Who Believes in Miracles? Prayer and the Practice of God’s Presence

July 11, 2012 by Bo Sanders 30 Comments

I know at least three people who believe in miracles: Marjorie Suchocki, Bruce Epperly and I do. I have written several times about holding onto the miraculous (as well as dealing with demons and skirting ‘Satan’) - both as Bible reading Christians and as ministers in the 21st century – even after we have excused ourselves from the super-natural worldview of centuries past. Bruce Epperly (who’s final session at EVTC will be released soon) looks to Marjorei Suchoki for some helpful language about prayer and the nature of God’s power. (Suchoki is perhaps most famous for many books including one on prayer: In God’s Presence and eschatology: The End of Evil).

What follows is a summary of a section from Epperly’s book Process for the Perplexed p. 58-60. I found it so helpful and so encouraging that I wanted to put it up here (reformatted as a blog of course). All the words are Epperly’s or Suchocki’s except those in italics.

Suchocki describes the intimacy of God and world necessary to the faithful practice of prayer.

If God’s power works through presence, and if God’s presence is an ‘omnipresence’, then one could say both that there is no center to the universe and that everything in the universe is center to all else … we can say that all things are center, for if all things are in the presence of God, then it is God who centers them. The earth, then, is indeed privileged and we do have a privileged history, for all are presenced and centered in God. Prayer in such a universe makes eminent sense – for God is always present.

From this perspective, God is, as a mystic once said, “the circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.”

This allows us to affirm the wisdom of my mother’s kitchen magnet motto, “prayer changes things”. Suchocki understands prayer as “our oppeness, to the God who pervades the Universe and therefore ourselves, and therefore that prayer is also God’s openess to us. In such a case, prayer is not only for our sakes but also for God’s sake.” In a relational universe, prayer is essential to God’s work in our world and “the effectiveness of God’s work with the world.”

Prayer is intimately connected with God’s vision for each moment of our lives. God’s initial aim, or vision for our lives moment by moment, is grounded in God’s awareness of our joys, sorrows, needs, and loves.

God knows us better than we know ourselves and seeks to provide possibilities that join our lives with the lives of others in a way that bring beaty and healing to the world. God inspires us to prayer for others as weel as to act on their behalf. Surely this is an insightful way to interpret Romans 8:26-28

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And gone who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

God moves within our lives, inviting us to reflect God’s vision of Shalom and healing in our relationship with others, whether a child diagnosed with cancer, the survivors of the Haiti earthquake, or a friend who is in the process of discerning her future vocation.

As Suchocki affirms, “prayer is God’s invitation to us to be willing partners integrate dance that brings a world into being that reflects something of God’s character.” Accordingly, our prayers make a difference in terms of the intensity and effectiveness of God’s healing and reconciling work in the world.

While the intensity and form of divine guidance and activity in the present moment our lives shaped–and either enhanced or limited–by our past history, decisions, values, and the quality of spiritual devotion, our attentiveness to God in the present opens us to new costs bursts of spiritual energy.

Further, in an interdependent universe our prayers are an example of what quantum physicists describe as non-local causation: they create a positive field of energy around those for whom we pray, enabling them to be more open to God in a ruling God to be more creative and effective in shaping their life situation.

Process encourages people to be realistic, yet hopeful, in prayer for extraordinary life changes. Indeed, spiritual realism embraces both the concrete and the possible, regular causality and naturalistic leaps of energy. As Suchocki notes, “prayer creates a channel in the world through which God can unleash God’s will towards well-being.” Because each moment is unique, “miraculous” releases of energy that change ourselves can occur; but there are no guarantees, except God’s loving presence, in every life situation.

We see the occurrence of events described as “miraculous” not as violations of the laws of nature, but of intensification’s of God’s healing energy as a result of the interplay of God’s visionary power and energy, our prayers, and the conditions of those for whom you pray.

Romans 8:28 can be translated this way “ in all things God works for good for those who love God” as a representative of the holistic, relational, non-coercive, and multifactorial nature of divine activity.

I find this greatly encouraging and inspiring. We get to do this wonderful thing of partnering in prayer while no longer being required to subscribe to an antiquated metaphysic or pre-modern worldview.

Let us pray.

Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, prayer, thinking Tagged With: Bible, book, books, church, demons, Epperly, God, healing, jesus, miracles, power, prayer, Process, Romans 8, sickness, Suchocki

25 comments

Newest | Oldest

timothydown

timothydown 0 pts

Thanks for your post Bo. I normally wouldn't comment, but rather would just read and absorb. But alas my Philosophy of Spirituality class at Fuller has driven me into a blog response assignment, so I found it only fitting to choose Homebrewed since I spend so much time here anyways.

We just finished reading through some Murphy, Green, and Yong, on matters of the physicalism/dualism debate, divine action, and miracles, etc. So I thought I'd run through some of your quotes and suggestions from the blog in order to comment and raise some questions back at you about your theory of prayer, providence, and divine action.

From the title, I am wondering if you are working with a definition of prayer akin to Brother Lawrence's Practice of the Presence, which implies a lifestyle of openness to God through prayer in everyday activity, in the whole of the spectrum of life? If so, is there specificity to a prayer that explicitly requests divine action outside of an awareness of the presence? Or rather is all of life awakened to God’s presence, and thus our attentiveness to the results of God’s actions in the world ebbs and flows with our sensitivity to the kingdom work at hand in a non-coercive manner?

You quoted Suchocki as saying, “our openness, to the God who pervades the Universe and therefore ourselves, and therefore that prayer is also God’s openness to us. In such a case, prayer is not only for our sakes but also for God’s sake.” I’m assuming you are working from a process perspective in the realm of divine action here (correct me if I’m wrong), and so I am curious to understand how you might explain why our prayer (for God’s openness to us, for God’s sake) matters? Within this quantum world in which the causal nexus (Yong) between our participation and divine action is seemingly improvable, of what direct correlation is our participation? In other words, if God is always present and always acting in the world, what part do we really play? It seems to me, to insinuate a higher degree of probability of success after a prayer versus success without prayer is inconsistent with the way in which the world remains to be immeasurably broken. “Defending the plausibility of miracles within a scientific framework brings challenging questions to the fore: If God could intervene in response to prayer or to prevent evil, why is there gratuitous evil in the world?” (Yong 114) IE: the problem of evil still stands in what you have espoused. In contrast to this, you noted, “Accordingly, our prayers make a difference in terms of the intensity and effectiveness of God’s healing and reconciling work in the world.” I guess I am just wondering specifically how our prayers actually make a difference with your view of God’s divine action in the world? I guess in my mind, to suggest a “higher intensity or effectiveness” is immeasurable apart from the Christian’s perception through faith.

You also noted, “in an interdependent universe our prayers are an example of what quantum physicists describe as non-local causation: they create a positive field of energy around those for whom we pray, enabling them to be more open to God in a ruling God to be more creative and effective in shaping their life situation.” Where are you getting this hypothesis, and why does this make a difference? Again, it just seems implausible and unempirical to assume that our prayers make some sort of energy field around someone. I am partly playing heaven’s advocate here, because I too believe with your mom that prayer changes things, but I am just rather asking for clarity in some of the underlying assumptions being made in your post…

You also mentioned, “We see the occurrence of events described as ‘miraculous’ not as violations of the laws of nature, but of intensification’s of God’s healing energy as a result of the interplay of God’s visionary power and energy, our prayers, and the conditions of those for whom you pray.” The problem I continue to have with this is that the intensification idea implies that at certain times God’s power can be coerced into a higher intensity in part by the demands of humans. This again creates a problem of evil that is too big for the kind of God we are speaking of to account for in the sense that if God can heal and act in that way, and doesn’t always, we have to ask if it is just our fault that we aren’t praying hard enough, or that we aren’t sensitive to God’s leading, or is God just not that good? This leads to thinking about God’s action in a way that makes God morally inferior to us, unless God’s power is somehow limited and miracles still can occur (which you might hold to, I don’t know).

I agree mostly with your following statement that, “ in all things God works for good for those who love God” as a representative of the holistic, relational, non-coercive, and multifactorial nature of divine activity.” It just seems inconsistent with an ethic that allows for miracles that can be wrought by prayer as you imply in the rest of the post. If God’s action is non-coercive, but still relational, what is the causality in our prayer life? What does it matter besides to open our awareness and heighten our sensitivity to God? I know you “find this greatly encouraging and inspiring…that we get to do this wonderful thing of partnering in prayer while no longer being required to subscribe to an antiquated metaphysic or pre-modern worldview,” and I too do not subscribe to an antiquated metaphysic or pre-modern worldview; however I’m trying to understand what you are implying that our prayers actually do?

Yong notes “of course science can explain healings and miracles, etc., from its various disciplinary perspectives, although these explanations will not be exhaustive. In turn, believers can make these assertions about God’s role in the light of empirical data, although these will be theological rather than scientific affirmations.” (100) In light of this quote, I am wondering if what you are making are theological affirmations about the reality in which we find ourselves, rather than trying to justify a metaphysic that allows for real miracles within a quantum world? I know you are both a believer in miracles and have experienced them yourself, it’s just that the language you used in closing suggests the opposite of life within a quantum universe? Where’s the partnership with God here? Also, how do you deal with the teleological and eschatological trajectory that has been set in a Christian worldview within a world in which God’s miracles are limited in part by our (imperfect) ability to pray correctly into them? Thanks for taking the time brother! Just wanted to clarify a few of these things. Peace.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit of Creation. Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charasmatic imagination.

Da stand das Meer

1 Like

Couldn't agree more, Bo - and to respond to AricClark, I don't think that bringing quantum physics into this is at all pseudo-scientific, as non-local action is scientifically proven at the quantum level (Einstein objected to quantum theory because he thought it was 'spooky action at a distance', but even the greatest geniuses can be wrong sometimes). There is of course great argument as to whether quantum theory is at all applicable at macro level (and where the boundary between quantum and 'classical' physics runs), but that there is non-local causality AT ALL in our known universe is itself an absolutely revolutionary discovery.

If we're looking for examples of healing by the power of prayer, I can offer the instance of my Polish niece who was healed as an infant from leukemia that the doctors thought was incurable (my father's hospital in London was involved in verifying her diagnosis). The medical staff were even angry at her healing because it didn't fit their model of causation! What I do know is that there was a massive prayer campaign on her behalf, and that one elderly relative, who died of cancer shortly thereafter, actually asked God for the illness to be transferred from my niece to him. In addition, my brother-in-law's mother promised God that if she were healed, she would adopt two mentally handicapped children and set up a Catholic adoption agency, all of which happened.

You can make of all this what you will - that's a question of faith - but try telling any of the people involved that the power of prayer isn't real ...

Shalom

Peter B.

AricClark

@Da stand das Meer Thanks for the reply - what makes this use of Quantum Physics "pseudo-science" in my estimation is not that there is no such thing as non-local action, but Bo (or Epperly) here is claiming something which no study or experiment has tested, let alone verified. Non-local action isn't a generalizable principle which we can use to explain phenomena unrelated to the arena in which it has been observed. It's akin to comic book science... radiation causes biological cells to mutate in some cases, aha! That's how our hero gets his powers: radiation! We grab onto a half-understood concept that superficially seems to fit the scheme of our pre-existing convictions. That's not science.

Da stand das Meer

@AricClark I understand what you're saying - but it needs emphasizing that there are in fact a number of scientists (not card-carrying Christians, by the way) who are trying to make these kinds of connections. Try reading Mario Beauregard's (U of Montreal neuroscientist) 'Brain Wars', or Dutch cardiologist Pim van Lommel's 'Consciousness Beyond Life', or the work of consciousness researchers such as Andrew Newberg (U of Penn), Bruce Greyson (U of Virginia) et al.

Yes, their findings are controversial, but there seems to be an impressive body of scientific evidence building to suggest that the notion of non-local consciousness really merits serious exploration. Particularly in the field of near-death experience (which if verifed would effectively prove the reality of non-locality), which is where this is all rapidly coming to a head.

BoSanders moderator

@Da stand das Meer Good one. I just want to chime in with something that was part of my response to Aric so you don't have to did for it

I am not trying to explain or explain away people's experience. My only point of contention is not with the experience itself but with the interpretation of those experiences - I want to be careful that we don't see the event as validation of our correct interpretation of the event. Miracles happen, that isn't permission to hold onto an antiquated metaphysic or a pre-modern worldview (as if the latter was even possible).

What do you think about that? -Bo

Da stand das Meer

@BoSanders That's why the quantum part is interesting, as those who try to link prayer and non-local consciousness like Epperly aren't appealing to a pre-modern metaphysic but on the contrary, trying to develop a coherent model for a POST-modern metaphysic.

Here I confess that I also have a pet peeve with much Christian theology (but a different one from AricClark, although actually it may be similar psychologically), in that I sense that a lot of people are trying to put quantum science and spirituality together in highly creative ways, but mainly OUTSIDE the Church. I'm convinced that many of these are the 'spiritual but not religious' crowd who find folks like Ken Wilber or Deepak Chopra far more attractive and relevant to their lived experience than either reductionist science or rationalistic theology. And I'm not going to blame them for that or dismiss them as nothing more than New Age 'woo-mongers'. I'm meeting more and more folks like this ...

Da stand das Meer

@BoSanders It's certainly a growing pastoral issue: my impression is growing that many churches simply don't know how to respond to these folks because they rattle the cage too much. Scare words such as 'syncretism' start getting thrown, which is one of the reasons that they are suspicious of institutional Christianity ...

It has been an interesting discovery for me that there are also quite a few 'spiritual but not religious' [better 'not dogmatic'] people still trying to hang on INSIDE the Church who survive by keeping their mouths shut about their experience. What I've found is that it's only if you give them a signal that it's OK to talk about their near-death experience, yoga class, Reiki healing training or Buddhist meditation week that they've been attending that they'll open up.

What's certain is that what this constituency is looking for is NOT for the Church to make a pact with rationalistic science. But talk about quantum

and prayer as you did in this post and they're right there ...

One site which I'd really recommend in this regard (and not just because I just did a podcast interview over there recently;))) is Alex Tsakiris's www.skeptiko.com . For my money it is up there with HBC as one of the best resources on the internet. And for talking about spirituality in a non-religious fashion, Alex T. seems to be leading the way...

BoSanders moderator

@Da stand das Meer that IS a fascinating development.

As a practical theologian my spider sense is tingling ;) -Bo

AricClark

Not gonna let you off the hook, Bo, with the casual mention of Quantum Physics to support your belief in prayer. If you're right then it is a testable hypothesis which I would expect you to present empirical evidence for. Where are the amputee's being healed by prayer? Where has any miraculous healing occurred under observable conditions that is distinguishable in anyway from happy coincidence? It is quite possible that prayer changes your own mind much like meditation, but claiming your prayer alters my physical reality requires support.

One of my pet peeves is Christians using poorly understood scientific terminology to say "see - what I believe is right!" Why should I take your argument for prayer any more seriously than Ken Ham's creationist bullshit, similarly buoyed by pseudo-scientific lingo?

(All said in great love!)

BoSanders moderator

@AricClark I appreciate the love. and I don't mind being on the hook sometimes ;)

Couple of thoughts:

1) technically I didn't bring up the Quantum Physics... it was Epperly. My understanding is rudimentary at best I would have never gone that route.

2) The difference between Epperly and say Ken Hamm is that the former was used as an example and the latter is going for evidence.

I think Epperly was illustrating or alluding to to possibility - leaving the door open ... Hamm is trying to make something air tight and slam the door shut.

3) I have experienced many miraculous healings: cancer from an arm, back surgery avoided, glaucoma reversed, Autism disappeared, ... all sorts of stuff. I am not trying to explain or explain away people's experience. My only point of contention is not with the experience itself but with the interpretation of those experiences - I want to be careful that we don't see the event as validation of our correct interpretation of the event. Miracles happen, that isn't permission to hold onto an antiquated metaphysic or a pre-modern worldview (as if the latter was even possible).

Does that make sense? It may not be a technical as you were looking for (if so see Peter B's comment above). Thank you SO much for the push back - I realize that I need to clarify some things -Bo

AricClark

@BoSanders The difference of using it as an example, something to open the door for further thought rather than close the door and prove a point is good. I'm not saying there is no place for talking about science in theology. I just think we ought to be very careful to talk about science with a full understanding of what we're talking about. I don't think most of us who are tempted to use an example we got out of watching an episode on Nova or reading the American Scientist are at all qualified to make serious comparisons between our theological convictions and quantum physics.

Alas there is no way to say what I am about to say without sounding like I am dismissive of your experience. I appreciate that things have happened in your life which you credit to miraculous intervention - good things, which I'm glad happened for your sake and all those involved. But anecdotes are not evidence. Again, if prayer accomplishes miraculous healing then it is testable. We ought to be able to see a clear difference in outcomes of people prayed for versus those not prayed for.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all">Studies</a> have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer">been done</a>. The results are not conclusive, but nearly all double blind studies report no difference - and that result is pretty damning. The effect of prayer isn't as detectable as the Placebo effect. It isn't as noticeable as the effect of a healthy diet or exercise. It has less noticeable effect than your sleeping patterns.

Again, I understand that many people have experiences of healing the attribute to divine intervention. I rejoice that such healing occurred, but it appears that statistically such unexpected or unexplained healing occurs with exactly the same frequency with or without prayer. It is also significant that there are no examples of that kind of healing that directly and unambiguously contradict what we know about the possibilities of the human immune system. No amputees regenerating limbs. No dead returning to life. If a faith healer was going around this country regularly curing paraplegics the wheelchair business would go bankrupt. It isn't happening.

Furthermore, IF God IS healing through prayer in this completely unmeasurable unobservable way the it is arbitrary. If God healed this lady of cancer because she was prayed for, but not that gentleman over there who was also prayed for just as faithfully and fervently then God is guilty of killing that man by negligence. If I had the cure for cancer in a bottle and I arbitrarily gave it to some and not to others then I would be guilty of a lot of voluntary manslaughter. I not only think it is deeply dubious on scientific grounds that prayer accomplishes miraculous healing, but it is also theologically undesirable.

AricClark

@Da stand das Meer @BoSanders There is certainly some intractable disagreement here, along with some agreement. I don't oppose the idea that a God who works along with natural processes is more appealing than an interventionist God. I agree that we don't fully understand the capacities of the human mind. I'm not suggesting we dismiss any possibility out of hand.

I AM saying that we should follow the evidence and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

i) Testimony (as in a court of law) is notoriously unreliable. I take people very seriously and trust that they generally report their experiences as faithfully as they are capable of doing so. I don't take it as serious evidence in support of extraordinary claims. People see UFO's and ghosts and fairies and commune with the dead and spend "90 minutes in heaven" - all the time. It isn't credible without other evidence to back it up.

ii) I wouldn't ascribe moral agency to natural processes. You're right that positing spirits or demons or other vague moral agents opposing God solves one theological dilemma, but it creates other ones - which would take us far off topic here.

Looking at the goals for your framework the simplest explanation that accomplishes all of those things (a,b,c,d) is:

God most likely doesn't heal through prayer and healing which occurs in ways not readily explicable by CURRENT medical thinking will most likely turn out to have other explanations besides prayer. Until then we remain agnostic about precisely what is happening in those instances.

Da stand das Meer

@AricClark @BoSanders

(AricClark) I think we'll need to agree to disagree here, probably - but for the record:

i) I certainly don't have an a priori commitment to saying that prayer 'produces' healing, or anything as crude as that. But I do have a commitment to taking people's first-person accounts seriously (I prefer the category of 'testimony', as in a court of law, rather than 'anecdote', which is too pejorative), and yes, while I'm definitely not a literalist, the evidence of the Gospel record does carry epistemic weight for me as a basic matter of faith.

ii) I take your point about theodicy, but it's worth recalling that for much of Christian tradition (Catholic, E Orthodox), it is taken for granted that humans are not the only free moral agents in the cosmos, and that such free moral agents can not only cooperate with God's loving purposes but also actively oppose them. For this line of thought, disease is at least in part related to this opposition, not to God's negligence or 'failure to intervene'. I know this line of thought is deeply unfashionable, and it certainly takes us out of the realm of science, but I don't think it can be dismissed as logically impossible (see Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense re. natural evil, or the work of Greg Boyd and Michael Lloyd at St Paul's Theological Centre in London).

iii) Current science is not merely talking about the minor salutory effects of mind upon matter. Again, take a look at Mario Beauregard's recent book 'Brain Wars': we're talking about the healing of things like post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic alcoholism by means of neurofeedback, cancer remission due purely to placebo effect etc. It seems that we simply don't know the limits of the power of the human mind

iv) I don't think it's impossible to put forward an explanatory model that meets the following conditions (with an appropriate dose of humility):

a) acknowledging the real occurrence of healing in ways not readily explicable by CURRENT medical thinking

b) taking the issue of 'unanswered' prayer seriously

c) not making God out to be capricious, cruel or arbitrary

d) not positing an 'interventionist' God who 'violates' natural processes

Does this require difficult philosophical and theological work? Certainly. Impossible on principle? Not necessarily.

AricClark

@Da stand das Meer @BoSanders I appreciate your engagement, very much.

I think the a priori thinking is on the side that supports prayer for healing on the basis of anecdotal or scriptural evidence. I think when the broader evidence is considered and we see that prayer for healing is not reliably connected with actual healing then we begin to reexamine our perspective on God and realize that in fact miraculous healing introduces a deep problem of theodicy into our theology and for that reason we sigh in relief that the evidence doesn't support it.

The move being suggested by Epperly (and yourselves) here is much bigger than you make it sound. Going from "meditation and prayer can have some (mostly minor) salutory effects on the individual" to "prayer can cure another person's cancer from thousands of miles away" is not a little leap.

AricClark

@BoSanders

Q1. It's not so much demanding that something be testable, but that if you make a claim about something happening and the "how" then we ought to be epistemologically humble enough to test those claims and follow the results. You say - x person prayed and y person was healed. Great. That's testable. Not because it happens in a laboratory, but because it happens. period. Things which are not observable/testable are indistinguishable from things that don't happen at all. (sidenote: as a good postmodernist I'm as susceptible as anyone to using "enlightenment" as a scare word, but there is nothing wrong with expecting claims to be backed with evidence - which, incidentally is how much of the Biblical narratives treat miracles - signs which prove the prophet to be true).

2. Not sure you escape cause and effect by using the language of receiving. If I try to catch a football, I may not be responsible for the football's trajectory or the fact that it was thrown in the first place, but if I don't position myself correctly and time my catch then I won't receive it. If Prayer is about receptivity it is still something we can observe and test - what is the most effective form of prayer? Why does healing occur in some cases and not in others? etc... Furthermore, there aren't special spheres reserved for faith talk and "lab" talk. If it can be observed, if it happens, then it is fair to talk about it from the perspective of what is verifiably true or false.

3. To clarify, I'm not being reductive here. There are a variety of forms and purposes for prayer. I've never said there is no point to prayer. I've said that the specific type of prayer discussed here - prayer for healing, is pointless if cause and effect can't be demonstrated, or to say it better - the point can't be what is usually assumed: to accomplish healing. The point may be to express solidarity, or to train your heart to focus on the suffering of others, or to ease their anxiety by your willingness to engage in a practice which supports their hope for supernatural assistance etc... but if praying for healing doesn't reliably lead to healing (which it doesn't) then it is at least misleading.

Da stand das Meer

@AricClark @BoSanders P.S. I was responding to AricClark's comment that ended 'I not only think it is deeply dubious on scientific grounds that prayer accomplishes miraculous healing, but it is also theologically undesirable'

Da stand das Meer

@AricClark @BoSanders (Sorry to jump around the webpage to respond to comments). Of course the objection in the last paragraph above is a weighty one which needs to be taken seriously - it's more or less for the same reason that Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp proposed their theory of 'not-even-once' in respect to Divine 'intervention' in 'The Predicament of Belief'.

However, I don't consider it intellectually conclusive, for a couple of reasons:

i) IMHO the remark about prayer accomplishing miraculous healing as being 'theologically undesirable' sounds dangerously like an a priori. I don't want to be personal, but I see a lot of this kind of a prioristic thinking in discussions of this sort. i.e. 'first we define what our pre-established theological framework will allow, then we dismiss what doesn't agree with our paradigm'.

I think it is far more preferable, and far more SCIENTIFIC, to start from the question 'what are the actual phenomena' (regardless of how weird and difficult to reconcile they may seem). If we're doing theology, that can also include evidence from the Biblical record, e.g. of Jesus's healing ministry, exegetical/hermeneutical difficulties notwithstanding. Once we have established what the phenomena are, then we scratch our heads to come up with an explanatory model.

ii) the assumption is that healing involving prayer is Divine 'intervention', which both Bo and I would dispute, rather than being the outcome human mental activity (through and together with which God can act 'collaboratively' without 'violating' the autonomy of the world). We know for a fact that prayer/meditation - indeed any kind of thought - can have a physical impact on the thinker (besides the placebo effect, Andrew Newberg's and Mario Beauregard's neuroscientific studies of Franciscan nuns and Buddhist monks have demonstrated this). Epperly is merely advancing one step beyond this in suggesting an explanatory model working on the assumption that this may also be possible at distance.

