Right after I became a Christian I went on a trip with some friends to Europe. It was a great time, mostly because it was led by Mr. Adamson, my 11th grade English teacher. Adamson was a great teacher and also was very friendly and approachable. Outside of teaching English he also was the staff advisor on the student newspaper at my highschool, The Green Raider, and I was known to spend many 4th periods hanging out with friends and also Adamson in the Green Raider room and also roaming the halls on "official business". While in Europe, I happened to be talking to Adamson about matters of faith and he jokingly mentioned Haile Selassie. During the course of the discussion, he said something that has stayed with me for some time. He said that people do everything in their own interest, in one way or another. I am not sure if I believe this or not, but the thought and the moment has stayed with me for a long time.
This week we will informally discuss the concept of faith and works. The bible has much to say on this topic:
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James 2
Yet the passage in James seems to conflict with what Paul says in the oft-quoted Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
1. Do you think it is possible to do unselfish acts?
2. What role do you think works have in salvation, if any?
3. How should faith and works interact?
4. Is there any merit in works when a person's faith is waning or insincere?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Ethics of Passion
by Alan Boswell
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. – I Corinthians 13
Kant
To be kind where one can is duty, and there are, moreover, many persons so sympathetically constituted that without any motive of vanity or selfishness they find an inner satisfaction in spreading joy, and rejoice in the contentment of others which they have made possible. But I say that, however dutiful and amiable it may be, that kind of action has no true moral worth. It is on a level with [actions arising from] other inclinations, such as the inclination to honor, which, if fortunately directed to what in fact accords with duty and is generally useful and thus honorable, deserve praise and encouragement but no esteem.
It is in this way, undoubtedly, that we should understand those passages of Scripture which command us to love our neighbor and even our enemy, for love as an inclination cannot be commanded. But beneficence from duty, also when no inclination impels it and even when it is opposed by a natural and unconquerable aversion, is practical love, not pathological love; it resides in the will and not in the propensities of feeling, in principles of action and not in tender sympathy; and it alone can be commanded.
Morality Dutiful action The less “inner satisfaction,” the better
Kierkegaard
When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love.
Let others complain that the times are wicked. I complain that they are paltry; for they are without passion. The thoughts of men are thin and frail like lace, and they themselves are feeble like girl lace-makers. The thoughts of their hearts are too puny to be sinful. For a worm it might conceivably be regarded a sin to harbor thoughts such as theirs, not for a man who is formed in the image of God.
It is subjectivity that Christianity is concerned with, and it is only in subjectivity that its truth exists, if it exists at all; objectively, Christianity has no existence.
Truth is subjectivity Parable of the pagan Passionate pagan before idol is closer to the truth than the dispassionate church worshiper.
Morality Character Inwardnesss Subjectivity
Discussion Questions
Does Christ / New Testament preach Kantian ethics, Kierkegaardian ethics, or somewhere in between?
What are the underlying philosophic foundation of an ethics of reason? ethics of passion?
Are an ethics of passion and an ethics of reason mutually exclusive?
Which side of this debate is currently the dominant one in our society today? in the American church today?
What are the implications of this debate upon our current system of government and legal system?
If one assumes that “God is dead,” what happens to each one of these spheres of ethics? Does this matter to the debate?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Postmodernism
A guy was tried as an accessory to murder because he watched as his best friend murdered a girl and he did nothing to stop it. When he was asked why he didn’t do anything, he said it was because he knew his friend and he didn’t know the girl.
A large evangelical church declared that they were going to pray for the salvation Jewish people during a time of Jewish holy days. The media and Jewish leaders said that this was intolerant and encouraged hate crimes against Jews.
There was girl at a university who was taking a test that asked the meaning of the word juxtapose. She didn’t know the answer, so she wrote “‘Juxtapose’ means ‘cat.’ Since Heidegger said that reality is as we perceive it, this is what ‘juxtapose’ means to me.” since she had no other ideas. She received a perfect score and the professor praised her for her “insightful” answer.
These instances among others are what Millard J. Erickson describes in his book, The Postmodern World, as moments where the postmodernist culture strongly influences what happened.
In the first scene, postmodern ethics are illustrated. To the guy on trial, it was more important that his friend was doing something he wanted to do than it was that he was killing someone. In the second, a postmodern view raises issues about religion. In the third example, the postmodern view that truth is completely dependent on the individual’s opinion.
Postmodernism relates to the idea that there is no absolute truth, meaning that truth is determined by the individual or the group.
Questions that postmodernism raise:
How does postmodernism affect ethics?
If truth is relative to the individual, what is the point of someone studying to become an expert in their field? If the opinion of someone who has studied is equal to someone who has not studied, why study?
What is the point of paying tuition to learn that you create your own truth?
