Theme of the Week: Prayer

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,978
Such a huge topic, hardly seems a week would be enough to even start to scratch the surface. But here we go: this week's theme is:

Prayer

And, some grease to get the wheels rolling...

1. Ever notice how when the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, Jesus taught them a corporate prayer? Do you draw any inferences from that?

2. Some people wonder, 'does prayer change God's mind?' What are your thoughts about that, and how do you handle that idea in your writing?

3. An obvious benefit of prayer is if we receive what we are petitioning for. But whether or not we do, what are some other fruits of praying without ceasing?

4. A passage to ponder from an Quaker author whose writing amazes me:

"How, then, shall we lay hold of that Life and Power, and live the life of prayer without ceasing? By quiet, persistent practice in turning of all our being, day and night, in prayer and inward worship and surrender, toward Him who calls in the deeps of our souls. Mental habits of inward orientation must be established....It's as simple an art as Brother Lawrence found it, but it may be long before we achieve any steadiness in the process....Keep contact with the outer world of sense and meanings. Here is no discipline in absent-mindedness. Walk and talk and work and laugh with your friends. But behind the scenes, keep up the life of simple prayer and inward worship. Keep it up throughout the day. Let inward prayer be your last act before you fall asleep and the first act when you awake. And in time you will find as did Brother Lawrence, that 'those who have the gale of the Holy Spirit go forward even in sleep.'

...We may suppose these depths of prayer are our own achievement, the precipitate of our own habits at the surface level settled into subconscious regions. But this humanistic account misses the autonomy of the life of prayer. It misses the fact that this inner level has a life of its own, invigorated not by us but by a divine Source. There come times when prayer pours forth in volumes and originality such as we cannot create. It rolls through us like a mighty tide. Our prayers are mingled with a vaster Word, a Word that at one time was made flesh. We pray, and yet it is not we who pray, but a Greater who prays in us. Something of our punctiform selfhood is weakened, but never lost. All we can say is, Prayer is taking place, and I am given to be in the orbit. In holy hush we bow in Eternity, and know the Divine Concern tenderly enwrapping us and all things within His persuading love. Here all human initiative has passed into acquiescence, and He works and prays and seeks His own through us, in exquisite, energizing life. Here the autonomy of the inner life becomes complete and we are joyfully prayed through, by a Seeking Life that flows through us into the world of men..."

--Thomas Kelly, A Testament of Devotion (pp. 38-46)
 

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
Hello Pat :D

1. Ever notice how when the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, Jesus taught them a corporate prayer? Do you draw any inferences from that?

In a nutshell, the standard container for my personal opinions, it served as a foundation in which Jesus planted the seed of a personal prayer life for us.

2. Some people wonder, 'does prayer change God's mind?' What are your thoughts about that, and how do you handle that idea in your writing?

My response to this is one of possibility as opposed to an established opinion. I know that Jesus marveled. For this reason, among others, I find it possible that God's mind could be changed by prayer in accordance to His Will.

3. An obvious benefit of prayer is if we receive what we are petitioning for. But whether or not we do, what are some other fruits of praying without ceasing?

Communication.

Sincerely,
Gehanna
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,978
Thanks for weighing in, Gehanna. :)
 

heyjude

Making my own sunshine
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
19,740
Reaction score
6,192
Location
Gulf coast of FL
I believe that God is willing to hear us and grant our petitions, provided they're within His will. (Which always sounds a little contradictory, but I'm guessing He gives us some leeway.)

Example--When Abram asked God to spare Sodom if only ten righteous men were found, God said yes.

I write secular fiction (something I struggle with, but that's a different topic) and I feature prayer as a natural refuge.

In my own life I find that praying, even over the "little things" in life, keep me grounded in His will. It's when I stop seeking Him in prayer that I go badly awry.

Pat, wonderful topic! (As always.) :)
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,978
More terrific insights...thanks, heyjude!
 

heyjude

Making my own sunshine
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
19,740
Reaction score
6,192
Location
Gulf coast of FL
You know I've been thinking a lot about this topic and I'd be really curious to hear how other writers treat prayer in their work. My beta readers are generally Christians, but of my secular beta readers I've only had one or two complain about elements of religion (characters praying). I use it sparingly, mindful that it's secular fiction, but it does appear and prayers do get answered.

How do other people handle this?
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,978
I have to be honest. I'm not a fan of this particular topic. Since prayer has been proven multipe times, in double-blind tests, not to work, I really don't see why people still bother with it.


