Tuesday, April 29, 2008

"I think I understand" alert

There are signs hanging around my (religious) workplace encouraging me to participate in the upcoming National Day of Prayer. I think it's great that someone was able to start an organization and an event encouraging people all across America to pray. However, tied strongly to the post before last, I think there is some quite wrong-headed positioning or basis for the event.

The sign I saw said "Prayer: America's Strength and Shield". No matter how much the Pharisees prayed, it didn't help them one bit when God had the Romans demonstrate to them that the people of God were now those who followed Jesus, not those who sacrificed at the temple. (See previous post.) Similarly, if we pray looking for America's protection first, our god will disappoint us eventually. History ably proves that.

On the other hand, I love the idea of a Day of Prayer with a theme, such as, "Prayer: Teaching us to love our enemies rather than kill them" or "Prayer: Fostering God's heart for the poor" or "Prayer: Hasting the restoration of God's good creation".

For better or worse, I'm reading through the Old Testament and studying medieval church history simultaneously. It's teaching me that there is absolutely nothing new. Our politicians (christian or no) are behaving exactly the way the popes and kings/emperors (also christian) did back in the day (and the kings before them in biblical times). They try to seize power and control everyone around them. (That succinct statement of American foreign policy was completely accidental.) On the commoner's side, we do the same superstitious stuff that they did in the Middle Ages (and further back). It's just dressed up in modern clothes. We do devotions and pray to manipulate our deity. I know some people genuinely do those activities with the right spirit, but most of us do them out of fear or guilt. And then we ask our god to protect our country, notorious for ignoring the plight of scores of people unless it's in our own interest. I don't think he's listening.

No comments: