www.stephendawes.com
go to university diploma or degree go to university certificate (1) go to university certificate (2) go to Truro Theological Society go to powerpoint presentations
Prayer. Thinking Things Through - 10. Epworth Press 2003 ISBN 0 7162 0555 6
My response to the Editor's request to write this book was, 'Why me?'. I pointed out that other things I had written had usually been on subjects I knew something about ... Anyway, he won. The aim of the Thinking Things Through series was to help Christians to think through their faith. Instead of setting out aspects of Christianity in an academic way, the authors were asked to begin from issues that arise in everyday life. The books could either be read by individuals or used in groups. Questions at the end of each section are given as a spur to reflection and discussion. Christians pray or at least they are supposed to pray. But what are they doing when they pray and why are they doing it? Are they trying to change God's mind or even change the world? This book follows the usual format of the 'Thinking Things Through' series. Part One listens in as members of Trepolpen United Church struggle with their difficulties about prayer, especially intercessory prayer. Part Two thinks the issues through by asking fundamental questions about what prayer is and about the God to whom we pray. It is not a 'How to Pray' kind of book, but a book about what we might be doing when we do pray.
CONTENTS: Part One Part Two
Trepolpen United Church (Church of England, United Reformed and Methodist) is one of those churches where coffee is served in the revamped foyer of the church after morning service. Some of the congregation sit around with their friends, some move from group to group chatting about this and that, and some get straight off home to make sure Sunday lunch is ready. Today’s service is over, nicely within the hour, and Sue is telling her friends Jo and Christine what she has heard this morning on Pause for Thought on Radio Ourshire. She usually listens to the three minute slot the local radio station puts on each Sunday morning, and often gets something from it, but today was somehow different. She wasn’t sure what she made of it. The speaker was someone she knew. He had been the visiting preacher at their Harvest Festival a year or two before and he often spoke on the radio. He was someone she enjoyed listening to, someone she trusted. But what he had said this morning had made her think - she knew that that was no bad thing - but it had also made her slightly anxious. And she wasn’t quite sure why. So she was telling Jo and Christine about it. This is what she had heard,
As Sue tells them what she remembers of the broadcast, Christine listens attentively. She enjoys a good discussion about Christianity, about most things really, and can’t wait for Sue to finish so that she can chip in. Jo is the opposite. She comes to church, enjoys the worship, gets involved in some of the social events that go on and is always ready to help with the tea, the creche or the cleaning. Even the Christian Aid house to house collection if they’re desperate. But she’s not at all sure what Sue is getting at and doesn’t really want to know. This kind of conversation makes her uncomfortable. She is glancing at the clock, waiting for the moment in which it would be polite to say she has to go now. The moment has come and Jo has gone. Christine, a bright thirty-something who has recently qualified as a lay preacher, is making it quite clear to Sue that she thinks the Farmer Vicar is spot-on. The idea of praying for good weather went out with the Middle Ages, she insists. And the idea of God arranging the weather according to how many prayers he gets for what kind is nonsense! Besides, doesn’t a farmer want rain on one field and sun on the next at the same time? How is God expected to cope with that? It’s easy to laugh, Sue thinks, but doesn’t say. She can’t put her niggling feelings into words. Something inside her doesn’t want to admit that Christine and the Farming Vicar might be right. It makes God sound so - what’s the right word? - helpless. Yes, helpless. And if God really can’t change things or help with things, then what is faith and worship all about? And why do we pray at all? Then, coffee cup in hand, Mary arrives. She is the lay preacher who has led the worship that morning. She had seen the little group of young mums in the corner earlier, but had been waylaid by a talkative visitor as she was making her way to join them. Despite that, she has been able to overhear much of their conversation. Christine never was quiet. She also noticed the look of relief on Jo’s face as she slipped away. Escaping from the visitor, she decides to take pity on Sue, for she knows Christine’s lively mind and strong arguments from discussions in the Preachers’ Meeting. Besides, she wants to get involved. Christine finishes what she was saying to Sue and summarises it for Mary, who is obviously interested. Would that be worth talking about in the House Group? Mary asks. Yes, it would, thinks Sue, who rarely says anything in the House Group but has got a lot from it in the two years she has been attending. Yes, it would, says Christine, always ready to talk about anything, anywhere.
Andrew has done his usual thing. The House Group is holding its monthly meeting tonight in their lounge, so he has prepared the coffee and biscuits, welcomed the dozen or so people who come, put the coats on the spare bed, and withdrawn to the loft to work on his model railway. Mary, who leads the group most months, has done some homework. She has phoned John Smith, the Farming Vicar, and asked him for a copy of the script of that Radio talk he gave three weeks ago which had made Sue feel uneasy. His response had been even better than she had expected, he had sent her a tape of it. Mary’s House Group, as they all call it, has an open programme. Usually they decide what to do at the beginning of each meeting, for it’s the sort of group that tries to scratch where people are itching and most of those who come to it are the sort of people who will bring issues to be shared. Occasionally something will have come up at the previous meeting and they will have agreed to work on it at the next. This month, though, they have nothing like that planned and so Mary, after she has welcomed everyone and led them in a short gathering prayer and a longer centring silence, shares her suggestion that they think about the Farming Vicar’s radio talk. No one has any other suggestion to make, so Mary presses the button on the zapper and they hear, "Good morning everyone, this is …." Mary has seen too much go wrong with technology in church, so she has done everything properly. She has checked in advance that the machine is working, that the tape fits and plays properly and that the volume is set right. So there’s no embarrassed pause wondering if it will work and no embarrassing faffing-about trying to sort it out in full view of the group when it doesn’t. They listen. The tape stops. Mary invites them to be quiet for a moment or two to reflect on what they have heard. As soon as it’s open for talk, Geoff is in there. That’s exactly what’s wrong with the church, he says, vicars who don’t believe in the power of prayer and then go round telling people they don’t. No wonder the churches are empty. But he believes in the power of prayer. And it works. He prays for journeying mercies every time he takes his car out of the garage. And he prays for a parking space every time he comes into town and God always answers his prayer. Things become very animated very quickly after that. Christine jokes that Geoff’s kind are those who pester God as if he’s got nothing better to do than to look after them and meet their needs, however trivial those needs might be. And as for "journeying mercies", she can just about remember her granny praying for those and that was centuries ago, but that might have been because of grandad’s driving … Geoff comes straight back. He is serious. He believes that God answers prayer and that God is so interested in every part of our lives that nothing is too small or insignificant to bring to him in prayer. Nor is any part of life too trivial for him to care about. Christine sees that the time for joking is over. So she asks Geoff what he thinks he has got eyes and hands and a brain for? And before he can answer she tells him. They are gifts from God for him to use to find his own parking space when he drives into town. Then she moves on. What is really wrong with Geoff’s point of view, she argues, is that it is fundamentally unfair, even unjust. It paints the wrong picture of God and sends out the wrong signals about him. It makes him partial. Praying people are his favourites and he gives them special deals. He might make his sun shine on the good and the bad alike, and his rain fall on the just and the unjust, but when it comes to parking spaces there’s one law for those who pray and another for the rest. Is that it? As far as she is concerned that is ‘insurance policy prayer’ at its worst. She couldn’t believe in God at all, she says, if she thought there was a shred of truth in what Geoff is saying. The rest of the group are a bit stunned. Lively discussions are one thing, but this has almost become a violent argument. Some begin to take sides. Others try to defuse things a bit. Someone asks Geoff if it’s really true that he gets a parking space every time. Someone else says that he’s just lucky, that it’s a happy coincidence that someone is always leaving just as he’s arriving. Someone else says that it really is time the Council built a bigger car park anyway. Someone asks Christine about what she thinks it is right to pray for. Someone else says that she must be very brave if she never sends up a little prayer when she’s driving round the ring road in the rush hour. Someone else reminds them all that praying for things or for people is after all only one kind of prayer and that there are others. Sue says nothing all evening. She doesn’t pray like Geoff does, and thinks that his way of praying does sound rather, well, childish really: but she is also worried by Christine’s response. Surely God is interested in each of us? What about that hymn which says he "delights to meet fresh needs"? And doesn’t Jesus say things like "Ask and you will receive" and "How much more will your Heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him"? She is more confused than ever. She wishes she’d never listened to the radio that Sunday morning and never said anything about it to Christine and Jo at church. Geoff goes home muttering about Christine and all the other semi-believers who do so much damage to the church. Christine goes home muttering about Geoff and how much harm he and those who are as naïve as he is do to the church. Mary has a sleepless night. The evening hadn’t gone right at all. She knows that. It hadn’t been a discussion. It had been an argument. Nobody had listened to anybody else. Nobody had tried to get behind the words and the feelings. Perhaps they had started at the wrong place? The radio talk had been about what it is right or wrong to pray for. Perhaps that’s not the right place to have begun? But that was precisely the question that had been bugging Sue. Someone had said at the end that there is much more to prayer than praying for things, Mary knew that, that intercession is only one kind of prayer, but she also knew that it is an important one and a difficult one. She’d made the suggestion about tonight herself, hadn’t she, because that was the question which bugged her too? But one thing was clear to Mary. It was that for both Geoff and Christine this issue had touched a nerve. It was not just a question of how to pray or what to pray for. Nor a question of what prayer is and how it works. Was it a deeper question of what God is like and what having faith in him means? It almost looked as if Geoff and Christine believed in two rather different Gods. She consoled herself with the fact that the evening hadn’t been a total disaster, else they wouldn’t have committed themselves to carrying on the conversation next time would they?
