Pentecostal Prayer Within The Assemblies Of God An Empirical Study

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

Pentecostal Prayer within the Assemblies of God:

An Empirical Study*

Margaret M. Poloma

The University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-1905, USA

mpoloma@uakron.edu

Abstract

Although much has been written on theologies of healing and on evangelist healers, little is known about how pentecostals in the pew pray for healing. After placing a pentecostal under- standing of healing within a larger cultural context, the relationship between prayer and healing is explored through a survey of 1827 adherents from 21 Assemblies of God (AG) congregations. The survey data will be used to provide descriptive answers to basic questions about pente- costal healing in America, including: (1) to what extent do pentecostals claim experiences of divine healing; (2) what are the socio-demographic traits related to its practice within the AG; (3) how are personal reports of divine healing related to diff erent forms of personal prayer; and (4) what is the relationship between prayer and healing prayer experiences and being used as an instrument of healing for others. The outcome of statistical analyses using key variables strongly suggests that prophetic prayer is a leading factor in accounting for diff erences in reported healing experiences.

Keywords

prophecy, prayer, healing

Prologue

Whatever else they are, Pentecostals and their neo-pentecostal descendents of varying labels (traditional Pentecostals, Spirit-fi lled, Full Gospel, Charis- matics, T ird-Wavers, Renewalists, etc.) are a people of narrative. In referring to these believers I am following the increasingly common practice of reserving

* The research on the Assemblies of God upon which this paper is based was made possible by generous grants from The Louisville Institute and the Science and Spirit Initiative, funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Drafts were presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology and at the Science and the Spirit Conference at Regent University (2007).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/157007409X418149

1

48

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

“Pentecostal” for traditional or classic Pentecostal denominations and “pente- costal” for those who self-identify with Pentecostal denominations and other pneumatic labels.1 Stories (or testimonies, as pentecostals call them) are a part of church rituals as well as templates in the personal lives of believers. It seems appropriate, therefore, to begin this discussion with a story — a personal story that that casts some light on my interest in and experience with pentecostal healing prayer.

Nearly three decades have passed since my pre-Vatican II Catholic under- standing of divine healing as a product of saintly intercession and pilgrimages to faraway shrines was replaced with a newly emergent Catholic charismatic perspective where I heard accounts of ordinary people praying for and experi- encing divine healing. With written and verbal testimonies providing a new model, I soon came to believe in and become a pray-er for healing. Over the decades I have not only been recipient of healing prayer, but like most pente- costals, I believe I have been used as an instrument of divine healing as I have prayed with and for others.

For pentecostals, the concept of “healing” is a wide net that captures an array of beliefs and experiences — from the curing of headaches and back- aches to terminal cancer; inner healing of personal emotional turmoil to resto- ration of interpersonal relationships; stories of fi nancial struggles and dramatic divine intervention; accounts of “healing” of demonic bondage (exorcism and deliverance); healing of beloved pets — and even malfunctioning computers and cars. I have been an eyewitness to some surreal events as well as some desperate, incredulous, and sometimes humorous attempts to capture the supernatural. Leaving the narratives of demons, fi nances, pets, and electrical systems for another time, this assessment will narrow the defi nition of “heal- ing” to focus on the holistic conception of health and wellness that permeates the pentecostal perspective.

Although my sociological profession prefers statistics to stories — statistics that are at the core of this presentation — the pentecostal perspective is better refl ected in narrative than numbers. Given my personal preference for narra-

1

This practice is far from full-proof. Although survey fi ndings demonstrate that believers tend to self-identify as either “Pentecostal” or “Charismatic,” with only a small minority identify- ing as both, adherents of traditional Pentecostal denominations (including the Assemblies of God) may eschew the Pentecostal label (and even the denominational label) for other designa- tions. See J. C. Green, J. L. Guth, C. E. Smidt, and L. A. Kellstedt, Religion and Culture Wars (Kabganm MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld Publishers, 1997) and Cecil M. Robeck Jr. Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement Nashville, TN: T omas Nelson, 2006).

2

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

49

tive, I feel compelled to start with a story that will put fl esh on the dry bones of statistical facts and fi gures used throughout much of the presentation.

My first encounter with a serious faith-fi lled healing prayer nearly clipped the wings of this aspiring eagle to leave her as an earthbound chicken. T rough what I will later in this paper discuss as “prophetic prayer,” I felt the divine call to go to the hospital to pray for the terminally-ill husband (Jack) of a woman (Esther) I had befriended at a Catholic charismatic prayer meeting. My very first meeting with Jack took place in the hospital where he was receiv- ing treatment for the cancer that ravaged his body. The details of my trip to the hospital, self-introduction, and Jack’s warm response to my visit included memorable markings of divine providence. Jack had been an agnostic Jew until he had asked to be baptized after being diagnosed with cancer a few weeks earlier. I was careful to listen to him rather than introduce myself as a God-appointed agent. When Jack shared his faith in God’s power to heal him (adding a word of complaint about how “everyone seemed to have him in his grave”), I afirmed his newly-found faith as we made a pact to believe for his healing. As we prayed over the next couple of months, both patient and pray- er believed God was going to perform a miracle. The physical healing never happened, although through a strange (providential?) event I found myself visiting Esther when she received a call from a Catholic nun at the hospice where her husband was a patient telling her that Jack had died.

Esther had long been a believer and a pray-er for healing; I was the novice. When she got off the phone and reported the news of Jack’s death, I responded with a plaintive inquiry: “What was that all about? We believed; we prayed.” Esther replied without any hesitation, “Jack is healed; he was healed when he accepted Jesus. Death is the fi nal healing for all of us.” After a short pause Esther continued, “Sister (referring to the Catholic nun) was with him when he died, and she told me that he died peacefully. T at is a gift. Jack’s last months with me were a gift. As dificult as they often were, they were among the best of our marriage.” Still not satisfi ed with Esther’s implicitly broad defi – nition of healing as something more than curing, I retorted, “But that is not what we prayed for! We were praying for a physical cure.” Esther looked at me intently and responded, “Margaret, you need to remember but one thing. You were good for Jack. It is not for you to understand; it is for you to obey — and you did obey. T at must be enough.” Although the event happened some 25 years ago and I eventually lost contact with Esther, her words continue to resonate in my spirit. Acting in obedience to what I perceive to be the word of God, I pray for healing. Some of those I prayed for have been healed; others remain in need of a physical cure or have died. I have learned that when

3

50

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

pentecostals speak of healing, they, like Esther, are commonly referring to more than physical cures. Curing may be part of the equation, but it is not the only or even the most important part.

Dr. Randolph Byrd’s often-cited and seemingly breakthrough experimental research on the eff ects of intercessory prayer on coronary patients not with- standing, little empirical evidence exists in scientifi c studies to support a direct link between prayer and curing.2 Sophisticated scientifi c methods require rigid controls that seemingly gut the mystery and meaning out of spiritual healing beliefs and practices. As a social scientist, I support medical studies of prayer and healing, but in defi ning the research problem and their related concepts, one eye needs to be on theology and another on a believer’s lived experience. Even if healing is narrowly conceptualized as “curing” as has been the case in experimental studies, formidable problems remain in operationalizing the theological concept of prayer.3 Not surprisingly, attempts at studying healing prayer using an experimental methodology that works well with pharmaceuti- cals have produced less than stellar results.

Pentecostal practices, including an understanding of spiritual healing, pray- ing in tongues and prophecy, have probably always varied within and among communities and have certainly changed during its 100-year history. Just as there has been a decided shift away from viewing glossolalia as a foreign language for missions to an understanding of “speaking in tongues” as priva- tized prayer, there have been notable shifts in healing beliefs and practice. One such change has occurred in a move away from Pentecostal teachings on divine healing that once eschewed modern medicine and medical insur- ance to a contemporary focus on holistic healing that combines biomedicine and alternative healing practices, including prayer.4 Importantly there have

2

See R. C. Byrd, “Positive T erapeutic Eff ects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal , 81 (1988):826-29. For a more recent, highly critiqued study of prayer and healing see H. Benson, J. A. Dusek, J. B. Sherwood, P. Lam, C. F. Bethea, W. Carpenter, S. Levitsky, P. C. Hill, D. W. Clem, M. K. Jain, D. Drumel, S. L. Kopecky, P. S. Mueller, D. Marek, S. Rollins, and P. L. Hibbard, “Study of The T erapeutic Eff ects of Inter- cessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer,” American Heart Journal, (2006):151, 934-942.

3

For critiques of Benson, et al’s STEP study, (above footnote), see Online edition. Science & T eology News , http://stnews.org/commentary. For another assessment of empirical studies on prayer, see J. Levin, “Prayer, Love, and Transcendence: An Empidemiologic Perspective” and K. F. Ferraro, “Next Steps in Understanding the Prayer/Health Connection” in K. W. Schaie, N. Krause and A. Booth, eds. Religious Infl uences on Health and Well-Being in the Elderly (New York: Springer Publishing Co., 2004), 69-103.

4

Eighty two percent (82%) of the AG sample acknowledged that they “see a physician for

4

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

51

also been shifts in an understanding of holistic healing for pentecostals that refl ects what Philip Reif has described the “triumph of a therapeutic culture.”

5 Pentecostals, although their accounts may be wrapped in biblical rather than therapeutic dress, share the assumptions of a larger culture that recognizes signifi cance of the mind, interpersonal relationships and emotions for health and healing

Having acknowledged the importance of a social contextualization of heal- ing beliefs and practices, it is worthy of note that pentecostals are more likely to engage in prayer for healing than is the average American. The pentecostal worldview provides a particular social context for studying what some might call the “paranormal,” with practices like glossolalia, the giving and receiving of prophecies, reported miracles, and experiences of healing. While pentecos- tals do not have a monopoly on healing beliefs and practices in American society, not even those bearing the Christian label, they do have a worldview in which prayer for divine healing is fi rmly anchored. T ey live in a milieu in which systematic theology often gives way to an empirical theology that pro- vides a unique context for observation and research.

