University of Birmingham Healing Teaching and Practice in the Word of Faith: An Appraisal By Thomas Frederick Piers Hamlyn, M.A. A thesis submitted to the Department of Theology and Religion of The University of Birmingham For the degree of Master of Philosophy Department of Theology and Religion University of Birmingham ERI Building G3 Pritchatts Road Birmingham B15 2TT April 2015 1 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This work seeks to determine the nature of Word of Faith (WOF) teaching and practice of healing, and that nature in relation to the incidence of the blessing of divine healing within the WOF. The alleged anomaly of metaphysical (when ‘metaphysical’ is defined as Mind- Cure) teaching and practice embedded within WOF teaching and practice of healing is assessed. Amongst surveys of the WOF examined was Dan McConnell’s A Different Gospel having as its central tenet the claim that healing in the WOF is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing;’ that is, that its source is not divine as it claims, but rather derived from Mind-Cure (particularly Christian Science and New Thought, which McConnell defines as ‘metaphysical’) and so is demonic in practice. This research into both claimed Christian origins of the WOF and also into Mind- Cure helps establish the true origins of healing in the WOF, suggesting it to be a continuance of evangelical divine healing evangelism, such as practiced by Carrie Judd Montgomery. That is, the WOF is found heavily influenced by leading personalities of the nineteenth century Divine Healing Movement in the United States, like Carrie Judd Montgomery, personalities who also straddle Modern Pentecostalism’s development. The research revealed that argument put forward for the Mind-Cure metaphysical’s influence within the WOF, even argument for the Mind-Cure metaphysical’s fundamental existence within the WOF, seems to be not only tenuous, but even specious. However, a serious shortcoming with WOF teaching and practice of healing has been identified. This identified shortcoming is failure to emphasise the reported biblical stipulation for all to, at least, help the poor on a regular basis. Comparison was made between divine healing in the WOF and divine healing as encountered within books comprising the Holy Bible content agreed following the Council of Nicea (AD 325), sometimes called the ‘content of the Protestant Bible.’ 1 The research identifies discrepancies between divine healing as taught and practised in the WOF, on the one hand, and between the subject of divine healing as contextualised within the Holy Bible, on the other. The research suggests that problems with the model of divine healing of the WOF will be partly rectified by teaching obedience to the biblical commandment, and particularly the New Testament commandment, to at least regularly help the poor thereby avoiding an outworking of the biblical condemnation of those not helping the poor. The research suggests incidence of the blessing of divine healing in the WOF is prevented by the failure of the WOF to teach this commandment to Christian believers that they regularly help/bless the poor : for those not showing lovingkindness in, at least, helping the poor on a regular basis there will be decreased incidence of the lovingkindness of God’s blessing of divine healing experienced. 1 That is : “Today the [ Old Testament ] canon exists in two main forms : that found in the Hebrew Bible, followed by Jews, Protestants and some Orthodox churches, and that found in the Septuagint, which includes the Apocrypha, followed by Roman Catholics and also some Orthodox churches...the thirty-ninth Paschal [ Easter ] Letter of Athanasius, metropolitan of Alexandria, written in 367 CE,...listed all the books of the present New Testament.” ( Bruce M. Metzger, & Michael D. Coogan ( eds. ), The Oxford Companion to the Bible, [ Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1993 ], pp. 102, 103. ) 2 Acknowledgments I thank first Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for lending me this life, and for graciously ordering my steps. I thank my father Peter Hamlyn for having given me access to his library, and for his encouragement. I thank the late Revd. Dr. Norman Cliff (of China Inland Mission/Overseas Missionary Fellowship fame), also thanking Norman’s widow Joyce for having kindly given me the pick of Norman’s library, with only one exception. I thank my friend and adviser Revd. Dr. Richard