An Empirical Study Of Perceptions Of Healing Among Assemblies Of God Members

61 An Empirical Study of Perceptions of Healing Among Assemblies of God Members Margaret M. Poloma* The steady growth of the charismatic movement’ during the twentieth century has been an important medium for a renewed interest in and practice of faith healing. As I have discussed elsewhere2 healing has been an important feature of the charis- matic movement from its earliest Azusa Street days. The Pen- tecostal descendents of the 1906 – 07 Azusa Street revival in Los Angeles faithfully practiced and preached the divine healing they experienced and later carried this torch to mainline denom- inations and to independent healing ministries.3 The essence of the belief and its practices is often misunder- stood, even by the few social scientists and medical practitioners who have ventured onto its turf. The practice of faith healing in an increasingly secular and scientific-oriented society (even among members of the educated populus) is a paradox to most investigators. This article will first briefly discuss the problems inherent in much of the literature on divine healing4 and then present the major charismatic positions on this tenet, with emphasis on the teachings of the Assemblies of God. After this introduction, I will use data collected from research on the Assemblies of God (AG), the largest and most influential of the Pentecostal denominations, to provide some empirical evidence for the widespread belief in and practice of faith healing among adherents. . Sociology and the Paranormal Andrew Greeleys has argued persuasively that paranormal experiences are in fact normal. Although not including healing in his discussion, Greeley found that almost a fifth of the Ameri- can population reports frequent paranormal experiences, including deja vu, extrasensory perception, and clairvoyance. Despite the common experience of the “paranormal,” the topic continues to be of little interest to sociologists a decade after this important finding. Although social scientists of religion continue to pay lip ser- vice to the importance of the experiential dimension of religion, little breakthrough has been made since the publication in 1902 of William James’s classic study, The Varieties of Religious Experience. Perhaps the main difficulty can be traced to the 1 62 positivistic origins of sociology, with its philosophical tentacles firmly gripping even those of us who would like to break away.6 Its assumptions about the empirical world as sole reality, with attendant language and methods, have made it difficult for researchers seriously to discuss and study anything that is not readily verified through positivistic methodologies. It has not only resulted in distortions and omissions in the sociology of religion, but it has caused sociologists, as Hillery’ has noted, to avoid the serious study of a non-positivistic phenomenon known to most – the experience of loving and being loved! This positivistic bias is not limited to the social sciences but may be documented in medicine and psychiatry as well. Attempts to follow up on reported faith cures are few, but those that exist reflect tautological reasoning. Rose, for example, studied faith healing for twenty years and has concluded: To those who have read this book it will be clear that in that search I have been unsuccessful. After nearly twenty years of work I have yet to find one ‘miracle cure’: and without that (or, alternatively, massive statis- tics which others must provide) I cannot be convinced of the efficacy of what is commonly termed faith healing.8 The problem can be readily traced to Rose’s definitions and methodology, as he himself indirectly admits by including a letter from a cooperative faith healer in his book. The letter is worth reprinting here: It seems to me that your method of judging spiritual healing is unreasonable. If a patient has received medi- cal attention, you attribute the recovery, no matter how remarkable, to this and not to Obviously, any patient to spiritual healing. condemned being ‘incurable’ must have received medical treatment. . The alternative is, that to prove spiritual healing must not have received to satisfy you, the sick person med- ical attention at any time. In this event there could be no medical diagnosis or history … and then you would dispute the healing because there could not have been a proper diagnosis. It’s a case of “heads I win, tails you lose. “9 Such scientific skepticism has not dampened the enthusiasm of those who profess belief in divine healing. Nor has it pre- vented new converts. The editor of The Catholic Evangelist, Susan Blum, recently confessed how her skepticism had been “blown away.” In planning a special issue on healing, Blum decided to limit the discussion to psychological, emotional, and spiritual healings, phenomena with which she felt comfortable. In her editorial for the issue she reported: ‘ 2 63 And then God showed me clearly, a doubt unequivocably, beyond that, “Yes, He can and does heal physi- cal illness and disease in this day and What a revelation for me! What a age!” relief from doubt! What a . spiritual healing I myself experienced! I have seen God heal the deaf, the blind and the lame with my own eyes!!! And, it is for this reason that we “stopped the and changed the entire format of this issue on healing. 