My reply to Immo

My reply to Immo’s comments on Is there such a thing as “secular medicine”? – Part 3 became so long that I decided to make it a less formal post than my others. So here’s my reply to Immo.


Immo: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I hope you'll read more of my posts, in particular Chronic Disease: Two Worldviews posted in March, 2006 and the comments posted there. This issue is very complicated, and I interacted briefly with one thoughtful brother there which I won’t repeat here.

I want to first comment on the Christian contribution to sanitation. Can you give me a reference to the observation of Jewish midwives contributing to improved sanitation. I have excerpts from a book written in 1860 by J.P. (Ignaz P.) Semmelweis who studied childbed fever, finally determining statistically that hand washing made the difference – that’s really abbreviating all he went through to get to his conclusion. In the portion of this book that I have and all the googling I've done on it so far, there is no mention of any Jewish influence – nor any Christian influence for that matter. (I’m still looking for a complete copy to verify this.) He did note that midwives washed their hands, but their faith wasn’t noted, whether Jewish, Christian, atheist, etc., or that their faith had any clear bearing on their practice. I'm reading a book right now that makes the assertion that Christian theology hindered the development of the current germ theory and sanitation measures because of theology.

In Matthew 15:1-3, Jesus defended the practice of the disciples of not washing their hands when they “ate bread.” The practice was simply a tradition of the leaders of Israel and not law. If hand washing was important, why did Jesus not urge His disciples to do so, not for tradition’s sake but for health’s sake? That doesn’t mean they never washed their hands before eating, but it would indicate that it wasn’t considered important to Jesus. Add that if hand washing was so very important for health, why was it not mentioned in the OT law? Yet, the value seems to have been proven today. Has something changed, and if so, what?

All the required washing was ceremonial ablution only some of which might be considered health related. For example, a woman has certain cleansing to perform after menstruation. The focus seems to be solely ceremonial, as with the emission of semen by a man. Washing was to take place after each emission. We don’t recognize any health-related value to these today. But after relieving oneself, far from the camp and burying it, there is no mention of any washing at all required, ceremonial or otherwise. These washings seem to be strictly ceremonial.

Here's one recurring problem: without a doubt, people who professed to be Christians or Jews have made significant contributions to science. In reality, until the last 200 years or so, that was almost everyone in the West – at least nominally. Yet, I'm coming up empty on any substantive or material contribution of Judaism or Christianity to these scientific theories. They didn’t draw something out of their theology or religion to form their theories. All these Christians and Jews got the content of the ideas and theories from pagan and occult practices, worldviews and thinking. For example, the Pythagorean belief that number was reality, even more so than the world we can directly observe, led to the current mathematical modeling of the world in physics and other sciences. The Pythagoreans worshipped number and were a secretive, sacrificial cult. The motivation for Copernicus and Kepler to place the sun at the center of the solar system came from neo-Platonism which had a kind of sun cult, the sun becoming associated with Jesus for Christian neo-Platonists.

What I’d love to find are examples of purely-Christian thought, rather than pagan thinking with a possible Christian veneer, that led to modern scientific discoveries. Even two Christians who wrote the Soul of Science with the thesis that only Christianity could have fostered modern science because of its view of reality failed to provide even one example of it. They did state that they believed Kepler was driven by his Christian worldview to resolve a discrepancy in his understanding of the orbit of Mars with the data, but they provide no support or argument for it. They simply made the assertion.

So, if you can point me toward documentation of at least this one instance of a Jewish contribution, I'd appreciate it. Even then, however, will we be able to come up with it from the Scriptures or was it merely the tradition of men? I don’t think the Scriptures recommend the practice of washing hands when caring for a woman in childbirth or any kind of medical care. The Scriptures don’t forbid it nor do they recommend it – they are silent on the matter. So, even if it were a practice of Jewish midwives, it would be hard to show it came from the Lord.

The two toughest issues for me are Luke the physician and the lack of godly alternatives we seem to have. Luke, the “beloved iatros” (Colossians 4:14) – iatros is the Greek word for physician and also for healer – makes one wonder as you asked, what kind of physician and did he practice it after meeting Jesus? Or might it be “Luke the beloved healer” with the gift of healing. But one early-Christian writer refers to Luke as practicing medicine as a profession. That would seem to eliminate the “gift” of healing. I think he would have refused payment for God’s free gift. One thing is for certain, however, that it was not like today’s medicine and was probably Greek “secular” medicine – Hippocratic medicine. It was most likely not medicine associated directly with pagan cults, I would think. The Bible, however, is amazingly silent on the issue of “secular” medicine. That silence could be taken as tacit approval or a complete lack of need for it. Of course, the silence does not extend to pharmakeia – that, at least in some form, being completely condemned. But, in any case, Luke muddies the issue for me.

As for oil, I take it as simply applying oil. But I cannot see how to take it as a medicinal application, and we can’t see today how it could be of any real aid in the vast majority of cases. To say that it was understood to be medicinal raises a problem: the Scriptures (in James 5) would be promoting something as being of medicinal value which in reality is of no medicinal value at all in most cases. Thus, the Scriptures would not be reliable in this matter. Thus, I do not think the intent is medicinal. So it would have to be seen as being more symbolic – of the Holy Spirit? – or simply soothing to a person suffering. I really don’t know which way to go with that, yet. I just have trouble seeing it as the Scriptures supporting the medicine of the day, which today is believed to be largely false. See the comments attached to Chronic Disease: Two Worldviews for further comments on this.

The second problem I mentioned is still outstanding: if there is a problem with modern medicine in whole or just in part, what do we do with medical issues that modern medicine can easily handle when the Biblical recommendations fail? Let me put it this way. If a person you knew were paralyzed, and there was a fetal stem cell therapy which could restore the use of his legs and put him back to work earning a living for his family, would you recommend he stay paralyzed awaiting the Lord’s healing, or should he avail himself of the stem cells from an aborted fetus? It may seem like a different issue, but it’s not all that different. Perhaps another example would help, very current in Africa. If modern medicine fails, and Christians know a witch doctor who has success with that issue, is it okay for them to go to the witch doctor? This is a real issue for our brothers and sisters in Africa. Is healing the ultimate goal regardless of the modality or cost? The reality is that I know of no Christian, except for those we consider kooks, which refuse medical care on the basis of conscience. Those who do refuse, seem to have extreme views, people die, and they face charges when a minor under their care dies or suffers needlessly without the shunned treatment. I can understand their point of view, but they and I am at a loss to explain why strict adherence to the Scriptures fails to provide the hope of healing the Scriptures seem to raise for us. Recourse to pagan means seems the only option.

Let me ask: what would happen if there were a fetal stem cell therapy – a distinct possibility today – which could restore a paralyzed child’s use of his legs, in part or wholly, and the child’s parents refused the treatment because of the source of the stem cells – an aborted fetus? Would those parents then be charged with neglect? Actually, I doubt that even Christian parents would refuse the therapy, no matter where the stem cells came from. It’s so easy to reason, in this case, that the fetus has already been killed, they hadn’t killed it or ordered it killed, so why not benefit? Isn’t it just the same as harvesting organs from an adult murder victim. The issue is very complex, just from the standpoint of ethics, let alone any potential compromise with the teaching of Scripture because of pagan origins entering the equation.

James 5, Mark 16, the existence of the gift of healing and other passages, even in the OT, seem to raise the expectation of the Lord healing rather than relying on contemporary medicine – contemporary in whatever day. If that healing fails, do the Scriptures allow for or even encourage the use of whatever means to obtain healing? If not, where do we draw the line? Is that line drawn based on the severity of the ailment or the nature of the cure? That’s not an easy question to answer, if you think about it. If you say the severity of the ailment, then any cure will do if the ailment is serious enough or painful enough. If you say the nature of the cure, then a person should be willing to die, continue to suffer pain or remain paralyzed if no acceptable cure is available. All this is assuming, of course, that Biblical healing hasn’t “worked.” As one brother put it to me, “It just doesn’t work.” Some say it sometimes works, but modern medicine seems the most reliable and safest route. The better question, then, is why? The easy answer is that God doesn’t work that way anymore, but I don’t think the Scriptures support this. If it is His desire to work that way today, the answer to why He isn’t could be very disconcerting.

An interesting comment in regard to looking first to God for healing was made by some English Christians in the 16 th and 17 th centuries. They believed it impious to look to God in any matter until all natural means had been exhausted. In other words, God was a last resort. At first, this bothered me until I read a comment by one Christian who, when called to minister to people dying of some deadly disease like the plague, refused to go believing it a greater abomination to do so when all that was needed was to improve the sanitation in that part of town, and the people wouldn’t get sick in the first place. While he seems a bit cold hearted, the reasoning isn’t without merit. If a person is wasteful with his money and asks God to fix his woeful financial situation, we would rightly tell him to stop praying and start a budget.

On guilt by association: first, the pagan gods are no gods, they are demons (Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20). If they were just sacrificing to blocks of stone and nothing more, there would be no concern at all, but demons are involved in their lives. There is also the issue of “doctrines [teachings] of devils” which people adhere to (1 Timothy 4:1). Second, I agree that the mere similarity of things is of little consequence. What is of concern, however, is learning “doctrines of demons” from pagans and incorporating those ideas into our thinking and beliefs. That is syncretism, and that is my concern.

Enough thoughts for this post. Thanks for taking time to read and comment.
Rob

Is there such a thing as "secular medicine"? - Part 3

[Continued from part 2]

Pharmacy

Finally, I want to add one more indication of what might be considered the pagan/religious and certainly occult foundation of Western medicine. Before I elaborate evidence for this, I want to present what Anderson and Jacobson say regarding medication. Keep in mind that Jacobson is an osteopath, and neither man completely discourages the use of any form of medicine despite the potential harm to “our spirituality.” While they recognize the topical use of something that might be construed as medication, such as the lump or cake of figs – hardly a medication in the modern sense – applied to the boil of Hezekiah,[1] they say the following:

Nowhere in Scripture do we find Hebrews or Christians taking herbs or drugs orally.[2]

The oral use of herbs during biblical days was largely confined to pagan cultures whose religious belief systems were directly related to their practice of medicine. … Biblically, the only things on record as being taken by mouth are food and drink. (Please note: The King James Version uses the word ‘herbs’ to refer to plant foods, particularly vegetables. …)[3]

While there is little biblical basis for putting anything other than food and drink in your mouth, we have attempted to leave room for the value and appropriateness of these potential remedies.[4]

So, it seems that anything recommended by the Scriptures that might be considered medication, such as a little wine for Timothy’s stomach and other ailments,[5] is normal nourishment. One might say Paul is recommending a slight change of diet. I myself benefited from this advice. I was on a two-week business trip in Washington, D.C. I figure there was something in the water there that threw off my digestion, and I was feeling a little puny all the first week. As I sat in the restaurant trying to decide whether I was really wanting food, I thought of Paul’s recommendation to Timothy. At first, I dismissed it because I didn’t drink wine at the time, but I was wanting some relief, so I gave it a try. After a few sips of white wine, I discretely belched a couple of times, and I instantly felt completely well. I had no other digestive problems on that trip. Is this medication? I would say not – it’s food and drink – a change of diet. Furthermore, it may well have been the Lord’s prompting me with His solution to my problem especially since I thought of the Scripture passage.

There is no indication in the Bible of any recommendation or support for the use of oral or internal medication. One might rightly say that a lack of support does not constitute a condemnation. The use of oral medications, however, is mentioned in the Bible. There is an association in history – and in the Bible – between religion, magic and medications of various kinds that cannot be taken lightly. Nutton states the following regarding the origin of at least some of the knowledge of medicines:

According to Homer, Machaon and his brother Podalirius come from a medical family and their knowledge of drugs descends, via their father Asclepius, from Chiron the Centaur.[6]

Jayne states the following:

Accounts of cures by following directions received through dreams and visions are more common and are often more circumstantial. An extant fragment from the shrine at Lebena records cures due to the application of remedies indicated by the god in visions. The remedies prescribed varied widely from mild and innocent purgatives, roots, herbs, diets, fasts, baths, and rubbings with ointments, to gymnastics and general regimen. These various measures were usually applied with some sympathetic magic, or were accompanied by the use of magic formulas and incantations. … During the third century B.C. Hierophilos remarked that remedies were the gifts of the gods, and, when rightly used, were ‘the hands of the gods’ … Purifications and fasting before incubation, followed by prescriptions received by visions or dreams, appear as the ordinary procedure in the cults of many deities, heroes and heroines; exemplified especially in those of Hades, Dionysos, and Amphiaraos, as well as that of Asklepios …[7]

We see these medicinal remedies being revealed, if you will, via dreams in the pagan cults of the gods and clearly accompanied by magic. Mary Hamilton states the following:

The gods in whose temples incubation was practised were chthonian deities, heroes who had gone down into the earth and were invested with her powers. Two of the chief faculties of the earth were the power of sending dreams, and the gift of healing. … The healing powers of the earth were expressed in the production of herbs that gave life or death, and were transmitted to the chthonian gods who had entered into her.[8]

The difficulty here is whether the medicinal virtues of certain herbs was stumbled upon by ancient peoples, was perhaps the result of their research, or was revealed to them by the gods, we don’t know for sure. In our secularized view of the world we live in, we’d prefer to think of these occurrences in more rational terms, not as having any spiritual meaning whatsoever. What we do know, however, is that patients and priests alike received prescriptions in dreams during incubation rites in the temples of these healing gods. We also know that there is a distinct absence of the mention of the use of these remedies in the Bible and a clear condemnation both of the gods and of all practices associated with them. Lastly, it is clear that the idea of the earth producing medicinal remedies comes from a pagan/occult worldview and not from the Hebrews. But the Scriptures provide even clearer evidence of at least a concern with medicinal remedies.

Pharmakeia

We get our word pharmacy from the Greek word pharmakeia, which appears in the New Testament three times. The Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon defines it simply as the use of drugs, potions, spells, poisons or witchcraft. Strong’s (5331) defines it simply as “medication (‘pharmacy’), i.e. (by extens.) magic (lit. or fig.).” Thayer’s Lexicon “the use or the administering of drugs,” poisoning and “sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it … the deceptions and seductions of idolatry.” Given what I’ve cited from other authors above, this definition should not be surprising. The development and use of drugs is seen to be exclusively pagan and not at all secular.

Pharmakeia appears three times in the New Testament: Galatians 5:20 (witchcraft, a work of the flesh), Revelation 9:21 (sorceries, that people refused to repent of), and Revelation 18:23 (sorceries, which will deceive all nations).

A related word is pharmakeus. Liddell-Scott defines it as a poisoner, sorcerer, druggist or apothecary. Strong’s (5332) gives “(a drug, i.e. spell-giving potion); a druggist (‘pharmacist’) or poisoner, i.e. (by extens.) a magician.” Thayer’s gives us “one who prepares or uses magical remedies,” a sorcerer. It appears only once in the New Testament: Revelation 21:8 (sorcerers, will be sent to the lake of fire).

Finally, pharmakos: Liddell-Scott defines it as a poisoner, sorcerer or magician. Strong’s (5333) gives refers to 5332. Thayer’s gives “pertaining to magic arts.” It appears only in Revelation 22:15 (sorcerers, those left outside the New Jerusalem).

From all I’ve presented above and far more evidence in all my reading, there can be no question that the origin of pharmaceuticals – even the idea of such a treatment – comes from pagan occult practices “revealed” by their gods and intertwined with magic. Keep in mind that while these idols are nothing at all, there are demons acting behind them.[9] There is a spiritual reality the Bible recognizes without question. All these practices were clearly forbidden by the Lord: participating in the cults of pagan gods in any form whatsoever, and participating in any form of magic.

No Form of Medicine is Christian

If there was any doubt – or ignorance – of the pagan origins of modern medicine, the evidence of the previous posts should make it clear. Returning to the first two statements on the back of Anderson and Jacobson’s book, we see something that should concern us at least to some degree:

Every system of medicine is founded on a religious system of thought.

No system of medicine can claim Christianity as its birthright. …[10]

Consider the historical case of Christianity and the humoral medicine of Hippocrates that prevailed from around 500 B.C. through the mid-1800s.[11] Briefly, it stated that there are four humors in the body: blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile or gall. These needed to be kept in an appropriate balance. Disease was caused by an imbalance. In order to restore the balance doctors used bloodletting and leeches if there was an excess of blood or purgatives for an excess of bile, etc. Drugs were also used to correct the balance.[12]

In addition to this, astrology was a part of diagnosis, prognosis and prescriptions, as well as in the collection of herbs, some ingredients in drugs and the preparation of remedies. Care was also taken as to the best times, astrologically, to administer various treatments, including surgery. Astrology permeated medicine. It was also believed that each person had a particular balance of the humors which determined his temperament,[13] and the influence of the stars and planets at birth – or some insisted it was conception – would determine a person’s health and tendencies toward certain illnesses. Lawrence Principe likens this belief to modern genetics – the two ideas being very similar though genetics is much more accepted today than astrological influences.[14] After stating that the origin of the humoral theory of medicine comes from an “Ayurvedic/Hindu-based philosophy of medicine,” they say:

Despite the fact that [humoralism’s] presuppositions were totally incompatible with Christian faith, the Church embraced it throughout a majority of its tenure.[15]

Astrology was just as incompatible, yet Christians practiced this medicine from late in the classical period until modern Western medicine took over in the mid-nineteenth century. The stance of the early Church on this will be addressed later. There is one element that was resurrected among Christians by Tim LaHaye in the 1960s in his book Spirit-Controlled Temperament.[16] He states that there are four basic temperaments – and twelve blends of those four – in all people which determine to a large extent how we approach life. Those temperaments are related to the four humors: sanguine (blood), phlegmatic (phlegm), melancholic (black bile) and choleric (yellow bile).[17] This philosophy that is “totally incompatible with Christian faith,” according to Anderson and Jacobson, was resurrected in part by a Christian counselor.

So, there is historical precedent for Christians practicing a form of medicine that is “totally incompatible” with their faith, at least per Anderson and Jacobson. This issue will be the topic of further consideration in later posts. Even without a determination, the issue raises many other questions.

From the above evidence, all systems of medicine are founded upon pagan religion which are antithetical to our Heavenly Father, at least the religions.[18] The question then remains as to whether this makes any difference whatsoever at all. Does the fact that a system of thought and practice is founded in the occult render it forever dangerous? Can it be redeemed? Does secularizing it neuter it of its power and render it safely useful to Christians and pleasing to our Father? Does simply extracting that part which is scientifically verifiable from the religious make it safe? Or might there be residual ill effects no matter what we do? If so, what is our alternative since there exists no truly Christian medicine? Remember what Anderson and Jacobson said of alternatives to Western medicine, that they “may be the biggest threat to our spirituality in the twenty-first century.”[19] Might it be true that even secular Western medicine is such a threat? I think as we proceed to investigate this in future posts we will see that perhaps most of secular Western medicine is just as great a threat as any of the worst forms of medicine critiqued by Anderson and Jacobson. The question of a truly Christian alternative is just as worthy of our attention. Anderson and Jacobson call for such an alternative, yet they consider it beyond the scope of their book to begin to suggest what that might be beyond certain hints.

Let me end with this thought from Anderson and Jacobson, if you are still tempted to believe that secular medicine – and even science – is somehow truly secular and hence safe from any spiritual influence.

… medicine does not exist without a belief system. When humoralism was finally rejected, it was replaced by the religion of science.[20]

And that religion of science may not be entirely divorced from its occult influences.

Rob

---

[1] 2 Kings 20:7.

[2] Anderson & Jacobson, p. 225.

[3] Ibid., p. 226-7.

[4] Ibid., p. 233.

[5] 1 Timothy 5:23.

[6] Nutton, p. 38.

[7] Jayne, pp. 231-2.

[8] Hamilton, pp. 2-3.

[9] Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37, 1 Corinthians 10:20-21. See also the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT), Volume 1, p. 452.

[10] Anderson & Jacobson, back cover.

[11] Ibid., p. 18.

[12] Temkin, p. 12.

[13] Thorndike, Lynn, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 Vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934, 4th ed. 1966), Vol. 1, pp. 632-3, 673-4, Vol. 2, pp. 56, 151, 670-1, 855-6, 893-4.

[14] Principe, Lawrence, The History of Science: Antiquity to 1700, Parts 1-3, (Chantilly, VA: Johns-Hopkins University, Teaching Company, 2002) (lectures series), Lecture 22, "Medieval Latin Alchemy and Astrology."

[15] Anderson & Jacobson, p. 18.

[16] LaHaye, Tim, Spirit-Controlled Temperament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1966). There are several revised editions since.

[17] Anderson & Jacobson, p. 120. Pachter, Henry M., Magic into Science: The Story of Paracelsus ( New York: Henry Schuman, Inc., 1951), p. 38.

[18] Romans 8:7-8, James 4:4.

[19] Anderson & Jacobson, p. 10.

[20]Ibid., p. 133 – emphasis added.