Christ the Healer: An Analysis (part 5)

A study of the book, Christ the Healer, by F. F. Bosworth:

• Part 1 (Introduction)
• Part 2 (Interpreting the Scriptures)
• Part 3 (Where Sickness Comes From)
• Part 4 (Healing and the Will of God 1)

III. Healing and the Will of God (continued)

Let us now deal with some rather extravagant accusations made by the author.

If sickness is the will of God for His worshippers, then every physician is a law-breaker, every trained nurse is defying the Almighty and every hospital is a house of rebellion.

(pages 59, 175)

If sickness, as some think, is the will of God for His faithful children, then it is a sin for them even to desire to be well.

(pages 59, 176)

But surely Mr. Bosworth has learned to distinguish between the various aspects of the will of God. There is His sovereign will, with is certain to be fulfilled; there is His moral will (righteous standard), which can be violated but not without consequences; then there is the desire of God’s heart. This last is God’s “will” too. We see it in II Peter 3:9, “The Lord is… not willing that any should perish”. Yes, we know that many will perish.

We have seen that, in God’s sovereign will, the curse upon creation has exposed the human family to suffering and death for the present time. But that is not to say that it is God’s moral will or the desire of God’s heart that each person do nothing to maintain a measure of health! Our bodies and their physical endowments are a stewardship from Him, to be used as wisely and efficiently as possible.

But suppose everything is done that is humanly possible, yet the sick one remains ill and grows worse– even to the point where the condition is life-threatening. He is not responding to treatment. Then, we may have an example of the particular use of illness mentioned earlier– that of chastisement.

It is then, I believe, that James 5 comes into play. This is a difficult portion and many plausible explanations have been offered. About half a dozen very good ones come to mind. But, one that deserves our consideration is that James, in vs. 13 and following, is speaking especially of sickness that is a discipline to turn the sinner back into the right way (as is mentioned in I Cor. 11:30). The repeated reference to sin and to confession suggests this (James 5:15-16, 19-20). If the sick one prays about his illness and comes under the conviction of the Spirit of God for some abiding sin, he is then to call for the elders and confess his sin. If that is the reason for the intransigent illness, confession will release him. As the elders pray, he will experience healing.

Again, I do not want to be dogmatic or too restrictive about that interpretation, since there are other possibilities. My point here is simply that it is foolish for the author to claim that, if we believe sickness may have some purpose, we should just resign ourselves in every case and do nothing, so that we do not violate God’s “will”.

There is a more serious and thoughtful comment by the author that needs to be addressed before we leave the matter of God’s will.

If it is God’s will to heal only some of those who need healing, then none have any basis for faith unless they have a special revelation that they are among the favoured ones.

(pages 40, 47, 178)

This view is based upon the idea that God’s will must be known, in particular, and steadfastly visualized by the seeker, before it can become a reality. It places a tremendous burden for actualization upon the believer. Faith is everything. And any failure to receive healing is always the fault of the one seeking it.

To be sure, God has chosen to work through the faith-filled prayers of His people. But He is not restricted to that. And even when faith becomes the channel of blessing, we are told that the tiniest mustard seed-sized faith can move mountains and do the impossible (Matt. 17:20).

Yes, how many are there who are flogging themselves for insufficient faith, because of the simplistic dogmatism of this kind of teaching?

To respond directly to what Bosworth says in the above quotation, we do not need to know God’s will, in the particular, in order to cast ourselves upon Him in faith. Our basis for faith is His mercy and grace (Heb. 4:16) of which there is ample proof in the Bible.

However, we come with the understanding that His response may be grace to endure the trial rather than deliverance from it (II Cor. 12:9). And it is with keeping in mind that, while God delights to act in response to faith, He does, at times, choose to act apart from it. Out of His benevolent heart, He “makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). Also, the lame man of Acts 3 expected money, not healing, yet he received the latter. And no one, apparently, expected the healing of Lazarus in John 11– requiring his being raised from the dead! –but the Lord did it anyway.

It seems that the author sees faith healing as a kind of “come on” that will attract crowds, so they can hear the gospel and trust Christ for eternal salvation. (“If Christ and His apostles could not draw the multitudes without miracles, does He expect more from us?” (pages 71, 126)) But what of the failures?

And, for whatever reason, there are many– though Mr. Bosworth does not mention them. My own mother had a friend, a dear Christian girl, who had been crippled by polio at a young age. When the Bosworth brothers came to town, she went forward for healing not once, but night after night after night. And each time it was the same. “Throw away your crutches, you are healed!” Fred Bosworth would proclaim. And each time, trustingly, she would cast aside her crutches only to crumple to the floor in a heap. She never did get healed.

In spite of her glowing faith, witnessed by all who knew her, in spite of her deep desire to be healed, in spite of her diligence, in the face of repeated embarrassments, she was not healed. The author is so quick to refer us to Jesus’ example. But did anyone come to Jesus with such miserable results? (Would the author try to claim that they “all” –every single one who was restored– had more faith than my mother’s friend? No honest person would try to make such an assertion.)

But for those who insist that God stands ready to heal all, the fault must be ours, for any failure. The writer makes man’s faith almost subordinate to the power of God. And faith must be continuous and unwavering. (“How many lose the manifestation of healing already in operation, by turning their attention from Christ and the Word of God to their feelings? (p. 119) Is he saying that when our faith falters God takes away healing and makes us sick again?! And what of this: “Disease gains the ascendancy when you confess the testimony of your senses” (p. 142). Sounds for all the world like the “mind over matter” preached by the Christian Science cult.)

To sum up: To say that God will heal all who come to Him in faith is a claim that lacks both the support of Scripture and of common experience. It has the potential for heaping an unbearable burden of guilt upon many sufferers and of making them and those around them skeptical of the power of God and the truth of His Word. It seems to make the individual responsible to generate healing in his imagination, before God is willing to act.

(One last illustration of this, from a modern healing, Dennis Bennett. In an article entitled, “Does God Want Everyone Healed?” Christian Life Magazine, January 1982, Bennett makes the following strange statement. He says that he finds it easy to produce enough faith to overcome a head cold, but not a chest cold. It takes him longer to stir up enough faith to be healed of the latter. He seems to have missed the obvious point that it may simply be that his body needs more time to ward off an infection that has touched his lungs as well as his sinus passages. Faith may have little or nothing to do with it! But, for him, as for the author whose work we are considering, faith is the key to everything.)