Feedback archive → Feedback 2019
Medicine and miracles
Published: 9 February 2019 (GMT+10)
Barbara N. from the US wrote in response to the article Gene editing babies? A dangerous, pointless experiment:
All this monkeying of genes, I believe, is a huge slap in the face to our Heavenly Father, including tampering with genes to help those who are dealing with illness. The ill still need the intervention of the God who knows everything hand knows how to heal and wants to be their healer. The ill need to hear the truth of God’s gift of His healing and understand how to receive it by His powerful Word given to us. Because many have not learned nor heard the promise of supernatural healing, they turn to man’s understanding of science and continue to believe that’s where the answers are. So disturbing to hear of this report and I hope we find it is not substantiated.
First, I think it’s important to affirm that God does do miracles—we find them throughout Scripture, and God is certainly able to do anything He wants, including miraculous healings. So, given that we believe that God can do any miracle He wants to do, how should we think about medical intervention?
Anything we do to help our bodies recover from or function under the effects of the Curse is a medical intervention. If we wear glasses to help us cope with near-sightedness, take an aspirin for a headache, or put a band-aid on a cut, we are effectively using natural means instead of relying on a miracle. And that isn’t wrong!
Medical interventions range from superficial, like the examples above, to much more invasive, like internal pacemakers, kidney transplants, and brain surgery. But the principle is the same. Medical interventions that help to alleviate the effects of the Curse are good. We are thankful for doctors and their skills and do not accuse them of trying to subvert the will of God. Their tireless work to bring succor to the suffering is a blessing to humanity. Of course, the ends do not justify any unethical means—just because a kidney transplant can be good because it saves the life of someone in kidney failure does not mean we can murder someone else to harvest his organs for transplantation, for instance.
Perhaps the most invasive intervention of all would be editing the DNA code itself. But using the reasoning we’ve established above, we would judge it by the same standards. Does it help to alleviate the effects of the Curse? If we could erase the gene for cystic fibrosis, for Huntington’s disease, or for sickle cell anemia, that would be good, because those harmful genes were not part of God’s original creation. Of course, we would also have to ask, can it be done ethically? For instance, we can’t kill someone to harvest his organs, we can’t create a bunch of embryos and kill most of them to end up with a few healthy individuals, and we can’t edit the DNA of an embryo because that risks bringing harm to the individual without their consent.
Does this entail a lack of faith in God? Not at all! If God wanted to heal every single person with a genetic illness, it would not be hard for Him to do so, and He could do it at this very moment. But miracles, by definition, are rare, and we shouldn’t presume that God will perform a miracle just because we affirm that He can. While we can pray for a miracle and ask that God would heal people who are suffering with various afflictions, we can also be thankful for the means of medicine that He has given us.
Even in Scripture, we see the reality of miracles and medical intervention coexisting. The apostles were able to perform miracles. Even the shadow (Acts 5:15) of an apostle, or a piece of cloth they had touched (Acts 19:12), could heal someone. But Paul told Timothy to take some wine for his stomach ailment (1 Timothy 5:23) which was a natural treatment. Paul did not tell Timothy to touch the parchment he had written on to receive a miraculous cure. James prescribed prayer and anointing with oil for someone who was ill (James 5:14)—anointing with oil was a common medical intervention in that day. In that one command we see medicine and faith together. In fact, only cults like Christian Science (founded by Mary Baker Eddy, 1821–1910) deny this.
God can act miraculously—any time and in any way He chooses. But we also affirm that God often graciously provides for us by using means that He has built into the creation itself. When God heals through a miracle, a physician’s skill, or the body’s own mechanisms for fighting disease, we are no less dependent on Him for the healing, and no less thankful to Him.
Readers’ comments
Dr. Deisher states in her speech, “When human beings become commodities, as they have over the past two to three decades with the changing values of Western civilization, we begin to use human beings for purposes other than those purposes for which they are created. We start to use human beings in biomedical research… for instance, we use fresh aborted fetuses on a daily basis in biomedical research. Scientists used embryos and women’s eggs for stem cell research, and from there we move on to exploiting human beings for actual medical therapies. Cell lines that were made from electively aborted human fetuses are commonly used to manufacture vaccines, biologics, and now even cosmetics. While organ transplantation can be done ethically and morally, the huge demand for organ supply has driven organ transplantation and organ harvest really off the cliff, and many practices in these areas have now become quite questionable ethically.”
This amoral perverted manipulation is an accumulation of the ever-increasing belief that we are but a product of a mindless universe. As I’ve previously noted in regards to a statement made by noted evolutionist William Provine, professor of biological sciences from Cornell, in his 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address entitled, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.””
2 chronicles 16:12 says that king Asa was wrong because he went to physicians, not the Lord, for his sickness. This seems to suggest that he should have sought the Lord only, or perhaps that he went to pagan witchdoctors. However, a recent experience suggests the true force of this verse.
I take thyroxine for hypothyroidism. It has to be increased slowly in stages until (hopefully) the right level is reached and you feel well. I was afraid that they wouldn’t increase the dose in spite of still having symptoms, because my bloods were now “Within range”. Unlike Asa, I had been praying about it, but at the same time was panicking in case of refusal.
Then it hit me, I was trusting the medication itself INSTEAD of trusting the Lord! In a sense the sin was the same as Asa’s, and I had to repent.
The thyroxine was increased, but I had (hopefully) learned my lesson as well!
Brilliant!
I have believed this for years but could not have expressed it better than Lita.
Added to that, I would say that creating designer people (the master race) in an effort to play God or re-creating people (creating an army of Chuck Norris clones) is a departure from ethical science.
In this spirit, could you clarify the statement you made on James 5:14, please. ("....anointing with oil was a common medical intervention in that day. In that one command we see medicine and faith together."). I understand the ancient (and not-so-ancient) practice of anointing wounds with oil, but I always thought the practice of anointing the sick with oil when they called for the elders of the church was something different. I have noticed that the elders merely smear a little oil on their forehead as a contact point for faith and God's healing to flow, rather than placing it on any wounds.
Am I splitting hairs here?
We can assume that God will not perform miracles based on our own righteousness, or deservedness. Presumably He performs them when they substantiate the Covenant of Grace, under which creation is entirely subjected. Therefore miracles are not ours to choose.
About 35 years ago, I slipped on the ice and fractured my patella. My first broken body part, first ambulance ride, first surgery, first morphine, and so on. I still get flashbacks today. Back then, I was into the hyperfaith movement, but did not hesitate to let the surgeons work. The doctor said that God is the healer, he is the instrument. Interesting that a few years later, he was in the congregation when I gave a biblical creation science talk at his church.
That being said, human intervention to prevent suffering and improve quality of life seems to be a part of what He would also have us be about as we minister to one another from those who are wounded on the road side (physically, spiritually, or emotionally). or those who are naked and hungry. But in all of it He must be put forward and sought first and not as a "well we tried everything else". Though some of the greatest miracles I know of occurred after the person was sent home or hospice to die.
We serve a God Whom we proclaim has and will raise the dead, how much more able is He to heal the living yet in the end my heart will not beat one more or one less than He determined from the beginning and in that knowledge He has given me great peace to live this life.
Your Brother in Christ,
Michael
I believe part of the way God directs our path is by opening and closing doors. You can't find out of a door is open / closed until you try to walk through it. If God wants to use a sickness for a special purpose - then one will find medical doors being shut until you reach a point of having to wait and see what God will do. He may allow it to heal up on its own, open a door to a new more effective procedure down the road, miraculously heal us - or call us home.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.