THE SKEPTIC AS EXPERT WITNESS
IN THE CASE AGAINST THE FAITH HEALERS

William A. Wisdom

In 1998, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prosecuted a pair of faith healers--Daniel Foster and his wife Anne Marie, both in their mid-to-late-twenties--for endangering the welfare of a child: their own two-year-old son Patrick. In this trial I testified for the defense as an expert witness on faith healing in general, and on the specific nature and grounds of the Fosters' belief in particular. My job was to educate the jury about a number of relevant facts within the range of my special expertise. This is a report on what I think are the interesting background and details of the trial, and of my involvement in it, and I will share my observations and reflections as one whom the Commonwealth has certified an expert in this matter. But a number of preliminaries must be dealt with.

First: what faith healing is. Faith healing is defined by my dictionary as a method or practice of treating diseases by prayer and exercise of faith in God. It's this straightforward sense that I have in mind when I call the Fosters faith healers.

As my second preliminary, I want to review the events that led up to my involvement in the case, because they bear importantly on a question that I've frequently been asked: "Why would you, for over forty years a dedicated skeptic and atheist, testify in defense of these parents whose practice of Christianity almost killed their son?" Well, we'll see.

I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy; I have co-authored a textbook in formal logic and published a number of articles in professional journals of philosophy (some of them articles on the philosophy of religion--in particular, on mysticism and on miracles); and I retired in January of last year from Temple University's Philosophy Department after more than 35 years of teaching logic, the philosophy of science (and of pseudo-science), the philosophy of religion, theory of knowledge, metaphysics, and selected figures in the history of philosophy at both the undergraduate and the graduate level. I resolved in retirement to read a number of works that I had not gotten around to before. I've since read, among other things, Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, Homer's Iliad, James Joyce's Ulysses, James Herriot's five reminiscences of veterinary life in Yorkshire, and--most importantly for our present purposes--the Christian New Testament. I had read many parts of it over the years--first as a young Christian fundamentalist, and later as a student of religious belief. But I'd never read the whole thing. Well, I must say that I was astonished by a number of the things I found--things that aren't taught from the pulpit or in Sunday School.

What's relevant here is that while the Scriptures were fresh in my mind, the Fosters were arrested for endangering their son's welfare. As a malignant tumor grew conspicuously and Patrick's physical condition seemed to deteriorate markedly, they refrained from seeking conventional medical help--this on religious grounds- but rather sought prayers, anointing, and the laying on of hands by the members of their denomination, the Faith Tabernacle Congregation. Because the Inquirer reporter couldn't understand why these parents would so risk their son's life, he went to several so-called "authorities" to find out. Who did he talk to? A Presbyterian minister. A Roman Catholic priest. A Baptist deacon. And how did these authorities on Christian belief explain the Fosters' religious practices? To a man it was: "I dunno!" "I can't figure it out!" "Beats me!" This prompted me to write a Letter to the Editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer saying that they can't understand the Fosters' behavior because these mainstream Christian leaders don't believe the Bible--they don't believe what Jesus plainly taught. The New Testament is perfectly clear about the effects of prayer in general, and in particular about what believers should do when one of their number is sick. (I'll tell you exactly what the Bible says on these matters in just a little.)

The Fosters' court-appointed lawyer, equally puzzled by the behavior of his new clients, spotted my letter and recognized me as his Logic teacher of yore. He asked me to get together with him and his team--initially just to help them understand what was going on. After several hours of discussion, they felt that it would help their case considerably if I would explain to the jury what I had explained to them about the nature and grounds of the Fosters' beliefs and practices. I readily agreed to do so. Why? Because I realized that this atheist--I--and the Fosters wanted exactly the same thing: for people to understand what it means to be a Bible-believing Christian. Our interests were identical. I never hesitated to agree.

