Lord, Teach Me To Pray

I have often pondered what prayer actually does.  In my personal prayers, I pray for many people who are sick in body, mind or estate – including myself.  But what am I asking God to actually do?  Do I want God to hear my prayer requests and decide He/She/It will respond to my request?  On one level that doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.  If God is all good and all powerful, wouldn’t God do it anyway?  God shouldn’t need my urging to act.  I end my prayers with the caveat – “You know our needs better than we know them ourselves.  Fulfill these requests and petitions as may be best for us.”  However, deep in my heart I hope God’s will and mine line up and are in sync.

 There are stories in the Bible of people changing God’s mind.  In one case Abraham bargains with God about the number of righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah to change God’s mind and not destroy the city (Genesis 18).  Abraham negotiated the number of righteous men required down to 10.  The bible has other instances where God had a change of mind (heart?)  However, in today’s times there are many prayers in which God doesn’t seem to answer them.  If God did there would be many people alive today who were stuck down before what seemed to be their time.  There would be many fewer displaced and injured innocent people in war zones.  I could go on but I’m sure you get the point. 

There is the case of Gretta Vosper, a United Church of Canada ordained minister who is a declared atheist.   She declares that she changed her belief about God because her daughter’s beloved teacher was ill and died despite her and her daughter’s prayers.  From what I read; Vosper believes in a God but not one that intervenes in human affairs in any way.  In the United Church congregation where she is minister, she has eliminated the Lord’s Prayer and probably other prayers of intercession.  The question remains: what do I believe about prayer?  I have prayed for people who have not been healed and returned to health and wholeness.  Some I have prayed for have recovered from sickness in body or mind or estate.  But is that because of prayers by me and/or others?  I have found Richard Rohr to be very helpful in all this. He writes:

I believe prayer is a symbiotic relationship with life and with God, a synergy which creates a result larger than the exchange itself. We ask not to change God, but to change ourselves. We pray to form a living relationship, not to get things done. (That is why Jesus says all prayers are answered, which does not appear to be true, according to the evidence!) God knows that we need to pray to keep the symbiotic relationship moving and growing. Prayer is not a way to try to control God, or even to get what we want.  

Prayers of intercession or petition are one way of situating our life within total honesty and structural truth. We are all forever beggars before God and the universe. We can never engineer or guide our own transformation or conversion. If we try, don’t it will be a self-centered and well-controlled version of conversion, with most of our preferences and addictions still fully in place, but now well-disguised.  Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation July 21, 2024

For me this is a good reason to pray.  I cannot say if prayers of intercession work in the way that people want them to i.e. with the results they pray for.  We do have the example of Jesus Christ who did prayer and taught his disciples and us how to pray.  However, I also believe that prayer changes the person who prays. That is more than enough reason to continue to pray.     

May you be blessed to pray and be prayed for on your journey.

 

Sermon 1st Sunday after Christmas 2014

Luke 2: 22-40

Lorna and I were driving somewhere a few weeks ago and we were listening to CBC radio as usual.  We caught the end of an interview with a Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.  He is among other things the brother of Rahm Emanuel the former chief of staff for President Obama and now the mayor of Chicago.  More on point for today, he is an oncologist, a bioethicist, and a vice provost of the University of Pennsylvania.  He was being interviewed because of an article of his that was published in the Atlantic Monthly.  We only caught the end of the interview.  However, his main thesis was that he did not want to live beyond seventy-five years old.  He premise was dubious at best and Lorna reacted quite strongly against what he was saying.  I tended to cut him a bit of slack believing he might have said something earlier to mitigate this position.  However, later Lorna found the article on line and conformed that he believed that there was no point in living beyond seventy-five.  He even went so far as to state that if he fell ill with an infection after that age he would not want to be treated with antibiotics.  He is an excerpt from the article which elaborates on his position.

 

Seventy-five; That’s how long I want to live: 75 years.

But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.

By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life. I will have loved and been loved. My children will be grown and in the midst of their own rich lives. I will have seen my grandchildren born and beginning their lives. I will have pursued my life’s projects and made whatever contributions, important or not, I am going to make. And hopefully, I will not have too many mental and physical limitations. Dying at 75 will not be a tragedy.

It is rather ironic that this man—who is a doctor and a bioethicist— has such a limited view of human existence.  It is also ironic that he should have the name he does and still hold these positions – Ezekiel, one of the greatest prophets in the bible and Emanuel, meaning God with us.  However, having a name that resonates with the wise and holy does not make someone automatically wise or holy.  Dr. Emanuel is apparently not familiar with today’s Gospel lesson (Luke 2: 22-40) or if he is he hasn’t learned the lessons it contains.  We know that Anna was 84 when today’s events unfolded.  We don’t know how old Simeon was but it is almost certain he was older that seventy-five.  He was ready to depart this world.  Indeed his word are used in many funerals marking the end of a life in this world, “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; 30for my eyes have seen your salvation, 31which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, 32a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.”  I do not believe that Simeon or Anna wished after this event that they had shuffled off their mortal coil at a mere seventy-five years old.  If that had happened their lives would not have been complete.

Indeed, I don’t believe Dr. Emanuel is aware the people in the bible who had wonderful events waiting in their twilight years.  The stories of Abraham and Sarah certainly come to mind easily.  He was, coincidentally seventy–five years old when he first received the call from Yahweh.  The story for him and for Sarah was only just beginning.  When Sarah heard the visitors/angles announce that she was going bear the long awaited son to fulfill the covenant she laughed to herself saying, “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?”  Who knows what God has in store for us after seventy-five?  There are other examples: Samson’s parents Manoah and his wife who was barren; Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist.  Samuel’s mother Hannah was also barren before God blessed her and Elkana her husband.

Now Dr. Emanuel is fifty-seven years old and I think there is hope for him yet.  Of course there is hope for everyone as we don’t know what God has in mind for him or for any of us.  Perhaps he will receive a call from God to go to a foreign land when he is seventy-five.  But more likely when he starts to approach what he considers to be the terminal age, he will begin to see the world and age differently.  I remember when I was a teenager, the popular expression was don’t trust anyone over thirty.  How quaint that sounds now.  Dr. Emanuel may find that seventy-five doesn’t seem so over-the-hill when you get closer to it. 



I can understand and agree with part of the point that Dr. Emanuel is trying to make.  He believes that medicine today can take extraordinary measures just to prolong a person’s life for a few weeks or months when there is no quality of life left and those last days are spent sometimes in pain and agony for not only the individual but also those who love them.  However, he is greatly mistaken that there is no real point to life after seventy-five or eighty-five or even, God-willing, ninety-five.  Only God know what God has in store for us in these years.  God does not give up on us when we turn a particular age or stage in life.  Each age and stage is certainly different but each age and stage is God given and we are to live that part of life seeking to know what God has in mind for us and in seeking to live out that intention.  Who knows we may get to see a child who were looking for to be our redemption. 

Let us praise God and the wonders of all his creation.  And let us praise God for the gift of life and the surprises that God has in store for us at any and all stages of life. Thanks be to God.  Amen

 

Readers of my sermon might enjoy my book The Ego and The Bible.  It is available on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Ego-Bible-Stories-Divinely-Intended/dp/1500759155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419870942&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Ego+and+the+Bible

Reading the Bible 14 Gen 23 Strangers in a Strange Land

It strikes me that the writer(s) of this part of Genesis protesteth too much.  They are attempting to assert a claim on the burial land for Sarah in the land of the Hittites.  They want the reader to be clear that there is no question that Abraham obtained the land legally and paid a fair price for it beyond any doubt.  Therefore his descendants have a perfect right to the land in question which might be in dispute when the events were recorded.  For me this has reverberations for the present situation in Israel and the West Bank and the settlers encroach in lands beyond what can be legally claimed by Israel.  The settlements are like the camel’s nose in the tent and the settlements are attempting to become so entrenched that they will be no possible negotiation around removing them.  The last verse of the chapter v20 puts the seal on the situation, “The field and the cave that is in it passed from the Hittites into Abraham’s possession as a burying place”. 

The situation of Abraham seems to reflect what has gone on in history.  As he states he is ‘a stranger and an alien’ residing among the Hittites and they treat him with every hospitality and consent to allow him to have land as a burial site for Sarah.  How is that hospitality repaid by Abraham and his descendants?  In a similar way the Europeans (my ancestors) came to North America and poked their noses in the tent of North America and we know what happened after that.  It was not Terra Nullius as was proclaimed by we Europeans and we have been dealing with the consequences of broken treaties and cultural assimilation to this day with the idle no more protests.  History is written by the winners and it does depend on whose ox is being gored and who land is being occupied.  So the question remains what is a Christian who is a descendent of those Europeans and who has indirectly at least benefitted by the camel’s nose of those ancestors to do?  No easy answers. 

Reading the Bible 13: Gen 22 God wants me to do what!

Many things reverberate with this reading.  Sacrifice has been going on for a long time in human history.  This account of Abraham and Isaac has been considered in some circles as an account of the movement from human sacrifice and the tradition of offering (literally) the first fruits (first-born) to God.  This is reflected many times throughout biblical history – although not in the literal sense.  It became a symbolic offering.  It can be seen as the beginning of animal sacrifice as a replacement for human sacrifice.  There is also Isaac as a type of Jesus and the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Jesus which ended the practice of animal sacrifice for Christians.   

That being said I have to wonder how Abraham felt during that three-day journey to the place appointed by God.  It must have been with a heavy heart that he made that journey.  Here was the promise – the proof positive of the validity of the covenant with God.  And now God is going to pull out the rug from under his feet and Abraham will be back to having Ishmael as his heir.  The promises of God must have turned to dust in his mouth.  On the other hand I have to wonder what the experience did to Isaac.  How would he have felt in the return journey?  What kind of an impact did the experience have on him in the rest of his life?  Perhaps this is historical relativism and such things did not have the same impact on people in the days of the Patriarchs. Perhaps the right of the father to dispose of his possessions was absolute and unassailable.  However, many of the emotions expressed by those people are very similar to what we experience today – jealousy, fear, envy.   I can’t help believing that Isaac must have wondered - at least to himself - about his close brush with death and the capriciousness of life if not both his fathers – his earthly one and his heavenly one. 