Massey (formerly principal of Birmingham Christian College) for all his kind helps down the years, including the timely loans of books. I thank my supervisor Revd. Dr. Andrew Davies, and Revd. Dr. Mark Cartledge, for helpful suggestions, and I also thank those fellow students at the University of Birmingham, past and present, for helpful works and conversations. To others to whom I owe thanks, I trust to duly thank you: hopefully sooner not later. I desire this study contributes to greater knowledge of the love and mercy of Almighty God. Abbreviations. Apart from occasional use of sic, and vice versa, I complied with the request to remove all Latin from the thesis - the sole exception being one phrase in chapter four, where an English translation is provided in parentheses. To aid the reader I left the large number of newspaper, journal, and other periodical names unabbreviated. The King James translation of the Bible (last revised in 1767, so more modern than the still-read English of Shakespeare’s plays) is the preferred translation in both the nineteenth century U. S. Divine Healing Movement and also in most WOF material, despite the availability of more recent English translations of the Bible. This project recognises that in making it the default bible translation used. However, I have found it helpful to also resort to Jay Green’s The Interlinear Bible, and his KJ3 Literal Translation (2008), also specifying the Revised Standard Version and other Bible translations when used. Green Jay Green’s The Interlinear Bible Green 2 Jay Green’s KJ3 Literal Translation of the Bible Knox The Knox Translation of the Bible NIV The New International Version Bible RSV The Revised Standard Version Bible 0-------0 3 Healing Teaching and Practice in the Word of Faith: An Appraisal Table of Contents Chapter 1 Evangelical Roots of the WOF 1.1 Backgrounds, Thesis, Research Question. 7 1.2 Methodology. 10 1.3 The Question of a WOF Healing Hermeneutic. 12 1.4 How This Chapter Supports the Thesis. 14 1.5 Chapter Structure. 15 1.6 WOF Teaching. 16 1.7 WOF Teachers/WOF Movement. 17 1.8 The WOF is Pentecostal. 21 1.9 The Divine Healing Movement. 26 1.9.1Introduction. 26 1.9.2 Phoebe Palmer (1807-1874): Claiming Sanctification By Faith. 28 1.9.3 Sarah Anne Freeman Mix (1832-1884): Healing & Discipling of Carrie Judd Montgomery (1858-1946). 30 1.9.4 ‘Experience’ & ‘Receiving By Faith:’ John Wesley vs. Carrie Judd Montgomery. 33 1.9.5 Carrie Judd Montgomery, E. W. Kenyon and ‘Finished Work’. 39 1.10 Healing in Modern Pentecostalism. 42 1.11 Conclusion. 44 Chapter 2 Questioning Whether the WOF is Metaphysical 2.1 How This Chapter Supports the Thesis. 47 2.2 Traditional definition of ‘Metaphysical’ and Chapter Structure. 48 2.3 Mind-Cure. 51 2.3.1 Mind-Cure’s Content. 51 2.3.2 Christian Science Variance From Christian Doctrine. 53 2.3.3 Quimby’s Practice of Healing. 56 2.3.4 New Thought. 61 2.4 Rejection of the Term ‘Faith-Cure’ in Favour of ‘Divine Healing’. 61 2.5 Criticism of Essek William Kenyon and the Divine Healing Movement. 62 2.5.1 Summary of McConnell’s Criticism of the Metaphysical in the WOF. 62 2.5.2 McConnell’s Criticism of the Divine Healing Movement. 63 2.5.3 Kenyon’s Evangelical Manner of Life. 65 4 2.5.4 Kenyon’s Teaching. 71 2.5.4.1 Sense and Revelation. 73 2.5.4.2 Eternal Beings. 77 2.5.4.3 Ambiguity in Kenyon’s Teaching. 80 2.5.5 Hagin’s Plagiarism of Kenyon. 85 2.5.6 McConnell’s ‘Lack of Available Material on Kenyon’. 88 2.6 Conclusion. 89 Chapter 3 Healing in the WOF and the Poor 3.1 How This Chapter Supports the Thesis. 91 3.2 Chapter Structure. 92 3.3 The Significance of Kenneth E.Hagin’s Teaching. 93 3.4 A Short Introduction to Hagin’s Teaching. 95 3.5 Hagin on ‘The Need for Revelation prior to Exercising Faith’. 97 3.6 Hagin on ‘Confession’. .104 3.6.1 Introduction. 104 3.6.2 Preaching the Gospel as a specie of Confession. 113 3.7 Hagin on ‘Wealth for Preaching the Gospel’. 115 3.8 Hagin on ‘Symptoms’ and Abraham. .116 3.8.1 Symptoms signs of what proves unrestrained sickness. .120 3.9 Hagin’s ‘Blockages to Faith’. .121 3.10 Scripture in Tension with Hagin’s Expressing Faith/Power of Confession. 123 3.11 God’s Reported Use of Sickness and Death and Utter Alienation. .126 3.12 Hagin’s Teaching on Jesus’ Substitution of our Poverty for Wealth. 131 3.13 Apostolic Teaching on Jesus’ Substitution of our Poverty for Wealth. 133 3.14 Commandment to Regularly Help the Poor as a Tradition and Pillar of Jesus’ and Apostolic Teaching.