The application of James 5:14 in the Churches of God to divine healing with or without, most without, medical interventions, was always controversial. Some, of course, will claim Well, I..." or some family member was miraculously healed by just being anointed, as per James 5:14. Others, such as myself, after having anointed hundreds for various maladies, most rather harmless but many lethal if not healed, did not experience seeing anyone, and I mean, anyone, dramatically and unquestionably healed by the practice of anointing with oil and the expression of simple faith that it would occur. That is my experience. Your experience may vary.
I have watched many die in their faith refusing all medical interventions because of the clear mandate in James 5. The problem is with the scripture and the promise, not the ministry who applies it or the person who receives it.
At times, I endeavored to get the member to seek medical attention in addition to "the prayer of faith." Some were relieved thinking, as I knew they would, they weren't "allowed" to seek medical attention and be a "good and faithful Christian". Privately they felt they needed to, but that "going along to get along" kept them from taking full charge of their health as they sought fit. I know there were a few who wanted to turn me in for encouraging them to violate their "faith" by suggesting they consider medical attention. I never cared if they did. But it never happened to my knowledge. I did get turned in once for not wanting to attend the happy slappy million man march with Promise Keepers, but that's another tale.
Others understood and practiced as a matter of course, both anointing for their maladies and medical attention. I and my family fell into this category. It was how I grew up and frankly never could see the topic as being either/or.
I had a ministerial assistant once who announced to the church in one of his first sermonettes that he would either anoint them for healing or visiting them in the hospital, but not both. I asked him to retract that the next week. I don't recall if he did or not but the congregation knew that I was not going to put up with that approach.
It is and always will be an emotional topic in the COGs and in the lives who passed through them. Regrets abound in many lives with the unchangeable decisions and naivete of the past haunting many. There are many tragic stories in church history, and I suspect going all the way back to when James wrote his formula for divine healing with the seeming absolute, "and the sick shall be made well". It does not say, "maybe". James was sadly mistaken in this simplistic view.
There are a myriad of arguments on and about this topic, but how it was applied in WCG and yet in a number of WCG debris is still in the classic sense. Some have matured and I suspect as the ministry got older, "God revealed to them that it was ok to seek medical attention as well as be anointed for healing. Herbert Armstrong came to this realization for himself in his final years.
Personally, the application of James 5:14 never was a safe or even a common sense way to address the afflictions common to man, "even" church members. It was lesson learned the hard way, but I suspect that, like the lesson in the NT that Jesus is coming soon, yet didn't and wasn't, one that hindsight would prove to be less than the only way to go when actually and seriously ill in an effort to exhibit and prove one's faith.
Perhaps this was only James' opinion. Paul had Luke, whatever kind of physician he was. And it is obvious in NT scripture those two never saw eye to eye on much of anything.
So if some here are still befuddled by this scripture, it's ok if you don't see eye to eye with your faith only for healing splinter. Take care of yourself and your family and always be willing to remind anyone who thinks they know how you "must be" and how you must practice your faith there are those three classic places they can stay for free.
In your own lane...
Out of our business...
and
Over there...
===============================
Cochlear Implants - 1
Faith Only - 0
I also realize that there are apologetics for James 5:14 that relate it to a spiritual weakness but that does not actually seem to be what was meant by James and physical healing was what he did have in mind.
https://www.bibleref.com/James/5/James-5-14.html
What does James 5:14 mean?
Verse 14 and 15 have been the source of controversy among Christians. The question James is asking is how should believers respond when we are "sick," and what result should we expect when we take action. Most translations render the Greek word here as "sick," and many Bible scholars agree that James has in mind a physical illness. Some scholars, however, suggest that James is referring to a spiritual weakness or lack of faith. The Greek word is sometimes translated in that or a similar sense (e.g., ). The word carries mostly a sense of weakness, or being feeble.If James has spiritual weakness in mind, his instruction is directed at someone who does not feel firm in his faith. This might be because of ongoing suffering or some other cause. Such a person should to call for the elders—the spiritual leaders—of the church to pray for him. This instruction comes with the promise that the Lord will reestablish his faith. And, that any sin responsible for his spiritual weakness will be forgiven.The other possibility is that James simply means for someone with a physical illness to do the same, with the promise of eventual physical healing and the assurance of forgiveness of sins. Whatever the case, the elders are called to anoint this unwell person with oil in the name of the Lord.To anoint someone with oil in the culture of the time meant to pour oil over them for one of four possible purposes. Oil was sometimes used in the ancient world as a general medicinal cure. At other times, it was used to express concern, as a physical demonstration of emotional care for a person. Or it's possible that James meant for the oil to be part of a sacrament of healing or a physical symbol that someone was being set apart for God's purposes.Whatever the specific answers are to these questions, we can all agree on several things from this verse: First, God doesn't intend for Christians to suffer alone. Nor does He want them to pray for themselves in private without ever revealing their problems. Second, God does intend for the spiritual leaders of local churches to be ready and willing to pray together for the struggling people in their congregations.
