Christian historian, Woodrow Walton, invites us to take another look at the early church and the struggles it faced as it emerged from the Apostolic Age and became the state religion of the crumbling Roman Empire. Part of The Gospel in History series.

What is attempted here is to reappraise the condition of the church as it spread the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in the years after the persecutions meted out to the Christians by Domitian and subsequent to the attacks made by critics of the gospel by both the powers that be and those of philosophical bent. This goes beyond the period of the first apologists of the faith, as for instance, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, and extends into the period when the gospel had to face off the spiritualizing gnostic mentality which invaded the Mediterranean world out of Persia and beyond with the return of Roman forces after armed conflicts with Persian armies. The role that Irenaeus of Lyons had in his polemic Contra Haeresies (“Against Heresies”) was crucial for the future of the gospel.

“The Favorites of the Emperor Honorius” (1883) by John William Waterhouse.
Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The subversive effects of Gnosticism in both its Docetic (that the humanity Jesus or his material body was only an illusion) and non-Docetic forms and of esoteric pantheism were great. Syncretism during the reign of Alexander Severus was also challenged by the church’s leaders and apologists. Mithraism and syncretism returned with Roman soldiers from differing parts of the empire.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ also contended with eastern-type spiritualities coming out of Persia, India, and elsewhere. This writer argues that “Spirit,” as spoken of in the Bible, refers to the Personhood of God as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This stands in stark contrast to the way “spirit” is defined by the New Age spirituality of Marilyn Ferguson, pantheism, panentheism, the self-engrossed spiritualism of the Yoga practitioners, and the intuitive spirituality marketed by popularizers such as Tolle and Chopra.  A contemporary defender of biblical spirituality against the mentalities of these teachers is Ravi Zacharias, particularly in his book Why Jesus?: Rediscovering His Truth in an Age of Mass Marketed Spirituality.

In the days of Pasteur and Lister, was the Divine Healing movement out of touch with what American society believed about medicine?

Introduction

The late nineteenth century was a time of monumental change. It witnessed a cyclone of transformation and progress rivaling, at least, that of any preceding era. Not surprisingly, it was a time of key advances in medical science. This era was home to Pasteur, Röntgen, Lister, and a number of lesser known, but still significant, medical pioneers. These inventors and their discoveries radically reshaped and significantly advanced the practice of medicine. New advances seemed to be dawning with every new day. At the end of the nineteenth century, the promise of medical science seemed unlimited.

At the same time, the late nineteenth century also saw religious change. There was the emergence of the Divine Healing movement, a loosely associated group of religious teachers and practitioners who sought to promote and practice the healing power of the indwelling and resurrected Christ over that of natural means. This movement gained tens of thousands of adherents in a significantly short span of time. Key figures in this group included people from a wide-variety of denominations, men and women, ministers and physicians. Furthermore, this movement played an essential role in the birth of Pentecostalism,¹ the greatest religious movement of the twentieth century.

Therefore, there rose simultaneously on the American landscape at least two significant approaches to health and healing in the late nineteenth century, each with its own biased and ardent champions and devotees. Yet, the opinion of the late nineteenth-century Divine Healing teachers did not, as one might expect, thoroughly dispense with the value and goodness of physicians, their diagnoses, and medical treatment. While they did not completely dismiss the advances, usefulness, and propriety of medical science, they did assert that it was, at best, a deficient approach to the gravity, complexity, and depth of human disease. While they believed that physicians and their medical treatments may be gifts from God, they were convinced that medical science was fundamentally unable to bring to humanity the kind of health and life intended for them by God and found solely in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ.

This chapter will explore those common and key responses—both the affirmations and the denials—of the late nineteenth-century Divine Healing proponents to the growing popularity and use of medicine, remedies, and physicians.

