The Power Of Prayer

I saw a story on ABC News last night, that triggered my imagination. It seems there are vast networks of prayer agents operating in the United States, sometimes undercover. These groups target prayers, often quite specifically, in hopes that god (our now-common generic name, though in this case it seems God will do) will intercede on their behalf or on the behalf of the prayer target (it's not always clear which).

So I got to thinking about this, and I came to a logical and somewhat startling revelation. Now, I pray frequently (more than Scrooge, less than any devout Muslim), most often with food, and with a real sense of faith (but I admit without any expectation). Most often it's to express thanks (to Jesus and God, those are my peeps), sometimes to provide guidance for myself, and occasionally to protect my wife and sons. In my life I've probably asked God once or twice for something for myself (bargaining, really) or for intercession for a third party. I admit, I never had much faith in the last, and it always seemed a bit distasteful (even icky). My revelation explains why that is.

Here is the logical experiment: first we determine the nature of a god receptive to prayer, and who would intercede in the world; then what that means for that god. This gives us an idea of the value of prayer, in several forms.

First, either there is a god, or there isn't. If there is no god, prayer is useless as a divine communications tool (prayer may still have many other uses, but it won't express thoughts and ideas if the receiver doesn't exist). So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god.

Second, that god must be able to intercede in our human world. If he's unable to do anything about a prayer target, then communication is still incomplete. Even if there were an answer, it would be, "sorry, I can't help you, you'll need to figure this one out for yourself." So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god who can intercede.

Third, god must be willing to intercede. If he won't touch his creation to divinely alter it, then requests for his intercession won't achieve the desired ends. God just won't do it. So the only opening for successful intercessive prayer is with a powerful, willing creator.

Now, this creator is omnipotent, or he's not. Let's assume he is all-powerful. Then he has the ability to create a perfect world. Given that ability, he either has done that, or he hasn't by choice. If he has done that, then the world is perfect, and there is no reason to intercede. But if he deliberately created an imperfect world, he had a reason. We'll explore this momentarily.

A god who is not omnipotent, might not be able to help in every prayer request. After all, for this god there are impossible tasks. It is also possible that he cannot create an ideal world ever. Plus, this god might not even want to change his creation at the request of a few human beings. So intercessive prayer in this situation is fraught with chance and danger. So while it might help humanity, it also might hurt, and there is arguement to not engage in that type of prayer, or at least make damn sure there's no hubris or arrogance in such a request.

So the only time it is reasonable to believe that intercessive prayer will have a positive divine outcome, is if there is an omnipotent creator, who has created an imperfect existence for humanity, and who is willing to aquiesce to the requests of those very humans he has placed in that existence. But why would such a god do that?

Either he wants us to ask for his help, or he wants us to fix the world ourselves. If he wants us to ask for his help, great, but if he jumps in, he only shows us how ineffective we humans are. I doubt he wants that. Perhaps he wants us to seek his guidance. I think that is a noble request in prayer, but it is also presumptuous to think any of us can ask god to provide that guidance for a third party who may or may not even want it. That's a two-party request; I can ask god to guide me, but it is folly and an insult to god to suggest he give it to someone else (who's to say he hasn't already).

So to even engage in prayers asking for god's intercession on behalf of a third party (beyond protection), is in essence an insult to god. It's mighty pretentious, and dismissive of the power and love embodied in the essence of God (yes, with a "G"). After all, either he's not going to answer anyway; or by answering, he's admitting fault with the universe, and responsibility for fixing it.

So basically asking God to jump in and help "guide" another person, or more boldly take specific divine action to intervene (for reasons other than protection), assumes the person praying has a better grasp of the situation than God, and that that person knows what is right for someone else; basically God's will for that person. That smacks of selfishness and arrogance.

Additionally, how is it that a massive group prayer has any more attention from God than the quietest plea whispered by the smallest child? Such a belief would be a wholly human construct, based on "Might Makes Right," and outside the teachings of Jesus Christ. More likely, any god who would be inclined to intercede for humanity would probably just take offense at such action, and answer the little kid first.

In any case, it defines the phrase, "Holier Than Thou."

To me, that's what makes it so icky.

Come One, Come All

The United Church of Christ made an ad. In the Ad, some people going to church are denied entrance at the door. The message of the UCC: everyone is welcome with us.

Now the three major networks are refusing to air the ad. ABC gets let off the hook here; they have a policy that they don’t air any religious advertising. Fair enough. But NBC and CBS have no such policy, and NBC refused to air the ad because it is “too controversial.” CBS has a policy barring advocacy advertisements, and they consider this message to be just that.

Baloney.

“You are welcome in our church, whoever you are,” is not a message of advocacy. It is an invitation to inclusion in god’s love (not capitalized as this is a broader context). Making pageant contestants eat nasty things is more controversial.

So why did the networks refuse to air the ad? Is UCC money no good? Are marginalized people actually not welcome in the house of god? Maybe the networks are afraid of the publicity they will get? Ahh, I think we’re on to something…

I think the networks are running scared. I think they think there’s good reason to be scared. I think they’re right.

See, they could be fined boatloads of money by the FCC if they air the ads (or so they think). They think that the FCC will crack down on broadcast content that it finds offensive or inappropriate. They think this ad is exactly what the FCC is referring to when they label content “offensive or inappropriate.” Again, I think they are right.

But it isn’t the FCC that is making the call. I think the networks know that. They think the real content standard-bearers are the religious right, specifically conservative Christians (I don’t think they deserve a capitalized “Christ,” but I think Christ does). But it’s not just me. Rev. John H. Thomas, president and general minister of the United Church of Christ, quoted in the Washington Post, thinks so too; “Rather than uphold a kind of freedom of the airwaves, they're deciding it's wiser to censor some perspectives than to court reaction from the right.”

Meanwhile, since the controversy began a week ago, the UCC has had 70,000 online inquiries from visitors to locate a nearby UCC congregation.

And every one of them is welcome.

The Nature Of An Iceberg

Yes, I backdated this post. I mostly composed it last week, just didn't get to put it on the Moose-Blog (Thanksgiving and all). Plus, I wasn't sure it needed to be said.

See, I thought my feelings on the Pacers-Pistons would be a small voice whispering softly in the deep wilderness. One that had to be expressed forthwith, so as not to be lost in the cacophony of innuendo, accusation, and outrage. But that voice was louder than I foresaw. I got a surprise when I heard something I didn't expect, from someone I didn't know to expect it from. On the Best Damn Sports Show, Tom Arnold laid the blame for the incident on the fans.

To be fair, Chris, Tom-Tom (we Iowa boys go way back), Salley and Cox all agreed on this point to varying degrees (not that Chris comments on the issue so much as drops the conversational puck). None of them gave Ron Artest a pass; they all said he should have refrained from entering the stands (I agree). They all said Stephen Jackson was as culpable as Artest (I agree). They all agreed that Artest, Jackson, and Jermaine O'Neal should get long suspensions, in the 25-30 game range (I agree).

But they also pointed out that if not for a cowardly act on the part of a Pistons Season-Ticket holder, this might have all gone for naught. John Green, the cup-thrower, is also the guy who got in the sucker punches on Artest while others were trying to restrain him. Interestingly, Green has the same thing Artest has, in the context of this fight; they both have reputations that precede them. The main difference is, as the video shows, Green started it.

He could have left well enough alone, but he didn't. Bryant Jackson (another reputable fellow) could have not thrown the chair, but he threw it. Charlie Haddad could have not gone on the court, but he did.

Those were my thoughts, too. But I don't blame them (here comes that voice from the wilderness). I really don't think Tom blames them either (at least, not completely). Now, Pappy always said it's better to fix the problem than to fix the blame, but the only one who can fix the problem, well, he's also the one to blame.

I blame David Stern.

You may have just bumped your jaw on the coffee table, maybe the floor, maybe your desk (please don't let it be your steering wheel). Though I cannot correct your mandibular alignment, let me explain my comment.

I don't think any of these guys had a choice. They were willingly sold on the image of spirited fans loudly driving their team to victory. They were sold on the idea that the fans make a difference; after all, it's not called neutral-field advantage. They were told that alcohol is part and parcel of the game experience (OK, that's bigger than Stern), and at the Palace, this means all four quarters (now that's something Stern could do something about). They did their civic duty (is there such a thing as "uncivic duty?"). Heck, Chris Ballard in the Nov. 29 Sports Illustrated points out that Artest is one of those guys who can go into a white rage, where he doesn't even recall what happened, sort of a Jeckyll & Hyde syndrome. They all just did what any behavioral expert could predict they would do. They don't chart their direction, they just go with the flow. Like an iceberg.

But the NBA, that course can be set, and Stern did so many years ago. When the league could have charted a course for quality product, Stern instead chose hype. Basketball is ultimately about scoring more points than your opponent. But NBA fans don't come for the scoring. They come for the dunking. The in-your-face, I-am-better-than-you pissing contest that is fueled by testosterone. Basketball is a team sport. But the NBA markets its individuals. It is all about Kobe, Shaq, Artest, T-Mac (there aren't as many one-namers in any other sport, or in the entertainment industry, for that matter). If it was about team, Jamaal Tinsley would be the #1 star in Indy, LeBron highlights would all be passes, John Stockton would be the guy with his own Nike clothing line and cologne. Like Captain Smith on the Titanic, Stern long ago boldly set the course for this "unsinkable" ship.

Want more evidence? Take early entry. Sure, LeBron is ready for the NBA at 18. But for every LeBron, there are a dozen guys who blow off a college education and a chance to develop in the college ranks because they were going straight to the pros (I can't think of any of their names, but that's the point; they're ghosts). Why are headcases so rare in the NFL, where testosterone and physicality are deliberately ramped up for performance? Because degree or not, every NFL player has demonstrated that he can at least enroll in college and pass 12 credit hours per semester, no matter how easy (it still takes discipline). Early entry allows boys into the NBA, not-yet-men emotionally and mentally.

Also, who is the market for Stern's NBA? Take a look at who is wearing the jerseys of their favorite players. Look at the sizes on the tags. If you're older than twelve, chances are you won't fit in them. The NBA wants you to buy the jersey for your kid, then take the kid to the game, and buy the $8 beers while you're there. They also want all of this activity instigated by the kid.

Sure, there are unruly fans in every professional sport, but those leagues have somehow realized that they are seating adults at the park, and that there need to be some proximity limits for the fans and the athletes. At NBA venues, it's like they expect 20,000 kids in the seats.

Not an iceberg.

And why is it that icebergs sink "unsinkable" ships? Funny you should ask. See, icebergs wreck ships below the waterline. Where they are invisible. Where 90% of an iceberg exists.

So, if the Detroit Scuffle is the iceberg we do see, what is the iceberg we don't see?

Captain Stern, to the lifeboats!