Ship of Fools: Election result a product of prayer?

Thread: Election result a product of prayer? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029164

Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on :

I just received an email from the National Day of prayer organiser, it contains this

quote:

"Right across the landscape; politicians, government, society, media, communities, the church and people on the streets are all reeling from the aftermath of the Elections. One thing is sure, Christians prayed and God answered!

It appears that God has chosen to allow and influence the way the people across the UK voted."

They appear to be claiming that this government is in as a result of prayer. Of course they could claim this whoever had won.

The full text of the email then tries to draw back from this
read full text here
Maybe I am hyper sensitive because I prayed for a very different result. Are their prayers better than mine?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

That's a pretty horrid line.

I was there and praying with people from my church and my office. While the outcome will have pleased some, it is certainly not what I prayed for and after church yesterday, it seemed that most who were on Parliament Square were decidedly upset by the outcome.

The problem, as ever, with claiming that prayer influenced something (based on what I think is the fallacious idea that prayer is a verbal vending machine) is that one does not have a benchmark against which to measure it.

It's unfalsifiable and unverifiable.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

That really is outrageous.

You can't paint God as a Tory. How can people rejoice at the decision anyway?

God has allowed it, but it doesn't mean he is with the Conservatives or actively behind the whole party.

I always find that politicians use this line anyway - they claim (often in subtext) that God is with them in everything they do. That's why it is so difficult to challenge a Government - because they infer that you are challenging God. And then they will use some prominent Christians to back them up by blessing them. May as well just go bless trident.

I just think it's outrageous.

God also allows the devil to have a degree of power.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If a vast swing to UKIP is in accordance with God's wishes then He does move in mysterious ways.

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

Chief of sinners

quote:
Maybe I am hyper sensitive

No there is no need to worry. It is well understood in churches that God answers prayer according to how many people pray for something.
Obviously, there are many more Conservative prayers than Labour and the Liberals are positive sinners.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

If the election result was the result of prayers, they weren't to the one I engage with. And the gnostics and the Cathars were right about who rules this world.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Here in the US we have not one, nor two or three, but four presidential candidates as of this writing who have been assured by God that they are supposed to be President of the United States. (Stay tuned, I am sure we will get a few more in there.)
Logically they either
1). worship entirely different Gods
2). aren't listening to God accurately, or
3). (which I personally favor) God is jerking their chain. This is by no means, for instance, the first time that God has assured Mike Huckabee that he is to be president. One envisions the Deity like Lucy, holding the football for Charlie Brown. How many times will Huckabee fall for this? We shall see.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

In a previous church, we had members of three different political parties who attended and were involved in the church.

It did help to make it clear to us that God was not behind any particular party. Each of us were, we believed, guided in our particular direction by our faith, but it was different directions.

To say that the result is Gods choice is either a) dangerously naive b) fatalistic or c) radically dangerous.

My prayers were not answered. The same applies for all sorts of people on my twitter timeline. I struggle to believe that we are all hopeless sinners who God doesn't bother listening to any more.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

Who knows?

But if I were in a position of power in a church (I'm not even in one - persona non grata as a remarried divorcee) I'd tear up the lectionary and insist on Matthew 25 31:46 at every service.

Oh, I forgot, the Gospel according to St Matthew is now deuterocanonical.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Luckily there is no evidence whatsoever that prayer has any external effects. It feels nice to pray, but it is not capable of changing anything outside of the one doing the praying.

K.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

There are some interesting theological implications involved here. From the official statement:

quote:
It appears that God has chosen to allow and influence the way the people across the UK voted.

Doesn't this run counter to the doctrine of "free will" that most Christian sects adhere to? The idea of God changing the result of an election usually starts to founder as soon as you start wondering about the details. Does He stuff the ballot box, miraculously causing 'correct' ballots to appear (and simultaneously altering the voter rolls, so no one catches on). Or does He, as the link from the OP suggests, exert some form of mind control to alter people's voting patterns.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Luckily there is no evidence whatsoever that prayer has any external effects. It feels nice to pray, but it is not capable of changing anything outside of the one doing the praying.

K.

But not entirely luckily. Also, it doesn't feel that nice to pray. That's what I've gathered from the few occasions I've dragged my sorry arse before God.

[ 11. May 2015, 20:09: Message edited by: Alyosha ]

Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on :

Quite apart from the "Thanks to our prayers, we have a Tory government" implication.

I agree with others here that this says a lot about the attitude to prayer does prayer change things? As the slogan of a bygone age claimed. Or does prayer change us?

If I were an athiest this would be fodder for me, "Look those Christian with their incantations are claiming that they have put David Cameron into Downing Street. Funny they didn't say so before the vote was announced and what happened to all the prayers of the Christian Socialists?" The NDOP statement opens the church to ridicule

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So presumably the Almighty must be a floating voter as He has listened to the prayers of Labour supporters in the past
For some reason he apparently hasn't listened to Liberal prayers since 1922 ... or perhaps he partially answered them in 2010.

There is a theological term for the sentiments expressed in the link in the OP - bollocks.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The other problem, other than reflecting a Tory bias, is that it seems like they are saying "This result must be Gods will, because he rules everything. Many Christians were praying for Gods will to be done. Therefore this government is an answer to prayer".

Which is, of course, circular. It is fatalism, because everything is an answer to prayer, if your prayer is that something should happen, irrespective of what it is. It is a bit like Derren Brown predicting the lottery results. He didn't actually predict anything, he merely said, after the event, what he knew the numbers to be. The smoke and mirrors make it seem like a prediction, but it was no such thing.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So presumably the Almighty must be a floating voter as He has listened to the prayers of Labour supporters in the past

Not necessarily. Another explanation is that He doesn't use His election-fixing powers in every election.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What happened there?

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One envisions the Deity like Lucy, holding the football for Charlie Brown. How many times will Huckabee fall for this? We shall see.

Thank you for this image which I shall revisit many times...

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Seems to me perfectly obvious that God is rewarding Mr Cameron for bringing in gay marriage.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Quotesfile

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are some interesting theological implications involved here. From the official statement:

quote:
It appears that God has chosen to allow and influence the way the people across the UK voted.
Doesn't this run counter to the doctrine of "free will"...?

God can influence a person to the extent that they allow God to influence them. We are not robots to be pushed around at the whim of a capricious God.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'm not impressed with people declaring God gave them the result they wanted after the result has happened.

In 2010, one of Australia's higher-profile Pentecostal preachers went ahead and prophesied the election result. He got it wrong, as it was basically an exercise in his own wish fulfilment rather than having any demonstrable connection to God's will.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I find one thing in that statement I can agree with.

quote:
My friend and General Director of Evangelical Alliance, Steve Clifford who joined us in Parliament Square last Wednesday has issued a call for Christians to pray for the Prime Minister, his Government as well as making sure the church holds him and his cabinet accountable for their policies in the coming days, weeks and months.

We can pray for the PM to develop some form of basic human compasion and decide not to enact all the vile stuff in his party manifesto.

And, the Church can certainly stand up and be heard. What if every church in the country makes a weekly record of everyone in their "patch" (however each church wants to define the extent over which it draws members, has some level of pastoral responsibility etc) who has struggled to get benefits they need, who has needed to visit the food bank, who has been left waiting for a doctors appointment or hospital treatment, the refugees who are being sent to countries where they will be tortured or simply left to starve, etc. Every week send that list of people who have been let down by a government that cares more for their chums with lots of money to their local MP and the Cabinet Office, every week get it published in the local paper, put it on their website and get people to like and share it on Facebook.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

Ignoring the specific question of whether God is a Tory, presumably it is legitimate in some circumstances to pray for a particular election outcome? And then thanking God if that prayed for outcome comes about?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I was at a church in the UK when this meeting was announced - very much as a non-partisan event. I can certainly see how the e-mail can be read as highly partisan, and its text strikes me as very unwise.

Trying to put the best possible stance on it, one might argue he's arguing that the result was unexpected - which it certainly was by the pollsters; perhaps also that it delivers a clear mandate to govern, which whether you like it or not a seven-way coalition would not have done.

I don't think the question of whether election results can be influenced by prayer can be distinguished from the wider question of whether anything can be. There is certainly plenty in the Bible about praying for authorities and about the notion that God works in and through history, though it's a big jump from there to praying for a particular election outcome.

Some years ago now I happened to bump into our local mayor as he registered for the city's mayoral elections - quite a big thing in France. I sort of knew him at the time and he knew I was a pastor (full-time during that period). As we exchanged greetings, a percentage to two decimal places came into my mind: I felt sure it was his final score (which would give him a first-round win), but nowhere near sure enough to tell him. As I recall, it turned out to be wholly accurate.

Of course I did nothing so rationalistic as to write the number down before the poll and maybe I misremembered it or imagined the whole thing, but what I took away from the experience was confirmation that somewhere, Proverbs 21:1 was true:

quote:
The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the LORD; he guides it wherever he pleases

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

I pray for the Government, whichever Government, but I've always been wary of praying for a specific outcome of an election. Perhaps because I doubt my motives would be pure; far too much self-interest.

And it seems a bit wrong, praying for something when I know others will be praying exactly the opposite.

And of course, I wouldn't God to hear it and think, 'Oh, if that's what M. wants, We'd better do it and pronto'!

M.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Before an election many years ago, I led prayers in church and asked that issues of justice, equality, poverty etc. would come to the fore.

After the service an outraged member of the church came to me and said, "It's clear what party you vote for, and I will not be preached at in the prayers!"

In reply I told her that I was being strictly non-partisan; and that her assessment of my own voting choices might well be wrong.

Clearly I had touched a nerve (and, to be fair, my predecessor as Minister had explicitly advanced the cause of one party from the pulpit at a time when local politics in the area had tended towards extremism).

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

The email says 'Christians prayed and God answered'. So maybe God did answer the prayers of those who prayed for a specific result - it's just that he answered 'yes' to some and 'no' to others.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm not against the idea of personal prayers expressing a preference for a candidate. I would, as always, pray with a "not my will, but yours" attitude and accept that sometimes God will say "for my own purposes I've chosen another option. Sorry about that, but it's 'no' this time."

