Archive for January 2014

An evaluation of the validity of Christoconformity in a contemporaneous healing ministry.

536px-Bloch-SermonOnTheMount[1]An evaluation of the validity of Christoconformity in a contemporaneous healing ministry


Jose de Carvalho



Before proceeding any further I just want to admit to my ignorance on the topic and assert my reliance on God’s wisdom for inspiration on this research endeavour. Appended are my preliminary thoughts:

Most healing ministries appeal to Jesus’ healing ministry in one way or another, however Continuationists do not offer sufficient clarity in their position as to whether Jesus is the pattern for the Church today or not. This does not necessarily mean cessationism, but it would help clarify the issue of healing miracles in the Church and preclude simply using Jesus and the apostles as models for the contemporaneous Church without further explanation, therefore the question should be on the validity of Christoconformity in a contemporaneous healing ministry.
The contention that Jesus was fully human and acting under the anointing power of the Holy Spirit, hence believers can be similarly anointed and therefore can also heal, must take into consideration his deity, messianic mission, the distinctiveness of Jesus as a perfect man without sin thus in a perfect relationship with Father.
Preliminary the claim that Jesus acted as a model healer to be emulated today presents significant doctrinal problems as the Jesus presented by the gospel authors ministered distinctively and uniquely. Therefore his followers by definition may function at best only in a limited capacity.
Any assumption that Jesus delegated authority to his followers to function as he did must take in consideration the distinctiveness of his ministry and trace the biblical accounts of the ministry of healing of a) Israel’s divine healer, b) the Messiah, c) apostles and then compare it to that of contemporaneous believers, notwithstanding the fact that even if the Lord’s authority is available to believers this may not equal the similar anointing to heal.
Empirically the historical ministry of healing in the Church in the main does not display the instantaneous, complete healing narrated in the gospels. Modern medical science or God-given providence through medical science cannot replicate the organic healings that Jesus did; therefore what we witness today does not reflect the ministry of Jesus in any form.
This is not denying the possibility of divine healing occurring today, but that it is more appropriate to accept the distinctness and uniqueness of the One gifted to heal and the pedagogical value of his healing ministry. It is however not a model to emulate with expected corresponding results and a standard for ministry today. The crux of the matter is that a Christocentric ministry model needs to guard against a hyper literal, simplistic and I dare say naïve interpretation of what Jesus said and done before promulgating it as praxis. This does not in anyway dismiss Christocentricity as a valuable hermeneutical lens what it is admitting is Christocentricity without Christocomformaty in healing praxis.
At this junction it must be noted that the writer is not advocating an approach judged on the basis of outcomes (Teleological) as believers have an ethical and biblical duty to minister to the sick. Those that appeal to the healing ministry of our Lord as a model for praxis despite the lack of positive, empirical evidence (Rule – Deontologists) should then reflect whether this action has biblical validation.
Jesus’s healing ministry uniquely expresses the ultimate redemptive divine will and desire of God. Although this pattern is what God wishes to display in salvation history, the full benefit of Christ’s atonement is not available now, therefore believers will experience both sides of the promise paradox of the ‘now’ but ‘not yet’ in this side of heaven – in different measures, by different individuals, at different times.