Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1978
Two Ideas Due for the R a g b a g ROBERT E. LAIR, JR. The thesis of this article is that, in spite of the modern advances in the ministerial/medical relationship, there are still widespread gaps that exist, stemming from two outmoded ideological stances held by many physicians, clergymen, and patients--ideologies that must be discarded by professionals in religion and medicine. The first outmoded ideological stance is the belief held by many patients and professional religionists (and more than a few physicians) that divine healing is a transcendent intervention/interruption of the "natural" process. So, when medical science has done all that it can do, pray for a miracle. The clergyman is an intercessor who may be able to spark a miracle. Healing, according to this ideological school, is doled out by divine whim, and human beings are at the mercy of a capricious or, at best, selectively benevolent deity. This ideological stance relegates the physician to the "natural" order of healing and the minister to the "supranatural" order. The poor patient is, so to speak, "caught between two worlds" and somewhat at the mercy of the specialists in both. The second outmoded ideological stance is the belief held by some patients and many "scientifically minded" physicians (as well as a few "men of the cloth") that the Divine Creator went into retirement shortly after the initial creation and delegated the total operation of the universe to the various specialists: the politician runs the political world, the scientist runs the world of the laboratory, etc., and the Divinity casually observes everything from a distance. According to this ideological stance, all life and death matters are in the hands of the man in the long, white coat, unto whom the keys to life and death have been entrusted. The clergyman is a prop in the background who may be summoned to comfort the bereaved when the brilliant and valiant efforts of the physician are overpowered by the irreversible events of the natural world; the clergyman may also be summoned to offer a prayer of thanksgiving to the isolated Deity and to rejoice in the medical genius of the Lord's representative-in-charge. This viewpoint, again, places the patient helplessly in the hands of another human being who alone holds his destiny. A third ideological position is the one that is shared by competent practitioners of religion, psychology, psychiatry, and medicine. This position recognizes the unity of man. Man is seen as a complex, multidimensional creature--a psychological-physiological-neurological-pneumatic-energetic whole. Every human dimension crosses, interacts, and affects every other dimension. AcThe Rev. Robert E. Lair, Jr., D. Min, is pastor of historic Asbury Memorial United Methodist Church in Asheville, North Carolina. He is also a major in the United States A r m y Reserve. 288 00224197/78/1000-0288500.95
9 1978Institutes of Religionand Health
Two Ideas Due for the Ragbag
289
cording to this stance, the entire healing team--physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, clergyman--strive together with the patient to bring about personal wholeness. In this outlook, there is but one ~eality--with different perspectives on that reality. God is immanently present in and working through all participants. The patient is seen holistically, and the world is seen as unitary. The patient's fate is not solely in the hands of the professionals; he himself is actively engaged in bringing about his own wholeness. According to this third ideological position, the '~miraculous" is not understood in terms of the suspension of natural laws by some Mysterious Divine Manipulator of the created order, nor is it the suprahuman achievement of the m a n in the long, white coat. Rather, the ~'miraculous" is understood as the divine-human cooperative, mutually participating, and law-abiding accomplishment of personal wholeness. This third ideological stance is cognizant of synergism, it is Open to discoveries in all facets of h u m a n life, and it is appreciative of the contributions that are made both by all specialists and by the patient himself. The physician and the clergyman together in this unitary approach to healing can sensitize the patient to the creative energies at work within him, helping the patient to interpret the healing process within his own particular faith tradition. The healing team can encourage the patient to draw upon the faith resources of his own particular tradition and encourage him to articulate and connect the physical and mental processes with his personal faith and his own individual responsibility as an active participant in the healing process. This is not medical or religious salesmanship. It is honest, personal, sensitive relationship between professionals and between professional and patient. This third ideological stance might be called "panentheism"--God actively participating in all. This stance is theologically, medically, philosophically, and scientifically integrated; it holds together. It is being documented daily. Some notable examples are: 1)The work of Dr. O. Carl Simonton, who combines radiation and meditation in his work with cancer patients in Fort Worth, Texas; 2)Experiments in mental control of physical functions--once thought to be autonomic--conducted by the Menninger Foundation in Topeka, Kansas; 3) The use of biofeedback to control hypertension, migraine headaches, etc.; 4) The industrial interest in and utilization of biorhythms and meditation; and 5)The renewed transdenominational interest in the religious dimension of physical healing. It is time for the ideas of supranatural interventionism and deistic isolationsism to be thrown in the ragbag of outmoded ideologies; the multiprofessional approach to healing needs to be acknowledged; and the art ofpanentheistic cooperationist healing needs to be practiced through the medical and religious communities without apology, reluctance, or condescension.