Divine Healing in Social Context

Despite diff erences among healing beliefs and practices, the pentecostal cul- tural pond for healing is much bigger than the ones found in mainline and even evangelical Christian denominations that have focused on the cognitive (rational) rather than the experiential. Nuances aside, there is a common core of meaning to be found in reports of pentecostal healing beliefs and experi- ences that in ways resemble other religious alternative healing practices. Pentecostal understanding of healing prayer resonates with an observation made by sociologist Meredith McGuire in her perceptive work on American

specifi c health problems” at least once in a while, with 17 percent responding they “never” did so. The only demographic variable that helped to account for the variance in the item was “age,” with younger people more likely to report they “never” see a physician.

5

Philip Rieff , The Triumph of the T erapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (New York: Harper & Row, 1968). See also James Davison Hunter, American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quandary of Modernity (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983); Donald A. Meyer, The Positive T inkers: Popular Religion Psychology from Mary Baker Eddy to Norman Vincent Peale and Ronald Reagan (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1988); and David Harrington Watt, A Transforming Faith: Explorations of Twentieth-Century American Evangelicalism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1991).

5

52

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

suburban healing groups.6 She notes how for most groups “the moral concerns pertaining to salvation are expressed in the idiom of health and illness.” T ese include the mental, emotional, physical and even fi nancial, the later being demon strated in popular pentecostal prosperity teachings. While there has been cultural trend to medicalize many human problems, groups most likely to use prayer as an alternative or complementary healing practice, including pentecostals, tend to spiritualize them. McGuire observed that most of the healing groups “were vehement that the key issues underlying illness were not in the province of medical knowledge and treatment.”7 Many considered personal sin and diabolical infl uences as a major source of illness, although they diff ered widely as to how much emphasis they placed upon individual responsibility.

McGuire and other ethnographers have provided excellent “thick descrip- tion” of American spiritual healing practices.8 Tese descriptions point to a holistic perspective of healing that is much more than simply a mechanistic “curing” of illness. T rough the lenses of a narrowly conceptualized scientifi c paradigm in place during much of the twentieth century, however, alternative medical practices that sought to integrate spirit and biomedicine were regarded as “exotic,” “bogus,” “superstitious,” or “quackery.” This stance that denigrated religious healing, however, might be regarded as “something of a cultural or historical aberration, and the reemergence of religious healing in the twenty- first century as a rather unsurprising re-recognition of the connection between body and spirit, and between individual, community, and cosmos.”9 Although alternative healing practices, including divine healing, were nearly completely marginalized by the mid-twentieth century, they have been slowly but surely making their way mainstream in twenty-first century America.

6

M. B. McGuire, Ritual healing in Suburban America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univer- sity Press, 1988), 247. See also M. B. McGuire, “Health and Healing in New Religious Move- ments” in D. G Bromley and J. K. Hadden, eds. Religion and the Social Order, Vol. 3, Part B (Greenwich CT: JAI Press, 1993), 139-55.

7

Ibid.

8

See for example L. L. Barnes and S. S. Sered, eds. Religion and Healing in America (New York. Oxford University Press, 2005) and J. D. Ross-Chionino and Philip Hefner, Spiritual Transformation and Healing. Anthropological, T eological, Neuroscientifi c and Clinical Perspectives (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2006).

9

Barnes and Sered, Religion and Healing, 4.

6

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

53

An Empirical Overview of Divine Healing

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) reported the use of prayer is one of the leading complementary health reme- dies. A survey of more than 31,000 adults on complementary and alternative healing practices found that 45 percent had used prayer for health reasons; 43 percent had prayed for their own health; almost 25 percent had had others pray for them; and almost 10 percent had participated in a prayer group for their health.10 Belief in healing prayer appears to be even more extensive than personal experiences and practice. A 2003 Newsweek poll found 72 percent of Americans believing that “praying to God can cure someone — even if science says the person doesn’t stand a chance.”11 T is fi nding refl ected an earlier Gallup Poll showing that 82 percent believing “in the healing power of per- sonal prayer,” and 77 percent agreeing that “God sometimes intervenes to cure people who have a serious illness.”12 While prayer for healing is undoubtedly a common practice refl ecting reported normative belief in contemporary American society, it is nearly universally practiced by Pentecostal believers.

In a sample of congregants from twenty-one diverse Assemblies of God (AG) congregations all of the following activities were nearly universally reported by respondents: “pray for the healing of family and friends” (99 percent); “pray with others for healing” (96 percent); “being prayed with for healing” (92 percent), with 94 percent of the sample reporting they have “heard accounts” of what they regard as “miraculous healings.”13 Furthermore, 93 percent claimed to have personally experienced “an inner or emotional healing”; 70 percent reported a divine healing from a physical illness; 75 percent reported personally experiencing a (unspecifi ed) ‘miraculous healing’ and 85 percent said they had “witnessed a miraculous healing in the lives of family members or friends.”14

10

Ibid.

