Pray Harder!

Central, Wales

1 John 5:14-15 from the New American Standard Bible

And this is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, He hears us.

And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked before Him.

Henry Clarence Thiessen writes that asking things according to God’s will is an aspect of abiding and having confidence in God. Thiessen (1956: 399). It suggests that the person praying has a correct condition of the heart. Thiessen (1956: 399). In his article, Theology of Prayer, Alan Richardson explains that from Jesus’ perspective, all of our prayers are answered, but not necessarily in the way we would have chosen. Richardson (1999: 458). D.G. Bloesch notes that God wants his followers to be in partnership with him, but prayer is fundamentally about sharing personal needs with God and being conformed to his divine will and purposes. Bloesch (1996: 867).

I reason that theology from 1 John 5:14-15, should conclude that Christians should ask God that they will pray and make requests along the lines of God’s will. Prayer should be primarily made for personal fellowship with God, and secondarily for personal requests. Even if an individual Christian is primarily being guided by the Holy Spirit in life, there is no guarantee that each and every heard prayer request will be answered according to the will of the human follower, but will be answered according to God’s will and purposes.

On Sunday, I had a discussion with a well-meaning young woman at church. She is one of these people that is always trying to be positive. She was telling me how she had been very down in an earlier part of her life and she prayed and God significantly lifted her spirits. She strongly believes that the Lord assisted her, and I am not trying to intellectually challenge this claim. My disagreement with her is when she tries to make her experience, theology for every case. She stated that in regard to me being single, I should not discuss or list legitimate reasons why I am single, but simply pray about it. I informed her that I have prayed about it for more than 20 years, and that God is sovereign and does not have to answer my prayers the way I want them to be answered. She then stated, pray harder! I am not using ad hominem here and attacking her personally with a name, but this really struck me as ding-dong theology. I am basically stating that it is foolish theology. God seemingly answered her prayer and gave her significant blessings when dealing with problems, but many believers throughout the ages, and today, have many problems and her theology is presumptuous to assume that persons simply need to pray harder to overcome difficulties. In regard to theodicy and the problem of evil, this type of theology is an example of the difficulty of placing too much emphasis on human free will, instead of God’s sovereignty, as if in every case, persons are suffering because they are doing something wrong, and not praying hard enough. 1 John 5:14-15 does not state that if we pray hard enough all of our prayers will be answered to our satisfaction, it states that our prayers will be heard when made within God’s will. Requests, as Richardson states, will be answered, but not necessarily according to what we as Christians desire. It must be remembered in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil, that God meets the needs of Christians in order to fulfill his purposes, and not necessarily in order to provide maximal human fulfillment in this present earthly realm.

BLOESCH, D.G. (1996) ‘Prayer’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.) Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Prayer, Theology of’ in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, London, SCM Press Ltd.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


My latest Facebook Graffiti

Questionnaire feedback finale: Dealing with anger

Prince of Wales Hotel, Alberta

Happy Canada Day!

Since I have presently have 210 questionnaires in my possession and 190 processed on my SPSS data file, there is no urgent need for me to further ask for completed questionnaires. However, my goal is to not reject one survey that is returned to me, and so I shall keep accepting questionnaires until the day I am ready to email the results to my advisor at Wales. Thank you!

The process of emailing out questionnaires over the internet has been interesting. I learned a little about the Christian landscape in various parts of the world and emailed out over 1000 questionnaires. I very much appreciate the persons that returned questionnaires by email, and regular mail. I also somewhat appreciate those that politely declined to assist in an email response or just deleted my email.

I have discussed in previous articles, for the sake of clarification, some of the negative feedback I received from persons of the religious left and right, and some accusations made against me. From a couple of sources, it was suggested that there may be a hidden agenda with this project, as in somehow behind the problem of evil questions there is another topic I wish to deal with, for example, to discuss women in ministry. It has been stated that I might wish to catch people blind. Based on the denominations, these people were likely of the religious left and were implying that I had an agenda against feminism, which I do not with this project. I responded to these accusations in a friendly email, but received no reply.