21 comments:
Rather than ANOINT ... what Pack, Flurry, Thiel, Cox, and Weinaland do is , ... ANNOY!
From the early early 60s I was a kid victimized by “anointing “, have witnessed and experienced horrible pain and death of people I was close to and loved. It was all in and nothing, it was OK to go to the hospital to have a baby, it was OK to take insulin for diabetes, it was OK to wear eyeglasses, but nothing else. A Childhood friend died of appendicitis, my own brother died from heart failure after throwing away his epilepsy medication as an act of faith. I witnessed a young married woman die a horrible death from cancer, wasting away on a lawn chair in a ministers kitchen. Another longtime member, married with a child, decided he would not wear his eyeglasses until God healed his sight. That meant he would not drive a car, he would ride a bike to work, and depend on church members to drive them to church. Caused such a major strain on his life but he did it for a couple of years and was not indeed healed from poor eyesight. He finally asked the minister to release him of his vow, and went back to wearing glasses. The anointed cloth you received, after placing it on your body, had to be burned not thrown away in the garbage. For a child, that was mystical and scary that a little 3 x 3 piece of cloth with some olive oil on it could have magical powers! Even though I still attended church as an adult, I had all my kids inoculated, I just never told anybody. I figured, did God want my kids to die in an epidemic, and what exactly was my responsibility? Personally I do think God performed miracles, and still does, but I do think God helps those that help themselves.
I'm starting to assume all the brethren with horrible bad teeth in all the COG's I visited, are hoping they too can be anointed with oil and have cavities miraculously healed, instead of how they could have simply grabbed a toothbrush and yes MODERN common toothpaste, AND went in to a REAL actual health-professional DENTAL HYGIENIST for routine cleanings every few years.
A guy who is now in LCG once told me long ago back in WCG that my toothbrush could "scratch the enamel"! awww. Then years later in Cadillac MI services he moped and pouted around lamenting toothache, but, oh, he avoided modern medical profession dental visits!
they think God is going to brush their teeth for them...or they think that since Adam & Eve ate raw crunchy carrots etc. to clean teeth without toothbrush, that "we can too" ouch another toothache.
They think I'm almost woke or liberal when I tell them my hygienist every few years tells me, "well just a cleaning today for you, no cavities again".
I see an online COG pastor last year holding his mouth in a funny way for weeks and clearly showing signs of toothache, & not just a stuck corn husk either or a canker sore. What grudge do they have over a toothbrush & toothpaste? Does toothpaste have a few atoms of glycerin or lard in it?
"We can all agree on several things from this verse."
Here we go again with former minister Dennis Diehl telling his defacto flock at Banned what they can "agree on." The old geezer is stuck in the 1960s when new members were unfamiliar with the bible, and had transfered their trust in high school teachers onto Gawds ministers. Those good ol days are long gone, but Dennis is in denial.
denial...🤡 aren't Egyptian fishermen in d'Nile 🌴🚣🐟🏝️
Started reading this post and after reading the first couple paragraphs I thot oh no, Dennis Diehl is up to his OLD tricks again. Then, finally reached the end, and right as rain there was the Diehl name.
No wonder no one he anointed got healed. His attitude was evidently from non-belief at the get go, and transferred to the person needing help..
Then, at the end of his post Dennis goes off on a ministerial blast as if he is still a minister leading his flock. He should remind himself that he acts and thinks from the atheist side of things.
And, as a typical atheist technique he begins his article by telling the reader those who believe in healing, or claim to have been healed, are morons and can’t be trusted. Then he attacks from that incorrect point of view, I.e. his own opinion, as if that opinion is what is wrong with the ones he castigated.
I don’t listen to that kind of mindset, because it is not proof of anything Dennis wrote. It is obvious Dennis has a fixation that he is still a minister. Sad.