I think public prayers in church or similar where there will almost certainly be people who will vote for different candidates are a different matter. I would expect that prayers that when we decide on who to vote for we display wisdom and discernment would be universally accepted. Unfortunately, although all parties would say that they stand for truth, justice and so on there is a strong perception within parts of the church that some parties are stronger on those points than others. Therefore prayers for such basic Christian virtues might be seen as partisan.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
The email says 'Christians prayed and God answered'. So maybe God did answer the prayers of those who prayed for a specific result - it's just that he answered 'yes' to some and 'no' to others.

To LibDem supporters his answer was "You must be joking!"

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
The email says 'Christians prayed and God answered'. So maybe God did answer the prayers of those who prayed for a specific result - it's just that he answered 'yes' to some and 'no' to others.
To LibDem supporters his answer was "You must be joking!"

Yes - but maybe the Kingdom of Heaven is a liberal society? Although there are some who say that it is an absolute monarchy and working meritocracy under benevolent leadership.

The email is outrageous though. Thank God for people who object to it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
The email says 'Christians prayed and God answered'. So maybe God did answer the prayers of those who prayed for a specific result - it's just that he answered 'yes' to some and 'no' to others.

Hmm. In that case you could probably achieve the same effect by praying to the local returning officer.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
The email says 'Christians prayed and God answered'. So maybe God did answer the prayers of those who prayed for a specific result - it's just that he answered 'yes' to some and 'no' to others.
Hmm. In that case you could probably achieve the same effect by praying to the local returning officer.

Just trying to follow the logic of the email.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, I understand, I wasn't criticising you at all.

It is in fact the most serious problem with this whole notion of praying for specific election results: that God is being bombarded with competing prayers.

The same with any sporting fixture, incidentally.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Ignoring the specific question of whether God is a Tory, presumably it is legitimate in some circumstances to pray for a particular election outcome? And then thanking God if that prayed for outcome comes about?

If a candidate is clearly and avowedly evil then there must be a case for that.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

So God is a Tory south of the border and SNP in Scotland?

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I understand, I wasn't criticising you at all.

It is in fact the most serious problem with this whole notion of praying for specific election results: that God is being bombarded with competing prayers.

The same with any sporting fixture, incidentally.

Exactly. I don't really think that prayer had as much an effect on this election as Ed Miliband looking less of a competent leader did. I think that the way the party leaders looked to people was a much greater influence in this case. Even more influential than party policy.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
So God is a Tory south of the border and SNP in Scotland?

God's will is only always done if you are happy with the status quo.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
So God is a Tory south of the border and SNP in Scotland?

Not only that, but God didn't like Miliband, loathed Libdems, is warming up to UKIP, and has the hots for Nicola. It's quite hard to keep up, theologically speaking. Basically, God is converting to neoliberalism.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Going back to the OP: I'm not happy with what it says. However:

- the original message does explicitly say that it's not partisan, and could be construed simply as "we did pray, and God did respond" without making any more specific claims about His political preferences. However it doesn't sound like that!

- the message is written in a certain style of Evangelical/charismatic prayer-jargon which rubs many of us up the wrong way!

- more seriously, I think many Evangelicals may have been more pro-Tory because David Cameron has talked about the Faith in posaitive terms - albeit in a very vague way - while Miliband and Clegg have been avowedly atheist. (The fact that, for example, senior LibDems such as Tim Farron and the late lamented Simon Hughes are professing Christians seems to have passed them by, as does the existence of the "Christians on the Left" movement). These folk seem to be more concerned with the public rhetoric about Christianity uttered by the party leaders, and with the positions they have taken on DH issues of personal morality, than with the harder job of gauging how much each party advocates Christian values such as justice etc. But perhaps I'm being unfair.

[ 12. May 2015, 08:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
So God is a Tory south of the border and SNP in Scotland?
Not only that, but God didn't like Miliband, loathed Libdems, is warming up to UKIP, and has the hots for Nicola. It's quite hard to keep up, theologically speaking. Basically, God is converting to neoliberalism.

He is also spending more time at the pub with a view to being more populist, and learning to love the bagpipes.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Alan: sometimes?! God always answers with an internal Zen nod and true empathy. Whether I ask or not. I seek to find Him in every outcome. 1% of the time.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
more seriously, I think many Evangelicals may have been more pro-Tory because David Cameron has talked about the Faith in positive terms - albeit in a very vague way - while Miliband and Clegg have been avowedly atheist. (The fact that, for example, senior LibDems such as Tim Farron and the late lamented Simon Hughes are professing Christians seems to have passed them by, as does the existence of the "Christians on the Left" movement). These folk seem to be more concerned with the public rhetoric about Christianity uttered by the party leaders, and with the positions they have taken on DH issues of personal morality, than with the harder job of gauging how much each party advocates Christian values such as justice etc.