What is useful about postmodernism?
Monday, February 26, 2007
Christianity and Environmentalism
blog by Chris Armstrong
I was never really very interested in the Environment. I grew up in suburbia and while I enjoyed times in wooded areas and forests, I never really experienced genuine untouched nature. Trash was everywhere. Behind my house is a nature reserve and even there I could find old tires and empty oil containers. While as I grew up I began to appreciate the environment, I also understood that jobs and resources were important too.
Sadly, it was not an experience with majestic, untouched nature that changed my mind about the environment. Last fall, I needed to do an internship. I applied to and was interviewed by the National Association of Evangelicals. I didn't know too much about the organization, but one thing that I learned was that they were heavily involved in protecting the environment. Despite my best efforts I felt a pang of worry. Though I was neutral to the environment, hearing that others were activists for it made me conjure the image of the radical left. As I learned more and more about Creation Care, a christian environmental initiative, I felt more and more strongly that protecting the environment was the right thing to do.
To say that there is not consensus on this issue within the Christian community would be an understatement. Many feel that while stewardship is an important call for humans, that the Earth was given to man to rule over. If man chooses to pollute the earth, that is within his ability as God has given man domain. Others in the christian community feel that though the environment is certainly important, that it is the responsibility to protect jobs and well-being of people, rather than trees.
1. What is the spiritual component to this issue, in your opinion? Is the issue of the environment a moral one?
2. Recently, many have begun to wonder whether Christians and Environmentalists would be able to bridge the massive gulf between them to work together on this issue. Do you think that such cooperation of vastly different groups is possible?
3. Many that question christians on this issue raise the point of those that believe that rapture is immanent. Do you feel that this issue has a place in the debate of spirituality and the environment? If the rapture were immanent, would your view of environmental responsibility change?
4. Given limited resources and attention spans, should christians devote significant time and energy to this issue? In the face of AIDS, widespread world hunger, and poverty, can money and resources spent working on the environment be better allocated to another issue?
5. With taxes for other government programs so high, what price should people be expected to pay for a clean environment?
I was never really very interested in the Environment. I grew up in suburbia and while I enjoyed times in wooded areas and forests, I never really experienced genuine untouched nature. Trash was everywhere. Behind my house is a nature reserve and even there I could find old tires and empty oil containers. While as I grew up I began to appreciate the environment, I also understood that jobs and resources were important too.
Sadly, it was not an experience with majestic, untouched nature that changed my mind about the environment. Last fall, I needed to do an internship. I applied to and was interviewed by the National Association of Evangelicals. I didn't know too much about the organization, but one thing that I learned was that they were heavily involved in protecting the environment. Despite my best efforts I felt a pang of worry. Though I was neutral to the environment, hearing that others were activists for it made me conjure the image of the radical left. As I learned more and more about Creation Care, a christian environmental initiative, I felt more and more strongly that protecting the environment was the right thing to do.
To say that there is not consensus on this issue within the Christian community would be an understatement. Many feel that while stewardship is an important call for humans, that the Earth was given to man to rule over. If man chooses to pollute the earth, that is within his ability as God has given man domain. Others in the christian community feel that though the environment is certainly important, that it is the responsibility to protect jobs and well-being of people, rather than trees.
1. What is the spiritual component to this issue, in your opinion? Is the issue of the environment a moral one?
2. Recently, many have begun to wonder whether Christians and Environmentalists would be able to bridge the massive gulf between them to work together on this issue. Do you think that such cooperation of vastly different groups is possible?
3. Many that question christians on this issue raise the point of those that believe that rapture is immanent. Do you feel that this issue has a place in the debate of spirituality and the environment? If the rapture were immanent, would your view of environmental responsibility change?
4. Given limited resources and attention spans, should christians devote significant time and energy to this issue? In the face of AIDS, widespread world hunger, and poverty, can money and resources spent working on the environment be better allocated to another issue?
5. With taxes for other government programs so high, what price should people be expected to pay for a clean environment?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Liberation Theology & Social Christianity
blog by Trip Glazer
I.
Liberation theology is a school of theology that focuses on Jesus Christ as not only the Redeemer but also the Liberator of the Oppressed. It is predominantly practiced in the “periphery” of the Catholic Church’s jurisdiction, i.e. the Third World, but it enjoys supporters world wide.
Many argue that its origins lie in the writings of the German Lutheran theologian Grant Bro-- er, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) is perhaps a more precise derivation of its core principles. Before delving into these “core principles” it is necessary to define a few terms (for you non-Catholics, i.e. heretics).
II.
1. An Ecumenical Council or general council is a meeting of the bishops of the whole church convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice. The numbering of these councils differs between the Eastern and Western churches, due to fundamental dogmatic discrepancies (cf. John of Damascus versus Augustine), but Vatican II is the twenty-first for the Western, Roman Catholic Church.