I know for a fact about a completely born-dead baby, limp and totally gray who was prayed for by his grandfather, an AC alumni (or alumnus,if you prefer). The baby received life and immediately started to breath and turned pink with no health damage.
Also, the mother of the dead baby was bleeding to death, he prayed, and she stopped bleeding like turning off a faucet.
There were also miracles involved in the grandparents traveling to the home of their family.
All praise,glory, and honor,and thanksgiving be to God our Father and Jesus Christ for these healings which happened years ago. The father took picture of the whole situation.
Yet that's the ONLY case I know of. And since that is the ONLY case I know of in decades of life during WCG or afterwards, I would URGE people to ALWAYS USE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE without guilt!
Life is precious. Don't prevent children or youself or other loved ones from using medical care. Talk to God about why you need to use doctors and go ahead.
Don't ask, I will not share the name of the person involved as the one who prayed.
Why are people on this site so dysfunctional and dishonest?
I think he blocks comments about Eostre, Samhain, Constantine & Sundays
I have an opinion about the passage in James 5 which I will put on the table. But first let me say to Dennis that there might be an explanation for his experience with anointing. I would be surprised if God healed anyone in a cult. Would that not tend to give the cult credibility? On the other hand, I know of cult people who were healed. But this could have been in anticipation of the post-cult future rather than their current cult state. This is difficult to sort out.
I do not believe the statement in James 5 is description of the mechanism of healing. As a small preface, the Book of James appears not to be an epistle. It is more like a manual of various topics. The writer wrote excellent Greek. It is not likely he was someone from the wilds of Galilee. He also had a strongly Judaic flavor to his Christianity. He was a well-educated, Hellenic Jew. Or he had a scribe available to him that would match that description.
I think this James was establishing a procedure for how the church should handle requests for healing. In verses 5:14-15, he constructs a model. This model may be in nature a proposal or it could be based on the experience that James had with healing. I any case, verse 16 proposes a different way that healing might occur. James states, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you might be healed.” He just gave us the ritual of anointing and then in his next statement he proposes an alternative way that healing might happen. This makes me believe that he is stating that healing might happen as a result of different actions taken by members of the church, not just a single policy of anointing. Both approaches to healing pivot on the efficacy of prayer. They also both have an inconclusive relationship to the sins of the sick person. James says, “If he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” It says “if” which means he might have and he might not have. I do not think we can regard James 5:14-15 as if the language were a computing programming syntax and the logic would always flow in a certain way.
The same people who would read the words of James would also know of Paul. And they knew that Paul was not healed of an unspecified (to us later readers) but serious problem that he had. So, for everyone in the Christian community, James 5:14-15 would not be cut and dried. There would be the counterpoint of Paul’s illness. If the author were James the brother of Jesus, head of the Jerusalem Church, then this James and Paul were contemporaries. Yet, Paul nowhere takes James to task over this methodology of prayerfully requesting healing. Paul does not mention it at all even though everywhere Paul went, he would be a dramatic exception to James’ declaration of how healing should happen. The momentum in the church would be against James constructing a rigorous and inviolable formula for healing.
This is why I don’t think James was specifying a mechanism of healing but rather a means of setting someone before God for healing, among other approaches. My opinion . . .
Scout
the gray baby was not dead just because it had low or zero pulse, the praying helped heal to awaken an already live but unconscious small person
neither are these so called flat liner no heartbeat people dead either after getting CPR or defibrillator resuscitation...none of them who report seeing the bright white light or think they "hovered above their operating table" are returning like Jimmy Stewart xmas movie or like Paul did with glimpse visions of the 3rd heav'n...they and the gray baby still had brain wave life despite zero or low heartbeat, and got woke up from being unconscious
"Why are people on this site so dysfunctional and dishonest?"
And yet here you are looking for your daily titillation. Since no one here is as functional as you are, why are you here? You are just another sniveling driveby pot-shotter. What a fool!
Addendum:
I neglected to mention that James, in the model he constructs, is careful to point out in verse 15 that it is not the annointing oil or annointing process that heals the sick but that it is the prayer of faith that is the active principle. And I believe this statement is misunderstood as an ironclad promise that this methodology will inevitably produce healing. I do not think God is going to capitulate his active, intelligent involvement to a procedure.
My opinion ...
Scout
Indeed...& let's not disregard Book Of James as if it is an epistle of straw, like Herr Martin Luther the anti-Semite, anti synagogue-ite did
It is interesting to me that once humans loses fluidity by surrendering their minds to a rigid set of permanent answers, it really does not matter how strong a disproof presented to one of those permanent answers might be, or even the logic supporting it. A switch has been thrown in the minds of these folks whom we lovingly call "culties" causing them to use their permanent answers to evaluate and reject completely new truths which are presented to them.
