Monday, September 17, 2012
The Promise of Prayer
There is perhaps no area of the Christian life in which the modern church is more deficient than the area of prayer. We labor unceasingly in evangelism and outreach, yet see little lasting results. We struggle to survive in an increasingly secular and hostile culture, and are tempted to grow weary and discouraged. Yet we fail to make use of the instrument that the Bible says is the key to success: prayer!
Jesus addressed this issue explicitly right at the very beginning of Christianity. In the Sermon on the Mount He tells us, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" (Matt. 7:7; NKJV). Jesus went on to explain how this works by using an illustration. A human father has a son who asks for bread. In a normal human society (not the corrupt, degenerate one we have today) fathers care about their children. In this instance, then, how would the father respond? By giving his son a stone? Not hardly! The father would care deeply about his son's well-being. If the son needs bread, the father will give it to him if it is in his power to do so. And so it is that if God is our heavenly Father He delights to answer prayer. There is no reason for us to do without things we legitimately need.
There is a condition attached to this, however. We must "ask," "seek," and "knock." God's blessings do not usually fall automatically, unsolicited, from the sky. If they did we would take them for granted and ignore the One Who bestowed them. We must ask for them. "Seeking" and "knocking" in particular imply persistent effort. God wants us to love Him with all of our hearts, with all of our souls, and with all of our strength (Dt. 6:4). To test the sincerity of our devotion God sometimes withholds the blessing until we ask for it in earnest, and then when the answer finally comes, sometimes in the unlikeliest of circumstances, it is evident that it came from God Himself. The problem with the modern church is that it is too apathetic to seek and knock.
Perhaps the most famous modern example of the efficacy of prayer was George Muller. Muller (1805-1898) started an orphanage in Bristol, England, which grew in size to five buildings and housed over 2,000 orphans at a time. Yet Muller never solicited donations from contributors. It call came as answers to prayer. At time his faith was sorely tested, but in the end God always provided. A more recent example of a ministry built on prayer is that of the Brooklyn Tabernacle, led by Jim Cymbala.
During the dark, dreary days when Israel was in exile in Babylon god said, "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." But then He goes on to describe how this will happen: "Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity . . ." (Jer. 29:11-14).
Are we willing to seek God with all of our hearts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bob, you claim prayer has efficacy. You attribute god to be the cause. By what mechanism do you think links this unknown thingie you call god to the (apparently) known effect you attribute to it? After all, if something causes real effect in this universe, then there must be some means, some medium, some force, by which it happens. This makes the effect of prayer not only subject to empirical testing, but allows you the rare opportunity to let the rest of us in on how you determine the link. If you don't (or can't), then you're just blowing hot air... assuming cause for an effect you simply attribute to it. This is called the god of the gaps argument; I call it making shit up because that's exactly what you're doing.
ReplyDeleteThe best explanation I can come up with is the one on my blogpost of August 17 ("Our Daily Bread"). I would add that if God can create matter out of nothing He can control it as well, although the precise mechanism is unknown to us.
ReplyDeleteHow, then, do I know that it happens? Mainly through the striking answers to prayer we receive. It has been the testimony of people down through history that they have seen God answering prayer. The book of Psalms is full of such testimonies.
One of the more interesting ones in modern times comes from no less a person as Benjamin Franklin, who, as you know, was hardly an orthodox theologian. But in his own words here is what he said at the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787:"In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. . ."
How, then, do I know that it happens? Mainly through the striking answers to prayer we receive.
ReplyDeleteThen you are ready to test it under controlled observational conditions, right? You are not doing what other people do with their fake religions and making the (very human) mistake of failing to account for confirmation bias and falling for the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy", right?
Prayer cannot be tested under controlled conditions. God is a personal being and He is sovereign -- He answers prayer as He sees fit. He is not like a giant vending machine in the sky, where you put in your coins and out pops a candy bar.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, evolution cannot be tested under controlled conditions, and that doesn't seem to stop scientists from believing in it, does it?
But then again, evolution cannot...
DeleteWell...
1) This a tu quoque argument. Shame on you.
and
2) It's not true. The Theory of Evolution is useful. It's important in biological studies. Scientists rely on it to do their work. Effectively, evolution gets put to the test all the time. Just like you put electromagnetic theory to the test every time you switch on your computer. The theory of Evolution can be applied practically. Really.
But back to prayer...
Prayer cannot be tested under controlled conditions.