2. A liturgy comprises a prescribed ceremony, according to the traditions of a particular group or event. Vatican II was significant in the development of the Catholic liturgy in that it allowed for the use of vernacular languages in the performance of the liturgy, whereas before this Latin was used exclusively:
"Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4–5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14).
3. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) (Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei), also known as the Holy Office, is the oldest of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia. Among the most active of these major Curial departments, it oversees Catholic doctrine. The CDF is the modern name for what used to be the Roman Inquisition and still holds the same goal: to protect and advocate faithful Catholic teaching on matters of faith and morals and to punish whom they consider as offenders. As prefect of this office, now-Pope Benedict XVI (then Joseph Ratzinger) was the infamous opponent of Liberation Theology.
III.
What is Liberation Theology?
In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty and human rights. The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to approach theology (i.e. speak of God) from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community. According to Jon Sobrino, S.J., the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor".
Emphasis is placed on those parts of the Bible where Jesus' mission is described in terms of liberation and as a bringer of justice, e.g. Matthew 26:51-52 [1]. This passage is interpreted as a call to arms to carry out the Christian mission of justice -- literally by some. A number of liberation theologians, though not all, also add certain Marxist concepts such as the doctrine of perpetual class struggle.
Liberation theology also emphasizes individual self-actualization as part of God's divine purpose for humankind. In other words, we are given life so that we may pursue it to its full potential. Therefore, obstacles or oppressions put in our path must be resisted and abolished.
In addition to teaching at some Roman Catholic universities and seminaries, liberation theologians can often be found in Protestant-oriented schools. They tend to have considerable contact with the poor and interpret sacred scripture partly based on their experiences in this context -- what they label praxis. (Thanks Wikipedia!)
The focus on the humanity of Jesus is by no means unique to Liberation Theology; the so-called Antiochene School of theology of the early Church theologized in much the same way. A similar delineation between a focus on the humanity and divinity of Christ could be made of the Petrine (Mark, Luke, Catholic Epistles) and Pauline (Matthew, John, Paul’s Epistles) teachings, respectively.
Liberation Theology is considered an offshoot of the larger school of thought, Social Christianity, which focuses on how Christianity influences society. Other offshoots include Theological Realism, Radical Orthodoxy, and Christian Socialism.
IV.
Despite the generous ambition of the Liberation Theologians, they soon got themselves into trouble with Rome. On the one hand, they felt that Vatican II favored their approach to theology (A new approach to do interpretation was approved by the bishops at Vatican II. The Church was to continue to provide versions of the Bible in the "mother tongues" of the faithful, and both clergy and laity were to continue to make Bible study a central part of their lives). On the other, Vatican II reaffirmed the internal power structure of the Church hierarchy, granting greater power to the bishops and pope. Therefore when Joseph Ratzinger silenced the teachings of Brazilian Liberation Theologian Leonardo Boff, the future of Liberation Theology was uncertain.
The silencing was not due, however, to doctrinal discrepancy, but rather to theological foundation. If I may say so (Grant will surely disagree), the theology of Ratzinger (and, subsequently, that of the Church) rouged itself up to woo philosophy while Liberation Theology rouged itself up to woo sociology (forgive me for the Kierkegaardian allusion). Ratzinger felt that Liberation Theology dangerously led theology away from its true object, a Catholic and Apostolic understanding of God as revealed in the scriptures.
Many Liberation Theologians have pled the “St. Augustine/St. Francis/St. Bonaventure” line of thought, to be distinguished from the drastically opposed “[St.] Aristotle/St. Thomas” line of thought, a claim I personally find fallacious. Augustine, after all, warned Christians of the sinful effects of pity. One should not pity a man for his material conditions, he said, but only for his distance from God.
V.
Probably the most notable moment in Liberation Theology history was 24 March 1980, when Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated while saying Mass, the day after giving a radio announcement in which he asked soldiers to disobey orders to kill civilians.
The interrogation of Boff by Ratzinger is another.
VI.
Questions:
1. One tenet of Liberation Theology is that “the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace.” Give Grant the floor on this one.
2. How might Liberation Theology be construed as a Bonhoefferian theology? Again, Grant.
3. Where should the locus of the focus (hocus pocus) of a Christian’s attention lie? On oneself, on others, or on God (again, to say “others” is very un-Augustinian)?
4. Do Christians have a greater responsibility to the poor than the rich?
5. Could material conditions possibly reflect one’s favor with God?
6. To what extent should an understanding of JC differ from culture to culture?
Monday, February 05, 2007
On Prayer
On Friday night, Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship had, in my opinion, one of its most powerful annual events. As a fellowship, we fasted from our sleep and prayed through the night in a prayer vigil of sorts. We spent time in personal reflection and contemplation, time in praise and worship to God, and time praying for our nation and world.
The experience was a fulfilling one for me in ways that it hasn’t been in the past. Usually, I find that this event has the potential to disturb the emotions and have me crying and sentimental, unfortunately mostly for sentiment’s sake rather than for deep passion or desired change that will last and sustain me through time. However, during this time of prayer, I had a different strategy. I came late to the event so that I prayed for others rather than for myself because I’d missed the part of the evening that was structured for individual prayer. I reasoned that I pray enough desperate prayers for myself throughout the day, anything from “God, I love you” to “God, I really don’t know what to say in this Tuesday Night Discussion Group Blog, and it’s making me nervous.” Throughout the night, I was mindful of the needs of others and was edified and encouraged by praying with the group of my friends and fellow believers. At one point, though, I felt compelled to leave the corporate experience and then spent time alone in communication with God about events in my life and other concerns that wouldn’t be taken up in a larger group. I set some goals during that time that will shape the course of my semester and my life, and I’m convinced that those goals are of divine origin in some sense of the word divine and of the word origin.
But contemplating Friday night’s events leads me to many questions: What caused that compulsion to separate myself? What motivates me to pray in the first place? How can I hear from God? And how do I know that what I do hear is accurately heard?
Unpacking this event in my mind makes me think that I know very little of what actually went on Friday night, and I understand very little about the nature of prayer, though I try my best to make it a regular practice in my life.
What is prayer?
When I think about it, I understand that if you weren’t raised with prayer it must be a rather odd concept. Individual prayer wherein one claims to speak to God, perhaps even out loud, while on his or her knees or pacing, sitting or standing, with arms flailed towards the sky, entire body prostrate to the floor, can be daunting, seem like behavior acquired in mental or physical illness. I can only imagine the discomfort of seeing this undertaken in a large group. If you don’t understand what’s going on, it must be difficult to interpret the experience.
However, I wonder how many of those of us who pray understand what is going on when we pray or how we would describe the experience and give it a linguistic analytic presence in conversation. I have a hunch that prayer isn’t something you create easy paradigms for, that it isn’t something one can understand easily by a definition. Rather, one needs to practice prayer to understand prayer, and to continue in prayer to progress to understanding new dimensions of prayer over time.
The discourse that surrounds the practice of prayer is also interesting in terms of understanding the nature of the act. Here are some definitions of prayer gleaned from the internet:
“What is prayer? Prayer is our direct line with heaven. Prayer is a communication process that allows us to talk to God! He wants us to communicate with Him, like a person-to-person phone call. Cell phones and other devices have become a necessity to some people in today’s society. We have blue tubes, blackberries, and talking computers! These are means of communication that allow two or more people to interact, discuss, and respond to one another.”
“Prayer is the practice of the presence of God. It is the place where pride is abandoned, hope is lifted, and supplication is made.”
“Prayer is conversation with God; the intercourse of the soul with God, not in contemplation or meditation, but in direct address to him.”
“Prayer is doxology, praise, thanksgiving, confession, supplication and intercession to God. "When I prayed I was new," wrote a great theologian of Christian antiquity, "but when I stopped praying I became old." Prayer is the way to renewal and spiritual life. Prayer is aliveness to God. Prayer is strength, refreshment, and joy. Through the grace of God and our disciplined efforts prayer lifts us up from our isolation to a conscious, loving communion with God in which everything is experienced in a new light. Prayer becomes a personal dialogue with God, a spiritual breathing of the soul, a foretaste of the bliss of God's kingdom.” (Greek Orthodox archdiocese of America)
"Prayer is spiritual communication between man and God, a two-way relationship in which man should not only talk to God but also listen to Him. Prayer to God is like a child's conversation with his father. It is natural for a child to ask his father for the things he needs." (Billy Graham)
Prayer is an effort to communicate with God, or to some deity or deities, or another form of spiritual entity, or otherwise, either to offer praise, to make a request, or simply to express one's thoughts and emotions. (Wikipedia)
Now, I’m not entirely sure what a blue tube is, but I know that these definitions seem to center around one dominant metaphor for prayer -- prayer as a conversation or communication with God. This metaphor is popular and for good reason. When I use my language to reach out to another entity, I attempt communication with it, create dialogue or discourse. But even though this metaphor is popular, I can’t claim to understand it fully. Does God always speak back to me? Why is it always so seldom with words that He speaks? Good communication certainly isn’t just one-sided.
There are those, of course, who believe prayer to be a wish-fulfillment within our souls, and thus the conversation is really an inner dialogue with intentions we’ve always had and thoughts we just needed to be able to create perceived distance from in order to access. It’s tempting to believe this, when God can’t be seen, and when He has no physical voice that we can hear.
Here’s what I know from my experience: In prayer, I speak with either silent or spoken words. But I don’t know that I would have to. The Bible says that “the Spirit intercedes for us with groans no words can express.” I get a response from God that I can interpret sometimes, other times I get a response from God that I can’t understand or discern. Responses come from friends or family members, or they come from within my being (though they are certainly not my thoughts), or experiences tell me that my prayer was heard and answered. I hear taught in churches that God gives three answers to prayer: “Yes, no, and wait.” However, this seems too reductive to me, so I would reject it as a good description of the process of receiving an answer to prayer.
A summary of what the Bible has to say on prayer is this: Prayer is a privilege and an obligation of the Christian where we communicate with God. It is how we convey our confession (1 John 1:9), requests (1 Tim. 2:1-3), intercessions (James 5:15), thanksgiving (Phil. 4:6), etc., to our holy God. We are commanded to pray (1 Thess. 5:17). Some personal requirements of prayer are a pure heart (Psalm 66:18), belief in Christ (John 14:13), and that the prayer be according to God's will (1 John 5:13).
Part of beginning to understand prayer is to understand why we pray and what compels us to pray.
Why do we pray?
Do we pray to benefit ourselves? To benefit others? Do we pray because sacred texts command it? Do we pray to get our own way in the world, to attempt to manipulate the our own condition and the condition of those we love? Do we pray because we feel a spiritual compulsion to reach beyond ourselves and communicate with the divine?
How do we pray?
I used to pray a lot of “canned prayers” -- prayers that were written down and recited at certain specific times of the day or year. I know prayers that have been written down and then I speak them at certain traditional times. For example, here’s a prayer that my family said every night before dinner; perhaps yours did too.
God is great, God is good
Let us thank Him for our food
By His hands we must be fed
Give us, Lord, our daily bread.
Liturgical prayers play a large role in the establishment of many denominations of Christian faith, and even those groups which don’t write out the entire text of a prayer for its congregants teaches models of prayer.
I’ve also learned some prayer models over time which I’ve been taught are the correct way to pray. The most basic model of teaching prayer is the Lord’s prayer, the prayer that Jesus himself prayed in the Bible. Some humanly constructed models exist as well.
Here’s an example:
Prayer following the ACTS model looks like this:
First you pray through A: Adoration of God
Then C: Confession of Sin
Next T: Thanksgiving to God
Finally S: Supplication or asking God for needs.
While this is just a tool for prayer, some Christians pray through it faithfully. What are the advantages and disadvantages to models of prayer? Is prayer something that can be taught? Or should an individual experiment for himself or herself to find out what is an effective personal method for her to connect to God?
None of these models account for physical positions in prayer. In the church that I attend, when we wish to symbolize surrender in our prayers, we place our hands facedown, and then turn them upward again in order to receive from God. Can a physical position actually change the way in which our prayers are received? If not, then why adjust physical position to pray? If so, then how do we know what position to assume, and how can we make the positions consistent across culture?
Are there limits to what we should pray for?
To me, prayer seems a lot like that Rolling Stones song in that “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.” I’ve heard people pray for more wealth, for more health, and even for a space to open up in the church parking lot so that they can park close to the door. I often wonder what God thinks of those sorts of prayers, if there’s anything we can’t ask Him. If we say that there are limits to what we can ask for, we say that there are things that God cannot do, or will not. Yet, if we say we can ask for anything, we allow for prayer to be potentially trivialized. Perhaps it is safe to say we can ask for anything, but we might not get what we ask for. But then what do we make of the Biblical mandate “Ask and you shall receive”?
There are many questions to process in terms of prayer, and many experiences to contemplate. Perhaps the experience of prayer, however, still remains the best means through which to understand prayer.
Questions to consider:
1. Is prayer the same from religion to religion?
2. Should we view prayer as a social function in addition to a spiritual function? If so, can prayer ever be pure and disinterested in all but seeking connection to God?
3. Should we presume to be able to ask anything we want in prayer?
4. Do we even need to pray? Shouldn’t an all knowing God already understand our needs? And if prayer is all about aligning ourselves in God’s will, in demonstrating submission, then is prayer all about us and not about God?
The experience was a fulfilling one for me in ways that it hasn’t been in the past. Usually, I find that this event has the potential to disturb the emotions and have me crying and sentimental, unfortunately mostly for sentiment’s sake rather than for deep passion or desired change that will last and sustain me through time. However, during this time of prayer, I had a different strategy. I came late to the event so that I prayed for others rather than for myself because I’d missed the part of the evening that was structured for individual prayer. I reasoned that I pray enough desperate prayers for myself throughout the day, anything from “God, I love you” to “God, I really don’t know what to say in this Tuesday Night Discussion Group Blog, and it’s making me nervous.” Throughout the night, I was mindful of the needs of others and was edified and encouraged by praying with the group of my friends and fellow believers. At one point, though, I felt compelled to leave the corporate experience and then spent time alone in communication with God about events in my life and other concerns that wouldn’t be taken up in a larger group. I set some goals during that time that will shape the course of my semester and my life, and I’m convinced that those goals are of divine origin in some sense of the word divine and of the word origin.
But contemplating Friday night’s events leads me to many questions: What caused that compulsion to separate myself? What motivates me to pray in the first place? How can I hear from God? And how do I know that what I do hear is accurately heard?
Unpacking this event in my mind makes me think that I know very little of what actually went on Friday night, and I understand very little about the nature of prayer, though I try my best to make it a regular practice in my life.
What is prayer?
When I think about it, I understand that if you weren’t raised with prayer it must be a rather odd concept. Individual prayer wherein one claims to speak to God, perhaps even out loud, while on his or her knees or pacing, sitting or standing, with arms flailed towards the sky, entire body prostrate to the floor, can be daunting, seem like behavior acquired in mental or physical illness. I can only imagine the discomfort of seeing this undertaken in a large group. If you don’t understand what’s going on, it must be difficult to interpret the experience.
However, I wonder how many of those of us who pray understand what is going on when we pray or how we would describe the experience and give it a linguistic analytic presence in conversation. I have a hunch that prayer isn’t something you create easy paradigms for, that it isn’t something one can understand easily by a definition. Rather, one needs to practice prayer to understand prayer, and to continue in prayer to progress to understanding new dimensions of prayer over time.
The discourse that surrounds the practice of prayer is also interesting in terms of understanding the nature of the act. Here are some definitions of prayer gleaned from the internet:
“What is prayer? Prayer is our direct line with heaven. Prayer is a communication process that allows us to talk to God! He wants us to communicate with Him, like a person-to-person phone call. Cell phones and other devices have become a necessity to some people in today’s society. We have blue tubes, blackberries, and talking computers! These are means of communication that allow two or more people to interact, discuss, and respond to one another.”
“Prayer is the practice of the presence of God. It is the place where pride is abandoned, hope is lifted, and supplication is made.”
“Prayer is conversation with God; the intercourse of the soul with God, not in contemplation or meditation, but in direct address to him.”
“Prayer is doxology, praise, thanksgiving, confession, supplication and intercession to God. "When I prayed I was new," wrote a great theologian of Christian antiquity, "but when I stopped praying I became old." Prayer is the way to renewal and spiritual life. Prayer is aliveness to God. Prayer is strength, refreshment, and joy. Through the grace of God and our disciplined efforts prayer lifts us up from our isolation to a conscious, loving communion with God in which everything is experienced in a new light. Prayer becomes a personal dialogue with God, a spiritual breathing of the soul, a foretaste of the bliss of God's kingdom.” (Greek Orthodox archdiocese of America)
"Prayer is spiritual communication between man and God, a two-way relationship in which man should not only talk to God but also listen to Him. Prayer to God is like a child's conversation with his father. It is natural for a child to ask his father for the things he needs." (Billy Graham)
Prayer is an effort to communicate with God, or to some deity or deities, or another form of spiritual entity, or otherwise, either to offer praise, to make a request, or simply to express one's thoughts and emotions. (Wikipedia)
Now, I’m not entirely sure what a blue tube is, but I know that these definitions seem to center around one dominant metaphor for prayer -- prayer as a conversation or communication with God. This metaphor is popular and for good reason. When I use my language to reach out to another entity, I attempt communication with it, create dialogue or discourse. But even though this metaphor is popular, I can’t claim to understand it fully. Does God always speak back to me? Why is it always so seldom with words that He speaks? Good communication certainly isn’t just one-sided.
There are those, of course, who believe prayer to be a wish-fulfillment within our souls, and thus the conversation is really an inner dialogue with intentions we’ve always had and thoughts we just needed to be able to create perceived distance from in order to access. It’s tempting to believe this, when God can’t be seen, and when He has no physical voice that we can hear.
Here’s what I know from my experience: In prayer, I speak with either silent or spoken words. But I don’t know that I would have to. The Bible says that “the Spirit intercedes for us with groans no words can express.” I get a response from God that I can interpret sometimes, other times I get a response from God that I can’t understand or discern. Responses come from friends or family members, or they come from within my being (though they are certainly not my thoughts), or experiences tell me that my prayer was heard and answered. I hear taught in churches that God gives three answers to prayer: “Yes, no, and wait.” However, this seems too reductive to me, so I would reject it as a good description of the process of receiving an answer to prayer.