Reilly, with all due respect, prayer is not a magic formula or even a science that 'works' or 'doesn't work,' testable in double-blind tests. Prayer is conversation with God. Part of that conversation includes supplication, but if those requests are not answered in the affirmative, it doesn't follow that God has not heard or that 'prayer doesn't work.' That would be equating prayer to manipulation rather than what it really is: adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication.

That said, I appreciate your taking the time to comment.
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
Adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication.

Pat, we both know that this isn't what prayer is for all people. So you can't say that this is what it really is.

I've heard on many occasions people praying that their family gets well soon and that they get hired for a job or that a man asks them out on a date. Who equates it to a magical formula then? Or do these requests (which is what they are!) cleverly fit into the category of confession?

Or is confession (as I recall it) something a bit deeper than these things? That's essentially a rhetorical question.

But if a god existed it would be scientifically testable to confirm the effectiveness of prayer. There have been extensive tests and it has been shown that prayer has no effect. Take away the double-blind method and it still has no more than a placebo effect. I wasn't looking for a debate, just giving my "two cents", as the Americans say.

Interesting enough. The placebo "effect" is still an effect. I'm trying to find you personally a link to a pun on "God's Economy", a study done by sociologists to see if people who prayed were more financially well-to-do. Supposedly they were.

AMC
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,500
Location
West Michigan
I have to be honest. I'm not a fan of this particular topic. Since prayer has been proven multipe times, in double-blind tests, not to work, I really don't see why people still bother with it.
(bolding mine)
Well, this sounds rather patronizing as well.
 

heyjude

Making my own sunshine
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
19,740
Reaction score
6,192
Location
Gulf coast of FL
Pat, we both know that this isn't what prayer is for all people. So you can't say that this is what it really is.

Jesus' own words:

He said to them, "When you pray, say:
" 'Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.(adoration and thanksgiving)
Give us each day our daily bread. (supplication)
Forgive us our sins, (confession)
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation. (more supplication)' "

(Luke 11:2-4)

Looks right to me.

ETA: Pat, sorry for answering for you. :)
 

WildBill

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
345
Reaction score
124
Location
Ohio
Here's one of the articles I wrote on prayer recently.

Reforming Ephesus

“To the angel of the church of Ephesus write,
These things says He who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: ‘I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars, and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name’s sake and have not become weary. Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place- unless you repent. But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” Revelation 2:1-7

Over the last couple of weeks, there’s been a lot of talk about intimacy in my house. It was sparked by our nightly devotionals, which were, at the time, in the book of Hosea. As a whole, Hosea shows, among other things, a picture of a lover scorned- of the Lord who, in intimate love for His chosen, saved them from their own selves and made them a people for His own pleasure. But His people, with whom he shared such intimacy- His grace, His word, His peace and so forth, did not reciprocate in kind: they perverted His word, worship and love.

Like the quoted passage above, Hosea is not generally addressed to persons on an individual level. Rather, they speak to the Church and are addressed to His people corporately. God indeed does instruct us in His word on how we, as individuals, relate to the Lord. But that’s not how the Lord addresses His people in the Old Testament, generally speaking. Most of OT instruction (outside of wisdom literature) is corporate in scope; applicable to us individually yes, but purposefully addressed to the whole body of Christ. Hosea and Revelation 2 both speak comfort to the individuals who trust in the Lord, while primarily defining challenges within the bodies being addressed- Samaria in Hosea’s case, and the church of Ephesus in the other. Furthermore, although the problems in these two congregations were very different, the practices (or lack thereof) that led to their rebuke are identical.

In verse 4 of Revelation 2, Christ charges the church that they have lost their first love. Now this charge seems at odds with the commendations given before (and even after) this statement. This church is not submerged into the kind of open and utter rebellion that’s pictured in Hosea. The Ephesians do not tolerate evil persons. Samaria does. Ephesian Christians know the word of God, and test the teachings of those who claim authority by the same. Ephraim worships two golden calves at Bethel, and call them ‘Lord’. These Ephesians even work long and hard among themselves and the land they minister to for the sake of the Gospel, while the Northern Kingdom allowed every god of the alien lands free reign within their borders and influence.

If these two congregations have something in common, we need to look at verse 4, and see if that applies. And to make that determination, we first must know what it is to have the corporate first love in the first place- since Christ is, as we mentioned, talking to a whole church and not to a group of individuals. We are one in Christ, and our Lord often speaks to us in this fashion in His word.