10 presses” Charismatic publications have had less need for the clouds of skepticism to be blown away. The Catholic charismatic maga- zine, New Covenant devoted its July/ August, 1984 issue to proclaiming “Healing is for everyone.” Charisma, a nondenom- inational charismatic publication, regularly contains testimo- nies about divine healing. The Pentecostal Evangel, a weekly publication of the Assemblies of God, contains scores of brief testimonies annually, all with the endorsement of a local healing AG pastor who was a witness to the event. A cursory survey of over fifty healings reported during the first six months of 1984 in theEvangel represent a wide variety of illnesses, subjects, and circumstances. Healings ranged from a damaged sciatic nerve to cancer cures, from “total insanity” to healed ulcers, from back problems to double vision. Some reported medical verification; most did not. What was emphas- ized in these brief articles was the power of God to heal through prayer and under quite ordinary circumstances, sometimes instantaneously but often gradually. Unlike many charismatic testimonials,the Evangel does not feature healing evangelists, demonstrating a historical rift observed by Harrell” between the AG hierarchy and star healing evangelists. What is emphas- ized is the power of ordinary adherents and, less often, their pastors to tap into God’s healing power effectively. It is beyond the subject matter of sociology and the compe- tence of its practitioners to pass medical judgment on such reported phenomena. What can be studied, however, is the extent to which faith healing is believed and practiced as well as the impact such belief may have on a social institution. It is to the topic of interpretations given to the ideology of faith heal- ing, with an emphasis on AG doctrine, that we will now turn. Holiness, Health, and Healing Holiness and health have the same etymological root, reflect- ing the ancient conviction that well-being and right relationship with the deity go hand in hands A separation of holiness from health by medical practitioners, however, has a long history, 3 64 reflected in Plato’s concern: “This is the great error of our day in the treatment of the human body that physicians separate the soul from the body.” This “great error” of Plato’s day tri- the ills of mind, body, and soul were allocated differ- umphed as ent specialists. This separation was perpetuated by Christianity despite the significant role of healing in the ministry of Jesus and in the early Christian church. As Kelseyl3 reports, nearly one-fifth of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of miraculous healings, and the history of the primitive church contained in the Acts of the Apostles reports of the blind receiving sight, the lame walking, and demons being exorcised. It was only with the institutional- ization and bureaucratization of the church and the develop- ment of an Aristotelian based theology which dichotomized body and soul that miraculous healings became a rarity or a phenomenon not to be expected at all. While Christian theologies that developed over the centuries either belittled or opposed belief in miraculous healings, the practice continued in folk religion. It found an outlet in Roman Catholicism through the use of relics and shrines that provided a medium through which cures and tales of cures could be perpetuated. After the Reformation, a less mystical and more rational Protestantism was also less inclined to permit any vehi- cles for spreading such “superstition,” which was tolerated and regulated, if not encouraged, in Catholicism. Although an occasional healer would appear on the scene, 14 it was not until the twentieth century that a belief in healing was restored in some Christian groups to a position similar to that of the primitive church. This occurred through the experiences of early Pentecostals, who, although they did not specifically seek healings, found them occurring as believers were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Unlike the followers of the New Thought Move- ment of the nineteenth century that gave rise to Christian Science and the Unity School of Christianity, early Pentecostals did not seek to make a science out of their experiences. For the latter group it was not a case of “mind over matter,” but rather healings were attributed to the sovereign power of God to cure bodies as well as souls. IS Prevalent charismatic teachings on healing strongly assert a belief in healing but are usually non-dogmatic with regard to process. Generally the process is a much more passive one than those found in “mind cure” teachings and may take a variety of forms. MacNutt,?6 for example, lists several different ways in which he believes healing forces work that may be divided into 4 65 two basic categories of natural and supernatural. Among the natural occurrences are the power of suggestion, psychological healing that precludes psychosomatic cures, and a speeding up of natural bodily recuperative forces, all through the power of God released in prayer. The less common supernatural occur- rences may include exorcism of evil spirits as well as actual miraculous works of God as demonstrated in “instant” cures of terminal or severely delimiting illnesses. The complexity of most charismatic thinking on healing that does not lend itself to Christian Science precision may be demonstrated by the incon- clusive concluding statement found in the Assemblies of God position paper on “Diving Healing.” In humility we recognize that we do not understand all that pertains to divine healing. We still see through a glass darkly. We do not understand why some are healed and others are not anymore than we understand why God permitted James to be martyred, while Peter was delivered. Scripture makes it clear, however, that our part is to preach the Word and expect signs to follows. 