Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

“Why doesn’t God heal amputees?” The question was asked by a member of the audience at a recent Christopher Hitchens / Dinesh D’Souza debate. There is likely no way to provide an answer—at least in a debate format—that is going to satisfy the need of the “honest questioner” in this matter. So, I left the debate uneasy—thinking the question was a fair one and the answer provided less than adequate.

My initial thought was simple: “I wish God would heal amputees.” And who wouldn’t wish the same? Surely anyone who has observed the Special Olympics or viewed the pictures of our service men and women returning from Iraq with limbs missing has experienced a deep emotive response to their plight.

However, is the answer as to why God (if there is a God) doesn’t heal amputees as simple as Hitchens suggested: that such would be testable and, therefore (since from atheist's presupposition there is no God to perform such an act) won't occur?

I had to give this one some thought! And, though I would like to share with you some of my initial considerations, please be assured it is not my intent to provide a satisfactory, "I-know-what-God’s-plan-is-type-of-response" to such a weighty matter, especially to someone who has experienced the loss of a limb or limbs.

And that is really my first point. In sharing my faith one of the most important things I do is demonstrate that I care. Therefore, if someone asks me “Why all this pain and suffering?”—and asks it sincerely—I am careful to tread. I do not know what they have experienced and do not wish, in any way, to appear uncaring of their particular circumstance by giving a textbook-type response. But…a response is important. Though I will never be able to answer the question of “Why” for your particular situation, I can talk about the nature of God and suggest some thoughts for consideration—thoughts which can be used by God’s Spirit to communicate both the fact that I care and, at the same time, provide a bit of perspective even to the person enduring the trauma of amputation.

Let me summarize my thoughts using the following key words:

Life: I have a very good friend who, when asked about the difficulties we all face, will simply look at you and say, “That’s life!” He is not being trite. Nor is he being uncaring. In fact, he is being quite realistic and, actually, quite accurate theologically (from the Christian worldview’s perspective). Both theists and atheists have had limbs amputated. It is the nature of the world in which we live. Now I may argue this isn’t the way God intended it to be (and would be correct in doing so), but “it is as it is.”

God: So where is God in this equation? If there is a God, then surely He could heal the amputee. But, I might also point out, if there is a God He can also prevent a person from becoming an amputee as well. Regardless of whether or not my amputation was the result of evil, my carelessness, or just life, God could still have prevented it.

But then, if God chose to prevent amputation, why shouldn’t He choose to prevent every other form of negative consequence in the world? Why should He stop with amputation? What about mental illness? What about child abuse? What about…you name it? The fact is we live in a world that is experiencing the consequences of a rebellion against God and God is allowing the consequences to play out.

Now one might rightfully choose to respond: “Well that’s the explanation from the perspective of the Christian worldview and I just don’t buy it!” O.K. That’s fine. So, let’s remove God from the equation. Now, why do you even care about the fact that someone else is an amputee? It doesn’t affect you! Isn’t the naturalistic worldview all about “survival of the fittest” and passing on one’s genes to ensure the continuation of the species to the next generation?

Perspective: So...for the moment...let’s assume that God exists. Then, what possible reason could there be that He would choose not to heal an amputee nor prevent such a consequence? I cannot answer this question from the vantage point of the amputee (nor would I even attempt such), but I can respond a bit from my own experience.

Whenever I see an amputee, I am reminded to be much more thankful. Without much effort I get out of bed in the morning, go downstairs to eat breakfast, go play tennis, get into my car and drive, and do about anything else I need to do. And that’s my point. Amputation is a reminder of how easily it is for me to take things for granted. And, at least for me, it causes me to pause and say thank you to God. I think that’s important.

Now, my guess is that everyone who reads that which I have just written would concur. “You’re right! When I see someone who doesn’t have the use of an arm or legs, or both, I am reminded as well to be much more thankful for all I have.” Theist or atheist—both will likely have a similar-type response.

Furthermore, though I don’t have the guts to say “God make me an amputee so that others will be more thankful,” I have a ton of respect for those who have had limbs amputated and who go on living pretty amazingly normal lives. In fact, their perspective on life is much deeper and fuller than most. Even as the person who is blind often is discovered to have one or more of his/her other four senses more keenly developed, so I think the same may be suggested for other aspects (i.e.--non-physical aspects) of the life of the one who has experienced significant challenge and disability.

So…once again, we are confronted with the reality that, as humans, we seem to be very different than the other animals of the animal kingdom in this very important area. Indeed, what is this “perspective thing” all about anyway? I think it suggests that quality of life means far more to us than simply quantity. One may “buy into” the naturalistic worldview but how seldom does that individual(at least consistently) live by its very minimalistic standard (i.e.—just as long as I am eating, sleeping and passing on my genes I am fine). No…all of us expect far more and many spend a lifetime attempting to achieve a dream of almost ethereal proportion...and one which has little to do with ensuring the continuance of the species! Even to such a one as this--even to the most successful business professional--the coming into contact with one who daily lives with a significant disability can give pause to even that "powerful" individual and cause him/her to reflect and evaluate and appreciate.

Compassion: Commensurate with the theme above, even as I am reminded to be more thankful for my own situation, I also (hopefully!) respond with compassion for those who have experienced the trauma of amputation. Regardless of the reason as to why an amputation resulted, the fact that it has occurred is sufficient for me to “feel” for the individual. I would suggest that anyone who can just casually “walk by” and not feel at least some emotion would be branded by most as being insensitive if not downright uncaring, totally self-centered, even inhumane.

And isn’t it a good thing that we all have visible objects which call us to be compassionate? No...I'm not talking about "feeling sorry" for another--one can almost infer from that trite phrase a demeaning tone. I'm talking about observing someone who has experienced a bit of life most have not and will not and deeply considering all that individual has dealt with. It's putting myself in another's "shoes" and wondering how I might respond. And as I do that, I find myself, in so many instances, deeply encouraged as I observe someone--regardless of the trauma experienced--who has arduously worked to move forward--to get out of bed, greet and encourage others, accomplish significant life goals, remain physically active to the best of his or her ability and, in general, are living life to its fullest. Awesome!

The manner in which so many amputees have dealt with their “disability” causes even a greater sense of admiration and compassion to rise up within me. This causes me to care for someone else other than the “little world” of myself. I for one think the amputees among us make us a better and more congenial and definitely more caring people.

Should God so choose to heal every amputee (how could I limit such to “this one” or “that one”?) and, for the sake of equity (though even Jesus was not said to heal everyone) should He extend His healing to every malady, then what would that do to our world? Would the world really be a better place if there were no consequences for actions? In fact, isn't that really what we want? We want God to heal the amputee as well as make sure there are no negative consequences for anything. Even atheists wish for a "Garden of Eden" world which only those who believe in a God have the basis to hope for!

Eternity: Let’s, for a moment, assume that there is a God and that He has created a world beyond this one for all, potentially (i.e.—one must accept His terms for entrance), to one day live. Call it eternity, heaven, whatever. If there is a God, and presumably this God—by the very fact of His nature as God—transcends time / space reality, then it would seem plausible to think that such a world would exist. If indeed, that is the case, and if this future world would be a perfect one (a "Garden of Eden" world)—exhibiting, without restraint, perfect love, equity, beauty, etc.—then would it be best for God to make our current world seem better when a better world—in reality—is to come?

Isn’t it feasible, then, to suggest that God knowing this (the Christian worldview, of course, affirms the fact of such a future place), would have little motivation inherently to make this world something which it is not? Does not the very presence of human suffering—whether it be due to natural disasters, evil acts resulting from human free will, or the realities of life—only develop in us a deepening dissatisfaction with the current scenario and, ultimately, causes perhaps a majority to desire something beyond this world? In fact, one may even suggest that the desire every human seems to have—for a place more loving, more equitable, more peaceful, etc.—anticipates such a potential reality. (“Wished fulfillment” some might suggest. If so, then one must still explain how the naturalistic worldview would explain the origin of such: What reason would there be for the concept of a “better life” to have originated given the fact the anticipation of such presents more a hindrance—rather than an encouragement—to procreation in the sole aim of survival of the species?)

Faith: I imagine some reading this have wondered why it took so long for me to reach this point. Quite simply, I believe Biblical faith involves at least some evidence so that the person choosing to believe in God does not do so at the expense of wisdom.

Biblical faith is simply this: willing dependence on a reliable object. The key question is this: "Has God provided sufficient evidence for one to reasonably believe He exists and that Jesus was His Son?"

As I suggested earlier, in my initial reflection I wondered why God doesn’t heal amputees and thought it could be a very good idea for God to do so! If I were in charge of God's Marketing Department, I would even suggest such a strategy: Why, then all would believe!

Then I reflected a bit more thoughtfully.

“Oh, really? Would all truly believe?” If the life of Jesus teaches us anything, it teaches us that, regardless of the proof, all will not believe. I would suggest that Jesus provided some pretty strong proofs as to who He was: He healed the sick, the lame and the blind (even “testable” by Hitchens’s standards I would suggest!). He raised the dead. He returned to life after being crucified. And His disciples began a movement in the very place where evidence to the contrary (i.e.—as to His resurrection as well as His person and claims) would have been most abundant and adversaries most plentiful—the city of Jerusalem. Still people chose other options. And, despite the incredible obstacles, the growth of Christianity challenged the fabric of the Roman Empire.

As I continued to think along these lines, I wondered, “What could God have done if He had wanted to?” Perhaps the better question is: “What couldn’t God have done?” In other words, God could have made it virtually impossible for all not to believe. Yes, He could have made the evidences for His existence and His Son’s deity completely irrefutable. But He did not and has not done it that way (at least not for most). There is still room sufficient for doubt; for other “options.”

The same holds true for today. Consider the evidences God has provided both through personal observation and history. He has left us an incredible record of His activity in creation. He (according to the Biblical record) sent Jesus as a real-life, down-to-earth, revelation of Himself who demonstrated His “Godness” through transformational teachings substantiated my miraculous acts attested to by individuals and groups of people—including both friends and enemies. He has left us a book with incredible manuscript evidence, historically accurate, and filled with truths and principles that have transformed both individuals and societies. And the transformational truths presented in the Bible, as well the picture it paints of life and reality, are validated time and again in the life experiences of individuals and mirror the reality of the world we know.

And…if this same God was willing to give the life of His only Son in order to offer a permanent “fix” for the sin and rebellion of humankind, then perhaps this is instructive as to the focus of His greatest concern for us. Could His reason for not healing the amputee have little or nothing to do because He is unable to or is not caring? Is it plausible that God's lack of healing activity (at least in 21st century Western Europe and North America) has more to do with His acute awareness that, in the presence of great challenge and tragedy, most tend to lessen their grip on the “here and now” and focus their attention on the more important realities of life which generally are not found in the realm of the physical?

Could even amputation have positive effects--both on the individual and on society--that would make God's removal or neutralization counter-productive to the betterment of both?

Thus if there is a God who exists; and if this God has truly revealed Himself through His Son, Jesus, then we can make at least three, key deductions:

#1--There is a God who cares and He has demonstrated His divine love in such a way that ensures His commitment to us.

#2--Though I may not like all aspects of the world in which I live (i.e.--negative consequences that persist), the reality of such reminds me to be grateful, that others deserve my time and attention, and that this world is "broken."

#3--The very fact that I want this world to be very different may, in itself, be an indication of a better world ahead. If there is a God who does exist, and if this God is inherently good and desires relationship with us, then it would make sense not only for there to be a better world coming but also helps me understand why He doesn't make everything right here and now.

Thus, even the amputee can respond, “I do not understand why, but I know God still cares.” Faith, from the Christian perspective, begins with sufficient evidence to place trust in God and, then, allows one to be “carried” by God to places otherwise unknown, even sometimes tremendously challenging and difficult. For the amputee who has come to know the presence of God in the middle of the worst possible scenario, that amputee has gained a handle on life that few comprehend so clearly.

So…in the end do I wish that God would heal amputees? Yes. I still do. But I do not think it would do much to change the “balance sheet” as to those who believe and those who do not. “God of the gaps” accusations would be leveled at those who would suggest the activity of God, and those who assume there is no God would find other maladies to be healed in proof of the existence of a God they have already determined does not.