a storm will ever be explicable naturalistically (i.e., in terms of mere biology).
Biased Standards?
doctors often recognize cases where naturalistic explanations are inadequate and "cannot identify the parameters of knowledge within which these events might be explained in any future development of the scientific approach."340
Granted that a supernatural interpretation presupposes the existence of something supernatural, the ruling out of such an interpretation presupposes the nonexistence of anything supernatural, and in some cases a supernatural explanation
(such as theism) provides a more plausible explanation than coincidence would.341
The antisupernaturalist position assumes that a theist may claim an event to be miraculous in public discourse only if the skeptic is persuaded that there is no possible natural explanation, even though the ideal skeptic claims a priori that all events could have a possible natural explanation. That is, skeptics "have laid out the rules of the game in such a way that they cannot possibly lose."342 To simply predicate naturalistic causes for all purported extranormal phenomena, even if a naturalistic explanation proves far less plausible than a supernatural one, is to make one's position unfalsifiable343—hence to withdraw from genuine participation in public discourse.344
Since science does not claim comprehensive knowledge of the universe, it cannot conclusively demonstrate that particular miracle claims are outside the realm of natural possibility.345 Neither, however, can it exclude supernatural activity; in fact, affirming or denying divine activity requires a broader philosophic or theological framework than the questions that science as science is specifically competent to address. Such an observation suggests the limits of scientific epistemology rather than the impossibility or complete epistemic inaccessibility of miracles.346
Nevertheless, we do have degrees of probability, and statistics suggest that most observers would conclude that some reports in this book, if authentic, make better sense on the premise of supernatural action than without it.
Although observers must periodically revise putative laws of nature to fit new data, this approach is sometimes more difficult than simply admitting anomalies.347
340. Lees and Fiddes, "Healed," 13.
341. On the assumption of theism in appeals to miracle, see Purtill, "Defining Miracles," 70. See my notes on coincidence as an explanation in chs. 14, 15 (esp. 736, 758) and appendix E.
342. Corduan, "Miracle," 101 (cf. also 106–7).
343. As noted by Geisler, "Miracles," 83. Likewise, Corduan, "Miracle," 110, complains that Flew's insistence on falsifiability for theism challenges the unfalsifiability of his own insistence on interpreting all miracle claims naturalistically.
344. Cf. also Corduan, "Miracle," 107.
345. See Carter, "Recognition." While some seek to dismiss miracle claims based on as-yet undiscovered laws, one could as easily appeal to unknown law to support them (e.g., Mozley, Lectures, 113) if the unknown law were a higher order representing divine activity (130).
346. Cf. comments in Ellens, "God and Science," 5.
347. Levine, Problem, 180. Such revision fits Hume's approach (Mumford, "Laws," 279) but is not always the most probable approach unless one must fit all evidence into an antisupernaturalist paradigm.
Some seek coherence by finding theories to accommodate all the evidence within a naturalistic paradigm
(a position noted in Weintraub, "Credibility," 372), but the limitation of the paradigm to metaphysical naturalism can (and in my view does) arbitrarily force the evidence.
Proposed Explanations
In some cases, however, including, I believe, some miracle claims I have noted, allowing the hypothesis of a supernatural agent348 might explain the circumstances better than either alternative. If allowance for supernatural agency is built into one's worldview, then miracles might be as much a part of the way things are as the ordinary course of nature is; they are simply not predictable based on lower-level physical laws because personal agents acting in history are not predictable based on those laws.
Other Complications Even apart from such factors, it is difficult to procure statistics for supernatural healing claims here; although many pray for recoveries today and recoveries often follow, the heyday of large-scale and dramatic healing revivalism in the United
States fell in the mid-twentieth century, and it is now far more popular in the Majority World.349 The samples above also suggest that supernatural healing claims are and have always been more common in new evangelistic contexts,350 thus in settings least accessible to modern controlled clinical studies.351 Likewise, they are reported especially among the poor,352 those with least access to medical in348. See discussion in chs. 5–6. As noted, scientific method tests hypotheses rather than ruling out their possibility without testing; what is illegitimate is refusal to allow one's hypothesis to be challenged
(a refusal observed in instances above where no amount of evidence for supernatural activity is accepted).
On "critical realism concerning theoretical models," see Barbour, Myths, 37–38.
349. On the shift, see Harrell, "Divine Healing," 227; also noted in Stewart, Only Believe, 106–7. In the Majority World, as in the U.S. revivals, the movement again is especially among the poor who are least likely to afford hospitals, where strict medical records are kept. (In Taiwan, tribal Christians reported many healings of cancer, whereas nontribal Christians reported them only rarely; see Chin, "Practices,"
29.) Not every individual who prays necessarily exhibits the same charism of healing (cf. 1 Cor 12:9), nor are all settings equally conducive to it. I point this out with respect to some studies that I do not believe are looking in the most effective places.
350. So, e.g., Fant, Miracles, 108 ("on the mission fields"); McKenzie, "Miracles," 82–84; for applicability to church growth, e.g., Kwon, "Foundations," 187–90; for examples of the abundance in such settings, see, e.g., Grant, "Folk Religion" (cited in Filson, "Study," 137–38); Suico, "Pentecostalism," 356; Braun,
Here, 160; Wilfred Mina, interview, Jan. 24, 2009 (on seeing miracles regularly in an evangelism context in rural northern Luzon, Philippines). Historically, see Latourette, History of Christianity, 344; Tucker,
Jerusalem, 41; and comments in ch. 10. Many also expect them in such settings for theological reasons; see, e.g., Solomon, "Healing," 364; Dunkerley, Healing Evangelism, 17–33, 112; Lloyd-Jones, Spirit, 49; Go,
"Ministry" (summary on ii); Gideon Achi, interview, May 25, 2009; cf. the connection with the kingdom in Cho, "Foundation," 90–94; with "outsiders" in Crump, Knocking, 43. Percy, "Miracles," 13–14, notes that Jesus focused on the excluded, and contrasts the frequent inward focus of modern healing movements.
Many also argue that God performs miracles more typically where needs are greater (hence in Indonesia more than in the United States, in Tari, Wind, 104–5).
351. A Victorian skeptic posed the initial demand for controlled studies regarding prayer (Opp, Lord for Body, 15; Numbers, "Aggressors," 34–35; Mullin, History, 202, on John Tyndall). This approach perhaps characterized Victorian-era skepticism more generally; some "scientists publicly ridiculed church leaders who prayed for God's intervention against the cholera epidemic of 1866, denounced prayer as a form of superstition, and charged the church with" resisting progress (Wuthnow, "Contradictions," 163).
352. See, e.g., Währisch-Oblau, "Healthy," 97; Chevreau, Turnings, 16–17; MacNutt, Healing, 26–27;
Bomann, Faith in Barrios; idem, "Salve."
Biased Standards?
tervention and thus the greatest need for supernatural intervention, but again among populations less apt to have doctors' reports than typical Westerners today would.353 Thus one can accumulate thousands of testimonies and in some cases secure before-and-after medical documentation,354 but these accounts do not easily yield to controlled experiments, just as some other sorts of evidence, such as any unrepeatable historical acts, do not.355
Another catch-22 in addressing antisupernaturalism is that the more dramatic and demonstrable the cure claim, the less likely it is to be accepted.356 An antisupernaturalist would be more disposed to accept healing claims that can be explained psychosomatically, precisely because they need not entail belief in the supernatural.357 An antisupernaturalist (albeit undoubtedly some others as well, given the claims' rareness) would thus be more disposed to reject claims such as these: a woman who had had her fingers partly amputated on one hand was healed of cancer. The fingers grew back after prayer, and "finger-nails are also forming."358
At age twenty-seven, Agatha Okafor of Port Harcourt, Nigeria, still lacked adult breasts; during prayer one day her breasts fully formed, and she went on to mother
353. Laurentin, Miracles, 15, 38, 89–90, develops the difficulty of this problem.
354. Though in many of these healing settings, people are mostly poor and lack access to empirical medical treatment, probably another factor in their dependence on other forms of healing.
355. Probably even less to deliberately skeptical settings inimical to faith, which may be one reason why
Randi, Healers, 309–10, has had few takers, despite his commendable exposés of some clearly fraudulent healers. On the difference between historical and scientific language, see, e.g., Ramsey, "Miracles," 10.
Even sciences addressing the past, "such as cosmology and evolutionary biology," necessarily depend on observation rather than experimentation (Polkinghorne, Physics, 11; cf. 9).
356. Cf. Wei, "Young," 337: a "miracle" that resembles natural events is credible, but one cannot appeal to God as an explanation; if it is "incredible," like biblical miracles, it must normally be "suspect."
That is, the verdict remains as rigged against the consideration of divine activity as it has remained since the Enlightenment. Hume claimed that if uniform experience counts against miracles, one should not believe them; if it does not, then one cannot know that it is a miracle (a position noted in Mumford,
"Laws," 279; countered in Hambourger, "Belief," 600), a position that underestimates the potential role of greater frequency of such events in specifically theistic contexts. Warfield, Miracles, 191, contends that faith healing (as he knew it through Charles Cullis's views) could not and did not claim to cure broken bones or missing teeth—a limitation no longer applicable to all miracle healing claims.
357. Warfield, Miracles, 119, complains that the claim of a Jansenist who lacked legs, as attested by two surgeons, yet grew them miraculously, is simply unbelievable.
358. This amazed the neighbors, who knew she had had fingers missing—see "Amputated Fingers"
(1926); I do not report this account with confidence that it is correct, given the inadequate verification offered. Poloma, Assemblies, 273n3, notes that claims of raisings and restored limbs in early Pentecostal literature do not appear in more recent U.S. Assemblies publications, whether due to a change in the movement or an increase in verification standards (one might factor into this discussion also a shift in plausibility structures; having sampled early Pentecostal literature, I am inclined to admit any of the three explanations, including the first, for various reports). Rumph, Signs, 131–36, cites a much more recent case of an adult's partly amputated finger gradually growing back after prayer and dreams about restoration, even though this is medically impossible by natural means. Cf. also the claim of restored appendages in Clark, Impartation, 166. Other astonishing claims include the survival of someone who had bled to death (though the recovery was not instantaneous; Marszalek, Miracles, 45–51), and full recovery of her completely brain-damaged infant within four days (Marszalek, Miracles, 50–51); the gradual re-formation of an adult's bones and leg after amputation beneath the knee (Marszalek,
Miracles, 194–96).
Proposed Explanations
five children.359 A Western minister reports a case in Ghana of a leg severed beneath the knee miraculously growing back.360 An eyewitness who prayed for a twelve-year-old boy in Bogota, Colombia, with a deformed hand reports seeing the half-inch fingers all grow out to three inches over the course of an hour and a half of prayer.361 In another case, the morning after prayer for a different need, a nearly bald woman awoke with hair, now a few inches in length.362 Another source reports that a partially severed thumb grew out instantly.363 Witnesses, including quite reluctant but certain ones, report God filling the teeth of poor persons who could not afford fillings.364 In one report, a misshapen skull was visibly healed.365
Perhaps most dramatically, even a local newspaper reported a boy able to see through his artificial eye!366 Various eyewitnesses claim the instant and visible
359. An account attested both by the preacher and by Mrs. Okafor, now a grandmother, in Numbere,
Vision, 78 (the photo on 150 attests her breasts and reveals that she was physically small). Alfred Cookey, himself soon converted at one of the crusades, was astonished by the public testimony of an obese woman who claimed she lost her obesity overnight; he knew that she had that weight the day before and no longer had it now (Numbere, Vision, 131); both continued as part of the new movement (132).
360. Robertson, Miracles, 176–77, providing further details from T. L. Osborn about a man in one of his meetings in Ghana; see also Harrell, Robertson, 317. Such reports are not common today and do not appear in the Gospels or Acts.
361. Videotaped interview from August 2007, provided courtesy of Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, who addresses healing claims from a sociological perspective. Salmon, Heals, 135–37, reports a basic hand and fingers beginning to form over a two-year period in a child that lacked a hand at age three; unlike the report in Brown's interview, Salmon's might be conceivable naturalistically, but developments even in the first month of growth (137) were remarkable. The healing of the deformed hand in 135 appears to be a different and also remarkable case.
362. Jackson, Quest, 85, recounting the experience of his wife's previous roommate after prayer in Calvary Chapel, San Diego. I am convinced of the integrity of both Bill Jackson and his wife, Betsy, whom I met and my brother knows well (hence I am personally inclined to take the informants for this report more seriously than the 1926 "Amputated Fingers" report noted above but for which I have no personal context).
363. Bill Johnson's church website, Oct. 9, 2007.
364. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 175–84 (for the reluctant witness, 176–77, 184); Bonnie Ortiz
(interview, Jan. 10, 2009); Kumsook Cho, interview, Jan. 24, 2009; frequent claims in Argentina cited in Marostica, "Learning," 216; the old, unusual report in McGee, Miracles, 72. For what appears to be a fake case of such fillings, see Bishop, Healing, 199–203 (the healer's use of a dental mirror on 200); in the other accounts with which I am familiar, however, the minister did not touch the healed persons' teeth.
365. Lindsay, Lake, 57. Cf. also the gradual reshaping of a child's apparently Down syndrome features noted by Lee Don Coffee, phone interview, July 7, 2009.
366. "Ronnie Coyne," including information from a medical doctor and copies of the optometrist's report and the news article from Chattanooga News-Free Press [i.e., Times Free Press], which also quotes a doctor: "It's amazing. . . . There's absolutely nothing in the eye except fatty tissue. The organ has been entirely removed." Even VOH rarely has material this extraordinary with outside documentation. Among other exceptions, it does include a testimony of severed vocal cords being miraculously healed (Phillips,
"Restored"); four years later the girl had even sung on the radio (idem, "Sings"). Mike Finley provided me access to these articles. As we have noted, at Lourdes the functionality of an organ the functionality of which is medically impossible, such as seeing through eyes the optic nerves of which remain atrophied, appears as a special miracle (Cranston, Miracle, 136). McGee, Miracles, 203, concisely lists Coyne among fraudulent claims, but unfortunately does not provide the reasons; one witness I trust noted what he suspected were spiritual deficiencies in Coyne's later meetings, but that he could not explain Coyne's visual ability (personal correspondence, Dec. 27, 2010).
Biased Standards?
disappearance of lumps.367 We may deem such reports true or false (or some true and others false), but our usual intuitive response to such claims highlights our modern Western discomfort with them, providing some perspective regarding our presuppositions about how we approach ancient healing claims.368 While some such reports may be false, to reject all eyewitness claims to such extraordinary miracles on the premise that they cannot occur returns to Hume's circular logic.
On the same sort of principle, scholars often a priori exclude the possibility of nature miracles, but this exclusion involves content criticism rather than any formal distinction in the Gospels; nature miracles are not formally different from others.369
Indeed, the category is not only not formal but also is too arbitrary to function as a content category. As C. F. D. Moule observes, the category is unsatisfactory "because it implies . . . that there is an order of regularity and consistency in it different from that which obtains in the personal realm. It suggests an a priori assumption that you could not alter the weather but you might change a personality; and this is an arbitrary assumption."370 Do healing a cancer within a person or restoring life after the brain has died not affect the course of nature simply because they involve the human body? (Our body is, after all, part of nature, as all of us who are aging can testify.) Like other miracle claims, those concerning nature miracles have appeared through history and today, as I have noted in chapter 12.371 Decisions about their potential historicity depend on one's presuppositions about what is
367. Kim, "Prominent Woman," 205; Spraggett, Kuhlman, 141; Harris, Acts Today, 100–101; Moreland,
Triangle, 169; Brown, "Awakenings," 363; Zagrans, Miracles, 100 (a visible facial tumor disappeared within five minutes of prayer); Bill Twyman, interview, Nov. 11, 2007; Eleanor Sebiano, interview, Jan. 29, 2009;
Yusuf Herman, interview, July 10, 2011; Marie Brown (personal correspondence, May 31, 2006).
368. Cf. the convincing nature of such events, if proved, even to firm extreme cessationists, though in principle they would insist on rejecting them (see Ruthven, Cessation, 65). Whatever one makes of some of these examples, some even more radical claims reported in Wacker, Heaven Below, 93, would strike even the least skeptical readers as implausible.
369. See, e.g., Robinson, "Challenge," 329; for Bultmann's skeptical treatment of nature miracles, see, e.g., Bultmann, Tradition (1963 ed.), 227–28. Like many, Carlston, "Question," accepts the healing narratives (where he engages the question of divine activity) as more authentic than the nature miracles.
Others have defended the nature miracles (e.g., Fonck, Wunder, 1:127–469, as cited in Sabourin, Miracles,
247), though some have relegated them only to the past, for theological reasons (Dod, "Healer," 176).
370. Moule, "Classification," 240; cf. similar criticisms in Neil, "Nature Miracles," 370; Best, "Miracles,"
548. Collins, Introduction, 176, refers to Bultmann's distinction between nature and healing miracles as "a confusion in the categorization of the Gospel material on the basis of form and content." Wright,
"Miracles," 190, treats "nature miracles" as a misnomer, since physical healings also involve nature. Eve,
Healer, 113–16, argues for formal differences between nature miracles and other miracles in Mark but acknowledges that this argument is "cumulative," with no single criterion adequate to distinguish them
(115). Eve uses ot echoes (Eve, Healer, 150–56) and other features to try to set these miracle stories apart from others historically, but such allusions (e.g., to Jonah in the lake-crossing account) seem inadequate to explain the composition of these full stories, within a generation after Jesus's execution.
371. E.g., Yung, "Integrity," 174; McGee, "Regions Beyond," 70; Hellestad, "Prayer," 16–17; Kinnear,
Tide, 92–96; Khai, "Pentecostalism," 268; Peckham, Sounds, 106, 113; Koschorke, Ludwig, and Delgado,
History, 223–24; Sanneh, West African Christianity, 181–83; Dayhoff, "Barros"; Bush and Pegues, Move,
54–55, 59, 64, 192; Koch, Revival, 143–46, 208–17; Wiyono, "Timor Revival," 285–86, 288; Crawford,
Miracles, 28, 75; Harris, Acts Today, 66–67, 80; Chavda, Miracle, 9–10, 128–29; Numbere, Vision, 130,
206–7, 213, 266; Dunkerley, Healing Evangelism, 112; Castleberry, "Impact," 111–12; Paul Mokake,
Proposed Explanations
possible and one's verdict on the general historical reliability of the traditions and narratives in which they occur.372
When healing or other miracle reports are ancient, new complications are added.373 As one scholar observes, "The task is complicated as well by the simple fact that the historian must work with historical probabilities, while miracle stories are concerned by definition with the occurrence of historical improbabilities."374
With ancient sources, medical documentation in the modern sense is never available, nor can one interrogate the eyewitnesses. One can work only on the basis of normal historiographic method and one's presuppositions about what is possible
(formed partly from philosophic a prioris and partly from analogies with subsequent historical and current evidence).
It is important to take into account the observation that signs claims and skeptical studies usually focus on different kinds of examples. Although studies' conclusions vary, some studies suggest no effect when persons (at least those chosen for controlled studies) prayed for hospitalized people whom they did not know, without the hospitalized persons' knowledge, primarily for the purpose of scientific studies.375 Several other studies have yielded more positive results, but all the studies are preliminary.376 For example, one study of 990 coronary care patients showed an 11 percent difference in positive outcomes for those who received intercessory prayer,377 but many have questioned the study. (Larger numbers might be needed to rule out coincidence and bias, but the larger the pool of data, the less obvious the effects of any genuinely supernatural individual cases, if these prove rare in such settings.) There are also significant individual cases of extraordinary, probably natural inexplicable, recoveries during distant intercessory prayer,378 but these have not been identified in the fewer controlled studies. interviews, June 3, 2006; May 13, 2009; Emmanuel Itapson, interview, April 29, 2008; Sandy Thomas, phone interview, Aug. 26, 2008; Donna Arukua, interview, Jan. 29, 2009; Kay Fountain, interview, Jan. 29, 2009.
372. Stanton, "Message and Miracles," 67; Blomberg, Gospels, 130–33.
373. With Jaki, Miracles and Physics, 95.
374. Williams, Miracle Stories, 143.
375. Bishop and Stenger, "Prayer," argue that prayer studies do not demonstrate the efficacy of prayer.
Johnson and Butzen, "Prayer," 251–54, also find them inconclusive.
376. For one example, in a masked, random test of the effect of prayer on the success of in vitro fertilization in 219 patients, those who unknowingly received prayer had a 50 percent pregnancy rate as opposed to those who did not (26 percent; Cha, Wirth, and Lobo, "Prayer," esp. 786–87); on theistic premises, results might vary with different persons praying or other factors. When verifiable cures are rare, it "denies science the necessary frequency of occurrence of a phenomenon to warrant the use of statistical methods"
(Eya, "Healing," 50; cf. Duffin, Miracles, 34–35). But Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 199–200, cite significant effects in Byrd, "Effects" (also noted in Matthews, Larson, and Barry, Bibliography, 44–45, as well executed but needing further studies); also in Collipp, "Efficacy" (45 percent higher among leukemia patients prayed for; but Collipp's sample size was too small for safe extrapolation; note Matthews, Larson, and Barry, Bibliography, 52); Beutler et al., "Healing."
377. Harris et al., "Trial" (also noted in "Prayer and Outcomes").
378. Note again the case of Matthew Dawson of New Zealand, cited earlier (based on Matthew Dawson, personal correspondence, March 29, 2009; April 3–4, 2009). Other cases of distant intercessory prayer having immediate effects have long been reported (e.g., cases in Glover, "Healings," 15; to his surprise,
Biased Standards?
