Which denominations of Christianity are against the easement of suffering via medical science, and what is the justification that they use?

While the vast majority of Christian denominations fully embrace modern medicine, viewing it as a gift from God that enables humans to alleviate suffering, there are several denominations and smaller sects that either fully oppose or place significant restrictions on medical interventions. Understanding their positions requires examining their theological foundations and biblical interpretations.

Christian Science

The most prominent denomination known for rejecting conventional medicine is the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science). Founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879, Christian Scientists believe that sickness and suffering are illusions resulting from incorrect understanding of God and reality. They teach that prayer and spiritual healing should be the primary response to illness.

Christian Scientists base this position largely on their interpretation of Jesus' healing ministry and verses like James 5:14-15: "Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well." They view illness as fundamentally spiritual rather than physical in nature.

However, it's important to note that the church does not absolutely forbid members from seeking medical care - it's left as a personal choice. Many Christian Scientists do utilize modern medicine for broken bones, dental work, and childbirth. They also comply with public health requirements like vaccinations when legally mandated.

Faith Assembly and Related Groups

Some smaller fundamentalist groups, like the now-defunct Faith Assembly, have taken more extreme positions against medical intervention. These groups typically cite verses like Exodus 15:26 ("I am the Lord who heals you") to argue that seeking medical care demonstrates a lack of faith in God's healing power.

Faith Assembly's founder, Hobart Freeman, taught that using medicine was a form of idolatry that replaced trust in God with trust in human institutions. This position tragically led to preventable deaths within the community before the group's dissolution.

End-Time Religious Groups

Some end-time focused denominations view modern medical establishments with suspicion, seeing them as potential tools of governmental control or spiritual deception. While they may not completely reject medicine, they often discourage certain procedures or treatments they view as unnatural or spiritually compromising.

These groups sometimes cite Revelation 13 and concerns about the "mark of the beast" to justify avoiding certain medical technologies or treatments. However, interpretations vary widely even within these communities.

Jehovah's Witnesses: A Special Case

While Jehovah's Witnesses generally accept most forms of medical treatment, they specifically prohibit blood transfusions based on their interpretation of biblical passages like Acts 15:28-29 which command abstaining from blood. This represents a unique case where a specific medical procedure is rejected on religious grounds while the overall validity of medical science is accepted.

Faith Healing Movements

Within mainstream denominations, there are sometimes sub-movements that emphasize divine healing over medical intervention. While not officially rejecting medicine, these groups may create cultural pressure against seeking medical care, viewing it as demonstrating insufficient faith.

Theological Justifications

The theological arguments against medical intervention typically center around several key points:

1. Divine Sovereignty: The belief that God alone should determine healing and that medical intervention represents human presumption.
2. Faith Testing: Viewing illness as a test of faith that should be met with prayer rather than medical treatment.
3. Spiritual Warfare: Seeing illness as primarily spiritual in nature, requiring spiritual rather than physical solutions.
4. Biblical Literalism: Strict interpretations of healing accounts in scripture as prescriptive for modern believers.
5. Separation from the World: Viewing medical institutions as part of a worldly system from which believers should remain separate.

Contemporary Context and Evolution

It's worth noting that positions on medical care often evolve within denominations over time. Many groups that once rejected certain medical procedures have modified their stances in response to both theological reflection and practical experiences. This evolution typically involves reframing medical science as a God-given tool rather than a replacement for divine healing.

The COVID-19 pandemic has particularly challenged some faith communities to reconsider their positions on medical intervention, leading to ongoing theological discussions about the relationship between faith and medicine.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

These religious positions have significant legal and ethical implications, particularly regarding children's medical care. While adults generally have the right to refuse medical treatment for religious reasons, courts have often intervened when children's lives are at risk due to religious objections to medical care.

Conclusion

The vast majority of Christian denominations view modern medicine as compatible with, or even complementary to, their faith. Those that reject or restrict medical care represent a small minority within Christianity, though their positions raise important questions about religious freedom, medical ethics, and the relationship between faith and science.

Understanding these positions requires appreciating the complex interplay between biblical interpretation, theological tradition, and practical experience. As medical science continues to advance, these denominations face ongoing challenges in articulating and defending their positions while caring for their members' wellbeing.