I'd rather have an honest atheist committed to social justice than a nominal Christian dedicated to not rocking the boat for (other) millionaires. But I am obviously not a typical member of the C of E, and I may be doing Cameron an injustice (I have no idea how sincere he is in his faith).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

[Overused]

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
So God is a Tory south of the border and SNP in Scotland?
Not only that, but God didn't like Miliband, loathed Libdems, is warming up to UKIP, and has the hots for Nicola. It's quite hard to keep up, theologically speaking. Basically, God is converting to neoliberalism.

God also hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

At least it's just elections where God is always on our side, rather than the sorts of sides He was allegedly taking 100 years ago...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly Christian people are prepared, purely on the basis of perceived difference in values, to heap opprobrium on politicians mainly of the right.

If the election of a Labour government had attracted half the outpourings seen here, and in the press, there would have been outrage. Similarly, I can't imagine that an organised session of vandalism on the part of right-wing youth, culminating in the targeting of a war memorial, would have been excused.

Whether or not one likes the result is irrelevant: the people of the UK voted and, with the voting system we have, the result is a conservative majority government for the next 5 years; and you can disagree with the voting method too but when given a chance to change the UK public decided to stick with first-past-the-post.

As for the argument that "only" x% bothered to vote, therefore the government has even less support, this is quite wrong: if people have a vote and choose not to use it they cannot then complain of being unrepresented - even a spoiled ballot is better than a non-vote because it will be registered.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I entirely agree with you last paragraph. That is why, among other things, the Government's proposals to require at least 40% of eligible union members to vote for a strike to be legal are wrong.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

IMV voting should be compulsory - and all ballots should have a box on them for "None of the above".

It is also high time that the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission about electoral fraud were properly addressed.

First and foremost, surely the case of Lutfur Rahman has shown that relying on the police to investigate electoral malpractice is hopeless?

There are common-sense steps that should be taken now to ensure that electoral fraud is made as difficult as possible:

restricting postal voting - with polling stations open for 15 hours it should be possible for everyone to get to one
proxy votes should be closely scrutinised
consider changing the day on which votes are held - how about a Sundays
would-be voters should need to take some form of identification
registering to vote should be done by individuals, not householders

As for the proposal on union ballots: I think it is going to be hard for a government of any colour to impose tougher rules on union votes until they have taken steps to tighten up the procedure for government elections.

And while they're at it - and bearing in mind the redevelopment of Parliament that is long overdue - how about they look at replacing the archaic system for Parliamentary votes with something more modern and less time-consuming?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I agree with all of that (although individual registration is now in place, or is at any rate being introduced). Particularly keen on compulsory voting + 'none of the above'. I'd also resist any attempt to move away from traditional voting, in person- you're right that on-demand postal voting is an invitation to fraud.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

How do you know the voting process is corrupt? I thought only politicians knew that.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
restricting postal voting - with polling stations open for 15 hours it should be possible for everyone to get to one

Let's see. If I voted in person last week I'd have needed to take two trains (each over one hour), wait around an airport, then sit on a plane for 12h. Then sit around another airport for another 1.5h flight. Then get a bus/taxi to my flat. At that point the polling station is at the other end of a short street.

Although, if I had done that I'd have actually had a vote as the postal ballot pack has not yet arrived.

More to the point, to cast my postal ballot (if I'd received it) I would need to sign documents to confirm my identity, which is far more than I do walking up to a table with two complete strangers and handing over a printed piece of card with my name and address without any other form of id check. Which would probably make postal votes less prone to fraud.

I'm always very cautious about calls for measures to reduce voter fraud. First, because there isn't a big problem with fraudulent voting. Second, anything of that sort tends to disenfranchise people. Recently in the US large proportions of the poor, mostly black, electorate found themselves unable to vote because of impossible to meet id requirements.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I entirely agree with you last paragraph. That is why, among other things, the Government's proposals to require at least 40% of eligible union members to vote for a strike to be legal are wrong.

It is a bit inconsistent.

A government elected by 24% of the electorate is legitimate. But, a union decision voted for by less than 40% of members isn't.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I can't believe that God, who 'filleth the hungry with good things and the rich he hath sent empty away' would favour the tories - unless, in the wider picture, their victory leasds to revolution.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Oh come, come L'Organist, there are several Shipmates around - 'avowedly Christian people' - who pour scorn and opprobrium on those on the left.

I won't name names.

I wouldn't get all touchy about it.

The right gets some stick here, the left gets stick elsewhere. That's life. Get over it.

Orfeo's made a pertinent point about sporting fixtures and those who pray for the outcome there ...

I remember reading a comment by someone who'd played for one of the Oral Roberts University sports teams - basketball I think.

He said something like, 'Whenever we won it was all down to God. Whenever we lost it was all our fault ...'

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If the election of a Labour government had attracted half the outpourings seen here, and in the press, there would have been outrage.

The Times, Telegraph, Sun, Mail, and Express were all demonising Labour. I mean, about the only redeeming feature most of them could find in Miliband was that he wasn't Nicola Sturgeon, and as he was her puppet anyway that didn't count.
(The Sun in Scotland was supporting Nicola Sturgeon. Never say Murdoch's political principles aren't consistent in supporting whomever he thinks will win.)
The Guardian and Mirror have been anti the Tories.
The Independent didn't take any particular line.
So that's a Labour government attracting more than twice the outpourings seen in the press.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not against the idea of personal prayers expressing a preference for a candidate. I would, as always, pray with a "not my will, but yours" attitude and accept that sometimes God will say "for my own purposes I've chosen another option. Sorry about that, but it's 'no' this time."

Doesn't that run counter to the idea of elections, though? Elections are theoretically an expression of "the will of the people", not the will of God. Despite ancient proverbs equating the two, most moderns wouldn't make the assumption that popular opinion necessarily reflects God's will.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Indeed, radical Islamists such as ISIS reject democracy and elections for the very reason that God should be making decisions about leadership, rather than man.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Surely if God wanted to he could swear the minds of voters, either by direct intervention or by inspiring his chosen candidate to earn votes. (Heck, he could smite the non-chosen candidate.)

I think part of my problem with the idea is about my discomfort with the idea that numbers of prayers are relevant. (As with a problem with healing prayer for some of us) If it's not about numbers, what is about? Surely there were good people praying on both sides. As far as I can see, if God is influencing elections, he's clearly playing a very long game...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think part of my problem with the idea is about my discomfort with the idea that numbers of prayers are relevant.

It would also make it difficult to argue that prayer really changed anything, since if it's all a numbers game then the number of prayers on each side would presumably be roughly proportional to the number of ballots cast on each side.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I have sat in the pew of an Episcopal church while the rector prayed aloud, "And Lord, we trust that it is Your will that the Washington Redskins will win the Superbowl game this afternoon." The entire congregation heartily echoed, "Amen!" FWIW, the team lost.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely if God wanted to he could swear the minds of voters, either by direct intervention or by inspiring his chosen candidate to earn votes. (Heck, he could smite the non-chosen candidate.)

Apparently, God chooses to limit himself by only working through 'Good Christian People' (trademarked).

The problem is this leaves pagans and sinners to wreck God's plan by voting differently.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Independent didn't take any particular line.

According to its editor, on television this morning, they supported asnother tory/libdem colaition.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm always very cautious about calls for measures to reduce voter fraud. First, because there isn't a big problem with fraudulent voting. Second, anything of that sort tends to disenfranchise people. Recently in the US large proportions of the poor, mostly black, electorate found themselves unable to vote because of impossible to meet id requirements.

Nonsense. Claims that voter ID restrictions led to widespread disenfranchisement are pure conjecture conjured up by the imaginations of those seeking to rationalize their electoral defeats. Although it is somewhat difficult to generalize given the quite varied regulations in each state (another deficiency that opponents never address), there is no evidence to show that voter ID regulations enacted led to significant disenfranchisement. On the whole, they were tailored specifically to avoid any such consequences, lest they be declared unconstitutional. Potential voters were (1) given very ample time and advanced warning of new regulations; and (2) provided numerous opportunities to procure proper ID. Disenfranchisement means they were somehow "deprived" of their right to vote. Rather, in at least the vast majority of cases, they simply did not avail themselves of their right to vote. And as to overall effect, these new regulations in many cases, only served to galvanize and increase minority turnout beyond expected levels. Blaming voter ID laws is simply creating a scapegoat for the failure to engender voter enthusiasm, from both lackluster past results, and an insipid vision of the future.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm always very cautious about calls for measures to reduce voter fraud. First, because there isn't a big problem with fraudulent voting. Second, anything of that sort tends to disenfranchise people. Recently in the US large proportions of the poor, mostly black, electorate found themselves unable to vote because of impossible to meet id requirements.
Nonsense. Claims that voter ID restrictions led to widespread disenfranchisement are pure conjecture conjured up by the imaginations of those seeking to rationalize their electoral defeats.

Around 25K residents of Kansas tried to register only to have their registrations end up in limbo:

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article3504228.html

The margin in the governors race was around 30K.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm always very cautious about calls for measures to reduce voter fraud. First, because there isn't a big problem with fraudulent voting. Second, anything of that sort tends to disenfranchise people. Recently in the US large proportions of the poor, mostly black, electorate found themselves unable to vote because of impossible to meet id requirements.
Nonsense. Claims that voter ID restrictions led to widespread disenfranchisement are pure conjecture conjured up by the imaginations of those seeking to rationalize their electoral defeats.
Around 25K residents of Kansas tried to register only to have their registrations end up in limbo:

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article3504228.html

The margin in the governors race was around 30K.

The cited individuals provided incomplete registrations, so their registrations were put on hold pending verification of missing documentation. The article you cited is in reference to the state of affairs as of the registration deadline. The state could have easily just said that incomplete registrations would not be accepted. Instead, voters were given ample time to properly complete their registrations before the election, and many did so. As the article states, within three days, more than 5,600 pending registrations were approved after voters provided the necessary information to complete their applications. Potential voters did not even have to go in person - they were allowed to scan their documentation and e-mail it in. Testimony from affected voters themselves states that the issue "was easy to get resolved" and that "it wasn't a big deal to take the extra step."