11

C. Kalb, “Faith and Healing,” Newsweek, 10 (November, 2003).

12

J. Cole, “Gallup Poll Again Shows Confusion,” NCSE Reports (Spring, 1996): 9.

13

The mean and median scores for each of the above items refl ect diff erences in the frequen- cies reported in the survey (a four-point scale, from “never” to “very often”). Respondents were more likely to pray for the healing of family and friends (mean=2.4) and to pray with other for healing (mean=2) than to claim a personal experience of “miraculous healing” (mean=1.4) or to have personally witnessed a “miraculous healing” (mean=1.5).

14

The frequencies from the AG study refl ect the report and conclusions on fi gures for divine healing in the United States found in a study of Pentecostals and Charismatics (together called “Renewalists”) by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (2006. http//pewresearch.org/ pubs). Of the Pentecostals surveyed, 62% reported witnessing divine healings as compared with 46% of the Charismatics and 28% of other Christians. The lower fi gures for witnessing healing

7

54

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

The belief in and practice of healing in this AG sample is supported by the common availability of simple healing rituals that are part of most Pentecostal congregations. Eighty-fi ve percent (85%) of the respondents in our AG survey at least on occasion were involved in prayer for healing with others in their church, with 28 percent reporting a regular participation in this congrega- tional ritual. Also refl ecting the practice of praying with one another for heal- ing is the fi nding that 67 percent of the respondents (at the least “once in a while”) have been used as instruments of divine healing.15

Consistent with most other contemporary spiritual healing practices, heal- ing for pentecostal Christians involves more than curing physical ailments. Behind the statistics just presented is an intricate interweaving of soul, mind, body and spirit that places a personal relationship with God at the center of its beliefs and practices.

Sample, Key Concepts and Measurements

Description of Sample

Survey data on healing prayer was collected from 1827 respondents from twenty one Assemblies of God (AG) congregations representing the increasing demographic diversity that is found within this Pentecostal denomination. Forty-two percent (42%) of the respondents were male; 58 percent were female; the average age was 46 years. Sixty-fi ve percent (65 %) were born in the United States, with the remaining 35 percent coming largely from Central America, the Caribbean, and Africa. Seventy percent (70%) self-identifi ed as “white”; 17 percent as “Hispanic”; 8 percent as “black”; 4% as Asian; and

in the Pew study when compared with this AG sample is in part due to diff erences in sampling procedures. The AG sample consists of 21 purposively selected congregations of a denomination in which divine healing is a “fundamental truth.” Moreover, the respondents represent active AG adherents with surveys being distributed immediately following Sunday morning worship services.

15

It is important to keep in mind that response choices for all items were continuous, with choices ranging on a four point scale from never to daily/always that provides more information than the reporting of simple dichotomous responses. Although the items reported are nearly universally experienced, they are not all experienced with the same intensity or outcome. Just as individual experiences of healing prayer and practices diff er in frequencies, so are diff erences found among congregational practices of ritual. In other words, prayer for divine healing may be believed in and practiced in all congregations, but there is considerable variance in the frequency of the practice and in the enactment of the ritual.

8

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

55

1% as “other.” The average respondent had at least some college or vocational training beyond high school, with 38% reporting a college degree, 18 percent of whom had pursued graduate studies. Sixty percent (60%) were married, with the rest being single (22%), divorced or separated (8%), or widowed (10%).16 Preliminary statistical analysis revealed signifi cant bivariate relation- ships (reported in Appendix 1) for nearly all of the correlations between the demographics and the experiential healing measures, suggesting that sex, edu- cation, income, age, race and marital status all potentially play a role in explaining diff erences in healing scores.

17

Tese demographic measures will be included in our multivariate statistical models.

Healing and Prayer Measures

T ree distinct indicators of healing experiences were used as dependent or outcome variables: (1) “receiving a divine healing from a physical illness”; (2) “experiencing inner or emotional healing”; and (3) “being used as an instrument of healing”. Response choices ranged from 1 (never or almost never) to 6 (many times a day). Seventy percent (70%) of the respondents reported that they had experienced a divine healing from a physical illness at least “once in a while,” with thirty percent saying they never had such an expe- rience; ninety three percent (93%) reported the experience of inner of emo- tional healing. AG respondents were not only likely to be receivers of divine healing, but the clear majority (67%) was also likely to perceive themselves to be agents of healing.

Prayer Measures

T ree measures of prayer provide independent variables for this analysis of healing experiences. Glossolalia or praying in tongues was measured by a sin- gle question tapping the frequency of praying in tongues. T irty one percent (31%) of the respondents said they never/almost never prayed in tongues, while 9 percent said they did so every day.18 Approximately one third of the

16

The demographic profi le presented here roughly refl ects national data reported in denomi- national statistics.

17

For details on the intercorrelations for items used in this analysis, see Appendix 1.

18

Another question found earlier in the questionnaire that sought to learn what people prayed when they prayed in tongues, with the first two choices being “I do not pray in tongues” and “I used to pray in tongues but no longer do so” that served to screen the active glossolalics from those who do not pray in tongues. Twenty-nine (29) percent of the sample said they did not pray in tongues, with another 5 percent claiming that they once did but no longer do so.

9

56

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

sample could claim to be regular glossolalics, praying in tongues on most days (13%), everyday (10%) or many times a day (8%).

A second prayer measure, the healing prayer scale, consists of three items, with a reliability co-eficient of .86 The following statement preceded the choices that followed, each with a range of response range from “never” to “very often.” “Divine healing has played an important part in pentecostalism and is practiced in many churches. Please indicate how often you have been involved in the following practices:” — “prayer for healing of family/friends”; “praying with others for healing”; “being prayed with by others for healing”. Eighty-six percent (86%) reported praying for family and friends either fairly often (59%) or very often (27%); sixty-eight percent (68%) prayed with others for healing fairly often (27%) or very often (41%); fi fty-two percent (52%) had been prayed with for divine healing fairly often (20%) or very often (32%).

The third prayer measure, prophetic prayer, taps perceptions of divine revelation: “receiving divine revelation from another person”; “giving proph- ecy to another person”; and “receiving direct revelation from God”. The reli- ability co-eficient for the prophecy scale is .81. The majority of respondents experienced prophetic prayer only infrequently or never. Only 25% received divine revelation through another person “at least on some days”; 19% gave prophetic revelations to another “at least on some days”. While respondents were fairly unlikely to give and receive personal prophecies (something that has not been encouraged in the AG), they are more likely to report they per- sonally have experienced communication with the divine, with 41% reporting that they “received a direct revelation from God” at least “on some days.” Sim- ply stated, prophetic prayer is hearing from God and, on occasion, speaking forth God’s message to others and/or receiving a prophetic message from another believer.

The prayer measures used in this statistical analysis can be seen as represent- ing diff erent points on an active or discursive and receptive or intuitive prayer continuum.19 Active or discursive forms of prayer can range from reading from a book of prayers to informal soliloquy to attending a religious ritual. Active

Based on this question, 66 percent of the sample are active glossolalics (as compared with 69% based on a question with more response choices). For regression analysis that requires integral (rather than discrete) data, an alternate question was used with responses ranging from “never” to “many times a day.”

19

See M. M. Poloma, “Prayer and the Elderly: Exploring a ‘Gerontological Mystery,” in K. W. Schaie, N. Krause, and A. Booth, eds. Religious Infl uences on Health and Well-Being in the Elderly (New York: Springer Publishing Co., 2004), 104-113.

10

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

57

prayer may or may not lead to the second general form of prayer, namely, intuitive or receptive prayer, that moves the pray-er from the act of praying to interaction and union with the divine. Receptive prayer has been measured by reports of prayer experiences that refl ect a sense of divine-human commu- nion.20 While both the healing prayer scale and glossolalia may be acts that lead to interaction or communion with God, the prophetic prayer scale taps this spiritual phenomenon with greater precision.

Multivariate Analyses

A careful review of the bivariate correlation matrix found in Appendix 1 reveals some tentative but interesting fi ndings to describe who experiences divine healing and who is used as a conduit of divine healing for others. T ose who reported experiencing physical healing were more likely to be older (r=.15), have less education (r=−.24), less income (r=−.20), be non-white (r=.29) and not to be married (r=.17). T ey are also more likely to be glossolalic (r=.30), engage in healing prayer (r=.45) and in prophetic prayer (r=.57). While these bivariate relationships are all indicators of potential characteristics of respon- dents who reported experiencing healing, some of them may be masking the “real cause.”

We will use one example to demonstrate the problem inherent in bivariate analyses described above. Glossolalia or praying in tongues appears to be a prayer form that accounts for diff erences in reported healing experiences: the bivariate relationships between glossolalia and reporting physical healing (r=.30), inner or emotional healing (r=.21), and being used as an instrument of healing (r=.29) are all statistically signifi cant. We can also see from the cor- relation matrix in Appendix 1 that those who pray in tongues are more likely to be older (r=.15); and they are more likely to engage in healing prayer (r=.43) as well as prophetic prayer (r=48). It is possible, however, that age rather than any of the prayer variables is responsible for diff erences in reporting healing. Older people are more likely to be sick — and therefore are probably more likely to report that they have at some time or another been recipients of divine healing. Continuing with this line of thinking, it is possible that demo- graphic variables are the real “causes” of divine healing and that prayer

20

See M. M. Poloma, and G. H. Gallup, Jr. Varieties of Prayer: A Survey Report (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991); and M. M. Poloma and B. F. Pendleton. “The Eff ects of Prayer and Prayer Experiences on Measures of General Well-Being,” Journal of Psychology and T eology , 19 (1991): 71-83.

11

58

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

practices have little or nothing to do with statistical fi ndings of healing found in this survey.

Multiple regression techniques permit us to go beyond such speculative inferences, using statistical tests to tease out which of the variables are statisti- cally related to diff erences in reported healings. Each of the reported healing measures — physical healing, inner and emotional healing, and being used as an instrument of healing — has been used as a dependent variable in three multivariate models. In each of these three equations the demographic vari- ables and prayer measures are used as independent variables that seek to account for statistical diff erences in the three healing measures. The statistical results for all three equations are statistically signifi cant, with models that explain 27 percent of the variance for inner healing, 40 percent for physical healing, and 43 percent of the variance for being used as an agent of healing.21 T ese fi ndings permit us to describe the recipients of physical healing, emo- tional healing, and those who believe they are agents of divine healing.

Recipients of Physical Healing

The statistical results for the multivariate analyses are found in Appendix 2. The first columns present partial correlations (beta) indicating that those who reported more frequent experiences of physical healing are older (beta=.19), more likely to be non-white (beta=−.12), to have scored higher on the healing prayer scale (beta=.20) and on the prophetic prayer scale (beta=.41). The remaining demographic measures) gender, education, income, and marital status) were not statistically signifi cant in reports of physical healing. Although all of the statistically signifi cant partial correlations (beta) reported above are related to physical healing, some demonstrate much stronger relationships than do others. By far the leading predictor of physical healing is prophetic prayer, followed by age and healing prayer, and then by race. Non-whites (including Hispanics) were more likely to report physical healings than were white respondents.

Recipients of Emotional or Inner Healing

Emotional or inner healing comprises an array of practices and experiences within the larger pentecostal tradition. It may commonly take place in prayer

21

The amount of “explained” or accounted for variance in a model is designated by the adjusted R square found at the bottom of each equation presented in Appendix 2. The adjusted R square for each of the models was found to be statistically signifi cant at a probability level of .0001.

12

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

59

counseling (a combination of intuitive prophetic prayer and rational counsel), in congregational ritual, or (most recently) in healing rooms dotting the country.22 It may also take place in personal or private prayer. Inner healing involves the “healing” of addictions of varying types, broken interpersonal relationships, lack of self-esteem and self-worth, past hurts infl icted in childhood, strained marital relations, or loss through death. It may also include “healing” of nega- tive images of God — sometimes even of “forgiving” God. T ese “inner wounds” are often regarded as a potential entry point for physical ailments. With only one measure of inner/emotional healing in the survey, it is impos- sible to know the exact meaning or meanings respondents associated with the term when completing the survey. Given the frequency with which they are experienced, they undoubtedly represent an array of phenomena. T ey were very common experiences for 38 percent of the survey respondents, ranging from “many times a day” (7%), to “every day” (15%), to “most days” (16%). Another third reported they “never” (7%) or “rarely” (28%) experienced inner/emotional healing.

As can be seen in the second column of Appendix 2, the demographic factors of age, gender, education, income, ethnicity and marital status have no statistical impact on reports of emotional healing. The primary predictors are (as with physical healing) are prophetic prayer (beta=.40) and healing prayer (beta=.22). Glossolalia was not statistically related to experiencing emotional healing.

Who are the Modern Healers?

In reviewing the bivariate relationships for being an instrument of healing and the remaining variables found in Appendix 1, it can be seen that nearly all of the measures (except for age and gender) are statistically signifi cant. It is noteworthy that fewer respondents perceived themselves to be either agents of healing or having received a physical healing than those who reported inner or emotional healings. While only 7 percent said they had never received an inner healing, 30 percent said they had never experienced a physical healing and 33 percent acknowledged that they had never been used as an instrument of healing. T ose who do regard themselves as agents of healing are also more likely to experience personal physical healing (r=.60) and to report experiences of emotional or inner healing (r=.44).

22

See M. M. Poloma, “Old Wine, New Wineskins: The Rise of Healing Rooms in Revival Pentecostalism,” Pneuma: The Pentecostal Theology , 28:1 (2006): 59-71.

13

60

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

With these signifi cant bivariate correlations in mind, we proceeded with multiple regression analysis to determine which of these variables retain their signifi cance in a multivariate model. In the “HealAgent1” column we see that only one demographic variable remains statistically signifi cant, with older per- sons being more likely to report being an instrument of healing than are younger persons (beta=.19). As with the models for physical and inner healing, pro- phetic prayer (beta=.41) and prayer for healing (beta=.20) are both statistically signifi cant, indicating a positive relationship between the prayer measures and being an agent of healing. Glossolalia was not statistically signifi cant.

We then expanded the statistical equation for “being an instrument of healing” to include personal experiences of healing. When experiences of physical and inner healing are added to the basic equation, the description of those who claimed to be instruments of divine healing becomes more complex. The results in the last column (“HealAgent2”) indicate that non- whites are more likely to be agents of healing than are whites (beta =−.21); age is no longer statistically signifi cant. Prophetic prayer remains the leading pre- dictor of healing agency (beta=.24), closely followed by the personal experi- ence of physical healing (beta=.22). Healing prayer (beta=.12) and experiencing an inner or emotional healing (beta=.11) also have more moderate eff ects on self-reports of being used as an agent of healing. Clearly there is an array of factors that describe those who pray for and perceive themselves to be used by God to heal others.