You don’t have to have a dog to be a member of Mary’s House Group: but it helps. Vincent (King Charles Spaniel, full pedigree) and Sarah (terrier plus collie plus several unidentifiable bits – all in the same dog) often walk their dogs together on the Common. "Vincent" "Yes Sarah?" "Last night made me a bit uncomfortable …" "Mmm?" "Well, it’s not easy to talk about is it?" "What isn’t?" "Prayer, of course" "Suppose not" "How do you pray, then?" "Two Hail Marys, night and morning" "Pardon?" "‘Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen’. Twice. Night and morning. In bed" "In bed? Not in a quiet time or anything like that?" "No. In bed" "Do you have a quiet time or anything like that?" "No" "You don’t have a time when you sit down and think and pray and read the Bible and things like that?" "No" "No?" "No, Sarah. Why? Do you think I should have?" "Well, Christians do, don’t they? I mean, aren’t we all supposed to pray every day and read the Bible every day? That’s why they sell the Bible Reading notes at church, isn’t it? And the Prayer Handbook?" "That’s what we were always taught at St Agatha’s, well, the saying your prayers bit anyway; but I don’t know how many folks do or don’t. I suppose old Father Alfred wouldn’t be amused at my quick Hail Mary night and morning." "But you say it" "Yes, I say it" "Oh …" "Sarah, do you have a problem here? You used the "supposed" word. Are you saying that you think you’re supposed to pray every day and read the Bible every day, but you don’t?" "Yes. No. I mean Yes, Yes I think I’m supposed to, and No I don’t actually do it. Not every day, anyway" "And you feel bad about it?" "Sometimes" "Sometimes?" "Sometimes. Especially when I’m with some of the group, like Mary and Liz, and specially Geoff. I think they’d be horrified if they knew about it. You’re not horrified?" "It takes a lot to horrify this lapsed Catholic" "But you pray night and morning?" "Two Hail Mary’s between putting the light off and going to sleep isn’t quite enough to get you canonised, even these days when we get a new saint every other week" "Don’t you feel bad about it?" "No" "Have you never felt bad about it?" "Yes, I have. Just like I felt bad when I stopped going to Mass every week. But I was a teacher. My job was trying to get young people to think for themselves" "Oh, that sort of teacher" "Yes, that sort of teacher. Just like you. I was a teacher, Sarah, trying to get youngsters to think, and eventually I realised that I needed some space to think for myself. Still do. But if we’re into sharing confession time, I go into St Dominic’s Cathedral every time I go into the city, and that’s once a week most weeks. And I sit there, in that holy place, just sit. "Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits" "Huckleberry Finn" "Indeed. Just sit, but it’s getting to mean a lot" "My just-sitting place is over there. The seat by the fir tree" "Ah …" "But often I sit and read. Especially prayers, little books of prayers and meditations, Jim Cotter, Iona, I even hum the odd Taize chant." "Can’t stand them, even though they’re in Latin they’re still ditties" "Vincent!" "Sorry" "Yes, I sit and read, sometimes, not always. I suppose what we’re both doing is "centring," is it? Isn’t that what the women’s magazines call it? Not quite meditating or anything like that, but "Be still and know that I am God", that sort of thing?" "I suppose it is. What do you do when it rains?" "Oh, I don’t do it every day or anything like that. But yes, if it rains and I need my space – I suppose I am really talking about a sort of quiet time, aren’t I? – I call into St Ethelbertha’s. It’s one of the few churches around these days which are unlocked, and you’d be surprised how often you see somebody else just sitting. Thank you, Vincent" "Thank you?" "Thank you, Vincent, for listening. Thank you for helping me say what I haven’t said before, for helping me look at what I do and not feel guilty about what I don’t do. Thank you" "Er … No problem. "Pray as you can, not as you can’t", somebody or another said once. Perhaps that’s what we both do? Bye then" "Bye"
Mary, Christine and Ian meet every three months to talk about their preaching. It’s part of their responsibility as lay preachers and they take it seriously. This time Ian’s flu has got in the way but Mary and Christine decide to meet anyway. Christine asks Mary about how she prays and what she thinks prayer is all about. Mary replies that she doesn’t have much difficulty about prayer, except for prayers of intercession in public worship which they were trying to sort out anyway; nor, these days, too much difficulty about actually doing it, not since she retired and they had the new central heating put in. Christine looks puzzled at the last point, so Mary explains. For her, she says, time and place are important in the way she prays. Retirement doesn’t mean that she now has any more time than before, but that she does have a bit more freedom in organising it, so after breakfast every weekday she goes to her special room for twenty minutes or so. Her special room? The old box room, Alistair’s tiny bedroom, is now her special room, used only for being quiet. It’s her prayer room and reading room, nothing else. It’s a very precious place, and that is where she prays, sitting in a comfy chair, having lit a candle and put on a CD. What does she do? She begins by reading the daily Bible reading from the lectionary in the Methodist Prayer Handbook; slowly, entering into it as deeply as she can, meditatively. If it’s a story she tries to become one of the characters, to imagine herself into the scene. That’s something she learned from a speaker at a conference. That usually leads into deeper and deeper silence, focusing on something of God which has emerged in the reading. It is an alert silence, in which she is aware of herself and of the real life world, and also of God’s presence. She hasn’t really studied contemplative prayer, but she guesses that this is more or less what she is doing. She prefers to think of it as ‘communing’ with God, ‘practising the presence of God.’ Mostly she says very little, though sometimes she will repeat a verse of Scripture, or a line of a hymn, over and over again, as the focus of her meditation. Mostly, she says, she just relaxes with God, listening to the silence of his presence and letting herself, people, places and situations be held in it. How long has she been doing this? She admits that she has only been praying like this since retirement and the new heating system, but it’s not too different from what she has always done: made time for God and let him fill that time. She wasn’t always as organised as she is now, but this is how she has tried to pray for many years. This was, in fact, how she became a preacher. Listening for God and to God in this way, she felt a call to preach. She didn’t heard a voice, but she felt a growing conviction that preaching was something God wanted her to do, was calling her into. And that sort of thing happens often, she says. As she listens, she hears. Christine looks at her quizzically. Mary explains that a key Bible verse for her is John 4:24, ‘God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth’. For her God is the Spirit which breathes through all creation, which animates all creatures, which is the giver and sustainer of all life. God is the Spirit which inspires music, art, poetry and every search for truth. God is the Spirit which disturbs all those people who seek for meaning and purpose in their lives. God is, she has come more recently to believe, the Spirit behind all religions. Christine wants to pursue that but Mary hurries on. God is Spirit - active, alive and working, she says, and prayer is being open to him. Look at how the Bible speaks of God, she says, all those busy and active words like creating, calling, equipping, sending, speaking, revealing. God does all that and people hear and see, they respond. That’s how the Bible story unfolds. Like the old hymn says, ‘spirit to spirit thou dost speak’. God is real, the reality behind or within everything we see, and prayer is tuning in to that divine reality. Christine has not heard Mary talk quite like this before. Mary then quotes the verse of Tennyson about God being ‘closer than breathing, nearer than hands and feet’. She confesses that she doesn’t know where ideas come from or where great music or new visions come from, but that she believes that they came from somewhere. They are ‘inspired’, she explains. She knows that the scientists are debating about how brains work and how minds relate to brains, but for her it is God the spirit which Mozart tuned into and where visions and great ideas come from. She has, she says, no problem at all in believing that God affects human beings, that he ‘works’, that he ‘does things’, that ‘Spirit’ can speak to ‘spirit’. And to prove that point she shares with Christine that experience she has had more than once of simply knowing that she must go and see someone, and finding when she got there that something had happened and she was needed to be there. If that’s not God working, speaking, inspiring, she said, she didn’t know what it was. How it works she didn’t know. That it does happen, she is convinced. And Geoff’s car parking space …, queries Christine. That’s different, Mary answers, different.
June came to the next meeting of the House Group after a gap of several months. Her recent tragic bereavement is on everyone’s mind. They had prayed, individually, in church and in the house group, for her daughter’s recovery from cancer. June and her husband, Adrian, are loyal and faithful members of the church and everyone had been deeply concerned for them and for Julie, who many of them had known since she was little. Julie, her family, June and Adrian had been surrounded by love, care and prayer. Friends from the church had taken Julie to several different Healing Services. Some had helped. Some had hindered. But there had been no remission of the cancer. The minister had visited regularly, as had others from the church, and she had prayed and laid hands on Julie. But all to no avail. Julie had died, leaving behind a husband and two small daughters. June knew what the group had been talking about in its last few sessions, for Mary had told her. But once they start on the subject again, June amazes them. She tells them that she had been embarrassed by many of the prayers she had heard prayed for Julie, and angry with some of them. Julie’s cancer had been diagnosed as inoperable, and though she believed in both the mystery of life and faith and the marvels of God’s love, she did not believe that God could do anything about her daughter’s inoperable cancer. She spoke quietly, but she was determined to say what she thought needed to be said. When she had finished, there was a deep silence: not an embarrassed one or an awkward one, but a grateful one. June had spoken out of her pain with an honesty, integrity and simplicity which wasn’t commonly heard or easily said; and they were respectful of what she had given to them. Geoff wondered at first if this explained why Julie had not been healed. Because no-one had believed she could be healed, she wasn’t healed. That was the sort of thing he had heard speakers say at some Healing Services, and it was what he would have said himself at one time. Now he didn’t really think so. It just didn’t ring true when you knew Adrian and June – Julie too – for they really were faithful, sincere and believing Christians. He couldn’t understand why Julie had been struck down with cancer, or why so many prayers for healing had had no effect: but he wasn’t any longer prepared to blame anyone for not having enough faith. This had been one of those times when God’s answer to prayer had been ‘No’. The group let June talk about Julie and her illness for some time. She spoke about her initial shock, disbelief and anger. How she had shouted at God that it wasn’t fair. She talked about the way she had clutched at straws when the oncologist had talked about drugs and treatments, or when she had heard cancer survivors talking on Women’s Hour. She talked about bitterness and resentment giving way to resignation, resignation being replaced by grudging acceptance, then by peace and trust – sometimes all on the same day. She shared how she had been frightened and confused and how these moments came and went. She talked about her feelings of utter helplessness, of having to stand by, unable to do anything for Julie. She had done all sorts for John and the grandchildren, of course, and there would be much to go on doing there, but that was somehow different. Now it was all over, and life had to begin again, she said to them, though inside she didn’t really know how it could or would. So she went on to talk about what people had said when they heard of Julie’s illness and what she had thought about it. Almost the first question that she and nearly everybody else had asked was ‘Why?’ – Why should this happen to Julie? Why should this happen to anybody? Why is there suffering at all? And she had listened to the answers and decided that none of them were right. No one said this to her face, of course, but she knew that some people believed that suffering was the result of a person’s sin. You got what you deserved. If you were bad you suffered; if you were good you prospered. She knew that there was some truth in this, hadn’t Grandad died of a heart attack at 53 when he was grossly overweight after a lifetime of puddings, cakes and sweets with no exercise at all? And wasn’t he a heavy smoker too? Yes, lifestyle choice does come in there somewhere, June recognised that. But that’s about as far as it goes, she had thought, as she listed all the rogues and rascals she had known who had died peacefully in great old age and all the good and nice people who had died tragically or young. No, that was no answer. Nor could she accept that God sent, or allowed, suffering to test us or to make us better people. She had seen some people learn and grow through suffering; but in her long nursing career she had seen far more lives broken and faith lost by suffering. If God allowed suffering to increase the total sum of human happiness and teach the human race lessons of care and compassion, then he’d got his calculations quite wrong, had been Adrian’s reaction to that. Others blamed evil, the Devil, cosmic powers bent on destroying God’s creation and opposing his work. She had found that explanation tempting but the minister had said that there was only one supreme God and that it was a heresy to think of two great competing powers of Good and Evil. Adrian had suggested that ministers were not always right. She was in no doubt that human beings did cause quite a bit of suffering for their fellow human beings, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not; and how much ‘environmental factors’ might have contributed to Julie’s cancer was something they had reflected on quite a bit. The more she had puzzled over these things, however, the more she had come to think that asking ‘Why?’ was not a very useful thing to do. Did there have to be a reason for Julie’s illness? Why not think of it as ‘just one of those things’, just as much a random accident as one of those road accidents where nobody is to blame at all? Bad things happen to people sometimes because they just happen to be the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just like that. ‘Happenstance’ was a lovely old word that seemed to do nicely. There was no reason for Julie’s illness at all, she had concluded in the end, it was one of those awful facts of life. The better question to ask, she had come to think, was ‘Where is God to be found in such chances and changes of life?’ At this point Mary decided to ask June what she had meant when she said that she had been embarrassed and angry at some of the prayers for Julie she had heard. June’s first point surprised her. It was not one she had been expecting. June reminded Mary, as a preacher, of two common verses and responses used in the prayers of intercession in Sunday services. The first was "Lord in your mercy / Hear our prayer" and the second was "The Lord hears our prayer / Thanks be to God". June’s objection to the first one was that it sounded as if God needed to be persuaded to listen; that it suggested that he was at best a bit inattentive and at worst capricious. The prayer sounded like begging God to listen to us, twisting his arm to help us by reminding him of his care and love – his ‘mercy’. Her God was simply not like that, June insisted. Her objection to the second was that it did the very opposite. It took it for granted that God would do what we asked, and that all would be well. That was just not being real, she said. Mary asked what June would prefer to say instead. What she looked for, June said, was a way of praying in public which allowed people to voice their concerns in ways which did not suggest that God was indifferent to their concerns or suggest that a solution was immediately on the way. God did not need to be asked or reminded to love Julie, she said, his love was holding her all through her illness. And it didn’t help us or the congregation to be told that all would be well when we all knew it couldn’t be. Mary thought that as a preacher she ought to think much more carefully about those little phrases she used so easily and so often. June’s second point was about prayers that Julie would be healed when the diagnosis was that her illness was terminal. She felt that these prayers were unrealistic and that they made unfair demands on God. If healing didn’t happen, and in Julie’s case it hadn’t happened, it was inevitable that people would start pointing the finger of blame and that it would be pointed in one of two directions. There would be those who pointed it at Julie for not having enough faith, or something like that. And there would be those who pointed it at God for not answering prayer or for not delivering on his promises. June thought that was plain unfair. It was one thing to blame God for something he could do something about, she said, but it wasn’t fair to blame him for something he could do nothing about and for her inoperable cancer came in that category. You can’t ask God to do the impossible, she said, though many people prayed for Julie as if you could and as if he did it every day! That sort of prayer creates unrealistic expectations, she said, and leads to nothing but disappointment and disillusionment when nothing actually happens. Finally, at Mary’s prompting again, June had talked a bit about the kind of prayers which really had helped her and Julie. She started by saying how helpful it was to know that they were all being remembered, week by week, in the prayers in church; and how good that felt, being ‘remembered’. Then she said how helpful it had been to be told the same thing in the cards which came, though they often said little more than ‘Thinking of you’. It was strange, she noted, how so many people in the church found it much easier to say that than to say that they were praying for you. And when people did pray for them, she said, it was the prayers which thanked God for being there and holding them all which helped the most; prayers which asked for nothing except that they might all know, whatever happened, that they were held in an eternal love; prayers which almost helped them to feel that underneath and roundabout were the everlasting arms. That made them all smile a bit, for that was one of their minister’s favourite phrases, and they had all played the ‘How will she get it in this time?’ game in her services. Mary had never been to a Methodist Class Meeting like they had had in chapels in her granny’s day – or so they said. But she felt that they had been in a Class Meeting tonight. That June had been giving her testimony, telling her story, sharing her faith. That God had been with them in a special way. That in listening to June’s struggles, the group had been learning something important. There was no way to end the evening except in silence.
