Category Archives: Healing

Liberal Democrats President on Healing and the ASA

Posted on by
Reply

People are sometimes surprised that I can be an evangelical and charismatic Christian and also a member of the Liberal Democrats. After all, they say, the Lib Dems support all kinds of anti-Christian policies like abortion and gay marriage. Well, that is true, but they have a greater number of policies that I can and do support – and there were even more of them until they were abandoned by a leadership that seems over-anxious to get cosy with the Conservatives. But I digress here from my main theme.

So it is good to know that, although the party leader Nick Clegg MP is an atheist, the party president Tim Farron MP is a Christian, as is the party’s deputy leader Simon Hughes MP.

Tim Farron MP Tim Farron is also Vice Chair of Christians in Parliament, and in this capacity one of the three signatories of an interesting letter to the Advertising Standards Authority concerning the HOTS Bath controversy, as reported by Gillan Scott.

It is hardly a surprise that Tim Farron has come in for some criticism such as this, within his own party and elsewhere, for signing the letter. So I thank the Church Mouse on Twitter for a link to an article which Tim Farron has written for Liberal Democrat Voice, entitled The ASA and me – a response. In this response he distances himself from the letter he signed:

It’s not a well-worded letter – the reference to the ASA providing indisputable evidence is silly, and the implication that people should seek faith healing at the expense of medical intervention is something that I just don’t believe in. For what it’s worth, I also think that the Fabrice Muamba reference is crass. So on all those fronts, I should just say sorry and not bother defending myself. I shouldn’t have signed that letter as it was written …

Where does the letter imply that “people should seek faith healing at the expense of medical intervention”? As far as I can tell everyone in this controversy has rejected that suggestion.

But Tim Farron continues by reaffirming his opposition to the ASA ruling, not permitting any claims that God can heal physically. He gives these reasons:

a) The ASA genuinely do a brilliant job, but they really aren’t appointed to be the arbiter of theological matters, I think they’ve overstepped their remit
b) As a Christian I believe that prayer helps – although my belief is that God mostly heals through medicine, surgery and human compassion and ingenuity.
c) Freedom of speech – an organisation that makes a faith based claim that is clearly subjective (in the same way that a political party makes subjective claims) should be able to make those claims within reason.

I completely agree, except that I would go further than saying “prayer helps”: I believe that God can and does heal today, sometimes apart from medical or other intervention, but medical help should also be sought where available.

So well done, Tim Farron, for sticking to your position and witnessing to your faith, even in the den of liberal and democratic lions.

"Miracle man" Muamba dead then alive – Doctors amazed

Posted on by
Reply

Fabrice MuambaFootballer Fabrice Muamba now seems to be recovering slowly, although he is still in intensive care. See this video for the latest report. Along with most of the nation, I thank God for this remarkable answer to prayer.

The amazing thing in this case is that, after collapsing during an FA Cup tie, he is said to have been dead for as long as 78 minutes, with his heart not beating. Even doctors have used the word “dead”. For all of that time people were giving him a variety of medical treatments – and others, even players on the pitch, were praying for him. But it was only after well over an hour that the medical team was able to restart his heart.

The BBC Health Correspondent, Nick Triggle, asks, Can you be dead for 78 minutes? He writes:

The more details that emerge about Fabrice Muamba, the more amazing his story becomes.

The latest has seen the Bolton footballer labelled the “miracle man”.

Nevertheless, he explains, it is possible, though rare, for someone to live again after being dead for this long, with paramedics unable to find any signs of life. Of course one might say that Triggle has to say it is possible because it has happened, in at least this one case.

In this case Muamba was receiving the best possible medical treatment and was also being prayed for. So it is impossible to say whether the prayer played any part in his return from the dead, or in his subsequent recovery.

But this does raise the question of what happens in cases where apparently dead people are raised by the power of prayer alone, when no medical treatment is available, or when doctors have stopped treating the patient as dead. In recent years there have been many reports of such healings, most controversially in connection with the ministry of Todd Bentley. Now I accept that there are serious issues here in that there is no independent verification of many of the reports coming out of the Lakeland events. But there does seem to be a common pattern among most of the reported raisings of the dead by prayer: that they usually happen within an hour or two of death.

