Sacred Space: A Life Devoted to Prayer

Anyone who has read even some of my past posts knows I have spent a lot of time talking about the relational nature of God, but now I want to ask what is the point of knowing it if that knowledge does not lead us to enter into it?  God has offered an invitation to journey that allows one to commune and co-labor with him, but upon accepting that request our moving forward in unity hinges on both participants’ (God & Persons) willingness to communicate and communicate often (just as any healthy relationship requires) and for this God has given us the avenue of prayer.  I believe most people to some degree do know this, but what many do not take into account is the extent of their un-readiness for the giving of the self that is required when approaching God.  When we invite Him to communicate with us in prayer and try to respond to him in prayer we should find communicating with God necessitates participation of our entire selves: our disposition, thought, desire, hope, will, activities, and direction of life.  It is only when this happens that prayer can finally evolve, in a more adequate sense, into a holistic practice that allows God to individually and communally shape us, interact with us as-well-as us with him. 

Subconsciously, I think, many avoid prayer altogether for several reasons.  First is because they somehow feel they are not worthy, or are too far removed, but the reality is the feelings of inadequacy and distance have been overcome by grace. The simplicity of coming to God in the humble act of prayer is now enough to close the gap and makes experiencing belonging a real possibility.  Second, are those who make prayer the way to control situations or even use it as a means to maximize personal happiness, but both dispositions will come up short.  Still others neglect the vulnerability of having to face themselves and only focus on prayer for others, but the inability to look inward also renders their actions incomplete.  Thomas Merton rightly said, “Those who attempt to do things for others or for the world without deepening their own self-understanding, freedom, integrity, and capacity to love, will not have anything to give to others.  They will communicate nothing to them but the contagion of their own obsessions, their aggresivity, and their ego-centered ambitions, their delusions about the end and means.”[1]  God uses our prayer-filled lives to bring us into wholeness, hence the reason we devote ourselves to it, but it comes first from responding to God’s love by falling in love with Him. 

Richard Foster expounds on this throughout his book on prayer in which he says to pray is to change and that is a great grace that provides a way for “our lives to be taken over by love and joy and peace and patience and kindness and goodness and faithfulness and gentleness and self-control.”[2]  He shows this comes by way of three main streams of prayer: inward, upward and outward.[3]

             1. Inward: We pray prayers of self-examination, prayers of tears for personal wounds, and prayers for inner transformation because we wholly rely on God and thereby posture ourselves before Him in honesty of brokenness allowing His renovating of our will and desire (Eph. 1:17-23).

2.      Upward: We pray prayers that give adoration back to God in response to His overwhelming outpouring of Self and love onto us (Heb. 13:14-15).  We pray to interact with God meditatively, contemplatively and from our heart to His heart.

3.      Outward: We pray prayers in faith to petition, to heal and to intercede on behalf of others despite insurmountable odds (1 Thess. 1:11-12; 3:1-2). We pray because we know that God’s desire to set all things right in the natural is intrinsically tied to unseen and the real conflict is not flesh and blood (Eph. 6:10-12). Therefore, we consistently pray God’s Kingdom into the despair of all situations and conflicts.

So it is not just one of these facets but in all of them that we can discover the heart of prayer is a moment by moment living with God.  

[1] Thomas Merton. Contemplation in a World of Action (Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1971), cited by Lee Camp, Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Radical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press 2008), 178.

[2] Richard Foster. Prayer: Finding the Hearts True Home (NY: HarperCollins Publisher 1992), 6.

[3] This is Foster’s three-part outline throughout the book and is certainly worth reading for those wanting know more about prayer.

Christians and the Death Penalty

Al Mohler recently posted an article titled “Why Christians should support the death penalty” (click here to see).  In his post he attempts to show that based on Genesis 6:9 and Romans 13:4, the Bible sometimes mandates the use of capital punishment, but he goes on to suggest that it is only qualified under right and just circumstances.  While I have to applaud Mohler for at least attempting to face and deal with this very real issue, I have to disagree with his conclusions.  I believe Mohler is unfortunately following suit with what a large number of Christians have, meaning that he is attempting to justify occasions of vengeful-retributive-justice. It is often easier for us to employ an eye for an eye response to intentionally-monstrous violence than it is to consider the response the imagines a new future with that person still in it.  We rarely like what refuses to satisfy the hurt and rage we have clung to over these instances, and this is a problem. Moreover, the scriptural passages employed do not reflect what they seem to and other pertinent passages are ignored altogether.

The Problem With Al’s Usage 

I think many will agree we most often run into problems when we disconnect a single verse of Scripture from its context.  Romans 13:4 does say, “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he (the government) does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (ESV).  In a previous post I laid out why Romans 13 does not actually support things like the death penalty or even involvement in government (read here).  To sum it up, however, I contend that Romans 13 should not be taken apart from Romans 12 because together Paul draws a stark distinction between God’s allowance of governmental authority to maintain some order, for better or for worse, and the Christian responsibility to bear witness to God’s Kingdom. 

Mohler’s usage of Genesis 9:6 is perhaps as equally misused.  The passage does read, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (ESV).   While I will spare you the drawn out interpretation, I do want to suggest something about it.  In a broad stroke, Genesis 8:20-9:7 is God’s dealing with the survivors of the flood within the context of a world that has for sometime been marred by human violence. This is to the degree that it has become woven into its very fabric, yet God has a plan to continue its future and his relationship with humanity. In doing so, he slowly begins to reintroduce a moral duty that takes very seriously the importance of life within its inherently violent social disorder.  Hence the reason human life should never be taken in the first place (9:6). This may suggest that God had to make some accommodations so to reach a broken violent people thereby gradually persuading and leading them toward his ideal way of living that is purposed in peace and wholeness.  This seems to be more the case as God continues forward with the Law given to Moses (which envisions a new way of living within the world) and the prophets (who reinforce the covenantal Law message and even came to see that God desired mercy and not sacrifice Hosea 6:6). I do not believe we can then say that God has really ever desired humans to become arbitrators over one another, but, as I have said so many times before, desires a creation that cares for the other.

... But What About Jesus?   

There is so much of Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection that reiterates and reinterprets Israel’s Law and ethic as a thing of mercy and in a way that demonstrates God’s heart more than ever before.   Shockingly he does this by negating the eye for eye/tit for tat mindset of Moses’ day and calls for an action that loves selflessly (Mathew 5:38-48; 9:12-13).   Jesus goes on to demonstrate this for the Pharisees after they drag a woman caught in the act of adultery before him. They test him by pointing out that according to the law they were well within their right to stone her.  Yet, Jesus replies by saying whichever one of them was without sin may throw the first stone. As each man threw down his stone and walked away, Jesus stooped down and asked the woman who was around to condemn her.  Upon replying that nobody was, Jesus then said neither do I condemn you (John 8:1-11). While Jesus did not contest the fact that her action was worthy of death by law, he makes two points here: one, that only a person void of sin is just in carrying out this act of judgment, and two, that being the one void of sin, as he was believed to be,  had the clearer vision that was more interested in extending mercy to a broken person then ending the life of a law violating enemy. 

I believe this is as Yoder suggested the gospel itself meaning that Christ died for his enemies which gives way to a people who are ultimately responsible for the life of neighbor and especially the enemy. So also, we can then only say this to another if we are willing to say to ourselves that we cannot dispose of a person according to our will.[1]  So, as a Christian whose ethics are qualified by Christ’s teaching and God’s broader story with humanity, I would have to say no, we cannot support the death penalty.   

[1] John Howard Yoder. The Original Revolution (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press 1971), 42.