Andrew is playing with his trains again and Mary has opened the House Group with prayer. She had had a brainwave the previous weekend. For weeks the papers had been full of reports about the wettest autumn for years. Night after night the News on the telly had shown pictures of Worcester and York under many feet of water, railway lines washed away and disruption everywhere. Her own niece and nephew, who had only recently bought one of those little starter homes on a new estate, had come home from work a fortnight previously to find a foot of water in their lounge. Somebody bribed the planners to allow a housing estate to be built on a flood-plain, was Andrew’s first reaction to the news. They should have known better than buy it in the first place, was his second. Mary worried about Andrew sometimes. He had never been very hot in the compassion department, but he was getting more like Victor Meldrew every year. Last week’s Methodist Recorder had been full of the same sort of pictures, with stories of chapels and churches flooded out too. But it was the story of one group of good Methodist folk from somewhere or another, it didn’t really matter where, who had organised a prayer meeting for the rain to stop which had caught her attention. That and the fact that the Recorder reported it in a way which suggested that others might follow this good example. Her brainwave was to use this actual, real-life, current and pressing situation to explore the meaning of her chosen Bible passages for today. The fact that it tied in with what the Farming Vicar had been talking about on the radio was a bonus, and the clincher had come at the United Communion Service at St Ethelbertha’s that Sunday night. They had used a set of intercessions from the new prayer book, Common Worship, and they had actually prayed "for good weather and abundant harvests for all to share". She wasn’t sure she could believe what they were supposed to be saying, and Christine’s cough and splutter from two rows behind her had echoed round the church. The House Group began with the Lord’s Prayer. Floods, they concluded, didn’t have much connection with the first of the four requests it made to God, "thy kingdom come and thy will be done". Yes, they agreed, when God’s will was universally done and the world walked in his ways, which they took to be the sort of new world that the prayer was asking for, there wouldn’t be the kind of floods they have in Bangladesh because the trees in the Himalayas are being cut down. But they didn’t quite see that the flooding of the Severn or the Ouse came into the same category. "Daily bread", yes, they understood how people who had been flooded out could cry out for help to cope. The question was, what sort of help God could be expected to provide, and how he might go about it. They had no doubt at all that people needed help in circumstances like that, and that, thank God, it was usually provided from many sources and in many ways. But was that an answer to prayer? was the question Christine pressed, and they weren’t sure if it was or wasn’t. So why did you say ‘Thank God’, was Christine’s riposte. They didn’t stay long on the third request, the one asking for forgiveness. That didn’t apply here, they agreed, unless you took Andrew’s line about developers and planners. But did they know they needed forgiveness? And if they didn’t, could they be forgiven anyway? They shelved that one. That left, "lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil" and what did that mean? Did it mean that the flooding was the work of the Devil? Was it asking God to stop the flooding? Could he, even if he wanted to? Or was it a request for help to stay calm and not get angry if you were flooded out? Or a plea that God would help you so that you weren’t overwhelmed by despair? Or a not very subtle reminder that exaggerating your insurance claim was a morally dangerous thing to do? This was all good brainstorming stuff, they agreed, but it seemed to raise more questions than answers, even though most of the group said they were very interesting questions. Mary then introduced another Bible verse, which had long puzzled her. What about that famous saying of Jesus in Matthew 7:7-8 from the Sermon on the Mount?, she asked them, the one which goes, "Ask and it will be given you; seek and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who seeks will find, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened"? At that Geoff gets in first. Look at that promise, he says, and listen to the one who makes it. Our Lord himself is speaking on behalf of our Heavenly Father, our amazingly generous Heavenly Father, just wants to do for us immeasurably more than we can ask or think, just as Paul testifies in Ephesians 3:20 and Jesus says many more times. Look what that verse says, he goes on, anything we ask in the name of Jesus we will receive. So, that means that if we ask for the rain to stop and the floods to go down they will? queries Christine. Come on, she demands, we are supposed to be focused on the floods, so if we ask for the rain to stop will we get what we ask for? She doesn’t give Geoff time to answer. Jesus also said that with only a mustard seed speck of faith we can command a mountain to be thrown into the sea and it will be done for us, didn’t he? So why don’t you do that then, have compassion on all the victims of these awful floods and make things better for them? It doesn’t mean that, Mary tries to say in her most conciliatory manner. These are just very powerful and vivid expressions, figures of speech. They aren’t to be taken literally like that. Geoff isn’t sure that Mary is right, but he’s glad of the break from Christine’s attack. "Hyperbole", says Vincent. "You what?" three of the group say at once. "Hyperbole, a figure of speech, the deliberate use of exaggeration to make a point – I could eat a horse, that kind of thing", replied Vincent. Yes, says Mary, recovering her wits, a regular feature of Jewish teaching and storytelling if I remember right. Camels and eyes of needles, taking the plank out of your own eye, that kind of thing. Right? she asks, looking at Vincent. Right, he nods. What does it mean to ask for something in the name of Jesus? asks Sarah, breaking the awkward silence. Because that’s what we do at the end of most of our prayers isn’t it? We end our prayers with "in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" or something along those lines every time, don’t we? "For the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord" is another one, isn’t it? Is that the same? It is Mary’s turn to answer again, it seems. Yes, we do. And yes, it is. It means, one, that we are Christians who name the name of Jesus and are named with the name of Christ, so our prayers like everything else in our lives are dedicated to his service. It means, two, that we want our prayers to be checked out to see if they are worthy things for followers of Jesus to be offering or to be asking for. It’s another way of saying what Jesus himself said to the Father in his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, "not my will but yours", not what I want but what you want, that kind of thing. It means, three, that we are offering our feeble and inadequate little prayers as part of something much bigger and better, the prayers of the whole Church and of all the saints, and even the ongoing prayers of Jesus himself; like Vincent reminded us last week. Three points. She’d preached on that one before! But Geoff and Christine aren’t happy. Geoff is prepared to admit to himself that he can’t pray for God to stop the flooding, but he doesn’t want to throw the baby out with the floodwater which is what he thinks Mary is doing. Christine thinks Mary is not going far enough. Why can’t you just admit that God can’t do anything about the floods at all? she wants to ask but she decides not to press it any more. Instead she asks what, if anything, Mary the preacher can pray about the flooding? And Mary admits that she has problems here. She has few problems with the rest of the prayers in worship, she tells them, but the prayers of intercession, the prayers for other people and for the world in its pains and needs, do bother her. She has become increasingly uncomfortable with the intercessory prayers she hears in worship, almost to the point of not knowing what to say when she has to lead them. They all seem to be asking God for things - ‘shopping list prayers’ Andrew calls them. Should we be doing that, Mary wonders, treating God like a slot-machine dispensing answers to all our problems? And what happens when he doesn’t deliver the goods? That’s a recipe for anguish, as Mary knows from her own experience. And the worship books don’t help here either. When she says, ‘The Lord hears our prayer’ and the congregation replies, ‘Thanks be to God’, she wonders if it’s true and what difference it makes anyway? When she says, ‘Lord, in your mercy’ and they respond with ‘Hear our prayer’, it sounds to her as if we are trying to appeal to God’s better nature and persuade him to do something he’d rather not do. And as for, ‘Lord, hear us’ followed by ‘Lord, graciously hear us’ then that just seems like the worst kind of grovelling. So, she says, she would use guided silence for her prayers for those caught up in the floods, holding these people and situations before God and asking God to bless them. "Is that it?" thinks Geoff. "What does that mean?" thinks Christine.
Mary is taking the dog for his midday walk and meets John strolling down the lane. It’s one of those bright autumn afternoons when the mellowing colours are at their richest and there’s still a bit of warmth left in the sun. And it’s not raining. They lean on a field gate. John talks. Mary listens. "Felt a bit sorry for you last week, Mary, got a bit flustered didn’t you. Mind you, I’m not surprised. Go deep sometimes, them two, and they don’t listen to each other either. When old Granny Jenkins was trying to tell us something as kids, and we’d got our answers all ready before she’d finished, she’d look at us and ask us if we was listening or was we just waiting to speak? That’s Geoff and Christine if you ask me, always just waiting to speak. So don’t let them get to you, as they say. I thought it was a good night, getting down to a big question like that isn’t easy. Especially when there’s such different answers. You remember Uncle Will and Uncle Jack don’t you? Preachers, both of them. Bachelor brothers, worked the same farm, and worked it well. Over there it was, where Manor Estate now is. Good farmers, never a cross word on what to do and when and how to do it. Not, though, when it came to religion. I remember they had two favourite texts. Uncle Jack’s came from the Old Testament, "Elijah’s ravens, Will", he used to say, "it’s Elijah’s ravens". I remember after one particularly lively argument, Sam Mills, one of the lads who worked for them, painted two of them on the bonnet of Uncle Jack’s tractor. Took months to wear off, it did. Would have got him the sack if he hadn’t been so good with the pigs. Elijah’s ravens? You don’t know that one? And you a preacher too. Elijah the prophet was hiding in the wilderness, can’t remember why, and God sends these ravens to feed him. The old Bible, of course. I know none of you young folk (that made Mary smile) use it any more. Pity. "Elijah’s ravens, God provides, Will", "God provides", Uncle Jack would say. Uncle Will’s text was another saying of Granny Jenkins, a wise old thing she was, that’s where the uncles got it from. She used to say all kinds of things but Uncle Will’s favourite was, "It ain’t no good o’ wishing and sitting down to wait; though God provides the fishing, you’ve got to dig the bait". So he’d counter Uncle Jack’s "Elijah’s ravens" with "You’ve got to dig the bait, brother, dig the bait". They could go on about that for hours, them two. Couldn’t help thinking of them when Geoff and Christine were going on. Were you there the other week, when we had Harry Williams at chapel? Always like to hear a farmer in the pulpit. Do you remember what he said they had done out at Little Woodron, them and the Church? I can just about remember them doing that here, when this was still a village, before the town spread out. No? That Rogation-tide service, going round the parish in the spring blessing the crops. Hadn’t heard of that for years, but Harry said a lot of places were reviving it. Thought of that when you were talking about God blessing things. So I got my hymnbook out. No. The new one. I know I didn’t like it at first, but I like it now. What I don’t like is when we have that screen up and, well, they all sound the same to me and the words never fit the music. Don’t start me on that. Looked up the Harvest hymns in the hymnbook. I thought they’d support Geoff a bit, praying for good weather and all that sort of thing. But they don’t, you know. That lovely old Manx Fisherman’s hymn we haven’t sung for years, that one talks about God ruling the raging of the sea. ‘We Plough the Fields and Scatter’ talks about God sending the snow in winter, the warmth to swell the grain, the breezes and the sunshine and soft refreshing rain: but them are the only two I can find that support old Uncle Jack’s line. Most of them say how wonderful this world is, and praise the Maker for it, of course they do, but after that they seem to take Uncle Will’s line. Even ‘We plough the Fields and Scatter’, because if we didn’t do that there wouldn’t be any seeds or plants for God’s warmth and rain to feed and water, would there? Like Granny Jenkins used to say,
That’s the line the Harvest hymns take. I’m not quite sure where that leaves us about praying for things and people, though, Mary. God loves us and wants only the best for us. That’s the place to start, isn’t it? So is prayer a way of helping that along? Of helping to make that happen for people? Obviously it works sometimes by reminding us of things we must do. If you pray for the starving in Africa it reminds me in the pew to put my name on the House to House Collection list in Christian Aid Week. Right? Right. But maybe there is more to it than that, like you said? Maybe, prayer is us sort of adding our bit to God’s to help things on in ways we don’t understand? Our thoughts, our goodwill, our compassion, that kind of thing? Don’t know. Just wondering. We’d better get on. Dog’s had his rest and he’s ready for off again."