So, tell me again about how all these tens of thousands of voters were suddenly disenfranchised.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

On the numbers thing, I'm reminded of those prayer requests that were going round prior to the invasion of Iraq ... that if God could find 100,000 praying women then the war would not go ahead ...

A friend of ours in South Africa was busily circulating this on the basis of what she took to be a 'prophetic word' from some charismatic leader or other.

When the shooting started, I'm afraid I observed, 'So, what went wrong? Perhaps only 999,999 women volunteered ...'

[Roll Eyes]

Of course, the whole thing about theodicy and answered prayer, the idea of God intervening on some occasions and not others is a biggie - 'There were many widows in Elijah's time ...' 'There were many lepers in the days of Elisha the prophet and none of them were cleansed apart from Naaman ...'

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Seems to me perfectly obvious that God is rewarding Mr Cameron for bringing in gay marriage.

Our constituency lost a wonderful MP last Thursday. I heard him speak several times and he said, among other things, that in the House of Parliament there is a regular prayer meeting for the country, which includes MPs from all the major parties. Also that, contrary to popular belief and the media, the vast majority of MPs are in the job because they want to make a difference for good.

Mr Nen and were reeling for days after what happened last week. We came to the conclusion that we need to pray for the government. Hardly earth-shattering revelation, I know.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Most journalists I've met consider that politicians, of all stripes, are in it for the right reasons.

Sure, the media has fed this prevailing idea that they aren't ... but broken promises, the expenses scandals and so on haven't helped. Who was responsible for those? Not journalists.

It's easy to blame the media. There's more to it than that.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly Christian people are prepared, purely on the basis of perceived difference in values, to heap opprobrium on politicians mainly of the right.

If the election of a Labour government had attracted half the outpourings seen here, and in the press, there would have been outrage. Similarly, I can't imagine that an organised session of vandalism on the part of right-wing youth, culminating in the targeting of a war memorial, would have been excused.

Whether or not one likes the result is irrelevant: the people of the UK voted and, with the voting system we have, the result is a conservative majority government for the next 5 years; and you can disagree with the voting method too but when given a chance to change the UK public decided to stick with first-past-the-post.

As for the argument that "only" x% bothered to vote, therefore the government has even less support, this is quite wrong: if people have a vote and choose not to use it they cannot then complain of being unrepresented - even a spoiled ballot is better than a non-vote because it will be registered.

To paraphrase Berthold Brecht, "The electorate has forfeited the confidence of the bien pensant...Would it not be easier for the bien pensant to dissolve the electorate and appoint another?"

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I must have missed the threads which excused the vandalism of war memorials by anti-austerity protesters.

That's something I would roundly condemn.

Just because a handful of idiots do that sort of thing, it doesn't mean that good Christian people should refrain from criticising governments and politicians - of whatever stripe and persuasion.

Like you, L'Organist, though, I would agree that such vandalism is indefensible and the irony would be that some of the people who might defend it would be the first to criticise Puritan iconoclasm back in the day ...

I think any form of vandalism is reprehensible, whehter it be perpetrated by anti-austerity grungie types, Puritan iconoclasts or ISIS.

There's a common thread of black-and-white extremism running through each.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was at a church in the UK when this meeting was announced - very much as a non-partisan event. I can certainly see how the e-mail can be read as highly partisan, and its text strikes me as very unwise.

Trying to put the best possible stance on it, one might argue he's arguing that the result was unexpected - which it certainly was by the pollsters; perhaps also that it delivers a clear mandate to govern, which whether you like it or not a seven-way coalition would not have done.

I don't think the question of whether election results can be influenced by prayer can be distinguished from the wider question of whether anything can be. There is certainly plenty in the Bible about praying for authorities and about the notion that God works in and through history, though it's a big jump from there to praying for a particular election outcome.

Some years ago now I happened to bump into our local mayor as he registered for the city's mayoral elections - quite a big thing in France. I sort of knew him at the time and he knew I was a pastor (full-time during that period). As we exchanged greetings, a percentage to two decimal places came into my mind: I felt sure it was his final score (which would give him a first-round win), but nowhere near sure enough to tell him. As I recall, it turned out to be wholly accurate.

Of course I did nothing so rationalistic as to write the number down before the poll and maybe I misremembered it or imagined the whole thing, but what I took away from the experience was confirmation that somewhere, Proverbs 21:1 was true:
quote:
The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the LORD; he guides it wherever he pleases

Thanks - both very thoughtful and thought-provoking.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not against the idea of personal prayers expressing a preference for a candidate. I would, as always, pray with a "not my will, but yours" attitude and accept that sometimes God will say "for my own purposes I've chosen another option. Sorry about that, but it's 'no' this time."
Doesn't that run counter to the idea of elections, though? Elections are theoretically an expression of "the will of the people", not the will of God. Despite ancient proverbs equating the two, most moderns wouldn't make the assumption that popular opinion necessarily reflects God's will.

