"Not the author of sickness"

Archibald McLellan

The Churchman

An article which recently appeared in The Churchman, gives such evidence of a change in the beliefs of Christians about the responsibility of God for the sicknesses and distresses of mankind, that we are impelled to quote from it as follows:—

A western clergyman in replying to the article ["Must Protestantism Adopt Christian Science?"] suggested that the church's failure was due to the "failure of her priests to realize the full extent of their priesthood and the full power of their creed." That he goes to the heart of the question is true, yet the clergy of the church in general are not so much to blame as the school of theology in which they were trained and the erroneous doctrinal teaching upon the subject of health and prayers for the sick contained in the Prayer Book, which is placed in their hands as the authorized voice of the church.

As it stands today, the "Order for the Visitation of the Sick" is a blemish upon our Prayer Book; and it is a distinct harm to our church to retain such cruel and utterly false doctrines concerning sickness and disease. The introduction is archaic and useless. The second prayer contains the words: "Sanctify, we beseech Thee, this Thy fatherly correction to him." There are many diseases and much sickness that cannot be attributed to "fatherly correction." The conclusion of that prayer neutralizes all that has gone before by turning the thoughts of the patient toward the possibility of non-recovery instead filling him with hope for restored health. There is no thought of the value of the mind as a great factor in healing bodily disease, nor for real faith in spiritual healing. On the contrary, both are practically blocked and discountenanced by the assertion of erroneous statements.

In the third prayer, the minister is told to say: "Know you certainly that it is God's visitation." This thought is carried out persistently through is carried out persistently through this prayer in a most barbarous manner. No priest with a sane mind could use that prayer today excepting upon a patient who, by virtue of wilful sin, had brought disease upon himself. Even then the prayer

would have to be amended at the clause where it is stated that the sickness had been sent to try the patience of the sufferer for the example of others.

The prayer which follows on page 283 opens with the same distorted idea; the patient is urged to take in good part "the chastisement of the Lord." Farther on he is urged to take with thanksgiving the Father's correction "whensoever, by any manner of adversity, it shall please His gracious goodness to visit us." In the same exhortation he is supposed to have read to him: "So truly our way to eternal joy is to suffer here with Christ." This is another distortion of Scripture, because the suffering does not mean and never did mean sickness. Christ suffered, but not with physical disease. He went about cleansing and healing all manner of diseases.

In the prayer "For a Sick Person" (page 42), so often used in our church, the element of faith has little part. Rather it is stifled by the concluding sentence: "Or else give him grace," etc. Both minister and congregation may feel comfortable in conscience in that they have prayed for the sick and whichever way it goes they are on the safe side. In the companion prayer, "For a Person under Affliction," it is incredible to me how thinking ministers can read of God, "In Thy wisdom Thou hast seen fit to visit him with trouble, and to bring distress upon him."

It is unnecessary to enter into detail in setting forth the objections to the statements made, for to modern Christian thinkers they are obviously relics of a period of distorted Christianity. They are utterly at variance with the teaching of our Lord; and the ideas inculcated in them are largely responsible for the loss of faith in prayer in cases of illness among our communicants and church people generally.

This article was written by a minister of the church in which these prayers are a part of the authorized service, and as The Churchman is a recognized denominational paper, we must assume that the views above stated are those of at least a respectable portion of the Episcopal communion. May not the time soon come when all Christians will agree with Mrs. Eddy's declaration (Science and Health, p. 349) that "God is not the author of sickness"?

Archibald McLellan.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit