Prayer: The
Heartbeat of Revival
Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the July 13, 2007 Sabbath School Lesson
“The prayer of a righteous person is
powerful and effective.” James 5:16b, NIV
In the television
series “Star Trek,” of the 1960s, normal communication was sometimes not enough
to find out everything the cast members needed to know. When that happened,
Spock, an alien, Vulcan crew-member, filled the void. Using a technique called
the “mind meld,” he would plumb the depths of consciousness of humans and
aliens alike in search of answers. He was not limited to the humanoid species.
In one memorable episode, “The Devil in the Dark,” Spock even managed to mind
meld with a living rock life form, a Horta.
Of course,
this is all play acting. Vulcan mind melds are the product of the fanciful
imagination of Gene Rodenberry, the creator of “Star Trek.” The series was a
product of a society that envisioned space adventure as the province of
scantily-clad women and heroic men striving together against unknown dangers. For
several decades the allure of tantalizingly libidinous women and shocking alien
encounters has continued to keep fans tuning in. Most fans can recall the
salacious “7 of 9” or the menace of the Borg Collective. Throughout its several
iterations, the Star Trek franchise has often used the Vulcan mind meld
technique to find answers otherwise hidden.
Christians
have similarly had a special communication method throughout their history.
When considering the nature of their faith and their divine interactions, the
need for such an enhancer may become self-evident. God is omnipresent in space
and time. In other words, He is present every time and everywhere. Far from
that, human beings are limited in conscious perception to one point in time and
space. That point has a linear progression through space over time, but still
remains extremely finite, limited as it is by our birth and our death.
Because of
those limits we are unable to adequately even perceive deity, let alone properly
communicate with it. This is not a problem for deity as by definition a
conscious being present every time in every place would also be omniscient. Not
only would it understand how to communicate with us. It would also know all
about us, even though we would know little of it. This of course implies that
communication which normally requires two or more parties to complete would be
largely a one-way street as little could be said by us that God would not
already know. But does this obviate the need for communication? Perhaps not.
Perhaps we
have an innate ability to grow in understanding and mental ability. What better
foil for that growth than interaction with an infinite being, the depths of
whose knowledge would be impossible to exhaust. Today we have smart phones we
carry about with us that can potentially tap into the world’s vast knowledge base
via the internet. While having so much information available within mere
seconds seems staggering, what is that compared to the infinite knowledge base
presented by the every time, everywhereness of God.
Does this
mean that we should be able to tap into that information and through a massive
download become godlike ourselves? Maybe the story of Genesis, chapter three,
is a metaphor for the dangers of that. Simply plugging into the
source and letting it rip may not be wise. Perhaps it’s not even possible. Perhaps
deity includes responsibility inherent in being in the more powerful position
in a relationship – a responsibility to control interaction to prevent harmful
consequences. When we open communication, controls may be in place to limit our
experience.[i]
Even though
the experience may be controlled to protect us, still communication would be
possible. Because of our limited understanding, the experience may be
multi-tiered. On one level, God may communicate with us and a literal meaning can
be clearly derived from what has been shared. For example, “Thou shalt not
steal,”[ii]
is pretty straight forward and easily understood on a literal level. Many of
what we consider commandments of God can be understood on this level. This
makes sense as God’s expectation of us would require communication that could
be easily and clearly understood.
On another
level, allegory and metaphor may be more appropriate as the ideas may not
easily be communicated from infinite to finite. We find this in the parables of
Jesus. Often we find that at this level the communication may have both a
literal and a metaphorical application. Lest we be tempted to emphasize one
over the other we should be careful. Like double stops on a violin or fiddle,
both may be necessary for a complete understanding of the harmony within the
message.
On still
another level, there may be no adequate way to explain what is being
communicated. When that level of communication takes place, we tend to simply
marvel at the miracle we cannot explain or understand. When Moses parted the
water,[iii]
when Elijah made a spectacular offering on Mount Carmel,[iv]
or when Jesus raised Lazarus from death,[v]
these were events outside the realm of common human experience -- unexplainable
yet witnessed as true. These and many events like them in the Bible are often
referred to as miracles. While some might question the whole idea of miracles,
the idea of multiple dimensions commonly argued by physicists appears to demand
that miracles exist, for many things that would take place in a higher
dimension would appear miraculous to those limited to a lower dimensional
perspective.
A God
present everywhere and at every time should not be limited by time or place when
it comes to miracles. They should continue to take place. Some might doubt the
possibility because they have never, to their knowledge, experienced a miracle.
Perhaps this goes back to the responsibility of the more powerful party to
control the communication as opposed to the weaker party. Maybe when we attempt
to assert control over the communication, we actually prevent concepts too
large for our understanding from coming through. In such an event, our belief that
there are no miracles becomes self-fulfilling, not because miracles do not
exist, but because we stymie their arrival.
To put it
allegorically, imagine we have a short-wave radio in the United States. We choose
a frequency where we can talk to people from South America, and we talk with
many people over several weeks. Then someone tells us that we can talk to
people from Europe on a different frequency. We try the frequency several times
and get nothing, so we come to the conclusion it is not possible and return to
the frequency that worked for us and continue to communicate with South America,
and over time we forget about Europe. However, what we failed to realize is
that the time zone differential between North America and South America is very
slight compared with that between North America and Europe. The reason we could
not find anyone on the short-wave frequency we tried was that we were trying to
reach them at the same time we normally would contact our South American
friends, but at that time, our potential European friends were in bed asleep.
While this
story is only an allegory and falls short for that reason, perhaps it can help
us to understand that previous experience may be
inadequate to define our behavior when dealing with infinite deity. Maybe a
more appropriate behavior would be to have an ongoing attitude of prayer. A
continual openness to divine communication might surprise us with what comes
over the channel. At the very least, the opening up of the stricture at our end
would enhance the possibility of human/divine interaction. This would be
similar to leaving the radio in the allegory set to the European frequency even
if we hear nothing. Eventually, we would hear someone, and we would have the
joy of new friends. To be open to the idea of an ongoing attitude of prayer, we
need only allow ourselves to admit to the infinite number of possibilities
inherent in God.
We might
wish to take God out of the box of anthropomorphism we have placed Him in. When
we give God too much humanity, we could tend to speak less of His possibilities
and more of His probabilities. Those probabilities from our human perspective
are greatly limited. For instance we have the ability to understand the concept
of vengeance and sometimes portray God as a vengeful being ready to smite
anyone who steps out of line. But this is not God. This is a strange act for
Him.[vi]
It is not very understandable for a being that is omnipresent. While we may
feel that evil is eradicated in this way, it continues to dwell in God’s
presence in the past even though it may no longer exist in our finite linear present.
If this
seems confusing, perhaps it is better to simply understand God’s character in
what He has revealed. He has little interest in judgment as opposed to
salvation.[vii]
His rewards are not based on our behavior, but on His compassion.[viii]
In other words, God does what He does because of who He is, not because of who
we are. That’s a God I love communicating with. He never fails to surprise me
with His compassion.