A few days later Vincent is on the Common again with his dog. Geoff doesn’t have a dog, but he is having one of his periodic and usually short-lived attempts at taking up jogging. When he saw Vincent he was glad of the excuse to stop. The conversation comes round to prayer. "You don’t have any problems with prayer, then, Geoff?" "I didn’t say that. I don’t pray as often as I think I should, or even as often as I want to. I have dry times when God doesn’t feel very close when it’s hard to pray. And I sometimes get angry at God with the answers I get when I’m praying for people" "But you do believe that God answers prayer?" "Yes. Always. Like somebody said, ‘More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of’" "Tennyson" "Oh, thanks. What about ‘Thou art coming to a king, large petitions with thee bring’?" "Don’t know that one, Vincent" "Old Methodist hymn, Geoff" "Well I wouldn’t know that then, would I?" "Suppose not. What about "He is ever more ready to hear than we are to pray" "Bible? No. It’s a collect, I think, but not sure which. Doesn’t matter, but you do believe that God answers prayer?" "Yes. Always. But only when prayer is offered ‘in the name of Jesus’" "Yes, we talked about that didn’t we? What do you think it means to say that?" "It means that there are all kinds of things that we can’t ask God for in prayer. We can’t ask him to let us win the Lottery. We can’t ask him to spoil the film when we’ve been flashed by a speed camera. We can’t ask him to make us win that contract we’ve tendered for, to give you an example from my own line of business. We can’t ask for those things because we can’t ask for them in the name of Jesus, because Jesus wouldn’t ask for them. Our prayers have to be for the sort of thing we could ask if Jesus was standing beside us listening to what we said, which I believe he is, actually. If you’d be ashamed or embarrassed to ask for something in the presence of Jesus, then that’s the sort of thing you shouldn’t be praying for anyway, and which God won’t answer if you do" "Okay. It’s the proper sort of thing to pray for, honest, loving, unselfish and all that. Does God answer every time?" "Yes" "Yes?" "Yes: but the answer isn’t always ‘Yes’. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s ‘No’. Sometimes it’s ‘Wait’. Sometimes it’s ‘Yes’ but in ways you never imagined. Sometimes it’s ‘Yes’ but in ways you can’t actually see at the time or for a long time after. And sometimes what looks like a ‘No’ turns out to be a ‘Yes’. But there is always an answer. Because that’s what Jesus promises us, ‘Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it’" "Even when you ask for a car parking space, Geoff?" "Yes, even then, because God loves his children and delights to meet their needs, and finding a car parking space is a real need" "But it’s a bit on the trivial side, isn’t it?" "Maybe, maybe not" "It’s certainly a bit on the selfish, just-for-me side, though, isn’t it, like a smaller version of wanting to win the lottery?" "No it isn’t. It is personal. It is small scale, I’ll grant you both of those: but it’s a real, genuine need. And God wants to meet those sort of needs for us, even in the details" "So there’s no such thing as ‘unanswered prayer’?" "Not if it’s a proper prayer in the first place, no. Though we don’t always like the answers. But God knows best. And he is in control. Believe me. Better go on. Bye now" "Bye"
Sue had not enjoyed the last few House Groups, but she had found the way June shared herself with them all so moving. She had come home that night much richer, she felt, than she had gone out. She also felt that some light was beginning to dawn on this whole business of prayer, and so she was glad when the minister rang the next week to say that it was time for her pastoral visit and when could they arrange it? Now they were sitting with a cup of coffee each, up to date with each other’s news, a couple of church jobs sorted out, and the minister in the picture about everything that had happened since the Farming Vicar’s broadcast had set this whole chain of events in motion. Sue wasn’t quite sure where to go next. "So, have I got this right," asked Clare to help her along a bit, "you were taken aback by that broadcast in which the Farming Vicar seemed to suggest that God couldn’t really change things or help with things?" Sue nodded. "But when June talked about what had happened to them, and how she felt that God had been with them through all their sufferings, that rang bells for you?" Sue nodded again. "You felt that although God hadn’t been able to do anything to save Julie, nevertheless he had been there in it all with them and there for them to help them through that awful crisis?" Sue nodded. "So, what sort of God do you believe in, Sue?" asked Clare, as she sat back waiting for an answer. Sue stuttered a bit over that question. Eventually she came out with, "I believe in a loving God, a God who cares for everything and everybody; a good God who made the world and who loves all that he has made". It was Clare’s turn to nod. "I believe that because of Jesus, who was ‘God with us’, who came to share our life and show us God’s love". Clare nodded again. "And what pictures of this loving God do you have in your mind when you pray or think about him?" was Clare’s next question. Sue stuttered again. "Father", she said, "must be one. King is another, though that makes him aloof and distant sometimes. Friend, especially when I think about Jesus. Things like that". Clare nodded. "But sometimes I don’t have any pictures at all, I think that God is just there, like air, or like water must be for fish". "The one in whom we live and move and have our being", Clare added, then remembered that she shouldn’t interrupt. Fortunately Sue didn’t look blank, "Yes, that’s it, something like that", she smiled, "but ..." "But …?" prompted Clare. "But, what about all that stuff about God doing things, saving people, appearing to Moses, dividing the Red Sea, making the Israelites a great nation and punishing their enemies, calling people to be prophets, making Mary pregnant, saving people, bringing Jesus back from the dead, giving the Holy Spirit, doing all those kinds of things, like we say in the Communion Service?" "You mean ‘the mighty acts of God’". "Do I? I don’t know." "You mean, ‘a God who acts,’ who does things, who intervenes to do good in his world?" "I suppose I do, and it’s that God that the Farming Vicar didn’t seem to believe in, and I’m just not sure. Haven’t we gone round in a circle again?" There was an uncomfortable silence which seemed to Sue to last quite a long time. "Do you believe in that sort of God, Clare?" Although Clare believed in honesty of preaching, this felt a bit too much like being put on the spot, but an honest question needed an honest answer. "No", she said, "I don’t. I believe in a "one in whom we live and move and have our being" sort of God; whose love is the energy of life itself; whose power and love sustains all life." That’s the sort of God I believe in. A God who works in and through nature, and in and through people". Sue was quiet. Then she said, "That’s June’s sort of God, isn’t it? And that’s why you keep going on about that Bible verse about, ‘The Eternal God is our dwelling place, and underneath and round about are the everlasting arms’, isn’t it?" "I suppose it is", said a slightly surprised Clare, who had to go on to see about a funeral. But they didn’t part until they had agreed another time for Clare to call back.
In Sue’s kitchen, a week later, over more coffee Sue asked Clare directly, "How do you pray to your God?" "Much of the time," Clare replied, "I’m happy to use the same kind of images of God that you said you used. When I pray I will call God ‘Father’, sometimes even ‘Mother’ but not very often in public with that one, or ‘Lord God’, or at times, ‘Lord God our Heavenly Father.’ I don’t often address God as ‘Heavenly King,’ though, and I’m very cagey about ‘Almighty God’". Sue chipped in that she remembered a bit of the sermon on that one. Clare continued, "I like to use a variety of different words when I address God, though I admit to falling back on one or two basic ones when my imagination dries up. So I suppose my standard ones are ‘Eternal God’, ‘God of Grace and God of Glory’ and ‘God of Life and Light and Love’. Actually, I’ve found the Collects in the new Methodist Worship Book very helpful, for they use a lot of new and imaginative ways of addressing God. And when you compare them with the Collects in the new Anglican Common Worship book you see how good they really are, the Anglican collects are still stuck in the old ‘Almighty God’ rut. I said that to Father Tony, and he agreed!" After finishing a mouthful of biscuit, Clare got back to the point, "But it’s more than just changing the way you address God, though that’s important. It’s also what you think you are really doing. If you think of God as a person – Father, Lord, King – that kind of picture, then prayer is like talking to someone. If that someone is a good listener you can tell them anything and everything. If that someone knows you and loves you, they listen and respond. If you need something from that someone, you ask, and how you ask depends on who they are and what you want: they might want to give it to you, they might not. Asking a Traffic Warden not to give you a ticket is a bit different from asking you for another cup of coffee. Yes please. Thanks. So if you think of God in terms of those pictures – Father, Lord, King and so on – prayer is about talking to God, often with a heavy asking component; asking for forgiveness, or asking for help for yourself or for others. Then that takes you into all those difficult areas of making requests which are, apparently, not answered. I don’t find this way of thinking about God or of praying very helpful myself, but it is the way most people still think of prayer, I think, and how they still think of God. After all, it’s the way they have been taught to think of God and to pray to him." "So if I don’t do it like that, how do I do it? One of my favourite ways of thinking about God is as ‘the one in whom we live and move and have our being’, as I think I said to you last week. That’s a way of thinking about God which comes from some ancient Greek philosopher or another, Paul quotes it with approval when he’s preaching to the Greeks in Athens. (It’s Acts 17:28 but Clare can’t remember chapters and verses). It’s a bit like what you said about air to us and water to fish. I think of God as the love which is the energy of life itself, the power and love which sustains all life. I think you noticed that one of my favourite Bible verses is that one from the Old Testament which says, ‘The Eternal God is our dwelling place, and underneath and round about are the everlasting arms’ (Deuteronomy 33:27). That’s saying the same thing really, though it’s a bit of a shock to discover in the new translations that they don’t translate it like that any more. Won’t stop me using it though". Clare really ought to watch her biscuit intake, thought Sue. "So, praying to a God like this is different from having a conversation with a person or asking someone for something. Must be. So there’s a lot of silence sometimes. Or poetry, or pictures, or music. It’s a sort of meditation, I suppose, which takes you out of yourself and into something bigger. It’s like tuning in to a symphony on the radio, losing yourself in it, but becoming very, very aware of things. ‘Focusing’ is another word for it, becoming absorbed in something, caught up in it." Sue nodded. She could understand this sort of prayer. She used it herself sometimes. "So praying for other people when you believe in this kind of God", continued Clare, "means holding people or places or situations in your mind in the conscious presence of God, offering your concern for them or anxiety about them, adding the energy of your love to the energy of God’s love. That kind of thing. It also means that by entering imaginatively into someone else’s situation, you yourself are changed. Often, too often, I finish praying like that knowing there is something I must do. And that’s not easy. Did I say last week that the God I believe in is a God who works in and through nature, and in and through people? Thought I did. And that’s how he does it, by changing me and you, and by drawing our loving concern into his life-giving energy of love which sustains all things". Sue didn’t look entirely convinced. "Okay then, here are two old ways of putting this and a new one. Have you heard of Theresa of Avila, sixteenth century, Spanish nun and mystic? Well, she said this,
Take out the word ‘Christ’ and put in the word ‘God’ and you’re getting there. Then do the same with the old Sunday School ditty,
The new one is this lovely song from Nicaragua,
Does that help? Then there’s this saying, which oversimplifies all kinds of things, but there’s something in it: ‘Prayer doesn’t change things. Prayer changes people, and people change things’. That’s how it seems to me".
