Introduction
As the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC) approaches a centenary of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation throughout Canada and the world, there is a common desire among us to preserve our unique theological identity. Central to our shared identity is the understanding of Christ as Healer. Alongside the other four-fold theological underpinnings of Christ as Saviour, Baptizer, and Coming King, Christ as Healer remains an enduring, vibrant, and revitalizing feature of authentic Pentecostal faith and ministry. While discussing the shifting landscape of Pentecostal theology at the Communities of Practice at National Conference in Edmonton in 2010, the belief and practice of divine healing was mutually acknowledged as a prevailing quality of the contemporary Pentecostal church. Moreover, while vigorous debate surfaced concerning other aspects of our doctrinal distinctives, divine healing continues to have widespread support within our fellowship. Still, there remain a number of significant issues within the theology of divine healing that require our attention. Following a brief historical reflection of divine healing in early Pentecost, let me share with you about three critical issues continuing to face our movement: 1) the double atonement healing theology, 2) the relationship between medical science and divine healing, and 3) the nature and function of the gift of healing. Intended to further our national conversation about divine healing within the Canadian Pentecostal context, I will conclude by proposing a way forward in our shared theological journey by exploring the theology of suffering, the place of Christ in our healing theology, and our need to recover the missional nature of divine healing.
Historical Reflection
To effectively grapple with our Pentecostal identity as a movement, it is essential that we listen to the voices of our early pioneers. Grant Wacker, in his seminal monograph on the social context of early Pentecostals, declares, “if tongues defined the movement, healing gave it life.” In his assessment, divine healing was the dramatic visible manifestation of Christ’s conquest over the enemy. While testimonies of Spirit-baptism were relatively similar, divine healing testimonies ranged from “runny noses dried up to dead bodies raised to life – and everything in between.” Testimonies were proclaimed with the vividness of New Testament vocabulary or the simple prose of a medical report, yet all were punctuated with enthusiasm for the modern-day restoration of the apostolic gifts. “Canes, crutches, medicine bottles, and glasses are being thrown aside as God heals,” proclaims William Seymour. Ellen Hebden writes, “Cases of asthma, fever, rheumatism, lung troubles, drug habits and other diseases that are common to all humanity have been cured by divine power.” “Jesus is our family doctor” claims Zelma Argue, “No case is either too small or too difficult for Him.” So persuaded that Christ was able to heal every sickness and disease, early periodicals repeatedly exhorted believers to decline all medical means and “take the Lord as your healer.” From the earliest days, the understanding of Christ as Healer was well-established within the Canadian Pentecostal consciousness.
Current Challenges
1. The Double Atonement Healing Theology
Despite the faith and fervour among early Pentecostals that proclaimed Christ as Healer, the theology of divine healing has had an unattractive underside that has persisted to this day. Adopted by early Pentecostals was the soteriological notion that salvation and divine healing is assured in the atonement of Christ – a supposed double atonement. Key biblical texts supporting this doctrine were Is. 53:4-5 “by his stripes we are healed” and Mt. 8:14-17 “He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses.” Advocates contended that these texts connected the act of healing to the efficacy of Christ’s death on the cross; that through Christ’s death, He triumphed over Satan and conquered sin and sickness, thereby making salvation and healing equally and universally available to all believers. Early believers would dub this the “double cure for the double curse.” Leaving little room for the sovereignty of God, the natural laws of nature, or the reality that we live in a fallen world, the appropriation of salvation and healing was completely dependent on the exercise of faith in Christ’s atonement. Those who were unable to receive their healing were largely considered to have inadequate faith to apprehend what Christ had already secured for them at Calvary.
Embracing such a rigid healing theology generated considerable tension among those who failed to find relief from their suffering. Articles would surface that would fault suffering believers for their existing ailments and handicaps, such as a 1956 article in The Pentecostal Evangel entitled “Why Many are Not Healed,” which outlines numerous reasons why suffering believers fail to apprehend their healing. Visually accenting the article was a picture of a man languishing in a wheelchair- his physical disability persisting due of his lack of faith. This theology also generated tension among missionary families who trusted in Christ’s atonement to protect them from sickness. When loved ones died from malaria and other diseases, missionaries struggled to explain such devastating circumstances, often insisting that their loss must have been the will of God. Furthermore, when early Pentecostal preachers of this double atonement theology later suffered age-related illnesses, propagation of their once triumphant healing theology suddenly grew silent. Unfortunately, remnants of the double atonement theology persist today and some Pentecostal believers continue to maintain that Christ has secured their healing at Calvary- all that is required is to claim their healing through the exercise of faith. Although we believe every benefit is mediated to us by Christ’s work on the cross, we cannot ignore the fact that we live between two ages – the present evil age and the age to come. The harsh realities of pain, suffering, and death persist between the brokenness of a fallen world and the in-breaking of God’s future full redemption.
