Unfalsifiable Prayer
As of late, Bmarchio's household has fallen ill...and not "ill" in the cool Beastie Boys sense, but "ill" in the physiological sense. In short, we're ill, but not illin'.
My wife and I have been praying through this, as it's been a marked drain on us both. She has been coughing and sniffing for close to a week now, and I've just moved from one cold to another. This season of momentary and light afflictions has brought to my mind a few thoughts that I shall declare blog-worthy:
(1) Praise God for His mercy! Sometimes it takes a toothache to truly appreciate how merciful God is in that we spend the majority of our lives without a toothache. As illness is clearly the exception for me and my wife, I must praise God for His mercy and grace that we've spend most of our lives as healthy individuals.
(2) Empathy 101. What better way to have a heart for the sick than to be one of them yourself? Granted, a cold hardly ranks among the panoply of chronic illnesses so many struggle with day-to-day, but just a taste of that helps me empathize with such persons.
(3) Prayer. Here comes the more challenging thought: My wife and I have of course been praying through these illnesses, as we both believe that, to quote the t-shirt, prayer changes things. The wonderful Wayne Grudem made a comment (though I doubt it's genesis is with him) that if we truly understood the power of prayer, we'd pray lots more. Amen. Still, I was thinking about the efficacy of prayer, and was drawing a blank as to the criticism that it is an "unfalsifiable hypothesis:" I pray for healing for my wife's cough. If she (a) gets better right away, then praise God, my prayers are answered. If she (b) doesn't get better right away, then praise God, it must somehow serve His purposes for her to remain ill for a while. It seems that no matter the outcome, prayer still works. We just back-fill in an explanation.
To me, it is redolent of the documentary hypothesis (I promise this is the last time I'll talk about that): The critic looks at the text, then back-fills in the categories. If something bleeds over and doesn't fit any category, the critic just invents a "later redactor" and we're done! It's unfalsifiable.
Are we guilty of the same process with regards to prayer? No matter the outcome, we find a suitable explanation. How do we answer to this? Are we back to presuppositions? Or should we simply refrain (or at least, drastically cut back) from trying to explain God's work in our lives when, truth be told, we often do not fully (or correctly) understand the extent of it. Should I have just paid more attention in systematic II? Will Giligan ever get off the island? Who shot J.R.? Please advise.
My wife and I have been praying through this, as it's been a marked drain on us both. She has been coughing and sniffing for close to a week now, and I've just moved from one cold to another. This season of momentary and light afflictions has brought to my mind a few thoughts that I shall declare blog-worthy:
(1) Praise God for His mercy! Sometimes it takes a toothache to truly appreciate how merciful God is in that we spend the majority of our lives without a toothache. As illness is clearly the exception for me and my wife, I must praise God for His mercy and grace that we've spend most of our lives as healthy individuals.
(2) Empathy 101. What better way to have a heart for the sick than to be one of them yourself? Granted, a cold hardly ranks among the panoply of chronic illnesses so many struggle with day-to-day, but just a taste of that helps me empathize with such persons.
(3) Prayer. Here comes the more challenging thought: My wife and I have of course been praying through these illnesses, as we both believe that, to quote the t-shirt, prayer changes things. The wonderful Wayne Grudem made a comment (though I doubt it's genesis is with him) that if we truly understood the power of prayer, we'd pray lots more. Amen. Still, I was thinking about the efficacy of prayer, and was drawing a blank as to the criticism that it is an "unfalsifiable hypothesis:" I pray for healing for my wife's cough. If she (a) gets better right away, then praise God, my prayers are answered. If she (b) doesn't get better right away, then praise God, it must somehow serve His purposes for her to remain ill for a while. It seems that no matter the outcome, prayer still works. We just back-fill in an explanation.
To me, it is redolent of the documentary hypothesis (I promise this is the last time I'll talk about that): The critic looks at the text, then back-fills in the categories. If something bleeds over and doesn't fit any category, the critic just invents a "later redactor" and we're done! It's unfalsifiable.
Are we guilty of the same process with regards to prayer? No matter the outcome, we find a suitable explanation. How do we answer to this? Are we back to presuppositions? Or should we simply refrain (or at least, drastically cut back) from trying to explain God's work in our lives when, truth be told, we often do not fully (or correctly) understand the extent of it. Should I have just paid more attention in systematic II? Will Giligan ever get off the island? Who shot J.R.? Please advise.
posted by bmarchio at 8:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home