While listening to the latest TNT episode with Two Friars and a Fool (TFAAF) on why we should never pray again, I kept thinking over and over to myself that this is such interesting stuff. Just asking the question ‘what is prayer?’ is so much fun. It’s really important stuff to think about, and I love how the guys from TFAAF are deconstructing prayer and asking what it does and how it actually functions in peoples lives. Too many folks just don’t think about this stuff. We should be the answer to our own prayers more often. I agree.
That being said, I’ve got to stick up for prayer and interiors a little bit here.
Now look, full disclosure, I haven’t read the book yet, just listened to the podcast, but I think I get what the TFAAF folks are attempting to do, and I’m all for it. Advocating for a more orthopractic shaped faith is fantastic! We shouldn’t wait around for our wishes to be granted by a magic genie in the sky. I personally love Earthy, radical, immanent, beatitude and justice focused theologies like those found in the Mennonite, Quaker, Franciscan and Liberal Protestant traditions of Christianity. But one common trap that we seemingly can’t avoid—no matter how hard we try—is that when we begin to emphasize one side of a binary, the other side is unfairly, and most times totally, denigrated. I say this because it’s too easily forgotten that with progress inevitably comes pathology. The two are intimately intertwined it seems, just like everything else in the universe I guess…
Which brings me to my two main points:
1) One’s understanding of reality—or what’s ultimately real—just means so much, doesn’t it?
2) Accordingly, if it’s a question of doing something concrete (action) vs. doing something not concrete (praying) that we’re dealing with here, we should at least recognize the presupposition: one thing is real and meaningful (the concrete) and the other thing doesn’t necessarily mean so much.
Not so surprisingly, I’m in agreement with process philosophers, like John Cobb, who argue that the boundary between the physical and mental worlds are much more fluid than many people suppose. I think one who outright dismisses certain types of prayer, such as confession or intercessory, are actually showing their metaphysical cards. If the world functions like a medieval clock, based entirely on pushes and pulls between material bodies, then great! Intercessory prayer is a bunch of mystical hog wash, and you are better off never praying again for one of those few and far between supernatural miracles.
But…
What if God is intimately connected and involved with nature? And what if everything we do (physically AND mentally) makes a difference to us, to the world, and to God?
Now things are interesting again.
I’m continually fascinated by one of the most beautiful insights explored by process-relational thought. It is the idea that our experience of one another is not only mediated by sensory cues. As John Cobb writes so succinctly, “We actually feel the feelings of others much as we feel the feelings of the cells in our own bodies. These relations are not limited to immediate proximity.” As Whitehead would say, we are constantly prehending other people all of the time. We are the observer as well and the observed.
John Cobb continues:
“Modern thinkers still resist the notion of “action at a distance.” But in fact the evidence for this in physics is now beyond dispute. There has long been evidence for this also with regard to human experience. That intercessory prayer can have an effect on someone who is not present does not violate the known facts.”
Cobb’s understanding of prayer is what I tend to hold on to. Namely, that the “function of prayer is opening ourselves to God’s gracious working in our lives and seeking to align our own intentions with God’s call to us.” I’ve written before about how the conscious choices we make really do affect the possibilities that become available to us in any given situation.
Further, in regard to what prayer is/could be, I also really like the idea that the stance of our entire life should be one of constant prayer which, coincidentally, I liken very much to Brother Lawrence’s very immanent Practice of the Presence of God.
Finally, In the interview one of the TFAAF guys mentioned that he tries to refrain from using the phrase ‘I’ll pray for you’ because he sees it as an unnecessary, and most times hollow, replacement for the phrase ‘I love you.’ I thought this was a really sweet sentiment and a great intentional exercise, one that I’ve practiced for a while myself. For me, though, I also substitute the phrase ‘I’m thinking of you’ quite often because, as Richard Lubbock poetically writes in his great essay, “every time we move, OR think, we disturb the whole universe.”
So yeah, I will probably keep praying…as well as thinking, learning, hearing, contemplating, feeling, seeing, sensing, intuiting, and taking account of things, because when we do these psychic or mental activities, we are really doing something (as opposed to doing nothing), and these things do indeed matter (pun intended).
…
Photo Credit: jharada
Tags:actioncontemplationidealismmaterialsimmetaphysicsprayerprocess philosophy
Beautifully done!
Great stuff here! I think you would enjoy the book, we really do get into some of these things in more detail, and I think we offer some great suggestions for ways to practice the presence of God to crib from Brother Lawrence.
I want to respond briefly to the idea that intercessory prayer can have an effect at a distance: studies are very split on this and in no case is the effect anywhere near as dramatic as the effect of say, physical presence and affection, or food, or medicine. Basically, we are not arguing that intercessory prayer accomplishes exactly nothing. We are arguing that it is almost never the best use of your time. The circumstances under which we can't imagine a better response to a situation than intercessory prayer are vanishingly rare. It's maybe the case that praying for someone who is sick will help them feel better. It is definitely the case that visiting and bringing them a casserole will help them feel better.
Thanks for writing Aric. Sorry but I just saw this comment.
I fully acknowledge that what you guys are criticizing is valid and relevant and important—I say so in my initial post. Prayer can indeed function pathologically, no doubt. But it doesn’t have to, and it doesn’t always turn pathological. I think these things are important to acknowledge. And admittedly, as I write in the post, I haven’t read the book, just listened to the interview three times. Maybe you guys aren’t as hard on prayer in the book as you are in the interview and try to offer some healthy therapy for pathological forms of prayer…
Anyway, I’m happy if my I can just get across the point I was making by citing other mental activities like art, reading and learning. All of these things can turn pathological or become dis-eased.
Prayer is very much like art I would say. As far as aesthetic judgements go, I do try to hold a Kantian middle path but lean just a touch toward the old notion of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” And forgive me, but I do find it beautiful when an old lady prays for her sick grandson.
As for why prayer is special to me, I tried to explain this in the initial post. I don’t see prayer as a form of magic. The effects of prayer are much the same as the effects of other events. And that is what makes it special. I’m inclined to believe that everything that happens to us affects God. Likewise, prayer affects God. So, for example, if one prays that God’s will be done, this isn’t necessarily just a prayer about self-improvement. As Cobb likes to say, it’s “the openness to God that is inherent in prayer that enables God’s grace to work in us. It is God’s grace that actually leads us to be more in alignment with God’s will.”
Anyway, I’m happy to talk with you more about my views on prayer if you like. And again, I do appreciate what you guys are doing, I’d just prefer that we also address the thing behind the thing (our ontologies, and/or conceptions of God/Reality) and tease apart the healthy from the pathological, transcending but also including.