In May of 1997, a social worker at the Department of Human Services investigated an anonymous telephone tip that the Fosters' son Patrick was not receiving medical care for what seemed to be a serious physical problem. While they were obviously very conscientious parents otherwise--there has never been any criticism of their care for their other two children--the Fosters acknowledged that, because of their religious beliefs, they had not sought and would not seek the intervention of doctors for Patrick. Upon observation of the child, the social worker urgently recommended that they take Patrick to a doctor. The next day the social worker learned that the Fosters had not heeded his advice, got a restraining order from Family Court, and with two police officers and another social worker removed Patrick from his home and took him to St. Christopher's Hospital for Children. He looked in dreadful shape: he was gaunt, lethargic, and apparently in pain. One eye and one hand were swollen; his face was covered with mucus, saliva, and a rash; and a lump protruded from his abdomen. The Director of Clinical Oncology at St. Christopher's, who treated Patrick, judged him to be within 24 hours of death. A malignant Wilms' tumor--the most advanced case the doctor had ever seen--had grown from one kidney to the liver and on up a large abdominal vein into the heart, severely restricting blood circulation. Though inoperable in the state he found it, it was subsequently brought to operability by chemotherapy and intensive life support.

The parents had first noticed the lump about two months earlier, at which time, the doctor felt, Patrick's prognosis would have been much better. It would even have been better when the conspicuous signs of illness first appeared, about two weeks prior to hospitalization. Still, an operation was performed to remove the malignancy, and Patrick's condition improved dramatically. By order of Family Court, he was placed in the custody of the Department of Human Services, which put Patrick in the care of Daniel's brother and sister-in-law--not members of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation. He has daily unsupervised visits with his parents. (Patrick has been thriving, and for quite a while it looked like he would make a complete recovery. I'm sorry to report that, as of this writing, a tumor has recently been detected in his lung, for which he is expected to receive chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and possibly a bone marrow transplant. So he's not out of the woods yet.)

Now you may get the impression from the preceding account that these parents stood by doing absolutely nothing while their son sickened to the point of death. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Recognizing that their son was ill, they immediately and persistently did a variety of things on his behalf. They prayed fervently for his recovery. They arranged for the elders of their church to anoint Patrick with oil. And they had members of their church pray for Patrick and lay their hands on him.

Still, in a preliminary hearing in the Court of Common Pleas in June of 1997, the Assistant District Attorney referred to this as a case of "child neglect" and even "child abuse". But these were not the formal charges. The judge ruled that both parents would stand trial on the charge of endangering the welfare of a child--a felony (criminal) charge in this case and not a misdemeanor because if the charges were true, the parents neglected their duty of care not just once but over a significant period of time. This would be the trial in which I participated.

I did not hear the prosecutor's case, because the witnesses were "sequestered". This means that the witnesses could not hear preceding testimony, but were allowed to join the spectators only after their own testimony was finished. Still, I've given you the essence of the case against the Fosters.

I was the first defense witness. The principle attorney for the defense asked the Court that I be qualified as an expert witness--in Christian belief generally, but particularly in the nature and grounds of the beliefs and practices of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation. I reviewed my fifty years of relevant training and experience, and answered what seemed to me very sharp opposing questions from the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the case. Over her objections, I was qualified by the Court as an expert witness. As I get it, this means that the jury was to regard both my statements of fact and my expert opinions as particularly authoritative. (The opinions of other witnesses are not admissible testimony.)

The core of my testimony was that, as members of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, the Fosters were following the plain, simple, clear teaching of the Bible in general and of Jesus in particular on three matters: (1) the efficacy of prayer, (2) the proper treatment of the sick, and (3) the relative trustworthiness of God and human beings.

(1) In the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly says that God--or Jesus himself--will give us everything we ask for. It's that simple. The mainstream Christian denominations say things like: "God always answers prayer, but the answer is sometimes 'No'." Or: "God will give us what we ask for, so long as it conforms to His will." Or: "God answers prayer not by giving us what we ask for but by giving us what is best for us." But that's not what Jesus said. He said that God will give us everything we ask for. Because this is so contrary to our everyday understanding of the Christian doctrine on prayer, I read for the jury a number of different passages making the point. "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 18:19) "All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matt. 21:22) "What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." (Mark 11:24) "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." (John 14:13-14) "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." (John 16:23) That's what Jesus teaches about prayer. And the Fosters believe it's true.

(2) The New Testament is equally clear on how to deal with illness. The risen Jesus sends his disciples out to "preach the gospel to every creature", with the assurance that baptized believers will be saved. He lists a number of signs that will follow them that believe: among other things, that "they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:17-18) That's what Jesus promised. And we get this in the epistles: "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up....Pray for one another, that ye may be healed." (James 5:14-16) The Fosters, like the other members of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, simply believe this because it's God's Word.

(3) If you're tempted to ask whether the Bible teaches us not to seek the aid of medical doctors, consider the following, against the background of what the Bible does teach us about prayer and healing: "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord....Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." (Jer. 17:5,7) Jesus seems to make the same point, without the curse, in the following passage. Again, in the light of what He says about prayer and about healing, ask yourself what this says about whether or not we should appeal to doctors for medical help: "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on....[He goes on to say that you're obviously more valuable than the birds and flowers, whom God takes care of.] Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?...For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matt. 6:25-33--cf. Luke 12:22-31) The Fosters believe these things because God said so.

In summary, I testified that the Fosters were not following some exotic cult or some bizarre interpretation of Scripture, but rather were obeying the teachings of the Christian Bible in the simplest and most straightforward sense. I noted that theirs is a minority view because, for whatever reasons, very few Christians are willing to believe the plain meaning of their Holy Writ. (The prosecutor waived her right to cross-examine me. Later she cheerfully explained: "You didn't think that I'd cross swords with you, did you?")

After less than two hours of deliberation, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty for both parents on two felony charges: endangering the welfare of a child, and conspiring to do so. I was disappointed. But their lawyers told me that no one had ever won such a case in Pennsylvania. (As I understand the recent history of The Faith Tabernacle Congregation in the courts, five of their children died of measles in Philadelphia about five years ago. No one was prosecuted. Then about two years ago, two children in one family in Altoona died, and the parents were successfully prosecuted for homicide in the death of the second. Appeals there have been exhausted, and the parents are expected to serve jail time.)

On September 24, 1998, the Fosters were both sentenced to the longest terms of probation possible under the law: fourteen years each (up to 7 years on each count). Rather strict conditions of probation were imposed, the violation of which could land the Fosters in jail. Patrick's status quo would continue. But the other two children--who had not been an issue at all up until this time--would have to be given conventional medical care under the observation of a licensed pediatrician, a probation officer, and a social worker from the Department of Human Services. The judge told the parents that for fourteen years they would not be permitted to make their own independent decisions about the health of their children. The conviction and sentences will be appealed.

The prosecutor had, I thought, been rather careful to say that the Fosters were being prosecuted not for what they believed but for what they did--or, in this case, what they failed to do. (The law says that they have a "duty of care", which they allegedly neglected.) Interviewed afterwards, one member said the jury found the Fosters guilty because they "ignored" Patrick's need for help. I have already pointed out that this is simply false; and the juror knew full well that it was false.

Another juror was even clearer about their grounds for conviction. According to the Inquirer, he said that "[the] jurors hoped the verdicts would 'send a message' to the 100-year-old faith-healing congregation...to change its position on medical care for children. 'We had a lot of trouble with their beliefs in this century....The hope of the jury was to send that particular message to the church: They have to make some sort of adjustment to their faith so as not to continue to endanger children.' " I do believe that the jury wanted to punish the Fosters for their beliefs, in an effort to get them and their congregation to stop obeying God's word. (Understand: I'm not saying that they didn't violate the law. But I don't believe that they were convicted for violating the law; I believe they were convicted for following Jesus.)

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the law may neither establish any religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. We know that there are acceptable qualifications to this: that the law can prohibit the free exercise of some religious beliefs. However sincere they may be, Mormons may not practice polygamy, and Satanists may not practice human sacrifice. (I will explain the law on this matter later.) Still, we must take the greatest care when we interfere with the free exercise of religious belief. The freedom to believe something without the freedom to act on that belief--to exercise that belief--is surely empty. I do think that the case of the Fosters is a tough one. But I have come to the opinion that they should never have been prosecuted, much less convicted.