So could it be that all or many of the genuine cases (and I assume here that at least a few are genuine) of people being raised from the dead through prayer are similar to that of Muamba? A person’s heart has stopped, probably for some medical reason. There may have been repeated attempts to start it again, but these have failed. As the BBC suggests in Muamba’s case, there may have been some residual activity in the heart, but no regular beat. Then, after an hour or two and in response to prayer, the heart has started to beat again, and the person has come back to life. Well, something like this happened in Muamba’s case, although we don’t know what if any different treatment he received when he arrived at the hospital.

So, am I suggesting a naturalistic explanation of reanimation by prayer, that people spontaneously rise from the dead, and there is only a coincidental link with prayer? Not really – although maybe the dead wake up more often than is realised, only to freeze to death again on a mortuary slab. But I am suggesting that the power of God can touch a heart which is still, but maybe not completely dead, and start it beating again. Yes, a miracle, but perhaps one which does not go as completely against the scientific worldview as some might think when they hear talk about the dead being raised.

“Miracle man” Muamba dead then alive – Doctors amazed

Posted on by
Reply

Fabrice MuambaFootballer Fabrice Muamba now seems to be recovering slowly, although he is still in intensive care. See this video for the latest report. Along with most of the nation, I thank God for this remarkable answer to prayer.

The amazing thing in this case is that, after collapsing during an FA Cup tie, he is said to have been dead for as long as 78 minutes, with his heart not beating. Even doctors have used the word “dead”. For all of that time people were giving him a variety of medical treatments – and others, even players on the pitch, were praying for him. But it was only after well over an hour that the medical team was able to restart his heart.

The BBC Health Correspondent, Nick Triggle, asks, Can you be dead for 78 minutes? He writes:

The more details that emerge about Fabrice Muamba, the more amazing his story becomes.

The latest has seen the Bolton footballer labelled the “miracle man”.

Nevertheless, he explains, it is possible, though rare, for someone to live again after being dead for this long, with paramedics unable to find any signs of life. Of course one might say that Triggle has to say it is possible because it has happened, in at least this one case.

In this case Muamba was receiving the best possible medical treatment and was also being prayed for. So it is impossible to say whether the prayer played any part in his return from the dead, or in his subsequent recovery.

But this does raise the question of what happens in cases where apparently dead people are raised by the power of prayer alone, when no medical treatment is available, or when doctors have stopped treating the patient as dead. In recent years there have been many reports of such healings, most controversially in connection with the ministry of Todd Bentley. Now I accept that there are serious issues here in that there is no independent verification of many of the reports coming out of the Lakeland events. But there does seem to be a common pattern among most of the reported raisings of the dead by prayer: that they usually happen within an hour or two of death.

So could it be that all or many of the genuine cases (and I assume here that at least a few are genuine) of people being raised from the dead through prayer are similar to that of Muamba? A person’s heart has stopped, probably for some medical reason. There may have been repeated attempts to start it again, but these have failed. As the BBC suggests in Muamba’s case, there may have been some residual activity in the heart, but no regular beat. Then, after an hour or two and in response to prayer, the heart has started to beat again, and the person has come back to life. Well, something like this happened in Muamba’s case, although we don’t know what if any different treatment he received when he arrived at the hospital.

So, am I suggesting a naturalistic explanation of reanimation by prayer, that people spontaneously rise from the dead, and there is only a coincidental link with prayer? Not really – although maybe the dead wake up more often than is realised, only to freeze to death again on a mortuary slab. But I am suggesting that the power of God can touch a heart which is still, but maybe not completely dead, and start it beating again. Yes, a miracle, but perhaps one which does not go as completely against the scientific worldview as some might think when they hear talk about the dead being raised.

BBC: Pray for sick Muamba, it might help

Posted on by
Reply

Fabrice MuambaIn the light of the controversy about advertising claims that God can heal today, it was interesting to see that even the generally secularist BBC has published an article suggesting that prayer for physical healing may well be effective. The BBC Home Editor, Mark Easton, has written an article Prayers for Muamba. This is about the Premier League footballer (i.e. soccer player) Fabrice Muamba, who was taken ill during a match on Saturday, and remains in a critical condition.

Easton writes:

Have you prayed for Fabrice Muamba today? His family are exhorting the country to believe in the power of prayer, and I suspect many millions of Britons, whether they have faith or not, will have felt moved to offer a silent appeal to an invisible power asking that the young footballer pull through.

The front page of today’s Sun newspaper is devoted to the headline “God is in Control” below the subheading “Praying for Muamba”. …

Easton continues with a summary of scientific studies on the effectiveness of prayer, going back to Sir Francis Galton in 1872 – but not mentioning the study I recently posted about. He notes a 2007 literature review from Arizona State University:

The study looked at 17 previously published papers and found that “patients who received intercessory prayer demonstrated significant improvement” in seven of those. However, there were questions about the validity of some of the research and the evidence was not sufficient for “prayer” to meet the criteria required for an “empirically supported treatment” in the United States.

(If the Advertising Standards Authority had acted properly in response to the HOTS Bath claims, they would have appealed to a study like that one rather than simply refusing to consider any claims of physical healing.)

Nevertheless, Easton concludes by encouraging his readers to pray for Muamba:

Whatever you might think about its links to a supernatural being, intercessory prayer is a straightforward way for an individual to focus the mind on their capacity to think nice thoughts. Anyone can close their eyes and make a wish that bad things do not happen. Right now, Britain is praying that Fabrice Muamba makes a speedy and full recovery.

Not exactly how a Spirit-filled Christian would put it, but nevertheless it is quite something for the BBC to publish even this. Indeed I can’t help wondering if someone will complain about it to the Advertising Standards Authority. But it seems clear where public opinion lies on this one.

Let us pray together that God touches Fabrice Muamba and restores him quickly to full health and strength. Amen.

Evangelical Alliance report: HOTS Bath, healing & ASA

Posted on by
Reply

The streets of BathThe Evangelical Alliance has just released on its new website an article Healing on the Streets advertising appeal. This article reports that HOTS Bath is appealing to the Advertising Standards Authority against the ASA ruling that it must not claim that God heals today – as I already reported in my post God Heals Today through Prayer – Scientific Paper. For more background see my post God can heal, but not to meet advertising standards.

The EA article also gives some more background on Christian interaction with the ASA concerning healing. In fact there is little here which has not been reported before. But it is good to see this all in one place and from an authoritative source. Here is the most significant part of the article:

In liaison with the ASA the [Evangelical] Alliance has been seeking to produce some agreed guidelines to help churches when advertising, highlighting areas that have proved problematic and indicating how to avoid breaking the guidelines.

The ASA has refused to budge from its insistence that any public advertising of the historic Christian belief that God is able to heal people physically must be prohibited. The only form of healing the ASA is willing to countenance is what they describe as ‘spiritual healing’. We presented our case (accompanied by legal experts) to the ASA that not only was their attitude unfair and uncomprehending of orthodox Christianity, but that it was probably illegal. In particular, we argued that the attitude of the ASA could be not only in breach of Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to freedom of belief and speech but they may also be discriminating on grounds of religion and belief. A recent case in the Northern Ireland High Court has confirmed this view. Whether the ASA is acting illegally or not, it is to be regretted that the ASA ultimately refused to work with the Alliance to find an acceptable way forward that met the concerns of both sides.

The reality is that the ASA has little legal power to enforce such a rule, though they could try to make life difficult for local churches. HOTS Bath has appealed against the ASA decision, though based on previous experience a positive outcome is doubtful.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. But we must remember that for Christians the ASA, like the devil in 1 Peter 5:8, may roar like a lion but is ultimately toothless.

Evangelical Alliance report: HOTS Bath, healing & ASA

Posted on by
6

The streets of BathThe Evangelical Alliance has just released on its new website an article Healing on the Streets advertising appeal. This article reports that HOTS Bath is appealing to the Advertising Standards Authority against the ASA ruling that it must not claim that God heals today – as I already reported in my post God Heals Today through Prayer – Scientific Paper. For more background see my post God can heal, but not to meet advertising standards.

The EA article also gives some more background on Christian interaction with the ASA concerning healing. In fact there is little here which has not been reported before. But it is good to see this all in one place and from an authoritative source. Here is the most significant part of the article:

In liaison with the ASA the [Evangelical] Alliance has been seeking to produce some agreed guidelines to help churches when advertising, highlighting areas that have proved problematic and indicating how to avoid breaking the guidelines.

