Prayers for Sickness: What do people pray for and how do they deal with unanswered prayer?

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours (Mark11:24).

Miraculous healing

The belief that God can bring about a miraculous healing is ubiquitous in the Bible and prevalent among contemporary Christians. There is a widespread belief among Christian believers that God is able to heal sickness and often does so. Prayer requests reflect this (Pawlikowski et al., 2015; Levin, 2016).

Village (2005) notes how there are diverse views concerning miraculous healing among Christians- including beliefs about the possibility of God healing miraculously, the relationship between divine healing and secular medicine and God’s ability to heal. There may even be a diversity of views among members of the same congregation. Groups differ in how they conceptualise God working through ‘natural’ channels. As Village argues, ‘Upholding the sovereignty of God in such circumstances seems to naturally turn attention to the sufferers or to those doing the praying as possible reasons for unanswered prayer’ (p.105). Differing attitudes towards miracles among Christians might reflect diverse understandings of the Divine and the relationships between God and the natural world. Fairly widespread beliefs in miraculous healing are found among Pentecostal and Charismatic groups (Singleton, 2001).

Candy Gunther Brown (2012) notes how Pentecostals underscore the healing power of the Holy Spirit both for physical and for psychological problems. Healing is a central aspect of the Pentecostal movement and can account for its widespread appeal, and particularly its growth in the Global South – areas of Latin America, Africa, and Asia where poverty-related infirmities are ubiquitous and conventional medical treatments limited (Brown, 2011). Pentecostals deploy prayer alongside biomedicine rather than as a substitute for it. While testimonies of divine healing are commonplace among Pentecostals, they are often reluctant to subject these claims to empirical scrutiny:

As Brown states in an interview for The New York Times:

Further evidence that belief in Divine healing is widespread derives from a Barna study in the USA (Barna, 2016) which indicated that the majority of American adults (66%) held that people could be physically healed through supernatural means by God (strongly agree 33%; somewhat 33%). Evangelicals were the most likely to endorse Divine healing. Respondents who disagreed were comprised of those who either strongly (19%) or somewhat (15%) disagree. Millennials and those who were more highly educated were significantly more likely to be sceptical. Of significant interest Protestants were almost three times more likely to believe people could receive divine healing than Catholics. In this survey 68% of adults had personally prayed for supernatural healing for another person.

A ten-country study (Lugo et al., 2006) found widespread belief in the efficacy of prayer for healing, especially among Pentecostal Christians; 77% of Brazilian Pentecostals, 87% of Kenyan Pentecostals, 74% of Indian Pentecostals, and 62% U.S. Pentecostals claimed to have “witnessed divine healings.” Some scholars estimate that in regions, such as East Asia, where pentecostalism is growing the more rapidly, as many as 80-90% of conversions result from first-hand experiences with healing prayer (Oblau, 2011; Keener, 2011, 2021). Globally, pentecostalism grew at four times the rate of global Christianity and the total world population between 1970 and 2010, such that there are now an estimated 635 million pentecostals worldwide (Johnson & Zurlo, 2020). It is even more noteworthy that 73% of US medical doctors report believing that miraculous healing continues to occur in the present (Orr, 2008).

Once a common ritual among Christians, the rise of scientific medicine has marginalised prayers for healing, at least in the Global North (Simpson, 1993). A BBC survey (Strangwaves-Booth, 2018) found 62% of adults in Britain expressing belief in the possibility of miracles; although 59% of Christians in the UK report praying for miracles, only 29 percent maintain that their prayers are answered. However it is acknowledged, based upon biblical teaching, that God may not answer every prayer for sickness. As an example David’s son died of an illness despite his father’s prayers. 2 Samuel 12 describes how King David fasted and prayed for seven days for God to spare his dying child but he subsequently died. In verse 22, David said, “Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.” In this particular example, the text explains the death as a direct result of David’s sin in begetting the child through an adulterous affair concealed by murder. Unanswered prayer is often put down to lack of faith or sin:

It is more common among pentecostals in the Global South to emphasize the Bible’s promises of healing through prayer and to read these literally as a kind of “how-to” manual for the present day (Jenkins, 2008). Thus, they emphasize verses such as Matthew 4:23: “Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness.” They are confident that healing is for today based on verses such as Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” They point to instructions to the Christian such as James 5:14-16: “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well.” For these pentecostals, references to the “prayer of faith” is not so much an explanation for why prayers might fail as an exhortation to pray all the more: “Will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off?” (Luke 18:7).