Further Assessment and Closing Comments

Using data collected in 1995 at the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship dur- ing the peak of the revival known as the “Toronto Blessing,” Poloma and Hoelter developed a holistic model of healing that is important for interpret- ing the fi ndings. We tested two general hypotheses: (1) Participation in reli- gious ritual, bodily manifestations, and an individual’s emotional responses commonly seen at revival meetings, are positively related to the pivotal experi- ence of spiritual healing and (2) Spiritual healing (i.e., knowing God’s love in a deeper way, sensing a personal sinfulness, and experiencing a fresh sense of divine forgiveness) together with demographic control variables are signifi – cant predictors of other types of healing: inner (emotional), mental, and physical. In assessing their fi ndings, Poloma and Hoelter noted the following: “At the center of the model is a relationship; — namely a relationship with the divine — that must be in ‘right order’ before other forms of healing ordinarily

14

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

61

can take place.” We went on to explain, “Without fail, measures of spiritual healing were signifi cantly related to the measures of inner, mental, and physi- cal healing in our analyses. Tese associations held even when ritual, experi- ence of bodily manifestations, and positive emotions were held constant. The model explains the most variance for inner or emotional healing, suggesting an interdependence of divine and human relationships.”23

The survey data used in this article were collected in 2005 during ordinary Sunday services rather than during revival meetings. Diff erent measures were needed to replace questions that asked about experiences precipitated by the fi res of revival to tap what Poloma and Hoelter called “spiritual healing” and the “right relationship with the divine.” The linchpin in the revised model was prayer, particularly the pentecostal prayer practices and experiences associated with glossolalia, praying for healing, and revelatory or prophetic prayer and their eff ects on reported experiences of divine healing.

Despite the doctrinal emphasis put on glossolalia by the Assemblies of God as the “initial evidence” of spirit baptism, praying in tongues shows no direct eff ect on healing experiences in any of the multivariate equations. Given the statistically signifi cant bivariate relationships with physical healing (r=.30), inner healing (r=.21), and healing agency (r=.29), however, it is possible that praying in tongues has an indirect eff ect on healing experiences. As can be seen in Appendix 1, both healing prayer (r=.43) and revelatory or prophetic prayer (r=.48) show moderately strong bivariate relationships with glossolalia. It appears that those who are glossolalic are more likely to frequently engage in healing prayer and prophetic prayer than those who are not. Glossolalia may be a metaphysical door that opens the pentecostal pray-er to praying expec- tantly for healing and, perhaps more importantly, to the experience of the prophetic or revelatory prayer.

Prophetic prayer, by far the leading predictor for all three of the healing measures, leans far into the receptive or intuitive end of the prayer continuum. Even more than off ering prayers for healing (which are active forms of prayer that may or may not involve receptivity), prophetic prayer requires the pray-er to “hear from God.” The result may or may not involve “curing” or the “mirac- ulous,” but it does refl ect a common pentecostal worldview that insists that

23

See M. M. Poloma and L. F. Hoelter, “The ‘Toronto Blessing’: A Holistic Model of Heal- ing,” Journal for the Scientifi c Study of Religion , 37 (1998): 258-273. The hypotheses shaping the model were derived from Meredith McGuire’s earlier qualitative study of alternative healing practices. See Ritual healing in Suburban America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1988).

15

62

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

divine-human interaction is not only possible but expected in the lives of ordi- nary believers.

T ere is one last caveat worthy of note in this closing section, and that is the role of healing practices in spreading the pentecostal gospel. As Allan Ander- son has observed, prayer for divine healing “is perhaps the most universal characteristic of the many varieties of Pentecostalism and perhaps the main reason for its growth in the developing world.”24 Experiences of divine healing are a primary factor in identifying those who themselves are agents of healing in a religion where important practices are more likely to be caught through experience than taught through doctrine.

Divine healing and prayer is a Gordian knot with many intertwined strands. T us far it has befuddled the eff orts of scientifi c investigators who have sought to unravel it. This discussion suggesting that prophetic prayer plays an espe- cially signifi cant role in diff erent forms of healing brings us closer to identify- ing the strands even if we have not cut the knot. Given the centrality of an intimate relationship with God that underlies the models of healing tested in this survey analysis, scientifi c researchers may always have to deal with the messiness of mystery. As we have shown here, however, it is possible to use research techniques to cast some light on this important topic.

Bibliography

Anderson, A. An Introduction to Pentecostalism (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press,

2004).

Barnes, L. L. and S. S. Sered, eds. Religion and Healing in America (New York: Oxford University

Press, 2005).

H. Benson, J. A. Dusek, J.B. Sherwood, P. Lam, C. F. Bethea, W. Carpenter, S. Levitsky, P. C. Hill,

D. W. Clem, M. K. Jain, D. Drumel, S. L. Kopecky, P. S. Mueller, D. Marek, S. Rollins,

and P. L. Hibbard, “Study of the T erapeutic Eff ects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in

Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty

of Receiving Intercessory Prayer,” American Heart Journal (2006): 934-942.

R. C. Byrd, “Positive T erapeutic Eff ects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Popula-

tion,” 81, Southern Medical Journal (1988): 826-29.