Evaluating such studies can prove complicated. In one extensive study of 1,802 coronary patients, those who were notified that they would receive distant prayer fared worse in "post-operative complications" than those who were not (possibly due to performance anxiety),379 and those who received prayer unknowingly fared worse than those who did not receive it.380 No one, including skeptics about prayer's efficacy, would say that prayer itself made matters worse. But the study reveals the complications in seeking to measure such processes. In such studies, we cannot quantify the results of prayers from those personally committed to patients both inside and outside the control group, who were not among the study's intercessors.381
Since 96 percent of participants in this study acknowledged that people they knew were praying for them (presumably praying more fervently than most strangers would have been), it is not clear that the distant intercessors added significantly to any effect of petitions already occurring.382 Moreover, intercessors chosen for some studies came from various religions and traditions, and prayed in various ways.383 A number of intercessors from the traditions emphasized in this book, accustomed to laying on hands and praying in particular ways, felt too constricted by the controls to pray in their usual way.384 Nor do most Christians expect God's intervention to relate to prayer quantitatively, as if God were a mathematical function rather than a personal being.385 Would God favor someone or not because they belonged to a control group?386
Clinical settings differ from the usual setting of both biblical387 and subsequent healing claims, in terms of objectives, interest, and the infirm person's knowledge.388
Blumhardt found occasions he believed effective through his correspondence, in Ising, Blumhardt, 216,
218, 331–33), but even in the Gospels (Matt 8:13//Luke 7:10; John 4:50–53) and Acts (cf. Acts 12:5, not regarding healing) these were a small minority of cases, perhaps requiring special faith (Matt 8:8–10//
Luke 7:6–9).
379. Fung and Fung, "Prayer Studies," 44, note that this is the hypothesis offered by the study's authors.
380. For this study, see Benson et al., "Study."
381. Cf. the concerns raised in one study cited in Masters, "Prayer," 17.
382. Fung and Fung, "Prayer Studies," 44.
383. E.g., of the distant intercessor groups in the study where patients fared worse, the only Protestant group represented belonged to the New Thought group Unity (Brown, Mory, Williams, and McClymond,
"Effects," 865), although it is not possible to know whether the inclusion of different groups would have made a difference in this case.
384. Johnson and Butzen, "Prayer," 256–57.
385. For these and other concerns with criteria in prayer studies, including "dosage effects" (what kinds of prayer? what kinds of prayerful people are praying?), see Gorsuch, "Limits," 288–93. Gorsuch regards the view that God would simply add up the number of prayers as something like a prayer wheel or a magical approach (293–94).
386. Johnson and Butzen, "Prayer," 257 (citing also Masters, "Disconnect").
387. E.g., Byrne, "Miracles," 170: "biblical miracles are not set down as having taken place in scientifically controlled conditions."
388. While distant prayer has had at best mixed results (Matthews, Marlowe, and MacNutt, "Effects,"
1177, 1180–82; no significant results in Krucoff et al., "Music"; Benson et al., "Study"; few in Koenig et al., "Care Use"; see the survey in Masters, "Prayer," 14–20), prayer with laying on of hands displays a higher improvement rate, including in a study on rheumatoid arthritis (Matthews, Marlowe, and MacNutt,
"Effects"); religious commitment and expectancy did not affect the results (1183–84). Results concerning
Proposed Explanations
For such reasons, many consider the accumulation of evidence from individual healings in their natural settings more compelling than the sorts of group studies so far conducted.389 In such natural settings, in fact, a number of individual cures have been documented that far exceed normal expectations.390 As I noted earlier, anomalies invite a case-study approach. The majority of the healing reports I cited in this book occurred in evangelistic contexts (that is, healings functioning as signs of the gospel) or, somewhat less frequently, pastoral contexts. Granted, the general lack of healing without the prayee's knowledge in controlled studies could suggest that some healings involve psychological factors. Nevertheless, these factors do not readily explain some dramatic healings accounts that I have noted, suggesting that the evangelistic and/or pastoral context also may play a significant role. As C. S. Lewis warned about controlled studies he expected to be conducted someday, "I do not see how any real prayer could go on under such conditions."
Mere words need not constitute prayer whether offered by people or parrots; asking people to pray for an experiment, he argued, treats prayer "as if it were magic, or a machine—something that functions automatically."391
One wonders whether a deity acting like the God of the Gospels and Acts would be expected to offer "signs" by participating as an actor in a controlled experiment.392 (Although not the agenda of most investigators today, the test of controlled hospital studies regarding prayer was originally designed to challenge faith.393) While evidence from controlled studies remains ambiguous, therefore, a joint swelling were comparable to those from some medical treatments and exceeded those of educational approaches, though psychosomatic elements might play a role (1183). Seventy-eight percent "had at least a 20% reduction in the number of tender and swollen joints over the course of the study"; 55 percent "met full ACR20 criteria for clinical improvement" (1182). Some individuals experienced significant benefit
(Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 77–79). Spraggett, Kuhlman, 26–29, recounts his personal knowledge of a woman completely crippled by rheumatoid arthritis whose swelling went down and she was completely cured after prayer; but he claims that rheumatoid arthritis is just a "psychosomatic disorder."
389. See Johnson and Butzen, "Prayer," 255–58.
390. See Brown, Mory, Williams, and McClymond, "Effects," reporting cures among several persons with auditory and visual impairments in rural Mozambique (cf. briefly Brown, "Awakenings," 363–64).
391. C. S. Lewis, as cited in Fung and Fung, "Prayer Studies," 44.
392. Cf. Polkinghorne and Beale, Questions, 29: "God is not an object on which one can do experiments."
Cf. Mark 8:11–12 (despite Jesus's signs in other contexts); Luke 11:16, 29–30; Matt 12:38–39; 16:1, 4;
24:3, 30; perhaps John 6:30–36; Exod 17:2, 7. Jesus did not perform signs in front of the Sanhedrin or even for the Pharisees, but among the sick who needed them, a principle that coheres with his mission among the humble but in conflict with the elites (and not among those who resisted his claims, Mark
6:5). It is not then surprising that claims of miracles in his name would flourish more in the Majority
World and among the poor than among the world's elites today. Still, God might respond to uninformed yet genuine inquirers (cf. 1 Sam 6:9–12 with 4:8–9, in contrast to Pharaoh in Exodus; John 4:48–53).
393. Mullin, Miracles, 45–46; Opp, Lord for Body, 15. Although one need not conduct such studies with this bias, the Gospels seem to often (not always) link healing with faith and rarely associate it positively with skepticism; see especially Mark 6:5–6. But while some suggest that faith healers often do not want skeptics present (Frohock, Healing Powers, 135), apparently only 30 percent of those surveyed in Tilley,
"Phenomenology," 546, felt that the presence of nonbelievers was detrimental (recall also the story of onlookers in my accounts from Jeanne Mabiala and Albert and Julienne Bissouessoue). More detrimental was a rationalistic approach on the part of those needing to exercise faith (Tilley, "Phenomenology,"
545–46).
Biased Standards?
significant number of extranormal, dramatic cures continue to invite our attention.
The cumulative pattern of the spiritual context in a significant proportion of these
"anomalies" invites more consideration than it has often received.
Conclusion Although one cannot prove special divine action where natural factors can account for a healing, to assume by contrast that the presence of natural factors must exclude supernatural ones is reductionist. Some critics carry the reductionism so far that they attribute even healings without any currently explainable natural causes to natural causation that may someday be explained. Even when the most obvious common factor in some organic healings is prayer, these cases are often discounted by one means or another to achieve the desired conclusion, and those who postulate supernatural or even merely religious causes may face considerable bias in some academic circles. Many employ criteria specifically designed to screen out any evidence that might support the objectionable conclusion of supernatural causation.
Those who follow such a procedure rigidly will never acknowledge any evidence for supernatural activity, because they employ rules designed from the start to exclude such evidence. But what sort of evidence might open-minded observers count against their antisupernatural thesis? In addition to many examples offered sporadically in recent chapters, including this one, I will suggest some such evidence in the following chapter.
More Extranormal Cases No one will ever know how much of the cure depends on the patient's desire and expectation that he be healed. But most physicians do recognize that motivation is a powerful force aiding recovery. In spite of this, there are surely few in the field of who have not, on some rare occasion at least, witnessed a recovery so contrary to the usual prognosis, and so apparently complete, that the word "miracle" seemed the only appropriate description of it. —David Robertson, MD1
I n chapter 5 I noted the argument of many thinkers that if theism (a majority premise in our society) is accepted, the possibility of some miracles in particular theistic contexts becomes more probable than not; in that case, evidence from credible witnesses for genuine miracles should be accepted. If one starts from an agnostic position that does not a priori privilege theism, atheism, or deism, one may at least examine the evidence open to the possibility of such events. Only those for whom miracles are philosophically impossible are obligated to rule out this explanation in every case. If we are open to such events and to a supernatural explanation as a possible interpretation for them, is there any evidence that such events occur? Are there events that we would construe as miracles if a theistic premise is granted to a significant degree of probability?
If one allows for many natural causes in unusual recoveries yet avoids reductionism (the subjects of the previous two chapters), one remains free to examine a variety of claims that seem to significantly exceed what we can expect from solely natural causes. In recent chapters (particularly chs. 12 and 14), I have recounted some cases in which supernatural explanations appear to offer better explanatory power than naturalistic ones. Some healing accounts seem more ambiguous, such as partial and gradual healings. As we shall soon see, however, even some of these cases exhibit distinctly extranormal elements. In this chapter, I do not propose
1. Robertson, "Epidauros to Lourdes," 188–89. Admittedly, "few" may be an overstatement, and "miracle" is variously defined.
More Extranormal Cases
to rehearse all the plausible miracle reports already given but to survey some of them, to offer some new ones, and to conclude by evaluating a few of the stronger ones, especially among cases with which I have some connection.
Because many conditions improve on their own with or without prayer, anyone who prays for hundreds of people would see many of them recover even if the prayers lacked any efficacy. Yet we have also noted some other recoveries, such as instant cures of blindness, restoration from death, and so forth that do not normally simply improve on their own, and a number of cases fit a pattern of following immediately after prayer. After surveying some cases where more concrete medical documentation is available and some cases of partial and gradual healings, I will survey some other kinds of extranormal claims and turn to samples of eyewitness evidence for genuine miracles that I find credible.
Considering Medical Documentation Anthropologists and sociologists studying beliefs about supernatural and paranormal phenomena only rarely provide medical documentation;2 studies of beliefs do not require this sort of evidence, so it is not mandatory for the primary purpose of this book. When we move to the secondary academic question of what stands behind such beliefs, however, it is helpful to provide at least some additional analysis. Others have written and are researching works documenting some medically inexplicable healings. That is not the purpose of this book, and not being a medical doctor I again observe that I must defer discussion of such matters to those qualified to provide it. Roman Catholics have proved most careful about documenting healings, including medical testimony for many hundreds of cases in recent centuries.3 Apart from these circles (and especially Lourdes, treated in ch. 14), few ministries are organized to provide medical documentation for healings; when one cannot predict where miracles will occur, it is difficult to know where to gather documentation of prior illness in advance. As a scholar, I have found myself frequently disappointed by this problem, wanting more publicly accessible documentation even when I know the circumstances firsthand or through the firsthand accounts of people I trust.4 Meanwhile, in some cases my lack of expertise in medicine undoubtedly hindered access or understanding of records.
2. E.g., Greeley, Sociology; Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism; McClenon and Nooney, "Experiences";
Scherberger, "Shaman"; McClenon, Events, xiii, 57–74 (with testimonial evidence on 62–63, 64–66, 68–69,
70–72), 131; even in most cases where the writer advocates for the activity of genuine spirits, as in Turner,
"Actuality"; idem, Hands. The most common exceptions are neurological studies of possession and mystic experiences (see appendix B); for fire walking, cf. also McClenon, Events, 121–26.
3. Duffin, Miracles, 8, 113–43.
4. Some have suggested that Protestants should establish an agency for certifying miracles analogous to the Medical Bureau at Lourdes ("Miraculous Truth"). That the locations of such cures is unpredictable, however, complicates matters, as does the lack of consensus among Protestants concerning the nature and frequency of miracles (hence the nature of evidence that would be deemed admissible). Surveying some
Proposed Explanations
I noted in the previous chapter that it is unreasonable to reject eyewitness claims simply because we lack access to medical records in many cases, if other factors (such as multiple witnesses or the witness's known reliability) support their claims. I have also repeatedly noted that I will not focus on such material in this book because I am qualified neither to provide nor to evaluate it. Nevertheless, that medical documentation is not always available does not mean that it is never available. Below I mention some sample cases.
Some Medical Documentation In some notes I have pointed out that some persons supplied medical documentation for their healings; I have also cited works by doctors5 or other investigators6 who found such documentation. Some researchers have shown how the subjects of some dramatic healing testimonies remained cured many decades later.7 These sources are in addition to numerous works cited where the authors claimed to include only cases that they were relatively certain were reliable or where they noted the existence of medical evidence without citing or reproducing it. Nor do
I include here many of the interviewees who spoke of medical recognition of their recoveries but, because of distance in time or other factors, could not provide me access to medical documents.
In addition to more publicly known cases of documentation at Lourdes, many others cite support. One of the doctors I have noted has cited cases of cancer that had already metastasized (spread) being healed abruptly after prayer.8 Another of these doctors notes a clear case of instant healing of advanced tuberculosis of the spine, where there can be no question of either the diagnosis or the outcome.9
Yet another doctor provided in his book more substantial medical documentation, including X-rays and the like, for the following cases of extraordinary healings after prayer, though some of these are more "medically inexplicable" than others:
• Lisa Larios, healed of reticulum cell sarcoma of the right pelvic bone10 • Elfrieda Stauffer, healed of chronic rheumatoid arthritis with severe disability11
• Marie Rosenberger, healed of malignant brain tumor of the left temporal lobe12 difficulties in verifying that inexplicable acts are caused by God, Basinger and Basinger, Miracle, 81–100, note lack of consensus among theists.
5. E.g., Gardner, Healing Miracles; Casdorph, Miracles; Reed, Surgery; Speed, Incurables (cases she witnessed directly); some material in Frazier, Healing; earlier, cf. Opp, Lord for Body, 196.
6. E.g., Spraggett, Kuhlman; Grazier, Power Beyond; Neal, Reporter; in an earlier era, see Hickson, Heal,
122–23, 129–30, 134–35; Mews, "Revival," 301–4.
7. See here Warner, "Still Healed"; Warner, "Living by Faith."
8. Reed, Surgery, 35, 52–53; cf. also 43–48. Prayer and faith also appear very likely to have contributed to recovery of the terminal coma patient in Reed, Surgery, 84.
9. White, "Lady," 72–73.
10. Casdorph, Miracles, 25–33.
11. Ibid., 37–45.
12. Ibid., 49–57.
More Extranormal Cases
• Marion Burgio, healed of multiple sclerosis13 • Marvin Bird, healed of arteriosclerotic heart disease14
• B. Ray Jackson, healed of carcinoma of the kidney (hypernephroma) with diffuse bony metastases15 • Pearl Bryant, healed of mixed rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis16
• Anne Soults, healed of probable brain tumor vs. infarction of the brain17 • Paul Trousdale, instantly healed of massive GI hemorrhage with shock18
• Delores Winder, healed of osteoporosis of the entire spine with intractable pain requiring bilateral cordotomies19 The author of that work consulted also at least nine other named doctors and medical researchers to verify the diagnoses noted in his book.20
Such collections offer merely samples of extraordinary restorations that can be medically documented. I noted various examples, many treated more extensively earlier and thus merely summarized here. One was the case of Joy Wahnefried, who provided me clear documentation that her vision, previously so problematic that she suffered lengthy and disabling migraines for several years, suddenly became perfect (20/20) during prayer.21 Anna Gulick, tested by both her eye doctor and optometrist, provided evidence for a sudden improvement in her vision after prayer, with physical changes in that eye, reversing years of macular degeneration.22 Other cases with documentation include the Ethiopian couple healed of a condition that made it impossible for the husband to get his wife pregnant,23 and Yazmin Hommer's recovery from her coma, although her organs had begun shutting down.24
Jonathan Pollard, raised from a wheelchair and cured of what was thought to be Guillain-Barré syndrome, sent me medical evidence.25 Others I knew also sent test results to support their testimony.26
13. Ibid., 61–72.
14. Ibid., 77–86.
15. Ibid., 91–100.
16. Ibid., 105–16.
17. Ibid., 121–32.
18. Ibid., 137–43.
19. Ibid., 147–57.
20. Named in ibid., 9–10.
21. The vision specialist's certification is dated Oct. 16, 2009, based on a test on May 27, 2009; the certification was provided to explain that she no longer requires corrective lenses for driving. She also provided documentation of her previous condition. Cf. another possible case in Prather, Miracles, 91.
22. Anna Gulick (personal correspondence, June 10, 12, 2010; Aug. 26, 2010; medical documentation from both doctors, received June 17 and July 6, 2010; more sent Sept. 11, 2010).
23. Tadesse Woldetsadik (closely known to me), with information and medical documentation from Tariku Kebede Woldeyes and Adanech Negash Tesema, personal correspondence, Sept. 28, 2009; follow-up correspondence, Oct. 1, 2009.
24. Yazmin Hommer (personal correspondence, with records, Dec. 1, 2009).
25. Personal correspondence, July 22, 2010.
26. E.g., Byron Klaus (documentation sent July 10, 2009).
Proposed Explanations
I also noted Carl Cocherell's healing from a broken ankle bone. The radiology reports shared with me indicate a diagnosis on March 8, 2006, of "left cuboid avulsion fracture," which required overnight immobilization in the hospital. The radiology report from a different doctor on March 15 both notes that he was examined for a fracture and observed the splint that had been attached to his leg.
Nevertheless, it declares that "fracture or dislocation is not suspected." Would a sixty-two-year-old man's bone heal so quickly naturally that in a single week not even a sign of the fracture would remain?27
Among better known testimonies, Ben Godwin's testimony of bone restoration without the planned bone graft surgery includes X-rays and medical reports.28 Lee
McDougald cites medical attestation for his total healing from advanced Parkinson's disease.29 Although in much of the Majority World medical documentation is hard to come by, a research team in which I have confidence confirmed a number of cases of extraordinarily significant improvements in hearing and vision after prayer in the ministry surrounding Heidi and Rolland Baker and Global Awakening in Mozambique.30 In another documented case, a middle-aged patient suffering for several years with Sjogren's syndrome, a currently incurable autoimmune disorder, neither produced saliva nor was expected to be able to ever produce it. After prayer, and without medication, her mouth began producing saliva.31 Similarly, a doctor attests that due to cancer and surgery, Bob Bruce had no salivary glands. Nevertheless, after two and a half years without saliva, his mouth began spontaneously producing normal saliva, indicating new glands.32 Among recoveries not noted earlier in this book, a woman in the United States was confined to bed most of the day with an incurable, progres27. Radiology reports from Skaggs Community Health Center (Branson, Mo.; CT results March
8, 2006); Oakwood Hospital Southshore (Michigan; March 15, 2006). One cannot charge pecuniary motives for an initial misdiagnosis (an unlikely proposal to begin with for a U.S. hospital); the original discharge summary noted that "the patient will followup [sic] with his primary care physician." The March
15 report indicates some unrelated, "minimal early spur formation," but "the osseous, articular, and soft tissue anatomy appears to be basically intact." I retain copies of these documents in my possession.
28. Godwin, Strategy, 62–64, 164–67. In personal correspondence dated May 28, 2009, Ben Godwin also provided me an updated report from the original orthopedic surgeon (dated Jan. 9, 2009). As noted earlier, the missing bone included three inches from his tibia.
29. In personal correspondence, May 24, 2009, Lee McDougald directed me to the statement of Dr. William Lightfoot, one of his physicians, at http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/Lee
_McDougald122208.aspx?; accessed June 21, 2009: "Parkinson's is generally a progressive neurological disorder . . . I can only say that I have never seen a Parkinson's patient healed as completely as Lee was."
The healing occurred in 2006, after many years of decline.
30. Brown, Mory, Williams, and McClymond, "Effects," in a medical journal; I was in correspondence with Dr. Brown both before and after their investigation, not related to my correspondence with the Bakers. Audiometric and visual acuity measurements of improved function closely matched self-reported improvements after prayer.
31. Documentation from June 2005 through Feb. 2009, in my possession, courtesy of Dr. David
Zaritzky (sent in May 2009).
32. I received the doctor's report from him in Aug. 2010. See also Bob Bruce (personal correspondence,
July 26, 2010); Bruce, Care, 25–29 (for the sickness), 67–68 (for the healing; other cures mentioned on 26). This case was referred to me very confidently by Gwladys Keating, whom I know and who belongs to the same Presbyterian church of which Bob Bruce is a member (personal correspondence, July 25; follow-up, Aug. 16, 2010). Nivedita Ghosh of Kolkata, India, offered another case of apparent regeneration of salivary glands destroyed by treatment (shared with me Oct. 13, 2010).
More Extranormal Cases
sive disease. In fall 2004, when friends in Nigeria called during the night and noted that they had prayed and she was healed, she ignored them and simply went back to sleep. The next day, however, she discovered to her astonishment that she was well, as new tests confirmed; tests also ruled out the possibility of initial misdiagnosis.33
In other kinds of cases, Christian doctors have sometimes expressed their confidence that various cures reflected divine intervention. For example, Dr. Chauncey
Crandall reports the raising immediately after prayer of a person who had been dead for forty minutes, noting the presence of other witnesses;34 similarly if less dramatically, Dr. Jenny Lai, a medical doctor who long worked with a healing ministry in Taiwan, sent me a number of cure reports known directly to her about which she felt confident.35 Dr. Jeannie Lindquist notes a patient healed of kidney failure through prayer, and Dr. Raquel Burgos testified of her own medically documented healing as a child.36 I reported earlier accounts regarding cures of severe epilepsy, tumors, and the like, that I received from Dr. Alex Abraham, a neurologist.37 Dr.