What do believers ask God for in relation to sickness?

While much of the literature has focused upon prayer in relation to psychological and physical outcomes, there is a small literature asking about the content of prayer. Sociologist of religion, Robert Wuthnow (2008), notes that while prayer is widely practiced, it is treated mostly without taking account of its cognitive content or cultural framing. There has been little attention devoted to the content of prayer, other than the assumption that it involves petitions. Byrd’s study of distant intercessory prayer among patients suffering from cardiac problems limited intercessors accepted into the study to “born again” Christians praying “to the Judeo-Christian God.” The pentecostals studied by Brown (2011, 2012) begin with the theological premise that prayers should be “in the name of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit.” The intercessor may “petition God to heal, invite the Holy Spirit’s anointing, and/or command the healing and departure of any evil spirits in Jesus’ name” (Brown et al., 2010: 865). Romez (2019, 291) described a prayer intervention credited with an instantaneous healing of gastroparesis (paralyzed stomach) in this way: “The intercessor prayed that, in the name of Jesus, the boy’s stomach be healed. He commanded the healing in the authority and power of Jesus. He made a point of indicating that he had no power or authority to heal, but only with the authority of Jesus Christ, he could command the healing.” Romez (2021, 80) similarly described a prayer credited with instantaneous healing of blindness: “Oh God! You can restore … eyesight tonight, Lord. I know You can do it! And I pray You will do it tonight.” Pentecostals believe moreover that not only is the language of prayer important but that certain individuals may have specific “gifts” of healing, sometimes even “specializing” in particular conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis or deafness (Matthews, 2000; Brown et al., 2010). In all such instances, disease and other infirmities are envisioned as enemies against which the Christian battles in prayer rather than as “blessings” sent by God for the Christian’s spiritual benefit. Accordingly, although these Christians do petition God to heal as well as commanding diseases and demonic spirits to go, petitionary prayers are not phrased “if it by Thy will” but in confidence that healing is God’s will; “A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy” (Matthew 8:1-3). Pentecostals are wont to note that the Greek word (thelo) translated as “willing” does not connote reluctance, but intense desire, resolution, and delight (Gulick, 2013).

Jors et al.’s (2015) systematic review of personal prayer at times of sickness included a wide range of diseases: paediatric sickle cell, cardiac surgery, prostate cancer, HIV, breast cancer, chronic hepatitis C. The final study included 16 articles and indicated that there were five main reasons for and topics of prayer: (1) disease-centered prayer, (2) assurance-centered prayer, (3) God-centered prayer- reflecting the relationship between God and the patient, (4) others-centered prayer, and (5) lamentations- fear, doubt and anger in relation to God. Unsurprisingly disease centred prayer concerning an individual’s illness was found most frequently. The majority of patients prayed for an improvement in their disease, disease management or pain relief but it was actually quite rare to hope for or believe in cure. In other words they prayed for desirable but achievable outcomes. Especially among Muslims, patients preferred not to ask for cure for fear that their prayer would not be answered and to surrender to God’s will. Another common reason for praying was to receive the ability to find meaning or positive experiences in their illness.

Human suffering raises significant questions pertaining to the role of the Divine in the human world and might bring on a state of cognitive dissonance for believers based upon inconsistencies between the state of the world and religious beliefs (Festinger, 1962). While requests for healing are commonplace, prayer requests may go unanswered. The sick person may not improve, deteriorate or even die. This raises significant issues as to why God does not answer prayer requests and is part of the wider question of theodicy: if God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, why does suffering exist in the world? Unanswered prayer presents difficulties if believers maintain that God is omnipotent and all loving and can result in cognitive dissonance. But as the literature on cognitive dissonance demonstrates, religious believers frequently maintain or even intensify their convictions post disconfirmation (see Dein and Pargament, 2012; Tavris & Aronson, 2007). Such religious convictions are vigorously defended. Montell (2001) argues how religious belief is always held in tension with real world events:

Within the philosophical literature there is widespread discussion of these issues. Additionally many popular books have addressed the issue of unanswered prayer (e.g. Greig, 2011). Rather less have been written from a psychological perspective (see Dein, 2022 for an overview).

