Back-and-Forth With JP Holding: Round 2 On Prayer

I admit I had a bad feeling in my gut when Iread Jason’s second chapter, on prayer. And it wasn’t because I had my second kidney stone in 4 years the same week I read it again for this commentary. It was because I had a good idea that in this case, Jason might hate my answer more than he hated the original problem! I know –because some readers haven’t been too happy with it either.

The problem in sum is this. We have the following paradox:

• Prayer is a required aspect of the Christian life.
• Clearly, God does not answer all prayers with positive replies(that is, fulfilling our requests – I’ll call this “answer our prayers”from here on, for brevity).
• Many prayers thus unanswered are for highly worthy things (like curing someone of cancer).
• If God loves us, and is good, why does this happen so?

Readers may well recognize this paradox as akin to the “problem of evil” – that is, if God is good, why does evil exist? It’s been a sore point for many Christians, and one too (as in the last installment) that has led some to apostasize. So what is theanswer?

There are, generally, two categories of answer to this paradox. Jason opts for one, which I have also found shared by many Christians, including authors in the Popular Pastors series, such as Max Lucado in this issue of the E-Block. I opt for the other category. Since this is not Jason’s answer alone, I’ll generalize it beyond him and call it the Faithful Category. My own set of answers, I will refer to as the Patronage Category.

Let’s now look at each one insome detail. I’ll use some of Jason’s quotes as exemplary, though again, I remind the reader that this is a widely accepted system of response to the problem of “unanswered prayer.”

The Faithful Category of answers looks at the paradox, and decides that even if we cannot find answers for why God does not answer even many worthy prayers, there is some answer somewhere for why He did not, one that lies in the mysterious workings of God, and which we will never know until, perhaps, our life in eternity. The potential theories in this regard I might call the Faithful Rationales, although critics of Christianity – and in some contexts, even I – have referred to these derisively as rationalizations. In other words, I view these answers as sometimes little more than speculations designed to maintain a certain point of view (which is not to say, they are not given in earnest). They may indeed be correct –but finding evidence that they are correct is rather difficult.

As far as I can see, there are two primary types of Faithful Rationales:

1. The Learning Curve. It may be supposed that prayer is not answered, and that the believer is allowed to endure something, for what amounts to “educational purposes.” As Jason puts it, unanswered prayer “may just be God wanting to see what his kid will do with what he has learned.”

   Biblically, one might put forward the example of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as an example (not of unanswered prayer, but of God checking out someone’s learning curve). So arguably, we can say this is the sort of thing God may do. But apart from the sort of direct revelation Abraham received, how can we know this? It may be said, “Because we learn something and grow when our prayer is not answered positively.” But then again, even atheists can learn and grow from suffering, so we are left with nothing within available evidence that tells us that some prayer not answered has behind it God’s purpose of making us learn or grow. We could simply be learning and growing as part of a natural process.

   At the same time, there are far too many cases where the results of prayer not answered positively offer no apparent lesson, orwhere we must strain to find one that is just as well regarded as a rationalization in itself. If I had prayed for the instant removal of my recent kidney stone, and the pain persisted, what possible “lesson” might God have been teaching me? To drink more water? To have a healthier diet? If so, isn’t this a lesson I could have been taught in some other way – like having blood tests done earlier indicate a problem in the offing? Like having literature on health issues come my way and compel me to change my water-drinking and dietary habits? Just saying, “God chose the way which would teach you the most and best” seems at first to answer the question — but upon examination, is merely another step in the same paradigm which takes for granted that God allowed the suffering in order to teach a lesson.

   The obvious question in such circumstances must be, is Godactually active in such situations – or are we simply rationalizing His direct presence and influence into the situation based on a predetermined understanding of may be said that a prayer was not answered positively because, unknown to us, a positive answer would have resulted in greater tragedy. Jason offers an example of a failed project of his involving real estate, for w God as intimately involved in our lives? This is not an idle question, since it is one I’ve had people write tome about before.

2. Future Provision. Ithich he prayed there would be success. “Looking back,” he says, “ I can see how that project would have been my grave.”

   As a fan of alternative history literature like Harry Turtledove’s, I can certainly appreciate the point that God may not answer prayer, inorder to prevent a worse outcome. And I do believe that this can and does happen. But again, I question the application of
   this a part from sufficient evidence – such as direct revelation, or an evaluation of circumstances showing that no positive outcome would have been possible. I cannot judge Jason’s own described situation, without further details not found in the book. But the thesis of multiple potential outcomes also permits us to suggest that there were ways the project would not have been Jason’s “grave” – for example, God could have taken steps to ensure that that would not happen, and given Jason the necessary support from other persons to keep him from “killing” himself over the project.

If my answers seem a little, well, off the party line of what is common taught in churches today…it is. The Faithful Category of answer, as I have said, can be found in numerous authors, especially the Popular Pastors like Stanley and Swindoll. The problem is that after a certain amount of trial and tribulation, answers like these referring to the mystery of God’s grace begin toring hollower and hollower with each passing instance of negative experience. There is no line that tells us when “the mystery of God” is a valid explanation and when (or whether!) it is an unhelpful, inaccurate rationalization. And this can become highly unsatisfying (dare I say – hateful?) to the inquirer in faith. Further replies to “just trust God” may satisfy some – but others may read that as afurther layer of rationalization.

If the reader finds the Faithful Category of answers useful, and their faith in Christ remains untroubled, then I suppose my own answers will have little appeal. Indeed, a few of my readers have expressed discomfort with my answers from what I call the Patronage Category; yet others have regarded them as an “ah ha” that makes better sense of things. Some have implied thatI am verging on a sort of deism, and I will acknowledge that my view of God’s interaction with the world is some degrees closer to that view –albeit much too far from it to be worthy of the name. If I had to sumit up, I would put it this way, as I have elsewhere: God is not a micromanager. His direct interactions with us are limited, and for goodreason. Let’s explain why.

I will say to begin that in offering my own alternative, the Patronage Category of answers, I am not denying that in some cases, it is quite possible that one or more of the Faithful Rationales may be valid. However, I will argue (and have argued previously) that Patronage Category answers are more faithful to the defining contexts, Scripture, and human experience.

1. Defining contexts. Briefly, the Bible depicts God in terms of an ancient patron – a benefactor with whom we as persons (called, in that context, “clients”) entered into a covenant relationship. Between client and patron were brokers – persons who mediated the covenant. In the Old Testament, God is seen as an ancient suzerain, or king (one type of patron), Moses was the mediator, and Israel was the clientele. In the New Testament era, God the Father is the patron; Jesus is the broker; Christians are the clientele.

   How does this relate to the matter at hand – that of prayer? Well, typically, clients seldom if ever saw or directly communicated with their patron face to face – and even dealt with the broker only infrequently. It wasn’t considered good manners (to say the least) to ask your broker to ask your patron to step in to life situations of yours and rearrange things. The patron provided a degree of protection and/or sustenance – and not a great deal more.

2. Scripture. On this matter, I refer to my article here offering contextual exegesis of the popular passages on prayer.
3. Human experience. And this ties all of it together: We all agree that our experience is that most prayers remain unanswered. In my view, applying the Patronage model to our situation coheres with this data – and does so without need for recourse to any of the Faithful Rationales that are beyond our ability to validate.

   At the same time, we can add another factor into the equation: human sin, particularly sin by Christians. Sin is a rejection of God’s moral guidance, in effect saying to God, “I don’t want your rules in mylife.” In a patronage model, this was the same as saying to the patronas well, “And I don’t want anything of yours, either.” Sin is an ingratitude – and a patron never gave anything to an ungrateful client.

I said earlier that I had an idea that Jason (and others) might hate my answer more than they hated the original problem. Yet consider in light of what I have said above, a handful of Jason’s reflections on his own personal experiences:

Regarding prayer: “…most of thetime I feel like it doesn’t work, and I feel distant from God. Quite often, it turns out to be even less personal than any other communicating I do. I don’t feel any more connected with him afterward. And I hate that.”

And: “I never hear his comforting voice. God’s door is closed, and I just want some face-to-face time. It’s kind of a tease – a cosmic one. It’s not what I expected when itcomes to talking to God.”

And, about God: “I visualize God as the perfect dad – present, supportive, encouraging, and wise. He’s strong and sensitive at the same time. He’s faithful and involved. He always has the time. And he always knows best. I value him, and he values me.”

The question I have asked many times: Could it be that these expectations of being “connected,” of “face to face” time, of the depth of intimacy described — are things our modern culture has added apart from the contexts that define Scripture?

The idea has certainly been adifficult one, as I have said, for some of my readers. For others it has provided a blessed relief from rationales that were beginning to break under a strain. As of this typing, I do not know what Jason will think of all of this – but as I said in my last entry, Jason is a really perceptive fellow, and he has a knack for finding his way to intelligent solutions. He may not ultimately accept the patronage modelas valid, but as he turns to solutions in his chapter on prayer, we find some comments that rather interestingly lean in our direction, or at least cohere with what we have been saying:

• Jason notes: “I’ve had a habit of turning Godinto an oracle of from this – and this suits a luck.” He uses the excellent analogy of one of those “magic 8 ball” toys that you shake up and get an answer from when you ask it a question. God is not an 8 ball at our beck and call is the lessonpatronage model quite well. (Admittedly, it’s a very good point outside of it too!)
• Jason warns against the ease of moving forward in somethingas sign of God’s favor: “Doing that will make you even more angry with God, because the results of that strategy are inconsistent.” Readers of past Popular Pastors articles might remember that I made similar points against those write
  rs among them who gave “ease of moving forward” as away to discern God’s will – and who then rationalized their failures when it turned out that “ease of moving forward” wasn’t such a good sign after all.
• He acknowledges that some of our prayer is done at times when we mess up and expect God to fix problems of our own creation. Of course, this fits in with what I have said about ingratitude above.

But perhaps the most poignant statements of all– the ones that hit home – are these. On whether prayer works: “The answer to that is seen primarily in how my experience of prayer affectsme as an individual. I’ve concluded that ultimately this is what prayeris all about.” And: “Prayer is supposed to change me more than it changes circumstances around me. It turns my heart toward God. It helps me focus less on myself. And it puts me in a place to be touched, guided, and comforted.”

Our own conclusion, noted in the linked article above, was very similar. Within the context of the community that is the body of Christ (and likewise, in any collective of clients serving a patron in Biblical times), focus on self was intended to be less – and focus on others was the goal. Patronage as an institution was designed to aid the common good – that of the group as a whole, not merely individual persons or even the patron himself. Of course, among humans, there were abuses of this system, but under God’s patronage, there would be nought but the ideal in which, in the end,all would be changed for the better by their covenant with the greatest of Patrons.

Jason and I may not agree on how to solve the problem of prayer – but we certainly agree that there is a problem and that it cries out for a solution. And that is again one ofthe reasons I recommend his book so heartily – for giving voice toissues that I have been trying to get church leaders to see truly need answers.

Jason comments:

Once again, I will respond to a few important details you offer on prayer. And I appreciate the dialogue.

Let me start by being honest: prayer is one of the most difficult aspects of the Christian faith for me to understand and reconcile. In fact, it is easier for me to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea or that Jesus actually (and factually) rose from the dead, than to understand prayer. For me, there is always a high level of emotion involved and I think that creates some mental clutter.

I think you offer valuable insight on how you categorize prayer: the Faithful and Patronage views. Both communicate essential truths. Although you place me in the Faithful Category, I instinctively fall somewhat in the middle of these two models you’ve named. I don’t say that to be noncommittal in my opinions as to ingratiate myself to more people (or your audience)—like aspineless politician seeking reelection (I hate that and find it very inauthentic, even pathetic). I say it because it is true, as can be seen in the quotes from my chapter you have highlighted.

The essential theme I think youbring out in both descriptions is the challenge of evidence for prayers being answered. We are left asking things like:

• Is God not answering a prayer to help us learn and grow?
• Is it that a prayer is not answered in the timeframe we want?
• Is it that a prayer isn’t answered in a way that we don’t want or understand yet?
• Should we have no reasonable individual or personal expectation of prayer — only the greater good? (I think you, JP, seem to infer this, to some degree)

These are the types of ambiguities I wrestlewith in my book. These are the type of ambiguities I wrestle with in my daily life. Even now, like many in this scarce economy, I struggle topay the bills for my wife and three children. For my day job, I hit the pavement everyday and try to meet potential clients, flyer, and scour over the classified ads trying to find opportunity.

I also pray all day long—in short bursts. Every day.

So why isn’t God coming through?

Am I angry? Yes. And I’ve told him so.

