Modern Day Effects of Prayer on Healing

In the book of James, the Bible states, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effectual and fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16) In Corinthians, it states that some are given the gifts of healing through the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:1-11). But what about today, approximately 2,000 years after these words were originally written? In the present day, it is not out of the ordinary to hear someone voice that they are praying for someone who is sick. It is also common to hear someone speak of a person with poor health saying, “keep them in your prayers.” Prayer does have a positive impact on healing in modern times.

Prayer has long been associated with the experiences of sickness and healing. But many proponents and opponents of prayer would argue whether there is any scientific evidence beyond the Bible as to what effect prayer has on the quality of health or living. In actuality, research has existed for many years on the efficacy of prayer. In fact, one of the first studies to apply the use of statistical analysis to scientific study in 1872 was based upon the study of effects of prayer (Byrd 826).

Dossey defines prayer as asking earnestly (7). Prayer can be divided into two primary categories, petition and intercession. A prayer that is intended to impact the same person that submits the prayer is a prayer of petition. Intercessory prayer is a petition on another’s behalf. Intercessory prayer can be submitted by one person, or corporately by a group. The recipients of prayer can be an individual or a large group of individuals. The approaches to prayer can be conscious or unconscious (Dossey 8). Conscious prayer can be spoken aloud, mumbled, or thought silently. Unconscious prayer can be contemplated without intention or full awareness. Intercessory prayer for the benefit of healing or improving “another person’s physical or emotional well-being” is also referred to as distant healing (Sicher 356).

Studies on modern-day prayer have focused on intentional, conscious prayer. Some studies, including one done by Byrd, disclosed the target of intercession by first name, diagnosis and general condition. Other studies such as Cha provided the prayer petitioners photographs of the intended subject of prayer. Distant healing is most often modeled in prayer studies, as the benefactors are typically not present with the subjects to reduce other potential implications such as the placebo effect (Sicher 362).

One resistance to the effects of prayer on healing is that the present day is not considered the age of miracles (Bosworth 175-178). Many people believe that the effects of prayer upon the sick and resulting miracles were present during and only during the first century. This argument is not biblically sound, nor is it scientifically relevant. There is not an expiration date specified in biblical scripture. However, it is more valid and therefore more relevant to base the efficacy of prayer on present day scientific evidence instead of one’s perspective of contemporary spiritual potential. Even so, there is still resistance to accepting scientific evidence in support of the power of prayer.

A prime example of this is in the article by Flamm where he states that the positive prayer studies fail to include the mechanism for how prayer could possibly impact people at a distance (9). Many scientific studies that compare the effects of a control and intended variables do not also attempt to explain the specific parameters for how or why the positive or negative results occur. The evidence of which circumstances produce the greatest results through proven variables often come much later in science. Most studies must be more targeted on the statistical probability of getting results based on either random chance or the applied variable. Flamm’s perspective is that he has no scientific evidence that God exists, but if it did, he states there is no evidence that God also answers prayers (10). Flamm further argues that there is the potential that some type of psychic power exists within humans that can influence the physically perceived world (10). No peer-reviewed studies are known to have been published with conclusions regarding these last two arguments. Therefore one cannot rule the existence of God or how God would respond to prayer.

Overall, scientific evidence points to the positive impact of intercessory prayer on healing. Most importantly, there have not been any studies that revealed any negative consequences to the recipients and beneficiaries of prayer. Even when intercessory prayer has shown few detectable positive effects on the measurable state of someone’s health, no negative impacts on their health have occurred. This result, combined with the proven positive results makes intercessory prayer an efficacious intervention for healing. No peer-reviewed studies attempt to persuade the reader that intercessory prayer exceeds or replaces all medical intervention. Therefore it simply seems most obvious that through prayer, a person’s chances for healing are significantly better and that no undesired results will occur.

Cha’s study observed that twice the number of subjects receiving known intercessory prayer became pregnant as compared with those who received in vitro fertilization only. Byrd showed that recipients of intercession had fewer complications and lower rates of morbidity than in other persons admitted to a coronary care unit. Specifically, these patients required less support from ventilators, antibiotics, or diuretics (Byrd 826). Of course, it is not known what percentages of the control groups in these studies also received intercessory prayer (Byrd 828). However, this lack of purity in sampling is nearly unavoidable. Even if the variable group could sign an affidavit that they would personally avoid prayer petition, they would be unable to determine or avoid the potential unknown prayers of others.

If this lack of precision in study design is applied uniformly, it becomes clear that researchers can not know what percentages of control or variable groups in any scientific study of medicine may benefit from intercession or prayer of petition. Therefore, we could consider every study design as potentially flawed and compromised by prayer. Further, any positive results gained during these studies by any other intervention could be altered due to the effects of prayer, or lack thereof.

Another limitation of prayer studies is whether intercessory prayer is to be effective for the sake of scientific study, or to serve the will of God. If all prayer is subject to the will of God, then He may choose to positively respond to prayer for certain studies and not others. The Bible refers to healings in the plural sense. Healings can take other forms than physical, such as mental, emotional, or spiritual (Wagner 210). Subjects in these studies may require healing in areas more significant than physical healing. Therefore the efforts of the prayer may be impacting the spiritual, emotional or mental wellness of the recipient, instead of his or her physical needs. Consequently this limitation demands more studies that target the subject’s physical wellness specifically to address this deficiency.

One notable persistent issue with prayer studies is the lack of effort to classify or differentiate the praying intercessors (Sicher 359). The study by Cha simply affirmed if the participants that submitted prayer were “Christian”. Perhaps omitting more detailed methodology led to other design flaws in that study which resulted in the precarious perception of the Cha results. The investigators therefore appear too zealous and skewed toward achieving their desired results.
It is a potentially statistically significant tipping point whether the foundation, faith, or method of intercession is related to the results of the prayer. Many scriptures in the Bible refer to faith being strongly related to the effects of healing. The faith-level of the prayer petitioners and potential recipients play a role in the results of the submitted prayer. Wagner refers to the plurality of the gifts of healing in I Corinthians 12:28 of the Bible. If the gifts of healing take forms other than prayer, such as the laying on of hands, or distant intercession, or the combination of both, then the methodology of these studies could impede the effects of prayer by limiting the method the benefactor may utilize (Wagner 210). It is also likely that personally realizing and accepting the present day gift of healing does not inherently define what one’s particular gift or method of healing may be. Therefore the potential benefactors of intercession in scientific study may be fundamentally unqualified.

The Bible states that the Holy Spirit intercedes when we do not know what or how to pray (Romans 8:26). However, science demands the need for comparison of focused prayer versus generalized prayer and a control group. For example, the subjects in Byrd’s coronary care unit study, the intercessors, could better be divided into those submitting detailed prayer for angina, post-operative medication needs, and generalized prayer for an individual. This format of study would more accurately validate the effectiveness of prayer based on prayer specification.
There are also times that prayer and the laying on of hands are not consistent with God’s will. The Apostle Paul is specifically noted for not offering to heal one of his disciples Timothy of a stomach ailment (Wagner 211). Paul specifies neither prayer nor the laying on of hands for Timothy. He advises Timothy to decrease his intake of water and try a controlled use of wine to combat his stomach related illnesses. Wine is not written of in the Bible as containing any spiritual or God given ability to heal. Therefore, the advice to use wine is clearly a medicinal or science-based intervention only. It is a safe statement to say that most if not all present day Christians would not place their faith, or God given gifts, beyond those of the Apostle Paul’s. If Paul recognized in the first century the necessity of scientific medicine at times without apparent links to the spiritual world, then the same remains true today (Wagner).

Overall, there is more than sufficient scientific evidence documenting the observable positive impacts of prayer beyond the first century. Consider the fact that the history of prayer research and the use of the scientific method share similar history. Studies have consistently and conclusively shown the positive effects of prayer. Moreover, there are no known studies in which prayer had a negative effect upon any of the subjects. Therefore, prayer should be considered a worthwhile conjunctive activity and mechanism toward healing in modern times.

Works Cited
The Bible. King James Version. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson, 1975.

Bosworth FF: Christ the Healer. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House, 1973.

Byrd RC: “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit
population.” Southern Medical Journal 1988 (7):826-829.

Cha KY, et al: “Does Prayer Influence the Success of In-Vitro Fertilization Embryo
Transfer? Report of a masked, randomized trial.” Journal of Reproductive Medicine
2001 (9):1-22.

Dossey L: Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine. New York.
Harper Collins, 1993.

Flamm BL: “Faith Healing Confronts Modern Medicine.” The Scientific Review of
Alternative Medicine 2004 (1):9-14.

Sicher F, et al: “A Randomized Double-blind Study of the Effect of Distant Healing in a
Population with Advanced AIDS. Report of a small scale study.” WJM 1998 (6):356-363.

Wagner, CP: Your Spiritual Gifts Can Help Your Church Grow. Ventura, Calif. Regal
Books, 1979.