Ship of Fools: Weak theology of God's intervention

Thread: Weak theology of God's intervention 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=030190

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I can't find the article in the Church Times that made this distinction, basically the writer suggests that Christians differed in their theology of divine intervention. Proponents who emphasized a "weak theology of God's intervention" believed that God works through human beings, through the natural processes of creation, and does not intervene in the sense of overturning laws of nature. Proponents who emphasized a "strong theology of God's intervention" were open to miracles, to a belief that God does supernaturally suspend ordinary laws of nature and performs miracles directly.

I don't know if "weak" is a good way to describe God working through people. Suppose I suggested that God works through people like Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King. I don't think their accomplishments would qualify as "weak".

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Found the article:
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2016/6-may/comment/opinion/prayer-is-now-a-cultural-problem

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Pay wall!

Care to summarise?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Pay wall!

Care to summarise?

Sure. Basically the Rt. Rev. Dr. John Saxbee, former bishop of Lincoln reflects on our changing attitude towards prayer in light of our changing ideas of divine intervention. He argues that we should emphasize a "weak theology of God's intervention", that is, we pray for spiritual strength to handle our issues and problems, rather than praying for God's direct intervention, i.e. "God fix this mess for me."

In short, it reflects a liberal/modern skepticism of miracles, and the notion that God supernaturally intervenes in the world.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

There's only an inconsistency if you say that God only works one way, and never the other - whichever of the two, the 'strong' one or the 'weak' one, is the one to which you decide you are going to limit God.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I was thinking, "Why not both," but Enoch got there first.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Exactly. Consider you yourself, in daily life. In moments of disagreement or contention, you have an entire suite of options at your disposal -- everything from conversing politely with the offender, to lawsuits, to fisticuffs. Which will you choose? Everything would depend upon the circumstances. What would be appropriate on an airplane when a guy is waving a box cutter is quite different than the proper action when he has stepped on your toe in a theater.
We are smart enough to distinguish appropriate responses. I think God is too.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
He argues that we should emphasize a "weak theology of God's intervention", that is, we pray for spiritual strength to handle our issues and problems, rather than praying for God's direct intervention, i.e. "God fix this mess for me."

In short, it reflects a liberal/modern skepticism of miracles, and the notion that God supernaturally intervenes in the world.

I'm sure there is more to God's intervention than this.

For one thing, many of us hold that God never changes. He is continually intervening. The different ways that this intervention appears reflect differences in us, not specific decisions to action on God's part.

I believe in miracles, but I think that they happen when conditions are right, not when God decides to do them.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As soon as I started reading, 'Both'. Strong at the Jesus end of the telescope. Weak this end.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

What does 'God working through other people' actually mean if it doesn't involve suspension of physical laws at some level?

A few months ago we had a prayer for someone going under surgery which included the phrase 'Lord, guide the hand of the surgeon'. ISTM that for that to mean anything, we must have been asking for God to fire a few neurons that wouldn't otherwise have fired*, which is still as much a suspension of physical laws as a Cosmas-and-Damian-style leg transplant would have been, albeit less dramatic. Call me Mr Cynical, but the main difference seems to me that after the operation succeeded, no-one could prove the prayer didn't have an effect, whereas a prayer for 'strong' intervention would obviously not have been fulfilled.

* I don't know how the brain works but I'd assume that if the surgeon became more careful or more skilful, that must correspond to some kind of physical change at the neurological level.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that for that to mean anything, we must have been asking for God to fire a few neurons that wouldn't otherwise have fired*, which is still as much a suspension of physical laws as a Cosmas-and-Damian-style leg transplant would have been, albeit less dramatic.

Not necessarily.

Prayer doesn't change God. Prayer changes the one who prays and those with whom they are connected.

When you pray for the surgeon your love and wishes are naturally communicated to the angels who surround you, who in turn can't help but communicate them to those around the surgeon.

The effect on the surgeon is not physical but spiritual, and it will vary according to many factors.

So it's not about God's intervention. He intervenes continually, and does it equally with all people at all times. He doesn't play favorites. The differences are all about differences in us.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What does 'God working through other people' actually mean if it doesn't involve suspension of physical laws at some level?

A few months ago we had a prayer for someone going under surgery which included the phrase 'Lord, guide the hand of the surgeon'. ISTM that for that to mean anything, we must have been asking for God to fire a few neurons that wouldn't otherwise have fired*, which is still as much a suspension of physical laws as a Cosmas-and-Damian-style leg transplant would have been, albeit less dramatic. Call me Mr Cynical, but the main difference seems to me that after the operation succeeded, no-one could prove the prayer didn't have an effect, whereas a prayer for 'strong' intervention would obviously not have been fulfilled.

* I don't know how the brain works but I'd assume that if the surgeon became more careful or more skilful, that must correspond to some kind of physical change at the neurological level.

It means people affected by their God narratives. NOTHING else. So we need to make up better ones.

[ 13. August 2016, 21:22: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Proponents who emphasized a "weak theology of God's intervention" believed that God works through human beings, through the natural processes of creation, and does not intervene in the sense of overturning laws of nature. Proponents who emphasized a "strong theology of God's intervention" were open to miracles, to a belief that God does supernaturally suspend ordinary laws of nature and performs miracles directly.

I guess I'm in the "weak," theology group although I wouldn't use that word. I think God work's through our minds and, no I don't see that as an interference with natural law, the way making a missing limb grow back would. If I thought God could reach down and make a child with cancer instantly well -- and chose not to -- I would find that hard to live with, but if I believe he works through giving the child and his parents courage and the doctors' intelligence, then those things I can safely pray for.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It is a helpful distinction. With a lousy label. I would rename the "weak" as others have suggested. God does it in the "strong" version, God empowers and inspires us in the weak version. I must reject utterly the God doing it version, God inspiring and being our comfort is the one I can accept.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Proponents who emphasized a "weak theology of God's intervention" believed that God works through human beings, through the natural processes of creation, and does not intervene in the sense of overturning laws of nature. Proponents who emphasized a "strong theology of God's intervention" were open to miracles, to a belief that God does supernaturally suspend ordinary laws of nature and performs miracles directly.

I guess I'm in the "weak," theology group although I wouldn't use that word. I think God work's through our minds and, no I don't see that as an interference with natural law, the way making a missing limb grow back would. If I thought God could reach down and make a child with cancer instantly well -- and chose not to -- I would find that hard to live with, but if I believe he works through giving the child and his parents courage and the doctors' intelligence, then those things I can safely pray for.

That's not weak enough for me.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

All this has ceased to be theoretical for me as my wife has been diagnosed with incurable cancer.

It's treatable and controllable but incurable.

That means it cannot be cured. It may go into remission, it may be alleviated, but it will get her in the end.

Are we praying for healing?

No. What we are praying for is grace and strength to face the trials that lie ahead - chemo, sickness, hair-loss, strain on our relationship, the effects it'll have on other people ...

To what extent does that involve intervention?

I don't like to chop these things up into neat chunks. It doesn't work that way.

I can try to rationalise and look at what might be providences - ie. I work freelance from home so I'll be available to help. My mother-in-law has Alzheimer's but I've learned already to cope/handle that so whatever happens there may not catch me off guard in the way it used to ...

But ultimately we can't organise it all into neat compartments.

But we can pray and we can trust.

The most helpful comments, of course, have come from people - whether believers or otherwise - who've simply said, 'But that's awful! I am sorry ...' and not tried to offer solutions or - like our vicar's wife [Mad]

come round (fortunately while my wife was out) banging on and on about how her father has lived with cancer for years and years and how they might have made a misdiagnosis and how ... and how ... and yadda yadda yadda ...

I was polite but quickly got rid of her.

Do I pray for my wife to be healed? No, I don't. Because quite frankly I don't believe she will be.

Does that imply lack of faith?

Who knows? I don't care. I can't whip anything up.

Do I pray for daily grace and strength and for wisdom to know how to act and how to handle things?

Yes, I do.

Posted by catnip (# 18638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I can't find the article in the Church Times that made this distinction, basically the writer suggests that Christians differed in their theology of divine intervention. Proponents who emphasized a "weak theology of God's intervention" believed that God works through human beings, through the natural processes of creation, and does not intervene in the sense of overturning laws of nature. Proponents who emphasized a "strong theology of God's intervention" were open to miracles, to a belief that God does supernaturally suspend ordinary laws of nature and performs miracles directly.

I don't know if "weak" is a good way to describe God working through people. Suppose I suggested that God works through people like Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King. I don't think their accomplishments would qualify as "weak".

I agree. I don't perceive it as weak at all! I think it is profound. And that is the point of faith for the individual and the way it works.

And the error is that people keep complaining that God hasn't shown himself by doing this or that--especially atheists. I think the overt miracles in the Old Testament show a tendency for ancient people to relate spiritual experience as the norm rather than as something separate and apart as we are sometimes encouraged to believe now. The last thing I would expect God to do is something that breaks the very laws of the Universe established in its creation--in reality. That time can stand still, that is something else. I think someone such as Mother Teresa working eighteen hours a day for sixty years and still living a long life is an amazing testimony to the result of faith. I couldn't do it.

I see MLK predicting his own death, telling that he has seen the mountaintop. He is relating his own vision and hope in faith. It brings tears to my eyes every time I listen to that speech. I cannot diminish that--do we believe? It is such a beautiful message, so gently given.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

THAT'S weak enough for me.

That's as good as it can possibly get G. Truly inspiring. Courageous. THAT'S abundance of faith mate. For grown ups. Not pap, twaddle that's not fit for the kindergarten.

