Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:05 PM
Roger Simon is whining about John Edwards closing a prayer that he prayed recently in Nashville "in Christ's name."Simon must be agnostic, or athiest because he obviously doesn't understand the purpose of prayer. In taking Edwards to task, Simon complains that Jews and others would feel left out and that prayers are intended to comfort those who hear them. Like I said - Simon is clueless on what prayer actually is. Prayer has nothing to do with comforting those who hear it. Prayer is not offered for the benefit of other humans standing in the room, sitting in the audience, or listening by means of media. Prayer is not directed at other human beings IN ANY WAY. Praying people know this. Prayer is not a "psyche yourself up" excercise of mindless hypnosis. Prayer is not a pep-talk for taking the field of play in a better state of mind. Prayer is not a band-aid, a rabbit's foot, a religious ritual, and certainly isn't offered to keep people from being offended. Prayer asserts certain things that in fact will offend, and if in fact it does not assert such things then by definition it can not be a prayer. Prayer is direct communication between the person praying it - and the GOD who made him or her. Sure there may be times when prayers are said publicly, and the doing so lifts the minds of those involved in the prayer as a corporate prayer to the God who made all those who give mental assent to the truths being prayed... but it is never about making those who hear it "feel" anything. Prayer IS serious business, because on the other end of the line resides the God who created ALL that we see around us. And if He can hold all that we will ever experience in the palm of his hand, I know for sure that I don't want to approach Him wasting His time, coming before Him with a lack of sincerety, or being anything less than fully honest. Simon probably had an excellent point in his column where he describes Edwards' motivation to even say a prayer at the event as being the result of a political strategist advising him to do such as a ploy for future votes. But praying how he chooses is what the first amendment guarantees... At least for a little while longer...
The assertion of offense through prayer is this:
Prayer is an act that foremost and fundamentally admits the existence of the Creator God - and that we are NOT Him.
This is the fundamental statement of ALL prayer regardless of the words prayed. The act, the contrition, the admitting of dependency that occurs - all point to the central truth: He is the Creator, we are the created.
This aspect of prayer MUST always be evident - hence it is NOT prayer but mumblings said out loud - to no one.
This truth will offend all who reject it, and if it does not offend their belief system then it is a good wager that the prayer itself - is in fact - not real (i.e. ecummenical) |
|
"Prayer has nothing to do with comforting those who hear it. Prayer is not offered for the benefit of other humans standing in the room, sitting in the audience, or listening by means of media. Prayer is not directed at other human beings IN ANY WAY. Praying people know this."
I had been a prayer intercessor for many years of my Christian life. I can count numerous occassions, the specifics of which I no not recall, where I was in a position of ministering God's comfort to others, by way of a prayer.
I believe Mr. McCullough is echoing a Bible injunction, that our prayers be done in such a way that they are not for outward expressions of false piety, or to be used as a pretense, or to draw glory to ourselves, rather than God.
"Prayer is not a "psyche yourself up" excercise of mindless hypnosis. Prayer is not a pep-talk for taking the field of play in a better state of mind. Prayer is not a band-aid, a rabbit's foot, a religious ritual, and certainly isn't offered to keep people from being offended."
I am not sure Mr. Edwards was using his prayer in sincerity, as his politics beg a non-Christian world view, but I don't think it was said to stop others from being offended. Was it?..
"Prayer asserts certain things that in fact will offend, and if in fact it does not assert such things then by definition it can not be a prayer."
I don't agree with that at all..Prayers may offend the unredeemed, that much is true, but I do NOT believe a prayer sent to God must -in and of itself- need to be offensive in order to be a prayer..
"Prayer is direct communication between the person praying it - and the GOD who made him or her. Sure there may be times when prayers are said publicly, and the doing so lifts the minds of those involved in the prayer as a corporate prayer to the God who made all those who give mental assent to the truths being prayed... but it is never about making those who hear it "feel" anything."
There's a fine line there. Prayer is not to be a manipulative, or contrived act, it also can greatly be used to help and comfort others. Many times I can recall just hearing our family's need being prayed for and feeling quite a bit better.
I don't think there is anything fake, or false or synthetic about this..
"Prayer IS serious business, because on the other end of the line resides the God who created ALL that we see around us. And if He can hold all that we will ever experience in the palm of his hand, I know for sure that I don't want to approach Him wasting His time, coming before Him with a lack of sincerety, or being anything less than fully honest."
Right, and if the inference is that Mr. Edwards invoked Christ's name as a way to imply he has a personal state of redemption, then we should take that for what it is, but hold on rushing judgment. I don't believe he has been born again either, as God's Word says you'll know then by their fruits..
I don't doubt this allusion to Christ by Mr. Edwards is to try to get the Christian's votes..
But he isn't going to get even close to that with a record like his, which includes wanting to "marry" same genders and extolling a "right" to kill innocent babies. |
|
First of all, using a movie for a definition of prayer doesn't quite cut it. Prayer is defined as communication with a deity. Just Google the definition of prayer and that's what you'll find.
In John Edward's case his personal belief is in God and Jesus. Of course that is who he would pray to! I am a little surprised that he prayed in Jesus name because of his more liberal views. I would have thought him more politically correct. I must commend him for praying in Jesus name however.
We need to stop trying to inhibit rights that were deemed God given by our own Founders. |
|
I can't remember the name of the movie, but a small group of pioneers or frontiersmen or something like that are standing at the side of a new grave and there is no clergyman available. One of the men says to another, who is in some kind of position of authority, "We would be grateful if you would say a few words over him. It would mean a lot to the womenfolk."
In other words, he is requesting a prayer because it will comfort the bereaved. What nonsense to say that prayer is not meant for the comfort of those who hear it. Imagine a hospital chaplain praying with a dying patient and/or his family: if not praying to offer strength and comfort to them, he might as well stay at home and address God privately on behalf of the patient.
As for Edwards concluding a prayer by invoking the name of Christ, another thread on townhall complained yesterday because a chaplain at Virginia Tech didn't, and the reason given for the complaint was that the prayer failed to offer the comfort of Christ to Christians who were there.
McCullough seems to make more dopey statements than any other writer on this site. Did he have to go to school for this or is it a natural gift? |
|
|