17 7 The Assemblies of God as a Medical Minority Allen and Wallis’s?g findings from a small Assembly of God in the United Kingdom provide some limited empirical but rele- vant information for our discussion on belief in healing. In discussing the theories of illness causation held by members of this small congregation, the authors noted “the prevailing naturalistic explanations of disease were accepted, ” but “theis- tic terms” were employed at a different level to demonstrate the belief that “God was in control.”‘9 It could be argued that Pentecostal theology views God (rather than man or medicine) as “in control,” while simultaneously accepting the physical (germs, viruses, cold and damp) or psychological (strain, shock or worry) as immediate and direct causes for much illness. On one level the scientific medical model prevailed for the respond- ents, but a perhaps more encompassing magico-religious Wel- tanschauung engulfed a naturalistic explanation of disease. Allen and Wallis reported religious belief in disease causation to include three broad headings: 1. demonic theories, where illness is attributed to demon possession and oppression; 2. theistic theories, where God is either punishing the victim or, more frequently, trying to draw the victim into a closer relationship with the divine; 5 66 as a the sinful state The authors, include Christology tion as a major theodicy, 3. metaphysical theories, through which illness was seen result of sinful acts or as being concomitant with of man.zo after critiquing along with dualism, conclude: fixion, may Max Weber for his failure karma and predestina- to Christian suffering, then, by analogy with the cruci- be justified by being considered This attitude was ennobling. very prominent among answers given members. It was closely related to those theistic theories of disease causation in which God is by Assembly ing spiritual always reported ing more likely Service. the theories of treatment AG congregation. They as an alternative to believed to send illness in order to bring people closer to him. God is justified in sending illness, or in not prevent- self-incurred illness, by the use made of it for the benefit of the sufferer. Illness may bring people ‘closer to the Lord’; it may make them ‘more sionate’ ; or it may ‘keep us humble.’ Or compas- suffering may be beneficial in preparing people for death: ‘If you were well you wouldn’t want to leave this world, be afraid of death. It prepares you for death..’21 you’d Allen and Wallis also investigated held by the adherents in this small that respondents use divine healing medicine mostly in cases of minor illness, with prayer for heal- to be a supplement to using the National Health In a minority of cases where the respondent imputed the illness or disease to purely physical causes, prayer for heal- not sought. These findings are consistent with doctrinal statements made in the United Stated as well as my observations of the of such teachings by local pastors. Prayer for is encouraged and is a regular feature of services. There of tension between modern medicine and divine ing was by the AG implementation healing is no evidence healing, healing, statement: everything about as noted by the following We do not pretend to understand but the Scriptures are clear. When one is sick, he may pray in expectation of healing (James 5:13-16). The Biblical doctrine of healing does not oppose the of modern medicine, neither does it preclude the proper use of medication. Healings should be con- firmed by proper authorities.22 practice From Ideology to Praxis: Some Recent Empirical Findings 6 67 by 1275 adherents from sixteen in five states, 61% of different the respondents experienced ing “uncertainty.”Of approximately prayer during strates, the majority gregational healing prayer divine healing special evangelist “healing friends), although 35% reported ing through private prayer. In a recent survey completed Assemblies of God congregations asserted that they are certain that they had a “miraculous healing,” with another 13% report- those who had experienced such a healing, one half (51 %) believed it was as a result of a regular worship service. As Table I demon- of the respondents do participate in con- and do believe they have experienced at some time. For the majority healings have occurred through prayer in group situations (worship services, or with family and such heal- Table I . Divine Healing: Ritual and Experience Have services,” having experienced you ever experienced would consider a “miraculous” a result of prayer? No: Uncertain: Yes: what you