2. The Relationship between Divine Healing and Medical Science
Emerging from our shared Pentecostal history has been a persistent suspicion concerning the role of medical science in the lives of believers. The rousing tune “Who’s report do you believe? We shall believe the report of the Lord,” is often interpreted to triumphantly declare God’s good report over and against the dire report of the family physician. Some Pentecostals have embraced the romantic notion that the early believers were so faith-filled that they rejected all doctors and drugs and simply believed for their miracle. Largely overlooked is the fact that during the early days, medical science was exceedingly primitive. Calomel (an insecticide) was given for stomach aches; a remedy for arthritic pain was a total dental extraction; a freshly killed chicken was applied to skin infections; the same medical syringes to treat livestock were also used to inoculate children. During an epidemic of diphtheria in New York in the nineteenth century, two out of three patients treated by a physician died, in contrast to only two of nine patients treated only with “ice packs and prayer.” Too often we are ignorant to the harsh realities of the early years and simply admire the faith of early Pentecostals when in fact many likely recuperated from their illnesses by simply avoiding the doctor. In the contemporary context, we have been exceedingly privileged to live in a technologically advanced society dedicated to health and wellness. As we exalt Christ as Healer and pray for the sick and suffering, we recognize that divine healing is not in conflict with medical science but functions cooperatively, manifesting through prayer and the wisdom and skill of medical practitioners.
3. The Nature and Function of the Gift of Healing
Another area of discussion within the theology of divine healing is the notion that someone can “possess” the gift of healing. According to Paul, some are given gifts of healing (1 Cor. 12:9), suggesting that some believers may receive a greater proclivity to heal the sick. With this in mind, however, Ronald Kydd makes several observations about the nature and function of the gift of healing. First, the gift of divine healing flows out of the mystery of God and can not be formulated, categorized, and marketed. Jesus himself did not follow any set blueprint or formula- the only evidential pattern in Jesus’ healings was the presence of Jesus Himself. Second, the stereotypical healer does not exist. From the emotive Oral Roberts to the hushed William Branham, from the flamboyant Kathryn Kuhlman to the laidback John Wimber, there is not one like the other. Third, despite the claims of healers and their supporters, reports of divine healings are often overstated. Proper medical verification and reporting are rare and even rarer are those who admit they were not healed, creating confusion between genuine healing and what may be merely pleasing to the imagination. Fourth, possessing the gift of healing does not guarantee the presence of sound doctrine. Advocates of divine healing have often treaded on the fringes of orthodoxy with extra-biblical claims and behaviours. Within this seemingly precarious milieu of divine healing, functioning in the gift of healing requires a considerable measure of maturity, responsibility, and humility. However, as the gift is appropriately exercised and evaluated within the Body of Christ, excesses are minimized and doctrinal soundness maintained, divine healing can be a catalyst for the inbreaking of the power of God in the local church.
A Way Forward
1. Developing a Theology of Suffering
To further our national conversation about divine healing within the Canadian Pentecostal context, I believe there is a need for the development of a thorough and practical theology of suffering. Within our churches, a prevailing narrative of triumphalism exists that minimizes the harsh realities of sickness and suffering. Largely neglected by Pentecostals who have traditionally viewed suffering and the Spirit-filled life as incompatible, the Luke-Acts paradigm paints an entirely different picture. A consistent Christological and apostolic theme, suffering was an ever present reality in the early church and an expected consequence of Spirit-empowered gospel proclamation. Within the contemporary context, emphasis on the triumph over suffering resonates from songs and sermons but there is little room for prayerful dialogue concerning the mystery of suffering. As the Holy Spirit relates to miracles, signs, and wonders, the Spirit also relates to suffering and weakness; living in the shadow of the cross and in the power of the Spirit are not mutually exclusive but are indicative of life in Christ.