A summary of what the Bible has to say on prayer is this: Prayer is a privilege and an obligation of the Christian where we communicate with God. It is how we convey our confession (1 John 1:9), requests (1 Tim. 2:1-3), intercessions (James 5:15), thanksgiving (Phil. 4:6), etc., to our holy God. We are commanded to pray (1 Thess. 5:17). Some personal requirements of prayer are a pure heart (Psalm 66:18), belief in Christ (John 14:13), and that the prayer be according to God's will (1 John 5:13).
Part of beginning to understand prayer is to understand why we pray and what compels us to pray.
Why do we pray?
Do we pray to benefit ourselves? To benefit others? Do we pray because sacred texts command it? Do we pray to get our own way in the world, to attempt to manipulate the our own condition and the condition of those we love? Do we pray because we feel a spiritual compulsion to reach beyond ourselves and communicate with the divine?
How do we pray?
I used to pray a lot of “canned prayers” -- prayers that were written down and recited at certain specific times of the day or year. I know prayers that have been written down and then I speak them at certain traditional times. For example, here’s a prayer that my family said every night before dinner; perhaps yours did too.
God is great, God is good
Let us thank Him for our food
By His hands we must be fed
Give us, Lord, our daily bread.
Liturgical prayers play a large role in the establishment of many denominations of Christian faith, and even those groups which don’t write out the entire text of a prayer for its congregants teaches models of prayer.
I’ve also learned some prayer models over time which I’ve been taught are the correct way to pray. The most basic model of teaching prayer is the Lord’s prayer, the prayer that Jesus himself prayed in the Bible. Some humanly constructed models exist as well.
Here’s an example:
Prayer following the ACTS model looks like this:
First you pray through A: Adoration of God
Then C: Confession of Sin
Next T: Thanksgiving to God
Finally S: Supplication or asking God for needs.
While this is just a tool for prayer, some Christians pray through it faithfully. What are the advantages and disadvantages to models of prayer? Is prayer something that can be taught? Or should an individual experiment for himself or herself to find out what is an effective personal method for her to connect to God?
None of these models account for physical positions in prayer. In the church that I attend, when we wish to symbolize surrender in our prayers, we place our hands facedown, and then turn them upward again in order to receive from God. Can a physical position actually change the way in which our prayers are received? If not, then why adjust physical position to pray? If so, then how do we know what position to assume, and how can we make the positions consistent across culture?
Are there limits to what we should pray for?
To me, prayer seems a lot like that Rolling Stones song in that “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.” I’ve heard people pray for more wealth, for more health, and even for a space to open up in the church parking lot so that they can park close to the door. I often wonder what God thinks of those sorts of prayers, if there’s anything we can’t ask Him. If we say that there are limits to what we can ask for, we say that there are things that God cannot do, or will not. Yet, if we say we can ask for anything, we allow for prayer to be potentially trivialized. Perhaps it is safe to say we can ask for anything, but we might not get what we ask for. But then what do we make of the Biblical mandate “Ask and you shall receive”?
There are many questions to process in terms of prayer, and many experiences to contemplate. Perhaps the experience of prayer, however, still remains the best means through which to understand prayer.
Questions to consider:
1. Is prayer the same from religion to religion?
2. Should we view prayer as a social function in addition to a spiritual function? If so, can prayer ever be pure and disinterested in all but seeking connection to God?
3. Should we presume to be able to ask anything we want in prayer?
4. Do we even need to pray? Shouldn’t an all knowing God already understand our needs? And if prayer is all about aligning ourselves in God’s will, in demonstrating submission, then is prayer all about us and not about God?
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Pascal's Wager
When I was younger, my mother always used to tell me that she felt very certain that her faith in God was the correct choice for life. Something about the conversation that we would have on that point, however, made me rather uncomfortable. I agree that she made the correct decision to believe in the God of Christianity, so that wasn't our point of contention. Rather, I was uncertain that she gave a reason for faith that attracted me to further belief myself. She would always say, "Well, if I'm right, and there is a God, I'll be in heaven. And if I'm right, then those who don't believe won't be in heaven. But if I'm wrong, and there's no God, I'm a fool, but there won't be any consequences -- no one will be in heaven. Believing in God is the safest choice because it allows me the possibility of heaven if God is real. But those who don't believe have no chance no matter what. So it makes more sense to believe in God than not to."
Now, this wasn't my mother's only reason for faith, but she did cite this argument often enough to make it memorable to me. And she's not the first to have thought about Christianity in these terms. C.S. Lewis, another strong influence on my young adult faith, polarized Christianity into either infinitely true or infinitely false: Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." Lewis's statement fortifies a position like the one my mom talked about. If Christianity is infintely true and important, than belief in it is necessary, and if it is infinitely false and unimportant, at least belief in it won't harm you at all because it just doesn't matter.
