Customer Reviews

Examining Alternative Medicine: An Inside Look at the Benefits & Risks

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As a follower of Jesus in a post Christian, post Modern era, I have found this book troubling. From the very first chapter I found it disturbing and biased. Though we come from the same general worldview of monotheistic, salvific, trinitarian, Christianity, I was often frustrated by notes of sarcasm, cynicism, ridicule, and skepticism in the writing style. There is a flavor of superiority of our culture and western ways.

There is clearly an agenda here that Drs. Reisser, Mabe, and writer Velarde are promoting. I have wondered if they would have cast their vote against Galileo and Copernicus and sided with the Church against a Solar-centered Universe. It appears for them the world of medicine, pharmaceuticals and the god of modern scientific inquiry seem to be at the center of their universe. Where is the time transcendant God that created the natural supplements, mechanisms of the body, and breathed into humanity the "chi" which they criticize? What if these are truly God created mechanisms that have been appropriated by other forces? What if God wants these methods back? If they were to examine their theology again and look past their modern era underpinnings they might be surprised to find that God has been at work in all cultures including his Church to bring about healing in a variety of ways since the time of the fall of humanity. Since that time, there has always been a need to experience healing. Certainly the sick of those early eons didn't have our pharma companies and our scientific discoveries to thank for their healing. God did not abandon completely other cultures who did not know the truth of Jesus yet. He used the created things of the world to reveal himself (general revelation). Some of these might just be found in those practices. It is true, God's natural healing methodologies do not require channeling of a spiritual being or bowing to a foreign god. But some of these cultures may not understand that yet. Yes it is important that Christians and others seeking after the true God do have that awareness. I'm just not sure that this book is the best way to help people discover that.

I agree that each alternative therapy must be assessed using more legitimate and careful criteria than "does it seem to work?" without regard to the source of underpinnings. But God is in the business of redemption. Science is discovering a rational basis beneath much of what is considered alternative. The authors chide the AMA for not extolling the "benefits of a new cancer drug" in their Journal then go on to criticize an them for publishing an issue which seeks to explore ways to avoid getting cancer in the first place through proper care of the whole person. It would appear the doctors would like our governmental agencies to more strictly limit what we can choose. I am not willing to turn control of my health over to agencies in the pockets of pharmaceutical and medical procedure conglomerates.

The Drs. and writer criticize the body/mind/spirit unity promoted in alternative health. It is a western model (not a Godly one) that separates body/mind/spirit. Jesus did not separate them in his healing principles nor in his teaching on the greatest commandments. He instructed us to love God with our whole being, body, mind and strength and our neighbors as ourselves. Not a loving voice toward others in this book by the way.

In our time, I believe it is much more important for a book about alternative health and healing to include what the basics of our faith are because in actuality, people don't really know them anymore. Too many in our time fragment and compartmentalize their lives into what is spiritual and what is not. The pagan cultures from whence these modalities came did not separate their being into tidy compartments, treating each as a different piece separate from the whole, nor did they dissect their faith from their science. That is a western mindset. Western does not equal godly!

So, in essence I agree with the authors that discernment is necessary in assessing alternative modalities. However to that I add any other type of medical care or approaches to healing. I include modern medicine in that category. Too many in our time who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ substitute the god of scientific inquiry, popping a pill, or the seeking of a modern medical miracle over wise lifestyle changes that many of those alternative therapies have been used by God to promote.

Read carefully. God might have built in some mystery that he wants to recover and reveal to us for our healing. Honor God in your methods and learn what that looks like from the Scriptures not from cultural bias toward modern religious perspectives or science.
Terri Renfro
Candidate for Doctor of Naturopathic Ministry Degree
Dissertation forthcoming on this topic.
[...]

This is an excellent book outlining the two main approaches in medical practice today: a Western science-based approach and a whole host of alternative practices including: Taoism, ayurvedism, chiropractic, "going natural", homeopathy, postmodernism approaches, Therapeutic Touch, and "Prayer is good science."

An intern in the 1980s, Paul Reisser noticed the sudden popularity of alternative medicine and predicted it would soon fade like flowers in the field. Yet Christians who were orthodox in their religious beliefs were willing to consider unorthodox healing methods. They were asking pragmatic questions--Does it work? Do I feel better? They were not asking reality-based questions he thought were more likely to bring them to the truth: Does it make any sense? Is there any reasonable proof? What worldview is this healing system based upon? Does this practice conflict with my faith?

Then in 1998, critics of alternative practices, Marcia Angell, M.D. and Jerome Kasirer, M.D., editorialized in the New England Journal of Medicine, "It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine--conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculations, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments." (p. 29) And the choir said "AMEN!" But the rest of America disagreed with this...