Psychotherapy vs. Faith-Healing

The practice of psychotherapy, as we have seen, is seriously questioned by many scientists in the medical field. Interestingly enough, investigators have noted that the major result of psychotherapists’ efforts is diagnostic, and that their predictions are based upon observations of the patient’s characteristics. This appears to be the skill upon which faith-healers like Leroy Jenkins largely depend, if other more certain methods of obtaining medical information are not available or are not preferred by the operator. It has also been shown that, in psychotherapy, actual methods of treatment and the involvement of the therapist seemed to add little to the outcome. Attempts to parallel these studies by comparison with the faith-healers’ impact upon their clients have led to roughly similar conclusions.

Keeping the Victims Dependent

There are cases in which psychotherapy and faith-healing might be expected to have essentially the same end results, because in some ways the processes are similar. But the basic purposes are quite different. The former will say that problems are generated by unresolved conflicts, and the latter will declare that the problems are due to attacks by demons and devils, allowed to control the patient because of a lack of faith, piety, or sacrifice. It is said that the basic aim of psychotherapy is to create in the patient the feeling that he is autonomous, is in control of his own destiny, and is assuming that control. A “cure” is said to have occurred when the patient has in fact become self-sufficient and is able to function in society. The faith-healer, however, promotes in his victims a feeling of total dependence on the operator, based upon a mythology which the operator himself has created by specialized interpretation of various writings and authorities. Coupled with this is the strong message that the world outside is infested with evil elements (demons, science, pollution) which are not “of God” and thus are to be despised. Faith-healers are in no way concerned with allowing their victims to gain insight into the reasons for their own behavior and failings. They perpetuate in the client a belief that the only source of relief and continued security lies with the faith-healer and the divine intervention that he or she can deliver. They denounce any inclination of the client toward behavioral independence and summon their strongest curses for the dreaded secular humanists, who, they say, have the presumption to declare that man is able to function without divine assistance, this being a sin of unparalleled arrogance.

Standards of Evidence

A friend of mine is closely connected with the evangelical movement and earnestly believes in faith-healing. He tried for a long time to come up with an example of genuine healing for me to include in this book. He chose his own criterion for a genuine healing: He would require it to be instantaneous. Until I consulted him, I had not included that in my list of standards, but when this man pointed out to me that healing as related in the Christian Bible was always instantaneous in nature, and because he speaks for several charismatic Christian organizations, I have adopted his requirement. However, Dr. Morton Smith, professor of ancient history at Columbia University, has observed that nowhere in the Bible is Christ said to have replaced any body part, and no modern-day evangelist is going to call on any person who needs a new ear or a finger to be grown back. It now begins to appear that Christ may have been simply one more of the many performers of that period who “cured” hysterical conditions like paralysis, loss of speech, deafness, and blindness—all of which are known to be brought on sometimes by entirely emotional causes. Indeed, Christ’s modern faith-healing imitators are rather close in their performances to what we are told about the original. Canadian writer Arthur C. Hill, M.D., a devout believer, fortifies this strict view of judging genuine healings by faith, observing that the miracles attributed to Jesus Christ in the Bible have these characteristics: (1) Wherever the name of the problem was mentioned in scripture, it was incurable then and remains so today: blindness, deafness, dumbness, leprosy, some forms of paralysis—and death-are examples. (2) The healing was complete. (3) It was instantaneous. (4) There were no failures. I must point out to this authority that the diseases he refers to may well not be the same ones designated by those who wrote the Bible. What was referred to as “leprosy” may have been applied by the authors to a number of similar diseases. As for “no failures,” I might suggest that perhaps those who supplied the text failed to mention any. One common thread emerges from most discussions of what constitutes genuine faith-healing—the expectation of an instantaneous cure. Organic ailments like heart conditions, cancer, bacterial infection, and similar problems are excellent choices for the healer to work on, because there is no obvious, external sign of recovery. As mentioned earlier, Oral Roberts has been known to segregate “impossible” cases from the main body of the audience, so that they will not be seen by cameras and skeptics. These are the people who emerge as they went in—still obviously and hopelessly sick. Roberts attempted, early in his televised shows, to provide validation for his healings by showing a notarized document that bore the signature of a local judge, asserting that he had been present at the filming of the show and that “the events and incidents to follow occurred on the spot in a meeting conducted in the great tent cathedral.” Nothing was offered concerning the creative editing that improved the films, any follow-ups that were done on those who were said to be healed, or whether there were medical records or reports of any kind to support the diagnoses that were announced. All the healers persist in claiming that there are countless cases of cures that have occurred at their hands, and they purport to demonstrate them regularly. I have tried to obtain from all possible sources direct, examinable evidence that faith-healing occurs. My standards are simple. I need a case hat involves a living person, healed of an otherwise non-self-terminating disease, who recovered from that disease as a result of a faith-healer’s actions and can produce before-and-after evidence to establish that fact. I have failed in any and all cases I have investigated to obtain a response that satisfies these simple requirements. It’s not as if some of the healers don’t offer to provide evidence; they simply fail to fulfill that promise when the time comes.