The above discussion assumes that if someone is not healed despite prayer, this creates a theological problem that must be psychologically resolved. Whether this is the case depends on one’s theological assumptions. The theologian Gregory Boyd (1997) explains that early Christians expected evil, personified in a literal devil and demons, and were accustomed to fighting against it; sickness was not a theological problem but an occasion to battle against the kingdom of Satan just as Jesus did: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10), “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him" (Acts 10:38). Christians were thus admonished: “Do not give the devil a foothold” (Ephesians 4:27), “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12). Likewise, even in the Old Testament, an angel said: “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia” (Daniel 10:12-13). Humans participated in a cosmic battle between God and his angels against Satan and his demons. This was fully expected, not a theological problem that needed to be solved through hermeneutical gymnastics to resolve cognitive dissonance.

Modern Christians, by contrast, do not expect evil, find it perplexing, resign themselves to it as God’s will, and try to understand it and resolve the psychological tensions their worldview creates, rather than fighting against evil. One of the best-known modern psychological efforts was suggested by Carl Jung (1954). He proposed that God incarnated as a purely good redeemer only after self-realization of having unjustifiably tormented Job under provocation by Satan. Boyd explains the difference between a “blueprint” and a “warfare” worldview, neither of which embraces Jung’s psychological analysis of God’s evil side. In the blueprint model, God is ultimately responsible for everything, including evil; unanswered prayer is therefore a problem because it raises questions about God’s goodness. People respond by looking for God’s purpose in sickness or disability. The warfare model instead explains evil as ultimately resulting from abuse of freedom by human or demonic agents. There is a cosmic war in which human and angelic agents have aligned themselves with either God or Satan. The battle is not eternal; it had a beginning point, the “fall,” and it will end since God’s victory was assured in Jesus’s triumph on the cross. The warfare worldview encourages hopeful action rather than learned helplessness.

The psychological theory of “learned helplessness” (Seligman, 1972) can help to explain why many Christians do not pray for miraculous healing. Experimental psychology shows that when humans, as well as animals, experience an uncontrollable traumatic event, when later faced with controllable trauma they endure it passively even though they have the power to take effective action, and they show more stress in the face of trauma. Helplessness produces hopelessness. If subjects instead experience controllable trauma before uncontrollable trauma, they are more likely to continue to take action regardless of whether that action proves to be effective in a given situation, and they show less stress regardless of whether their actions are effective. When applied to prayer, it matters whether individuals have experiences, or hear about experiences, of healing through prayer before they find themselves in need of a miracle. Past disappointments or listening to sermons that teach an expectation of disappointment can result in learned helplessness and passivity in the face of disease or disability. Even a small experience of healing through prayer, or hearing other people’s testimonies of healing, produces hope and encourages persistent prayer even when prayers do not immediately result in healing.

The 21st century Evangelicals research programme

Unanswered prayer and cognitive dissonance

Around forty-nine percent of respondents mentioned at least on instance in which divine healing had failed and the sick person required further medical treatment or even died. Two examples: ‘My husband was not healed and needed his bowel removed’, ‘yes my sick grandfather dies just like God does not exist you know’. A wide range of views were expressed about unanswered prayer. These were rationalisations to avoid cognitive dissonance:

Discussion

In the Twenty First Century Evangelical sample, while the vast majority endorsed the idea that God could heal miraculously if he so chooses, the most frequent requests involved asking God to guide medical professionals and to ensure that their treatments were effective or to provide comfort and alleviate the suffering of the sick, rather than ask for a cure. Participants asked for desirable but achievable outcomes. To this extent these findings reflect the literature cited above reflecting healing through naturalistic rather than miraculous means (e.g. Dein, Stygall & Martin, 2006; Cadge & Daglian, 2008; Taylor et al., 1999). We would argue that prayers need to conserve their relationship with the sacred and avoid cognitive dissonance ensuing from the incompatibility of two views: God is omnipotent and all loving and he has not answered my prayers. Unanswered payer raises issues of God’s ability or willingness to heal. Respondents deployed a range of theodicies to account for the failure of diving healing. These included perceived lack of faith in God’s healing ability, the fact that healing always occurs although it might not be what we expect, healing is not always immediate and may be longer term, the difficulty discerning answered prayer, People are healed differently, God not deciding to heal, God providing the grace to deal with pain and suffering even though a person is not physically cured, scepticism about miraculous healing and the view that miracles no longer occur after the Apostolic Age.

The findings can be tied to secularisation and disenchantment, the scientifically dominated society leaving little room for the interpretation of events in miraculous terms. Max Weber (1918-19) in his theory of disenchantment discusses how ‘mysterious and incalculable’ powers disappear from the world, nature is managed we may ask whether its social significance. Philosopher Charles Taylor (2007) discusses the fading of god’s mystery and providence and the overemphasis on science in understanding life. Unexplained healings are no longer understood in religious terms. The relationship between god and humanity is diminished. However we may ask whether there are alternative explanations for these findings?