First love is an evangelical thing- it’s the blessing of the mission work. Let’s look at some mission works in scripture. In Acts 2:42, we see a three-fold description of this first love- fervency in doctrine, fervency in sacraments and fervency in prayer. All of these things are co-equal in their presentation; no one thing is superior to the other, but rather they are all pursued with the same level of dedication. In Nehemiah chapters 8 and 9, we see the identical set of firstfruits- A young congregation, just planted back in Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile, turn to the Lord in doctrine (8:1-12), sacraments (8:13-18) and prayer (9:1-38). The congregation of the Lord, as it was leaving the wilderness for the fruits of Canaan, likewise sought proper doctrine (Joshua 4:4-9), sacraments (Joshua 5:2-7,10) and prayer (Joshua 3:3-6). I’ve seen this personally in a young mission church too- the three-fold fruits of a new congregation.

So what happened? It’s apparent in the text in Revelation that Ephesus was dedicated to sound doctrine. It’s also clear that this church was very Christ centered in its’ activities and outreach. There also does not appear to be an issue with their sacraments, for our Lord commended them for their opposition to the Nicolaitans, who were Gnostic and antagonistic in nature¹. The Hedonistic worship that results from such teachings is harshly rebuked by our Lord in Revelation 2:20-23. With doctrine and sacraments eliminated, prayer must be examined very closely.

Before we can conclude that the issue in Ephesus was based on its prayer life, we first need to determine if the Scripture makes a connection between the love of God and prayer- both individually and corporately. The examples of individual and private prayers of the saints are incredibly numerous in the Bible, and even Christ Himself demonstrates this kind of intimacy with the Lord (Matthew14:13,23). Christ’s teaching on prayer in Matthew 6:5-15 is familial in language- prayer is to a loving Father, not a transcendent tyrant. The private prayers of the saints are a bulwark towards being intimate with their Creator- We worship a God who is a Person(s), and we as human beings develop intimate relationships with those persons whom we communicate with the most often.

But the issue in Ephesus seems to be a corporate one. Now it seems logical that a church that is dedicated to sound doctrine would engage in corporate prayer often. Even churches that are not so dedicated will engage in corporate prayer activity on a regular basis. Indeed, corporate prayer can often be an issue of habit or even coercion. Consider 2 Chronicles chapters 34 through 36. The amount of reforms king Josiah made to the civil government, as well as demonstrating it’s subordination to the ecclesiastical authority of the Temple, are incredible. It would be like in the modern US, President Bush announcing that all non-Christian religious structures and land were now immediately forfeit to the government, who then bulldozed everything. Unthinkable, yet that is what Josiah basically did. And yet, in spite of this, the Prophet Jeremiah, who lived through these reforms personally, spake of Judah in Jeremiah 3:6-10 as a people who went through motions that they personally did not support in their heart. Josiah’s love for the Lord was not shared by the general public- they were ‘along for the ride’.

Within the context of worship, corporate prayer is highly regulated in Temple worship. It was specifically a priestly responsibility (Leviticus 16, Luke 1:5-17) to lead the people in prayer and sacrifice, in as much as both are intercessory in principle. In the case of Zacharias, his prayers for the people of Israel, which is what he would have been presenting at the hour of incense, we answered by the promise of the coming Savior. Meaning- he (Zacharias) and the people who were praying were of the same heart- seeking their Savior to rescue them from their sins. During the worship described in Nehemiah chapter 9, we see the Levites praying for the people of Israel, who had just come in sackcloth and ashes because of their sins. Their corporate prayer, made over the people during worship, rebuked the people for their sin and also promised salvation in the Lord, and continued blessings for the faithful. This prayer also served to demonstrate their solidarity towards the Lord, and was concluded with the signing of confessional documents to that end.

In the cases of Zacharias and Nehemiah, the people of God are depicted as being themselves individually prayerful, while the reforms of Josiah (and also Jehoash and Hezekiah- 2 Kings 12:1-16, 18-20) show prayerful leaders of non-prayerful people. Also noteworthy is that both Zacharias and Nehemiah ministered for a newly planted temple- Herods’ and Zerubbabels’, respectively. Both show congregations with prayerful individuals who are open, honest and trustworthy with their Lord in prayer. Both are ‘mission works’ in their newness.

