Transcript The Scientific Efficacy of Intercessory Prayer Douglas A. Vander Griend, Ph.D. Rev. Alvin J.

The Scientific Efficacy
of Intercessory Prayer
Douglas A. Vander Griend, Ph.D.
Rev. Alvin J. Vander Griend, D.Min.
Outline
 What is prayer?
 Are the effects measurable?
 Are the effects reproducible?
 Are the causalities discernable?
What is prayer
according to the Bible?
Definition of Prayer
 Prayer is communication with God.
 Prayer is the conversational part of a love
relationship with God.




Worshipful
Subordinate
Dependent – Petition for oneself
Collaborative – Intercession for others and
the creation
Theology of Prayer
 Who God is determines what prayer is.
 The God of the Bible reveals himself as:




Personal
Loving
Creator
Redeemer
 Most misconceptions about prayer are
really misconceptions about God.
 Intercessory prayer helps us fulfill our
biblical mandate.
Why Pray?
 God has appointed us to act as His
agents of renewal.
 He has chosen to act in accord with our
prayers.
 Prayer directs God’s power in
establishing His kingdom here on earth.
 We are also called to subdue the earth.
 It is appropriate for believers to use
prayer as a means to subdue the earth.
Prayer Changes Things
 Prayer produces prosperity - Jeremiah 29:7
 Prayer yields peace - Phil. 4:6-7
 Prayer lifts leaders and fosters social
transformation - 1 Timothy 2:1-2
 Prayer provides wisdom - James 1:4
 Great works are possible through prayer in
Christ’s name - John 14: 12-14
 God’s governance hinges on intercessory
prayer - Ezekiel 22:30-3 (Psalm 106:23)
 Prayer ushers in the close of history - Rev. 8:1-5
 “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful
and effective.” - James 5:16b
Physical Effects
 Intercessory prayer is key to this battlefield victory
- Exodus 17:8-13
 Prayer stops rain - 1 Kings 18:41-45
 “The prayer offered in faith will make the sick
person well; the Lord will raise him up.” - James 5:15
 “Pray for each other so that you may be healed.” James 5:16a
 Prayer raises the dead - Acts 9:40
 Prayer loosens chains and opens prison doors Acts 12:1-17
Intangible Effects
 Placebo – Hopefulness
 Psychological
 Thankfulness
 Faithful Reliance
 Fellowship
 Physiological – meditation
 Spiritual
 Wisdom
 Peace
Are the effects
measurable?
First Experiments
 Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911)
compared average life spans
 Kings vs. lords
 Clergy children vs. other children
 Frequency of disaster for ships carrying
missionary’s
 Result showed negative correlation
based on his hypothesis
A Plethora of Studies
 Human health studies
 Medical
 Psychological
 Addiction related
 Animal health studies
 Plant Studies
 Seed germination
 Bacterial growth
 Tomato fungus
Can Prayer Cure?
 5 – 7 Intercessors prayed for each of 192
patients in the CCU of San Francisco General
Hospital.
Prayer Group (192)
Result
Control (201)
3
Required antibiotics
16
6
pulmonary oedema
18
0
endotracheal intubation
12
13
death
17
Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit, R.
C. Byrd, Southern Med. J. 1988, 81, 826-829.
A Famous Experiment
 Building on the study by Byrd, William S.
Harris heads a study aiming to measure
the efficacy of remote intercessory prayer
on the outcome of nearly 1000 patients
admitted to a coronary care unit.
A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer
on Outcomes of Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit, W. S. Harris, et
al. Arch. Intern. Med. 1999, 159, 2273-2278.
Parameters
 Double-blind
 Patients were not informed at all about study
 Medical staff were unaware of study
 Intercessors received no feedback
 Only chaplain’s nurse knew assignments
 No attempt to estimate ‘background’
prayer.
Patient Distribution
Admitted to CCU over 11.5 months
N = 1019
Elimination of Patients
Admitted for Cardiac
Transplantation
Randomized
N=6
N=1013
Prayer Group
Usual Care Group
N = 484
N = 529
Elimination of Patients admitted for less than 24 hours
Prayer Group, N = 18; Usual Care Group, N = 5
Final Prayer Group
Final Usual Care Group
N = 466
N = 524
Prayer Protocol
 Patients were assigned to a group based on
the parity of the last digit of their medical
record number.
 Intercessory prayer team leaders were
contacted with only the first name of the patient
to be prayed for.
 15 teams of 5 prayed individually for 28 days
for each patient.
 Specifically requested “a speedy recovery with
no complications” and anything else that
seemed appropriate to them.
Intercessory Selection
 No particular denominational affiliation
required.
 All intercessors acknowledged:
 “I believe in God. I believe that He is
personal and is concerned with individual
lives. I further believe that He is responsive
to prayers for healing made on behalf of the
sick.”
Quantification of
Outcomes
 Predefined end point: weighted MAHI-CCU score
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
Comorbid Conditions
Need for antianginal agents, etc.
Need for antiarrythmic, inotropic, etc.
Need for temporary pacemaker, etc.
Need for a permanent pacemaker, etc.
Cardiac Arrest
Death
Results
 11% reduction in score for those in prayer
group (P = 0.04)
 6.35  0.26 compared to 7.13  0.27
 Unweighted score reduction: 10%
 Mean lengths of stay were not statistically
different
 6.48  0.54 vs 5.97  0.29
 2 patients in prayer group stayed 137 & 161
days, while no other patient in either group
stayed over 70 days
 6.48  0.54 down to 5.84  0.31 days
 35 other parameters showed no difference
Critique
 What does 11% signify?
 P = 0.04 is too weak to justify a change in
“current theories”.
 Unethical treatment of patients
 Theology is too haphazard
 Invalidated scoring system
 Statistical design
 Randomization technique
 What about all the studies by others that
are not reported?
Systematic Review
 23 trials involving 2774 patients
 Intercessory prayer at a distance (5)
 Non-contact Therapeutic Touch (11)
 Alternate forms of distant healing (7)
 13 yielded statistically significant effects.
 Intercessory prayer at a distance (2)
 Non-contact Therapeutic Touch (7)
 Alternate forms of distant healing (4)
 9 showed no effect.
 1 showed a negative effect.
 Non-contact therapeutic touch on 38 puncture
wound patients.
The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials, J. A.
Astin; E Harkness; E.Ernst, Ann. Intern. Med. 2000, 132, 903-910.
Are the effects
reproducible?
Reproducibility
 The effects of prayer to the God of the Bible are
as reliable as His promises.
 Forgiveness is always granted
 Salvation in Christ is always granted
 Any petition in accordance with His will (I John 5:14-15)
 Implies Faith (James 1:6)
 Implies abiding in Him (John 15:7)
 Implies obedience (I John 3:22-23)
 It is difficult to isolate a reproducible situation
that is easily measurable.
Any possibilities?
 Is it possible to design a controlled trial of the
efficacy of intercessory prayer that is consistent
with biblical theology?
 The problem of dosage




Length of time
Fervency of prayer
Degree of sincerity or prayer
Faith of prayer
 True control groups don’t exist
Hypothesis
 Church randomly selects 160 households from
phone book in neighborhood of church.
 Prayer: “The family would be receptive to the
church’s offer to come to their home, and lift up
their needs in prayer to God the Father.”
 If only 80 were prayed for, the receptivity of the
2 groups would be statistically different.
 If successful, ‘treatment’ is then made available
to control group.
I Timothy 2:1-5
“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers,
intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone-for kings and all those in authority, that we may live
peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants
all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the
truth. For there is one God and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
 Reproducible effects based on God’s revelation:
 Social Transformation
 Effective Evangelism*
 Spiritual Growth
Expectations
 Dosage will make a difference




Fervency
Time line
Number of intercessors
Relationship of intercessors to the God of
the Bible
 Lack of participation may have negative
effect.
 God does not override free will.
Dosage
 The Spindrift group found that the rate of
germination of rye seeds changed with prayer.
 When seeds were stressed with brine water,
prayer worked even better.
 Twice as much prayer produced double the
positive effects.
 Intercessor’s awareness increased
effectiveness.
 Non-directed prayer was more effective that
directed prayer. Who’s direction?
Prayer – Old Approach, New Wonders, Dr. L. Dossey, 1989.
How does it work?
Causality
 God answers prayers of believers
according to His promises.
 God also may answer prayers of nonbelievers.
 Satan may also be able to act in
response to prayer.
 Non-contact interpersonal connections
 Non-local consciousness
 Empathetic bonds
Mechanism at a Distance
 Miraculous
 Angelic or demonic
 Material explanation
 Quantum opportunities
 Designed Coincidence
 Reestablishment of created order
 Heretofore unknown forces
Unconventional Research
 Era Three Medicine
 Non-local consciousness – Dr. Dossey
 Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
 The role of consciousness in the physical world.
 Journal of Scientific Exploration
 The Global Consciousness Project
 Pertubation of random number generators by
human consciousness on a global scale.
 James Lind determined that lemons and limes
cure scurvy without ever even understanding
the concept of a nutrient (1753).
Conclusions
 God ordains the parameters of effective supplicative
prayer.
 Prayer is the way in which we co-labor with God to
accomplish His purposes in the world.
 Prayer can effect the natural world, so the scientific
study of prayer is valid.
 The physical effects of intercessory prayer seem to be
measurable.
 Only the promises of God guarantee the reproducibility
of appropriate intercession.
 The mechanism of prayer and other distant effects is
largely unknown.
 More study is warranted.