Because it is so candid, clear, and cogent, Daniel Reynaud’s recent essay on this Web site regarding Christian prayer is likely to spark many healthy discussions. I hope to contribute to these conversations by suggesting that we reconsider how God typically relates to the universe and to all its inhabitants.

As Reynaud indicates, we often assume that: (1) God occasionally intervenes in the flow of things; (2) that when this happens God’s will is wholly accomplished; and (3) that our prayers can increase the frequency with which these overwhelming divine interventions occur. We would do well to replace all three assumptions.

First of all, we would do well to replace the notion that prayer’s primary purpose is to persuade God to intervene more often with the conviction that its primary aim is to enable us to respond more adequately to God’s positive influence. Reynaud’s distinction between "transactional communication" and "relational communication" makes this point effectively.

As Reynaud writes, the aim of prayer is not so much to change God as it is to transform us. We probably go too far, however, if we say that our prayers make no difference in what God does. What God can accomplish depends in part upon what we allow God to do. If we want God to be more effective in our lives, we are the ones who have to change the most. Prayer helps us do this.

Secondly, we would do well to replace the idea that God’s will is wholly accomplished when divine interventions occur with the recognition that in the vast majority of cases God does not overwhelm the measure of freedom that we and others possess. Almost all events are composed of at least three factors: (1) the powerful sway of the past; (2) God’s positive influence; and (3) how others and we relate to both. Do we repeat what has already occurred? Worse yet, do we regress to earlier and less impressive alternatives? Or do we progress toward outcomes that are more satisfying for us and for others by responding favorably to God’s influence?

The answers to such questions depend on us. Rarely can we look at any state of affairs and say, "God did this" or "We did that" as though we can sharply distinguish between the two. Almost always, what happens is the result of some combination of both.

Discussions continue as to whether God must respect our partial but genuine freedom or chooses to do so. The results seem less than satisfying either way. On the one hand, if we say that God must do so, we leave the impression that God possesses less freedom than we do. On the other, if we say that God chooses to do so, we imply that there may be something contingent, or perhaps even uncertain, about how God relates to us.

Perhaps this is perplexing because we often experience tension between what we are inclined to do and what we ought to choose, something that we do not attribute to God. In any case, what matters most is that, whether this is a matter of necessity or choice, the Creator’s will rarely overwhelms the creature’s, so infrequently that we can say "virtually never."

Conversations also continue as to which creatures possess the ability to respond favorably or unfavorably to God’s positive influence. For good reasons, many generations have held that only human beings have this capacity. This would still seem to be true as long as we are talking about the kind of freedom that is ethically important. Nevertheless, we are increasingly learning that, despite our much greater capacities for good and evil, we human beings are closely related to other species, so much so that it is reasonable to hold that they experience rudimentary forms of self-determination that decrease as we descend the scale of life.

Beings that possess less freedom than we do cannot resist God’s influence as thoroughly as we can, but neither can they respond as favorably. It is more difficult for God to persuade a malignant tumor not to spread than it is for God to convince us not to overpopulate the earth, although even this is proving to be enough of a challenge!

In the overwhelming majority of instances, God does not overwhelm the freedom of any organism, human or non-human. Because we pray, it is much more likely that God will nurture our improving ability to prevent and control all malignant tumors than it is that God will unilaterally make it impossible for one to spread in someone we love. As becomes evident when we divide its centuries by the number of its miracles, this is so even in Scripture.

Finally, we would do well to replace the idea that God sometimes intervenes with the conviction that God always participates. God is not a distant landlord who occasionally visits us if we plead loudly and long enough. Instead, God constantly but non-coercively nurtures health and happiness in each moment of every life throughout the entire universe. "Constantly" is the key concept. God’s positive but non-coercive influence is ongoing, not now and then.

Pantheism is mistaken because God is personal and because God is greater than the entire universe. Nevertheless, some versions of panentheism are correct because all are in God and God is in all. Scripture declares that God "is not far from each one of us, for `In him we live and move and have our being’" (Acts 17:28 NRSV). It also states that "in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28 NRSV). These are panentheism’s two primary claims.

We often begin the Christian journey believing that God typically relates to the universe by occasionally intervening in overwhelming ways; however, the ups and downs of life eventually call this into question, sometimes painfully. Fortunately, much evidence in Scripture and elsewhere suggests that we can replace this view of God with one that is more adequate. We can grow!

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE