Some recent reflections. Today in church the interim vicar - standing in while we await the arrival of Bradford-famous Robin Gamble in December - was speaking on the John passage where Jesus disinguishes his friends, as opposed to servants, as those who were 'in the know' - those with whom he shared what he had learned from his Father in heaven. He also referred to a Genesis story whose drama and pathos make it one of the rugged mountain peaks of Old Testament narrative: Abraham, who was called a friend of God, pleading with the Almighty for the salvation of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of the possibility of just a few righteous people: fifty, then forty, right down to ten. The key message was that prayer - which can in God's goodness mean conversation between friends - has power to shape the future through as God, while remaining sovereign, chooses to allow His decisions and actions to be affected by the prayers of those with whom He is intimate.
An interesting contrast was drawn between this dynamic, fluid model of God's engagement with human beings, and the Muslim view presented more as prayer being about bringing one's life under the sway of the immutable will of Allah, above and beyond. To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
8 comments:
while remaining sovereign, chooses to allow His decisions and actions to be affected by the prayers of those with whom He is intimate.
Why then ido christians make a big deal out of the fact that god does not change his mind and prayer is supposedly about you learning god's will. Then there is the excuse that god doesn't answere prayer because it is not in his will. Do you not think that these views are incompatible with your claim that god changes his mind?
Ahem. I've blogged about the problems with this notion of prayer many, many times before. I don't see anything in this post that refutes those issues.
Oh yes, I also did a few posts on the problems with the ideas around having a "relationship" with God; again, no refutations here.
"dynamic engagement" sounds attractive. I was reading about tolkein and lord of the rings recently. One writer suggested the allure of middle earth was that people in the reading of the novel - in embracing the images - in mythically indwelling that space - rediscovered a sense of immediete involvement with their own surroundings - a sense of the dynamic and magical - a sense which is often lost in our commercial technocracy ...
I did read that new scientist article mentioned in stephen laws blogs about prayer and brain function - it seems that during prayer and meditation the areas of the brain which maintain our idea of self and separateness from our enviroment become less active. It would appear the act of prayer can be shown to dissolve the cognitive dissonance between ourselves and our enviroment.
The "dynamic engagement" of christian prayer can of course always be broken down to smaller more managible pieces - it can be seen as an act of intent ( rather like new age statements - "today I will sell this house" - american beauty ) - or it can be seen as a way of adjusting our desires to the grim realities of life ( rather like the stoic approach " death smiles on all men the least we can do is learn to smile back" - gladiator ). But perhaps these broken shards are only parts of a greater event - pieces in a jigsaw. Because for me the haunting echo of "dynamic engagement" never seems to go away.
Let me just re-clarify my approach especially for the benefit of Jonathan and Billy. Life is busier for me now in Bradford so less time to blog, but I'm trying to get into a habit of a little more often. I'm aiming at about 20 min a day when I can. That means a thread of thought may cover several posts; don't expect the whole package at once. Yesterday for instance I got drawn in by Little Dorrit on telly, which as a student I'd once read a large section of on a coach to Poland (it's one hefty book). So that was that. Second, sorry guys but as I've myself said several if not many times before, my aims and interests here are simply different from yours. I'm interested from my standpoint in trying properly to explore faith ideas and thought; from your current standpoint you're interested in picking holes in it. I'm not trying to engage in the kind of debate that your comments indicate you think I am trying to engage in. So it's rather pointless, and I have to say today feels a bit annoying. Happy for you to read and comment if you like, but think I'll re-introduce moderation just now at least to encourage you to follow the story a bit before jumping to comment.
Cheers for yours Rob. J, I'd be interested what you make of some of what Rob said especially in the Olympic Spot thread. Sophisticated thinking on faith and if he doesn't mind me saying, gifted writer with flair for metaphor and image. There you go Rob, free publicity.
I'm interested from my standpoint in trying properly to explore faith ideas and thought; from your current standpoint you're interested in picking holes in it.
To be honest, if you really are interested in serious investigation, you need to be consistent. I have pointed out an inconsistency. It is up to you what you do about that. If you are going to ignore it, then dont feel upset if I am dismissive of your position if you ever tell me in person again that god only answers prayer according to his will.
And I thought I was discussing the content of the post. Incidentally, if you read many commentries on this story, you will see an alternative and incompatible interpretation - that god was teaching abraham about his will and nature - not changing his mind to suit abraham. Both views can not be right.
If it wasn't for the holes and weaknesses of theology I would have no need for god. I would have faith in my own faith and not the ineffable wholeness to which I hope it points.
I say hope because I am well aware in many ways - some known - some unknown - my faith falls short of even echoing the divine. So with such a sense of need I am happy to explore faith and the ideas and thoughts which seem to follow in its wake.
If the christian tradition can be seen as a sacred language - a way to embrace and map the infinite - then one value of seeing it as a language is that we can then begin to perceive its primary value as a shared experience. Exploring faith on your own - might be a bit like learning swahili alone and only ever talking to yourself in your bedroom. Even blogging at its worst seems better than that.
So lead on MacBruce....
following on from my last post - which seems to still be in the hands of the moderator - a quote from the web:
"Faith which is simply private judgment writ large makes “Choice” itself a greater good than what is chosen can ever be."
or how I heard it:
"Belief which can be reduced to the thoughts of an individual makes the act of solitary thought a greater good than what is being thought about"
If either makes any sense to anyone, I will be pleased..
Post a Comment