Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Living on a Prayer? or, just Hooked on a Feeling?

Recently, more than one person has mentioned to me the concept of prayer as problematic. I have to agree with them. Not only has Deism made a great surge recently, especially among young people, who do not identify explicitly as Deists, but practically believe such ideas within the label of their various faith traditions (Don't assume this is a new idea here, Deism is a very Western view, many of our American "founding fathers" were Deists, not Christians. See: Thomas Jefferson); many Christians will have reasoned that the idea of intercessory prayer raises many questions of its own:
  • If God is omniscient (all-knowing), why bother to tell God what is wrong?
  • If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), wouldn't there be a "right" path laid out for everything already? Why would God change God's perfect mind?
  • Is prayer just a placebo? What about all those times when prayer seems to "work?" What about all those times when it doesn't "work?"
  • Or to put it another way, I was taught in Confirmation class something along the lines of "God hears all prayers, God is always listening, but that doesn't mean when we ask for something God will say yes." Is this any different from discerning God's will from "feelings" about events? Are we assigning meaning to coincidences as "answers" to our prayers?
I must mention that these are not the only kinds of prayer understood within the Christian traditions. One might center their prayer life on giving thanks, offering praise and other personal acts of worship, as well as the use of prayer in corporate worship services and other church body functions. These, at least for me, seem to function more as statements (or better yet, responses, as God is always the initiator) than questions, in cases when the prayer is not meant primarily to make requests of God.

I held onto the idea above, taught when I was confirmed Presbyterian, for quite awhile. "I can ask God for something, and sometimes I will receive it and sometimes not," I thought. "It's all according to God's will." This may be true, but if God does whatever God thinks is best anyway, from an all-knowing perspective of what is best, then why would my limited perspectives be adequate to make suggestions to God about what I want and need, who I want to be healed, who I want to find a job, who I want to continue living?

In college I did a project on C.S. Lewis, and while I am not one of those who usually falls back on Lewis (also by this time I had been a regular attender at a Brethren in Christ congregation for some time, and I'm not sure how sympathetic Lewis was to the Anabaptists), I did appreciate much of his understanding of prayer. One of his most helpful ideas to me, after presenting the problem as I have done , rests on the understanding of our role and identity (search for the words "making known," chapter IV is good) in prayer. The summary is this: God knows and sees all, and thus we shouldn't assume that we are making God aware of anything. When we pray, however, we consciously address God. We go from Things as in, "God created all things," to Persons, willing that God know us as such. We acknowledge our free will to pray to God, and become, in an oversimplified way, two Persons "meeting" instead of a Thing and a God-Concept. I think it's a good place to start.

As far as whether our prayers change anything, Lewis says this:
Can we believe that God ever really modifies His action in response to the suggestions of men [and women]? For infinite wisdom does not need telling what is best, and infinite goodness needs no urging to do it. But neither does God need any of those things that are done by finite agents, whether living or inanimate. He could, if He chose, repair our bodies miraculously without food; or give us food without the aid of farmers, bakers, and butchers, or knowledge without the aid of learned men; or convert the heathen without missionaries. Instead, He allows soils and weather and animals and the muscles, minds, and wills of men [and women] to cooperate in the execution of His will... It is not really stranger, nor less strange, that my prayers should affect the course of events than that my other actions should do so. They have not advised or changed God' s mind -- that is, His overall purpose. But that purpose will be realized in different ways according to the actions, including the prayers, of His creatures.
(Unfortunately I don't know where this comes from. Also, note that most Christians don't call those who practice other religions "heathens" so much anymore)
Prayer is, above all, an action, just as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned. As God makes us participants in His will (whether God "needs" us to do so is moot in this case) and in ushering in the Kingdom of God, our actions are, I believe, very much like sacraments. God's master plan may be set, but with free will our actions and the paths of our actions in the causal sense are not necessarily so. God works through each of our actions, including prayer, making good out of our mistakes and evils. Augustine said, "God judged it better to bring good out of evil, than to suffer no evil to exist" (anyone know the reference for this?). The concept of good coming from evil is found outside of Christianity as well, namely Buddhist thought.

So the action of our prayers is our participation in God's work, not changing the mind of God, but perhaps shaping the events of the world in the same way as our other actions as the Body of Christ, with Jesus as the Head. And, as Lewis indicated in Letters to Malcolm, we need not worry too much whether we are praying for the right things, because just as we intercede in our prayers for ourselves and others, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us.

Prayer is certainly part of the mystery of faith, but not so mystical and abstract as to render it practically useless if we make it active rather than passive, and part of our personal and communal relationship with the relational Triune God who has been made known to us, just as we relate to anyone else around us in action and direct communication.

8 comments:

  1. Thanks for posting this, I found it really helpful for evaluating my own struggle with how to view prayer (and thanks eee585 for suggesting it).

    I was raised with a similar mindset towards prayer as the Presbyterian tradition in the Southern Baptist tradition: "we should pray but God may or may not choose to answer that specific prayer in the way we expect (God's will)" with the added "so asking for a new bike is not at the top of the list." I stopped thinking this way pretty early on though, as I didn't see the point in always asking for things, especially if there was no proof that any kind of change whatsoever occurred. I also disagreed with the impression I got in Sunday School of always asking and never giving back. What we have to give is imperfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it, right? (sorry sunday school teachers, I'm sure I misinterpreted what you said.) So I only prayed in community settings, like church or at the dinner table. Lately however, prayer seemed to have become more of a "placebo," and I didn't feel like there was any real meaning behind it except to make me feel like I was doing what I was supposed to do.

    I've been thinking about it a lot though and I think I'd have to agree with your notes from Lewis and summary of his points--praying is really what allows us to make our relationship with God feel more personal, like "two Persons meeting." Yes God already knows exactly what I want to say and why I want to say it, but I think there's something to be said for a God that we feel we can address consciously. And it really is a sacrament--we're maintaining a connection to God that God doesn't need us to maintain. I do have some questions though. Why should God want us (or make us) to participate in God's will, especially if God doesn't need us to? God doesn't need us to further the Kingdom, but God can use us anyway, so is it really free will if our unconscious action is used as well as our conscious action? Or is it merely the willingness to be used that is necessary, and from there we get free will? ( I feel like willingness to follow is a basic tenet of any religion, so perhaps this question is unnecessary.)

    (p.s. I do want to further the Kingdom)

    One more thing concerning free will. Augustine said "Love God and do what you will" (not sure of the exact text reference, Dr. Sharon Baker lecture). Do you think this means that if we love God, our actions do not matter? Or does it mean that our actions come out of our love for God? Or does it mean that whatever we do, mistakes or no, is a good thing to God? (going along with your Augustine quote of bringing good out of evil.) Maybe it means all of these things, and perhaps other things too.

    Prayer still feels like a placebo (at least for me, I make no assumptions for anyone else), but this is a similar feeling to what I would have if I called a friend and said "yo, so this certain thing really sucks. Do you mind if I just vent about it for a while?" or "Today was awesome. Just wanted you to know." Those specific cases sound shallow, but prayer is about the relationship. In some cases I think it could define the relationship we have with God. So overall I think you made several good points and I agree with most of them. I'm thinking I'll give prayer another chance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your input. I should make clear that I never got the impression that prayer was all about asking and not giving back; in fact, I think most Sunday School teachers emphasized the opposite, even though often when we pray in church we ask for "prayer requests," so maybe this doesn't come through in practice. So, sorry you had that experience, but it wasn't mine, so I hope you didn't read it as such.

    As far as participating in the Kingdom of God, my working model goes something like this:

    A small child goes out to the garage and her father is working on the car, underneath covered in grease and oil. She asks if she can help him fix the car. Obviously there's no way she could possibly do anything useful, and would probably actually make the work slower and more difficult. But the father stops and teaches her about the wrench he's using, the part he's replacing, let's her hold tools for him, answers her questions the best he can with her limited understanding. There's no practical reason for her to participate, and nothing she could do is going to get the work done, but he let's her help anyway, because he loves her. He gives her a purpose, and there is value in his role as a father because of that.
    God has intrinsic value, there is inherent relationship within the three-in-one giving of themselves to one another and to us. Our response, our participation in this, is valuable in the sense that a child's clumsy work is valuable, in love.