Later that week there was a lively discussion at the monthly Minister’s Fellowship in the town. Clare started it by telling the seven ministers there about her conversation with Sue – though she mentioned no names of course – and the discussions which had been going on in her church. She had told them how pleased she was that her folk were talking about something other than the vandalism and money-raising. They were envious. They asked what had started it. ‘Interesting’, they said. They asked about the House Group. ‘Impressive’, they said. They asked what Clare herself had said. ‘Impossible’, one of them said. That started a time of thoughtful sharing. Clare spent the next ten minutes defending herself. Believing that God was the ‘one in whom we live and move and have our being’ was not heretical, she pointed out – though none of them had suggested it was - throwing in a reference to God as the ‘Ground of our Being’ from some modern theologian or another whose name she couldn’t remember. She did remember Paul’s marvellous description of God at the end of Romans 11 as ‘Source, Guide and Goal of all that is’ but then had to counter those whose Bibles were a bit more up to date than the New English. She was tempted to quote ‘Being’s source begins to be’ from one of her favourite unsung Christmas hymns and the first verse of ‘Being of beings, God of love’ but thought that Wesley’s hymns would be lost on her ecumenical friends. Her Old Testament verse was very well received. Thinking of God like this did not reduce him to some sort of impersonal force, she concluded, just as thinking of God as a person didn’t mean making him into an old man with a white beard in the sky. She was not alone in thinking in this way. Several colleagues shared their similar views. On the specific question of prayers of intercession, the other Methodist there chipped in with what he described as the most helpful thing he’d ever read about prayers of intercession. It came, he said, from a book from the Sixties which was a bit of a classic, that our prayers of intercession were the way we offered our love, concern and energy to God to help him do his work. God needs our prayers and invites them, he said, as a way of helping him. Clare thought that was a picture of God that made sense. There were those there who saw nothing wrong with thinking of God in very traditional personal terms as Father, Lord and King; and who saw absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with thinking of God as ‘Almighty’. ‘If God is not almighty, then he’s not God’, one colleague had insisted. We pray to him because he tells us to, they said. We ask him for things even though our needs are known before we ask, because that way we recognise and admit our need of God and don’t fall into the habit of taking things for granted which they all said was so very easy to do. It’s a way of acknowledging our dependence on God and of showing our gratitude, they said. Their response to the riddle of ‘unanswered’ prayer was similar to Geoff’s. Prayer is always answered. The answer might be ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Wait’, but there was an answer because God was in control and he was working his purposes out, despite all the forces of evil and death which were working hard to stop him and prevent his purposes being achieved. At this stage in the process, one said, we can’t see enough to recognise how all his answers to our prayer fit into that process: but they do. It’s sometimes very hard to believe that, but that’s the way it is. God is God. One day when that process is completed we will be able to look back and see God’s hand in everything and thank him for it, they said. One minister had sat silent through all of this, listening to both points of view but saying nothing. Eventually the others asked him what he thought, where he stood on all of this. He said that he didn’t find either of their ways of looking at things very helpful, even though both of them had centuries of serious thought and experience behind them. Both of them believed that God was ‘real’; that God was either a real ‘person’ or a real force behind or underneath or within the universe, and he couldn’t go with that. They pressed him about what he could go with, about what, if anything, he did believe. They didn’t call him an atheist who ought to look for another job, though a glance between two of them suggested that’s what they might have been thinking, for this was a minister they knew and respected, whose leading of worship was rich and real, whose care for people and commitment to justice and peace was practical and who they knew to be a person of prayer. So they listened as he explained that for him the word ‘God’ didn’t refer to a heavenly being or a life-giving power. It didn’t refer to any ‘thing’ at all. That sort of God didn’t exist, he said. Instead, he said, he used the word ‘God’ as a way of making sense of life, of creating meaning when so much around us is meaningless. For him ‘faith’ was making a decision to live by certain values – those seen clearest of all in Jesus – and to live against the grain of those who said that the only meaning in life was that of getting, having and keeping. It was to live ‘as if’, as if the Bible story world was the true one, as if love was at the heart of things, as if the world was created rather than just happening to be here and to live as if humanity mattered, as if all that was worth living, and dying, for. That’s what I mean when I say ‘I believe in God’, he said. ‘The word ‘God’ is shorthand for all of that’, he said. When they asked him about prayer, he answered that for him prayer was meditation and music and poetry and quiet and reading the paper and getting angry at the way things so often are, and laughter and tears. Above all, he said, quoting Paul from Philippians 4:8, prayer was about filling your thoughts with those things which are true, noble, just, pure, loveable, attractive, excellent and admirable; and by so doing being personally uplifted and encouraged to live in ways that make more of them in a world which is desperately short of them. They didn’t come to any agreed conclusion that morning. But they prayed together at the end as they always did; reflecting on the amazing grace and gleaming and resounding glory of God, acknowledging failure and need, receiving encouragement and renewal, thinking of and upholding each other and others in their need and going out in peace to love and serve God and his world in the name of Jesus.
Sue’s question over coffee started a chain of discussions, conversations and reflections on prayer among the folk associated with Trepolpen United Church. In their conversations we heard a wide variety of understandings of what prayer is and how it ‘works’ or doesn’t ‘work’. In this part of the book we look at the issues they have raised in a rather more systematic way. There is no religion, ancient or modern, in which prayer – public or private, corporate or individual - does not feature. So in the total of 1121 prayers found in The Oxford Book of Prayer there are 271 from other places than the Bible and other traditions of faith than Christianity. The one tradition of faith not found between that book’s covers is that of New Age spirituality, perhaps because that really arrived on the scene only after it was published. The call to prayer sounding from the mosque, the Buddhist prayer wheel, the incense sticks and crystals of New Age spirituality and the mantras chanted by the monks of Hare Krishna are all now familiar features of religion in Britain. No doubt prayer means different things to the different people who practise it in the many different religions found in the UK today, but prayer is a common experience they all share. It is a universal religious phenomenon. Not only that, but if the questionnaires and surveys are to be believed, many more of the nominally Christian population of the UK pray than ever demonstrate any allegiance to the Christian faith by actually going to church. What all these people do and why they do it would make a fascinating topic for research, but it is worth noting that they claim to do it. For the rest of this book, however, we will confine our thinking about at prayer to Christian prayer. Even here there is a vast range of styles of prayer to be found in Christianity in Britain today. To simplify our glance at them we will divide ‘prayer’ into two types: ‘public’ (or corporate) prayer and ‘private’ (or individual) prayer. A good example of one style of ‘public’ prayer is that found in the daily services of Morning or Evening Prayer which are said in our Cathedrals and which can still occasionally be found in an odd Parish Church here or there. Here a service of prayers and Bible readings is ‘said’ or, occasionally on Sundays and special days, ‘sung’ from a Prayer Book. The predominant voice is that of the priest who reads the set prayers. The congregation joins in the Lord’s Prayer, says the responses to sentence prayers led by the priest and adds its old Hebrew ‘Amen’ (‘Yes’, ‘Agreed’, ‘So be it’) at the end of the priest’s words. In the prayers of this service the standard four elements of public prayer are all present: adoration or praise, confession, thanksgiving, intercession, blessing and dedication. It is this service, refocused on a sermon and with the addition of congregational hymns, which forms the usual Sunday Service of most Methodist and United Reformed churches today. A very different but equally good example of ‘public’ prayer is the prayer offered in times of ‘worship’ and ‘ministry’ in churches which have been influenced by the charismatic movement. There will be a worship leader taking responsibility for these different times of prayer, but the prayers themselves will be offered, unscripted and unplanned, from all parts of the building by many different individuals. They will usually, but not always, be short; especially in the ‘ministry’ prayer time when the prayers may be no more than the naming of a person or a situation. But the church will not be quiet, there will be a hum or buzz of noise, for many who are not praying out loud for all the congregation to hear will not be praying silently but in a quiet yet audible voice. Others will be adding their own vocal ‘Amen’ or ‘Yes, Lord’ or other expressions by which they identify with the prayers being said. In those churches which practice ‘speaking in tongues’ not all the prayers will be in English. In those churches with a music group there may well be, especially in the ‘worship’ prayer time, background singing or instrumental music. Different again are services of prayer like the Vigil or the Taize service. A Taize service will feature much quiet singing of Taize chants as well as Bible readings and silence; the mix in each service will vary. Through the repetition of the chants, some of which are in Latin, the singers expect to move through the singing and the words into the silence of God’s peaceful presence beyond them. The building will usually be darkened, probably with a single candle as a focus, and the congregation will often be seated on the floor in a circle. Vigils come in many forms, but usually they have a focusing issue about which people have come together to pray. The prayers may be spoken or silent, but an increasingly common feature is the lighting of candles. Members of the congregation are invited to express their prayer and concern by lighting a candle and placing it on or near the focus point of the vigil. Variations include placing a stone or card or shell, whatever it is that they have been given on entering the building, on the focus point. Here prayer is expressed in action and gesture, often without words. The classic book referred to in the discussion at the Ministers’ Fellowship is J. Neville Ward’s The Use of Praying (Epworth Press 1967, reprinted frequently and still in print). In it Ward repeatedly makes the point that it is in the Eucharist that we see most clearly what prayer in the Christian tradition really is, that it begins and ends in thanking and offering. For him the Eucharist is in fact Christian prayer in its fullness. It is ‘the central and representative act of Christian prayer’ (p20), and in each of his chapters devoted to the different elements of prayer he draws attention to how each particular form of prayer is represented in the Eucharist. Although not all Christians would share Ward’s devotion to the Eucharist or even be comfortable using the word, we can nevertheless include that sacrament here as one more example of public prayer, both in the way that it features the essential elements of prayer and in the way that the total experience of the service is an experience of prayer. Ward also insists that corporate prayer is primary for the Christian and that private prayer is secondary. That does not mean, he adds, that private prayer is ‘expendable.’ It is, however, much more difficult to describe because it is so varied. Perhaps the model of private prayer which many still think is expected of them is that of a private version of Morning or Evening Prayer in which the Bible is read and prayers are said in a ‘Quiet Time’. The two orders of Prayer in the Morning and Prayer in the Evening provided in Common Worship and in The Methodist Worship Book, or the prayers for each day of the month in the annual Methodist Prayer Handbook are useful resources for those who are able to pray in this way. Mary comes very near to doing it this way in her quiet place and time, but it’s quite clear that many can’t and don’t pray in this way. Vincent, for example, only manages a quick Hail Mary before he goes to sleep but will ‘just sit’ in the cathedral every time he’s in town. Sarah, who feels bad about what she doesn’t do, has her favourite bench on the Common. How do other people actually pray? Some talk to God over the washing up, others as they walk the dog or mow the lawn. Some do yoga or meditation. Some use ‘arrow prayers’, brief moments of focused concern. Some burn incense sticks and put on a CD. Some buy books of prayers, read poetry or meditate on hymns. Some join in the daily prayers on the radio or put on a tape in the car on the way to work. Some do none of these, but commit to doing something practical as their way of ‘thanking and offering’. There are, it seems, a great many ways in which Christian people in Britain ‘practise the presence of God’, and I offer you that phrase as a good description or definition of prayer. It is based on the title of a collection of the prayers of Brother Lawrence, a Frenchman who was born around 1611, entered the Carmelite monastery in Paris in 1649 as a lay brother and worked in the monastery kitchen until his death in 1691. For another definition of prayer I suggest this, (in whatever terms we think of the Power behind the universe)’ From our glance at the ways this is done, we can see that this communication can be public or private, formal or informal, corporate or individual, with words or without words, momentary or sustained; and also that it is about both listening to God and speaking to God. One thing, however, is abundantly clear whenever you begin to talk or read about prayer. It is that there is much guilt around the business of private prayer. That many find ‘private prayer’ to be a burden rather than a delight. That many are ‘oppressed by things undone’ and are very conscious of the gap between what they do and what they think they ought to do in the prayer department. Such people need to hear Vincent’s parting words to Sarah at the end of chapter 3. It might help also to reflect that each of the following is a prayer:
Whatever else prayer may be, this first verse of James Montgomery’s old hymn shows that prayer is an expression of emotion and feeling, sometimes deep ones, sometimes lighter, surface, ones. Neville Ward sees the beginnings of prayer in the two ‘natural responses to life’ which he calls ‘thanking’ and ‘offering’, but for the really raw emotions at the heart of prayer we need to look at the psalms in the Old Testament, which over the years have been the public and private prayers of a great many people. Judaism and Christianity agree on the belief that God is; that there is a Supreme Being, an Ultimate Reality, a Power behind the Universe. They both say that we should speak of this Supreme Being, Ultimate Reality and Power behind the Universe in personal rather than impersonal ways; that that we should use the word ‘he’ rather than ‘it’ when we speak of ‘God’. They also agree that the word which comes closest to describing what God is like is the word, ‘love’, but that we must put inverted commas around this and every other word we might want to use to speak about the God who is beyond all our understanding, our imagining and our describing. Given this belief, Jews and Christians – and others too, of course, whose names for God are different - have a focus for voicing their deep or surface emotions, someone to whom they can express their joy or cry out in pain, someone with whom to laugh or to cry. They have, and this is the truly amazing claim made by religion in the face of the incredibly huge size of the universe and the minuscule tinyness of our overcrowded planet in a corner of it, a God who is interested in them and concerned about them. The Victorian children’s hymn puts it with a naive but accurate boldness,
Few of us, however, will not have had times and experiences which make that very hard indeed to believe, not least anyone who reflects on the history of the ‘bloody twentieth century’, but nevertheless that is the basic affirmation of our Christian tradition. So prayer, to go back to our definition, is communication and communion with a concerned and interested God to whom we matter a great deal. The majority of the psalms fall into one of two categories - praise or lament - and these two words are the terms I would prefer to use to describe the basic dynamics of prayer rather than Ward’s ‘thanking’ and ‘offering’. Under these two headings we can explore the dynamics involved in prayer.
