"How then should we pray?" A question every Christian I know struggles with. I no longer pray. I don't know how. I don't know why I should. I've given up trying. Almost.
My view of God has changed. I don't even like the word 'God' any more as it has so many implications that I don't like. I've not settled on any other word and probably won't, but for now I'll use 'the divine.' But here's my question: If our view of God (the divine) has changed (theism to panentheism), should not our talk about the divine, including prayers and prayer-language, change also?
The divine I believe in is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not a being, and not masculine (at least not by traditional categories.) But all the prayer language I know is. The divine needs to be re-imagined, and all our language used to describe the divine needs changing.
So I'll start with the masculine. Catherine Keller states, "We will have to leave feminist Sunday School: getting rid of 'Him' only puts God in drag." Simply claiming that the divine is non-gendered, or that the divine 'transcends' gender is not enough. The very view of the divine that we have is of a masculine God - his power, his strength, his view of the world, etc. We need to change the way we think about the divine, but I'm not sure how to change the prayer language. So I'll move on to being.
A problem here is the first word of our prayers. "Dear God..." "Oh Christ..." "Lord..." Each of these address a being. They are words of address, intended to be used in the same way that I may address my neighbour. But the divine isn't a being. If the divine is in me, then in some way I am the divine. And so is my desk. And that tree. So maybe the entire concept of praying 'to' something is wrong.
If this is the case, then we have a problem with language itself. Language is designed for communication, for two beings to transfer ideas, meanings, thoughts. Or something like that. But if this is the case, then perhaps language is not the best (or even a possible) medium to use for prayer. But what's an alternative? Music? Physical art? Bringing to mind (as in some forms of meditation)? Glossolalia? Susanne Langer claims the word 'Hallelujah' is not language because it is not intended to transfer meaning. This is very similar to the babbling of glossolalia, and she talks about how there seems to be an innate joy humans find in making sounds with their mouth, babbling. So maybe there's something to glossolalia, something that no one else (including the divine) can understand?
An alternative to this desire (not to pray 'to' anything) would be to (somewhat) arbitrarily, temporarily divinise something, and pray to that. Hence nature worship. Hence worshipping your partner (see the Book of Common Prayer). For God is in all, and so all can be deserving of worship. Problems may come when something is divinised that shouldn't be, or when something is divinised for too long a period of time. I think the civilisation I'm in has divinised money (Christian are sometimes especially to blame here), but that's another story.
That's enough for now. Maybe I'll address omnipotence soon. And maybe I'll come to a conclusion at some point. And maybe one day I'll be able to pray again.
1. Isn't God male? Isn't God female? Sure, the genders "male" and "female" are social constructions that generally get placed upon the sexes (man and woman) without remainder (But, of course, this isn't the case. A woman isn't necessarily or even shouldn't necessarily be a female.) Can't, or mustn't we, apply these social constructions also to God. To say that God is powerful, therefore he is male. To say God is nurturing, therefore he is a female. I don't think these are necessarily bad ways to linguistify the divine, as long as one isn't set up as monopolize the linguistification of the divine or be held up as the only true linguistification at the exclusion of the other. "Power" is a male characteristic (not a characteristic of a man) and "nuturing" is a female characteristic (not a characteristic of a woman). This doesn't mean God is a man or that God is a woman, nor does it mean God is a female or a male. It just means that God has these charcteristics that we consider male or female.
ReplyDelete2. Why isn't God a being? You threw out a controversial claim, but didn't explain it. I wonder why you don't think God is a being. I may agree, but I don't know why you said it. Have you been reading Marion? Have you read Kearney's "The God Who May Be"?
3. You put your finger on the problem of language. Can we use finite language to talk about the infinite? Will speaking of God confine God to finite language, negating God's infinity?
I can think of 4 responses to this. One, negative theology. Don't talk about God. Two, give up the infinity of God. Three, construct an infinite language (are you suggesting this?). Four, God speaks into the finite and God spoke first. Jamie Smith discusses something like this in his "Speech and Theology". Due to the incarnation (God speaking into the finite) we can speak of God.
4. Why panentheism?
5. You're a pagan.
1. We will always be anthropocentric. As such, we will always put our categories on God. So yes, if it's useful for you to get to the divine, then go ahead and call God male and/or female. But there's problems in doing this, in that one is likely to be favoured (and you probably won't know about it - it's taken over 2000 yrs for people to point out (and significantly challenge) the inherent masculinity of platonic philosophy.) I would also say that applying male and female to the divine makes the divine appear more God-like, more being-like. Which many may feel is needed, but I currently shy away from.
ReplyDelete2. I haven't read either of those two, tho I'd like to. This is probably a big enough topic for me to make a post out of, so I'll refrain from saying more here. I know how big of a claim it was when I wrote it tho. :)
3. I think we do have to talk about God using finite language, so I'd be most willing to go with your number (4). But I don't think this was quite what I was saying. I'm not talking about the impossibility of talking to the infinite, but the impossibility of talking to(!) a non-being. In fact, the impossibility of not talking to anything while still seeing a point of saying anything.
I guess I was a bit muddled when writing this, both thinking of the practical/everyday application of prayer language, and thinking of the philosophical possibility of God-language.
I honestly think I'm personally more likely to go with arbitrary divinisation, rather than glossolalia/art expression. But that's because of 5. Which isn't quite true, I'm a Christian-pagan. :)
4. I've been more attracted to panentheism than the alternatives I've been presented with: atheism, theism, pantheism, polytheism. I may be polytheist in a sense, but I think I'm primarily panentheistic.
Thanks again for the comments.
Comment Jeff H emailed to me to post (it wasn't letting him post itself for some reason):
ReplyDeleteSince you changed the title of your blog are you going to write another post "Why not plaosmos..."? Interesting post on prayer as well. My problem is that I still rely on some sort of transcendence (more than just the transcendence of nature), as it is such transcendence that gives me hope for the future. But it is very difficult to imagine that transcendence in an a-ontological way. I need some sort of being - even if it is merely representative - to direct my hope toward.
I didn't change the blog title. It's always been the "Dancing with (the) chaos..." I was wondering whether I should capitalise the C of chaos, but was leaving it as chaos (not plaos) cos not everyone who reads the blog will read the first post, and plaos is fairly nuanced. :) So no, I won't be writing "Why not plaos."
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to come around to a more eschatological view, having more of a transcendental direction of time. But I feel like there's something missing, or that I'm missing, before I take the plunge. I dunno, it just seems everyone else is more excited about it than me. I do like Brian Swimme tho, and his idea of something pulling the universe in a direction. So maybe I'm getting there. :)