Siebe Maarten Roozenboom
Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit
The title of this study is: Naar een bestaan volkomen (To a perfect existence). The dogmatic motives in the foundation and defence of the ministry of healing by theologians of the charismatic renewal in the Netherlands and the way how to cope with these motives in the Dutch-Reformed and Calvinist theology in the last onehundred and fifty years.
We examine what (systematic-) theological arguments are supplied in favour of the ministry of healing by representatives of the charismatic renewal in the Netherlands; then how the Reformed and Calvinist theology in Holland have considered these arguments over a period of a hundred and fifty years. A comparison of these two groups shows why there did not grow a ministry of healing in the Dutch churches as happened in the Church of England. With this study we aim to stimulate the dialogue between the Protestant Church in the Netherlands and the charismatic renewal concerning the importance of the ministry of healing in the church.
Our method consists of a comparative exposition of the designs of leading theologians from both groups, accompanied by critical questions and comment from our side.
In the first part we discuss theologians of the charismatic renewal. Particularly a man like K.J. Kraan has made a plea to introduce the ministry of healing in the Netherlands. He starts from the point of view that the Holy Spirit continues, applicates en realises the work of Christ in actions of healing. The church is a healing community and fights against illness from the perspective of the Thora. This is a case of righteousness, for illness is incompatible with the will of God and goes back to chaotic, diabolic and extern-negative powers and dominians.
Healing, on the contrary, is salvation, is release from evil powers and is part of the Kingdom. Recovery does not happen through transfer of universal or psychic energy, but is addressed by divine providence through the blessing. From the eschaton the Spirit brings healing powers into the present (>realising eschatology=).
From James 5:14-17 - the Magna Charta of the ministry of healing - the church has the task to administer the healing of the sick by praying for them (upward movement to God) and then to bless them, lay hands upon them and anoint them (downward movement from God). Miracles may happen, that is to say God=s creative power of healing and liberation penetrates into this sinful world, disturbs the power of evil and brings about the order of the Kingdom. We typify this approach of Kraan as an >eschatological fractionmodel=: healing is the ultimate event that breaks into the nature, that is alienated from God.
Others, such as M.F.G. Parmentier, assume a still unknown, universal, healing energy, that lies hidden in creation. He calls this the >lizard-principle=. Just as in nature the broken tail of a lizard grows spontaneously, there is a regenerative, healing energy in creation, working inexplicable recoveries in man. In the charismatic personality of Jesus this force got more and more space and culminated in his resurrection. Now this healing energy can be activated by prayer. An intensive form is the >soaking prayer=. Practitioners in the ministry of healing can grow and improve by opening themselves to the unknown forces and possibilities that lie hidden in creation. The lizard-principle distinguishes itself from magnetism among other things because it is through counseling and prayer directed at and seeking contact with the Creator. Hereby paranormal gifts can be sanctified by the Spirit till they are gifts of grace (>charismata=) in the service of Christ. Parmentier might be asked how that healing power within the creation is related to the power that is at stake in the resurrection of Christ. It is clear that here lies much less discontinuity between creation and liberation than Kraan assumes. The cosmic-regenerative healingpower is the point of departure. The work of Christ is connected with this power. That is why we call it the >creation-> or >elevationmodel= in contrast with the transformationmodel of Kraan. Other theologians of the charismatic renewal continue in the track of Parmentier or Kraan.
W.W. Verhoef, one of the founders of the Charismatic Community of the Netherlands (CWN) in 1972, differentiates the view of Kraan and is open to paranormal gifts for the service of the Lord. He also offers practical applications for the ministry of healing in the community.
J.-J. Suurmond gives psychological background notes as part of the ministry of healing.
J. Veenhof shows affinity with the charismatic way of thinking. He rejects cessationism and points out the healing activity of the Spirit, emanating from the risen Christ and giving blessing in reply to prayer, which may cause (physical) healing. The Spirit works in creation (from behind) and from the eschaton (from ahead) in the present. Yet Veenhof does not come to the notion of a realizing eschatology. There remains the tension between the >already' and >not yet', between cross and resurrection.