The ASA has refused to budge from its insistence that any public advertising of the historic Christian belief that God is able to heal people physically must be prohibited. The only form of healing the ASA is willing to countenance is what they describe as ‘spiritual healing’. We presented our case (accompanied by legal experts) to the ASA that not only was their attitude unfair and uncomprehending of orthodox Christianity, but that it was probably illegal. In particular, we argued that the attitude of the ASA could be not only in breach of Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to freedom of belief and speech but they may also be discriminating on grounds of religion and belief. A recent case in the Northern Ireland High Court has confirmed this view. Whether the ASA is acting illegally or not, it is to be regretted that the ASA ultimately refused to work with the Alliance to find an acceptable way forward that met the concerns of both sides.

The reality is that the ASA has little legal power to enforce such a rule, though they could try to make life difficult for local churches. HOTS Bath has appealed against the ASA decision, though based on previous experience a positive outcome is doubtful.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. But we must remember that for Christians the ASA, like the devil in 1 Peter 5:8, may roar like a lion but is ultimately toothless.

God Heals Today through Prayer – Scientific Paper

Posted on by
29

I am grateful to Healing on the Streets (HOTS) Bath for linking from their home page to my earlier post God can heal, but not to meet advertising standards, which they describe as “some good Christian wisdom”. That post was a response to the Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling that HOTS Bath must not claim publicly that God heals today, physically and not only spiritually.

I was interested to look at some of the other material currently linked to from the same HOTS Bath home page, in a section also responding to the ASA ruling. In particular, they link to a proper scientific paper providing evidence that God heals today, physically, in response to Christian prayer. The paper is entitled Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (STEPP) on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Rural Mozambique, by “Brown, Candy Gunther PhD; Mory, Stephen C. MD; Williams, Rebecca MB BChir, DTM&H; McClymond, Michael J. PhD”, and is published in Southern Medical Journal: September 2010 – Volume 103 – Issue 9 – pp 864-869.

The research for this paper was done in Mozambique, at mass meetings sponsored by Iris Ministries (founded by Rolland and Heidi Baker) and Global Awakening. The authors tested the hearing or eyesight of people coming forward for healing and tested them again after prayer. They found statistically significant improvements in both hearing and eyesight. There is an extremely small probability that these were merely chance improvements or measurement errors. A suggestion or placebo effect cannot be ruled out, but the improvements are much better than have elsewhere been recorded for suggestion and hypnosis.

Heidi Baker with a baby who "was blind with white eyes just minutes before!"

Heidi Baker with a baby who "was blind with white eyes just minutes before!"

It is interesting that the authors write:

Conducting similar studies under controlled clinical conditions in North America would be desirable, yet neither Iris nor Global Awakening claims comparable results in industrialized countries (arguing that “anointing” and “faith” are lower where medical therapies are available) …

I can’t help wondering what results would be obtained if similar measurements were made in industrialized countries at, for example, Todd Bentley or Benny Hinn meetings. These two have also claimed spectacular results in third world countries but would additionally claim comparable results in the USA, and in Benny Hinn’s case other western countries. But, as far as I know, no similar studies have been attempted at their meetings.

Nevertheless, the scientifically demonstrated result that God heals today in Mozambique shows that he is able to do so also in a tent in Florida or on the streets of Bath. This also suggests the veracity of reports that he has actually done so, even if the frequency of such occurrences is less than in Africa.

HOTS Bath also links to the newly formed Global Medical Research Institute, which

seeks to apply the rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine to the study of Christian spiritual healing practices, including the widespread practice of proximal intercessory prayer (PIP).

There is also a link to a book to be published shortly by Harvard University Press, Testing Prayer (my link is an affiliate one to your local Amazon store) by Candy Gunther Brown who is also the lead author of the Mozambique paper. From the publisher’s material:

In Candy Gunther Brown’s view, science cannot prove prayer’s healing power, but what scientists can and should do is study prayer’s measurable effects on health. If prayer produces benefits, even indirectly (and findings suggest that it does), then more careful attention to prayer practices could impact global health, particularly in places without access to conventional medicine.