But where the people of God are not in an intimate relationship with their God through constant personal and private prayer, the lack of intimacy becomes all too easily apparent corporately. Hosea as a whole shows this clearly- a people with no personal intimacy with God on an individual level that, over time, so perverted the worship of God that they as a people became a whole new faith and nation. Consider Hosea 11:1-4. God speaks in extremely tender and intimate language towards Israel, who although at one time heeded the voice of the Lord, no longer does so. Jeremiah 3:19-21 chimes with Hosea in proclaiming spiritual adultery as an issue perpetrated by a lack of intimate knowledge and relationship with the Lord: To the extent, in these cases, that the congregation as a whole served the Baals in the name of the Lord.

At the time Revelation was written, the church at Ephesus was large and well established. Paul had spent a long time at that church, and used it as a base of operations for mission work (Acts 19:1-10). Also, the temple of Diana was there, making the city one big boatload of Pagan influences. However, this church apparently was studious and confessional in nature- hence the adherence to true apostolic teaching and rejection of false teachers. Paul himself wrote to this church, and in his epistle encouraged them towards sound doctrine (Ephesians 4:1-15) within the context of love (Ephesians 3:14-21), a love which is intimate and prayerful (Ephesians 3:14, 1:15-21).

Comparing the epistle of Ephesians to the message to the church given in Revelation shows that in the few years between their writing, many of the exhortations of Paul had been taken to heart. Clearly, Ephesus was a church that studied God’s word, taught God’s word, Stood upon the truth, rejected false teachings and doctrines and sought to serve and worship the Lord in an orderly and diligent manner. This church was doing the work of the Lord for the glory of Christ.

But the first love; the intimate, personal prayer life of a church that results in constant reformation and renewal, was absent. Just as it had been in Israel of old, the people of God forgot the love of their fathers, and over time had become automatons for Christ. Without the personal, intimate prayer life and devotion as an integral part of the congregation’s daily living, the imminence of God was no longer felt. This is clearly shown in Revelation 2:5, where our Lord exhorts the congregation to remember from where they have fallen. The Greek term for fallen, ĕkpiptō, is used only two other places in scripture- Acts 27:29 and Galatians 5:4. In Acts, it describes what would happen if a ship came upon rocks, and the usage in Galatians is spiritually similar: It shows a soul separated from the special grace of Christ, dashed upon the Rock. This term being used here in Revelation 2:5 has the same premise- the congregation has forgotten the saving love of Christ, and is astray- reduced to flotsam that which should be safe in port. Strong language, but the basic trust in the Lord demanded by the Gospel cannot continue under these circumstances. Forgetting the first love, the love of our salvation, will lead to death. Those congregations in Biblical history that possessed a repentant and prayerful people caused revival and reform to the whole of the land. Those that ceased in this prayer life became distant to the reality of God’s intimate imminence, and over time shifted their focus on other ecclesiastical issues. The results of this were always the same- judgment. Church history is replete with churches that, having ceased in devotional intimacy, grew to become cults or went extinct- many of them reformed at the outset.

The very nature of repentance and forgiveness is an extremely intimate thing. Thus, the call of Revelation 2:5 is a call to repentance-which in and of itself demands spiritual intimacy with Christ. How can we be intimate, open and honest with someone that we barely know in person, but only read about? Consider David, who cried out in repentance in the Psalms over Bathsheeba. His soul-baring, gut-wrenching prayers show an incredible closeness and intimate, loving relationship to the Lord- while also continuing to be in awe of His transcendent nature. Habakkuk is a man solid in his doctrine and reverence to the Lord, yet cries out to God as a man cries out to his closest friend. Can you not see the wonderful closeness, girded by worship and truth, in the conversation between Abraham and God over Lot and Sodom? And there are scores of such examples.

Forget not the promise of our Lord in Revelation 2:5 and 7, that with repentance comes restoration. Furthermore, that perseverance in repentance, which is demonstrated through consistent and pervasive prayer (1Th 5:17) results in an intimate relationship with our Lord and Creator both as individuals and as a church. This repentance- coupled with sound doctrine and faithful worship, causes true revival and blessing (Deut 28:1-14).

Therefore, let us cry out to the churches of this land and declare to them, “Repent, you Ephesians! Call upon our God without ceasing! Know the Lord in His person as imminent, intimate and devoted to you”. Thus we, His people, must strive to be as devoted, intimate, repentant and forgiving as He is to us. We need, all God’s people, to close the door- and pray to our Father who is precious to us. The revival of our church, our city and our nation is but a life of repentant, prayerful devotion away.


Theognome




¹The Historical Record Regarding the Nicolaitans by Wade Cox, http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p202.html
 

WildBill

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
345
Reaction score
124
Location
Ohio
As if that wasn't enough...

