Harmen Uco de Vries
In the first chapter the aim of this research project was described in the following terms: “Arriving at a first exploration of the possibilities to incorporate the ministry of healing in the pastoral practice of Dutch institutions of healthcare.”
The ministry of healing was defined as that branch of ministry which, based on Jesus’ commandment to his disciples: “heal the sick” (Matthew 10:8par), occupies itself with listening to, speaking with and praying for sick people, whether or not combined with accompanying acts such as the laying-on of hands and anointing with oil.
A first observation showed that in Dutch society there is an increasing interest in healing, especially within New Age circles, whereas in the ecclesiastical and theological mainstream only slight interest in (the ministry of) healing can be discerned. A second observation exposed the marginal position of the ministry of healing within the practice of pastoral care in Dutch institutions of healthcare. At the same time a hesitant turn was noted, both within the established churches and within the pastoral practice in institutions of healthcare.
Having observed a void within pastoral care in Dutch institutions of healthcare, the English hospital of Burrswood was introduced. In imitation of the philosophy of its founder, Dorothy Kerin, in Burrswood the ministry of healing forms an integral part of the pastoral and general care, which makes its position unique in the world. In spite of the contextual differences between this English private hospital and Dutch institutions of healthcare, ample similarities were found to warrant the transfer of possible lessons learnt in this British hospital to Dutch institutions of healthcare. The ministry of healing being relatively unknown in the Netherlands, and in view of the minor reflection on the ministry of healing in institutional settings, it was decided first to introduce the ministry of healing in a general sense, before focusing on Dorothy Kerin and Burrswood. Moreover, it was deemed useful to conclude the findings from this pastoral-theological exploration as well as the subsequent research into Dorothy Kerin and Burrswood with a biblical-theological reflection on healing in order to award the ministry of healing a well-considered position in its application in institutions of healthcare and to protect it against one-sidedness.
How does the ministry of healing function
- in the recent and current non-institutional theoretical reflection and pastoral practice and
- in the theoretical reflection and pastoral practice within the institutions of healthcare founded by Dorothy Kerin?
What can be learned from this reflection and practice, and from the biblical-theological reflection on this practice, in view of the pastoral practice in Dutch institutions of healthcare?
Against the backdrop of a mainly British and American body of literature on the ministry of healing, chapter two focused on the work of a number of important representatives: two Britons, two Americans and two Dutchmen, belonging to different denominations and of various origin, both sacramental and charismatic.
The Englishman George Bennett (1913-1978) was one of the pioneers of the British ministry of healing. His ideas on healing can be labelled as Christ-centred: healing is a fruit of Christ’s Easter Victory, in which he conquered the powers of sin and disease. At the same time, Bennett calls the powers that were unleashed at Christ’s resurrection “the healing forces of the universe” and thus connects creative energy and Jesus’ redemptive work, without making clear how exactly the two are related. Bennett advocates cooperation between the ministry of healing and the medical professions. In this cooperation the ministry of healing, viewed from the perspective of the coming of God’s Kingdom, specifically aims at the healing of the entire person.
Morris Maddocks (*1928), former Anglican Bishop Suffragan and advisor to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York for the Ministry of Health and Healing, describes healing as an unleashing of creative power, which has been advanced in Jesus’ cross and resurrection. He connects healing to the coming of God’s Kingdom and to the promise of a new covenant. He locates the ministry of healing within an ecclesiastical-liturgical context. His ideas about healing are collective (showing attention for the community) as well as holistic. He advocates a continuing cooperation of ministry of healing and medical science and the annulment of the compartmentalization of religion and medical science, which has evolved over the years.
The ideas on healing of the American Francis MacNutt (*1925) can be labelled as well-balanced. He distinguishes various levels in the degree of healing and in the time needed to pray for healing (in this respect he speaks of ‘soaking prayer’). Moreover, he makes a distinction between the ‘already’ and the ‘yet to come’ of God’s Kingdom as well as between sickness and suffering. According to MacNutt, healing can occur via natural processes (accelerated through prayer), but also via a direct, creative act of God. In his view, medical science and healing through prayer can complement each other, because God also works through the way of natural healing. MacNutt pays particular attention to the deliverance from evil spirits.
Following from his ideas on this subject, a digression studied more closely the factual existence of the demonic. A hermeneutical position was taken up which, in addition to acknowledging structural forms of evil, acknowledges the existence of person-like negative entities, while leaving room for the possibility that complaints diagnosed as demonic in biblical times can be interpreted differently nowadays.
In their search for an integration of psychology and spirituality/prayer, the American brothers Dennis and Matthew Linn and Dennis’ wife Sheila Fabricant Linn emphasize inner healing, in which forgiveness takes an important place and use is made of creative imagination. For them healing is a matter of passing on and receiving Jesus’ love. In their theology of healing the ‘examen’ (“what are you most/least grateful for?”), which can be dated back to Ignatius, has a growth-stimulating place. Because in their spiritual conviction God reveals himself in all creation, they smoothly connect the natural life and the spiritual. In their view, for the purpose of healing God also uses the medical professions and medication. As a particular form of healing the healing of ties with one’s ancestors is a subject which they dwell on elaborately.
For K.J. Kraan (1912-1982), who can be considered one of the pioneers of the ministry of healing in the Netherlands, healing belongs to the realm of God’s history of salvation. In his view, one cannot expect too much of (unredeemed) nature. His theology of healing is a theologia gloriae: as a result of the redemption through Jesus’ cross and resurrection, the eschatological salvation, including healing, has definitely broken through. Kraan refuses to speak of temporariness of salvation, but does leave room for unheard prayers as a result of spiritual resistance called forth by the coming of the Kingdom of God. He characterises the relation between medical science and the ministry of healing with ‘mederi’ and ‘sanare’, the latter term referring to the healing of man in its entirety. Kraan particularly accentuates the ministry of healing by framing it within God’s care for the oppressed.
Finally, the Dutchman Martien Parmentier (*1947) goes his own way by speaking of the ‘lizard principle’, which he uses to refer to an in his view autonomously operating regenerative force in the universe. According to Parmentier, God is present in his creation in a real but hidden way. Prayer for healing is in Parmentier’s view the activation of this regenerative creative force. Although this force can also be called upon from outside the church, the miracle is only done true justice when as ‘beyond-natural’ symbol it refers to God’s reality which lies beyond our own. Parmentier emphasizes the continuity between creation and God’s healing mercy, but, feeling a need for sanctification and redemption, also speaks of the necessity to ‘charismatically mould’ the gifts of creation. He devotes special attention to the phenomenon of ‘resting in the Spirit’.
Following from the work of these authors, a final digression discussed the role of the Spirit in creation and redemption.
The third chapter made the transition to the institutional healing ministry by Dorothy Kerin (1889-1963), who, after having been miraculously healed, received a visionary task to heal the sick, comfort the sorrowing and give faith to the faithless. Her mystical communion with Christ resulted in her receiving the ‘stigmata’ on hands, side and feet, which have been recorded by various witnesses. The recently published Bishops’ report A Time to Heal lists her name among those who fulfilled a prophetic role in reviving the ministry of healing within the Church of England.
Kerin’s healing ministry occurred mainly in her ‘homes of healing’, of which Burrswood in Kent was the last one. Main characteristics of her ministry that were mentioned were her loving attitude towards her patients and her eye for the therapeutic value of beauty. Kerin emphasized the importance of cooperation between religion and medical science in her homes. She further stressed that the ministry of healing should be practised within the framework of the church (in her case: the Church of England). Nurses and doctors surrounded the patients with medical care, priests conducted healing services in which patients received the laying-on of hands. Her work was supported by a team of assistants who formed a community working on a spiritual basis.