    I don't see your questions as the best interpretation for the Augustine quote you provided. I believe that our actions matter to God, and that we can choose both right and wrong, sometimes do wrong when we intend right, and that God makes all of our wrong right, often in the apocalyptic sense. This isn't through any Natural Law, but through the initiation of the Holy Spirit (whether in a Christian or not). So our actions matter, but since we have free will they do not necessarily come out of love for God, but out of a fallen nature. I don't think God wills evil, but uses it as a tool to make good... after all, you can't have one without the other, like darkness without light.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So in the long run, sin doesn't ruin God's plan, but it can hurt us and hurt others around us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's alright, I didn't read it as your experience, I was merely relating my own as I saw it at the time. This is not to say anything against my sunday school teachers, Southern Baptists, or Presbyterians if one decided to read it as such.

    I also enjoyed your analogy of the father and daughter--I think that's a good way to explain it.

    I also think that good comes from evil, because we wouldn't know that something was good unless we knew something else was evil, and vice versa. I think though that because of our fallen nature, we are able to love God and that our actions can come from this love as well, whether those actions are good or bad.
    I don't see sin as a ruination of God's plan either, but as part of God's plan. It can definitely hurt those around us though, I have to agree.

    ReplyDelete
  5. sorry to rain on your parade, but is it really God's desire to be in a one-on-one personal BFF relationship with us, and what does that mean? is there any evidence in the Scriptures that God wants this? (i'm just asking questions, i don't have any answers.)

    somebody once explained to me that prayer was like a phone conversation with your best friend. but (in my experience, at least) prayer is NOTHING like a phone conversation with a friend because none of my friends are mute. maybe it's just me, but God doesn't speak to me in words and sentences. maybe this issue is more about me hearing from God than it is about prayer.

    i had a friend once who pointed out that in this day and age we are so hungry for human interaction that we make God into an invisible friend of sorts who accompanies us throughout our days and whom we can engage in conversation. is this what we're doing to the Creator of the universe?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the BFF thing is referring to the Father-Daughter illustration, remember that it's only a metaphor, and metaphors are never perfect. For one, the Father in the story is three distinct "people" who are really one "person," so it's nothing like any human person we can observe. For another, that illustration was about participating in the Kingdom, not prayer specifically. For another, I think you might be turning this into a salvation conversation, not a prayer conversation. I'm not trying to compartmentalize things, but while the individuality of our American faith and the binary (saved-on, unsaved-off) way we view salvation is troubling to me, there are a multitude of narratives in the Bible showing individuals praying to God. I think most of the psalms are prayers, and they mostly seem to go in one direction.

    If you read the Lewis text I linked, you'll notice he is quick to point out that the exact way a person interacts with God in prayer is not something we can really get a hold of. The "Person to Person" sort of idea is more about our conscious decision to pray and understand ourselves as persons of will instead of just created objects. It doesn't mean the way we "converse" with God is anything like talking to a close friend, and I don't think I implied that it was as such. God doesn't speak audibly to me in a disembodied voice sort of way, or put sentences directly into my head, as far as I know. I can only think of one person off the top of my head who has claimed to have experienced that. I don't think it would be helpful to expect it.

    Also, are you directly commenting on the entry and following comments, or are you pointing things out that you don't think were addressed?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just had another thought on the topic. Sorry it's from Lewis again, but I have a lot of respect for his prayer theology.
    Take a look at the language Lewis uses as examples of his personal prayer. Note the High Church, High Liturgy sounding terminology. Could using language like this, with its (lofty?) tones of reverence, be helpful in shaping our own minds in prayer? If one has boxed in God's identity as a "buddy" for too long, could this help renew a space of awe and submission for the Creator, the Lord? I've recently struggled with the word "Lord," and if it really has any meaning in a non-feudal, representative republic. Do we know what a Lord is, when we have almost no direct contact with Congresspersons, Governors? Do we know what a King is, a man who's Word becomes Law? Maybe language, even archaic language, can be useful in our prayers, just as much as what we actually express and listen for, to establish relationships. I know in German, the pronoun 'Sie' is used for adults of a higher status, or strangers and acquaintances. 'Du' is the familiar form of 'you.' I think most german speakers pray to God as "Du," so I guess what I'm suggesting would be sometimes praying in the opposite, recognizing the unfamiliarity of God, the infinite, the Lorship, before returning to more familiar terms, recognizing the revelation, the relationship, the incarnation. Maybe we need new language altogether for theology and liturgy and prayer. I wouldn't be the first to suggest it.

    ReplyDelete