healing as 26.2% (n=318) 12.4% (n=150) 61.3% (n=744) service: 51.3% If yes, was this healing following: prayer during a worship prayer during a special healing service by a 24.8% healing evangelist: prayer members: with a few friends or family 29.8% prayer in my “prayer closet”: 35.4% for healing year? Never Once Twice Three times Four or more times How many times have you gone forward in a service within the past 41.7% 18.6% 12.4% 11.6% 15.8% 7 68 a healing expe- A comparison of those who have reported rience with those who have not shows that the former are four oil, ipated experience. today as they Christians.”This 15% expressed Respondents agreement appear teaching (but , times as likely as the latter (80% versus 20%) to have gone to the altar for healing prayer at least once within the year preceding the survey. Only 18.5% of the respondents (n= 193) reported neither having experienced such healing or of having availed themselves of the healing ritual. The practice of going forward for healing prayer, usually accompanied by an anointing with has become part of most services in nearly all AG churches. It is a practice in which the majority of respondents have partic- at least once within the year preceding the survey (59%) and one that has brought some perceived change in well being of the vast majority (80%) of those who have availed themselves to such prayer. The respondents further demonstrate attitudes that support both AG doctrine and their belief that healing is a “normal” The vast majority (62%) expressed disagreement with the statement, “Miraculous healings rarely, if ever, occur did in Jesus’ time and during the lives of the early statement reflects a dispensationalist position of many fundamentalist and evangelical churches which teaches that the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including healing, are not meant for contemporary times but were intended only to found the church. Although 7.4% were undecided about the issue, only with this dispensationalist statement. to believe in divine healing, to seek it, and to experience it, but were divided on a popular charismatic on “faith healing.” Some leading charismatic teachers not official statements of the Assemblies of God) teach that “divine healing will always occur if a person’s faith is great one third of the respondents (32.6%) with the statement, with the near majority (48.9%) dis- and the remainder (17.6%) claiming neutrality. The of the independent charismatics who teach “faith filtered into the belief system of a signif- icant number of AG adherents.23 consideration widespread those who share this Weltanschauung that we will now direct our attention. enough.” Approximately agreed agreeing popularity healing” has seemingly An important sociological belief in and experience not. It is to this question The Quest for Explained Using regression bles of age, sex and education procedures, were analyzed remains. Given the of divine healing, how do differ from AG who do Variance the major demographic varia- in relation to the 8 69 of miraculous healing. Respondents ranged in age experience from their early teens to 84 years, with a mean of 38.3, a median of 38, and a standard deviation of 15.4 years. Forty percent (39.7%) of the sample was male. Education ranged from less than high school (17.2%) to liberal arts college (8.4%) or Bible college (3.2%) to post graduate or professional degree (10.1%), with the mean being some training (trade, business or college) beyond high school. Of these demographic variables only age was able to explain any of the variance (r2=.0357). Younger persons were significantly less likely to experience divine heal- ing than were older persons, as demonstrated in Table 2. Con- trary to hypotheses that may have been generated by existing literature on conservative Christianity, no statistically signifi- cant correlations were found between the experience of healing and either education or sex. Table 2 Persons Experiencing Healing by Age* *Those persons indicating were excluded from further “uncertain” as a response analysis. choice As expected, the experience of healing is correlated with atti- tudes toward healing. As demonstrated in Table 3, those who accept miraculous healings as “normal” (as reflected in the item measuring belief in contemporary healings) are more likely to report an experience of such healing. The items on “faith heal- ing” (“healings always occur if one’s faith is great enough”) and on the need “to view science with skepticism,” however, do not appear related to such experience. ‘ 9 70 Table 3 Persons Demographics Experiencing and Attitudes Healing by Seven indices were constructed from behavioral items to measure Pentecostal (EXPERIENCES), being an organizational devotion (DEVOTION), practices orthodox Assemblies of God beliefs TATOR), personal Pentecostal holiness ritual (PARTICIPATION), (ORTHODOXY), and narcissistic tion.) attitudinal religious experiences facilitator (FACILI- attitudes toward (HOLINESS), participation in tendencies (NARCISSISM). in their construc- related (See Appendix A for indices and items used Of these indices, five were found to be statistically to the dependent variable of experiencing divine healing. Table 4 Persons Experiencing Healing by Indices 10 71 *Significance