The clear implication of all this is that there is real scientific evidence that healing prayer is effective and a respectable scholarly opinion that it is beneficial. I am sure HOTS Bath are pointing this out in their appeal to the Advertising Standards Authority. Hopefully this will lead them to reconsider their apparent blanket ban on claims that God heals physically today.

God can heal, but not to meet advertising standards

Posted on by
21

As a charismatic Christian, I believe that God can and does heal today. I believe this because I have seen it in others, and experienced it in small ways in my own life. I have also read convincing testimonies, from trustworthy sources, of major miraculous healings. Some of these are accompanied by medical testimony, that the improvement in health cannot be accounted for by any normal medical processes – but of course it is not for doctors to say what did cause the healing. So it is not blind faith but rational conviction for me to state that God heals today.

Healing on the Streets outside Bath AbbeyBut my right even to write this now seems to be under threat. As the BBC and several bloggers, including Adrian Warnock and Gillan Scott, have already reported, the Advertising Standards Authority here in the UK has banned the Bath section of the Christian group Healing on the Streets from advertising that “God can heal today!” This was in response to a complaint made by a certain Hayley. You can read the ASA adjudication and the response from HOTS Bath.

This is by no means the first time this issue has come up. In 2008 I commented on a similar ruling by the ASA about advertising by a church in Shrewsbury. But on this latest occasion there has been far more publicity, including on a Daily Telegraph blog.

Now I accept that it is right that there are controls on people making unverifiable claims for healing remedies or powers, especially for financial gain. Christian groups presumably don’t charge for healing, but may be perceived as in it for gain it they take offerings or encourage those healed to join their church. Perhaps it was unwise for HOTS Bath to name specific illnesses which could be healed. But the ASA doesn’t seem to have been willing to reach any compromise.

On that basis these rulings raise serious issues of freedom of religious expression. There is room for negotiation on the exact wording. But if the ASA is trying to stop any expression of the belief that God can heal today, then it is overreaching itself and infringing internationally agreed basic human rights.

I don’t usually read political blogs, especially those supporting the Conservative Party. But I was alerted to the following by a tweet retweeted by Gillan Scott. It comes from a post at Conservative Home, Andrew Lilico: Should Christians be able to claim that “God heals”?:

God is not a magic stone to be rubbed with healing flowing.  He is a person who does what He wills.  The function of prayer is to align our will with God’s and to offer our supplications to him, not to force His will to ours.  So when God heals miraculously (as, with mainstream Anglicans, I believe he does still today) he does so on His terms and for His purposes.

One implication of this is that God’s healing is intrinsically non-replicable.  The claim is not that performing such-and-such a ritual in such-and-such a way raises the probability of recovering from this ailment by that percentage.  God’s miraculous healing is not induced by any act of ours, and thus is intrinsically not something to be subject to scientific standards of controlled replicability (indeed, the very attempt to test it for replicability is literally and specifically blasphemous).  So it can never qualify as a medical claim under normal advertising rules – and I avow that non-replicability as a theological claim, not an empirical one.

So if my understanding (which, as far as I am aware, is entirely orthodox) is correct, then if Christianity is true, no Christian claim that “God heals” or “God can heal diseases” could ever have an evidential basis to satisfy the ASA.  Note: that’s if Christianity is true!  So the ASA ruling says, in effect, “If Christianity is true, no Christian church can ever be permitted to claim that God heals.”  How could that be other than an attack on Christian liberty?

Indeed. And this brings the matter back to broader issues. In the past, on this blog and elsewhere, I have been involved in wide ranging and sometimes acrimonious debates about the lack of evidence for healings claimed by for example Todd Bentley and Benny Hinn. But, as Andrew Lilico clearly understands, one can never expect evidence of God’s work in the world which meets “scientific standards of controlled replicability”. The ASA, as well as certain bloggers, ought to recognise this and stop trying to apply these standards to religious claims.

Believing the words of a donkey

Posted on by
Reply

I remember hearing a folk tale from Central Asia, about a well known character called Molla Nasraddin, which went something like this:

One day Molla Nasraddin’s neighbour knocked on his door. “Molla, may I borrow your donkey”, he asked. “I’m sorry, but no”, replied Molla, “my donkey isn’t here.” Just then they both heard a loud “Hee-haw, hee-haw” from Molla’s back yard. “Shame on you, Molla!”, said the neighbour, “You lied to me!” “Shame on you, neighbour”, retorted Molla, “for believing the words of my donkey and not my words!”

I was reminded of this story by a post by David Matthias at The Road to “Elder” Ado, Dudley Outpouring on the BBC, and by the subsequent discussion in the comments. I had already seen this BBC programme (which has probably now disappeared from iPlayer) as my attention had been drawn to it by a comment here at Gentle Wisdom, to which I replied twice.

The issue I take with David’s post, and all the more with the comments on it by Eutychus, is the way that they seem to put more store by the words of the sceptical BBC presenter than by those of the respected Christian leader Trevor Baker. David makes it clear that he believes Trevor’s claims; Eutychus seems to imply the opposite, as I explained in the following comment which I repeat in full here because it has not yet been approved:

Eutychus, sorry if I misrepresented you. I accept that you didn’t exactly suggest that anyone was lying.

But you did criticise the fact that “people automatically assume the reliability of what others tell them”, which implies that you expect people to be sceptical of what others say. That is not a specific accusation of lying, but it does imply that you think that some Christians do lie about such things. The context in which you write suggests that you have Trevor Baker in mind.

Also you DID summarise your position on healing: “it’s become my casual opinion that healing, along with other spiritual gifts, genuinely occurs in christian contexts …”

We can agree on this last point (although not on the continuation of your sentence). So suppose that you, or I, do at some stage witness a notably miraculous healing. We are sure enough of it that we want to tell others of it, to glorify God and bring them to seek him. But we do not have medically verified proof of the healing, or perhaps we do have it but not permission to make it public. Should we keep quiet? If so, why? Only in an attempt to placate scoffers?

So, do we believe the words of a donkey, or of an unbelieving television presenter whose understanding of Christian healing ministry seems about as profound as a donkey’s? After all, as Jesus recognised (Luke 16:31), people like her will not be convinced by any amount of evidence, even if someone rises from the dead in front of their eyes. Or do we believe the words of our Christian brothers and sisters, unless we have good evidence on which to doubt them?

Yes, God can speak through the words of a donkey. He did once, to Balaam, and thereby, in the apostle Peter’s words, “restrained the prophet’s madness” (2 Peter 2:16 TNIV, cf. Numbers 22:28-30). So maybe he will indeed speak to us even through the words of sceptics.

But Peter went on to write that “in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires” (2 Peter 3:3 TNIV). The apostle warns his readers not to listen to their scoffing, and writes that he is writing to them

to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Saviour through your apostles.

2 Peter 3:1-2 (TNIV)

The words we should ordinarily listen to are not those of the scoffers, but of the biblical authors and of Jesus himself.

"Where people who are poorly go to get better" – heaven, but where?

Posted on by
Reply

I hate celebrity culture. I could almost say that I hate celebrities, especially when they fund their addiction to fame out of my pocket through my TV licence, but in Christian love I have to renounce that hate.

But the story of one celebrity has touched my heart – that of Jade Goody, who is dying of cancer but has taken this opportunity to have herself and her two young sons baptised. Sally has written a moving post about this story, with this quote, Jade recalling a conversation with one of the boys:

When I told them I was going to Heaven, Freddie said to me: ‘Heaven is a bad place, it’s where people go when they die.’

And I said: ‘No, that’s not right. It’s where people who are poorly go to get better.’

I’m not sure how much Jade understands about the Christian faith. But it is clear that she trusts in Jesus and in God to take her to heaven when she dies, which could be very soon, and she wants her sons to do the same. I’m not much of a believer in baptism of those too young to make a clear Christian profession, but in this case I see the point of it. Jade’s Christian witness, even if imperfect, can touch the nation. Let’s pray that it does. Let’s pray also for her in what may be her last few days, and for her children as they face life without a mother.

But I can’t help wondering something. I agree with Jade that heaven is “where people who are poorly go to get better”. I also believe that the church is meant to be a foretaste of heaven on earth. Heaven is not so much where good people go when they die as the presence of God, which we can know here today among God’s people. So then shouldn’t the church be the place “where people who are poorly go to get better”? At the moment I don’t have much faith to pray for healing for Jade on this earth. But surely this is what we as Christians should be praying.