A lot of people -- both sceptical and believing -- have said that the recent study on the healing power of prayer was a waste of money and time. Convinced sceptics already know the answers, so why bother with a study? The same could probably be said of convinced believers. Likewise, there are people on both sides of the divide to who don't want the matter studied too closely for fear that they will be wrong: either that sceptics are confronted with evidence, or believers are shown to be fools.

I guess I'm one of the few people who finds this an interesting thing to have done. A lot of money is certainly wasted on stupider studies. I wouldn't have funded it myself, but I don't mind at all that the study was performed.

What was tested?

Christianity is one of the most popular religions in the world. Protestantism is the sect which is often currently viewed as most vibrant and evangelical. Christanity teaches, among other things, that the prayers of righteous people can change things. There is also a strong theme about healing the sick through prayer. So it might indeed seem there are some testable propositions here.

But there are also some problems with this particular set of experiments -- and perhaps any set of experiments of this sort, which I'll detail here.

Problem 1: The pray-ers

When one thinks of prayer and miraculous healings, there are two or three contexts which come to mind -- at least to my mind:

1. Catholic sites -- like Lourdes -- known for healing. I tend to think of these as frauds.
2. Fervent Jesus-believing Charismatic groups or televangelists. I also tend to think of these as either frauds or frequently well-intentioned but misdirected.
3. Generic unknown mainstream Christians, often older -- who don't appear to have much overt power except a deep, abidingly godliness, but seem to be able to change lives through sincere prayer.

(I tend to believe in this last set, since I was myself most likely brought to faith through such a person. I have also had some rather, um, convincing firsthand experiences in such a context.)

The unifying theological thread above is that all groups are theologically conservative. And concerning the "pray-er", the bible places some emphasis on the standing of the one doing the praying: "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." (James 5:16)

So if you're going to test the prevailing Christian understanding of effective prayer for the sick, you have to structure your test accordingly. If you attempt to probe this question by using, say, the healing rituals an African animist Shaman, you might indeed find something interesting (one way or another), but you certainly won't be answering the question at hand.

The groups who prayed are widely being reported as "two Catholic groups and one Protestant group" (in the Post). But, according to the New York Times the specific groups are actually "St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City."

Upon closer inspection, this "Protestant" group turns out to be (as Scott Ott points out in his parody) a group run by the "Unity Church!" The Unity Church is an offshoot of the "New Thought" movment, which also produced Christian Science (who believes that disease does not, in fact, even exist). Unity Church beliefs are closer to New Age beliefs than orthodox Christianity.

If you look at the Silent Unity web site, you can see that their prayers will not generally be issued in the name of Jesus, and their explanation of "prayer" seems to refer more to something like Zazen-style meditation than active intercessory prayer to a personal God located outside one's self.

Prayer is a tool which we use to build our awareness of God within... For over 100 years, Silent Unity has been serving people of all faiths... The Unity approach to prayer is affirmative, based on positive prayers and affirmations that have universal, interfaith appeal. An affirmation is a simple statement of spiritual truth that calls forth a conscious recognition of our oneness with God... True prayer goes beyond words. True prayer is an attitude of heart and mind, of receptivity and thanksgiving. Let go of any concern as you spend time in quiet prayer reading or listening to this month’s guided meditation.

Almost every statement above goes against the orthodox Christian understanding of prayer. Christian prayers are to be offered in Jesus's name, not in a way which "appeals" to all faiths. Christian prayer is not simply affirming some spiritual "truth" which will help us "build awareness" that inside ourselves, we are God. True prayer can involve words, and involves interceeding for another with an external God. Traditional Christian prayer is not simply letting go of one's attachments, Zen-style, and then reading or listening to someone saying something.

My point here is not to run down the Unity Church and their beliefs or practices. My point is simply that what was tested, at least with this group, was not even remotely close to most peoples' understanding of what "Christian" prayer is like, where you humbly interceed with an external God, confess one's sins, and ask for help for yourself or another in the name of Jesus.