Their process becomes a learning block, immunizing them against any further education. They no longer test and retest or gain benefit from new incoming knowledge. "Prove all things" to them has come to mean compare all new data to what Mr. Armstrong (feel free to insert your own guru's name here) taught.
I can't imagine this attitude being very productive or fulfillng.
12:18 thanks for your post. It explains very well the problem with the constant exaggerated comments by the WCG critics here. There is nothing new learned, just the same old diatribes and disinformation constantly being repeated.
Just think HWA died in 1986, and the same old nonsense is still spread here.
Consider, at its highest point the WCG HAD 150,000 members.
Planet earth has around 8,000,000,000 people. Notice a difference?
Perhaps a few hundred to a couple thousand were “harmed” by the WCG, etal. And, they taught healing and natural care for health. And, the uninformed critics here ignore facts that the THIRD highest cause of death rate is caused by the medical profession. There is even a name for it. Yet, the cry here is go to the medical profession.
Yet, no one here that is more than fanatical about criticism of a small less than 1% of the world’s population, taught to practice natural methods that are practical is terribly wrong.
Do some research on natural hygiene, and other methods. You might be surprised at your ignorance.
How about complaining about some real problems for a change? Or, is your mind closed and stilted as described by 12:18.
I know some places where one can buy mirrors.
It's been posited by some that divine healing was only for the first century, those Jesus healed to show he could do miracles in God's name, and later for the early Church to help establish their faith. I can't be certain, but I think this is the most practical position to take. I believe God can heal, but it may not be His will to do so today. I don't ask God for much, so I avoid ending up feeling disappointed. It's better to praise God and thank Him for what He has done, rather than ask Him to do you a lot of favors which He probably won't do. You want to have faith but you have to be realistic also.
In July I was diagnosed with bile duct liver cancer. One doctor said the tumor was "99% likely to be malignant." It is a large tumor, about 4.5cm by 2.5cm. Another gave the odds at 95%. He is a graduate of Harvard Medical School and did his residency at Johns Hopkins. My liver specialist stated before multiple biopsies unexpectedly showed only benign tissue that, if it proved to be benign I "hit the jackpot" (his exact words). I was anointed as James 5.14-15 states, and asked our congregation for prayers. I know that God healed me.
9:41
You have it wrong. What HWA did was to develop the heretical idea of "physical sin" that said all illness is the result or your personal sins. If you were to eat good food, etc., you would have perfect health and probably live hundreds of years like the pre-flood people.
This fits smoothly into the Qualification dogma that says salvation will be the result of your works. Your health is your deal. Your salvation is your deal. Get busy. Armstrongism says.
The whole physical sin principle collapses in a huge way when you parse it. If you heat up starches it produces acrylamides. Acrylamides are carcinogenic. If you then eat unleavened bread then you are committing HWA's physical sin. Jesus ate unleavened bread. Therefore, he committed physical sin and disqualified himself as savior and there is no salvation for humankind. Someone tell the disciples.
This is not nonsense. This is a forensic argument based on Armstrongist philosophy.
Scout
941, good post. And you are right! The medical profession is still , in 2023, the third leading cause of deaths is the U.S. and, there are practical natural methods we can implement that can lead to better health.
2 points. No, all illness is not the result of our personal sins, and there is no such thing as "perfect" health.
Why not? We can thank the greedy "experts", those bastards that have sold out the human race for a buck by polluting our water with forever chemicals and plastics, destroying our food supply and the land that grows it with Round up type agents, and polluting our air with all the foul cancer causing filth known to man. Then, instead of admitting harm, they devise a great causation umbrella (climate change) that they can blame and place every consequence of sin under and get off scott free! The kicker is, the same bastards responsible for these problems are usually the ones put in charge to find the cure (for a generous buck that is)!! I'm not trying to sound like HWA here, but I really do believe these sins are beyond our ability to correct and our only hope is the returning Christ, who will execute judgment on
" them which destroy the earth", Revelation 11:18.
I'm not going to put God in a box and say He does not heal, but I do believe there are positive things, even in scripture, we can do for ourselves that can promote good healthy living!
Bible Project has a great video on Anointing - https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/anointing/?utm_source=web_social_share&medium=shared_video
Post a Comment