Dein and Pargament (2012) propose that psychological rather than physical outcomes may be requested in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, to maintain the belief that God is fully able to heal if he so chooses and most importantly to conserve a relationship with the sacred (see also Dein, Stygall and Martin 2006; Cadge and Daglian 2008; Taylor 1999; Barrett 2001)^. However as Pargament (1997) suggests, among non-conservative Christians in the USA, individuals look for strength and support from the Divine, rather than cure or miracle. Dein and Pargament (2012) assert that psychological outcomes as compared to physical outcomes can be more easily accomodated in God’s interventions in the process of healing. Boudry and De Smedt (2011) argue that psychosocial causation like relief from anxiety, anger or depression, possessing courage or mental strength, better coping etc are typically less observable and more complex, but more modest, in comparison to many forms of physical and biological causation. As these authors note, prayers for the sick might focus upon coping rather than cure since coping is less likely to fail compared with curing physical illness. As they state:

It is important to note in regard to the foregoing discussion that although the Twenty First Century Evangelical Sample offers insights into common theodicies, there are a number of important limitations in what this data can reveal. It obscures important differences among “evangelicals” included in the survey. One important distinction even among US and UK Christian who pray for healing (let alone reflecting all of global pentecostalism) is between those who express a “blueprint” as opposed to a “warfare” (Boyd, 1997) model of the nature of God’s sovereignty. The former model is exemplified by Calvinism (Warfield, 1918) whereas the latter is reflected in offshoots of the Vineyard movement’s theology that the Kingdom of Heaven is both “already and not yet” (Wimber & Springer, 1987; Clark, 1998) and that Christians are living in “in between times” and must consequently engage in a battle between kingdoms even though the ultimate victory was already won by Christ on the cross. If healing does not depend solely on the question of whether God “chooses” to answer prayer, then prayer involves not only petitions to God but also commands—to sicknesses and to any evil spirits or demons that might be causing diseases or other afflictions (MacNutt, 1995), and “faith” may be understood more in terms of perseverance (Brown, 2012) than an abstract and generally unfalsifiable cognitive capacity. Thus, it is important to note reasons why Christians who believe in healing might not pray for it while also recognizing that many Christians do pray for miraculous healing and believe that their prayers are answered. Many of these Christians acknowledge not understanding in every instance why some but not all are healed, but they are less likely to learn helplessness and thus resign themselves to sickness without a fight or give up as quickly when healing does not immediately result. They are also more likely to embrace the risk of disappointment and potential for emotional pain required in persevering prayer for miracles.¹

Conclusion

What might future work in this area involve? To date much of the research on prayer and sickness has focused upon the medical rather than experiential aspects ie what are the medical outcomes. But often the healing is more holistic involving physical, mental and spiritual changes. And how are these experiences related together? How do the biological and existential blend? And to what extent can spiritual experiences have a placebo effect?

These ‘holistic’ healings, often occurring instantaneously, differ from what we usually see in medical practice and reported as having occurred unexpectedly, without much ‘warfare’. These include strong sensory manifestations, sense of God’s presence; extrasensory phenomena (prophecies, visions), a sense of being overwhelmed, transformation and empowerment (Romez, 2019, 2021; Brown, 2012; Roberts et al., 2009; Austad et al., 2020; Helming, 2011; Francois et al., 2014; Kruijthoff et al., 2022; Bendien et al., 2023). Some of these studies derive from a Northern European context. Religious and spiritual encounters like visions and voices may have a transformative function which some authors describe as healing (Braud, 2012; Nygaard et al., 2017). They can be life changing. Healings related to prayer(s) on the one hand and ‘Spirit’ manifestations appear to be strongly related.

We would assert that a focus upon the ‘lived body’ and experiential data - reports of their sensations, feelings, thoughts, and imagery before, during, or after a healing event - can thereby increase our understanding of religious healing through prayer, apart from medical data. To conclude, the efficacy of prayer cannot be judged solely by biomedical criteria. Prayer might impact emotional and spiritual aspects, and this influences how those praying conceptualize its efficacy. We would agree with the authors cited above who argue for a horizontal epistemology in which all relevant perspectives are valuable, including both experiential and objective data. Future studies of prayer and health should be interdisciplinary-medical, psychological and theological.