Here's another angle no the topic of prayer-

His Master’s Voice

“And the Lord said, ‘I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows. So I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and bring them up from that land to a good and large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites.” -Exodus 3:7-8


My parents own a large collection of turn of the 20th century records, as well as a working record player from the same period. As a kid, I would often wind this thing up, grab some fox trot or other oddity, and play these records on the player. This relic from the Teddy Roosevelt administration would fascinate me for hours: no wires, no speakers, just a needle stuck into a fancy tube.

Many of the records were of the RCA label. Their old logo showed a small dog listening to a classic Victorian phonograph with much intent. Below this picture was a caption that read, ‘His Master’s Voice’. The thrust of this logo was to suggest that their recordings were so lifelike that even a dog could not tell that the voice was recorded. Now I can tell you that this was pure false advertising- those recordings were anything but clear. All of them were muffled, scratchy-sounding and had the tone of a speak-and-spell going berserk in a metal garbage can. But it was the height of technology in pre-WWI household science.

Another thing about this player is that it was not very loud. The volume control was accomplished by either opening or closing doors in the case, which was itself the sound tube. Without any amplification, you had to have a quiet room in order to hear much of anything, and thus I was usually alone when I used the thing. I was careful with it, and my folks didn’t mind me using it, which, in retrospect, still baffles me. Some of these records were original cuts of John P. Sousa and Scott Joplin, and a ten-year-old unsupervised with them was a heck of a risk.

Even when I was a child, this audio system was a relic of an age long past. Now, when you compare this old player to a MP3 or a CD, it makes the comparison almost ridiculous- Abacus VS Compaq. Yet one is the ancestor of the other. Can you imagine the original owner of that old record player who bought it new being handed a modern home theatre and sound system? How astounded would he be to see what it, the player he thoroughly enjoyed in his own time, would ultimately become? All of the obstructions to the clear communication of music will be gone in the age to come, and he will understand that the shadow of fidelity he hears will eventually become the reality of modern digital media.

When I recently read this particular passage in Exodus, it reminded me of that old player, and how I used it way back then. I really liked that old Brunswick (yeah, it wasn’t an RCA.) and I know it clearly in my mind. I can see the oval logo on the top of the case, the needle trays in the corner, the speed control and the slide brake, the green felt clinging tightly to the heavy turntable. If you showed me a hundred of the same model, I could pick it out in an instant- I know where all the wear marks and scratches in the case leather are.

But I was still a kid. I knew that particular machine, but I didn’t know it’s real value (especially some of those records I mentioned). For me, it was a very special toy that was very fragile, but it was still a toy in my mind. It wasn’t until years later that I came to appreciate the cultural and historical significance of this collection. I was very close- even intimate with this old player, and even some of the records (‘Where the Bamboo Babies Grow was one of my favorites-a fox trot from around 1914) I still recall very fondly.

It’s in this context that the passage in Exodus chimes a chord in my heart. The scene is this- it’s some four centuries since the death of Joseph, and there are scads of Israelites living in Egypt- and the current Dynasty is out of favor with them. Israel is enslaved and abused in Egypt. Now this is long before the whole Sinai business- the word of God is in oral form, as passed through the patriarchs. Furthermore, they live in Egypt, who has a polytheistic central government. This government, like other empires to follow, requires state worship. Thus, the Hebrews are persecuted even in their slavery- The state is a god, Pharaoh is the son of Ra, and is thus, in part, divine in Egyptian doctrine; and an enemy to the true living God and His Church.

I think it would be safe to conclude that Israel at this time did not have a well-defined and documented theology. They had the Abrahamic covenant through the personal teachings of the patriarchs, but that’s it. And if any of this was written down prior to the work of Moses, nothing is known of it nor mentioned in Scripture. The worship of the Lord in Israel while in Egypt was like listening to that player- it produced sound, but it was not very high quality. Likewise the people of God cried out to the Lord in prayer, and God heard them. Probably not prayers that fit well into modern orthodoxy, but the bare essentials were there- knowing their helplessness, and calling upon the Lord for salvation.

Now is it safe to say that the crying out of the Hebrews in this passage was an act of prayer? The term used in the text, הקעצ (tsa’aqah) is derived from the Hebrew קעצ (tsa’aq) which means to cry out or proclaim, as if in horror or misery. The usage here is showing a commonality of prayers- the whole congregation, in their private and corporate prayers, were speaking of the same horrors of their oppression and seeking God’s deliverance. In Psalm 9:12, which is a prayer of thanksgiving, the same word is used to promote the same concept- when God’s people are oppressed and cry out to the Lord, said prayers will be answered and the Lord will remember their plight and rescue them. The Lord commanded Israel not to oppress the orphan or widow, lest they cry out to Him in their oppression (Exodus 22:23).

Two things that stand out here: first that crying out is done verbally toward the Lord and secondly, we tend to do that when we’re under great stress. Now we need to take a moment to focus on speaking. A transliteration of tsa’aqah would be ‘to shriek’- and it’s hard to do that quiet-like. In the examples given above, all of the uses of tsa’aqah involved vocal communication. This context is demonstrated all over the Old Testament. In Matthew 26:39, Christ, in the darkest hour of His soul, prayed saying as opposed to prayed in His heart. Not that it’s inherently poor form to pray in your heart- indeed, there are times when it’s very appropriate. But when we are private, one-on-one with the Lord in our prayer closet and struggling in our hearts, the examples of scripture show private prayers being spoken. And, just like the RCA dog with the Victrola, even poorly spoken prayers get heard by our Lord.

Admittedly, the idea of actually talking when we pray privately rubs against the fur of American culture. When does the media show talking to ‘ones self’ as being an edifying thing? It’s instant ridicule and questioning of sanity in modern US culture to ‘talk to yourself privately’- so far removed is this nation from its prayerful roots. Bear in mind that as recently as the 1850’s, being someone who didn’t do this in America was reason to be under suspicion. It is unfortunate that our land today is so hostile towards intimacy (especially with God, for speaking to God is of the most precious intimacy) that being a man or woman of prayer is considered highly odd- even among many professing Christians. Indeed, our culture portrays intimacy as either sexual or a weakness- and thus cheapened or of little value.

A quick sidebar. Meditating on God and/or His word is not the same as praying to God. Yes, we should meditate on God’s word, and I often find myself praying to Him as a result of meditations. But they are not the same- prayer is an act of communication, while meditation is an act of reflection.

Anywho, the common thread of crying out to the Lord when in the midst of struggle are pretty standard fare in the Pentateuch and Psalms, and demonstrated all over place. And the folks in Egypt would have known this principle, for Abraham had gone through the process himself, both with Isaac and Lot. In Genesis 15, Abraham cries out in his distress over having no heir, and again in chapter 18, the Lord uses tsa’aqah again to describe the sins of Sodom, and Abraham pleads mercy for Lot’s sake. Abraham knew who to cry to when in trouble, and even four centuries and cubic tons of Egyptian cultic influence later, His people still clung to that promise and cried out to our Father in heaven.

Here we are, on the flip side of the cross. Could you imagine giving one of those Egyptian Hebrews a modern bible (in Hebrew, of course)? How about bringing him to a Sunday service? Look how far removed we are from them… and yet the common thread of special grace- the blood of the Lamb- binds us inexorably together. What they did in primitive, scratchy, speak-and-spell-in-the-garbage-can methods were cherished by God- for our loving Savior heard them and delivered them as He has also cherished and delivered us. We know that Christ intercedes for us, perfects our prayers, and grows us in His grace by His Spirit through the means of grace He has given us, which include prayer. We can point to the scripture and to the reality of the Holy Spirit in our hearts as proof of these things. Did the Hebrews of Pharaoh’s time have that kind of theological digital media?

They are us- a persecuted people who loved the Lord, and cried out to Him in times of trouble. As absurd as their actual spiritual lifestyle might have seemed compared to our own, what Abraham left His people was nothing less than the Gospel of our Lord and Savior, who is Christ Jesus. That when our hearts despair, we have a God in heaven, Creator of all things: holy, righteous, good and just, who will hear us when we cry out to Him. He will answer the prayers of the righteous who trust in Him. That is the extent of the Gospel they knew- And the Lord still knows the hair count on all of them. He answered their prayer for Christ’s sake, just as he answers ours in like manner.

Thus I am glad that I cherish that old Brunswick. It reminds me of the core simplicity of our faith- that no matter how hi-fi we get; good old-fashioned talking to God in prayer will always be a core essential to Christian daily life. The Lord moves us through prayer, and so we, as did our brethren of old, cry out to the Lord- and listen for our Master’s voice.

Theognome
 

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
Hello Reilly616,

You wrote:
But if a god existed it would be scientifically testable to confirm the effectiveness of prayer.

How do you know that it would be scientifically testable to confirm the effectiveness of prayer if a god existed?