From a leader from an independent fundamentalist church that is likely of the religious right, there was the suggestion that my research was a feminist propaganda tool. I corrected this person in a friendly email, but received no further reply. There is no anti-feminist or feminist agenda with my questionnaire or dissertation. My University department is not Reformed. It is secular and has required me to add some women related questions, as they originally wanted me to review a feminist theodicy. I informed them that as far as I could tell there was no such thing. I am required to meet certain academic standards, including presenting viewpoints that are not from my particular theological tradition.

I was not furious with these accusations, but I was angry for a few hours each time. After the second event, I also found these accusations humourous as they contradicted each other! But, these incidents also made me think about the concept of anger, in regard to the problem of evil. Millard J. Erickson points out that God’s reaction to sin in anger is not primarily emotional, as his temper is not out of control. Erickson (1994: 605). Erickson states that God in his anger should be described as being disappointed with sin. Erickson (1994: 605). I am by no means able to handle anger in a way equal to God, but I was angry with these accusations and accusers, not in a furious manner, but was disappointed that men that claim to be Christian pastors did not give me the benefit of the doubt in regard to my motives in producing this PhD problem of evil questionnaire and emailing it out world-wide. I realized that even though I was not emailing them for commercial gain I may have been viewed as an irritant and/or it may be that since I am not in within their perhaps extreme religious views of the left and right respectively, that I was deemed as an outsider and a threat.

From the New American Standard Bible:

Proverbs 14:17 explains that a quick-tempered man acts foolishly.

Ephesians 4:26-27 notes that a person will be angry, but is told not to sin, as sinful anger gives the devil opportunity.

I have often looked at human sin metaphorically as a fire and Satan and demons as beings that pour gas on that fire. This all occurs within the sovereign will and purposes of God. All that occurs within creation is willed and allowed by the infinite, and omnipotent God, but I would rather follow God’s will by being obedient as opposed to being disobedient, and so anger is something that should be dealt with in prayer quickly. I was angered by these accusations and accusers, and soon asked God to help me to forgive these accusers and as well understood in the situation the opportunity to produce humourous blog material and to clear up misconceptions which some would have concerning my project, and perhaps me personally. R. K. Harrison describes God’s Biblical anger as a deliberate reaction to all that violates his holy nature. Harrison (1996: 48). It is explained that human anger can be righteous, but can also be selfish, or a combination of both and if human anger is not righteous alone, it may face the condemnation of God. Harrison (1996: 48). Righteous anger against false accusations and accusers is therefore something that should be overcome quickly through the power of prayer and the leading of God.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HARRISON, R.K. (1996) ‘Anger’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Privation

Ciboure, Clocher, France (photo from trekearth.com)

Augustine is one of my exemplars dealing with the problem of evil and within his text Enchiridion discusses privation and the corruption of humanity. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 8). The subject is also discussed in On Free Choice of the Will. What follows is a fairly short non-exhaustive article on a complex subject.

Augustine’s view of the corruption and privation of created matter and nature was that they were good things as created originally by God, but had become less than they were originally intended through rebellion against God. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117). Augustine reasons that every nature, and by that he means substance that was finite (limited as angels and humans beings are) could be corrupted. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116). The term substance, particularly in regard to God, is not necessarily physical substance but, instead, is the very core of a being. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 117). Each nature and substance that could become less good would still be good, and every nature would become less good when it was corrupted. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117). With this view both physical matter and spiritual inner being could become corrupt. Rowan Greer indicates Augustine viewed privation as meaning that evil has no ontological status (meaning evil does not exist on its own). Greer (1996: 482). But from his writings Augustine does not necessarily state that as his view. Augustine dealt primarily with the idea of evil as negation, and I doubt he would fail to see that after corruption had taken place in creation that living, existing, beings committed evil acts, and in a sense evil beings existed. Augustine reasons that every human being that exists is good, but is evil where it is defective. Augustine (421)(1998: Chapter 13: 7).