Having had other influences in my life that espoused this position, I wasn't surprised when I read Blaise Pascal's Pensees, notes taken for an uncompleted defense of Christianity, and I found that Pascal actually tried to reduce belief in Christianity to a mathematical probability statement in order to convince those not compelled by other sorts of theological arguments by the use of reason. Pascal viewed Christianity as a wager in which all must cast a bet, either to believe in God or not to believe in God. His argument is that belief in God, while not a position that can be reasoned because of the mysterious and unknowable nature of God, is the safer argument because of it's statistical benefits.
The goal for this week's discussion will be to unpack the primary text from which Pascal's wager is drawn and analyze it's benefits and limitations. Here's the text in which Pascal makes his argument for Christianity as a safer bet than atheism. It's long, so if you'd rather read it elsewhere, here's a link: http://www.classicallibrary.org/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm. The wager is found in section 233.
Here's a chart that summarizes Pascal's position:
1. It assumes that God is a God who rewards belief rather than skepticism.
2. It assumes that Christianity is the only religion which makes claims to exclusivity.
3. It is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather for belief in God regardless of his existence.
4. It does not require true belief in God, but rather belief driven by fear of the potential consequences of unbelief.
5. It assumes that one can choose to believe, rather than being predestined to believe (a position which assumes that God controls who believes).
However, there are also benefits to the argument.
1. It allows individuals to consider the implications and potential problems with unbelief.
2. It explains the benefits of a certain type of belief.
Here are some further descriptions and resources on Pascal's Wager and it's benefits and limitations as an argument for faith in God. A composite of these resources explains the text better than I ever could. Please take the time to read them, because they will enrich our discussion and your understanding of Pascal's project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch871223.gif (A fun Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that plays upon the idea of Pascal's wager by applying it to Santa Claus)
Now, this wasn't my mother's only reason for faith, but she did cite this argument often enough to make it memorable to me. And she's not the first to have thought about Christianity in these terms. C.S. Lewis, another strong influence on my young adult faith, polarized Christianity into either infinitely true or infinitely false: Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." Lewis's statement fortifies a position like the one my mom talked about. If Christianity is infintely true and important, than belief in it is necessary, and if it is infinitely false and unimportant, at least belief in it won't harm you at all because it just doesn't matter.
Having had other influences in my life that espoused this position, I wasn't surprised when I read Blaise Pascal's Pensees, notes taken for an uncompleted defense of Christianity, and I found that Pascal actually tried to reduce belief in Christianity to a mathematical probability statement in order to convince those not compelled by other sorts of theological arguments by the use of reason. Pascal viewed Christianity as a wager in which all must cast a bet, either to believe in God or not to believe in God. His argument is that belief in God, while not a position that can be reasoned because of the mysterious and unknowable nature of God, is the safer argument because of it's statistical benefits.
The goal for this week's discussion will be to unpack the primary text from which Pascal's wager is drawn and analyze it's benefits and limitations. Here's the text in which Pascal makes his argument for Christianity as a safer bet than atheism. It's long, so if you'd rather read it elsewhere, here's a link: http://www.classicallibrary.org/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm. The wager is found in section 233.
233. Infinite--nothing.--Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds number, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature necessity, and can believe nothing else.
Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and that of God as between unity and infinity.
The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the outcast is less vast and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy towards the elect.
We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many things which are not the truth itself?
We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits.
But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature. Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature.
Let us now speak according to natural lights.
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.
Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam;[28] and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.
For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.
"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose?
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
The end of this discourse.--Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.
"Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me," etc.
If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness."
Here's a chart that summarizes Pascal's position:
| God exists | God does not exist | |
| Wager for God | Gain all | Status quo |
| Wager against God | Misery | Status quo |
1. It assumes that God is a God who rewards belief rather than skepticism.
2. It assumes that Christianity is the only religion which makes claims to exclusivity.
3. It is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather for belief in God regardless of his existence.
4. It does not require true belief in God, but rather belief driven by fear of the potential consequences of unbelief.
5. It assumes that one can choose to believe, rather than being predestined to believe (a position which assumes that God controls who believes).
However, there are also benefits to the argument.
1. It allows individuals to consider the implications and potential problems with unbelief.
2. It explains the benefits of a certain type of belief.
Here are some further descriptions and resources on Pascal's Wager and it's benefits and limitations as an argument for faith in God. A composite of these resources explains the text better than I ever could. Please take the time to read them, because they will enrich our discussion and your understanding of Pascal's project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch871223.gif (A fun Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that plays upon the idea of Pascal's wager by applying it to Santa Claus)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)