Two Ideas Due for the R a g b a g ROBERT E. LAIR, JR. The thesis of this article is that, in spite of the modern advances in the ministerial/medical relationship, there are still widespread gaps that exist, stemming from two outmoded ideological stances held by many physicians, clergymen, and patients--ideologies that must be discarded by professionals in religion and medicine. The first outmoded ideological stance is the belief held by many patients and professional religionists (and more than a few physicians) that divine healing is a transcendent intervention/interruption of the "natural" process. So, when medical science has done all that it can do, pray for a miracle. The clergyman is an intercessor who may be able to spark a miracle. Healing, according to this ideological school, is doled out by divine whim, and human beings are at the mercy of a capricious or, at best, selectively benevolent deity. This ideological stance relegates the physician to the "natural" order of healing and the minister to the "supranatural" order. The poor patient is, so to speak, "caught between two worlds" and somewhat at the mercy of the specialists in both. The second outmoded ideological stance is the belief held by some patients and many "scientifically minded" physicians (as well as a few "men of the cloth") that the Divine Creator went into retirement shortly after the initial creation and delegated the total operation of the universe to the various specialists: the politician runs the political world, the scientist runs the world of the laboratory, etc., and the Divinity casually observes everything from a distance. According to this ideological stance, all life and death matters are in the hands of the man in the long, white coat, unto whom the keys to life and death have been entrusted. The clergyman is a prop in the background who may be summoned to comfort the bereaved when the brilliant and valiant efforts of the physician are overpowered by the irreversible events of the natural world; the clergyman may also be summoned to offer a prayer of thanksgiving to the isolated Deity and to rejoice in the medical genius of the Lord's representative-in-charge. This viewpoint, again, places the patient helplessly in the hands of another human being who alone holds his destiny. A third ideological position is the one that is shared by competent practitioners of religion, psychology, psychiatry, and medicine. This position recognizes the unity of man. Man is seen as a complex, multidimensional creature--a psychological-physiological-neurological-pneumatic-energetic whole. Every human dimension crosses, interacts, and affects every other dimension. AcThe Rev. Robert E. Lair, Jr., D. Min, is pastor of historic Asbury Memorial United Methodist Church in Asheville, North Carolina. He is also a major in the United States A r m y Reserve. 288 00224197/78/1000-0288500.95
9 1978Institutes of Religionand Health
Two Ideas Due for the Ragbag
289
cording to this stance, the entire healing team--physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, clergyman--strive together with the patient to bring about personal wholeness. In this outlook, there is but one ~eality--with different perspectives on that reality. God is immanently present in and working through all participants. The patient is seen holistically, and the world is seen as unitary. The patient's fate is not solely in the hands of the professionals; he himself is actively engaged in bringing about his own wholeness. According to this third ideological position, the '~miraculous" is not understood in terms of the suspension of natural laws by some Mysterious Divine Manipulator of the created order, nor is it the suprahuman achievement of the m a n in the long, white coat. Rather, the ~'miraculous" is understood as the divine-human cooperative, mutually participating, and law-abiding accomplishment of personal wholeness. This third ideological stance is cognizant of synergism, it is Open to discoveries in all facets of h u m a n life, and it is appreciative of the contributions that are made both by all specialists and by the patient himself. The physician and the clergyman together in this unitary approach to healing can sensitize the patient to the creative energies at work within him, helping the patient to interpret the healing process within his own particular faith tradition. The healing team can encourage the patient to draw upon the faith resources of his own particular tradition and encourage him to articulate and connect the physical and mental processes with his personal faith and his own individual responsibility as an active participant in the healing process. This is not medical or religious salesmanship. It is honest, personal, sensitive relationship between professionals and between professional and patient. This third ideological stance might be called "panentheism"--God actively participating in all. This stance is theologically, medically, philosophically, and scientifically integrated; it holds together. It is being documented daily. Some notable examples are: 1)The work of Dr. O. Carl Simonton, who combines radiation and meditation in his work with cancer patients in Fort Worth, Texas; 2)Experiments in mental control of physical functions--once thought to be autonomic--conducted by the Menninger Foundation in Topeka, Kansas; 3) The use of biofeedback to control hypertension, migraine headaches, etc.; 4) The industrial interest in and utilization of biorhythms and meditation; and 5)The renewed transdenominational interest in the religious dimension of physical healing. It is time for the ideas of supranatural interventionism and deistic isolationsism to be thrown in the ragbag of outmoded ideologies; the multiprofessional approach to healing needs to be acknowledged; and the art ofpanentheistic cooperationist healing needs to be practiced through the medical and religious communities without apology, reluctance, or condescension.