Kerin’s ideas show a development: shortly after her healing she emphasized the approaching new age of God’s Kingdom, as part of which the Living Christ grants healing, later she also fundamentally acknowledged permanent suffering. She interpreted her own suffering as a suffering with Christ for the sake of others (cf. Col. 1:24).
In Kerin’s ministry intercessions occupied an important place. In her “Little Way of Prayer” she emphasized the importance of a devotional attitude in which the praying person empties himself of his own wishes and desires and focuses on the will of God, after which those who are being prayed for are dedicated to Him in silence. This quiet surrender to God, in which the outcome of prayer is left to Him, is called her ‘resting theology’.
Long before MacNutt spoke of ‘soaking prayer’, we find among Kerin’s methods repeated intercession and touch or laying-on of hands, resulting in gradual recovery.
A first digression in chapter three discussed her biographers’ reproduction of the message which Kerin gave in a British journal shortly after her cure. It concluded that her message underwent a process of hagiographical adjustment, which is why until today this message has been reproduced incorrectly. The original message has been added as an appendix to this chapter.
A second digression compared the language of the abovementioned message with Kerin’s more Christian terminology in a reproduction a few years later. It seems probable that the terminology of her original message is not an indication of esoteric influence, but can be attributed to the atmosphere of the liberal, ‘healthy-minded’ faithful in those days.
The fourth chapter focused on the current practice in Burrswood, an independent medical centre near Tunbridge Wells, sharing characteristics of a general hospital, a nursing home and a healing home. Its mission statement mentions the threefold task that its founder, Dorothy Kerin, received. It is the following combination, which can be traced back to Kerin’s ideas, that gives Burrswood its unique position compared to other institutions of healthcare: a holistic vision, in which medical science and Christian faith are brought together in an interdisciplinary fashion, a Christ-centred focus (as demonstrated in a concentration on Christ while exercising one’s healing duties with a patient-focused attitude), room for the mystery of suffering (in which healing is considered to be more than just physical recovery) and attention for silence and beauty. Results of the empirical research, comprising interviews and participatory research, showed that most elements of this combination were highly valued by patients. The cooperation between (para-)medical and pastoral disciplines can be characterised as complementary and overlapping: in staff meetings during which patients are discussed a policy of ‘open professional borders’ is employed while simultaneously respecting each other’s own professional approach, and staff pray together when necessary. The concept of shared confidentiality allows the exchange of confidential information among the entire care team. Representatives of the (para-)medical professions, together with the chaplains, participate where necessary in the care of individual patients and in services of prayer and laying-on of hands.
The chaplains at Burrswood emphasized the following pastoral-theological conceptual aspects as significant for their theology of healing: the sovereignty of God; the pivotal position of Christ, in whom God redeems his people; the work of the Holy Spirit in creation and through the healing work of doctors, but also –as an expression of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ– in the healing work of chaplains; the tension between the ‘already’ and the ‘yet to come’ in the coming of the Kingdom; the position of suffering as opposed to healing; the healing of patients in their entire being; and the role of the congregation as basis of healing pastoral care.
The methods used by the chaplains at Burrswood include general-pastoral methods (such as interviews and counselling), methods deriving from charismatic circles (such as openness for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, employment of the gifts of the Spirit, laying-on of hands and various forms of prayer for healing), methods which are sacramental in character (such as the service of the Eucharist, also with the purpose of healing damaged relationships with deceased relatives, and the practice of anointing), methods functioning within a liturgical framework (such as celebrating the Eucharist with special intentions and organising healing services, whether or not within the context of the Eucharist), interdisciplinary methods (such as cooperation with other members of the team of carers in consultation, intercession, laying-on of hands and anointing) and ‘creative methods’ (such as placing a personal letter at the foot of a cross).
Of the methods employed it was the laying-on of hands and anointing in general, and more specifically the cooperation between chaplain and counsellor, in which the chaplain affirms a completed counselling process through anointing, that were perceived by the patients as having a positive effect on their well-being.
In the light of biblical theology and of a number of illustrative biblical narratives of healing, chapter five studied the following themes, discussed in the previous chapters, more closely: the relation between creation and healing, the relation between healing and the coming of God’s Kingdom, the position of sickness and suffering and the role of the community in the search for healing. Also, the main working methods in the ministry of healing, as discussed in the previous chapters, were reflected upon in the light of the biblical ‘healing practice’. This reflection aimed, in debate with the biblical tradition, to protect today’s practice of the ministry of healing, also in institutions of healthcare, against over-simplification and distortion.
Approaching the biblical information from a canonical and Christological perspective and a salvation-historical view of Scripture, a number of findings were arrived at that resulted in several conclusions relating to the ministry of healing. After reproducing these findings, the conclusions will be listed.
Although God’s good creation has been disrupted by sin, it has not completely lost its potential of blessing, so that healing and regenerative capabilities are still present and means of healing can be found in it.
Against the backdrop of a disrupted creation Holy Scripture mentions wholeness and healing mainly within the frames of God’s covenant (redemptive partnership) and of his Kingdom (re-creative government).
As a consequence of God’s covenant with Abraham the Torah expresses a promise of blessing, in which the shalom of ‘the beginning’ is made visible again. This blessing includes protection against illness.
The Old Testament prophets promise a future manifestation of God’s liberating kingdom and the vision emerges of a paradisiacal shalom around a messianic Davidide in a re-created land. With them, healing is mainly a promise for the future, belonging to the abundance of the new covenant which God will make with his people and which will be sealed by divine reconciliation.
In the New Testament, healing is framed within the coming of God’s Kingdom, the correlate of the inauguration of the new covenant. God’s Kingdom is about to break through in the person and acts of Jesus. In surrendering his life, an act interpreted as substitutive sacrifice in which God works redemption for many, Jesus seals the new covenant that the prophets foresaid. With Jesus’ resurrection, as a first realisation of the salvation of the Final Transformation, new life is released by the power of the Spirit, enabling the realisation of promised signs and miracles. Since the time of Jesus’ public appearance, healing occurs regularly, particularly as a concrete, but preliminary manifestation of the salvation of the Kingdom, which is breaking through in Him. Healing is primarily a missionary sign, which accompanies the proclamation of the coming of God’s Kingdom and the apparition of the Messiah, and which – in view of the approaching judgement - calls for repentance, but can also be an encouraging sign of salvation within a congregational setting.
Some, but not all, healing narratives emphasize the importance of a ‘drawing near in faith’. This faith, however elementary, can be considered an actualisation of the covenantal relationship between God and the diseased person or his environment.
Although God’s Kingdom is breaking through with the manifestation of Jesus in signs of healing and deliverance, we are still expecting the definitive coming of the Kingdom, including the transformation of our physical existence, of which Jesus’ resurrection is the first manifestation, so that healing today retains its preliminary character. The Kingdom not having reached its definitive form is one of the reasons why healing does not always occur nowadays.
Holy Scripture more than once reduces illness to a transgression of the rules laid out in the covenant. However, there are also alternative voices in the Old Testament, emphasizing the suffering of the righteous (Job). The New Testament retains a general connection between disease and sin, but in some places denies a personal and specific relationship between the two. Moreover, disease is now also traced back to the workings of the devil, against whose destructive actions the coming of the Kingdom marks a counter-offensive. In addition to disease emerging from sin, Holy Scripture also mentions a general kind of suffering, which is related to the transience of creation.
In the New Testament the environment of the patient occupies an important place. The patient is part of a broader community. Sometimes it is this community which musters the faith with which the diseased is offered up for healing. Contrariwise, the healing of the patient sometimes functions as an appeal to the people surrounding him. In the footsteps of Jesus’ healing ministry, the community of the faithful has received a task to heal, the execution of which differs in quality from the healing work by Jesus and his apostles, but which remains valid until the parousia. Today’s ministry of healing can be interpreted as an execution of this continuous task.