This is the third verse of William Kethe’s translation of Psalm 100 in the hymn ‘All people that on earth do dwell. It can stand as a heading as we look at the dynamic of ‘praise’. Psalms of praise give voice to a joyful ‘Yes’, often an against-the-odds ‘Yes’, shouted by the whole community gathered in worship and on other occasions by individual worshippers. They are songs of celebration. They affirm life and receive it gratefully as a gift. It is as if the Worship Leader calls the people to worship with ‘Isn’t it great to be alive!’ and the choirs and congregation reply ‘Indeed it is!’ - ‘It is! It is!’ – ‘Amen! Amen!’ What evokes this outpouring of emotion which takes the form of grateful praise and thanksgiving to God varies from psalm to psalm. Psalm 103 is a good example of a psalm of praise. In verses 2-5 the psalmist counts the many blessings he has received from God. God has forgiven his sin, healed his diseases, saved him from the Pit, crowned him with love, satisfied him with good things and renewed his youth. Other psalms repeat the list. God has lifted the psalmist out of the ‘miry bog’ of illness (Psalm 40), saved him from untimely death (Psalm 30), brought victory in war (Psalm 18), heard and answered prayer (Psalms 66 and 116), destroyed the wicked (Psalms 73 and 75) and made our fields and farms prosper (Psalm 67). We might or might not find this a helpful way of speaking for it raises all the questions about how God can be said to act in our world. Can we talk about a God who can destroy the wicked, after a century in which unchecked human wickedness caused such genocidal terror? Why are his ‘blessings’ so unequally distributed (plenty for the few and famine or poverty for the many) and so arbitrarily bestowed (why was the psalmist saved from untimely death but not June’s daughter?). These are hard questions and they must be addressed. However, they should not blind us at this point to the sheer sense of gratitude which throbs through the psalms of praise. They do not take things for granted. They look out at life and say ‘Thank You’ for its gifts and giftedness. They express simple gratitude, and that’s no bad thing in any time and place. Gratitude is, however, only one of the emotions which give rise to psalms of praise. In the rest of Psalm 103 the psalmist is moved to praise by reflecting on what God is like. God has made himself known as Israel’s God and Saviour, calling his people into being, delivering them from oppression and blessing them with his guidance (verses 6-7). He has shown himself to be ‘merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love’; as compassionate as a caring and understanding father and a God whose ‘steadfast love’ is eternally reliable (verses 8-18). This passage repeats the description of God from Exodus 34:6-7 which has been called the ‘core-credo’ of the Old Testament as echoes of it are heard in most parts of the Old Testament. The psalmist applies that picture personally, speaking of God’s ‘amazing grace’, his forgiving and renewing generosity and his dependable kindness. The psalmist feels himself embraced by this ‘new every morning’ kind of love, a love which will not let him go, which has taken his sins and mistakes and put them behind him. So he is amazed by grace, moved to joy, love and worship in the depth of his being because of the love of God. This is another common feature of the psalms of praise. There is more. In verses 19-22 the psalmist catches a glimpse of the worship of the LORD, the King of Heaven. Worshipping in the Temple he finds himself caught up into the very worship of heaven itself, with his voice added to those of ‘angels, archangels and all the company of heaven’ as we say in our own services occasionally. Experiences like this are not common in the Bible, nor do most of us experience them very often, but moments of awe and mystery which put us in touch with something higher, deeper and richer are another way in which the response of ‘praise’ is generated in us. Perhaps it is Psalm 8, above all, which expresses this experience of wonder. We might look at a night sky, a sunrise or a view. We might see a new baby or be present at a sublime moment of human achievement or experience. Such experiences make us whisper a ‘Wow’ that melts into silence. That too is praise. All this is summed up in Joseph Addison’s hymn of 1712,
But now contrast that with Martin Luther’s powerful version of Psalm 130,
Here are two words not listed among the emotions and feelings in the definitions of prayer in dictionaries – ‘depths’ and ‘despair’. Add to those the word ‘anger’ and you have the basic ingredients of the psalms of lament, the other main category into which the psalms can be divided. In fact Psalm 130 is quite mild as laments go. Psalm 74 is much more full-blooded. The New Jerusalem Bible entitles it - Lament on the sack of the Temple and that may well be right. It hurls urgent questions at God: ‘Why is this happening to us?’ (twice each in verses 1 and 11). ‘How long before you do anything about it?’ (verse 10). It accuses him of doing nothing and demands that he acts. He must ‘Remember!’ (verses 2, 18 and 22), ‘Do not forget!’ (verses 19 and 23), ‘Come and see’ (verse 3), ‘Save his people’ (verse 19), ‘Honour his covenant’ (verse 20), ‘Do not let the downtrodden be shamed’ (verse 21). He must do something! (verse 22). It paints the people’s distress in vivid colours and challenges God all the way through. Time and again he is reminded in no uncertain terms that his reputation is at stake when his people suffer. He is the one being insulted by his enemies here! The psalmist appeals shamelessly to God’s past deeds – you have done it before, so do it again! And God is blamed directly for this trouble (verses 1 and 11). His people have not brought all this upon themselves. It is not their fault. It is his! And the psalmist demands an answer. This is an angry psalm of accusation, and the accused is God. Just as the psalms of praise give voice to a joyful ‘Yes’, the psalms of lament voice a powerful ‘No’. Shouted angrily by people of faith gathered in worship or on other occasions wrung out of the depths of an anguished individual’s despair, they are cries of pain. They come out of desperate situations where the only realities seem to be evil, darkness and death. They are cries of distress, acts of defiance against such things and pleas for help and support. What evokes this outpouring of painful emotion which takes the form of accusation and lamentation, this crying out to a God who seems to be either absent or silent, varies from psalm to psalm, but there can be few Christians for whom such experiences are unknown. Thus in the psalms, the oldest resources for spirituality and liturgy available to us in our tradition of faith, we have extremely diverse material – praises and laments - giving voice to a grateful ‘Yes’ and an anguished ‘No’. The one kind of prayer gives thanks to God out of and for life’s blessings and riches. The other cries out to God out of and because of life’s pains and troubles. Prayer arises, it seems, out of a deep human need to voice our feelings in both sets of circumstances. The basic dynamic of prayer, then, is our human need – individual and corporate - to give expression to our joy or our pain. In expressing these basic emotions we do not rejoice or cry into a void. We direct our praise or our lament to or at God, for we believe that we are not alone in the universe but that there is a God who is there. 2 The lament type of prayer does not feature very much in our corporate prayers today. How, then, can we deal with our strong feelings of hurt, anger, frustration etc? 3 Have you ever felt angry at God? What did you do with those feelings? We have seen from the discussions and conversations at Trepolpen United Church that we can’t go very far along the road of thinking through prayer until we come to the unavoidable and much bigger problem of thinking through what we mean by ‘God’. For Mary, God is ‘Holy Mystery’ or ‘Spirit,’ active, alive and working in the world. For Geoff, God must be ‘in control.’ For Clare, the minister, God is ‘the one in whom we live and move and have our being.’ Most of the problems the friends had with prayer, other than the practical ones, arose because of what prayer implied about what God was like and about what he could or could not do. So much depends on what we mean by God. That is what the discussion in the Ministers’ Fellowship was about. Now is therefore the time to explore this question a bit further. The Bible speaks of God as the Supreme Being and the pictures it uses are overwhelmingly personal ones. God is, especially but not exclusively in the teaching of Jesus, ‘Father’. He is ‘King’ and ‘Lord’. He is ‘Saviour’, ‘Redeemer’ and ‘Judge,’ which add up to the same thing in the Bible’s way of looking at things. He is ‘Shepherd’ and ‘Potter’, our ‘Maker’ and the world’s ‘Creator’. From these images we see that the Bible thinks of God as a ‘some-one’ rather than a ‘some-thing’, though it is always careful to point out that these are images, pictures and metaphors because God is ‘spirit’, and his nature and being defy our imagination and our categories. We see this clearly in the opening phrase of the Lord’s Prayer, where ‘Our Father’ is immediately qualified by ‘who art in heaven’ lest we forget that we are talking in picture terms here about the One whose ways are not our ways and whose thoughts are not our thoughts. The two Creeds speak with similar voice. The Apostles Creed begins by saying, ‘I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth’. The Nicene Creed begins with, ‘We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.’ Both share the same definition of God, that he is ‘creator of heaven and earth’ which expands to ‘maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen’. Both also give a description of God - ‘the Father almighty’ and ‘the Father, the Almighty’. The older and shorter Creed is simpler at this point, using ‘almighty’ as an adjective qualifying ‘Father’ in order to tell us what sort of a Father God is. In the longer one that word now stands alone and with both a capital letter and the definite article. It offers two descriptions of God: as ‘the Father’ and ‘the Almighty’. In the Apostles Creed this second word translates the Latin term omnipotentem (as in ‘omnipotent’, all-powerful) and in the Nicene Creed it translates the Greek term pantokrator, which means the same thing. And this word – in English, Latin or Greek - causes problems when it comes to prayer, as we have seen and which we will have to discuss later. In a not very well-known hymn, Charles Wesley addresses God as ‘Being of beings, God of love’, a phrase that reminds us that although personal images are the best we have with which to speak of God they are, like all our words, simply inadequate. ‘Being of beings’ also points in a slightly different direction, as it opens up the possibility of thinking of God as ‘ultimate reality.’ That hymn (Hymns and Psalms 690) is worth exploring a little more. The opening phrase – ‘Being of beings’ - sounds quite up-to-date in some ways, and is not a bad definition of what the word "God" might mean as it points to the life behind all life and the reality behind all reality. It is also a way of speaking about God in which Christians can join with people of other faiths and with believers who belong to no particular faith, for like many others, Christians do not believe that life, the universe and everything is an accident, but believe that behind it, underneath it, in it and through it there is an intelligence, a purpose, a reason and a personality which holds it all together. And the name we give to that deep purpose is ‘God’. But in that hymn Wesley goes on to say more and to do so he uses a much warmer and user-friendly title, ‘God of love’, the core creed of the Old Testament which Jesus incarnates and the New Testament endorses. When we sing this hymn we are affirming that we believe this ‘Being of beings’ to be a God of love. We believe that the God who is the reality behind and in and through all reality has made himself known to us through the People of Israel and in Jesus Christ, and that he has made himself known as a God of love. This is the God all Christians believe in and worship. If we want to press the question further and ask what we can say about this God, then the two words the Bible insists we use are ‘grace’ and ‘love’. ‘Grace’ is one of the key words of the Bible and one of its most reassuring themes. In the words of that core creed in the Old Testament God is seen as a gracious God, one who is amazingly kind, generous and loving,
The New Testament is convinced that Jesus expressed this grace of God in a unique way, that he actually embodied it,
So although the Bible also insists that God cannot be named, defined or pictured, it speaks of him as the One who Is, the one ‘in whom we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28), which Clare quoted to Sue (chapter 13), the ‘Source, Guide and Goal of all that is’ as the New English Bible translates Romans 11:36. This is the God about whom Jesus taught. Later Christianity went further and said that Jesus not only taught about him, but that somehow this God was actually present in Jesus in a unique way, which brings us to the ‘Doctrine of the Trinity’. In the last verse of the hymn Charles Wesley refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, just as the New Testament is happy to use those titles: but what neither the New Testament nor Wesley do is to weave these titles together into a theory. For the New Testament and for Wesley these titles are handy ways of talking about how we experience God, the Being of beings and God of love. We are, first and foremost, human beings, conscious of our lives as a gift and aware that we are not part of a great accident but of a creation - so we speak of God as ‘Father’ or ‘God the Father’ or ‘Creator’ or even ‘Mother’ or the like. We are also Christians who have seen in Jesus Christ the clue to the meaning of life, the universe and everything. We have heard his message of love and felt something of his risen power. So we speak of him as the ‘Son of God’ or ‘God the Son’ or ‘Lord’ or ‘Saviour’ or the like. We are believers and worshippers who know the presence of God as we pray or when we worship. We feel the touch of God as he comes to us through others or as he moves us and energises us in the depths of our beings. We are renewed as he gives us Life and as we are caught up into God himself. So we speak of the ‘Holy Spirit’ or the ‘Spirit of God’ or the ‘Spirit of Christ’ or ‘God the Holy Spirit’ or the like. In all these different ways we experience the presence of God with us, in us and among us. But at the same time it is the presence of the one Being of beings, the one God of love. In verse two of the hymn Wesley says that we are ‘made, and preserved, and saved’ by this God. In that phrase we see hints of these three sorts of experiences - made by God the Father, preserved by God the Holy Spirit and saved by God the Son - yet it is the one God we experience, the Being of beings and God of love. This is very near to a popular modern American way of talking about the Trinity which prefers to talk about God as ‘Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier’ rather than as ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ The hymn ends with a prayer that our lives might be energised by God (the Holy Spirit) that we may know and feel Christ's presence with us, his love shed abroad in our hearts, assuring us of our eternal home with Christ in God,
No doubt much more could, and some readers will say should, be made of the Doctrine of the Trinity than this, but this picture or image of ‘God in three persons, Blessed Trinity’ at the very least suggests that the Ultimate Reality is not static but dynamic, that the Supreme Being is not to be likened to an isolated or solitary individual and that the ‘Godhead’ is animated by the divine energy of love. These are ideas we will return to as we explore other questions about prayer in the next chapters. Before we leave this chapter, however, we must return briefly to the un-named minister at the Ministers’ Fellowship, who didn’t believe that the word ‘God’ referred to any ‘thing’ at all, no matter how many inverted commas you put around that word, and certainly not to a Supreme Being or an Ultimate Reality or to anything ‘objective’ or ‘real’ (chapter 14). He does not believe that somewhere ‘out there’, ‘in there’, ‘behind there’ or ‘under there’ there is something ‘real’ to which we can apply the label ‘God’. For him the word ‘God’ sums up the ideal or essence of what is best in human life, and to ‘believe in God’ means to commit himself to living for those supreme human values. That view is held, with integrity, by a number of today’s Christians, though this is not the place to say more about it. Bearing in mind the warnings that when we talk about ‘God’ our language is strained to the utmost and even the most fertile and agile imaginations can only glimpse the very outskirts of God’s ways, nevertheless we can end this chapter with a definition. It is,
We have seen that thinking things through about prayer involves thinking things through about God. We have seen that Christian understandings of God are many and varied – though that raises the question about whether they can all be ‘true’? We have also seen that all our words, phrases and ideas inevitably fall short because God is beyond description and beyond imagination. However, and bearing that caution in mind, we came to a tentative definition at the end of the last chapter, that ‘God is the Supreme Being or the Ultimate Reality, best known as Father, Son and Spirit, who is the Power behind the universe and whose name and nature is love’. Prayer, we also concluded at the end of chapter 12, is the communication and communion – spoken and unspoken – which takes place between us and this Being of beings, God of love. I also suggested that the basic dynamic of this communication and communion is the human need – individual and corporate - to give expression to our joy and our pain. And so, to close the circle, when we express these basic emotions we do not rejoice or cry into a void, but we direct our praise or our lament to or at God, the God who is there. In the conversations at Trepolpen United Church it was the prayers of intercession which caused the most difficulty. What could and should you pray for? How could or how did God answer, or not answer, such prayers? Does it make sense to speak of God ‘acting’, ‘working’ or ‘doing things’ at all? Geoff had no problems with thinking along these lines, Christine had many, and Mary and most of the others were somewhere in between. Although these questions came up most sharply when they talked about prayers of intercession, they also arise in prayers of adoration and thanksgiving too.