M.J. Paul largely agrees with K.J. Kraan. From a Calvinist context he makes a powerful plea for re-introducing the ministry of healing as a biblical task. He differs from Kraan because of the argument of the provisional character of the renewal and he lays no emphasis on a realising eschatology.
In an intermediate evaluation we survey the notions which are drawn up by theologians of the charismatic renewal. Very important is the work of the Spirit, who grants his gifts of grace. He has worked since the creation, but is at the same time an eschatological power. From the future He works into the present. There is the reality of illness, which is considered as a counterdivine power that has nestled in creation and is linked with sin. Christ, in his wanderings on earth and in his suffering, death and resurrection has broken this power and given the ministry of healing to his church. This ministry has the means of prayer and words of blessing and gestures (laying on of hands and anointing) as instruments.
These themes do not stand alone but can be placed in three pair of concepts: creation and sin (1), pneumatology and eschatology (2) and providence and prayer (3). From here we come to a sharpening of the question:
a) How does one see illness in relation to creation and sin in Reformed-Calvinist theology?
b) Does healing arise from healing powers within creation or is it also fruit of the recreation (the accomplished work of Christ) and is it applied by the Spirit?
c) Can one pray for healing or must the fight against illness be left to God=s providence and/or to medical science?
In our study it is clear that the accent lies on the second question: can a particular ministry of healing be legitimized from the sanctifying work of the Spririt, who shares his gifts and brings about healing as an eschatological salvation?
In the Calvinist theology, which is discussed in part II, one does not generally think in this direction. A. Kuyper connects the sanctifying work of the Spirit especially with private grace and regeneration. Healing of illness lies in the domain of >common grace' and the common works of the Spirit in creation, where He steers the progress of (medical) science. Illness stems from the fall of man and the condemning judgment of God because of this. Of course it is allowed to pray for healing, provided that one also uses the possibility of medicine given by God and subjects oneself to the will of God, who after all sends illness. Kuyper recognizes the value of the gifts of the Spirit, but also assumes that the gift of healing was limited to the apostolic times and since then no longer has occurred (the >cessationism').
H. Bavinck does pay positive attention to the body, but concentrates just as Kuyper on the ordo salutis. Everything is directed at the >unio cum Christo', which leads the believer to a temporary B spiritualB form of glorification. Renewal of the body and complete healing lie in an eschatological perspective. A liturgical service for the sick cannot be deduced from James 5. In this text the gift of healing is not the issue at stake, but the intercession of the elders in view of the recovery of the sick person, who for that reason must first confess his sins. Although G.C. Berkouwer resists spiritualism, reconciliation remains also his focus and the correlation of faith and justification, sanctification and perseverance as well.
In part III we meet an interesting Reformed theologian, namely J.H. Gunning Jr. In the nineteenth century he forcefully brings to the fore that the salvation by God is neither an idea nor an abstractum, but always assumes a physical shape. The destination of the believer is a spiritual corporality, that is to say a complete integration of the spiritual and the physical as it actually was in Jesus. Our present body is a deviation of the order intended by God, for it has been deformed by sin and subjected to death. The Spirit leads our humanity in a process of sanctification to a state of glorified corporality. Jesus' spiritual corporality with his ascension is also the target of our lives. Gunning calls this biblical realism. In the resurrection of Christ he sees a guarantee that the higher life breaks through the lower and glorifies the natural. This glorified physical life is communicated not only in a christological-pneumatological way (the subjective line), but also sacramentally in Baptism and the Last Supper (the objective line). Because of this Gunning asks attention for the gifts and works of the Spirit, among which he considers healing as very important. His objections against the revival movements keep him back from a particular ministry of healing. However, with his view he approaches the subsequent charismatic spirituality.
The majority in the Reformed academic theology does not go as far as Gunning.
They do acknowledge that the Spirit brings the eschatological salvation more closely (O. Noordmans, A. A. van Ruler) and shares his gifts. One may pray for healing and even expect miracles, but they keep a strong eschatological reserve (the cross, the interim, the >not yet'). Healing of illness is left to advancing medicine.