Mirtha Venero Boza provided her eyewitness report of a burn healing.38 Dr. Tonye
Briggs attested as an eyewitness a dramatic closing of a massive wound overnight after prayer in Nigeria.39 Psychiatry professor William Wilson noted the healing after three hours of prayer of a Methodist pastor friend, who had previously had "75% occlusion of his major arteries."40 He also reports a nurse healed of her depression and the asthma she had suffered for thirty years when he prayed;41 a healing of severe ankylosing spondylitis mentioned earlier;42 and other accounts.43
33. Michael McClymond, personal correspondence, unpublished manuscript and phone conversation, Jan. 3, 2011; extensive before-and-after medical documentation (including detailed Mayo Clinic test results) sent to me Jan. 5 (received Jan. 6), 2011 (also confirming trace antibodies confirming the initial diagnosis).
34. See television reports and my interview cited in ch. 12. Other doctors report healings (e.g., McAll,
"Deliverance," 296), and others report the testimonies of still other doctors, such as Charles Woodhouse
(ch. 11) and William Reed (see in Bredesen, Miracle, 36–38).
35. Sent to me in Aug. 2009, the reports mostly range from 1992 to 1997. At least nine records involve some sort of healing, though these are of varying evidential quality (e.g., a young man paralyzed from a spinal cord injury who began to walk at a healing meeting; chronic foot pain healed after prayer; a university lecturer in mechanical engineering whose heavy, chronic infection declined during prayer; and so forth). These reports are in the cured persons' own words and signed by them, though some were very soon after the event. Seminarian Renae Hsu initially provided my contact with Dr. Lai. My nt colleague at Palmer, Dr. Diane G. Chen, graciously translated the accounts from Chinese for me as we discussed them together (Aug. 17, 2009).
36. Llewellyn, "Events," 255, citing interviews with them. Both noted medical documentation, but I lack access to it. Llewellyn also notes a "miraculous" outcome reported by Dr. John T. Dearborn (ibid.,
259), and his own healing (ibid., 260).
37. Interview, Oct. 29, 2009.
38. Mirtha Venero Boza (interview, Aug. 6, 2010).
39. Dr. Tonye Briggs, phone interviews, Dec. 14, 16, 2009.
40. Wilson, "Miracle Events," 269–70 (reporting that X-ray evidence confirmed the healing at this stage). His friend reported that the non-Christian doctor admitted that it was a miracle.
41. Ibid., 270.
42. Ibid., 272–73.
43. A friend he trusts supplied accounts of a man whose heart was found healthy and his bypass surgery canceled after prayer, and a seventy-year-old woman bound in a wheelchair and body braces healed so fully
Proposed Explanations
In one videotaped interview, a neurologist reported observing cures associated with prayer, including a patient's return from brain death.44 Even a popular television program hosted by Dr. Oz recently highlighted cases of unusual recovery after prayer and some attendant medical documentation evaluated by his colleagues.45
A generation ago, respected doctor Christopher Woodard testified to a number of inexplicable healings after prayer, which he believed to be divine healing.46 While most such cure reports are not medical records per se, they at least challenge some critics' skepticism about whether scientifically trained persons could affirm that they have witnessed supernaturally caused cures. As we noted earlier, the interpretation of such evidence involves not only science but the philosophic grids through which scientific evidence is read.
Benedict Heron and other authors cite medical confirmation for their healing reports,47 some other healing ministries cite doctors' verification,48 and some ministries have indicated medical documentation for some of those claiming healing.49 Additionally, a minority of healing evangelists have had physicians working with them to verify the healings; the catch-22 for an external investigator is that a skeptic will view physicians working with an evangelist as biased, but most other physicians will not be present. Nevertheless, as we saw in the case of Kathryn
Kuhlman, many of the claims withstood public scrutiny or required a dismissal that would not meet ordinary standards of evidence. The three testimonies noted from Ukraine included medical documentation.50
I have also noted medical documentation for a raising from the dead in the Democratic Republic of Congo;51 a doctor's report of his own healing, in which that by the fourth day she was dancing (Wilson, "Miracle Events," 271). (She rose from the wheelchair on the first day and was free of all braces by the third.)
44. The testimony of neurologist Karen Garnaas, http://www.globalawakening.com/Articles
/1000039117/Global_Awakening/Media/Video_Podcast/Episode_28.aspx; accessed April 3, 2011.
45. Associated with Catholic doctor Issam Nemeh; brought to my attention after The Dr. Oz Show,
Jan. 31, 2011 (http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/man-faith-healer; accessed Feb. 5, 2011). Although this information came to my attention too late in the process of this book for evaluation and follow-up, see the positive reports in Zagrans, Miracles (e.g., 5–9, 100, 175, 222–23); earlier and more critically, Harlan
Spector at http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11928/not-everyone-is-believer-in-popular-faith-healer;
Aug. 5, 2005; accessed Feb. 28, 2011.
46. Woodard, Faith, passim (esp. some cases in 63–99 passim; though the majority of his cases are not inexplicable, even there the cumulative weight in his immediate circle might be significant). Woodard was
Anglo-Catholic, and a retired Anglican bishop wrote his foreword.
47. Heron, Channels, passim.
48. E.g., MacNutt, Healing, 36.
49. E.g., Hinn, Miracle, 12–13, 37, 42, 44, 50, 56, 70, 75, 79, 90, 101–2, 104, 111, 116, 118, 123,
131–32, 139, 142, 146, 157, 159, 161, 173, 175. Despite significant controversy about his ministry and about some claims, Hinn has at least sought to provide documentation where he could obtain it. Others have complained about lack of adequate documentation; some ministries provide none, sometimes because their goal is simply helping individuals and they lack concern to offer public evidence for healing.
50. "Healed from Trauma"; "New Spleen"; "Healed the Scar." My former student Yulia Kolodotchka
Bagwell confirmed the relevance of the Russian documentation for me (July 1, 2010).
51. Chavda, Miracle, between 78–79.
More Extranormal Cases
he supplied me with medical documentation; several other individuals who did supply me documentation; and books that supplied further medical documentation, despite potential danger to the authors' reputation. The reader will again recall reports from (among others) Dr. Rex Gardner, including
• the medical trainee who was not only healed of severe meningitis and its complications but even of eye scarring;52
• the healing of a cardiac invalid;53 • the nine-year-old deaf girl, whose instant healing from severe nerve damage is medically confirmed.54
These are samples of the medical documentation that could be offered, although, as I have noted, many cases reported in this book occurred in locations where such documents would not even have been possible to obtain.
One reporter who investigated a range of healing claims observed that they derive independently from various kinds of circles. Moreover, some cures are of organic as well as functional illness. And some happen instantaneously, in mere minutes or hours. Records are available in many cases, with X-rays, statements of witnesses and hospital reports. Dismissing all of it as medical error, hypnotic suggestion or hysteria which will wear off, does not meet a scientific standard of objectivity. Psychosomatic medicine can explain some of the cures but not all.55
Not all doctors take into account any association between anomalous cures and prayer to identify them as miracles,56 but some do. Dr. Crandall, a well-trained cardiologist with world-class credentials, explained to me that he initially did not believe in miracles but occasionally saw unexplained miracles in hospitals. At a critical point, he noted, he had to decide whether they were real. Once he decided that they were real, he had to act consistently with that belief, and began to pray for patients in addition to using conventional medicine.57
He acknowledges that most people are not immediately healed,58 yet the cures he has often witnessed following prayer far exceed his most optimistic expectations based on past medical experience. He offered the example of a man whose lung
52. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 20–21 (cf. also 15).
53. Ibid., 104–6.
54. Ibid., 202–5.
55. Oursler, Power, 25.
56. A Humean might reject causal connections between prayer and anomalies, but consistent with skeptical Humean epistemology would also have to reject causal connections more generally. Such an approach would make medical and pharmaceutical research quite difficult. At the least, one can notice patterns between prayer and anomalies (such as raisings from the dead) in a large number of cases.
57. Phone interview (May 30, 2010).
58. He witnessed only three instantaneous, visible miracles out of perhaps a thousand people he prayed for in Nigeria, yet these were not explicable naturally (Crandall, Raising, 152–53, esp. 153).
Proposed Explanations
cancer had metastasized to his brain; Crandall prayed with fairly little faith for him, knowing that little could be done for him medically. Months later he learned that after very minimal chemotherapy all the man's tumors had disappeared, and the man's doctors were calling it a miracle.59
He shared other recoveries. Thus, for example, he prayed for a man with a tumor on his forehead; the man came back the next day, and the tumor was gone.60 I already mentioned his eyewitness accounts of a disabled woman, man, and child each instantly cured during prayer;61 he also witnessed a child's deafness instantly cured during prayer.62 A young woman was dying of an illness from which fewer than
10 percent of persons survive, and her organs had already begun shutting down; she recovered fully.63 Crandall writes of another woman whose large, inoperable tumor disappeared spontaneously after prayer,64 and of a man whose inoperable large lung tumor was quickly healed after prayer, as attested by CT scan results.65
He has seen the deaf healed (though especially overseas) and those unable to walk suddenly gain that ability.66 One Thursday, a gentleman whom he had known for many years came to his office.67 He had not seen the man in six months, but this patient had a grapefruit-sized flesh-eating ulcer, with the wound going down to the bone, eating through the calf muscles. Treatments had failed, and he was scheduled to have his leg amputated the next week. The family had come to Dr.
Crandall for a second opinion, and he concurred with the other doctors: the wound was incurable. Nevertheless, he would pray. After unwrapping the leg, he placed his hand inside the wound and prayed for the wound to be healed. He then wrapped the leg up, and confessed, "I've done what I can do; the rest is up to God."
Four days later the man's wife called, noting that the ulcer was melting away and new skin was forming. Should they amputate it anyway, she wondered? Because a miracle was clearly taking place, he advised against that. By the following week, the man's leg was completely whole.
"Can that happen on its own?" I probed.
"It can't happen on its own," Dr. Crandall replied, sounding astonished at my medical naiveté. "Impossible." As in the case of his own son Chad, who died from leukemia,68 not everyone is healed; but he has seen so many miracles since he began
59. Phone interview (May 30, 2010); Crandall, Raising, 50–52.
60. Phone interview (May 30, 2010).
61. Crandall, Raising, 39, 152.
62. Ibid., 152–53.
63. He provided details in a phone interview (May 30, 2010); the media also interviewed her (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYNNXs5rq9s; accessed May 9, 2009).
64. Crandall, Raising, 176–78.
65. Ibid., 181–82.
66. Phone interview (May 28, 2010).
67. Phone interview (May 28, 2010). The account also appears in Crandall, Raising, 171.
68. For Chad's valiant struggle over the years and finally death, see Crandall, Raising, 7–131, passim.
The leukemia did regress at times (35, 45), but ultimately metastasized (81); nevertheless, Chad was healed instantly during prayer from another condition that could have been chronic (101–2). Nearing the end, Chad briefly died and revived as his mother prayed, astonishing the watching nurse and respiratory
More Extranormal Cases
praying for patients that he cannot doubt their reality.69 For the past year before our interview, he had been keeping notes on the cases.70 One could go on, but my point in all this survey is that modernity's simple dismissal of miracles on the basis of "modern knowledge" is in the eye of the beholder; some doctors qualified to evaluate extraordinary cures do contend that they have witnessed some. One should not attribute it to neglect of intellect when some favor what appears to be significant firsthand evidence over others' preferred interpretive grids.
Implications of and Prospects for Medical Documentation Gardner insists that modern comparative examples can chasten our excessive tendency to skepticism of all ancient accounts. As an example of this approach, he analyzes one report of a missionary doctor in Pakistan where the patient is supposed to have recovered miraculously. Examining it as skeptically as possible based on the lacunae in the information, he concludes that the recovery could have occurred naturally (though not that it was invented). But because the source was a contemporary one, he was then able to obtain all the medical details and to show that the recovery was indeed extranormal (the woman may have "lost more than her total blood volume" in a forty-eight-hour period, with only two pints available to be added). He concludes that whereas "the normal techniques of historical scholarship" would have inclined us to dismiss the story, the availability of medical data in this case demonstrates that something quite unusual did (hence could) happen.71
That some doctors would testify to miracles is not as surprising as one might suppose if one assumed that all intellectuals accepted Hume's view on miracles.
In one 2004 national study of 1,100 physicians, 74 percent responded that they believed "that miracles have occurred in the past," while almost the same number, 73 percent, affirm that they "can occur today." The majority of physicians (59 percent) pray for their patients, and roughly 46 percent encourage patients to pray at least partly for God to answer their prayers. What might be the largest surprise in the survey, however, is that 55 percent of physicians claimed to "have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous."72 Apparently most therapist (127). Uncured from leukemia, however, he died again soon afterward; Crandall prayed for an hour and a half to raise him, but he remained dead (130). (This case differs from Markin's in that in the latter Crandall specifically felt God moving him to pray for the raising.) Crandall argues that perfect healing awaited Chad and others in heaven (133–34, 138, 192); others involved with healing also recognize death in Christ as healing (Hickson, Bridegroom, 326). (This approach of course involves a theological affirmation and not a belief regarding miracles per se.)
69. Phone interview (May 30, 2010). In our May 28 interview, he pointed out that obvious miracles do not happen every day, but they happen often enough.
70. Phone interview (May 30, 2010); whether due to time constraints or confidentiality concerns, he was not able to provide me access to the notes. For several local (Channel 7) media clips of interviews with Dr. Crandall's patients who experienced cures, including Jeff Markin, see http://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=vGQmGGWzLQM&feature=related; accessed June 7, 2010.
71. Gardner, "Miracles," 1930.
72. See "Science or Miracle," summarizing results of a survey by HCD Research and the Louis Finkelstein
Institute for Religious and Social Studies of The Jewish Theological Seminary. One could argue that
Proposed Explanations
physicians are willing to acknowledge divine activity along with medical treatment, rather than viewing the two spheres as incompatible. Some may be reluctant to try to publicly surmount the Humean standards of proof demanded by colleagues, yet many are willing to acknowledge witnessing results that they personally consider supernaturally beneficial. While in many cases their "miraculous results" would not meet some conventional tests for miracles, I have already noted earlier that some claim to have witnessed cures that would.
One group that has recently sought to provide medical documentation for extranormal healings is the World Christian Doctors Network, with scores of cases from around the world posted at their website and newer ones in their journal.73
Naturally the accounts for which they can provide documentation are limited by the currently narrow circles covered by their network; one could nevertheless fill a chapter with the material they provide. (A number of these cases admittedly involve gradual or partial healings, and the evidence is of varying quality.74) Some cases, however, are more substantial. A radiologist who looked through some of the documentation for me found some of it impressive. For example, in a case of calcified tendonitis of the elbow,75 the calcification evident in an earlier X-ray had clearly disappeared, and it was not corrected by surgery, which would have left a scar. In another case, chronic tuberculosis had destroyed much of a singer's lung and led to the collapse of the upper lobe before the healing; this healing, too, exceeded natural recovery. In such cases, the radiologist confirmed from the bone structure that the X-rays involved the same person both before and after the healing.76 religious physicians could have been more ready to answer the survey than nonreligious physicians, but the figures are nevertheless revealing and at least give a basic estimate of belief and practice. Definitions of "miraculous" may have also varied among them; but again, most miraculous cures reported in this book are outside the normal range of treatment results, many in locations where medical help was unavailable.
(I personally suspect that God typically works through medical means when these are available, though there are many reports of exceptions.) Many do not claim to have seen miracles (e.g., Lesslie, Angels, 105, who is not opposed to them); again, some define the term more rigorously than others.
73. Some significant claims seem to include documented healing of disk herniation (Case 1 in JWCDN
1 [1, 2009]: 15–18; Case 2 in JWCDN 1 [1, 2009]: 19–21); partial healing of deafness (http://www
.wcdn.org/wcdn_eng/case/case_content.asp?id=23&page=4; accessed May 6, 2009; http://www.wcdn
.org/wcdn_eng/case/case_content.asp?id=38&page=3; accessed May 6, 2009; JWCDN 1 [1, 2009]:
24–26); and other ailments. It also claims a thirty-year-old Taiwanese paraplegic finally able to walk without crutches after prayer in May 2004, twenty years after the injury. Those who recover from spinal cord injuries recover most rapidly in the first three months, and most recovery is completed in the first year.
The source suggests that although her legs remained weak, she could now walk and live independently, and her gait pattern improved (JWCDN 1 [1, 2009]: 52–58, providing medical documentation). Yet I lack means to independently verify the information, to know what information might be missing in some cases; I had some initial concerns, but, lacking knowledge of the Korean language, was limited in pursuing them. I offer a very small number of specified and carefully selected examples elsewhere in the book (in most cases tentatively), but nowhere does my case rest on them.
74. My kind and helpful correspondent there also recognizes this and rightly pointed out that more recent accounts tended to be more rigorously documented.
75. The case involves Deaconess Ahn, a violinist in the Nissi Orchestra, from Jan. 31 to April 12, 2002.
76. David Zaritzky (phone interview, July 24, 2009), noting that the tuberculosis was specifically chronic. He was confident about the cures provided that the X-rays and dates on them (which originate
More Extranormal Cases
Not all of the material is this substantive, but some of it is, an observation that could swell the numbers of documented cures available. Unfortunately, the founding organization is quite controversial,77 particularly in South Korea.78 Without taking a position personally on more cases or questioning whether some genuine cures take place through faith in relation to that organization, I have felt it prudent not to exploit the material prematurely. I am thus not expending more extensive space here on the evidence cited there, pending further exploration by other scholars better acquainted with the evidence.79
At the same time, the cases and doctors attending the international conferences (now with more than 250 doctors attending) represent a wide range of denominations and nations. These doctors come not to support the founding organization but simply to bring and examine cases with other doctors. These doctors have the freedom to examine and debate cases, presenting those that the academic committee considers the best cases and coming to their own conclusions;80 researchers can examine their evidence case by case. Moreover, whatever approach other doctors take to this particular organization, its model of doctors compiling a database of cases of extranormal healings seems quite useful and will, one hopes, be developed further also by others. (I have already surveyed the Medical Bureau at Lourdes, though documentation there is largely limited to a single site.) Although their work is not complete at the time of this book's writing, other writers I know are currently working to collect medical documentation for a number of healings at an optimum standard. It is good to have multiple and complementary studies on the subject, and all researchers on the subject should highly value such medical contributions.
Nevertheless, as I explained in chapter 14, it is unreasonable to expect medical documentation for most healings that eyewitnesses claim. A high proportion of those reported take place where medical cures are unavailable, perhaps often even occurring this way precisely because no other curative options are available. Are not these settings more analogous to what we find in the Gospels and Acts? Yet in most cases we lack reason to dismiss the reliability of these eyewitnesses any more than we would dismiss different claims by any other eyewitnesses. In a large at the same time as the X-rays) are authentic, and he does not see how they could be otherwise. Hock,
Miracles, 33, reports that the doctor believed that torn ribs had collapsed one of his lungs, but (38) after his healing a medical examination revealed his lungs perfectly healthy.
77. In contrast to the Medical Bureau at Lourdes, which is independent of Roman Catholic control, this network appears to include considerable oversight from the founding church.
78. Despite support from some sources and the generosity of WCDN in allowing me access to their material, which is fairly extensive, several trusted Korean friends and scholars discouraged me strongly from using this source, based on widespread views in South Korea. Because I cannot read Korean and have not traveled to South Korea to research these questions, I am not in an authoritative position to speak to the question myself and thus defer the matter to other researchers.
79. If doctors ultimately find the material persuasive, I will have at least erred on the side of caution, and others will have more material to work with. I pursue caution in the event that they might not find it persuasive; I do not rest my case on any one source I cite, but I emphasize in this section sources currently less controversial.
80. Chauncey Crandall (phone interviews, May 28, 30, 2010).
Proposed Explanations
number of cases, in fact, large numbers of people radically changed their traditional beliefs after witnessing such cures, which suggests that these non-Christian witnesses did not view them as merely the sort of natural recoveries that they would know happen occasionally on their own.
Moreover, the majority of healings after prayer, even when medically documented, are of cures that have natural analogies, although this is not always the case (e.g., for the instant healing of eye scarring or broken bones). That is hardly surprising, since most ailments that need to be cured are often curable naturally. But medical documentation is sometimes available, and people's response to it (from eagerly accepting the weakest documentation to stubbornly rejecting the strongest) again tends to reflect the predispositions with which one approaches the data.
In my opinion, some testimonies of matters that the witnesses are qualified to attest firsthand is stronger than some medical documentation, either when the former is strong or the latter is weak. Trustworthy eyewitnesses recount clear miracles, such as the instant and visible disappearance of cataract-covered eyes, now able to see—an observation that requires no particular expertise. Individual cases of testimony cannot be dismissed on the basis of the assumption that miracles do not happen when we have so many cases of reliable and substantial testimony; even a few clear cases should remove bias against testimony and allow us to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. I will return to many cases of eyewitness testimony below. Sometimes, however, as in some cases summarized above, we are fortunate enough to have both testimony and medical documents.
Partial and Gradual Healings From a nt (especially Pauline) perspective, one might allow a theological distinction between gifts of healings, whose object was simply a person's wellness (cf.
1 Cor 12:9; Jas 5:14), and a more compelling "sign," which was meant to get the attention of outsiders for the message about Jesus, by means of its extraordinary character (Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12; Acts 4:29–30; 14:3). That is, believers can find in some recoveries encouraging signs of God's grace without feeling compelled to appeal to them as extraordinary evidence that nonbelievers would necessarily find compelling. Discussions of miracles today usually focus on the extraordinary, but at times we may find extraordinary elements even in cures that have ordinary elements. I shall thus deliberately survey some evidence that can be construed as more ambiguous (such as partial and gradual healings) before turning to less disputable cases.