One question I take from this reading is, ‘what sacrifices does God ask of us?’  I have never been asked to make one that compares to the one God asked of Abraham.  Perhaps I have not been listening or wanting to listen that closely to God.  Then again, perhaps Abraham did not hear God clearly the first time and that is why God had to step in ad stop Abraham.  It seems to me that God’s communication with us today is a lot less clear and open to interpretation than in Abraham’s time.  Perhaps that is a good thing.

Reading the Bible 11 Gen 21: 1-21 God's Sense of Holy Humour

There is much that has been said and more written about the birth of Isaac and the resulting quasi-nuclear family of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael.  For me in this reading two things stick out.  First, God fulfils his promises and second, God opens our eyes.

Through the birth of Isaac God fulfils his covenant with Abraham and with the rescue of Ishmael his promise to Hagar.  Both of these promises are fulfilled in rather unusual ways.  The promise to Abraham was delayed until Abraham was 100 years old.  We are not told how old Sarah is which you might think was more important as she was the one who conceived and gave birth.  However, it is one – the first – of many stories in the bible of God acting in the lives of people when they might have given up hope.  As we have just passed Candlemas, Simeon and Anna come to mind. 

It looked rather hopeless for God promise to Hagar.  She was thrown out into the wilderness with almost nothing after Abraham listened to God.  This seemingly rash act turned out for the best – apparently according to God’s plan - because he opened Hagar’s eyes and enabled her to see what was right in front of her – a well of water. 

In all this I wonder what God has in mind for me.  In terms of age I have more in common with Abraham than Isaac.  It is comforting as well as a bit disconcerting to believe that God has lots left for me to do in my life.  I certainly know that as my wife Lorna points out occasionally I don’t always have eyes to see what is in front of my nose.  Perhaps God will give me eyes to see what he has in mind for the next part of life.  Perhaps the best is yet to come.  Perhaps this is just God's sense of Holy Humour shining through and we can laugh with Sarah. 

Reading the Bible 10: Gen 19: 30 – 20: 18 Abraham the Trickster

Reading the Bible 10: Gen 19: 30 – 20: 18

The story of Lot concludes with an account of Lot and his two daughters.  These were the ones Lot had offered to the men of Sodom to spare the angelic visitors from abuse or worse.  Of course Lot’s wife is not with them as she was turned into a pillar of salt for her sin of looking back.    As I noted last time, no further mention is made of his unnamed wife (note that the daughters are not named either). 

The account of incest between Lot and his daughters doesn’t say very much for biblical family values.  However, I wouldn’t want to be accused cultural relativism.  There must have been cultural activities that led to the Levitical laws.   It is an interesting account of the foundation of two other peoples – the Moabites and the Ammonites.  They certainly got a bad rap by the writers of Genesis.  I wonder how those people felt about the account that the Israelites were spreading about their founding stories?

That is where we leave Lot and his offspring.  The story returns to Abraham and Sarah.  History repeats itself and Abraham and Sarah get into trouble in another land, Gerar.  The carryings on in Egypt is repeated in this land.  Abraham again passes off Sarah as his sister to save himself with similar results.  There is something of the trickster inn Abraham.  This characteristic will come to full bloom in his grandson Jacob.  It is interesting how family traits often skip a generation.  In any case the founding father of three religions definitely had a shadow side which seems to not be acknowledged.  Whenever that happens serious consequences are sure to follow.

Reading the Bible 8: Gen 18

The theme of hospitality runs through this passage.  Abraham is the epitome of the good host to the three ‘men’ who appear before him.  He is exemplary in his welcome offering them water to wash their feet and having the fatted calf killed to serve them.  (I wonder if Jesus was thinking of this when he told the parable of the Prodigal son?).  There is also a question in my mind whether he would have been as good a host if these were just ordinary men and not emissaries (angels) from God?

In any case there is certainly nothing that he can be faulted for in the hospitality department.  However, the other feature of this passage – putting aside the miracle of Sarah’s destiny of bearing a child in her old age – is Abraham’s bargaining with God.  It is human nature to bargain with God – If you will do this for me God – won’t you give me a Mercedes Benz as Janice Joplin prayed – then I will worship you or I will be happy or I will follow your commandments.  This relationship to God is correctly, I believe, not encouraged (despite the Prayer of Jabez phenomenon of a few years ago).  It is not the basis for a mature spirituality.   

However, I believe that Abraham’s bargaining on behalf of the inhabitants Sodom is different precisely because it is on behalf of other and not for his benefit.  So Abraham bargains the salvation of Sodom from fifty righteous people down to ten.  However, even that is not few enough as we know from the account in the next chapter Sodom’s fate. 

However, it is a compelling question.  Can we bargain with God and to what end.  Can we really bargain for ourselves or more righteously for others?  Was there a cosmic bargain between God and his only begotten son to bring salvation to humankind.  I have always had problems with this interpretation of Easter.  But that is for another reading.