Then how do you know you are not suffering from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy?
Why does your brand name god give you gobs and gobs of evidence (wink, wink) but then go "Na uh, not playing" when protocols are enacted to account for the possibility of the Texas sharpshooter?
Why are you worshipping a magical being that plays peek-a-boo?
Why not either give you no evidence at all that prayer works OR give you all the evidence you could ask for including the kinda important bit of robust examination?
It's almost like prayer doesn't really work and and that you are suffering from the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and don't even realise it. (Which is how the fallacy usually works)
Imagine you are talking to a fraud.
Some priest from some genuinely stupid religion that is clearly false. Pure unadulterated mumbo-jumbo complete with goat entrails and the spitting of chicken blood at the stroke of midnight to appease evil spirits etc.
So, as it turns out, this fraud claims that their prayers work too. (It's hard to find a religion, past or present, that doesn't promote prayer and claim that it's jim-dandy) Lots of cute stories and grandiose claims about how generous and amazing it all is.
Ok.
So, do you see how they could well be suffering from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and that their particular god is not really there?
Given that this could be the case, can you see how they might play the "Prayer cannot be tested under controlled conditions." card too?
A psychic could play the same card.
Or a quack medical doctor preying off the old and weak.
Or someone who worships a jug of milk.
I don't think that answered prayer is necessarily a very strong apologetic argument, although it reinforces faith in someone who already believes. It might convince an agnostic if he sees a really spectacular answer to prayer, but that is unlikely in today's spiritual climate.
ReplyDeleteThe reason you can't verify prayer under controlled laboratory conditions is because it involves a dynamic relationship between two persons (God and the individual doing the praying). God obviously isn't about to volunteer to be the subject of a scientific survey! What a Christian has to learn is how to be subject to God's will, which means He doesn't always answer prayer the way we want Him to. The classic example of this is the apostle Paul, who apparently had some sort of physical affliction (exactly what it was has been the subject of endless speculation and debate, as if it really mattered). "Concerning the matter I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me 'My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.'" (II Cor. 12:8,9). But the Christian hopefully will be able to recognize God's wisdom after the fact, and that suffices for him.
I don't think that answered prayer is necessarily a very strong apologetic argument, although it reinforces faith in someone who already believes.
ReplyDeleteAnd tada! Hello confirmation bias.
The Texas Sharpshooter really believes he's a sharp shooter.
The reason you can't verify prayer under controlled laboratory conditions is because it involves a dynamic relationship between two persons (God and the individual doing the praying).
Do you remember the bit about the fake religion thing?
They could use this argument too.
Either there really and truly are "dynamic relationships" or there are not.
You'd be a good example, I presume?
Plenty of people at your local church too?
God obviously isn't about to volunteer to be the subject of a scientific survey!
Well, there are two problems here...
1) Again, any fake religion could say exactly the same thing.
(Just switch the brand name around)
and
2) You seem seem to be forgetting the supposed results you do already have.
Either prayer does have tangible results or it does not.
Either there is evidence or there is not.
You can't have you cake and eat it too.
Either it's ok for your brand name god to make house calls or it's not ok.
Efficacy: It's not just a pretty word.
The whole "striking answers to prayer we receive."
And the "testimony of people down through history" thing and the book of Psalms etc.
Lots of people pray for all sorts of serious things.
Matters of life and death and love etc.
Either those prayers really and truly help in some real and true and actually helpy kinda way...or people are just muttering to the ceiling and rationalizing the results after the fact.
What a Christian has to learn is how to be subject to God's will, which means He doesn't always answer prayer the way we want Him to.
Yes and now put this in the mouth of a fake priest peddling a fake religion. Can you see the really serious problem?
It's back to the Texas Sharpshooter again.
You believe that praying to you brand name is worthwhile, right?
Your prayers are answered, right?
(...queue the hedging of bets, the wriggling and the endless rationalisations and qualifiers...)
Yes, yes, ok, so maybe they are not answered as in "ANSWERED" but rather they are answered, y'know kinda sort sometimes and sometimes...well...um...it's complicated...but hey!...you brand name still answers your prayers.
Ok, I get it.
Now what about the jug of milk?
That would be silly, right? Why pray to a jug of milk, right?
You can see that if you pray to a jug of milk for your sick grandmother to get better...and then she does, then that doesn't mean your prayers were answered by a jug of milk. That would be silly.
So...