Sincerely,
Gehanna
 

Reilly616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
390
Reaction score
35
Hello Reilly616,


How do you know that it would be scientifically testable to confirm the effectiveness of prayer if a god existed?

Sincerely,
Gehanna

Because if a god in fact did exist, and if that god had an effect on the universe, then that effect would, by definition, be measurable. Or else it wouldn't be an effect, in which case the god woud be deistic and prayer wouldn't enter into the equation.
 

Gehanna

Introvert
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
429
What purpose would any scientifically measurable evidence serve other than to initiate the destruction of Faith?

Oh! what consequence the world would see if Faith could be destroyed so easily.

Sincerely,
Gehanna
 

WildBill

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
345
Reaction score
124
Location
Ohio
Because if a god in fact did exist, and if that god had an effect on the universe, then that effect would, by definition, be measurable. Or else it wouldn't be an effect, in which case the god woud be deistic and prayer wouldn't enter into the equation.

I do not doubt science's ability to measure phenomenon. I do, however, question science's ability to measure God. God, by His nature, is infinite. Thus His effect (as you call it) is to the same standard and medium. Science has never, in its history, been able to quantify an infinite value. You can examine infinity, but never measure it.

Theognome
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,978
I realise it probably wasn't your intent, but that sounded quite patronising. I know what "prayer" is, and I know the difference between what it is in the bible (ie: ask and certainly receive) and in modern days. But if a god existed it would be scientifically testable to confirm the effectiveness of prayer. There have been extensive tests and it has been shown that prayer has no effect. Take away the double-blind method and it still has no more than a placebo effect. I wasn't looking for a debate, just giving my "two cents", as the Americans say.

Apologies, not intentional. ;) I think you may have taken my post that way because of your assumption that I was speaking about what prayer is for all people (as did AMC below). I wasn't. As a thread in the Christian forum, discussing how Christian writers treat prayer in their writing, it refers to how Christians view prayer--and as heyjude posted above, we were taught to pray by the Master, whose prayer patterned for us the elements of adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication. Most people when thinking of prayer, it seems, only think of that last thing--and measure the effectiveness of prayer by whether or not we get what we want out of it. But that is not an entirely accurate Christian view of prayer--so attempts to scientifically measure and 'prove' prayer in this way are invalid (to the Christian) from the start, because the premise is false. I'm aware from your other posts that you are not a believer, so this may be not in line with your thinking on things--but for Christians, the purpose of prayer is to align ourselves with God's will concerning things, not simply to talk Him into giving us what WE want. That's where union comes...the laying down of our will. As heyjude posted above, we pray patterned after the Savior, who prayed also in Gethsemane, "yet not MY will, but Thine be done." Would we say His prayer 'didn't work' in that He DID die on the cross? That whole idea again presupposes what one presumes to be the purpose of prayer. I believe Christ prayed all night in that garden for comfort, courage, and the desire to keep Himself aligned with the Father's will. In that, He surely succeeded.

So...how do you 'measure' whether or not God's will has been done (in your scientific experiment), thus measuring the efficacy of prayer in Christian terms? If you believe in a God at all, and are praying for Him to effect something in your world, you are already praying with the assumption that He's all-powerful and can do this. (Yes, that's faith.) Therefore, if your request is not answered in the affirmative, it's not that God (or prayer) was 'ineffective'--but it's that God's will took a different direction than your own. But again, this is faith--and not something that is scientifically measurable in the first place. Faith redefines what 'good' and 'positive answers' are; it embraces the idea that some things we pray for that we think are 'good' (eg. Christ escaping the pain of death on the cross) are not in God's or our best interest--and that some of the 'bad' we pray against, God might be actually using for greater good. All too murky for any valid scientific testing, in my opinion.

Pat, we both know that this isn't what prayer is for all people. So you can't say that this is what it really is.
AMC
AMC, as I said above, I am not claiming that this is how 'all people' see prayer. I am sticking to my view that this is the Christian pattern of prayer given to us by Christ, though:

Jesus' own words:

He said to them, "When you pray, say:
" 'Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.(adoration and thanksgiving)
Give us each day our daily bread. (supplication)
Forgive us our sins, (confession)
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation. (more supplication)' "

(Luke 11:2-4)

Looks right to me.

ETA: Pat, sorry for answering for you. :)

And heyjude, your answer was inspired. No need to apologize at all.
 
Last edited:

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,978
What purpose would any scientifically measurable evidence serve other than to initiate the destruction of Faith?

