This is yet another installment about how my light blogging friends are still posting higher quality stuff than I.
Jaimie J, a real world friend of mine, has a
post on her
online journal (I'd call it a blog, but it doesn't seem to permalink too well--I can link to the day but not the exact post) discussing a small group her roommate is in:
In her small group, she is encountering ideas on prayer such as, "God knows what's going to happen anyway—why pray?" And "For God to affect a change would entail that He's NOT immutable, which is part of His nature." You might be able to construct an almost consistent position including these attitudes, but it wouldn't conclude with Christianity, which is why I think it's interesting that these folks are in the Christian, Protestant small group. Kind of cool and unexpected.
Full disclosure time: I also know Jaimie's roommate, and I'm in the aforementioned small group, and the frustration Jaimie's roommate is expressing is one I share. And if any of those folks are reading this blog, I apologize in advance if I offend, but you already know how I feel.
As Jaimie's a philosopher, she uses a philosophical argument against this idea:
Anyhow, my first college philosophy prof. had the same hangups (can't remember if he was a soft or hard determinist) about what it means for God to be unchangeable. [Jaimie's roommate] points out that God's character is unchangeable, but he can make decisions and act. I think this is on the right track. If God is a Person (which Christianity claims..and this claim really sets the stage for everything else, esp. faith), then God:
1. Wills (freely)
2. Acts
3. Relates
What does it mean to be a person? That is a crucial question. I think (1)-(3) are important elements and go in order. (Yes, someone can be isolated his entire life and still hit (3) via introspection, relating to self. And: God self-relates via Trinity.) Because one wills, one acts; because one acts, one relates. (Isn't absolute perfection in relation love? Notice how God is Love.) Also, consider what it means to be made "in God's image": could that have anything to do with the fact that we have free will like God?
Then Jaimie starts talking about the de-personalization of society, but I'll stick with the initial argument. There is a tension in Christianity between the Biblical assurance that our prayer is effective and the Biblical caution that God is not beholden to our prayer. God does what he wants. This Bible study fully believes that much. The problem is that the study doesn't seem to believe that God wants to answer our prayers, even though the Bible is just as clear about that. Perhaps they need to reconsider the analogy, used with some frequency in the Bible, that God is our father and we are his young children. A father does not give a three-year-old everything she asks for. On the other hand, nor does he
never give his daughter what she asks for. He decides and does what is best for his daughter, but part of the decision-making process involves considering what his daughter requests. Or, to put it in other words, "Which one of you, if your daugher asks for a loaf of bread, gives her a stone? Or if she asks for a fish, gives her a snake? If you, who are evil, know how to give good things to your children, then how much more does your Father in Heaven give good things to those who ask of him?" (Roughly paraphrased from Jesus's words in Matthew 6:9-11.)
1
I think that the reason Christians don't like to talk about the power of prayer is fear. I've heard people say things along the line, "What if I pray really hard for something and I don't get it, while someone who's not a Christian and never prays does get it? How can I say prayer is effective then?" They're afraid to believe that their prayers influence God, because they're afraid of what it means if God does not answer. Does it mean that God doesn't really care? Does it mean God doesn't hear our prayers? Does it mean that we don't have enough faith? That we're praying wrong? That we aren't really Christians?
Well, it doesn't mean either of the first two. As for the next three, while they're possible, a negative answer doesn't necessarily mean any of those things either. Quite often what it means is that we're asking for the wrong thing: we're asking for stones and snakes, when we should be asking for loaves and fishes. That's okay. Three-year-olds don't always know what's best for them.
An unanswered prayer doesn't prove that prayer is not effective, any more than an answered prayer proves that it is (barring miraculous answers, which tend to be pretty obvious). A better experiment is whether you'd get something if you prayed for it and wouldn't get it if you didn't. There's no way to empirically test that, which is why prayer is an act of faith. We have to believe that when God says he answers prayer, that's exactly what he means.
If prayer is totally ineffective, then it doesn't matter what we ask: stone, serpent, bread, or fish. He's going to give us fish anyway, and we better like it. If we believe that prayer is effective, though, then while he may never give us a stone or a serpent no matter how hard we ask, we really do have a choice between bread and fish.
1I broke with my own preference of using the gender in the Bible, even when it's non-PC, for two reasons. First, because it's easier to keep the child and the father distinct in the analogy when they're different genders, and second, because I couldn't write about that analogy without thinking of the three-year-old I know best, my niece. Although she just turned four in June.