2. Centring our Healing Theology on Christ
Second, the theology and practice of divine healing must remain centred on Christ. According to Francis MacNutt, the existing practice of divine healing centres far too much on the individual. For nineteenth century Lutheran theologian Johann Christoph Blumhardt, locating divine healing solely on the person of Christ was essential to his ground-breaking healing ministry. After praying unsuccessfully for over two years for the deliverance of a demon possessed woman, Blumhardt began to fast in accordance with the instructions of Jesus that some demonic forces can only come out by prayer and fasting. While interceding for the woman, she suddenly shrieked, “Jesus is victor! Jesus is victor!” and she immediately received complete deliverance. For Blumhardt, this experience demonstrated that the all-encompassing work of Christ was sufficient for healing. While this dramatic deliverance launched Blumhardt into the spotlight of the emerging divine healing movement, he never held a healing service, never prayed for lines of waiting people, never looked for instantaneous healing, never hesitated to recommend a physician, and never felt that he had to prove anything about himself or his ministry. For Blumhardt, it was not about what he had accomplished – Jesus was the source, means, and victor over all manifestations of evil and is completely capable of dealing decisively with all sickness and disease. In the contemporary Pentecostal context where gifted personalities are routinely elevated and celebrated, Blumhardt’s healing theology and praxis is worthy of further study.
3. Recovering the Missional Nature of Divine Healing
Finally, recovering the missional nature of divine healing is essential to fulfilling our mandate as a national fellowship. For Jesus, the locus of divine healing was not confined to the synagogue, but abundantly disseminated among the populace. Healing the sick and suffering was an essential component in his Spirit-empowered assignment to proclaim kingdom of God. However, in our contemporary seeker-sensitive ministry settings, divine healing has often been concealed from seekers in our attempt to shield them from some of the more charismatic eruptions of our traditional praxis. Recapturing the notion that divine healing is intrinsically missional and is intended for the purpose of gospel proclamation realigns our ministry template to embrace divine healing as a vital means of evangelism. Rather than seeker-sensitive services, we need seeker-sensitive believers who are willing to take divine healing to the street corner, coffee shop, and next-door neighbour. If it is true that divine healing remains an enduring, vibrant, and revitalizing feature of authentic Pentecostal faith and ministry, it must become fastened to our shared mission of gospel proclamation and extend beyond the walls of the church. As Spirit-filled partners with Christ consumed by the call of mission, we not only preach the gospel, but we also heal the broken-hearted and bring recovery of sight to the blind. As Canadian Pentecostals in the twenty-first century, we not only affirm Christ as Healer, but we actively minister to bring healing to a broken world until His return.
Bibliography
Argue, Zelma. What Meaneth This? Winnipeg, 1924.
Baugh, Edith, Misc. Notes, The Latter Rain Evangel, Jan. (1913): 13.
Burgess, Stanley M., ed. The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and
Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Hebden, Ellen K., “Testimony of Sister Bessier Hird,” The Promise, May (1907): 4.
_______, Ellen K., “The Pentecostal Work in Toronto,” The Promise, February (1909): 2.
Kydd, Ronald A. N. Healing through the Centuries. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
1998.
MacNutt, Francis. Healing. Altamonte Springs: Creation House, 1988.
Menzies, William W. and Robert P. Spirit and Power: Foundations of Pentecostal
Experience. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Parham, Robert L. Selected Sermons of the late Charles F. Parham Sarah E. Parham.
Baxter Springs, KS: Apostolic Faith Bible College, 1941.
Richey, Raymond T. “Why Many Are Not Healed,” The Pentecostal Evangel Sept. 9
(1956): 4-5.
Seymour, William, ed. The Azusa Street Papers: A Reprint of The Apostolic Faith
Mission Publications Los Angeles, California (1906-1908). Foley, AL: Together in Harvest Publications, 1997.
Sloos, William, Minutes from COP Dialogue, Edmonton, AB, 12 May 2010.
Steele, Volney, M.D. Bleed, Blister, and Purge: A History of Medicine on the American Frontier. Missoula, MN: Mountain Press, 2005.
Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