Oh! what consequence the world would see if Faith could be destroyed so easily.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

I don't think you need to fear this, Gehanna. I don't believe Science can destroy Faith. If there is a God, He is the Author of both the natural world and our faith. If our Science and our Faith conflict, it is a problem with our understanding in either of those fields, not with the object of our Faith, who is Immutable.

However, don't let me lead us into a derail concerning this already much-discussed topic. ;) Please see other threads, guys. I'd like to redirect this thread back to the original topic, which is prayer.
 
Last edited:

Reilly616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
390
Reaction score
35
I do not doubt science's ability to measure phenomenon. I do, however, question science's ability to measure God. God, by His nature, is infinite. Thus His effect (as you call it) is to the same standard and medium. Science has never, in its history, been able to quantify an infinite value. You can examine infinity, but never measure it.

Theognome

That's not actually true. Secondary school higher level maths actually deals quite a bit with infinities. I can't think of any evidence that would back up your statements, but like I said, just giving my 2 cents.
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,978
But where the people of God are not in an intimate relationship with their God through constant personal and private prayer, the lack of intimacy becomes all too easily apparent corporately. Hosea as a whole shows this clearly- a people with no personal intimacy with God on an individual level that, over time, so perverted the worship of God that they as a people became a whole new faith and nation. Consider Hosea 11:1-4. God speaks in extremely tender and intimate language towards Israel, who although at one time heeded the voice of the Lord, no longer does so. Jeremiah 3:19-21 chimes with Hosea in proclaiming spiritual adultery as an issue perpetrated by a lack of intimate knowledge and relationship with the Lord: To the extent, in these cases, that the congregation as a whole served the Baals in the name of the Lord.

At the time Revelation was written, the church at Ephesus was large and well established. Paul had spent a long time at that church, and used it as a base of operations for mission work (Acts 19:1-10). Also, the temple of Diana was there, making the city one big boatload of Pagan influences. However, this church apparently was studious and confessional in nature- hence the adherence to true apostolic teaching and rejection of false teachers. Paul himself wrote to this church, and in his epistle encouraged them towards sound doctrine (Ephesians 4:1-15) within the context of love (Ephesians 3:14-21), a love which is intimate and prayerful (Ephesians 3:14, 1:15-21).


Theognome

Theo, thanks for sharing these articles with us! Your reference to the Ephesians being encouraged toward 'sound doctrine' reminds me that our intimacy with God is only as deep as our knowledge is in line with who scripture says He is. For me,whatever intimacy with God I now enjoy was birthed by my first reading of Hosea, which showed me my heart and God's so much more clearly.
 

heyjude

Making my own sunshine
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
19,740
Reaction score
6,192
Location
Gulf coast of FL
Well, yeah, experiments do get rid of a need for blind faith. They show the facts, something to base your view of the world on. Faith is pretty illogical. The belief in something without any evidence? That's pretty weak to begin with. So I guess you are right, science had always been eating away at faith. Gods nowadays truly are gods of the gaps :D

Clarification, as I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly: Are you saying our faith is blind, or without evidence? If so, you're mistaken in both counts.
 

Reilly616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
390
Reaction score
35
Clarification, as I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly: Are you saying our faith is blind, or without evidence? If so, you're mistaken in both counts.

faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun .belief that is not based on proof


If there is evidence that your belief is based on then it ceases to be faith.
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,978
faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [feyth] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun .belief that is not based on proof


If there is evidence that your belief is based on then it ceases to be faith.

Reilly, the fact that faith is based on some evidence does not mean it is based on 'proof.' Entirely different statements. I have invited you to reframe your [now deleted by Mac] post to be more respectful, and you have not yet done so. I will delete any further posting from you until you tend to this request. Thanks.

ETA: Roger and I have since discussed the post and have decided to let it stand as is [and Mac has deleted it as of 8 PM]. Your future posts in here will be deleted or not on their own merit, though. We welcome any positive contributions you might yet have to offer.
 
Last edited:

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
Reilly, the fact that faith is based on some evidence does not mean it is based on 'proof.'

Eloquent or not, I can understand what Reilly meant, I suppose. If something is "fact", there is no need for "belief" or "faith". The something just is, and we know it. This whole business of proof of God is silly, since most people know it can't be proved one way of the other. I would be more careful, in any case, concerning how one describes another person's religion. If have never said it before, I'll say it now: open mindedness is (the spirit of AW) understanding another person from their perspective.


AMC

p.s. Sorry. I'd like to not hijack this thread worse than it's been already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.