H. Berkhof also points to the general sanctifying powers of the Spirit in our world, but he equally asks attention for >the third element in regeneration'. The gifts of the Spirit, among which healing, equip the believers with personal service.
A. van de Beek asks about the why and wherefore of all the suffering in this world and in this way pays explicit attention to the physical experience of our existence with all its pain and distress. Miracles of healing may happen as lightsignals of the Kingdom. Yet the crossexperience dominates his theology and the prayer rises as a loud call for mercy and also as a dispute with God.
In part IV we look at some synodal reactions. In 1959 the Reformed Council for Church and Health Care published a report entitled Vragen rondom de gebedsgenezing (Questions about healing through prayer). It is assumed that illness is more than a mere biological phenomenon. It is also a signal from the realm of darkness and indicates in a deeper sense a disturbance in the relation with God. Healing is a sign of the liberation in Christ and brings out the Kingdom. In this way illness and healing stand within the frame of sin and grace. The reporters reject a special ministry of healing as being superfluous. When the gospel of forgiveness is rightly proclaimed, healings will not fail to materialize as accompanying signs. Moreover a separate ministry of healing causes a partition of the one Word in a multiplicity of services. Of course one may pray for healing, but this prayer does not stand alone: it is a special form of the prayer for the coming of the Kingdom that is about to come in its fullness. Faith is neither a channel for healing nor an increased form of concentration. It is directed at the living Christ who speaks his liberating Word. Ecclesiastical and secular acting are two shapes of his healing activity on earth. The cross is still set up here as a sign of the broken existence.
The view in the report corresponds largely with that of P.J. Roscam Abbing, who sees in the NT two lines. The first we find in James 5:14f. with the candid prayer for healing, whereas the second line becomes visible in Romans 8:22f. Here the call is heard to accept suffering meekly because of the relativity of the liberation: creation waits for its completion. Only a >theologia crucis' does justice to the two accents of the perfectum and futurum. Therefore no >theologia gloriae'.
In the Calvinist churches the synodal reflection on the ministry of healing resulted in a number of reports, winding up in the edition De kerk als helende gemeenschap (The church as a healing community). Here one comes to a cautious recommendation of the ministry of healing. At the same time one dissociates oneself from the view of copying the healing work of Jesus, because his mission stood in a particular historical-theological frame. The ministry of healing is practised in compliance with the historical developments in the medical field, which are also gifts of the Spirit. He can B within the limits of relativity B give signs of welfare and healing. This, however, on the understanding that in this period an irreversible process of change is going on, and that the dead do not rise.
The prayer for healing is a gift of the Spirit as well as a task: we may pray with full expectation and leave the results to God, who is able B in an open reality B to do infinitely more than we pray or realise.
When we consider the whole theological development within the churches, with regard to the ministry of healing, we arrive at the following conclusions.
1. In the last thirty years, also under the influence of the charismatic movement, more openness has come for the ministry of healing, starting from a new interest for the gifts of grace of the Spirit and the healing powers within creation and for eschatology.
2. In the Reformed-Calvinist theology the accent lies on the development of the medical science as a gift of the Spirit. Healing does not directly belong to the particular, sanctifying work of the Spirit in the believer, whereas this is certainly the case in the charismatic movement. An exception is Gunning in the nineteenth century.
3. In ecclesiastical theology, the scopus of the gospel has mostly been the forgiving of sins (reconciliation, regeneration), through which the body came to lie in the shadow of spiritual life. The Reformed report of 1959 is an example of this. The Calvinist pamphlet De kerk als helende gemeenschap asks more attention for the healing activity of the Spirit in the sanctification of the believer, and for prayer, which may also take shape in a specific liturgical service.
4. The synod has not yet come to a recommendation of the ministry of healing in pastoral work, through which the dogmatic development of the past decades does not really come forward. However, in the new Dienstboek II of 2004 of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands a liturgy has been taken up for optional use for the blessing of sick persons.
No comments:
Post a Comment