On Prayer
New theological perspectives often try to position themselves as being “naturalistic”. By this I mean they want to distance themselves from the supernaturalistic interpretations found in many traditions. Prayer is often a sticking point for “naturalistic” religious forms. This is because if prayer is efficacious beyond some psychological factor, it seems to violate naturalistic sensibilities. In this post I would like to explore a possible way of thinking about prayer that still fits well within a “naturalistic” worldview. However, before I continue what I mean by a naturalistic worldview does not mean the ontological naturalism that atheists espouse. What a theist who rejects supernaturalism can do as a “naturalist” is make a strong commitment to forming beliefs based on a nominal experience of life. This means that radical shifts away from the nominal order we experience are met with strong skepticism. It does not mean the rejection of divine providence but rather it accepts that God is faithful to the ordering of the cosmos.
So how can prayer that is efficacious fit in to a naturalistic theology? It can by accepting the causal limits of prayer. The efficacy of prayer is not grounded in some brute manipulation of causal factors. Instead it taps into the already present causal fabric of depth. This causal fabric is not mechanistic as is portrayed by non-teleologists. It is instead part of the intrinsic freedom and intelligence of the divine life. Accordingly, prayer reaches into the core depth of reality and changes it.
What does this all mean to the believer in the power of prayer? First it means that like the divine life, it is self-limiting. It is kenotic, accepting the limits of life as they are. This does not, however, entail a fatalism. Prayer is not a magic wand to fix something. It is rather a means of tapping into the depth of the divine life within which change can occur in a kenotic environment.
Does this mean that no profound change can occur? To the contrary. Dramatic change can and does occur but this change also occurs within the kenosis of life. It does so because there are kairotic moments in time, times of fulfillment, times when the tipping point occurs. In each life and each day there are moments of kairos. These are marked by periods of preparation, periods that built to a moment of change. They are radical life changing moments that can go either way. This correlates with the best science of the day. Nobel laureate physicist Robert Laughlin roots these types of momentous change in “collective instability” where very small changes can have an enormous effect. This collective instability is ubiquitous throughout the universe including biotic systems. Chaos theory also supports this notion. One cannot know when these dramatic events can occur, but they are part of the ordered dynamics of life not a violation of it. For those who live lives of prayer there are moments that draw from the depth of reality to create dramatic telic change, change towards growth, healing, love, beauty, and meaning.
Prayer speaks to a unity of communion. It is within the communion that prayer reaches out both to the depth of life in the persona of God and to all things. Imagine the power of such a communion. One need not feel alone in life. There is a vast communion of life that is not only part of each life but there for each life. Prayer in the divine life is a striking network of relationship within the organism of life. An organism is a powerful interrelation of its parts. A prayer to the communion is not an isolated offering. It is an offering to God as a communion of all things. That interrelation may seem hidden but its power is manifest in the history of the world and the lives of all in the communion.
Does this view alter the content of prayers? I think it does. What it means is that the believer should not expect God to violate God’s faithfulness to the life giving order inherent in the cosmos. Does this mean that prayers should not ask for remarkable effects in the world? No. It does require, however, a refined sensibility in prayer. It requires a sense of what requests would be asking for a violation of this life giving order and what would not. Prayers need not be radically censored, but the deep intuition concerning what fits within the mix of order and creativity of the divine life can inform prayers. It also requires a faithing fallibilism. By fallibilism I mean that a specific prayer may go beyond what should be expected from God. It is faithing because it affirms a faith that God listens to all prayers, however flawed, and embraces their core intent, acting accordingly to the benefit of both the person and the entire communion. Prayer is an essential part of theism. Prayer must be efficacious for there to be a personal relationship with God. Prayers of supplication and intercession should not be abandoned even for those who attempt to embrace and form their beliefs based on all forms of human exploration into the fabric of the cosmos.
A revelation of my lack of education, I don’t actually know what the words kenotic or kairotic mean…(a city in egypt? lol j/k)
Anyway, it seems to me that basically, what is being said here is that the first and primary thing that prayer does is changes the person praying. A shift in view of the world if you would, and what and how that person can affect and have an effect on to benefit themselves. The second thing that is affected by prayer would be the “divine spark” that resides in all of us and connects us to God. The effects of prayer on this “divine spark” and thus God, would be perhaps manifest in what the supplicant would view as a “miracle” or perhaps sometimes an actual “miracle” or violation of God’s established order. Thirdly, that prayers of intercession would directly and primarily affect the “divine spark” and through it indirectly those being prayed for or about, perhaps maybe even more the circumstances around the person or situation being prayed for to cause positive change of some sort, thus indicating our interconnectedness.
Is that more or less correct? If so, then yes, I would have to say that I more or less agree..(more or less that is lol)
Comment by carbon14atom —
Hi carbon,
Sorry about the terms. They are both Greek and have been utilized in Christian theology. Kenosis is a term in Greek for “self-emtying”. It is ascribed to the Son (second person of the trinity) emptying himself to become human. There are also a similar concepts in other religions like Hinduism where God becomes incarnate in the world. The import for modern theology is that God in some aspect becomes incarnate and accepts the limitations of life (i.e. finitude, conditionedness, temporality).
In Greek, kairos means a time of fulfullment, a time where something remarkable comes to fruition. It is marked by a time of preparation and then a fullfillment. Biblically one might think of John the Baptist’s statement that he was preparing the way for the anointed one. The point for prayer is that there are moments in the life of individuals, history, etc. where there has been a preparation (either by good events or bad events) for something quite profound to occur. For example, the moment that an alcoholic hits bottom can be a kairotic moment for change. This can also be seen in times of great inspiration, growth, and healing for anyone or culture in general.
I would say that your characterization of prayer is very close to mine. One of the great difficulties in a panentheistic view is conceptualizing the distinction between God as in the world and God as more than the world. This also applies to prayer. Strictly speaking, at least in a monistic view, when someone prays to God it is also God praying to Godself. This does provides a connectedness of an individual prayer to all pray-ers through God. When it comes to an intercessory prayer for someone this connectedness not only effects God but also the person prayed for. Healings under this rubric can be seen as not just the result of a prayer to God to act but the person being prayed for as well. Since the “divine spark” as you call it resides in all things, prayers to God are not just to God but to the communion of the divine life as a whole. I realize this is a concept that is hard to grasp but perhaps no concept can do it justice. Often theologians are accused of being too “rational” and not “mystical” enough. In some cases this is a warranted claim. What is important, in my view of theology, is not to get so caught up in the conceptual side that the mystical side is missed.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Ah, thank you for the explanation of the terms, the concepts they represent are, of course, familiar, I had just never heard the terms myself before.
Comment by carbon14atom —