Here is where the Faithful category (or way of explaining prayer) falls short for me. I simply do not believe that all prayers (that are not answered) are not answered inorder to teach us something. This is where the deist-leaning perspective underlying the Patronage category is tempting. I agree that God is not a micromanager and sometimes stuff just happens. But I believe the Patronage theory falls short in other ways.

First and foremost, the Patronageview is really more of an Old Testament approach. That is an important distinction. The Old Testament dynamic of relating to God (and vice versa) was based on covenants (Adamic, Abrahamic, Davidic, Noahic,etc.). These were all conditional. For the most part—blessings, right-standing, salvation, or even understanding the results of prayer(for example)—were dependent on the overall ‘collectives’ obedience to God. According to that, if your prayers are not being answered, it’s because there is ‘sin in the camp.’ And that’s why relationship with God was largely seen through the communal context.

But we live under the New Covenant now, which is unconditional. The New Covenant changes everything. It establishes (or reestablishes) many things as they were intended to be. Now we have all the access and intimacy mediators (priests) once did. To me, this shifts our relationship with God (and his with ours) from being a conditional and collective context, to a personal and individual dynamic. Now, we are free to approach and commune with God directly—the curtain has been torn down, so to speak. Along with that, we are all left to individually figure out that relationship, as we are not dependent on the interpretation of a mediator.

Jesus changed everything. It’s all about Him. And he made it personal. While I find value in some gleaning from the ‘ancient culture’ surrounding certain circumstances or their interpretations and applications of Scripture, in the end it’s allabout Jesus for me. What he said and modeled is preeminent.

But still we must ask ourselves:

Are we perhaps giving ourselves a level of self-importance that is wrong (or too generous) and therefore expecting certain measurable results out of prayer?

You and I agree that the answer is yes. But I must depart a bit from your explanation of that reason: the expectations of being “connected,” or “face to f
ace” time, of the depth of intimacy described—are things our modern culture has added apart from the contexts that define Scripture.

I think that level of intimacy is exactly what God wants and expects, as was completely communicated in the birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. He offered that tremendous sacrifice in order to define (or redefine) that expectation, something that got lost (and we often forget) because of sin (which also brought on the need for mediators/priests).

Can it be dangerous and destructive to over-emphasize ourselves in all this? Sure. But it is also dangerous to over-emphasize community.

Let us not forget, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day thought they were right with God (or saved) essentially because they were born Jewish. Being part of that community was enough in their minds. That was wrong.

That’s why I find myself caught between both categories. I think it is both and, not either or. Community is important and key, and so is the personal and individual aspect. It’s as if we must balance responsibility and intimacy. They are not mutually exclusive.

When we pray (or interact with God) it leaves our existence and stretches to His Throne. We just don’t know what happens from there. Exciting? Yes. Frustrating? Sometimes, because God is sovereign and I am not in charge.

Sometimes God answers a prayer now, in 20 years, in eternity, or not at all. That’s just how it is. Fortunately, when we die we are assured in Matthew 10:26 that everything will be made known.

I don’t know about you, but I look forward to that.

In closing, I am not at all uncomfortable with your enthusiastic sifting of my insights. I feel there is nothing more productive than respectful and passionate conversations—the more ideas the better, I say. That’s how the truth is revealed.

My comment in close: I have nothing but praise for Jason’s candor and insight here. About the only thing I can say is that my research has been leading me to a conclusion that the change Jason refers to — from Old to New Testament — was not as radical as we have frequently been led to believe. Particularly, I do find a certain degree of conditionality in the New Testament covenant, but it relates to the rewards we receive in heaven as opposed to our salvation. In other words, to use asports analogy, salvation by itself is free — we get into the arena to watch the game no matter what we do — but our works determine whether we get in the front row or the luxury boxes, or end up sitting in heaven’s nosebleed seats. Several texts can support this view, though I find 1 Cor. 3:12-15 to be the most poignant, and Matthew 25:13-40 (cf.Luke 19:12-28) hits home pretty hard too.

I won’t say any more on that for the present, because I’m still sifting the texts and discovering new material, even on a daily basis at times. I hope to have my research on this finished within a few years; in the meantime bits and pieces are appearing in the E-Block even now.

I look forward to our next exchange for the next E-Block! Our thanks to Jason again for his willingness to dialogue. 

###