Both the prosecutor and, apparently, the jurors felt that the case was ultimately intended to protect Patrick--and no doubt other children in the Faith Tabernacle Congregation. But a criminal court is not the place to attend to the welfare of children. There is another court system--Family Court--whose function this is. Family Court did its job when it ordered Patrick removed from his home, and authorized a large number and wide variety of specific medical procedures for him. This court system worked well, so far as Patrick's welfare was concerned. But then somebody in the District Attorney's office decided that the Fosters should be made to suffer even more anguish than they already had: they should be branded criminals and punished accordingly.

Now you know perfectly well that the charge of endangering the welfare of a child is not intended for people like the Fosters. Just imagine a paradigm case of endangering the welfare of a child, and ask yourself how much it resembles the Foster case. In my own paradigm case, for example, I see alcoholic parents leaving their children home alone in a filthy tenth floor apartment with the windows wide open while they take off to Atlantic City for a weekend of mid-winter boozing and gambling. That may well be criminal behavior. But the Fosters were quiet, thoroughly decent, conscientious, loving homemakers whose only mistake was to trust Jesus.

Punishment in this case is cruel. Absolutely no socially useful purpose can be served by convicting the Fosters of a crime. It's surely not going to change their minds. (Can you imagine them saying to one another: "Oh! Twelve Philadelphians in 1998 say that God's Word is false. They must be right!") And it's not going to change Patrick's situation one iota: he has been and remains a "ward of the state". As for the other two children, we have to remember that their well-being was never questioned. In a pre-emptive strike, the court has imposed conventional medical care on them as well--not because the Fosters have neglected their duty of care for them, but in anticipation of the parents' committing another crime. This seems clearly to be "prior restraint", so to speak, of their religious liberty. There must surely be some other way for the state to look out for the welfare of these two children short of the heavy-handed if not illegal solution that's been reached.

Now I'm not saying that the members of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation don't need correction: they quite obviously do. But hitting them with a stick will do no good. What they need is not punishment but education. They need to acquire a higher respect for critical thinking, and to learn the skills that that involves. The foundation of their approach to illness is so obviously false that one wonders how they can persist in their position. What, for example, is more straightforwardly testable, and obviously false, than claims like "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it you", or "They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover"? But the Faith Tabernacle Congregation seems to hold that when the plain testimony of the Bible conflicts with the plain testimony of our senses, we should believe the Bible, because it is God's Word. (The senses, after all, are often deceptive; God never is.) I have no idea how to dislodge someone from this view. But such dislodging is surely what the Fosters and their friends need.

APPENDIX

Michael Fried, in a recent Skeptic magazine article, explains the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith thus: "The Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to worship as they choose. The provision does not, however, require the government to grant special exemptions from laws of general applicability merely because the neutral law happens to burden the religious practice of some denomination or sect." ("The Free Exercise of Pseudoscience", Vol. 6 No. 1)

In the October 1998 issue of our newsletter, Phactum (IV,4), Dr. Stephen Barrett writes:

"Laws to protect children from medical neglect in the name of healing should be passed and enforced. In states that allow religious exemptions from medical neglect, these exemptions should be revoked. Maybe the practice of faith healing on minors should be illegal."

Some brief comments. There are now laws to protect children from medical neglect--I dare say in every state. They are obviously enforced in Pennsylvania--which state clearly does not allow exemption from these laws for faith healing. And finally, the prospect of criminalizing the practice of faith healing on minors is grotesque. Can you picture Dr. Barrett's storm troopers hauling a whole congregation off to jail for praying that a young member recover from chickenpox? Or imprisoning a mother who asks God to heal her daughter's poison ivy? Making faith healing on minors illegal surely would be unconstitutional, as would banning any particular religious practice for the mere purpose of stamping it out.

Copyright © 2003, William A. Wisdom