Likewise, people at St. Paul's Monestary seem to be into Lectio Divina, a form of "prayer" popular in theologically liberal circles; one which is similar to the practice Unity Church describes above, in that it involves stating things and thinking about them, not interceeding in supplication to an active, external God.

The other kind of "prayer" embraced at this particular monestary is "Centering Prayer", which, again, is simply Buddhist Zen-style mediation using "Christian" words and phrases. Everything I'm seeing on their pages tells me this is a very theologically liberal group.

Finally, the Teresian Carmelites. Again, Carmelites seem deeply into Lectio Divina and the Teresians in particular seem into all the mystical quasi-Christian trends which are a hallmark of the liberal Eastern-religion-style re-structured flavor of "Christianity": all the usual mentions of "Teresa of Avila" and "St. John of the Cross" which signal type of prayer and spirituality closer to the New Age movement than Missionary Baptist.

Summary: This study is being touted as evidence that traditional Christian prayer doesn't work. But, if anything, it seems that Templeton's researchers had a definite preference for theologically "liberal" groups, and preferred a style of "prayer" which is really closer to what you'd find in the New Age movement or Buddhism than in a Baptist church.

So yes, this does seem to be evidence that long-distance "prayer" -- the kind of 'prayer' practiced by theological liberals that Washington Post and New York Times staff would undoubtedly prefer -- doesn't seem to have any benefit, at least under these particular circumstances, to the person being prayed for.

I doubt any Baptist would have an issue with that.

But that's certainly not how the story is being reported.

Another sub-point that others have raised here (Scott Ott) is that there might have been outside prayer being offered.

Problem 2: The Pray-ees

The other problem here is that biblical healing seems only to have been available in circumstances where the one being prayed for, or the guardian requesting prayer (often, a parent) had faith that the prayer could be effective, and was a kind of person positive disposed to God's intervention. I cannot think of a circumstance where Jesus healed someone who actively disbelieved in him.

But, once again, there doesn't seem to have been any check to see if the person being prayed for even wanted to receive prayer, much less was the kind of person who would welcome it or had faith in Jesus.

So a better study, at least if you wanted the results to apply to Christian theology, as is (wrongly) implied about this one, would have involved asking if the subject was open to prayer, and noting that as a variable. Or restrict it to subjects who believe it is possible for God to heal, but then only pray for some, but not others.

Again, as with the Shaman, something could be learned anyway, but that something is hardly applicable to the Christian understanding of prayer and healing. If Emeril tells you the list of ingredients needed to make a cake, and you leave some out, and the cake flops, it tells you something, but not about Emeril's recipes. The same is true here.

Conclusion

I'm not trying to nit-pick here, and frankly, I'm not sure God would neatly comply with experimental conditions anyway (Jesus had this habit of not healing people when rich and/or powerful authorities demanded some proof of his abilities), but the study is laughably far from the orthodox Christian understanding of prayer and healing.

If anything was proved here, it's that theologically "liberal" Chrsitianity, or New Age practices in general, have no power to heal. But that's not unusual since some of the leading proponents claim as much. Says leading liberal "Christian" theologian Bishop John Shelby Spong:

Does prayer do any good? Once again, that assumes that you want your prayers to accomplish your will.

Since that is not the purpose of prayer, I don't see how one can proceed to answer such a question. I pray daily. I claim nothing for it.

I believe it opens me to God.

There is nothing more than I can say with confidence. Those who presume that they have answers are simply delusional.

[Actually, by saying any who disagree with him are "delusional" he claiming to say quite a bit more "with confidence." He has utter confidence that they are, in fact, wrong in thinking that prayer could possibly do anything more.]

According to Bishop Spong, the theological assumptions of liberal Christianity do not even allow a possibility of the "prayer offered in faith" demanded in James. Instead, the researchers tested a religion which, reading the words of a leading proponent, "has a form of godliness, but denies its power." (2 Timothy 3:5)