Although complete and instantaneous healings normally offer more compelling evidence for miracles, and I shall soon turn to more of these,81 many healing claims involve partial and/or gradual recoveries. These differ in form from most
81. Roman physician Paolo Zacchia (1584–1659) proved influential in his emphasis on cures being instantaneous (Duffin, Miracles, 24); that is, this demand too has a historical context. Most recoveries of
More Extranormal Cases
healings reported in the Gospels and Acts. Nevertheless, even some partial or gradual cures differ from normal naturalistic expectations. Many people concede that they have failed to procure healing for those for whom they prayed more often than they succeeded, but appeal to the cumulative force of the many who were healed, some too dramatically to be explained as comparable to what might be achieved merely by positive thinking.82 Although it may have less "sign" value for outsiders than an instant healing would, a partial or gradual recovery remains beneficial to the person who recovers.
Some cure claims are partial; for example, a healing removing the cause of the illness (cancer) but leaving the damage it had already done to be cured by medical intervention.83 In another case, supposedly irreversible damage reversed, but other treatment remained necessary,84 and one could add similar examples.85 A Methodist woman was immediately healed at Lourdes from much of her naturally incurable blindness (due to macular degeneration), though she still cannot see perfectly.86 (This incident was not among the proclaimed cures at Lourdes.) A four-year-old boy with a severe eye lesion was instantly healed during prayer, so that the astonished ophthalmologist canceled the operation.87 Of the hundreds of lesions this ophthalmologist had seen, he had never seen one heal naturally and did not think that it was possible.88 Yet the boy's vision in that eye, while better off than it would have been otherwise, remains only 10 percent due to the factors that were not healed.89 After five years in a wheelchair, a woman who was paraplegic due to a spinal cord injury heard God tell her to rise and walk, and she any sort, medical or otherwise, are not instantaneous, so some reasonably consider "instantaneous and complete" an unrealistic standard (West, Miracles, 123). Nevertheless, there are cases of just such healings.
82. White, "Lady," 84; MacNutt, Healing, 31; for an example, Bredesen, Miracle, 27, cites the recovery of Episcopal priest John Medaris. MacNutt, Power, 165–66, notes that, ironically, his own neck and shoulder problems have not been healed, though those of others for whom he has prayed have been.
83. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 45–46, on a bladder cancer.
84. Gary Best provided me with the written testimony of a person whose body had been severely rejecting a donated kidney, with doctors allowing absolutely no chance of the kidney surviving. Before the doctors could remove it, however, it began improving, the damage reversing itself. Despite this unexpected recovery, she still requires treatment once each week (personal correspondence, July 21, 2008, also listing some other partial recoveries).
85. Note Neal, Power, 65, on pain reduction in an illness that was not healed (cf. similarly Schlemon,
Prayer, 29–30); gradual and partial restoration in DiOrio, Signs, 116–20 (esp. 119); partial healing in Salmon, Heals, 116. Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 71, note a prayerful patient living much longer than expected: a tumor remained yet became quiescent, in a kind of cancer that normally killed 99 percent of its patients. DeGrandis, Miracles, 32, notes that a dying man's atrophied leg was healed in the sight of witnesses (presumably as a sign) the night before his death.
86. Heron, Channels, 143. Charles McDonald was bedridden from certified tuberculosis but began to recover after his visit to Lourdes in 1936, with a medically demonstrable complete cure after a year
(Oursler, Power, 74–75, noting that this was not, however, declared a miracle at Lourdes).
87. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 104–6.
88. Ibid., 106–7, noting not only the healing of the corneal laceration, but more significantly the healing of the severely prolapsed iris.
89. Ibid., 108. Another healing in a Kuhlman meeting allowed a boy to see colors and shapes through an eye previously unable to do so (Baxter, Healing, 243–44).
Proposed Explanations
was immediately healed. A year later, however, she relapsed after another problem, until four months later, during prayer, she was healed again (and remained well as of four years later).90
Most of those who pray for healing acknowledge that it sometimes occurs progressively,91 though they also aver that it can sometimes be instantaneous.92 Even some progressive recoveries, however, may be significant. MacNutt, for example, concedes that healings are often partial and gradual,93 yet contends that these healings may nevertheless appear much faster than natural recovery (e.g., eight hours of prayer for an ailment that might require months of medical treatment).94
Some claims are dramatic even for gradual healings, for example, leprosy being healed over two days.95 At Lourdes, a years-long wound of twelve inches by six inches healed, but over the course of half an hour; another person near death was cured but over the course of two or three hours.96
MacNutt offers an eyewitness example of a gradual but dramatic healing where he was present in Colombia.97 In this case, the woman's right leg was six inches
90. Schiappacasse, Heals, 63. Some reported relapses are associated with returning to a preconversion lifestyle (McClenon, "Miracles," 187; Koch, Zulus, 79, 276–77, 279; Salmon, Heals, 113–16; probably not the primary sense of John 5:14), but this cannot always be the case.
91. All those surveyed in Tilley, "Phenomenology," 547–48; cf. Marshall, Helper, 178–84. John
Alexander Dowie differed from most other contemporary leaders in the healing movement by insisting that healing must be instantaneous (Alexander, Healing, 60–61). I have one report of what appears to be a progressive healing of a Taiwanese internist's healing of a severe digestive disorder (her own report, with her name and photograph, from June 1997; shared with me by Dr. Jenny Lai).
92. Again, all those surveyed in Tilley, "Phenomenology," 548.
93. MacNutt, Power, 27–33, 57–62. For claims of gradual healings elsewhere, see, e.g., Lindsay, Lake,
11–12; Lambert, Millions, 113–16; Bush and Pegues, Move, 47–49; Yun, Heavenly Man, 174; Wilkerson,
Beyond, 141–42; Neal, Power, 39–46; Chevreau, Turnings, 35–36, 166–67; cf. Teresa of Avila in Matthews and Clark, Faith Factor, 60–61. Some critics dismissed healings in Blumhardt's ministry that were merely gradual and through prayer (rather than commands of faith; Ising, Blumhardt, 268) or partial (279).
94. MacNutt, Power, 45; cf. Fant, Miracles, 149–50 (only a month of the expected two years of treatment); Neal, Power, 23–24; Schlemon, Prayer, 47–48; Nichols, "Miracles"; physicians' comments in Duffin, Miracles, 140, 142. Blumhardt saw answers to prayer in a dangerous throat swelling healed overnight; dropsy in eight days; and a swollen foot about to be amputated, instead healing in a few weeks
(Ising, Blumhardt, 212). Augustine considered a miracle "chiefly as an unusual acceleration of natural processes" (Clark, "Miracles and Law," 25).
95. Sung, Diaries, 52. Some gradual or delayed healings have occurred within a few hours (e.g., Numbere,
Vision, 130–31). Less dramatically, a case of severe ulcerative colitis requiring almost immediate removal of the colon was progressively healed over several months, allowing repeated postponement of the operation, until the healing was complete (Bennett, Morning, 96–97).
96. Nichols, "Miracles," 708, speaking of "a greatly accelerated natural process" that he regards as miraculous. A very serious illness, which included tuberculosis of the lungs and infected wounds of the shoulder, recovered fully within three weeks of bathing at Lourdes (Cranston, Miracle, 92). Normally
Lourdes counts healings only that begin instantaneously, but full recovery may take weeks; e.g., a cancer may stop immediately, but the bones may recalcify over weeks (Cranston, Miracle, 119), something that is impossible by currently known natural processes. Nevertheless, to be counted, a cure must lack a period of convalescence; the organic functions are restored immediately (Cranston, Miracle, 131). May, "Miracles,"
149, appears to demand a more instantaneous cure, to match the literary accounts in the Gospels. Needless to say, this criterion excludes from consideration many cures that might otherwise well be deemed miraculous.
97. MacNutt, Power, 51–54. Flach, Faith, 87–88, also alludes to this story.
More Extranormal Cases
shorter than the left, making it impossible to walk without crutches. But over the course of a few days of prayers, the leg grew to within half an inch of the other one, and finally—for the first time in fourteen years—she was able to walk again, unaided.98 I do not think that anyone will argue that this cure could have occurred naturally. If we wanted to accuse MacNutt of hallucinating or lying,99 we might need to accuse plenty of other witnesses of such events as well. Were MacNutt so inclined, however, he could have peppered his book with far more dramatic and instantaneous claims than he does. If we claim that this healing was necessarily psychosomatic, our claim betrays our naturalistic biases, since we lack evidence that mere belief can produce rapid bone growth. If we complain that we lack extensive medical documentation supporting the healing's cause being supernatural, we certainly also lack it for psychosomatic cures of this nature.100
Similarly, Emily Gardiner Neal noted that a blind woman was merely able to see light when they prayed; they prayed again, and she could see fully.101 While such a recovery may have happened in (two) stages (cf. Mark 8:23–25), it remains extraordinary! Dr. Bennett Hill suffered a totally paralyzing stroke due to occlusion of the basilar artery, a normally terminal condition from which one is not supposed to recover. He began to recover within two days after one evangelist prayed for him, however, with rapid progress thereafter.102 Although her recovery was gradual and scars remain, a woman in Mexico is said to have survived being shot roughly twenty times, after which she ran through the night, and thereafter recovered.103 I have already recounted the story that Yesenia Robinson shared with me about her son; given the sort of brain damage involved, his ability to speak,
98. MacNutt, Power, 53. Also, on 52, "In a period of hours her toes on the right foot had nearly doubled in size!" Bill Jackson (interview, Nov. 13, 2007) told me of a woman wearing a lift of about one and a half inches in her shoe; when he prayed and lightly tapped her foot, it grew out, and she removed the lift and walked home without it. The leg of a man with a built-up shoe grew two inches in Neal, Power, 56;
Bredesen, Miracle, 34, cites one report of nine inches; see also Osborn, Healing, first photograph between 258 and 259 (four inches); eighth photograph (five and a half inches, also noted in 309). Leg lengthening has often been visually fabricated, deliberately or not, but when doctors have placed lifts in the shoe and the leg visibly grows out, releasing one from years of pain (as also in Venter, Healing, 263–64; he offers other testimonies on 52, 188; also DeGrandis, Miracles, 100; Schiappacasse, Heals, 5; Prather, Miracles,
200–201; Seibert, Church, 99–100), the healing appears to be a genuine one (the sort that the failed attempts merely imitate). On the charismatic "genre" of "leg-lengthening," see Csordas, Self, 58–67 (with some treating it empirically as "spiritualized chiropractic," 61–65, words from 64).
99. While arguing that miracles in themselves do not convey meaning, Phillips, "Miracles," also notes that skeptics lack grounds to accuse witnesses of deception. As noted in ch. 5, Hume's approach, at least according to its ontological rather than epistemological interpretation, presumes that witnesses otherwise assumed to be reliable must be presumed to be lying or themselves deceived if testifying in support of events violating his stricture against miracles.
100. Indeed, I doubt that acupuncture, massage, or drug treatments would have produced this result.
101. Neal, Power, 40. Cf. the named person in Osborn, Healing, 285–86, cured of deafness one night and muteness the next morning (Jamaica, 1949); an elderly man's blindness cured in two stages on two different nights, 295 (Venezuela, 1952).
102. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 97–103 (on Kuhlman).
103. She was interviewed on videotape by my friend Obed Arango (personal correspondence, Aug.
27, 2008, and ensuing conversation).
Proposed Explanations
swallow, and the like is extraordinary, something that should not happen naturally given our current knowledge of the human brain.
Dr. G. Wayne Brodland, a professor in the University of Waterloo's engineering faculty and a specialist in biomechanics, provided philosophy professor Robert Larmer his account of his medically documented, progressive hearing recovery. Suffering from a substantial hearing deficit in one ear as a child, he became functionally virtually deaf in his late forties, due to auditory nerve degeneration. After prolonged prayer from groups that believed in healing, he insisted that his hearing was beginning to improve, despite his doctor's assurance that "nerve damage does not heal." To the audiologist's astonishment, however, tests verified that his ability to hear had indeed improved substantially. Although it was not perfect, he was no longer functionally deaf, and test results revealed that he could hear as well as he had in much younger years.104
British Anglican James Moore Hickson reported that most healings in his ministry were gradual105 and that many others were not healed.106 But he cites also some extraordinary examples not amenable to purely naturalistic explanations.
Thus one "man, whose deep, long-standing wound miraculously filled with flesh during the service, can now walk freely on his formerly lame foot."107 Likewise in New Zealand, one "calf leg, shrunken, had filled out almost to normal within twelve hours of the service."108 A few such extraordinary signs like these could prove quite compelling regardless of their comparative rareness (or taking twelve hours rather than twelve seconds). Moreover, such problems and healings cannot be readily attributed to what is purely psychosomatic.109 Some believers suggest that sometimes progressive healings give time to develop faith and spiritual growth in ways that might not come through instant healings.110 An automatic response, for many of us steeped in skeptical, Western Enlightenment thinking, is to question the witnesses' accuracy regarding these more dramatic sorts of cases. Granted, some reports are undoubtedly inaccurate. But what does our ready assumption about their inaccuracy, when applied automatically even to possibly special contexts, say about our own captivity to particular paradigms?
The Gospels and Acts do not specifically describe any signs as gradual,111 although a few texts might allow for such cases.112 (Normally they do not specify
104. Wayne Brodland wrote this account at the request of Robert Larmer, Oct. 13, 2007; I have greatly condensed the account (found in Larmer, "Manuscript") here (from eleven paragraphs to one).
105. Hickson, Heal, 50, 114; e.g., idem, Bridegroom, 268. Even some gradual healings were so numerous and of conditions considered so incurable that their effect proved dramatic (idem, Heal, 77, from a hospital matron in China, 1921).
106. Most who claim some healings note that many others were not healed (e.g., Deere, Power of Spirit, 128).
107. Hickson, Heal, 85, noting the witness from Japan in an area of many lepers in 1921.
108. Ibid., 218.
109. See again ibid., 72; Gardner, Healing Miracles, 29–31.
110. McKenna, Miracles, 51. She provides a nuanced perspective on gradual and medically aided healings (48–54).
111. Noted, e.g., by May, "Miracles," 147; Pullum, "Believe," 141.
112. Though the recovery in Mark 8:23–25 occurs in two stages, it also functions as an acted parable to teach the "half-blind" disciples (Mark 8:17). Perhaps "that hour" in Acts 16:18 allows for it; Acts 20:10–12
More Extranormal Cases
the dramatic restoration of missing flesh, as in some examples above, though they do specify restoration of sight, life, and so forth. But many of the mentions of healings we find in the Gospels are bare summaries.) Observers might pose theological, literary, or cultural explanations or a combination thereof to explain differences between those accounts and typical healing reports from our own era. For example, perhaps distinctively Jesus and those with fuller acquaintance with his healing ministry, such as the Twelve, were more prepared to experience dramatic, instant signs than most others are. Or perhaps (on theological grounds) their ministry invited fuller attestation than that of some others in our modern analogies.113 Other factors in the comparative lack of gradual signs might include the narrative focus of the Gospels and Acts (undoubtedly reporting the most extraordinary cures);114 or perhaps a culture more open to115 extraordinary signs; or less cultural disposition to analyze and remember (or perhaps care about) the length of time for completion (perhaps because they were more prone to believe in miracles than to doubt them). The differences between many modern examples and those narrated in the Gospels and Acts are worth noting, but they need not detract from the central point that eyewitnesses can claim extranormal healings, on at least some occasions instantaneous and complete ones.
In any case, the cumulative effects of some particularly dramatic healings reported today seem to move beyond conventional naturalistic explanations. Certainly cases such as the healings of infants or claims of people restored from a state of death, when these events occur in the specific context of prayer, challenge purely psychosomatic explanations.116 One could object that sudden recoveries happen might suggest it; in the ot, 2 Kgs 20:5 probably suggests it. Paul in Phil 2:27 may allow for Epaphroditus's recovery gradually or even construe it as divine grace employing natural means; Jas 5:15–16 does not specify the time frame explicitly. The summaries are not specific; most of the individual stories chosen for inclusion in the Gospels and Acts are more dramatic. Regarding frequency, Van Brenk, "Wagner," 258, while affirming that healings "happen with enough regularity," rightly notes that they seem to happen less often today than in nt accounts (at least in circles we regularly encounter).
113. One could argue that modern healings are on a lesser level than those in the Gospels and Acts or that God would grant them on that level only for extraordinary, strategic moments in history. The former position is a moderate cessationism not easily established exegetically but perhaps plausible empirically outside new evangelistic contexts, but the latter noncessationist approach might better accommodate a common experience in new evangelistic contexts. Either might be helpful for those who conclude (as some do) that Jesus always healed all who came to him, in contrast to less uniform healing claims today.
Robertson, Miracles, 114, suggests that we do not have the same level of faith that Jesus had.
114. Conciseness is a possible but less likely factor (cf., e.g., Matt 21:19 with Mark 11:14, 20—Matthew makes the miracle more instantaneous by abbreviating the account). One might cautiously compare later hagiography to this degree: a narrative praising its protagonist is less apt to report what might be construed as failures (cf. Goddu, "Failure," 7, on saints' exorcism failures, which [9–10] seem to have clustered in the sixth and seventh, eleventh through fourteenth, and sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). The sociology of paranormal claims favors successes (Charpak and Broch, Debunked, 50–51), though this explanation works better for sporadically correct predictions than for multiple cures of blindness and other major ailments through a single person.
115. And/or in need of them, physically and/or spiritually.
116. Many philosophers do accept the raising of the dead as significant evidence, if it occurs (Swinburne,
Miracles, 32), and most thinkers have long recognized that infants cannot be healed psychosomatically
Proposed Explanations
at times without prayer (certainly a correct observation), but again some of the examples (such as restoration from death hours after being pronounced dead, and at the moment of prayer) do not lend themselves as easily to such explanations.
One could regard all such claims as fictitious, but that particular approach, applied indiscriminately, will not carry weight with those (including myself) who know some sincere claimants or have witnessed their changed condition. It is too convenient a tool for dismissing evidence inconvenient to rigidly held presuppositions.
Some Scholars' Testimonies, Explanations Rather than include all testimonies earlier, I have reserved several new ones for this chapter (where I will also rehearse briefly some earlier examples). These are not all more substantive than all accounts offered earlier, but the sources fit Hume's profile of witnesses with much to lose. Although I cited testimonies of various scholars earlier, I have reserved some testimonies of some philosophers and my own accounts for here.
Philosophers' Interviews Robert Larmer, professor and chair of the department of philosophy at the University of New Brunswick, generously shared with me some interviews that he conducted with persons who had experienced unusual recoveries.117 One case involves Irene MacDonald of Fredericton, New Brunswick, who had been experiencing rapid deterioration from clearly diagnosed multiple sclerosis. A specialist warned her that her condition was terminal and that she would soon die. Soon bedridden, she needed spinal injections for pain every ten days. As the decline continued, however, one Friday afternoon a friend assured Irene that God was saying that he was going to heal her soon. Given all that she had been through,
Irene was understandably skeptical of such an encouragement by this point. Nevertheless, a dream and increased strength encouraged her, and Sunday she asked to be carried into church. During prayer for her there, feeling suddenly returned to (see the perspective noted in Mullin, Miracles, 209). Accounts of healed infants include Duffin, Miracles,
60 (noting multiple cases); Ising, Blumhardt, 207–8, 211; Koch, Zulus, 102–4; I offer many examples elsewhere in the book, including (though not by any means comprehensively) Duffin, Miracles, 145 (a raised infant); Llewellyn, "Events," 262; Gibbs, "Miracles," esp. 67–68, 70, 72; Ising, Blumhardt, 206–7;
Hickson, Heal, 76; "Healed from Trauma"; Sabourin, Miracles, 165–67; Gardner, Healing Miracles, 25–27;
Crandall, Raising, 155; Hock, Miracles, 47–49; Brown, "Healing Words," 278; Spraggett, Kuhlman, 76–83;
O'Connor, Movement, 162–63; Tarango, "Physician," 112; Bush and Pegues, Move, 55–56; Montgomery,
Faith, 109–12; DiOrio, Signs, 21–26; Pytches, Come, 121–22; DeGrandis, Miracles, 43; Harris, Acts Today,
100–101; Fant, Miracles, 141–44; Rumph, Signs, 49–52; Ikin, Concepts, 86–87; Jeanne Mabiala, July 29,
2008; Josiah Mataika, Jan. 29, 2009; Chester Allan Tesoro, Jan. 30, 2009; Sarah Speer, Jan. 7, Aug. 20, 2009;
James Watson, Nov. 27, 2009; Mirtha Venero Boza, Aug. 6, 2010; Iris Lilia Fonseca Valdés, Aug. 11, 2010.
117. Robert Larmer (personal correspondence, Aug. 4, 2009), sharing the chapter in an unpublished manuscript that he hopes to publish. I have omitted the names of physicians where they occurred because
I have not solicited permission to publish their names.
More Extranormal Cases
her arm and legs. Instantly she had full "control of her body and fully regained muscular strength." Although she had long been confined to bed, she walked from the church and returned to all her pre-illness activities. That was more than a quarter of a century ago, and none of the symptoms have ever returned. Dr. Larmer not only interviewed Irene but also knows well many of those who witnessed the original healing.118
Dr. Larmer also notes the healing of missionary Bill Drost, who was diagnosed with stomach cancer and informed by the specialist in New Brunswick that "even if the operation were successful Bill would need a tube in his side the rest of his life." Bill often fainted from the bleeding but had deferred the operation, against medical advice, to attend a conference. Because nothing had changed after previous occasions of prayer, he acquiesced when people at the conference wanted to pray for him, yet he expected nothing. The next morning, however, he realized that he had slept without pain and now felt hungry; "he had his first normal bowel movement in months." Although convinced that he was now healed, he kept his surgical appointment. The doctors found "no trace of cancer," and after nine days of extensive testing, they finally acknowledged his cure and sent him home. He passed away many years later, of unrelated causes.119
Larmer also notes Mary Ellen Fitch, who was hospitalized with hepatitis B. She was warned that she would need to remain in the hospital for a minimum of three months and likelier a year, with permanent liver damage. She turned yellow, and her swollen liver expanded her abdomen. Shortly beyond a week in the hospital, she had a deep experience with God and committed her condition to him to do as he chose. Blood tests the next morning showed that she was normal; the bewildered doctors kept testing her over time, but she continued to test normal. Many years have passed, and she has never had subsequent liver problems.120
Dr. Joseph Novak, a professor in the University of Waterloo's philosophy department, also provided a healing account to Larmer, concerning Novak's mother,
Mary. Her serious leg ulcers over the years had required various treatments, but operation for a broken femur cut off the flow of blood in her right leg, and massive gangrene set in. Doctors wanted to amputate her leg below the knee, though they acknowledged that Mary, at eighty-one, might not survive the surgery. She refused the operation, so the doctors told the family that they could not help her further, and to arrange for her to die in a hospice. Mary's deterioration continued there, where she dropped to about eighty-six pounds. At this point, Dr. Novak contacted Joan Gieson, known for her ministry to the poor in St. Louis and also for a healing ministry. Joan flew in to pray for Mary personally and even missed
118. Larmer, "Manuscript," citing interviews with Irene and Norman MacDonald, Oct. 4, 2007, and the witness of "a number of people in the church which I attend."
119. Ibid., citing interviews with Drost's widow, Ruth Drost, and son Verner Drost, and the published account of Drost's healing.
120. Ibid., based on an interview with Mary Ellen Fitch, Oct. 29, 2007. Fitch is now middle-aged; she was nineteen when she fell sick with hepatitis.
Proposed Explanations
her initial flight home due to delays at the nursing home. The day after her prayer, however, the leg was looking better, and soon the black spots turned red, then later disappeared. Gradually all the gangrene disappeared, to the astonishment of the doctors following the case. Mary lived on for nearly six more years before passing away from unrelated causes (a stroke) in 2005.121
Others report further interviews; for example, philosophy professor Hendrik van der Breggen, in his dissertation regarding the philosophic plausibility of miracle reports, mentions interviews with persons claiming eyewitness experience of miracles, including a university science professor and the former president of the Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada.122
One scholar I know, Dr. J. P. Moreland, who had long moved in cessationist circles, was astonished to find himself instantly healed in answer to prayer.123 He and a colleague now also provide reports of instantly healed bones;124 an instantly and completely healed knee;125 healings of cancers in their own church, including some that were beyond medical help; and the healing of blindness and deafness there.126
Some Limited Eyewitness Experience I have reserved this section for the final chapter not because my own experience is as dramatic as that of many others reported in the book but merely because
Hume emphasizes direct experience and denies the likelihood of credible witnesses with much to lose by testifying. Anyone familiar with Western academia will recognize that my academic reputation would be far better served by not challenging conventional assumptions on this issue. It would be even better served by not claiming to have witnessed extranormal cures myself, since some consider more biased those claiming to be witnesses of what the critics do not believe than those who, not having experienced such cures, feel free to dismiss them based on their nonexperience. (One might compare their limitations to the ambit of Hume's circle against those of Pascal or Wesley.) Making claims about some particular subjects violates the current understanding of "neutrality," and violating it seems particularly imprudent for one advocating a minority philosophic position in the academy.127
121. Ibid., reproducing verbatim the account provided by Dr. Joseph Novak. Again, I have greatly condensed the account (from nineteen paragraphs to one).
122. Breggen, "Miracle Reports," 383.
123. Moreland, Triangle, 164–65. Experience has also reoriented some others previously inclined toward cessationism, such as the cessationist in India reported in Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism,
150–51 (cf. the effect on the theologian in Hong Kong on 153); or Presbyterian evangelist Don Dunkerley
(Healing Evangelism, 28–30).
124. Moreland and Issler, Faith, 136.
125. Ibid., 138.
126. Ibid., 149. They also note the healing of a case of severe, long-term digestive sickness and insomnia
(149–51).
127. Some of us challenge dominant Western academic perspectives not because we are ignorant of them but because we feel compelled to do so by evidence we believe that we have witnessed.
More Extranormal Cases
Nevertheless, an honest exploration of truth claims cannot simply dismiss claims merely to perpetuate scholarly consensus. I have noted, for example, an increasing chorus of voices among anthropologists challenging Western assumptions regarding traditional cultures' worldviews regarding extraordinary experience. Most obviously, although she has generally retained respect, Edith Turner potentially risked her reputation in the anthropological community to attest eyewitness experience of phenomena in a traditional African religious context, phenomena that, according to modern Western assumptions, should not have occurred.128
Moreover, from another perspective, firsthand stories are particularly credible, because they bring the reader closest to the eyewitness level and demand the greatest care on the part of the eyewitness.129 I can also insist that my memories of miraculous events are not different in kind from my other memories: I do not recall, for example, a healing I witnessed three decades ago differently or with greater embellishment than I remember other events from that same time. The images of the setting and persons remain roughly equally clear. The only difference might be that I might remember the healing more clearly when it was such a dramatic event as to be seared into my memory, partly because it so challenged my cultural predispositions.
I began my own quite young philosophic explorations as an atheist, at which time I denied the possibility of miracles; as one who is currently a Christian and sometimes moves in circles where such phenomena are claimed, I would naturally personally affirm the possibility of miracles. At this point, however, I am not simply affirming that I believe that miracles are possible or that I believe that they occur; rather, I am affirming that I have witnessed some events myself that I believe may be most easily explained in such terms. By laying my integrity on the line, I join those who challenge Hume's denial of the existence of credible witnesses with something to lose.130
I risk stating this even though extranormal claims have been traditionally ruled out of bounds for discussion in academia, whereas the premise that such claims
128. See Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 149, 159; idem, "Reality." The academy traditionally followed
Humean thought here as well; Hume's primary target was apparently Christian apologetic, but he a priori dismissed claims from traditional religions as "ignorant and barbarous."
129. Cf., e.g., Covell, "Foreword," x, noting that they have taken stories "from participants, from close observers," and, at times, even the personal involvement of one of the authors, adding "even further credibility to the stories." On the value placed on eyewitness experience and participation in ancient historiography, see, e.g., Byrskog, History, 153–57; Keener, Historical Jesus, ch. 7.
130. See Kee, Miracle, 11–12. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 11, a physician, notes several doctors who could refute Hume at this point and lays his own medical credibility on the line. Against Hume's a priori exclusion of the value of testimony (even of concrete examples that he himself admits as unimpeachable testimony; Twelftree, Miracle Worker, 42), sufficient testimony should challenge a prioris, since our lives regularly depend on others' experience claims (Twelftree, Miracle Worker, 41). Strelan, Strange Acts, 9, notes that few nt scholars have wanted to engage supranormal phenomena in the nt; after a century of a priori rejection of the supernatural, "few academics would put their credibility and academic acceptability on the line by publishing on this material. If they did publish on it, it was to debunk it as historically unreliable or as illustrative of precritical thought."
Proposed Explanations
are inauthentic is deemed acceptable. Because of prejudices like those I have noted earlier, it is not surprising that some scholars with much to lose are reticent to challenge the status quo even when they do not agree with it. Their position is understandable, but I feel that my academic integrity would be more at risk if I entirely evade discussing my experience concerning the matters in question.
Hume's epistemology rejects testimony for events that more neutral observers would attribute to miracles (a rejection that I have argued is oversimplified and problematic); yet his epistemology grants much higher credence to one's direct experience. My direct experience is very limited; I have not directly experienced the most dramatic cases (like raisings from the dead) described in the book. Such experience would not be likely for me: given my normal primary professional focus on people who have been dead for two millennia, I do not spend much of my time in settings where I am frequently exposed to major health needs. Nevertheless, after completing my research, my own limited direct experiences seem in retrospect sufficient to incline me to regard many accounts that I have received from others as quite plausible. If this experience is a bias, it seems to me surely a better-grounded one than the nonexperience that some critics use as a basis for explaining away others' experiences.
I offer some more direct accounts in the next section but begin with some preliminary remarks. My wife is a non-Pentecostal, mainstream Congolese Protestant with her PhD from University of Paris 7;131 she and her family come from a region where Christianity peacefully spread from a relatively small minority to become the dominant professed faith in less than a century.132 In that context and elsewhere, we have personally witnessed some events no less extraordinary than those reported in the Gospels and Acts, even if not on a regular basis.133 If we
131. Like her father, who was gifted in healing, she has never yet experienced tongues, though some other family members have. At the time of writing, I have been a minister for about two decades in the National Baptist Convention, USA, and teach in a mostly interdenominational seminary affiliated with the American Baptist Convention (NBC is largely African-American; NBC and ABC are both members of the National Council of Churches). While I appreciate these connections, they arose from specific circumstances. My personal spiritual commitments are unrelated to denominational boundaries; I mention these connections only because readers might wish to know why I have not highlighted these connections the way that I have highlighted my wife's (and to explain how I had access to testimonies in particular circles). This is not the context where I have witnessed most healings, though examples in earlier chapters will show that these occur among various kinds of Baptists as elsewhere; a few were in Pentecostal church contexts, but most were outside church settings altogether.
132. In my wife's nation, Christianity grew from 2.5 percent of the population in 1910 to 89.9 percent in 2010 (Johnson and Ross, Atlas, 120). In Africa as a whole, Christianity grew from 9.2 percent of the population (9.9 million people) in 1900 to 45 percent (360 million) by 2000 (Hanciles, Beyond Christendom,
45, 128, following Jaffarian, "Statistical State"; Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson, Encyclopedia, 5); for Christian growth in Africa from 1910 to 2010, see Johnson and Ross, Atlas, 110–33. "Islam and Christianity," i, estimates seventyfold growth from 7 million to 470 million between 1900 and 2010.
133. Some of our eyewitness accounts (mostly not of healings) may be in the published version of Médine's war testimony (in process), although our original version will be greatly abridged (probably esp. regarding my own accounts). If someone accuses my wife and me of cultural bias for heeding reports from Africa (an accusation many would view as ethnocentric), I would respond that we are not denigrating the
More Extranormal Cases
include only phenomena that one of us has witnessed134 or those shared with us firsthand by those who claim to have experienced them, there is scarcely a report in the Gospels and Acts that I could not accept as at least potentially the claim of an eyewitness (water walking, turning water into wine, and permanent resurrection being admitted exceptions to our experience).
Thus, for example, I talked with an aged Nigerian evangelist, Baba Tambaya, who was widely known to have survived stoning and being left for dead in earlier years;135 a pastor who was wounded in the same war where my wife was a refugee fled unseen past his assailants;136 as I have noted, a member of my wife's immediate family (her sister Thérèse) was restored from roughly three hours of apparent death after prayer, among eyewitnesses my wife also knows;137 consistent prophecies from people of prayer in different regions accurately foretold what appeared to be impossible details of the future;138 both of us have witnessed some healings instantly following prayer and have close relationships with (or have been) the people so healed; and so forth. I also have close, trusted friends who have given eyewitness reports of healing miracles in which they were involved, and (as the reader by now knows) have interviewed a number of other eyewitnesses.139 For insights of eighteenth-century Western philosophy but that knowing multiple cultures provides a greater critical control than knowing only (or uncritically accepting the premises of only) Western culture. An anthropologist supporting a non-Christian worldview complains about the condescension of those who regard her convincing eyewitness experience (visibly witnessing a spirit during an African ritual) as merely
"subjective" (Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 160).
134. Our shared type of experience, by the way, reflects the commonness of the experience, not any deliberate matching on our part. Our shared academic background and nonmiraculous elements of shared faith brought us together; apart from a generic comment about her father's healing gift, I began learning most of her miracle-type stories only after we were engaged.
135. I met with Tambaya Jibirin on July 2, 1998. Our interpreter was Emmanuel Itapson, now my colleague in Hebrew Bible at Palmer Theological Seminary; Emmanuel's father had worked closely with Baba Tambaya. Other cases of people being revived after being left for dead are reported (e.g., Numbere,
Vision, 178; Lynch-Watson, Robe, 50, shocking the Tibetan witness's persecutors; Acts 14:19–20).
136. Pastor Massamba (told to Médine and others who visited him and recorded in Médine's journal,
June 27, 1999).
137. Antoinette Malombé (July 12, 2008); Ngoma Moïse (May 14, 2009); see ch. 12.
138. In spite of some prophecies not being fulfilled, some, especially some from particular individuals, proved accurate in extraordinary details. These include several independent prophecies from different individuals that she would marry a white minister, in settings where barely anyone was white and no one knew even of our friendship (e.g., one on Feb. 27, 1999, when she was a refugee in the forest; and in 1990 and 1997, from a different person who did not know the other). At the time, she had no reason to believe that it was even possible that we would marry.
139. In the course of preparing this section, some people in my immediate circle as well as some who did not know of the project told me about cures, many of which (if they are less documented or distinctive) are not recorded elsewhere in the book. For example, my physicist-trained brother Chris reported to me
(June 23, 2007, concerning an earlier event) the sudden, complete, and permanent healing of a friend's long-term pain from a shoulder injury during prayer for healing in which Chris was involved. Similarly during that time, J. P. Moreland, though trained in cessationist circles, also told me that he adopted an entirely different perspective after witnessing several dramatic healings in his church (see now his Triangle,
164–65). Such events necessarily appear anecdotal in isolation—but can appear more persuasive to those who know the persons and their integrity, and when they happen on multiple occasions.
Proposed Explanations
what it is worth, because of our own settings, only a minority of these events near us took place in specifically identifiable Pentecostal or charismatic circles. I shall note some more concrete examples in the next section.
I reiterate again my awareness that extranormal healings do not occur every time petitioners seek them. Many are not healed; many others experience only temporary reprieves in remissions; and everyone eventually dies. Even in the Gospels and Acts, healings function as signs of the future kingdom, not as universal guarantees of perpetual health. Moreover, in most Christians' theology, depending on natural medicine no more contravenes faith than does working for one's daily bread in addition to praying for it; in the Gospels, Jesus multiplied food when necessary but expected his followers to use natural means for their next meal
(Mark 6:43; John 6:12–13).
I also emphasize here that, like most people with access to medical resources, I resort to these medical resources regularly, and there have been a number of times, such as a series of miscarriages we have experienced, where no cure, medical or otherwise, occurred. The latter disappointments make me sympathetic toward those who, from their own experience, are skeptical of miracles; I have at times been quite tempted by such skepticism. But our own experience is too small a sample size from which to rule out what others may have experienced, and some of the incidents we have experienced, including those experienced by myself or people close to me, were dramatically extranormal, not simply normal recoveries.
Even if apparently extranormal recoveries might sometimes occur naturally, and I have not witnessed such recoveries on a uniformly regular basis, I believe that they occurred immediately after prayer far more frequently in our circles of acquaintance than one might easily attribute to coincidence.140 Some philosophers note that one need not rule out supernatural claims in the case of "extraordinary coincidence," with an extraordinarily improbable collocation of factors.141 Witnesses cite a large number of such cases.142
140. E.g., although Harnack accepted Luke's historical reliability highly (see Johnson, "Miracles and History," 535–37), Harnack reduces the miracles "by a rather free use of the theory of coincidence" (537), until it becomes cumulatively overwhelmingly improbable (538).
141. See Swinburne, Miracle, 10; Corduan, "Miracle," 104; as "signs," cf. 1 Sam 10:7; for divine explanations in ancient Greek thought, cf. "Coincidence," 1021–22. This principle might apply to highly unusual cases of prophecy (e.g., Newman, "Prophecy"). Clouds spelling out Scripture do not appear to require a violation of nature, technically, but the natural probability of such an event is so low as to virtually demand a supernatural explanation (cf. Langtry, "Probability," 71).
142. An example of such a "coincidence" would be David Wilkerson feeling led to seek a particular person in precisely the building in all of Spanish Harlem where it turned out that he lived, in Wilkerson,
Cross, 31; for other leadings or cases of direction, see, e.g., 106, 109–11; Peckham, Sounds, 84, 227;
Alexander, Signs, 1–2; Baxter, Healing, 102; Bennett, Morning, 106–7; Piper, Minutes, 160–62; Tournier,
Casebook, 213; Numbere, Vision, 445–46; McKenna, Miracles, 129–30; Lesslie, Angels, 152–54; Ten
Boom, Tramp, 84, 87–88; Koch, Zulus, 12–13, 108, 261–63, 279–81 (for coincidence; for guidance, 26,
28, 235–36, 239); Alamino, Footsteps, 67–68; Anderson, Miracles, 4–6, 15–16, 41–42, 44–46, 76–77,
92–93, 107–8, 232–34 (in this last case, the precise yet unknown phone number where the intended recipient was passing in another state); the unusually fortuitous circumstances in Duffin, Miracles,
147; Flint, "Accounts," 147; Sullivan, "Foreword," viii; Carothers, Prison, 87–88; Lesslie, Angels, 144,
More Extranormal Cases
Closer Eyewitness Examples and Alternative Explanations That eyewitnesses claim to have witnessed extranormal recoveries should be safely beyond dispute; the existence of such claims and recoveries, however, cannot by itself conclusively resolve the question of their interpretation.143 Even if we accept the use of modern analogies, scholars might differ concerning the particular analogies from which to draw: charlatans, theologically suspect or (alternatively) naturalistically explainable yet sincere claims, more credible claims, or some other approach to categorizing the reports.
Even when there can be no question that an event occurred, interpreters will differ as to the cause of the event. For example, I watched as a Christian group of college students preparing for a ministry outreach event prayed for the stilling of a heavy storm; the storm, which had continued for a couple hours and was expected to continue for much of the day, stopped within seconds.144 In the West, the usual secular explanation for such an event would be coincidence145—though as one person skeptical about undue skepticism pointed out, "All I know is that when I stop praying, the coincidences stop happening!"146
On another occasion, also in the United States, I saw a sincere man whom I knew take the hand of an elderly woman who had never been able to walk since
I had known her. To the horror of the rest of us in that nursing home room, including the woman, Don commanded Barbara to walk in the name of Jesus and lifted her by her hand from her wheelchair. (If skeptics charge that faith is a bias,
I may be deemed innocent of that bias in this case: I was terrified that the poor woman would collapse on the floor.) She immediately began to walk, though
146–48 (cf. perhaps 203–4); Wright, Acts, 131–33; Yohannan, Revolution, 36–38; Robertson, Miracles,
18; Anderson, Miracles, 23–24, 32–33, 34–36, 40–41; Woodard, Faith, 57–58; Braun, Way, 80–82,
220, 243; Brian Stewart (interview, Aug. 14, 2010); David Gomero Borges and Yaíma Gutiérrez Valdés
(interview, Aug. 13, 2010); Marszalek, Miracles, 113–14, 184–85; Aikman, Jesus in Beijing, 106; the providential circumstances deferring execution in ibid., 70–71. Still, unusual circumstances can accompany both positive and negative occurrences; see Crump, Knocking, 13–14. I have also on some occasions experienced precise leadings (a very few are recounted in Gift, 37, 44, 51, 57, 121; one from June 14, 1998, corroborated through correspondence with Jeff Power, July 24, 2010); one could fill volumes with claims of this nature.
143. I deliberately take the following two examples from the United States. In the West, such phenomena, which violate standard plausibility structures, seem far less frequent than in many parts of the world, but such claims are made in the West as well. Regarding interpretation, those with paranormal experiences usually interpret them within their own folk religious contexts (McClenon, Events, 5), as faith explanations provide contexts for reducing cognitive dissonance (10).
144. Mentioned also in Keener, Gift, 62; personal journal, Nov. 6, 1993. For much more dramatic examples of nature miracles, see ch. 12, although I did not witness most of those. The stopping of storms after prayer is not uncommon (for another example, see Bright, "Guest," 47), though it should be noted that storms eventually stop, and they do not always stop when people pray. I have thus given preference to more unusual cases.
145. One need not rule out supernatural claims in the case of "extraordinary coincidence" (see
Swinburne, Miracle, 10), but my point here is that competing worldviews produce alternative explanations.
146. Elberta Bennett in Bennett, Morning, 101, in the context of prayers regarding the weather. The point is not that all prayers are answered, but that for those who move in this spiritual sphere the "coincidences" often seem extraordinary and large in number (with past or others' experience as a control).
Proposed Explanations
at first hesitantly, scarcely believing it herself, and after that day began walking regularly and very happily, though initially using a walker for security.147 At first too shocked to believe what was happening, after she found herself able to walk she regularly expressed appreciation that she had been cured that night. Because
I saw her every week I knew that she did not relapse after the excitement of the moment; far from it, she walked from that time on.
Some would explain this recovery as a psychological cure of a psychosomatic illness; I am not qualified to speak to whether or not such factors were at work in this case and cannot deny the possibility. I can say that few in the room at that time, knowing her long-term complaints about her condition, would have doubted the reality of her changed condition, even though we were not prepared to do what
Don did. More to the point, she appeared as horrified by his action initially as the rest of us; moreover, if her condition was psychosomatic, he had no natural way to know that. If only a psychosomatic illness could be cured and Don had no way to distinguish it from a physical one, it seems quite a happy coincidence that we witnessed Don's involvement in this public cure but never saw him attempt any cures that failed.
I have witnessed extraordinary events on a number of other occasions. I have not kept track, and am not listing here occasions beyond healings. Nevertheless, the following, all from before I began graduate work in religion and many from within my first two to four years as a Christian, are examples:
• the instant disappearance of a cyst in the ear of a woman I prayed for;148 • after two of us prayed, the immediate functioning again of a person's kidneys, which had failed; • the immediate healing of lungs that had been bleeding, where the doctor previously suspected lung cancer;149 • the healing of my own limping, damaged ankle immediately thereafter able to run well;150 147. After being confined to a wheelchair so long, her muscles were undoubtedly atrophied in any case. On reading this account, my younger brother Chris reminded me that he was also present on that occasion and witnessed Barbara's rising and walking (personal correspondence, Jan. 30 and Feb. 8, 2009).