Although privation seems true in a negative sense, a problem with the concept in creatures is that corruption and the resulting evil in creatures is not merely an absence of something good, but consists of its own positive, destructive quality, as private creatures not only lack the will to do what is good, but will to do evil. John Hick reasons that Augustine’s idea of privation fails to deal with the fact that corrupted persons do not always tend to disintegrate and cease to exist in will and personality. Hick (1970: 62). This would seem correct as a corrupted and evil entity can grow in intelligence and power, so a mere corruption of a being from original perfection does not appear to weaken it to that status of non-existence. Something is considered evil because it can be seen to have a diminished degree of goodness. This appears reasonable; however, the diminished goodness in a creature is not replaced by non-existence, but by an actual corrupted nature within the person. It should be noted that Augustine is quite difficult to read and understand and it is not surprising that he is interpreted in varying ways. His writing style makes interpretations difficult as well, in my opinion.

From a Biblical perspective the remaining goodness left in human beings after corruption is not sufficient for salvation. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and Romans 6:23 explains that the wages of sin are death, but the free gift of everlasting life is for those in Christ. Therefore even if privation is correct negatively, and everything that exists, no matter how evil it is, must contain some goodness, and evil does not exist on its own, human beings are still far from being perfectly morally good. God’s standards for salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of God that were originally broken in Genesis 3, included moral perfection and goodness in obedience to God, and fallen beings do not have perfect goodness. Human beings are therefore dependent on the atoning work and resurrection of Christ to deal with the results of sin and death, allowing those in Christ to obtain true moral perfection and goodness and entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of God.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.knight.org/advent.

GREER, ROWAN A. (1996) ‘Augustine’s Transformation of The Free Will Defence’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 13, Number 4, October, pp. 471-486. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.

200+ questionnaires completed

Church Bay, Wales (photo from trekearth.com)

I am grateful to God, and those that have completed and returned my problem of evil questionnaires. As of today I have 205 completed questionnaires in my possession. I have therefore reached my goal of 200+ completed questionnaires in my possession and this number is acceptable to my advisor. I will continue to process the results of my questionnaire data. My theoretic research and the results of the data should allow me to provide an original analysis and theology in regard to the problem of evil. I emailed my advisor early this morning and not only was he pleased with the amount of completed questionnaires I have in my possession, but also was intrigued with my ideas for originality which shall come from concepts in the theoretical work and analyzing the data.

Please note, 200+ questionnaires is an acceptable number, but if I have sent you a questionnaire, please complete it, as I only have 75 of the 205 questionnaires processed in the data file and therefore I have time to accept more surveys. The greater number of surveys I have completed, the better it shall appear to the examiners.

Here are some of my recent edited comments in italics from other blogs. I reason that if I am going to do the work on others blogs, I should make use of some of it on my own blogs.

Please scan the blog articles for context, and these bloggers appreciate respectful comments, as do I.

From Tom’s blog, he writes about Christian music.

http://casadipace.blogspot.com/2007/06/j-pod.html

Several years ago, I realized that I would have a problem being intellectually consistent if I avoided secular music, and yet still viewed secular films and read secular books. I reason that Christians should be open-minded concerning art and material that is secular.

Tom had previously written about animal rights.

http://casadipace.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-gave-animals-rights.html

Hmm, a good point. I wonder if some of these hardcore environmentalists think that human beings are often interfering with evolution negatively? But, very likely the dominant species will dominate. Since as Christians we reason that God created persons with compassion, it allows us to not just dominate by nature but also care for animals.

Rick writes on a recent scammer email I received which I placed in the comments of my latest article on satire and theology.

http://fun-foodandfighting.blogspot.com/2007/06/fun-revenge.html

I wonder if these scams are usually connected to foreign organized crime, or rather small time operators.

From David’s blog, he comments on some work of C.S. Lewis in regard to the thought process of an evil man.

http://dmesler2.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-man-is-getting-better.html

Having read and reviewed Lewis concerning the problem of evil for my MPhil, I am not a huge fan of his theology, but he does make some good points at times. A very evil man may understand his evil less and less, but it is possible that he realizes that he is becoming more evil and is not too concerned about it. An evil man may think he is right at times, or may think he is wrong at times and not care.