The most important Old Testament ‘method’ of healing is prayer. The most common New Testament ‘methods’ are touch/laying-on of hands and Word of Command. Both the healing touch/laying-on of hands without additional acts and the word of command without further bodily contact appear to be specific for the New Testament ministry of healing. In this study, both were interpreted from the salvational perspective of Christ’s appearance: as expression of restored communion with God on the one hand and re-creating intention as expressed in the word of command on the other hand, they reflect the inauguration of the (new) covenant and the coming of God’s Kingdom respectively. The act of anointing was also interpreted in the light of the advent of God’s salvation, viz. as sign and means of the eschatological activity of the Spirit in the sick person in view of his or her (renewed) dedication to God.
The methods in both the Old and New Testament are varied and mostly creatively geared towards a specific situation.
On the basis of the abovementioned findings, the following conclusions were arrived at for the practice of the ministry of healing:
- A rejection of medical action and of the use of medication by workers in the ministry of healing is contradictory to the biblical testimony.
- Healing can be connected to missionary/evangelizing activities as well as to the life of the Christian community.
- Because the precondition of faith does not occur in all healing narratives of the New Testament, as a matter of principle it is incorrect to reduce non-occurrence of healing to a lack of faith within the patient.
- God’s Kingdom not having reached its definitive form yet, one-sidedly raising expectations of healing in a triumphal attitude does not befit the ministry of healing.
- For the ministry of healing one-sidedly to reduce disease to personal sin or to demonism does not do justice to the multicoloured biblical image of the possible origins of disease.
- In the light of the approaching Kingdom, disease foremost calls for a reaction in the form of faithful prayer for healing: a pastoral call for (premature) acquiescence contradicts the dynamism of the coming of God’s Kingdom.
- The ministry of healing is not a matter of individualism, but is anchored within the community of the faithful.
- The current ministry of healing can be understood as realisation of the Scriptural command to heal. The qualitative difference between Jesus and his disciples on the one hand and the Christian congregation on the other hand might account for the fact that nowadays the ministry of healing often needs repetitive prayer.
- If possible, methods in today’s ministry of healing ought to be a beacon of the future of God’s salvation breaking through in the life of the patient, but also – when useful – to be creatively geared towards his or her specific situation. Biblicist imitation of methods of that particular age does not do justice to the Spirit’s creative work today.
In a digression in the fifth chapter the connection between (bodily) healing and Jesus’ death was further explored. It proved only possible to connect the two indirectly, which is why ‘demanding’ healing on ground of the accomplished work of Christ ought to be rejected.
The sixth and final chapter listed the general hospital, the nursing home, the mental home and the rehabilitation centre as Dutch institutions of healthcare which, because of their focus on the search of healing, qualify for integration of the ministry of healing in institutional pastoral care.
This chapter discussed the difference between the Dutch term geestelijke verzorging (spiritual care) as a general, all-encompassing term and (institutional) ‘pastoral care’ as a discipline with its own clerical identity, in which ‘spiritual care’ is interpreted from a certain ecclesiastical tradition. Noticing general discontent with the blurring of a defining identity within the broad range of ‘spiritual care’, this study advocated a more pronounced form of Christian pastoral care. In addition to a denominational interpretation of ‘spiritual care’, the possibility of a different interpretation was suggested, in which the three currents distinguished within non-institutional pastoral care (kerugmatic: proclaiming the liberating Word of God; therapeutic: seeking inner healing and growth through a process of awakening and self-realisation; hermeneutic: aiming at the preservation or re-interpretation of someone’s life story in its interaction with the story of God) were applied to pastoral care in institutions of healthcare. Also, a fourth current was added: charismatic pastoral care (which, being open to the gifts of the Spirit, seeks healing of mind, soul and body) or the ministry of healing, which was positioned in between kerugmatic and therapeutic pastoral care. The ministry of healing as specific form of institutional pastoral care was defined as: the professional and clerical support and assistance of people in their search for wholeness of their entire being, based on the Christian faith.
We elaborately discussed the relation between regular Western medical science, operating from a rationalistic-empirical paradigm, and the ministry of healing, which is based on a metaphysical or spiritual paradigm. Realizing that in the Netherlands the latter paradigm is mostly regarded as outdated and inferior by representatives of the (para-)medical disciplines, we discussed the strengths and weaknesses of current Western medical science and noted the hesitant changes in regular medical science towards a more holistic approach. After having illustrated the one-sidedness of a rational-empirical mode of thinking from both an epistemological and cross-cultural healing angle, we cautiously argued for a complementary cooperation of healthcare and ministry of healing. In order to distinguish the ministry of healing from expressions of fundamentalism and charlatanry, five quality standards were mentioned, of which the three most important ones are: the criterion of ‘non-extremism’ (distancing oneself from ‘over-demonising’, from establishing one-sided links between illness and sin, from raising one-sided expectations of healing, and from a one-sided attribution of non-cure or non-immediate cure to a lack of faith), the criterion of ‘non-exclusivity’ (refraining from any form of rejection of regular medical science and medication) and the criterion of academic training and ecclesiastical authorization of the pastor practising the ministry of healing. Finally, we explored practical ways towards a cautious incorporation of the ministry of healing within the caring professions, stressing the importance that representatives of both the (para-)medical and pastoral professions show mutual respect for and actually take note of each other’s way of thinking.
Following from the discussion of the relation between the ministry of healing and medical science, a digression focussed on the relation between the ministry of healing and alternative, energetic healing, as practised in New Age-circles; practices with which today’s chaplains find themselves increasingly confronted. Despite many similarities, major differences were noted as well, especially in relation to the position of sin, expectations for the Future, the value of bodily existence and the nature of the healing force. From a Christian point of view it was emphasized that healing forces only then fulfil their purpose when they are positioned within Communion with God, who is Creator and Redeemer, and in His service.
The final part of this chapter highlighted a number of previously listed contextual, conceptual and methodical elements of the ministry of healing because of their importance for the daily practice of care in institutions in general and pastoral care in particular. As contextual elements we discussed the importance of a patient-centred attitude, of an as much non-clinical environment as possible, of interdisciplinary cooperation combined with attention for persons in their entirety, and of practising the ministry of healing within the parameters of an established church. We realized that in the Dutch situation the interdisciplinary approach will most of the time necessarily lack the spiritual component, which in Burrswood formed an essential element of this cooperation.
Of the conceptual elements, in view of the situation in Dutch institutions of healthcare the following concepts were underlined and discussed in more detail: the Christ-centred nature within the practice of the ministry of healing (being aware that in the Dutch situation this nature – as opposed to Burrswood – will mainly be limited to a small circle of persons around the chaplain), and the three bipolar concepts of triumph and suffering, comfort and call to conversion and individual and community; concepts whose focuses balance each other out and which can thus protect the ministry of healing against one-sidedness.
Of the methods mentioned in the previous chapters the following were discussed in view of the current practice in Dutch institutions of healthcare: openness towards guidance by the Holy Spirit, healing prayer in its various forms, the laying-on of hands, anointing (an act interpreted as sacramental) and the practice of the ministry of healing within the context of the Eucharist, paying attention also to healing damaged relationships with deceased relatives. Furthermore, the importance of using creative methods was underlined, and possibilities were discussed of services of intercessions and laying-on of hands, whether in smaller or larger circles. As regards the practice of the ministry of deliverance within institutions of healthcare, interdisciplinary cooperation, wherever possible, was deemed of essential importance.
In addition to what had been stated earlier in this chapter about the integration of the ministry of healing within teams of carers, this study concluded with an eight-step guide towards a cautious implementation of the ministry of healing in the daily pastoral practice in institutions of healthcare.
No comments:
Post a Comment