I have not been able to locate Don, then a Fuller seminarian, who had been part of my church, to secure permission to print his full name.
148. By contrast, a more recent cyst of my own had to be addressed medically.
149. I recount this one, regarding Mabel Cooper, in somewhat more detail in Gift, 59.
150. I have always had weak ankles. Within two years of my conversion, I was healed of an injured ankle at the beginning of a cross-country race after a couple weeks of limping in pain; the pain vanished instantly and permanently, and that was (to my embarrassment) the only race in which I ever took first place. A few years later (ca. 1984), I twisted or broke an ankle in an accident, and, unable to afford medical help, for two years could only limp on it painfully if I overexerted it, after the swelling eventually went down. I can testify that for those years I had not been able to run on it more than at most a few meters without intense pain returning and stopping me. In late summer or early fall of 1986, after no change in the condition, my ankle was instantly healed after I sensed special faith for healing while I was praying,
More Extranormal Cases
• instant and complete healing of flu at its intense peak;151 • and so forth.152
Yet on other occasions of equally intense prayers, no suprahuman cures were forthcoming. No formula allowed one to predict the outcome in a given instance.
Interpreting the Evidence Cumulatively, I believe that the evidence should be sufficient to challenge any rule based on Hume's denial of adequate eyewitness claims for miracles. The exception must be if one places the bar of adequacy so high that no evidence can meet it, but to do so is simply to restate a presupposition that miracles cannot occur. Is this the conclusion to which an observer neutral on the question would likely come?
Is a Nontheistic Interpretation Necessary?
Lack of a predicting formula does not mean that we lack an observable pattern.
If, for example, eyewitnesses or even medical records attest that some persons have been raised from the dead (though this phenomenon is comparatively rare both today and in the Gospels and Acts), one could counter that people who appear to be dead do sometimes (very rarely) return to life, and coincidentally some might return to life when a person is expressing faith for that to happen. Yet this explanation does not easily account for the clustering of such events around those who expect it to occur at times. A person committed to antitheism or committed for some other reason to admitting only nontheistic explanations might counter that faith is itself some active power not yet understood, though this proposal would seem a high price for maintaining thoroughgoing naturalism (some might even view it as another form of supernaturalism).153 That is, if one is inclined to doubt and I tested it right away. The next day I had opportunity for a greater test with six flights of stairs, which I ran up; the pain from that injury never returned.
151. Twice in the first two years after my conversion, afflicted by the flu and ready to disgorge into a toilet basin, I prayed and was cured so instantly that there was suddenly not even anything to disgorge. I had not planned to mention these cures until reading that a doctor was persuaded of the efficacy of prayer when his own flu instantly dissipated after it (Spraggett, Kuhlman, 62–63), hence thought it could be appropriate to mention it. Accustomed to vomiting during flu in that period of my life, I prayed that God would remove that affliction from me; while I cannot predict the future, I have not vomited for over three decades since that time (though I have been sick plenty of other ways, including a brief period with reflux).
152. When as a young Christian I used to pray in a wooded area, my arms quickly filled up with mosquito bites; after I prayed for the bites (and for those of anyone praying with me, on occasions when anyone did), they vanished within a few minutes (at most half an hour), which had not been my usual experience before my conversion. This happened on numerous occasions and, at that time in my life, without exception.
153. In a Platonic worldview, the world of ideas exerts itself in the world of shadows (hence in later
Platonism, matter). Cf. sixteenth-century alternatives to miraculous explanations that appealed instead to "causes almost as wondrous: occult virtues of animals, plants, and humans; astral influences; the power of the imagination on animate and inanimate bodies" (Daston, "Facts," 112). Bacon allowed that rigid
Proposed Explanations
the possibility of divine activity, one can pose an alternative possibility without assurance that one's explanation is itself probable, so long as one deems a supernatural explanation impossible.
Yet is it really intellectually necessary to dismiss as possible the explanation that large numbers of actual observers believe far more consistent with the most relevant evidence—namely, the explanation of divine activity? The majority of those who assume as necessary Hume's argument or antitheism are not themselves professional philosophers. They seem to simply take for granted that philosophy has excluded the possibility of miracles, when in fact, contrary to the belief of some outside academic philosophy, theism remains an acceptable subject of discussion in that discipline.154 Indeed, as one committed naturalistic philosopher unhappily but fairly points out, the vast majority of philosophers of religion addressing theism today write in support of it.155 Appealing to a philosophic a priori against the possibility of God as a cause will not work as an a priori basis for rejecting supernatural explanations for miracle claims. Atheism is not currently the default philosophic position, so it must be argued for rather than assumed. And if one does not a priori rule out the possibility of a supernatural explanation, many will find a supernatural explanation the most compelling one available for some of the incidents that have been recounted.
Normally one places greater trust in hypotheses that make accurate predictions; some would thus attribute unpredictability in these matters to pure coincidence.
But historical work and social sciences in general cannot make exact predictions,156 precisely because intelligent agents are not always predictable.157 Since too many of the examples above seem implausible to me as pure coincidence, particularly cumulatively, I prefer a different hypothesis: a personal God ready and able to heal, corpses allegedly bleeding again when their murderers were present might be miraculous but deemed it likely due to mental causes (Daston, "Facts," 112).
154. See, e.g., among many others, Plantinga, Minds; Davies, Physics; Davis, Proofs; Dembski, Inference;
Denton, Destiny; Gale and Pruss, "Argument"; Koons, Realism; Oderberg, "Argument"; Gale and Pruss,
Existence; Manson, Design (for both sides); Swinburne, Existence; Nowacki, Argument; O'Connor, Theism; for helpful popular introductions to theistic philosophers, see Craig, "Not Dead"; Clark, Philosophers; for a summary of arguments, see also Beck, "Existence." Even the Platonic theistic perspective of some innate knowledge of God might find comfort in the modern suggestion that faith in the divine is a distinctly human, genetic survival instinct (Benson, Healing, 196–97, 208–11, though he leaves open the question whether it is divinely planted or projected by need).
155. Smith, "Metaphilosophy," 197 (brought to my attention by Licona, "Historicity of Resurrection,"
110n82; accessed Nov. 28, 2008, and later in hard copy). Smith estimates that theists (mostly "orthodox
Christians") compose a quarter to a third of philosophy professors (196), but that perhaps 98 percent of those publishing on philosophy of religion advance theism (197).
156. Popper, Historicism, 12–14. Indeed, one cannot predict the outcome of particular surgeries, though one can offer statistical probabilities (Cassell, Miracles, 214); the reasons for unpredictability, however, are different in the case of miracles.
157. Barbour, Religion and Science, 140; cf. Barrow and Tippler, Principle, 139. As Ward, "Miracles and Testimony," 137, notes, we do not speak of human actions as violating nature simply because the laws of physics do not predict them. He would apply this principle a fortiori to claims about divine action, since he denies that science can formulate laws about God as a nonphysical being (Ward, "Believing," 746–47).
More Extranormal Cases
but one who also often allows created nature to take its own course and who is not manipulated by formulas, as perhaps an impersonal or merely psychological force could be.158 Although miracles are consistent with the character of the biblical God, we cannot always predict a personal deity's future actions, especially when our knowledge about the factors involved in those actions are limited.159 If miracles happened with absolute regularity, we would view them as part of the course of nature; their occurrence beyond providence in nature allows them to function more specifically as signs revealing God's activity and character.160
158. Lourdes notes the unpredictability of cures, emphasizing that this places them outside the normal domain of scientific laws (Cranston, Miracle, 136, 264). C. S. Lewis, like many others, argued that one should expect the usual course of nature in general, with God intervening only selectively (e.g., Lewis, Miracles,
201). Although his book reflects its milieu (an older understanding of natural law and sometimes a Platonic perspective; note the concern in Sharp, "Miracles," 11), many of its considerations remain useful in (or even anticipate) the current discussion (Larmer, "Critique," 167, thinks them "worthy of more attention and respect by professional philosophers"). I think the evidence today suggests more miracles than Lewis expected, but it is true that they seem not to occur evenly or pervasively throughout human experience.
In terms of what is conceivable, miracles would not even need to be "rare" (Landrum, "Miracle," 56–57;
Fitzgerald, "Miracles," 61–62); if they function as signs, they simply need to communicate something from personal suprahuman intelligence.
159. See the discussion in Smart, Philosophers, 39–42.
160. Detractors of Christianity sometimes protest that a genuinely good God would provide far more miracles than are claimed (also deists, cf., e.g., Mott, "Science," 66); some consider this a complex problem that challenges the theistic hypothesis (cf., e.g., Weintraub, "Credibility," 372; counting biblical miracles as arbitrary and biased, see Overall, "Miracles," 351–52, but McGrew, "Miracles," 4.1, shows why most philosophers do not follow Overall's argument; cf. Overall, "Larmer"; Larmer, "Apology").
Taliaferro, "Argument," 225–26 (responding to Sobel, Logic, 309), posits eschatological justice and asks how far Sobel would push the fairness argument, since skills and so on are also inequitably distributed.
Some argue that miracles for a few are unfair (Keller, "Argument," 69–70; he allows that only God might know why, but only if one has other reasons for believing this, 73; cf. his process approach in "Power").
(As an analogy regarding complaints about God's limited benefits, one might note a writer's claim about a government leader who expressed concern about foreigners giving out candy if there was not enough for all the children. Resources being limited, however, it is said that the leader sometimes had had to do similar things [Corbett, Cuba, 186, 188]. Most theists would appeal not to God's lack of resources but to miracles needing to be distinguishable from usual providence in nature; my point is simply that we ought not to complain about benefits even when they are not universal.) McKenzie responds ("Miracles," 77) that miracles are unmerited, like all grace or election; that (77–78) different benefits may be conferred on others; that (76) their limited occurrence fits the Christian understanding of grace and mystery; and most important, that (82) there is a nonarbitrary pattern as to where miracles are reported, often associated with faith (82) or mission (82–84). Some argue that God could be good and allow suffering to prevent greater harm to the recipient (cf. Stump and Kretzmann, "Being," 312). Some argue for God allowing a measure of chance, so that misfortune generally (more than average incidents of it) serves a purpose (Inwagen,
"Chance," 234–35; but while Inwagen allows for miracles [217], the viability of this approach remains contingent on his theological perspective not shared by all). Parker, "Suffering," 215–16, contends that if God always did miracles, human self-interest would overwhelm human moral freedom (cf. John 6:26,
30–31). Wei, "Meaning," 254, contends that if miracles always happened in given circumstances, we would see them as divine regularity; but since they are rare, they could be simply anomalies, like a spontaneous recovery. If, however, they were standard, one might subsume them under the ordinary course of nature
(specific associations with prayer or the like perhaps constituting the distinguishing factor); Hume (as quoted in Mawson, "Miracles," 33) noted, "Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature." From a theistic approach, divine providence in nature is widely distributed, but miracles function more specifically as signs of God's activity and character (cf. very similarly O'Grady,
Proposed Explanations
Hume ruled out miracles and thus circularly ruled out the reliability of any witnesses who reported them.161 Hume's line of argument has cast its influence far beyond his discipline and even beyond those who are aware of its intellectual pedigree. Thus, as I noted in an earlier chapter, one professor, when I asked him if he could believe in a genuine miracle if someone were raised from the dead in front of him, unhesitatingly responded, "No." Yet he considered me closed-minded for being a Christian, although I was a convert from atheism who had once myself discounted all Christians' intelligence on grounds no better than his. Why do many academicians consider a theistic explanation biased,162 yet one that presupposes atheism or deism neutral? I have repeatedly suggested that atheistic or deistic premises are no more neutral than theistic ones and merely pose as such because of their hegemony in academic modernity.
Suprahuman Explanations?
On the subject of miracles, William P. Wilson, professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center, concludes, "In spite of protestations by some scientists, documented events occur regularly both in this country and in the rest of the world," and many are similar in kind to those reported about Jesus and his early followers.163 My primary critique in this book has been directed toward those who deny that credible eyewitnesses can report such events, not against those who simply reduce the question to one of interpretation of the observations (as often in many anthropological accounts that nonjudgmentally report such phenomena).
Among Western scholars aware of the many healing claims in the world today, the second approach is far more common than the first.
Yet I also offer a secondary argument in this book regarding the interpretation of such events. I suggested earlier that scholars ought not to close off suprahuman explanations a priori, even if we did lack an overwhelming sample size of relatively dramatic, well-attested, and extraordinarily improbable (from the standpoint of naturalistic assumptions) events to completely establish the degree of burden of proof properly assigned to a particular position.164 I believe that we have sufficient credible testimonies and other evidence (and that much more could be added) that cumulatively favor the probability that cases of suprahuman causation exist.
As in civil law, most historians accept "more probable than not" as the standard for the burden of proof, and I have argued that unless one presupposes from the start that they cannot be valid this is the appropriate standard to apply when evaluating
"Miracles," 373). For a psychological critique of those who reject miracles unless everyone receives them, see Montgomery, Trusting, 117–18.
161. See Licona, "Historicity of Resurrection," 95, 97.
162. Hume denied the credibility of miracle stories recounted in religious contexts, which he deemed irrational (Larmer, Water, 105).
163. Wilson, "Miracle Events," 278.
164. Cf. Licona, "Historicity of Resurrection," 135, who notes that he would believe his wife's testimony even about a highly unusual event, such as meeting the president of the United States, because he trusts the integrity of her testimony.
More Extranormal Cases
miracle claims.165 As I noted earlier, hundreds of millions of people claim to have witnessed miracles, and as I have also illustrated, a number of these claims (though not by any means all of them) are significant and multiply attested.
The radical Enlightenment (as opposed to the early Enlightenment thinkers) excluded even the hypothesis of divine intervention from consideration in explaining the data of even the best-attested miracle claims. Yet could it not be culturally elitist to simply dismiss from consideration the credibility of traditions stemming from most cultures and eras in history, based on a presupposition for which those who hold it rarely seek to even offer evidence? Granted, as I have noted, many individual claims, especially those far removed from the eyewitnesses, are inauthentic or misinterpreted. But does critical thinking always support an all-or-nothing mentality on other matters of debate?166 Science and history address whether some people genuinely recovered; they do not need to rule out the question of why they recovered or the option of divine causation, although this question has usually been assigned only to theologians.
Those who start from theistic assumptions may view all recoveries as divine grace, whether demonstrably supernatural (i.e., not readily admitting naturalistic explanations) or not. By contrast, as I have noted, those who start from antisupernaturalist assumptions sometimes rule out all supernaturalist explanations even if no purely natural explanation is readily available, by merely postulating that a naturalistic explanation may be possible when more is known about nature or about the particulars of the recovery. Antisupernaturalists and antitheists should be clear, however, that they are filtering information through an interpretive grid no less than the theist is.167 Those who do not a priori rule out supernatural factors, awaiting some evidence, will neither dismiss nor endorse all cases. They will find some cases more compelling than others and thus need to critically evaluate claims on a case-by-case basis.
Dramatic Recoveries Although most people do not experience recoveries inexplicable in view of what is known of natural processes, the numbers of such reports may give skeptics pause, and some of these reports have strong claim to authenticity. I believe that some dramatic recoveries in the context of prayer do suggest evidence of divine activity. Some include medical documentation; a much larger number are, like claims in the Gospels and Acts, just eyewitness claims.
165. Ibid., 134, and idem, Resurrection, 193–94, noting that the different standard in criminal cases,
"beyond reasonable doubt," would make witnesses for Jesus's resurrection even more difficult to challenge, rather than less.
166. With regard to claims of angelic experiences, Moolenburgh, Meetings, 203, notes that even if one explains away some stories as natural phenomena, hallucinations, hypnosis, or fabrication, too many remain to explain away all of them. Moolenburgh refers to his own collection of roughly one hundred accounts; the principle obtains far more when one addresses millions of claims.
167. What I earlier called a naturalism-of-the-gaps approach, in these cases without the gaps.
Proposed Explanations
Although not all of the following claims share equal attestation, I wish to recall here some claims of dramatic recoveries that cannot be easily explained (if accurate) without supernatural explanations. Examples include reports of complete healings of severely broken bones and bone chips.168 Other reports include someone who was said to have been brain-dead for months yet was restored through prayer;169 healings from AIDS or HIV infection;170 and a huge number of immediate healings of long-paralyzed limbs or inability to walk, even though genuine, longterm paralysis (the case in some of these instances) is not normally reversible.171 I noted independent researchers who marveled at someone wheelchair-bound for twenty years who rose and walked even before his muscles should have been able to permit this activity.172 A midwife reportedly gave birth to two sets of twins in years following a hysterectomy;173 that this claim is impossible on natural terms goes without saying, but that is the point. In a similar report, a young woman was healed in Canada in 1922 and, though the doctor insisted that he had removed her reproductive organs, she bore two sons.174 Others claim teeth instantly and miraculously filled.175 Pastor Raju Mathew prayed for a woman expected to die the next day, who was completely healed;176 a person dying of kidney failure was healed and then lived another quarter century, to the age of eighty-nine.177
Although cancers sometimes do go into remission, for which reason I have not offered as many of those accounts here, even some of these accounts are dramatic, such as the lady healed of throat cancer, without an operation, who now sings daily.178
In another case an esophagus eaten by cancer is said to have been restored when the cancer was healed.179 In another account (by the healed person's daughter, an eyewitness), a woman who had died from throat cancer that had destroyed her
168. Carl Cocherell (phone interview, May 2, 2009; medical documentation received, June 17, 2009); claiming X-ray support, Schiappacasse, Heals, 12–13 (bones), 31 (virtually new hip joints, after twenty years' deterioration); cf. ibid., 30–31.
169. Baker, Enough, 65.
170. Ibid., 160; Jeanne Mabiala, interview, July 29, 2008; Schiappacasse, Heals, 27–28.
171. E.g., Augustine City of God 22.8; De Wet, "Signs," 103–4; Ma, "Encounter," 137; idem,
"Vanderbout," 129, 132; Castleberry, "Impact," 112; Daniel, "Labour," 160; Filson, "Study," 154; Bush and Pegues, Move, 56; Khai, "Pentecostalism," 270; Green, Thirty Years, 104; Dunkerley, Healing Evangelism,
18–20; Harris, Acts Today, 104–5; Marie Brown, correspondence, May 31, 2006; Bernard Luvutse, personal correspondence, Aug. 17, 2006; Shelley Hollis, phone interview, Jan. 10, 2009; Mina KC, interview by John Lathrop, March 2, 2010.
172. Hirschberg and Barasch, Recovery, 113–15.
173. Jeanne Mabiala, interview, July 29, 2008. For other testimonies of childbearing after a hysterectomy, see Lindsay, Lake, 56; Antoinette Malombé, interview, July 13, 2008.
174. Cadwalder, "Healings," testifying of his personal knowledge of the event, more than four decades earlier.
175. E.g., Castleberry, "Impact," 112 (from his interview with Benjamin LaFon), 143 (an interview with the mother, a physician); Gardner, Healing Miracles, 175–84; Bonnie Ortiz, interview, Jan. 10, 2009.
176. Raju Mathew, interview, Aug. 29, 2008.
177. Harris, Acts Today, 70–71.
178. Lambert, Millions, 114. Cf. also the woman raised from the dead and healed after cancer had eaten away her voice box, in Barachias Irons, personal correspondence, Sept. 13, 2009.
179. Johnson, Heaven, 53–54; idem, Mind, 36.
More Extranormal Cases
voice box was both raised and healed, thereafter able to speak.180 I will not rehearse here the claims where the cancer had spread and was inoperable.181
Some have claimed instant healings of afflictions that were clearly visible, such as a misshapen skull becoming normal.182 Hickson cites a case of organic troubles caused by an accident, including a crooked face, the removal of part of the tongue, and inability to speak articulately; instantly healed, the woman's "face was straightened and her speech restored."183 One evangelist claims that he saw with his "own eyes" advanced cancer disappear instantly after prayer: the wound ran from the chest to the intestines, but he saw the color and texture suddenly change and the wound begin to close.184 At Lourdes, the abdominal swelling of a woman with tuberculosis "immediately disappeared before the eyes of the examining doctors."185
More often, witnesses, including some I know, have described lumps instantly disappearing on various occasions.186 A number of others cite the instant, public disappearance of goiters during prayer.187 For example, Julie Ma recounts how she
180. Barachias Irons (personal correspondence, Sept. 13, 2009), passing on the information for me directly from her mother, from whom she had it and whom she consulted, Mother Katherine Taylor.
Robertson, Miracles, 145–48, 156–58, reports nonmedical healings of cancer that had already spread throughout the body.
181. E.g., Reed, Surgery, 35, 52–53; Oursler, Power, 135, 231; Baxter, Healing, 184, 194–206; DiOrio,
Miracle, 37–43, 97–105. Healings of cancers and tumors are common in Roman Catholic canonization records (Duffin, Miracles, 87).
182. Lindsay, Lake, 57.
183. Hickson, Bridegroom, 301.
184. Stewart, Only Believe, 75, portraying a cure of this character as highly unusual. He recounts also how two members of their team felt the place where a hole had been in someone's side before prayer and now found it gone (175), X-rays afterward confirming that removed ribs had been restored (176; it is not clear from the account whether Stewart himself saw the X-rays, though it sounds like it).
185. Woodard, Faith, 57, noting that she had been suffering for eight years "from tuberculosis peritonitis and also tuberculosis of the bones"; now she was spontaneously recovering.