Divine Healing Affirmations of Medical Science

Almost to a person, Divine Healing advocates readily granted that doctors and many of their treatments exist by the providence of God. A. B. Simpson, founder of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, noted that physicians and their medical treatments are “among God’s good gifts” to humanity.² Charles Cullis, the renowned Boston homeopath and father of the Divine Healing movement in the United States noted the “valuable” role that doctors and their treatments may play and continued his own homeopathic medical practice in harmony with his ministry of Divine Healing.³ Carrie Judd Montgomery, one of the Divine Healing movement’s more celebrated authors, speakers, and founder of the “Home of Peace” in Oakland, California, granted the skill of those physicians that worked with her during her own infirmity.⁴ One lesser-known figure, Kenneth McKenzie, a member of Simpson’s Christian and Missionary Alliance and author of no fewer than two significant texts on the theology and practice of Divine Healing, noted that only those with an immature theology of Divine Healing and “extremists” would deny that there is good in doctors and medicine.⁵ Furthermore, the fact that most Divine Healing proponents continued to refer to physicians as “Dr.” shows that only by caricature could one assert that Divine Healing movement saw absolutely no good or use in consulting with physicians and implementing their prescriptions.⁶

These affirmations of physicians and medical treatment by Divine Healing proponents, however, were not blanket endorsements. Rather, as we will see, they were limited to particular and specific arenas. What is particularly interesting is the seeming unanimity of the Divine Healing proponents in regard to those particular areas that they affirmed in regard to medical science. Almost universally, the Divine Healing teachers affirmed three separate but related aspects of the goodness of physicians and medical science: 1) the recent and substantial advances in medical science, 2) the physicians’ ability to diagnose the physical cause of disease, and 3) the physicians’ occasional ability to alleviate symptoms of disease.

Virginia Burrus, ed., Late Ancient Christianity,A People’s History of Christianity, Vol. 2 (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2005), 318 pages.

The editorial team of the series entitled A People’s History of Christianity has endeavored to tell the story of Christianity through the eyes of the common person, rather than through the eyes of kings, conquerors, popes, or bishops. In this second volume, they attempt to tell the story of the early church through the eyes of those whose doctrine may not have measured up to the standard of orthodox belief; they were on the fringe of what later became defined as catholic orthodoxy. The goal of opening the scope of history, to tell the story from the “bottom up” rather than from the “top down” is one that is worthwhile. The challenge of the researcher is to discover reliable sources whereby one might piece together the history; the challenge of the reader is to discern where to draw the line between speculation and verity. The first volume explored first century Galilee, the world into which Jesus Christ was born and the second volume examines the first centuries of the church—the period of the Church Fathers—late ancient Christianity.

Much of the research for this second volume appears to be done by implication—discerning what motivated the Church Fathers to write against various “heresies.” For example, if the Apostle Paul wrote words of reprimand to the Corinthian church it is implicit that there were people in the church that were practicing something of theological error. Likewise, the researchers of the People’s History series have taken the words written by the Church Fathers of the first centuries and have lifted from their rebukes to the church alleged evidence of the non-standard beliefs—the unorthodox theology—of the early church. This evidence was then verified by the archeological evidence of the same time-period. The authors have uncovered some intriguing theories of how multiple variations of belief intertwined with local culture and habits retained from pagan religions. They have laid before the reader several scenarios of the internal strife of the late ancient church, with the challenges of new converts and new churches, distance and slow communication, church politics and Rome.

Late Ancient Christianity editor, Virginia Burrus, is Professor of Early Church History at Drew University in Madison, NJ.

Contributing author, David Frankfurter, summarized the process in the chapter he contributed. He said, “When we write appreciatively about saint cults, shrines, iconography, or magic, are we merely carrying on those elitist, early Protestant prejudices in different guise—as historical voyeurism or nostalgic inversion, championing the popular as authentic and shunning the elite as—well, elite?” (256). The challenge that he is pointing to is one of seeing through lenses untainted by our own traditions, teachings, or biases.

Reading this book with pastoral lenses will permit one to see parallel problems between the late ancient church and the church of our day. In one way, the book seems to be, as Frankfurter said “voyeuristic” of another time—with no attempt to interpret—leaving the readers free to make their own interpretation. It serves to remind us that there is nothing new under the sun, particularly in view of heresy—all distortions of orthodox belief continue to assault the church—and that it is profitable to know how the church Fathers dealt with similar problems. It is equally fascinating to speculate about the diversity of the late ancient church and to be freshly challenged about the variety of beliefs held by our early church forbearers.