Really? "Most moderns" in which societies and communities? By "moderns" do you mean "people alive today" or people who share a world view which excludes the possibility of Divine intervention ?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The 97%+ of Europeans who wouldn't give it a moment's thought? And even the vast majority of Bible-Belt Americans. I can't seen many Muslims anywhere believing it either. Or Hindus. Am I mistaken?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Eutychus. Why did you tell us that? The percentage of knowledge? And why oh why did I type 'seen' for 'see'? Why does God play peek-a-boo like that?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Well, I suppose I told it to illustrate that God does play peek-a-boo like that. One might phrase it more prosaically as glimpses of light along the way.

It's like that in prison too. The whole system stacked against everybody and everything and then suddenly, presto, a judge falls sick, a replacement is called, the guy unexpectedly gets his conditional release that he was praying for.

I think part of getting the now-and-not-yet aspects of the Kingdom in the right balance is learning to toil through the mundane, seemingly random and uninfluencable - and yet keep an eye out for the sudden table-turning that shows a Master at work.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Good for you. Having an answer. Seriously. Brother. But it's not an answer for me any more in any way whatsoever. It will NEVER happen to me, for me, in answer to any prayer I ever make or am party to. I will never get a magic number. My God cannot do these things, because He will not, does not. Cannot. Even though He HAS for me in the most precise, acute circumstances. I cannot believe it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It all sounds post hoc to me, these glimpses. Are they applied to events that we don't like? I suppose that a right-wing Christian will see the UK election result as heaven sent, but the left not.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

"That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened."

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There are lots of examples of happenings throughout our history that were thought to have been heaven sent, yet turned out to be pretty damned shite.
I would hate to think, for all our sakes, that the 2015 UK Election result turns out to be another.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Good for you. Having an answer. Seriously. Brother. But it's not an answer for me any more in any way whatsoever. It will NEVER happen to me, for me, in answer to any prayer I ever make or am party to. I will never get a magic number. My God cannot do these things, because He will not, does not. Cannot. Even though He HAS for me in the most precise, acute circumstances. I cannot believe it.

But I didn't pray anything! Nor did I expect to "get" one. It just happened. And I've never had a "magic number" before or since.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There are lots of examples of happenings throughout our history that were thought to have been heaven sent, yet turned out to be pretty damned shite.
I would hate to think, for all our sakes, that the 2015 UK Election result turns out to be another.

My Sufi friend saw his cancer as heaven sent, and probably there are Christians who think likewise. In some ways, it's an enviable position; there are no longer glimpses of light, but the unutterable beauty of light in all. Does this mean there is no darkness? Hmm, I can see a way to this position, but do I want to go there? I probably don't have a choice.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Please don't have the lobotomy q.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
"That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened."

Quoted in the Malone edition of Boswell's Life Of Johnson: "To deny the exercise of a particular providence in the Deity's government of the world, is certainly impious, yet nothing serves the cause of the scorner more than an incautious forward zeal in determining the particular instances of it".

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Please don't have the lobotomy q.

Not the frontal lobotomy, but the bottle in front of me. Ah bliss.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There are all sorts of conundrums here. I wasn't at our church yesterday because I was visiting - after many years - our old fellowship in another city which was moving out of the building it purchased - and which had proven to be a millstone - and about to start afresh elsewhere. I thought I'd catch-up with them and wish them well, despite being on a different page to them these days ...

Anyhow, my wife took her mum to church as usual and was a bit taken aback by some of the lay-reader's observations about prayer during his sermon. He said something like, 'You know how it is when he feel that someone must be praying for you because things go well for a while and you make progress ... then it stops and you realise that they must have stopped praying for you ...'

Really?

He was talking about spiritual progress of various kinds - dealing with temptation, become more patient etc etc - rather than what we might call 'material' well-being -- but whatever the case, I find that rather odd.

Sure, there's the thing about Moses and the battle with the Amalekites - the Israelites winning as long as Aaron and Hur held up Moses's arms - Exodux 17:11.

But whilst I agree with Kaplan's point and believe that 'there's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will ...' I'm reluctant these days to reduce these things down to simple and observable 'cause and effect' terms.

Yes, I do pray, I do believe that God can and does intervene, that he does order things providentially in some mysterious way.

But I don't see it in terms of micro-management nor attempt to speculate as to whether people are praying for me or not.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Please don't have the lobotomy q.

It's interesting though that we might consider the view that everything is a gift from God as a sign of a lobotomy. I think it's more characteristic of Eastern religions, see advaita, for example. But also some of the New Age people consider it to be salvation here and now.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Doesn't that run counter to the idea of elections, though? Elections are theoretically an expression of "the will of the people", not the will of God. Despite ancient proverbs equating the two, most moderns wouldn't make the assumption that popular opinion necessarily reflects God's will.
Really? "Most moderns" in which societies and communities? By "moderns" do you mean "people alive today" or people who share a world view which excludes the possibility of Divine intervention ?

In this case I probably mean those living in democratic polities with regular access to public opinion polls. If the will of God is the same thing as the will of the people, God seems to change His mind a lot more than most religious views of Him would have us believe. For example, God (if we assume vox populi = vox dei) apparently used to believe that women should not be extended the right to vote. Today God (same assumption) has apparently changed His mind and believes otherwise, at least in those parts of the world that hold regular elections.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyhow, my wife took her mum to church as usual and was a bit taken aback by some of the lay-reader's observations about prayer during his sermon. He said something like, 'You know how it is when he feel that someone must be praying for you because things go well for a while and you make progress ... then it stops and you realise that they must have stopped praying for you ...'

Really?

He was talking about spiritual progress of various kinds - dealing with temptation, become more patient etc etc - rather than what we might call 'material' well-being -- but whatever the case, I find that rather odd.

Sure, there's the thing about Moses and the battle with the Amalekites - the Israelites winning as long as Aaron and Hur held up Moses's arms - Exodux 17:11.

But whilst I agree with Kaplan's point and believe that 'there's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will ...' I'm reluctant these days to reduce these things down to simple and observable 'cause and effect' terms.

Yes, I do pray, I do believe that God can and does intervene, that he does order things providentially in some mysterious way.

But I don't see it in terms of micro-management nor attempt to speculate as to whether people are praying for me or not.

That kind of confluence between prayer and spiritual well being is astounding indeed. It would be a quite callous God that allowed our spiritual health to hinge on the unfaltering prayer of others.

I certainly believe that prayer is important and that God listens to us when we do so, but it is not like God is a wishing tree, blindly fulfilling our requests. It seems clear from empirical evidence that other considerations are taken into account, such as the merit of our request, and how such request fits into God's greater plan.

Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyhow, my wife took her mum to church as usual and was a bit taken aback by some of the lay-reader's observations about prayer during his sermon. He said something like, 'You know how it is when he feel that someone must be praying for you because things go well for a while and you make progress ... then it stops and you realise that they must have stopped praying for you ...'

Really?

He was talking about spiritual progress of various kinds - dealing with temptation, become more patient etc etc - rather than what we might call 'material' well-being -- but whatever the case, I find that rather odd.

Sure, there's the thing about Moses and the battle with the Amalekites - the Israelites winning as long as Aaron and Hur held up Moses's arms - Exodux 17:11.

But whilst I agree with Kaplan's point and believe that 'there's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will ...' I'm reluctant these days to reduce these things down to simple and observable 'cause and effect' terms.

Yes, I do pray, I do believe that God can and does intervene, that he does order things providentially in some mysterious way.

But I don't see it in terms of micro-management nor attempt to speculate as to whether people are praying for me or not.
That kind of confluence between prayer and spiritual well being is astounding indeed. It would be a quite callous God that allowed our spiritual health to hinge on the unfaltering prayer of others.

I certainly believe that prayer is important and that God listens to us when we do so, but it is not like God is a wishing tree, blindly fulfilling our requests. It seems clear from empirical evidence that other considerations are taken into account, such as the merit of our request, and how such request fits into God's greater plan.

Then again, the celebrity Christians seem to be quite blessed and they must get a lot of prayers?

[ 18. May 2015, 18:22: Message edited by: Alyosha ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I certainly believe that prayer is important and that God listens to us when we do so, but it is not like God is a wishing tree, blindly fulfilling our requests. It seems clear from empirical evidence that other considerations are taken into account, such as the merit of our request, and how such request fits into God's greater plan.

How, exactly, does one "empirical[ly]" measure the "merit" of a particular request? To take the example from the OP, in what sense is it empirically obvious that the recent Tory electoral victory has more "merit" than any other possible electoral outcome? Or that it "fits into God's greater plan" better than any other possible outcome?

More practically, if the "merit" (or Godliness) of possible governments can be measured empirically, why not choose governments based on that measurement rather than the messy inefficiency of the electoral process?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Well, the prayers of the devout citizens of the Islamic State obviously carry more weight than the rest of the World's at the moment.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I certainly believe that prayer is important and that God listens to us when we do so, but it is not like God is a wishing tree, blindly fulfilling our requests. It seems clear from empirical evidence that other considerations are taken into account, such as the merit of our request, and how such request fits into God's greater plan.
How, exactly, does one "empirical[ly]" measure the "merit" of a particular request? To take the example from the OP, in what sense is it empirically obvious that the recent Tory electoral victory has more "merit" than any other possible electoral outcome? Or that it "fits into God's greater plan" better than any other possible outcome?

More practically, if the "merit" (or Godliness) of possible governments can be measured empirically, why not choose governments based on that measurement rather than the messy inefficiency of the electoral process?

I only said it is empirically clear that God does not just give us everything we pray for. Thus, given the assumption that God is listening and has the power to do what we ask, obviously the calculus of whether God will give us something we ask of Him is more complicated than merely whether we prayed for it or not.

In citing objective merit or fit with God's greater plan, I was merely hypothesizing what those other considerations might be, rather than stating that those specific considerations are empirically provable to be the ones God actually takes into account.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

He can't not listen. What power would that be?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0