Pastoral Care as a Third Pole: Medical Pluralism Among Christians in Indonesia
Contrary to the assumption that spiritual maturity leads Christians in Indonesia to reject traditional healing, this study of 198 adults reveals that they predominantly navigate medical pluralism by simultaneously embracing naturalistic and personalistic illness explanations, prioritizing a three-way integration of self-care, formal medicine, and pastoral prayer over traditional healers.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When a person falls ill, the path to recovery is rarely a straight line to a doctor's office. In many parts of the world, and particularly in Indonesia, healing is a complex landscape where modern medicine, ancient traditions, and spiritual faith all exist side by side. This coexistence of different healing systems is known as medical pluralism. It means that a single person might visit a clinic for a fever, consult a traditional healer for a lingering pain, and pray for spiritual comfort, often doing all three without seeing a contradiction. For decades, religious leaders and health experts have operated under a specific assumption about how this works within Christian communities: the idea that as a person's faith grows stronger, they naturally reject traditional or "supernatural" healing methods in favor of pure science or pure prayer. This belief suggests that deep spirituality and traditional practices are enemies, with one pushing the other out. Understanding whether this is true matters because it shapes how churches offer care and how health messages are delivered to millions of people who navigate these overlapping worlds every day.
A team of researchers from Christian universities in Indonesia set out to test this assumption by listening directly to the people living these lives. They surveyed 198 adult Christians, mostly Protestant, from eighteen different provinces across the archipelago. The goal was not to prove a theory but to map the reality of how these individuals understand sickness and choose their treatments. They asked participants what they believed caused their illnesses, the order in which they sought help, and what factors influenced their decisions. The results painted a picture that was far more nuanced and surprising than the old assumption allowed.
The study found that these believers do not choose between science and spirit; they hold both at the same time. When asked about the causes of illness, nearly half of the respondents strongly believed in both natural causes, such as viruses or bacteria, and personalistic causes, such as spiritual forces or divine will. Only a tiny fraction, about five percent, held a purely supernatural view of sickness. Instead of seeing these as opposing forces, the participants treated them as different tools for different jobs. If an illness seemed like a medical emergency, they turned to doctors. If the problem felt emotional or spiritual, they turned to prayer. They moved between these systems fluidly, using them together rather than fighting them.
The researchers also tracked the exact order in which people sought help when they felt sick. The pattern followed a clear, stepped progression. The very first thing most people did was try to treat themselves, often by buying medicine at a local shop or waiting to see if the symptoms would pass. If that did not work, they moved to the next step. By the time they reached their third attempt at finding a cure, formal medical care had become the most common choice. However, a significant shift occurred in the role of the church. As the illness persisted, the number of people turning to pastoral prayer grew steadily, rising from a small minority at the start to nearly a third of the group by the third stage. In contrast, traditional healers remained a very small part of the picture, never accounting for more than three percent of any stage of treatment.
This finding upended the original idea that the church stands outside the system of traditional healing. In this community, the church did not replace the traditional healer; it occupied the same structural role. When people combined different systems to treat an illness, they were far more likely to mix modern medicine with church prayer than they were to mix medicine with traditional herbalists. In fact, combining medicine with prayer happened three times more often than combining medicine with traditional treatment. For more than half of the people surveyed, the church had effectively become the third pillar of their healing journey, standing alongside doctors and self-care, while the traditional healer was largely bypassed.
The study also challenged the belief that deeper faith leads to a rejection of traditional practices. The researchers measured the spiritual maturity of the participants and found that the most devout members of the group were actually the most likely to believe in both natural and supernatural causes of illness. Stronger faith did not narrow their worldview; it expanded it. These individuals were comfortable holding a complex view where God could heal through a doctor's medicine just as easily as through a miracle. Furthermore, the study discovered that the few people who did still visit traditional healers were not driven by a specific belief in magic or curses. Instead, their visits were driven by household habits. If a family had a long history of using traditional methods, the individual was more likely to continue that practice, regardless of their personal level of spiritual knowledge or belief.
The reasons people valued each system were also distinct and did not overlap. They praised modern medicine for its speed, its scientific accuracy, and its safety. They valued prayer for the inner peace, hope, and strengthened faith it provided. Traditional medicine, when it was used at all, was valued for practical reasons like low cost or cultural familiarity, but many participants explicitly stated they saw no advantage in it compared to doctors or clergy. When asked what would make them choose a traditional healer over a doctor or a pastor, the majority said nothing would. They viewed the traditional healer as a niche option for very specific, rare situations, not as a general alternative to modern care.
This research, while limited to a specific group of mostly young, educated Christians, offers a clear window into how faith and health actually interact in this part of the world. It suggests that the tension between science and tradition is not a battle that believers must win by choosing a side. Instead, for these communities, healing is a layered experience where different systems serve different needs. The church has stepped into a central role, not as a judge that condemns other methods, but as a partner that walks alongside medicine. The findings imply that to help these communities, health workers and religious leaders should stop trying to convince people to abandon one system for another. Instead, they should recognize that people are already combining these worlds in their own way, guided more by family habits and personal needs than by rigid rules about what is allowed.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.