Thank you and God bless you and your lady Gamaliel.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Votive]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't know if "weak" is a good way to describe God working through people. Suppose I suggested that God works through people like Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King. I don't think their accomplishments would qualify as "weak".

Surely "strong" and "weak" here refer to how the argument is deployed, and not to the merits of the underlying theology?

It's the way the words are used to distinguish (for example) the "strong anthropic principle" from the "weak anthropic principle". Using the labels doesn't imply that you think one argument is better than the other.

When I last had a serious medical diagnosis, I prayed for miraculous healing (didn't happen), for God to work through surgeon's skill (happened - but might well have happened anyway, because I understand you have to pass tests and stuff before being allowed to open someone up like a fish), and for strength to cope (happened - but in fairness, heart surgery is easier second time around). And yes, I prayed for the "weak" interventions with more confidence than the "strong" ones, because while I believe that God can do direct and spectacular miracles, they seem to be rare. But all the same, given that I believe in an omnipotent and loving God, it would seem odd to me never to ask for one.

Also I agree with the point that a "weak" intervention would be (if we could prove that it happened as an intervention) would be no less miraculous than a "strong" one. There may be good theological reasons for saying that in general God prefers and chooses to work with us and through us, with a strong commitment to the principle of plausible deniability, but a theology that asserted with confidence that he can do the one sort of miracle but not the other seems to me not to have been properly thought through.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I will also pray for the weak interventions with you. I have very limited theological understanding but a similar observation as others here, that miracles in the sense of fizz-bang cures are very very rare and I've never seen one. The weak interventions that need no miraculous explanation are often supplied, but I give thanks for them anyway.

I do these things not because I understand but because it seems to help. I can very rarely honestly pray for the fizz-bangs. I respect those who can, but I can't.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Those that do are causing an opportunity cost for those they pray for. I won't.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Call me Mr Cynical, but the main difference seems to me that after the operation succeeded, no-one could prove the prayer didn't have an effect, whereas a prayer for 'strong' intervention would obviously not have been fulfilled.

On reflection I think I would like to withdraw this comment and apologise for it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Eliab

Why do you believe that God can do direct and spectacular miracles, that they seem to be rare is an understatement in everybody's experience that you have ever met. You know nobody who has experienced a direct and/or spectacular miracle. Nobody does.

And what is an omnipotent God?

Glad the surgery worked and that you coped. I find coping miraculous I must confess. I've experienced physical and psychic pain that I knew would unhinge me. It didn't.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Eliab

Why do you believe that God can do direct and spectacular miracles, that they seem to be rare is an understatement in everybody's experience that you have ever met. You know nobody who has experienced a direct and/or spectacular miracle. Nobody does.

I do. In fact, I know two. One is me, and the other is my husband. And there were two separate spectacular miracles.

Sorry, but it pisses me off to have you so categorically and dogmatically asserting stuff about what other people have or have not experienced.

[ 16. August 2016, 03:50: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why do you believe that God can do direct and spectacular miracles, that they seem to be rare is an understatement in everybody's experience that you have ever met. You know nobody who has experienced a direct and/or spectacular miracle. Nobody does.

And what is an omnipotent God?

Omnipotent - all powerful. Can do anything. Not constrained by any external force. I can't easily believe in a non-omnipotent God. That sort of God would require a different sort of argument, the foundations for which I do not possess. Thor would require an 'origins' myth - Allah does not admit of one. Thus Allah can be Truth, while Thor struggles to be true.

I've never seen a miracle the recounting of which would convince you, no. I've heard a very few apparently reliable reports of clear miracles from first hand witnesses, which I think I believe, but again, I wouldn't expect a second hand report to convince a sceptic. I have had experiences that seemed to be "weak" interventions, but definitely interventions, which strengthen my belief that there is a God.

Since for me "God" means "the Almighty", any divine intervention, "weak" or otherwise, persuades me that God IS. And therefore while not everything is to be expected, everything is definitely possible.

[ 16. August 2016, 07:32: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

A nice answer according to faith, thank you. Omnipotence as you describe is utterly impossible. Almighty God obviously can't do anything, i.e. everything, not by a long, long way. And no, no claim works for me, including my own.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A nice answer according to faith, thank you. Omnipotence as you describe is utterly impossible. Almighty God obviously can't do anything, i.e. everything, not by a long, long way. And no, no claim works for me, including my own.

Yes, God can't do anything, everything, as we understand that concept. The issue, though, is not with God or omnipotence, but with the open-ended nature of our concept.

Our literal concept would, for example, require God to be able create a stone so heavy that He couldn't lift it, or make Himself disappear, or exist and not exist simultaneously, or be a small worm named George.

These kinds of issues are well discussed in Wikipedia.

Omnipotence means that God is the one and only source of all power.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It also means that He cannot possibly know if it's going to rain tomorrow, not just semantic nonsenses.

And yes, He is the pre-eternal source and transfinite sustainer.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Pre-eternal and transfinite. Fine terms!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0