BoSanders moderator

@AricClark perhaps I was too snarky in my last response ;) I am having this same debate on facebook currently with 'The Fool' !

One question and two comments:

Q1: How is demanding that something be testable NOT conceding the ground rules? Is that impulse coming from faith? it is generated from scripture? No. It is enlightenment thinking. Am I wrong?

2: I am absolutely 100% renouncing the Cause and Effect conception of this. I hate it. I have to daily withstand a barrage of FB comments about 'claiming' and 'commanding' and 'demanding' and 'pronouncing' and 'declaring' and 'pleading'. If you read my posts (which I assume you did) then you see that I am talking about 'openess' and 'availibility' and 'willingness' and 'receptivity' and 'partnership'. This is not laboratory talk. I'm doing something different. We can't really place lab language onTOP of faith things - nor can we simply place faith expectations ontop of science then say 'there is no faith here'. Its not the point.

3. Why so reductive? If god isn't the magic man of intervention - then why bother? Why not do it this way:

- We believe that there is a God

- Jesus is the highest revelation of God

-Jesus prayed

- Jesus said 'when you pray' as if it were assumed that we would

- many people in the long tradition of the church have found great comfort and even some power in the practice.

Now, is it not as reliable as medicine (per se). But in my mind that is not the point .... but for you to then say "Why even bother". I'm very surprised that you are being that reductive. I get your points about amputees and stuff... I just don't see why its an all or nothing thing.

Can you help me with that? I am with you 98% (i also love our interactions and respect you VERY much - so take this all with a grain of salt). -Bo

Da stand das Meer

@AricClark @BoSanders

If we're going to talk about the Templeton Foundation-sponsored study mentioned in the NY Times article, it's worth actually looking at the final interpretive section of the document published by the study's authors, which I append below. http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf

As you'll see, they admit that no real conclusions can be drawn from it which would warrant construction of any general theory of the efficacy (whatever we may mean by that) of intercessory prayer, not least because of the way in which the experimental protocol was set up. Read what they have to say, and see what you think. The section in which they described the deliberate lack of information about the patients given to the intercessors is an indication of the way in which the study was in some ways an artificial exercise ...

Their final few sentences are particularly interesting:

'Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness and the results of this study do not challenge this belief. Our study focused only on intercessory prayer as provided in this trial and was never intended to and cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists or whether God answers intercessory prayers or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups.'

____________________________________

(STEP Paper, May 5, 2005, pp. 12-14)

Our study had 2 main findings. First, intercessory prayer itself had no effect on whether complications occurred after CABG. Second, patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did receive intercessory prayer. While our study population appears similar and representative of CABG patients in the US,26 the proportion of patients in all 3 study groups who developed complications or major events was higher in our study population than reported elsewhere. These higher rates are likely attributable to our 100% audit of all case report forms against information in the medical record to ensure consistent and complete reporting of complications and major events after CABG. We do not believe there was differential reporting by treatment group because the independent auditor and site research nurses, who completed the case report forms, were unaware of patients’ assignment. Our findings are not consistent with prior studies showing that intercessory prayer had a beneficial effect on outcomes in cardiac patients.7-8 Possible explanations for the lack of effect of intercessory prayer itself include the following. First, intercessory prayer may not be effective in reducing complications after CABG. Second, the magnitude of the reduction could be smaller than the 10% that our study was powered to detect. Third, the occurrence of any complication within 30 days of surgery may not be appropriate or relevant to the effects of intercessory prayer. We have no clear explanation for the observed excess of complications in patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them (Group 3). While post-operative atrial Revised STEP manuscript May 5, 2005 Page 13 fibrillation/flutter was responsible for much of the excess of complications in the Group 3 patients, this outcome is only one of the complications that contributed to the composite outcome27 and the excess may be a chance finding. Although there was a borderline excess of major complications (secondary outcome) in patients in Group 1, this excess may also be well due to chance. Our study had limitations: we placed constraints on how intercessory prayer was provided in this study. Although the intercessors were motivated to participate in the trial, they received limited information without feedback on the patient’s condition; did not know or have any communication with patients or their families; used a standard study intention during their prayers; and prayed for patients in Groups 1 and 3 for a study-specific 14 days (anticipated maximum duration of inpatient stay for at least 95% of subjects). Prior to the start of this study, intercessors reported that they usually receive information about the patient’s age, gender and progress reports on their medical condition; converse with family members or the patient (not by fax from a third party); use individualized prayers of their own choosing; and pray for a variable time period based on patient or family request. Our rationale for altering the way in which intercessory prayer is routinely provided was to enable us to standardize the initiation and duration of intercessory prayer, to assess compliance with provision of study prayer, and to direct the intercessors away from praying for everyone in the trial (by focusing on praying for those assigned to Groups 1 and 3). The strict study instructions for providing intercessory prayer do not permit us to explore relationships between presence or absence of complications and the amount, duration and timing of intercessory prayer. Revised STEP manuscript May 5, 2005 Page 14 We did not request that subjects alter any plans for family, friends and/or members of their religious institutions to pray for them, as to do so would have been unethical and impractical. At enrollment, most subjects did expect to receive prayers from others regardless of their participation in the study. We also recognize that subjects may have prayed for themselves. Thus our study subjects may have been exposed to a large amount of non-study prayer and this could have made it more difficult to detect the effects of prayer provided by the intercessors. The finding that intercessory prayer, as provided in this study, had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG may be due to the study limitations. Understanding why certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications will require additional study. Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness and the results of this study do not challenge this belief. Our study focused only on intercessory prayer as provided in this trial and was never intended to and cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists or whether God answers intercessory prayers or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups.

AricClark

@BoSanders Not sure where to go from here. It sounds to me like you are claiming there is cause and effect- people pray and it results in healing. If so it ought to be testable. That isn't conceding the ground rules to science. I think that claiming that certain experiences/events/claims ought to be specially privileged to be beyond the bounds of empirical observation is the mistaken move - not only does it result in the loss of credibility it impedes genuine questing after truth. If you are not saying there is cause and effect here, that healing is connected to prayer only coincidentally, then what is the point?

I'm very sorry my tone seems dismissive and confused about how we agree and disagree. I'll refrain from saying more until I understand your point better.

BoSanders moderator

@AricClark I think that you are deep in the weeds here! You are so focused on the ground at your feet that (or the clouds in the sky) that you have wondered into a field :(

I will be as clear as I can so that you can hear me: I don't give a lab-rats ass about double-blind studies or testable hypothesis! That is not my point at all.

MY point is that people pray and sometimes stuff happens. I liked how Epperly conceptualized how that might happen. He ALLUDED to science and you ARE being dismissive. Those things I talked about really did happen and you can call that anecdotal but to them it was telling. You are playing the Sporg! Both Marcus Borg and Bishop Spong have conceded the ground rules to science. This is a mistake. It is why we must renounce the super-natural world view - we will lose all credibility in the next century. Now, having said that, you are 100% correct. It is not reliable. There might be a placebo. Limbs don't grow back. No one on this side of the Atlantic is raised from the dead. It is not verifiable in a laboratory.

and except for you dismissive tone and concession of the ground rules - we are 98% in agreement ;) how does that sit with you? respectively (if not a little ornery) -Bo p.s. your html did work after all

AricClark

@BoSanders Sigh. HTML fail.

Mike Horn

I partly wish I was kidding lol

Homebrewed Christianity

That is SO funny! This is my favorite comment of 2012!! (so far) Hilarious ;)

Mike Horn

Hey Bo, I may be stuck in an antiquated metaphysic and Pre-modern world view but I love this post.

Trackbacks

Around the Blogosphere (07.13.2012) | Near Emmaus says:

July 13, 2012 at 8:01 am

[...] Bo Sanders, I am not a pacifist nor am I non-violent ; Who Believes in Miracles? Prayer and the Practice of God’s Presence [...]
Concern about the Collapse of the Mainline Liberal says:

July 13, 2012 at 4:56 pm

[...] of emergent creation (instead of ex nihilo or evolutionary explanations only), dealing with demons, making sense of miracles and explaining evil (among other things). [...]

Claremont School of Theology

Who Believes in Miracles? Prayer and the Practice of God’s Presence

Trackbacks

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

Support the brew