This 1972 anonymous worship song expresses the simplicity of adoration very well. Some will criticise it for its very simplicity: but adoration is simplicity, the simplicity of love. God has made himself known to us in love, and adoration is our response to him in love. John Macquarrie, in the Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, says that the lines from Addison’s hymn which we quoted in chapter 13 have got adoration about right, that it is being ‘lost in wonder, love and praise’ in the presence of absolute love. It is usual for the first prayer in worship to be a prayer of adoration in which, as we gather in the presence of God and are conscious again of his glory, goodness and love, we respond by focusing on God, sometimes by saying the sort of thing that this worship song enables us to say or sometimes by saying nothing at all. To adore God may be to say, "We are here because we love you. We love you because you are the kind of God you are" (Susan White). Or it might be to ‘be still and know that I am God’. Or it might be to say the opening part of the Lord’s Prayer – ‘Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be your name!’ To adore is to focus our complete attention on God in gratitude and in openness to his presence, to be with him as he is with us. Sometimes writers who talk about adoration use the analogy of human love, that lovers adore each other, and that in such adoration just being in each other’s company is enough, and words may or may not matter. It is only an analogy, and it has one obvious weakness when we apply it to God, that lovers adore each other and Christianity wouldn’t want to say that God adores us (loves – yes; adores – no): but if we allow for this it does have something to say. Adoration arises out of the dynamic of ‘praise.’ It is one way of expressing a ‘Yes’ to our experience of the love of God. It is as if we look on God and are satisfied; we ask no more as we focus on God as he is. We are not thanking him in any way in adoration, either for what he is or for what he has done, that will come later in the prayers of thanksgiving. In adoration we simply ‘worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness, kneel and adore him, the Lord is his name’. But at this point someone could ask a question about what this does to God or for God, especially someone observing our worship with a rather cynical eye or overhearing our prayers of adoration with a suspicious ear. What sort of a god is this, they might say, who seems to want to be flattered every time his people meet in worship? Or who needs to be adored, to be constantly told how much he is loved and how great he is? Isn’t this, they might think, the sort of homage which a despot with an insecurity complex needs to receive from fawning sycophants? At the very least this kind of question sounds a warning that here is one more place where our language falls short. If God is somehow ‘personal’, a ‘Supreme Being’ in our definition of God, then our ways of speaking to him in adoration are open to misrepresentation of this kind. The Christian reply, of course, is that God is not like that and this is not what we are doing. We have already said that if you want to pursue a human analogy to adoration it is with the lover and the beloved, a situation in which the one does not demand adoration from the other at all and if that was happening in a relationship, we would all recognise that there was something seriously wrong with it! But what this cynical interpretation does do is to show that some analogies are better than others when we apply them to God. I suspect that few people do think that prayers of adoration are about telling God how good he is because that’s what he wants to hear: but at this point we would do well to notice that there are ways of speaking about God which can create real difficulties. Adoration is a form of spirituality, especially when it is without words and with gestures such as lighting candles or gazing on icons in contemplation and meditation, which seems to be increasingly popular these days outside of the churches in the explosion of spirituality and interest in religion which is going on in the western world at the moment, just when traditional forms of church life seem to be to connecting with fewer and fewer people. It is a response to the mystery and glory which gleam and resound through all creation, and many find it a helpful way of praying, in terms of what it does to them and for them. It provides a way of centring down, of receiving energy, of focusing, of communing with God or with one’s inner self - or of simply chilling out, as some people call it - and the personal benefits of this type of prayer are clear. It also fits well with that part of our definition of prayer which speaks of prayer as communion between ourselves and God - in whatever terms we may think of the power behind the universe.
Thanksgiving also arises out of the dynamic of praise. Prayers of thanks affirm the giftedness of life and respond to it with a grateful ‘Yes!’ To wake on a glorious spring morning, look out of one’s bedroom window at a Cornish country scene, in anticipation of a good breakfast and a fulfilling day’s work ahead, then what else can one say except ‘Praise the Lord!’ But what if you woke somewhere else? In less comfortable circumstances? With no prospect of a meal at all? Without home, health, or security? Would we then sing hymns like this quite so readily? I suspect, from observation and experience, that British Christians might not but that African Christians would! So there is a warning here to begin with, that too many of our prayers of thanksgiving tend to be twee, romantic and self-focused.
Note the extra dimension added here, that of God’s redeeming work and of our future hope. This is an important feature of many prayers of thanksgiving, not least the Thanksgiving in the service of Holy Communion in which ‘we thank God for all he has given us, especially for our salvation in Christ’. "Praise and thanksgiving", gratitude and appreciation are clearly good things: but behind this seemingly innocent type of prayer lies a much more serious problem than the rose-coloured words we sometimes use in saying them. It might be too simple to say that Adoration focuses on who God is and Thanksgiving on what he has done, but that distinction is often made and it is a helpful one. This means that the huge question of ‘providence’- of what God does or doesn’t do, what he can or can’t do and how he actually does it, if he does anything at all - is raised not quite so starkly as in prayers of intercession but raised none the less by prayers of thanksgiving. Previous generations of Christians had little problem with the idea of providence. They happily sang hymns which said "His providence has brought us through another various year" (Charles Wesley) and "Thy providence is kind and large, both man and beast thy bounty share" (Isaac Watts) from a Methodist Hymn Book which had a section headed ‘God – In Creation and Providence’. Donald Hughes, a twentieth-century hymn-writer, has given us an update of this in "O Father, whose creating hand brings harvest from the fruitful land, your providence we gladly own." God was, our forebears believed, the Creator of the world who continued to sustain it – and for this they used the term ‘general providence’. God had, they believed, created everything in such a way that it all worked for the best, with humanity at the centre of things benefiting from God’s generous provision. They recognised, of course, that sin had entered in and fouled things up considerably, with the result that humanity did not always enjoy the fullness of life which God had intended and for which he had provided. He had provided enough food for all, for example, but greed or sloth had resulted in disparities between rich and poor. They also believed, however, in the ‘special providence’ of God, who could and did intervene to right wrongs, answer prayer and help people or communities in special need. They saw that the Bible was full of examples of God’s special providence: in blessing his ancient people of Israel, in sending his Son to redeem the world, in the miracles Christ and then his apostles performed and in the ways the needs of the early Christians were wonderfully met. They believed in a God who acted, not just once in the creation of the world, nor just generally in keeping the world in being, but in particular times, places and ways as he saw fit. Prayers of intercession fitted easily and naturally into this way of believing. They were ways of asking God to do something for you or for the person for whom you prayed. Prayers of thanksgiving were the way you said ‘Thank you’ after he had done it. For many Christians today, like Geoff, this way of looking at God poses few problems. Perhaps this is the point to come back to our analogies, our images and pictures of God. Speaking of God as ‘Creator’ obviously links in to our definition of him as the ‘Supreme Being’. It also suggests, however, that he stands outside of and distinct from his creation, just as a maker is distinct from what he has made, no matter how much of himself he has put into the making of it. Such a Maker can, Geoff would argue, tweak what he has made to make it work better, or fix bits here and there as needed. In this way of looking at things, science can help us to see how the product usually works and how things normally operate, but science itself is not an ‘exact science’ and hasn’t yet been able to understand everything. And we know, from the Bible and our own experiences too, that amazing things do happen in this world which God has made. So one day, when we know more, we will be able to understand the mechanisms by which God, the Maker, continues to tweak what he has made. This is the way the argument can unfold if you begin from the Supreme Being equals Maker analogy. For others, however, like Christine, this way of thinking poses huge problems, especially the idea of God’s ‘special providence.’ We heard them debating the issues: if God can intervene, then why doesn’t he in this or that case? Why does he choose to do so in some cases but not in others? Can he intervene at all? How can God, who is ‘spirit’, affect material things? How does talk of God intervening relate to what we know about the realities of life through science? How can God affect the weather, heal the sick or provide a car-parking space when all of these areas of life seem to work according to principles we can map out and explain? For many Christians today these are serious issues about the world as it is and about the nature of God which call in question traditional belief in ‘Providence’. For them, the ‘Ultimate Reality’ or ‘Power behind the universe’ analogy, offers better possibilities of making sense of these things. In this way of thinking, Christine and the minister’s way, God is not separate from the universe in the way that a maker is separate from what is made. Instead, God is the power and energy within everything, intimately and indivisibly involved in creation, sustaining it and energising it and moving it on, just as the idea of ‘general providence’ has traditionally said. Gratitude and thanksgiving are appropriate emotions, therefore, because there is much worth appreciating and thanking God for in this evolving universe of which he is "source, guide and goal". There is little place, however, for ‘miracles’ and ‘special providence’ in this way of looking at things.
This chapter can be brief, for while there are all kinds of questions about forgiveness itself, prayers of confession and declarations of forgiveness present few problems. Let us confess our sins in penitence and faith, firmly resolved to keep God’s commandments and to live in love and peace with all.
So reads the confession from the first service of Holy Communion in Common Worship – Services and Prayers for the Church of England and every other worship book of the mainline churches has something similar. The Methodist Worship Book follows its prayer of confession with this declaration of forgiveness,
Confession arises out of the dynamic of lament, from a sense of failure, or disappointment at our world and at ourselves; of things wrong, wrongly done or left undone; of the distance between the world as it is and the world as it could be, the distance between who we are and who we could be, and of what might be and what actually is. It arises from a sense of ‘No’, that things are not right. It expresses a sense of distance from God, our conviction that we are ‘sinners’. Confession follows on, the textbooks tell us, almost inevitably from adoration. Having gazed on the grandeur of God, the beauty of his holiness, the purity of his love and the generosity of his kindness, it is more than likely that when our thoughts return to looking at ourselves, both individually and corporately, we will not particularly like what we see. So in confession we come to God in penitence, admitting what we are and seeking his forgiveness. This is not the place to discuss sin, but a simple catechism might put it like this:
We can be content with that. There is no doubt that the effects of ‘sin’ are obvious enough and that they are pretty terrible. At the same time, however, I rather share the view, which used to be more popular than it seems to be now, that Christianity overdoes its preoccupation with sin. And I certainly think that the inevitability of confessions of sin in every service and in every prayer can be counter-productive and lead to a trivialisation of sin. The bottom line, however, is that sin needs to be dealt with and that is what prayers of confession are there to do. In them we acknowledge our sin, personal and communal, we admit it and we repent or turn from it, and then, because he is like that, God offers forgiveness and a new start. We could get into other arguments here about whether repentance is necessary before we can be forgiven or about how forgiveness is related to the cross of Christ, but such arguments are not directly relevant to thinking through prayers of confession. Fortunately, with prayers of confession, there is not that much of a problem in thinking them through. If you accept the basic Christian conviction that God forgives all those who repent, then confession is the way of voicing that repentance and the assurance of forgiveness which follows it is the way of hearing that our sins are forgiven. And we certainly know how confession ‘works’ from the human end. Giving voice to those things which are hurting inside is a good way of dealing with them, so the psychologists tell us. Speaking-it-out is a very common form of therapy which releases the pain and makes new self-understandings possible, and much of the counselling industry is built on this simple truth. Prayers of confession are, therefore, theologically unproblematical and therapeutically effective, even if they might need a health warning against over-prescription.
2 Some Christian traditions encourage private confession to a priest. Others view the practice with suspicion. What do you think? 3 This chapter argues that there are no theological
problems with prayers of confession and that they are helpful and
effective. What do you think?
This is the crunch issue, where the
opinions at Trepolpen United Church were the most divided, and it comes
most clearly to the fore in prayers of intercession. In intercession we
pray to God on behalf of others and also pray about our own needs and
concerns. This type of prayer arises from the dynamic of lament, from
those situations which are not as they ought to be, where a ‘No’ is
wrung from us, and from which we seek release. Intercession is for many the most difficult
kind of prayer to think through. Paradoxically, however, intercessions
are also probably the prayers most frequently prayed. Think of all those
people who light candles for someone in Cathedrals, who write a name on
a Prayer Board or in an Intercessions Book, or who say a single name out
loud in a time of open prayer. Even those at Trepolpen United Church who
can’t believe in a ‘God who acts’ or ‘intervenes’ still think
it is important to ‘hold people before God’ and say to their friends
in need that they will ‘think of them in their prayers’. This is where the crucial questions of
whether or not God can act, and why if he can he does or doesn’t, come
into sharpest focus. Here is where the ‘problem of unanswered prayer’
rears its head, though the ‘problem of answered prayer’ is really
just as acute. Why did God do something here but not there? The way through this maze is by going back
to our analogies or pictures of God. There is, on the face of it, much to be
said for thinking of God as the ‘Supreme Being’. The Bible pictures
him in this way, especially as ‘Our Father who art in Heaven’.
Thinking of God in these terms makes him more personal, it makes it
easier for us to relate to him in a personal relationship, in an
intimate kind of way. It means that we can speak to God as we would
speak to a friend, and there are many hymns and prayers which do just
that. Following this way of thinking through, intercession is asking
this Friend to do something which he has the power to do. He has, also,
the right to decide not to do it. If he is Sovereign, then he has ‘sovereign
freedom’ to do as he wills. His answers to prayer, therefore, may be
Yes, No, Wait or Not in the Way you Expect. Question 39 in the Methodist
Catechism asks, ‘Does God always hear our prayers?’ and answers, ‘God always hears our prayers, but
does not always answer immediately or in the way we expect. Or he
may answer, and we fail to realize he has done so. Or we may be the
means by which God answers our own prayers or those of others’. This way of understanding intercession can
be caricatured, of course, as in the long prayer meeting which keeps on
asking for the same thing, as if God needs to be persuaded to change his
mind or the more times the same thing is asked for the more likely it is
to be given. But if we picture God in personal terms and think of a
person as someone who can do things, as the Catechism tends to do, then
we have here a possible way of understanding intercession based on the
twin beliefs that ‘God is in control’ and that ‘God knows best’.
Many Christians have no problem with thinking intercession through in
this way. Others, however, do. For them, Geoff’s
fundamental belief that ‘God is in control’ is open to two serious
questions: Is he really? and How does he exercise such control? They
cannot sing that chorus which says, ‘There is nothing my God cannot do’.
They find difficulty in accepting the doctrine of the omnipotence of
God. They may be uncomfortable, as I am, when God is addressed as he so
often is in worship as ‘Almighty God’. For them all the facts of
life tell against such an idea – it is simply not true. Or, they feel,
if it is true then God cannot be said to be loving or caring. For them,
theirs is the age-old dilemma, that the world as it is makes it
impossible to accept that God is both all-powerful and all-good. So if
they are to hold to their fundamental belief that God is good, they have
at least to modify the idea that God is in control. Significant parts of traditional
Christianity have in fact been quite happy to do that, by accepting that
God is not in total control. He might be, for example, more like a
creative artistic director, who is able to bring different actors, music
and plot into focus as a production develops and unfolds. Or think of a
painter who is able to make something of those colours and brush-strokes
that didn’t quite work as he had originally hoped first time as he
reworks them into a picture as it grows and takes shape. At the very
least, traditional theology has recognised that God gives space to his
creation and freewill to human beings. This might result in them doing
things he would rather they didn’t do and creating mayhem for
themselves, others and the environment in the process, but that is the
price of freedom. And, some have argued, if he gives that kind of
freedom to one set of his ‘creatures’, he presumably does the same
to others – like the angels and archangels or the ‘principalities
and powers’, whose misuse of the gift may have even more catastrophic
effects on life than ours. Either way, God is not in ‘total control’
of the present, even if the future and final outcome may be more
certain. Others might want to go further and question that. They might
prefer to say that the whole idea of ‘control’ or the lack of it is
not the most helpful way of thinking all this through at all, that the
universe is evolving, that the future really is open and that God is
thoroughly involved in the process. To suggest that God is not in control might
be, for some, a frightening suggestion; for in a world as dangerous as
ours is the idea that God is in control and that one day he will finally
work out his purposes and make everything come right is a last defence
against despair and hopelessness. The alternative, of a world spinning
out of control or just going on aimlessly with no direction and purpose,
may be just too frightening to contemplate. The view that Good and Evil
are battling it out for control may be equally unacceptable, either
because it looks to some too much like the simplistic plot of computer
games or science fantasy or because to others it is the old heresy of
‘dualism’. To others, however, it looks realistic, it invites us to
a more courageous faith, and it invites us to join in the cosmic
struggle – in which our actions, our lifestyles, our decisions and our
prayers of intercession have a purpose, in working for good and against
evil. If, then, you find belief that ‘God is in
control’ untenable, or that you find it impossible to believe that God
can control the weather, arrange car-parking spaces and heal June’s
daughter of an inoperable cancer, then perhaps the other analogy offers
a better way forward. This begins from the assumption that God,
as Ultimate Reality and Power behind the Universe, is always and
everywhere at work and that his ongoing work is that of making all
things new, redeeming and restoring in love what forces of evil and sin
are always spoiling and marring. This divine energy is always ‘for’
us and so there is never any sense of God having to be persuaded to ‘hear
our prayer’. Intercession is, on this understanding, our offering of
our concern, our compassion and the energy of our love to add to that of
God which is already at work. It is focused on giving, the giving of
ourselves in this loving work, rather than on receiving, the receiving
of a benefit or a result. And the effect of this giving cannot be
measured. Who knows what ‘miracles’ and ‘marvels’ are achieved
in against-the-odds situation by such outpoured and committed
compassion? But we cannot collate or assess results. There is no formula
allowing us to calculate that so much intercessory energy will result in
such and such a change of circumstances. And in that sense the question
of ‘answered’ or ‘unanswered’ prayer becomes irrelevant, just as
‘asking’ something specific for oneself or someone else begins to
look inappropriate. In other words, change the underlying
metaphor about God and other things will change with it, some of them,
as in this case, undoubtedly for the better. This is very close to the
definition of and approach to prayers of intercession offered by Neville
Ward in his classic The Use of Praying, where he speaks of intercession
as God’s invitation, indeed his ‘summons’, to us to join in his
ongoing work. This way of understanding intercession can be caricatured
too, of course, as in those intercessions which are long lists of people
or places about which the preacher seems to be informing God and the
congregation, and in the process demonstrating his or her own breadth of
‘compassion’ and manipulating the congregation to share it. Corporate intercessory prayer, whichever
way we understand it, also has some quite practical spin-offs for the
community which prays for others; just as private intercession does for
the one who prays alone, especially the one who uses aids to such
prayer. It raises consciousness, widens horizons, stimulates action and
creates community as it enables individuals to grow in grace, knowledge
and love. And such effects as these are far from being mere
fringe-benefits. Archbishop William Temple put it like this, ‘We do
not pray in order to change God’s will, but to bring our wills into
harmony with his’. Another way of putting it is the little
text – not from the Bible – which you can see on some posters:
"Prayer changes people, and people change things". For some
Christians, like Geoff, this will be inadequate and they will want to
say a lot more than this about intercessory prayer in particular and
probably about all prayer. For others this little saying will say most
of what they are able to say with integrity. For them it is not a trite
little slogan on a poster, but a profoundly true statement of how prayer
‘works’. Questions for discussion 1 ‘Change the underlying metaphor
about God and other things will change with it, some of them, as in
this case, undoubtedly for the better.’ Would you agree that
thinking of God as Ultimate Reality rather than Supreme Being does
change things and change them for the better? 2 What do you think about the
suggestion that God might not be ‘in control’? 3 Can you improve on ‘releasing
energy and compassion’ as a way of thinking about intercessory
prayer? A Catechism for the use of the people called Methodists, (Methodist Publishing House, 1986, updated in 2000). 70 questions asked and answered. R. E. Clements, The Prayers of the Bible (SCM Press, 1985). After an introductory chapter on ‘Prayer in the Bible’, this older book looks at 25 prayers in the Bible, excluding the Psalter and Lamentations, and comments on each one. Robert Davidson, The Courage to Doubt (SCM Press, 1983) A classic book which explores those Old Testament passages which question God, doubt his loving-kindness and demand a faith big enough to look at life as it is. C. S. Rodd, Thinking Things Through 4: Why Evil and Suffering? (Epworth Press, 2000) Using the format of this series this book engages with the most pressing of all pastoral questions. C. S. Rodd, Thinking Things Through 9: Is there a God? (Epworth Press, 2002). Using the format of this series this book raises the crucial questions and discusses the various responses to them traditionally and currently made. Marjorie J. Thompson, Soul Feast (Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) This book is ‘an invitation to the Christian spiritual life’ which introduces the reader to spiritual reading, prayer, fasting, self-examination, spiritual direction and, unusually, hospitality. It is a ‘how to’ book which does not neglect the ‘why?’ questions. Michael E. W. Thompson, The Old Testament and Prayer (Epworth Press, 1996) This book ends with a chapter on ‘Old Testament Prayer’ after looking at all the ways in which prayer is offered in the Old Testament, including, crucially, careful consideration of prayer in the Book of Psalms. Ed Gordon S. Wakefield, A Dictionary of Christian Spirituality (SCM Press, 1983) SCM Press did us all a great favour by producing its ‘Dictionaries’ in the 1980’s and 1980’s. This one still remains an important resource. J. Neville Ward, The Use of Praying (Epworth Press, 1967) This book is a classic on prayer. Written by a Methodist minister, now dead, this book gives practical guidance to those who would grow in the life of prayer as well as offering a searching critique of the whole enterprise. Edited by Fraser Watts, Perspectives on Prayer (SPCK, 2001) This book is the text of a series of lectures by various distinguished Cambridge Christians on ‘Prayer and …’ and contains fascinating perspectives on Prayer and the Bible, Society, Science, Psychology, Poetry, Music , Sexuality and the Body. Maurice Wiles, God’s Action in the World (SCM Press, 1986) In this book of the Bampton Lectures for 1986, dealing with the huge question at the heart of any discussion about prayer, especially prayers of intercession, Professor Wiles asks: Does God act in the world? Does he affect what happens to us in the varied experiences of daily life? If so, in what ways and by what means? go to university diploma or degree go to university certificate (1) go to university certificate (2) |