186. Kim, "Prominent Woman," 205; Brown, "Awakenings," 363; Spraggett, Kuhlman, 141 (a probably cancerous growth on the ear, disappearing instantly); Harris, Acts Today, 100–101; Huyssen, Saw, 146–48;
Llewellyn, "Events," 257 (cf. the visible, immediate disappearance of scars in ibid., 256); Osborn, Healing,
281, 293, 301 (a hunchbacked person instantly healed); Iris Lilia Fonseca Valdés (interview, Aug. 11, 2010);
Zagrans, Miracles, 100; Moreland, Triangle, 169; Bill Twyman, interview, Nov. 11, 2007; Eleanor Sebiano, interview, Jan. 29, 2009; Yusuf Herman, July 10, 2011; Marie Brown, personal correspondence, May 31,
2006 (on Tanzania); earlier, Duffin, Miracles, 37 (a cancerous breast lump the size of an egg disappearing overnight, 1844); cf. Schiappacasse, Heals, 43–44, 47; Tari, Wind, 113–15 (a boil breaking); Koch, Zulus,
115 (a visible tumor healing—perhaps he means a boil—but the speed of full healing is not as clear).
Anna Gulick (correspondence, Jan. 14, 2010; June 6, 2011; interview, March 11, 2011) recounts that after being bitten, one parishioner's wrist swelled to "the size of a small football"; Anna felt led to simply touch the wrist, saying something like, "In the name of Jesus," "and immediately the edema collapsed."
187. Sung, Diaries, 58; Yeomans, Healing, 123; Jamieson, "Healings"; Frodsham, "Victories" (a particularly severe goiter substantially reduced, though in this case apparently over a few days); "Healings at Victoria," 15; Tari, Breeze, 160 (a cantaloupe-sized goiter vanishing during prayer in his presence); Gebru
Woldu (interview, May 20, 2010: "plenty of goiters" disappearing before his eyes); Blackman, "Miracles,"
9; Spraggett, Kuhlman, 139; Osborn, Healing, 281; in the Philippines, Stewart, Only Believe, 143–44, 153;
Gervacio Tovera, interviewed by Rose Engcoy, July 6, 2001; Bruce Kinabrew, personal correspondence,
June 24, 2008; Dwight Palmquist, personal correspondence, Feb. 2, 2009; Osborn, Healing, 307; cf. Ma,
"Encounter," 136; elsewhere in Asia, Jones, Wonders, 107. In Ma, "Vanderbout," 130, and idem, Mission,
Proposed Explanations
and her husband, Wonsuk, who are both scholars, prayed for a woman who had been dying from a toxic goiter. Neither doctors nor local cultic practices had been able to cure it; it had simply grown worse over the past year. "While we were praying,"
Ma attests, "she felt something in her neck and was able to swallow her saliva, which she could not do before. The goiter disappeared in the sight of many witnesses."188
Similarly, Gail Randolph, one of my coworkers at Palmer Seminary, found a raised welt on her calf about four inches long and two or three inches wide, and as hard as wood. She and her husband, concerned about the obvious abnormality, prayed immediately for healing, and when she checked in less than an hour, she found that it had vanished.189 From the basic description, Dr. Nicole Matthews explained to me that this was probably cellulitis, but that it would not naturally vanish so quickly. In fact, it usually spreads quickly and requires antibiotics; its sudden disappearance is therefore not normal based on purely natural causes.190
Some have claimed instant spinal or neck healings so that a mandatory brace was suddenly rendered superfluous.191 A teenager was instantly healed of a deadly condition, and testing revealed that even her bones had been healed—clearly an organic rather than merely "functional" healing.192 Other reports of instant or unnaturally rapid bone healings also appear.193 In other reports, a young man's severely broken leg, with no expectation of ever walking normally, was instantly healed, after which he went to college on a basketball scholarship.194 A man long disabled with Parkinson's disease reports instant healing when prayed for, with complete and continuing mobility thereafter.195 A child's broken neck, with the prognosis of permanent paralysis, was fully healed during prayer.196 Severe burns were healed.197
Some skeptics about healing argue (beyond the evidence) that almost anything can be psychosomatic, whereas clearly organic restorations of limbs are never reported.
64, a large goiter started shrinking when they prayed and disappeared overnight. Spraggett, Kuhlman, 36, lists goiters among psychosomatic ailments, but it seems unimaginable that purely psychological factors account for these visible features disappearing instantly.
188. Ma, Mission, 65–66 (quotation from 66). During several following weeks of continued prayer, the woman, Edna, recovered her strength fully; Edna and many others became Christians.
189. Gail Randolph, personal correspondence, Oct. 9, 2009, following up personal conversation, narrating events of the evening of Oct. 4, 2009; my "less than an hour" allows for a margin of error, but her description is more precisely "some minutes." The incident is not spiritually isolated in this period of Gail's life. Although very competent doctors were essential to the process, her son's survival and complete recovery after a life-threatening injury exceeded optimum prior medical expectations.
190. Nicole Matthews, personal discussion, Oct. 10, 2009.
191. Opp, Lord for Body, 193–94, including a photograph of the woman holding her brace; O'Connor,
Movement, 162; Johnson, Heaven, 27.
192. Casdorph, Miracles, 30–32.
193. Williams, Signs, 140–41; Godwin, Strategy, 16–66; idem, personal correspondence, May 23,
2009; Grazier, Power Beyond, 95–97, 125–27; Moreland and Issler, Faith, 136; Jackson, Quest, 256; Bill
Johnson's church website, Nov. 7, 2006.
194. Wilkerson, Beyond, 149–51.
195. Lee McDougald, at http://www.thehealedguy.com, and personal correspondence, Aug. 28, 2008.
196. Rumph, Signs, 119–24.
197. Harris, Acts Today, 71–74; less immediately, Joshua Obeng, interview, Jan. 28, 2009; Chevreau,
Turnings, 143–44.
More Extranormal Cases
Certainly there are not many such reports (including in the Bible), but they do appear occasionally; in one extraordinary report, for example, a leg severed beneath the knee grew back.198 Elsewhere, useless or shriveled limbs have become functional and filled out miraculously quickly.199 Those committed to disbelief that such miracles can happen will, of course, dismiss such claims;200 but while the rareness of such claims (hence limited possible analogies) does invite caution, one might also get the impression that some skeptics' demands for particular kinds of evidence become stricter whenever evidence of the demanded sort appears.
I have noted a huge number of eyewitness claims of immediate healings from deafness (often long-term deafness) during prayer, in Africa,201 Asia,202 Latin
America,203 and the West.204 I will not rehearse all the cases of the healings of deafness I have noted, but healing of this affliction is a common pattern in one ministry that we surveyed in Mozambique.205 People who visited there specifically
198. Robertson, Miracles, 176–77, providing further details from T. L. Osborn about a man in one of his meetings in Ghana. (He does not specify details such as whether the entire restoration occurred immediately, but it appears to have at least begun immediately and visibly.) Such reports are not common today and do not appear in the Gospels or Acts. Clark, Impartation, 166, speaks of other "missing parts" being restored.
199. Osborn, Healing, 300, on a meeting in Ibadan, Nigeria (Jan. 1957): "a man, who had dragged his body on the ground with his hands for over thirty years. . . . His legs looked like poles; but as he walked, they developed." Because all Ibadan knew him, "It took over an hour to calm the multitude" (301); he reports other useless legs becoming functional (e.g., 298). Tari, Breeze, 44–45, notes shriveled and useless legs healed enough to walk within a few minutes, and filling out within a few days (with himself as eyewitness).
Cf. Rumph, Signs, 110–11; other accounts above.
200. Hume, Miracles, 42–43, notes the abundant local witnesses for such a cure in Aragon and praises
Cardinal de Retz for dismissing them. Hume's point, which we have earlier challenged, is that miracle claims should not be accepted no matter how many witnesses claim to attest them.
201. Hickson, Heal, 121, 122–24, 129–30, 134–35; Salmon, Heals, 75–76; Koch, Zulus, 80–84;
Numbere, Vision, 210; Baker, Enough, 157, 169, 173; idem, Miracles, 7–8, 39, 43, 78, 108, 114, 163, 172,
180, 183, 192–93; Chevreau, Turnings, 142, 145, 174, 182; Marie Brown, personal correspondence, May
31, 2006; Kathy Evans, personal correspondence, Nov. 10, 2008; Shelley Hollis, phone interview, Jan.
10, 2009; Finger of God.
202. Sung, Diaries, 40, 91, 109, 111, 116, 155, 161; Khai, "Pentecostalism," 268; Daniel, "Signs and Wonders," 105; Ma, "Encounter," 137; idem, "Vanderbout," 132; idem, Mission, 63–64; Marie Brown, personal correspondence, May 31, 2006 (on Papua New Guinea); cf. the summary statement in Pospisil,
"Deliverances."
203. Castleberry, "Impact," 108, 112; Steve and Sheila Heneise, correspondence, Aug. 20–21, 2008;
Doleshal, "Healings"; among U.S. Latinos, Espinosa, "Healing in Borderlands," 136. In the Caribbean, note the Jamaican example in Miller, Miracle of Healing, 94.
204. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 202–4 (noting significant medical documentation); Ising, Blumhardt,
210 (partial deafness; from eyewitnesses); "Miracle Woman," 62; Buckingham, Daughter, 128, 132; Best,
Supernatural, 88; Wagner, "World," 81; Reiff, "Los Angeles Campmeeting," 13; idem, "Later Healings";
"Revival in England"; "Healings in Australia"; Miller, Miracle of Healing, 48 (who knows the healed person),
49–50; DeGrandis, Miracles, 99 (involving a permanently damaged ear bone); cf. Tallman, Shakarian, 76
(apparently partial); Schiappacasse, Heals, 15–16, 21; Zagrans, Miracles, 5, 57. More generally, Bush and Pegues,
Move, 51–52; for the Osborns' ministry around the world, see, e.g., Osborn, Evangelism, 1:938; 21:368–69;
22:536, 782; 23:440–41, 593, 720–21; Osborn, Healing, 280, 281 ("hundreds," with "as many as 125" in one campaign), 285–86, 290, 293, 294, 296, 298, 300 (seven), 304, 308, 309, 310, 312, 319, 327 (multiple cases).
205. E.g., Shelley Hollis, phone interview, Jan. 10, 2009; Finger of God; Kathy Evans, personal correspondence, Nov. 10, 2008; Baker, Enough, passim.
Proposed Explanations
yet independently told me about witnessing this phenomenon, and one team of researchers has now gathered some medical documentation that supports the eyewitness accounts.206 Lest we be tempted to dismiss the healings as psychological recoveries of psychosomatic ailments, most of those healed were being personally exposed to Christianity for the first time. Some were healed without even being specifically prayed for or promised healing; they simply were present as the new message was being preached. Their fellow villagers knew their deafness, recognized that they could now hear, and were sufficiently persuaded that many permanently changed their lifelong beliefs and practice immediately. Is it possible that this pattern of healing tells us something?
Recall also the number of cures of blindness during prayer that I have noted, most of them immediate, many reported in the early twentieth century207 as well as today. A vast number of recent reports of healed blindness involve the Majority
World,208 including Africa,209 Asia,210 and Latin America,211 and in the West.212 In the modern period, I have come across claims of perhaps four hundred healings of blindness through prayer, the majority of them from sources that I trust (some of them from eyewitnesses I personally interviewed or know personally),213 and 206. Brown, Mory, Williams, and McClymond, "Effects," noted earlier.
207. Cf., e.g., Sung, Diaries, 28, 36, 56, 111 (multiple cases), 116 (multiple cases), 153, 158 (multiple cases), 161; Hickson, Heal, 29, 31–32, 37–38, 53, 54, 62, 65–66, 74, 76, 78, 85, 87, 118, 124, 126, 128–29,
135, 141 (noting thirty-six cases), 151, 162, 180–82, 191, 196, 205–6, 213; Rabey, "Prophet"; Lindsay,
Lake, 32, 40.
208. E.g., Chavda, Miracle, 122–23; Osborn, Evangelism, 1:930, 938, 941–42; 21:370, 400; 22:65;
22:67 (two cases); 22:783; 23:592; 23:713–15 (twenty-five cases, with photos of five testifying of restored sight); 23:722; Osborn, Healing, 281 (as many as ninety in one crusade), 287–88, 291, 293, 295, 296 (the sister of a worker), 298 (two), 300 (multiple cases), 301, 302 (two), 304, 306 (two), 308, 310, 313, 316,
317, 326; crossed eyes on 296, 297, 300.
209. Protus, "Latunde"; idem, "Chukwu"; Menberu, "Mekonnen Negera"; Negash, "Demelash";
Numbere, Vision, 121, 186, 210; Baker, Enough, 76, 145, 169, 171–74, 182 (with further accounts of eyes white with blindness changing color as they were being healed, 76, 171–72, 173; idem, Miracles, 189); idem, Miracles, 8, 39–40, 68, 78 (often), 108, 113, 159, 160, 192; De Wet, "Signs," 93–96; Jackson, Quest,
254; Bruce Collins, phone interview, April 11, 2009; Shelley Hollis, phone interview, Jan. 10, 2009; Daniel
Kolenda in a Nigeria crusade, Oct. 9, 2008; Yolanda McCain, personal correspondence, Oct. 3, 2008; Paul
Mokake, interview, May 13, 2009; and others.
210. E.g., Ma, "Encounter," 137; idem, "Vanderbout," 130, 132; idem, Mission, 64; Khai, "Pentecostalism,"
268; Daniel, "Labour," 160; C&C 37 (5, May 2008): 9; Bush and Pegues, Move, 61; Wiyono, "Timor
Revival," 286; Aikman, Jesus in Beijing, 274; De Wet, "Signs," 121–23; Stewart, Only Believe, 139–41, 151;
Angela Salazar Aragona, interview by Rosanny D. Engcoy, April 14, 2002; Chester Allan Tesoro, interview,
Jan. 30, 2009; Flint McGlaughlin, personal correspondence, Feb. 6–7, 2009; Robin Shields, personal correspondence, Feb. 7, 2009; Jacob Beera, personal correspondence, Nov. 2, 2009.
211. De Wet, "Signs," 103–4; Castleberry, "Impact," 108, 112; Ramirez, "Faiths," 94–95; Doleshal,
"Healings," 7; Harris, Acts Today, 22–23.
212. E.g., Parker, "Suffering," 216; Gardner, Healing Miracles, 31–35; Spraggett, Kuhlman, 26; Harris,
Acts Today, 8, 18; Neal, Power, 40, 57; Best, Supernatural, 125; Laurentin, Catholic Pentecostalism, 103–4;
Jackson, Quest, 255; Stewart, Only Believe, 1–2, 43.
213. E.g., Yolanda McCain, personal correspondence, Oct. 3, 2008; Shelley Hollis, phone interview, Jan.
10, 2009; Bungishabaku Katho, interview, March 12, 2009; Flint McGlaughlin, personal correspondence,
Feb. 6–7, 2009; Paul Mokake, interview, May 13, 2009.
More Extranormal Cases
these can be regarded as merely a representative sample. Certainly a vastly larger number of blind persons are not healed, but the healings of blindness nevertheless remain significant. Some of these healings have included medical documentation of organic problems, including, as noted earlier, scarring of the eye tissue, which disappeared during the healing.214 In some cases of healings from blindness, the eyewitness reporters have observed eyes white from cataracts immediately change as the cataracts have disappeared.215 As noted earlier, cataracts can normally be removed medically only by surgery.216
Again, recall the accounts of raisings from death surveyed earlier, which I will recall but not elaborate again here. A number of claims date from the early twentieth century,217 but again I focus on the far more numerous more recent ones.218 These accounts also involve Africa,219 Asia,220 Latin America,221 and the 214. E.g., Gardner, Healing Miracles, 15, 20–21; Warner, Kuhlman, 132–34. Although not supplying medical documentation, Peterman, Healing, 2–3, cites a case where a specialist could do nothing for a scratched cornea. The woman knelt at the altar at Philadelphia's St. Stephen's Episcopal Church for prayer for healing, and "arose with a healed eye"; the specialist acknowledged it as a miracle.
215. Baker, Enough, 76, 171–72, 173; Brown, "Awakenings," 363 (on one eye, citing the testimony of a retired radiologist); Chester Allan Tesoro, interview, Jan. 30, 2009; Gebru Woldu (interview, May 20,
2010); cf. the "flat and clouded" eyes restored in Robin Shields, personal correspondence, Feb. 7, 2009; cf. the claim in Ogilbee and Riess, Pilgrimage, 43.
216. Dr. Nicole Matthews, personal correspondence, April 1, 2009.
217. Maddocks, Ministry, 101–2; Tarango, "Physician," 112; "Saw God"; Fant, Miracles, 143; Wood worth-Etter, Diary, 156–57; Lindsay, Lake, 12–13, 32–33; Pytches, "Anglican," 194; cf. Yeomans, Healing,
120–21; and numerous other cases noted in ch. 12.
218. E.g., Lewis, Healing, 64–65; Osborn, Evangelism, 1:940–41; Wagner, Acts, 476–77 (and less dramatically, 321–22); Wilkerson, Beyond, 14–21, 25–32 (esp. 32), 47–54 (esp. 53), 56–58, 89–97 (esp.
94–95), 97–104 (esp. 101–3; his father-in-law's story), 105–6, 107–9 (esp. 108), 109–14 (esp. 113–14);
Clark, Impartation, 203; Rutz, Megashift, 3–14, 21–22, 29–34, 79, 104–5; Rumph, Signs, 155–73 (including a small number of North American examples); Smith, "Baby"; Conn, "Visit to Heaven"; Carpenter, "Death";
Harris, Acts Today, 98–99, 101–3.
219. E.g., Bush and Pegues, Move, 52 (about raisings being common in Ethiopia); Chevreau, Turnings,
53–56; Baker, Enough, 74–76; idem, Miracles, 89 (at least fifty-three by 2007), 169; Chavda, Miracle,
9, 13–15, 131–41; Numbere, Vision, 136–37, 140–42; Tarr, Foolishness, 329–30; Pytches, Come, 241;
Wilkerson, Beyond, 114–15; Venter, Healing, 294–95; Antoinette Malombé, interview, July 12, 2008;
Jeanne Mabiala, interview, July 29, 2008; Albert Bissouessoue, interview, July 29, 2008; Sarah Speer, phone interview, Jan. 7, 2009; Leo Bawa, personal correspondence, Aug. 10, 2009, p. 5; Gebru Woldu, interview,
May 20, 2010; personal correspondence, May 21, 2010; June 3, 2010. Earlier, Anderson, Pelendo, 69–70;
Deere, Power of Spirit, 123–24; Daneel, Zionism, 15–16.
220. Gardner, Healing Miracles, 138; Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 152; Jenkins, New Faces,
114; Ma, "Encounter," 137; Khai, "Pentecostalism," 270; Zhaoming, "Chinese Denominations," 451; Kim,
"Pentecostalism," 32; Bush and Pegues, Move, 57–58, 59, 60; De Wet, "Signs," 110–11; Koch, Zulus, 167;
Crawford, Miracles, 26–28; Lambert, Millions, 109, 118–19; Venter, Healing, 294–95; Pytches, Come,
242–44; Cagle, "Power"; Thollander, Mathews, 88; Tari, Wind, 76–78; Wilkerson, Beyond, 77, 81–83;
Pullinger, Dragon, 224–25; Elaine Panelo, interview, Jan. 30, 2009; Mervin Ascabano, correspondence, Jan.
9, 2009; Feb. 6, 2009; Chester Allan Tesoro, interview, Jan. 30, 2009; Willie Soans, personal correspondence,
Nov. 3, 2010.
221. Sánchez Walsh, Identity, 44; Chesnut, Born Again in Brazil, 86; Bomann, "Salve," 195–96; Gardner,
Healing Miracles, 139–40; Pytches, Come, 245; Alamino, Footsteps, 63–65; Wilkerson, Beyond, 84–88; Iris
Lilia Fonseca Valdés, interview, Aug. 11, 2010. Earlier, Sánchez Walsh, Identity, 43–44.
Proposed Explanations
West.222 A number of these accounts involve persons who have been dead for many hours223 or sometimes even more than a day.224 Some are from people I not only interviewed but also knew personally, or met through my wife's family knowing them personally;225 where possible I cross-checked interviewees' testimony with other witnesses. Witnesses range from those participating in the prayers to a person raised herself. While writing this book I have come across claims of nearly three hundred raisings, from well over 150 different sources.
Again, these are merely a representative sample; some others have discovered far more reports that I have not included in this count,226 and I found some of my own sources by randomly interviewing persons with healing accounts in a few sample locations in the Majority World. Because their stories have never before been printed, I presume that I would have found numerous other accounts had
I traveled and interviewed more widely.
These sources may vary in their reliability, but a high proportion reflect reports from eyewitnesses that one would normally deem reliable. I am particularly impressed with reports from individuals whose character I know and trust. I do not include in the count cases of which I was informed (in some instances with accompanying names, dates, and locations) yet not permitted by my sources to use because of the security situation in their countries. I am also not including at this point claims of nature miracles apart from human bodies (which are, I have noted, also part of nature), but in chapter 12 I have noted such claims as well.227
This chapter would of course be much longer had I included much of chapter 12 and some other earlier material in it. I have offered merely a summary of some
222. E.g., Dunkerley, Healing Evangelism, 45; Stegeman, "Faith"; Koch, Zulus, 169–70; Piper, Minutes,
44–45; Pytches, Come, 239, 244–45; Johnson, Mind, 122; Chauncey Crandall's account (in ch. 12);
Barachias Irons, personal correspondence, Sept. 13, 2009; Dick and Debbie Riffle, personal correspondence,
Dec. 13, 2007.
223. E.g., Wilkerson, Beyond, 105–6; Antoinette Malombé, interview, July 12, 2008.
224. E.g., Bush and Pegues, Move, 118–19; Chevreau, Turnings, 54–56; Wilkerson, Beyond, 81; cf. Tari,
Wind, 76–78; Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 151–52; about twenty-four hours in Shelley Hollis, phone interview, Jan. 10, 2009.
225. Especially (in order of my knowing them) Leo Bawa; Antoinette Malombé; Jeanne Mabiala;
Albert Bissouessoue.
226. Mike Finley, whose book is forthcoming, has spent years collecting reports; he knows of some five hundred to a thousand reports from the twentieth century alone. While he is not able to verify all of them, he is confident of many of them (phone interview, Oct. 2, 2010); in more than forty cases, "medically trained personnel (doctors, nurses, EMTs) were present when the individual was determined dead, and then came back to life" (personal correspondence, Sept. 23, 2010). Hebert, Raised, cites four hundred accounts (few overlapping with my count), though only a minority are both from modern times and have strong attestation (those with weakest attestation he assigns to an appendix, 319–29).
227. E.g., Koschorke, Ludwig, and Delgado, History, 223–24; Sanneh, West African Christianity, 181–83;
Castleberry, "Impact," 111–12; Daniel, "Labour," 157; Sung, Diaries, 143, 158, 161; Bush and Pegues,
Move, 54–55, 59, 64, 192; Kinnear, Tide, 92–96; Dunkerley, Healing Evangelism, 112; Dayhoff, "Barros";
Khai, "Pentecostalism," 268–69; Wiyono, "Timor Revival," 288; Harris, Acts Today, 66–67, 80; Lindsay,
Lake, 48–49; Emmanuel Itapson, interview, April 29, 2008; Sandy Thomas, phone interview, Aug. 26,
2008; Donna Arukua, interview, Jan. 29, 2009; Kay Fountain, interview, Jan. 29, 2009.
More Extranormal Cases
material here to challenge the notion that all healing claims must involve only psychosomatic ailments.
Examples Nearer the Author I list below some further examples used earlier in the book. Although I could have recalled many more, these should be sufficient to illustrate that many claims warrant serious attention. I limit the number employed here, because the reader can readily pick out some other examples from the earlier material, and repetition is not a virtue in a book of this length. I have selected these particular cases from among interviews with people whom I know on some level and have good reason to trust (e.g., they are intelligent observers without financial or other incentive to deceive),228 to reduce the need for the additional criterion of evaluating the claimant's integrity. I personally have no doubts about the integrity of many of my other informants—to name just a few, the Bonillas, Marie Brown, Bruce Collins,
Matthew Dawson, Bonnie Ortiz, the several Vineyard interviewees I noted, and Ed and Brad Wilkinson. In fact, there are far more of those whom I interviewed whom I have good reason to trust than any reason to question. Some that I have not cited below yet trust are some long-term friends; most lacked anything possible to gain by telling their stories; some, especially those who ministered in cessationist circles, like Bungishabaku Katho, risked possible things to lose; and most whom I did not know initially were referred to me by trustworthy persons or were part of a larger community of witnesses to whom they had to be accountable.
Again I could have chosen more such examples, but I have selected for the samples below mainly a limited number of examples from persons I know on some level in person. I exclude here most strong cases that I interviewed, for example, only by phone or had contact with exclusively for discussion of healing claims
(i.e., did not know or get to know outside that context); I also exclude those with well-known ministries who might be discussed by others; and I include only a sample of those who remain. While I thus apply the following grid only to some sample claims, a reader could use the same sort of grid to evaluate healing claims cited by others in the book. Not all of those claims carry equal evidential weight, but a number of them appear strong. Theists need not apply these tests with equal rigor, since some of the caveats I applied earlier will exclude many recoveries that those customarily allowing for divine activity would admit as divine activity. Those who need to be persuaded, however, and remain open to persuasion, may find at least some of the following cases persuasive. Some may quibble with some of my decisions below, and those with varying presuppositions will approach them with 228. In many cases, like Jeanne Mabiala, the person does not live in an Anglophone nation, thus would not likely gain even publicity from the places of this book's circulation (even if it is translated, which they have no reason to expect).
Proposed Explanations
various degrees of openness, but I personally believe that most of the following cases are best explained by supernatural activity.
Supernatural explanation seems more plausible than not, if not a priori ruled out?† How frequent are such events normally (given an accurate description by the witness)?
How do I know the witness?* Psychosomatic element possible?
Healing claim I witnessed: A woman whom I knew previously unable to walk began walking after commanded to rise in Jesus's name I am the witness, and there were other witnesses present in the room (including my younger brother, who also recalls the occasion); I continued to see the woman walking (initially with a walker) in following weeks Possible but not probable (she lacked any expectation of healing and the man who prayed lacked any reason to believe that her condition was not organic) Rare Plausible to (in my view) very probable (depending on one's starting assumptions) No At best, quite rare Very probably yes I was present: a woman's cyst was instantly healed when I prayed; failed kidneys healed when I prayed The healed person was a friend and member of my church; she claimed medical verification‡ Flint McGlaughlin and Robin Shields witnessed a blind man whose eyes were clouded with cataracts instantly healed, his eyes visibly changing Extensive personal conversation with Flint McGlaughlin on other issues; Robin Shields also independently provided post-healing photographs No Medically impossible Yes Bungishabaku Katho witnessed the immediate and permanent healing of a blind woman's eyes Long-term correspondence, friendship, and meetings around other issues; supernatural claims also are not in his interest Not at all likely Unless the entire village conspired to deceive Katho and his associates over a period of years about her initial blindness, this is probably medically inexplicable Very probably Professor J. Ayodeji Adewuya witnessed his baby son being restored to life through prayer after twenty minutes with no vital signs; the son has now completed a master's degree A friend and colleague with whom I converse regularly at biblical studies meetings No Should be impossible (the midwife certified that the baby was dead the entire time) Yes
More Extranormal Cases
Supernatural explanation seems more plausible than not, if not a priori ruled out?† How frequent are such events normally (given an accurate description by the witness)?
How do I know the witness?* Psychosomatic element possible?
Healing claim Elaine Panelo, pronounced dead from liver cancer, was raised nearly two hours later, simultaneously healed, immediately and permanently, of liver cancer Working together regularly during my time in the Philippines; recommendation from a long-term friend with whom she works regularly; she was personally reticent to share so much of her private life, but agreed to do so (and to allow use of her name) only out of gratitude to God If she was truly dead (as in her report the hospital staff certainly believed), the raising is impossible by natural means; conjoined with the immediate disappearance of symptoms, and eventual confirmation that the cancer was gone, virtually impossible No (she was initially not even convinced that she was healed) Yes Interviews, conversation on other issues, correspondence, recommendation from a trusted source Eleanor Sebiano, witnessed a sizable lump disappear instantly during prayer No Impossible Yes Danny McCain witnessed a baby's severe burns from the previous day suddenly disappear during prayer, leaving no scar Correspondence from a trusted friend with whom I lived for some eighteen weeks; in a divided country, he is widely respected by all peoples and religions No Impossible (given the severity of burns described and the instant, rather than merely quick, healing) Yes Gail Randolph, my coworker, witnessed a sizable, hard mass disappear from her leg in less than an hour ("some minutes") No Not normal Probable (in a theistic context) Conversation, follow-up correspondence, with a trusted coworker Melesse Woldetsadik prayed for the disappearance of an as-yet untreated pulmonary mass; tests confirmed its disappearance A long-term, close friend; medical documentation provided by the doctor who was healed No Proportionately rare More probable than not (though one's verdict will depend on one's openness to supernatural phenomena) Leo Bawa prayed for a dead child for a few hours, and the boy returned to life A long-term friend; he offered this account, along with some others, only when I specifically asked about healings No Extremely rare (with close contact for hours, it is unlikely the child had merely apparently stopped breathing) Yes Yolanda McCain and Paul Mokake independently attested a blind man receiving sight when Paul prayed, and his sight remaining thereafter Both have been my students with whom we have had close contact (Yolanda is also a close friend of our family) Not likely Barely conceivable Almost certainly yes
Proposed Explanations
Supernatural explanation seems more plausible than not, if not a priori ruled out?† How frequent are such events normally (given an accurate description by the witness)?
How do I know the witness?* Psychosomatic element possible?
Healing claim Mama Jeanne Mabiala:
Marie was dead when brought, was raised after prayer (though she remained weak) and recovered fully Interviews; close and continuing friend of family; my brother-inlaw attests that such accounts about her are known to others; a confirming eyewitness Very unlikely Very rare (impossible, if she had been genuinely dead for some time, as appears likely) Very probably yes Mama Jeanne Mabiala: another woman believed to be dead raised in a prayer meeting Interviews; close friend of family; my brotherin-law knows the woman said to be raised No Very rare (impossible, if she had been genuinely dead for some time, as appears likely) Very probably yes Mama Jeanne Mabiala: baby born dead and already white, fully restored during prayer and remains healthy Interviews; close friend of family; noted continuing contact with the family involved No Medically impossible; the baby had already turned white, and, Mama Jeanne, with midwife experience and training, recognized that she had been dead for some time Very probably yes Interviews; close friend of family No Medically impossible (if she is correct that a hysterectomy had occurred; she seemed quite sure, and had had extensive contact with the woman and her situation) Mama Jeanne Mabiala: a midwife who had had a hysterectomy bore children Yes Mama Jeanne Mabiala: a young woman convulsing and apparently dying was completely healed during prayer Not likely Not probable Probably yes Interviews; close friend of family; my brotherin-law was an eyewitness to the event Mama Jeanne Mabiala: a couple was healed of a positive HIV status Interviews; close friend of family; my brotherin-law knows the family in question and had heard the story No No (unless we might speculate that the first test results were inaccurate) Very probably yes Albert Bissouessoue reported the raising of a child clearly dead for about eight hours Interviews; close friend of family; a humble couple with no reason to deceive No No Yes Julienne Bissouessoue reported the raising of another person Interviews; close friend of family; a humble couple with no reason to deceive No No (at least everyone present, including the hospital's dispensary manager, believed her dead) Yes
More Extranormal Cases
Supernatural explanation seems more plausible than not, if not a priori ruled out?† How frequent are such events normally (given an accurate description by the witness)?
How do I know the witness?* Psychosomatic element possible?
Healing claim Interviews, conversation on other issues, correspondence, recommendation from a trustworthy source, readiness to supply all requested information Douglas Norwood's paralyzed wife able to walk despite a severed spinal cord No Medically impossible Yes At best extremely rare Yes Douglas Norwood: aged skeptic from completely nonChristian background, with almost lifelong arm paralysis, suddenly healed when confronting Christians Interviews, correspondence, recommendation from a trustworthy source, readiness to supply all requested information Extremely unlikely (given lifelong condition and hostility) Bruce Kinabrew: healing of the lame, the blind, and the instant disappearance of a goiter Not at all likely (especially in conjunction with one another); the goiter seems impossible One of my closest friends from college, with whom I have maintained contact Not at all likely (especially in conjunction with one another); the goiter seems impossible Yes Antoinette Malombé, on the raising and full recovery of her daughter after perhaps three hours without breathing Interview with my mother-in-law, others who had already known the story; confirmed the story with another eyewitness; the raised daughter (Thérèse) is my sister-in-law No Impossible if (as we have every reason to believe) no respiration occurred for some three hours (after six minutes without air, the brain begins to die) Yes Jacques Moussounga: after twenty-one years with mouth abscesses, was healed after Suzanne Makounou (without prior knowledge of the condition) dreamed of and prayed for his problem Personal correspondence from my father-in-law; the story is known to others close to him, and Suzanne Makounou remains a close friend of the family Not likely Improbable (not so much because the abscesses went away, but because they did so in connection with Suzanne Makounou's dream) Probably yes Jacques Moussounga and Antoinette Malombé: after a night of prayer, an infant daughter survived cerebral meningitis when strongly expected to die; she recovered fully (albeit gradually) Personal correspondence with my father-in-law, interview with motherin-law, conversation with grown daughter (Gracia) No Not usual for an infant in this setting (though enough unexpected recoveries occur) Debatable, but in the context of a number of such unexpected recoveries, plausible (in a theistic context, more probable than not)
Proposed Explanations
Supernatural explanation seems more plausible than not, if not a priori ruled out?† How frequent are such events normally (given an accurate description by the witness)?
How do I know the witness?* Psychosomatic element possible?
Healing claim Yes Stephen and Sheila Heneise: permanent healing during prayers of congenital deafness and limp No (birth defects) No (a leg genuinely lengthened over the course of several minutes) Personal acquaintance; we know their children (continuing relationship with their son); supernatural claims also are not in their interest§ Several of my students healed of serious conditions in childhood (especially, Melaina Marshall, of a bone disease; Danielle Moffatt; Jonathan Turner) My students (also confirmed in two cases with their relatives, who were witnesses; too long ago for medical records, but long enough to confirm the cures' durability) Very unlikely in some cases Quite unusual to extraordinary Very probably yes Joy Wahnefried: healed of lifelong debilitating migraines and light sensitivity, and accompanying eyesight problem with a documented organic cause, instantly during prayer Referred by a long-term friend, Dr. Bill Heth, who also (with another source) attested the change, having been present during the healing and known her condition both before and after it; continued correspondence No natural analogies known to us Yes No (medically documented improvement of vision) *Admittedly my report of the claim adds another layer of distance for the reader, who in the vast majority of cases will not know the person in question. I also know some of the witnesses better than others, and even when the witness is my own wife (or myself), another person may consider my attribution of reliability to be subjective. Nevertheless, such decisions are necessary when dealing with any historical or contemporary sources, and (as we noted in ch. 5) only inflexibly antisupernatural presuppositions will rule out all testimony, since historical inquiry would become nearly impossible without the use of testimony.
†Note that these cases are not simply claims that the extranormal happened, but each is linked with a specific occasion of prayer or "power encounter" (which could constitute another criterion had I space for further columns). That such extranormal events happen so much more often in connection with prayer, even when psychosomatic elements are ruled out, raises the plausibility of a supernatural explanation.
‡This was when I had been a Christian for less than three years; not expecting to write a book on miracles until recently, I never asked
Jeannie to let me see the medical verification. Without grounds to infer that she was lying, however (in which case she would have been lying about her pre-prayer condition), I accept her claim. She had no motive to deceive me on the matter, and in principle I could have asked to see the documentation for myself.
§Most of their supporting circles in the United States are not accustomed to such reports.
I could have also added eyewitness reports of significant nature miracles from people I know from other settings, such as Sandy Thomas, Emmanuel Itapson,
Ayo Adewuya, Benjamin Ahanonu, or Donna Arukua (whom I met more briefly; see ch. 12). In some cases, like the one reported by Emmanuel Itapson, the events so convinced non-Christian observers that large numbers of them abandoned centuries of religious tradition and became followers of the new faith they believed confirmed by these events. Perhaps I could have added the healing of blindness attested by Gary Dickinson, reports of blindness and death healed from Gebru
Woldu, and so forth.
Had I chosen to include more interviewees or other testimonies here, and had I traveled to collect more international eyewitness claims, I could have
More Extranormal Cases
continued with such information virtually indefinitely. In the case of many of the circles where such recoveries occurred, a larger pattern lends weight to individual testimonies, though for many of these witnesses I have offered only a single account. One may note also that the accumulation of some events, normally rare in themselves, around particular persons reduces the likelihood of coincidence as an explanation.229
For example, someone might object that a person deemed dead (somehow wrongly) more than ten minutes occasionally returns to life without prayer or medical intervention, say (to simply make up a number) in one out of five hundred thousand cases. Yet I asked the one Pentecostal minister with whom I happened to remain in contact from my earlier visits to Nigeria if he had any healing stories, and he happened to have a case of a resuscitation "after a few hours."230 This would appear an extraordinary coincidence by itself; as a control, think how few people are eyewitnesses of the hypothetical situation above (someone returning to life without medical intervention or prayer). Of the fifteen or so people in the Philippines that I got to know best during my time there, one had a firsthand account of a raising (her own; after being dead more than one hundred minutes). One must then compound the improbability of the first "coincidence" by this next one. Of those who volunteered stories in Cuba, one, a nurse and eyewitness, recounted the raising of her own baby after more than an hour. One of my handful of friends from Ethiopia shared an eyewitness account of a raising.
Even more improbably as coincidence, my wife's family had a firsthand account of a raising (her sister, after about three hours), and their immediate circle of acquaintances offered six others (with perhaps still others from other acquaintances that we did not interview). Even in the United States, I asked my brother if he had any healing accounts; he put me in touch with a family from his former church who had experienced what they understood as a raising. Moreover, even one of my seminary students shared a raising account, although we were not able to get together officially afterward so I could obtain explicit permission to use her story. Admittedly, none of the several Chinese pastors who shared healing stories with me volunteered a raising
(despite some other extraordinary cures),231 but the numbers remain extraordinary.
229. One could object that such particular persons are simply good storytellers. But while some of my sources are good at recounting their stories, in many of these cases, including persons I interviewed in Congo, other eyewitnesses were available to confirm their accounts and that a pattern of healings surrounded their prayers.
230. Leo Bawa, personal correspondence, Aug. 10, 2009. This was one of only two dead persons that Leo prayed for, the other being a friend (personal correspondence, Oct. 13, 2010); it should go without saying that 50 percent is higher than we would expect by coincidence. I knew Ayo Adewuya from biblical scholars meetings in the United States, but as probably the one Nigerian present at my paper addressing miracles at an SBL seminar, he also ended up recounting as an eyewitness the raising of his son twenty minutes after he had been pronounced dead, and with no subsequent impairment (Nov. 22, 2009; follow-up phone interview,
Dec. 14, 2009).
231. I am not counting for this argument the Chinese accounts in published sources. In my earlier travels, no one (including Leo at that time) had reasons to share accounts with me; I was not researching or talking about the question, and other issues of discussion were more relevant at that time.
Proposed Explanations
A philosopher might seek to quantify the likelihood of such coincidences mathematically.232 By estimating how rarely such events happen or could be expected to happen in the course of nature, one might estimate their natural improbability.
Whatever the improbability of the events occurring in a given circle, that improbability is compounded exponentially when such events occur multiple times in the same circle. That is, if coincidence appears a plausible explanation for a single case, the plausibility declines with the next level of coincidence, the accumulation of statistically improbable coincidences in a single sample. Multiple extraordinary events like raisings in the same circle seem massively improbable as pure coincidences.233 Given such considerations, it seems hardly irrational for me or others in my circle to believe that more than coincidence is at work.234
Is coincidence the most compelling explanation for my circle of experience?
Or is the cumulative evidence that raisings occur sufficient that I should accept that as a likelier explanation than Hume's belief from "uniform human experience" against miracles? Again, one could argue that my immediate circle of friends and family include a disproportionate number of liars, but I would regard this charge as too high a price to defend Hume's generalization from his own circle, which essentially argues from silence about the far more vast circles he did not know.235
After all, I know these people and believe I have good reason for confidence in their testimony; the critic excludes their testimony circularly, on the grounds that he or she does not agree with the content of their testimony (perhaps because he or she does not similarly know such witnesses).
It is my point here only to address unusual healings, not what appears to be in most settings the more common lack thereof. Some critics raise understandable theological objections such as, "If God/a supernatural force were involved, why allow the death/sickness in the first place?" or similar objections. These are,
232. Such estimates would need to include upper and lower ranges for most of the figures; most of the figures involved cannot be precisely known, which is why I do not attempt to calculate them here.
Nevertheless, even the lower figures would prove cumulatively significant. On the limiting side, one would need to take into account the likelihood that the witnesses report true information insofar as they know it; one cannot however fairly rule them out on the presupposition that such events can never happen, since that is the premise under dispute. The cumulative impact of reliable claims, however, would prove significant.
233. If one's starting estimate were as high as one chance in ten that one would come across a particular event in one's circle, one might think of one chance in ten billion for ten such claims. This approach oversimplifies, but then again, an estimate of one chance in ten seems impossibly high for claims like raisings
(Hume presumably had none in his circle). One might claim that one has merely happened across a circle that by itself is an improbable sample; yet there are multiple such circles where such extraordinary reports cluster, and they share some common spiritual characteristics.
234. Hume allowed that his fictional prince was right to believe his own (limited) experience; if no one else believes the experiences of our circle, at least we may do so. Hume mistrusted causal explanations for events, but most thinkers today allow that some hypotheses provide better explanations than others.
235. One might also add other such coincidences: when visited for other reasons by a university president from Congo-Kinshasa, I asked if he had eyewitness accounts of healings, and he offered an account of instantly healed blindness. Other accounts of healed blindness in my circle seem too many for coincidence.
Though I personally know more blind persons not healed, it is healing rather than nonhealing that is extraordinary and the point under consideration.
More Extranormal Cases
however, at root theological objections that would need to be addressed theologically. Such questions may well have persuasive answers from within a specific theistic framework (e.g., a Christian biblical perspective), but those are questions for a different book, by a different kind of author.
By contrast, I am asking especially historical questions in this book—whether healings happen and what can be their plausible causes, not why they sometimes do or do not happen. My point here is that there are a significant number of instant, nonpsychosomatic healings after prayer, with prayer being a common factor. In these cases, supernatural explanations should be respected as one viable interpretive option among genuinely open-minded academics.
Conclusion I am not claiming that all recoveries demonstrate extraordinary supernatural activity. Some claims of supernatural healing are clearly false; many others are not clearly false, but normal natural factors cannot be ruled out. Biblically informed
Christians, as well as members of some other faiths, affirm that God often works through natural factors, but the greater the likelihood of natural factors, the less one can cite such recoveries as distinctive evidence for special divine activity, especially to those not predisposed to accept such claims.
Some other miracle claims, however, are dramatically extranormal (such as the instant disappearance of cataracts on blind eyes or the raising of someone dead without medical intervention) and are more simply explained by their frequent connection with prayer or faith than by the usual course of natural events. Rather than pursuing a reductionist, one-size-fits-all explanation, we should explore which explanations are most useful in particular sorts of cases. Given differing presuppositions, including those formed by prior experiences with religiously associated recoveries or failures to recover, different observers will understand some cases differently. What I do hope that most readers find persuasive is that there are many cases where a purely naturalistic explanation is not the only or even the most easily intellectually defensible one if supernatural explanations are not ruled out. Many may be persuaded, as I am, that a supernatural explanation in some cases makes better sense than any explanation that omits the likelihood of supernatural causation.