Cole, J. 1996. “Gallup Poll Again Shows Confusion.” NCSE Reports (Spring): 9.

K. F. Ferraro, Next steps in understanding the prayer/health connection in K. W. Schaie, N. Krause

and A. Booth, eds. Religious Infl uences on Health and Well-Being in the Elderly (New York:

Springer Publishing Co., 2004): 69-103.

Green, J. C., J. L. Guth, C. E. Smidt, and L. A. Kellstedt, Religion and Culture Wars (Kabganm

MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld Publishers, 1997).

24

A. Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

16

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

63

James Davison Hunter, American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quandary of

Modernity (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983).

J. Levin, Prayer, Love, and Transcendence: An Empidemiologic Perspective in K.W. Schaie, N. Krause

and A. Booth, eds. Religious Infl uences on Health and Well-Being in the Elderly (New York:

Springer Publishing Co., 2004): 69-103.

McGuire, M. B, Ritual healing in Suburban America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University

Press, 1988).

M. B. McGuire, 1993, “Health and Healing in New Religious Movements” in D. G Bromley

and J. K. Hadden eds. Religion and the Social Order, V.3 B (Greenwich CT: JAI Press.

1993), 139-55.

Donald A. Meyer, The Positive T inkers: Popular Religion Psychology from Mary Baker Eddy to

Norman Vincent Peale and Ronald Reagan (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1988). M. M. Poloma, “Old Wine, New Wineskins: The Rise of Healing Rooms in Revival Pentecostal-

ism,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 28:1 (2006):59-71. ———, “Prayer and the Elderly: Exploring a ‘Gerontological Mystery’ ” in K. W. Schaie, N. Krause,

and A. Booth, eds. Religious Infl uences on Health and Well-Being in the Elderly (New York:

Springer Publishing Co., 2004), 104-113.

M. M. Poloma and B. F. Pendleton, “The Eff ects of Prayer and Prayer Experiences on Measures

of General Well-being,” Journal of Psychology and T eology , 19 (1991): 71-83.

M. M. Poloma and L. F. Hoelter, “The ‘Toronto Blessing’: A Holistic Model of Healing,” Journal

for the Scientifi c Study of Religion , 37 (1998): 258-273.

M. M. Poloma, and G. H. Gallup, Jr. Varieties of Prayer: A Survey Report (Trinity Press Interna-

tional, Philadelphia, 1991).

Philip Rieff , The Triumph of the T erapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (New York: Harper & Row,

1968).

Robeck, Cecil M. Jr., Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal

Movement (Nashville: T omas Nelson, Inc., 2006).

Ross-Chionino, J. D. and Philip Hefner, Spiritual Transformation and Healing. Anthropological,

T eological, Neuroscientifi c and Clinical Perspectives (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2006). David Harrington Watt, A Transforming Faith: Explorations of Twentieth-Century American Evan-

gelicalism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1991).

17

64

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

Appendix 1

Bivariate Correlations

123 4 56789101112

1 Age 1

2 Gender ns 1

3 Education ns −09 1

4 Income ns −11 35 1

5 Race −17 07 19 14 1

6 Marital Stat 26 ns 23 46 27 1

7 Tongues 15 ns ns ns ns ns 1

8 HealPray 25 15 ns −12 ns ns 43 1

9 ProphPray ns ns −16 −15 −25 −16 48 43 1

10 PhysHeal 15 ns −24 −20 −29 −17 30 45 57 1

11 InnerHeal ns 09 10 −14 −16 −14 21 36 49 48

12 HealAgent ns ns −.24 −.23 −42 −24 29 37 57 60 44 1

Gender dummy code: 0=male; 1=female

Race dummy code: 0=non-white, including Latinos; 1=white Marital Status dummy code: 0=not married; 1=married

Signifi cance level for all reported correlations: probability is equal to or less than .001

18

M. M. Poloma / Pneuma 31 (2009) 47-65

65

Appendix 2

Multivariate Correlations

Eff ects of Demographics and Prayer on Physical Healing, Inner Healing, and

Healing Agency

Physical Heal Inner Heal HealAgent1 HealAgent2

B beta B beta B beta B beta

Age .01 .19* .00 −02 .01 .19* .00 .05

Gender .00 .00 .13 .05 .00 .00 .15 .06

Education −.04 −.05 .00 .00 −.04 −.05 .07 .06

Income .00 .00 .00 .02 .00 .00 .01 .02

Race −.30 −.12* .07 .02 −.30 −.12 −.64 −.21*

Marital −.18 −.08 .26 .09 .18 .08 .09 .03

Tongues .02 .03 .06 .07 .02 .03 .02 .02

HealPray .06 .20* .08 .22* .06 .20* .04 .12*

Proph Pray .17 .41* .21 .40* .17 .41* .12 .24*

PhysHeal .27 .22*

InnerHeal .10 .11*

Adjusted R Sq .40* .27* .40* .43*

Asterisk indicates statistical signifi cance with probabilities equal to or less than .001

19