ASA Adjudication on Medway Revival Fellowship

Ad

A circular for the Revival Fellowship was headlined "YOUR INVITATION TO COME AND SEE". Text on the back of the circular included "After prayer, Russell was healed from a severe food allergy and Autism. He now leads a healthy and completely normal life", "In 1984, Granville suffered another brain haemorrhage and died 3 times. After prayer, he came alive. He still lives today", "Trevor & Leila were told that their newborn girl was 'incompatible with life' and would not survive. Impossible is possible with God", "After tragically losing her only brother through drug addiction, Rachael was born again and healed of a broken heart" and "A severe car accident had Dan in agony for four years. He was instantly healed of a broken vertebrae upon baptism in water".

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the circular:

1. was irresponsible because it could discourage essential medical treatment for serious medical conditions; and

2. exploited the vulnerable because it invited people to attend the meetings in the hope of receiving physical healing.

Response

1. & 2.

The Medway Revival Fellowship (Medway Revival Fellowship) said that the hope for physical healing was a key part of their theology and that, alongside spiritual and emotional healing, it was a fundamental part of their faith. They said they did not believe that it was irresponsible or exploitative to share testimonials for physical healing from the Bible and that they had a duty and a right to tell other people about it. They stated that the references to physical, emotional and spiritual healing referred to in the ad were genuine and that they gave hope to readers who would understand the examples as instances of Gods healing to which many would respond positively. They said that, whilst genuine, the references to healing were intended to encourage hope that God could heal and were not intended to imply that physical healing could be guaranteed as a result of attending church meetings. They believed that most people who saw the leaflet would not be discouraged from seeking essential medical treatment for serious medical conditions and that there was no implication that those featured in the ad had not received medical care. Medway Revival Fellowship believed the ad would not exploit the vulnerable as there were no charges or obligations for recipients of the leaflet to seek further information or attend church meetings, but stated that, to avoid any doubt, they were happy to include text in the ad to make clear to any vulnerable person that it was God who healed and that the hope for physical healing through God should not prevent them from seeking medical treatment.

Assessment

1. & 2 Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that Medway Revival Fellowship sought to promote their faith and the hope for physical healing by God through the claims in their ad. However, we were concerned that the testimonials, which included references to healing through "prayer" and "baptism" from serious medical conditions or injury such as "autism", "brain haemorrhage" and "broken vertebrae" would be understood by its target audience, and particularly those who were suffering from physical illness or injury, as an invitation to attend a meeting in the expectation of receiving healing from that condition or its symptoms. We acknowledged Medway Revival Fellowships offer to include text in the ad making clear that it was their belief that God healed and that this should not prevent readers from receiving medical treatment. However, we considered that it would not prevent readers from interpreting the testimonials making references to physical healing in the ad as claims that were likely to set up particular expectations about the outcome of attending a meeting. We understood that believers had faith that God healed. However, we concluded that the references to relief or cure from physical ailments as presented in the ad were likely to mislead about the nature of such religious healing and could discourage people, and particularly the vulnerable, from seeking essential medical treatment for serious medical conditions

On these points the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 3.1, 3.7 (Misleading advertising), 12.1 and 12.2 (Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)