National Day of Prayer
Today, May 1st, is the National Day of Prayer. What does something like a National Day of Prayer say about our country and our theology?
Our country, especially in times of perceived crisis, desperately wants to appear religous. In the wake of 9/11, signs proclaiming “God bless America” sprouted up everywhere and church attendence went up. Although it was initially hailed by Franklin Graham as a permanent national turn to God, the religious surge ended after about two months of superficial religiosity. Our country engages in other superficial religious endeavors as well. Conservative Evangelicals are willing to fight to the death for mere symbols like a slogan on a coin, a phrase in the pledge, or a monument in a courthouse; meanwhile, they display general apathy or open contempt for efforts to address the real ethical issues facing our world like poverty and hunger. Elrod said it well the other day on his blog: “If America were in fact the Christian nation we claim to be that there would be no need for government welfare or foreign aid. Instead, the prosperity that has made America a great nation would be unselfishly shared by the people God seems to have blessed the most with people who not been as fortunate.”
Something like a National Day of Prayer is also telling as a manifestation of modern Evangelical theology. Modern scientific Americans think they can systematically control everything through charts and hierarchies. The National Day of Prayer suggests that people want to believe that we can construct a systematic organized appeal to God, and that he will be more persuaded to “bless America” than he would otherwise. Does formal organization and assignment of coordinated prayer duties really increase the amount of pressure that humans can exert on an Almighty creator?
At Harding University, where the authors of this blog study, we had a similar event hosted on our campus. Fora 24-hour period, students signed up for 30-minute time slots during which they committed to pray about certain assigned issues. This struck me as being based upon deeply flawed and superficial theology.
All of these examples – a National Day of Prayer, God catch phrases, or a 24-hour school-wide prayer – represent superficial attempts to fulfill an identity that we think we have as a “Christian nation.” These are feeble attempts that focus on utterly insignificant symbols and modern systems of God-control that cannot possibly be theologically justified. God is not impressed with Christians who devote so much time and energy to such things. Here are some questions to consider:
- Is there any evidence to suggest or any reason to believe that God blesses America?
- Can God be convinced or prodded to action by coordinated modern systematic appeals?
- What measurement would show that America was really a Christian nation?
- Is there any deeper value in what appears to be just another superficial display of religiosity, the National Day of Prayer?
To be clear, I don’t hate Christians, God, or prayer. All of those things can be good in and of themselves. But I do have serious philosophical questions about the type of thinking that justifies mixing nationalism and prayer, and I have serious theological questions about the type of thinking that justifies constructing artificial mechanisms for bombarding God with prayer.
I agree with your sentiments about nationalism, prayer and a focus on God, yet I fear you’ve a severe blind eye. Were the United States wholly a Christian nation, there would be no need for welfare, true. The quote is accurate in part yet you support the very party that largely endorses government control of the people under the facade of freedom.
I’m not endorsing the Republican party, but perhaps what seems to be their gross ignorance of poverty and “reaching the masses” is simple miscommunication of public allowance to freely care for the masses, or it’s simple neglect to place government funding, i.e., our tax dollars, in the right hands.
Speaking to foreign aid, Christian-based, non-profit groups give both monetarily and physically on top of what our government doles out as aid. Give me time and I will link a support.
Frankly, I am not sure God desired for the Church to become institutionalized; this largely being an extension of that gaffe. That is yet another topic.
I’m still checking the validity and the “who’s behind the curtain” on these sites but I found a few links.
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/May/20070524165115zjsredna0.2997553.html
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/gv01main.html
It is anachronistic oversimplification to talk about “my party” supporting the welfare state while “your party” doesn’t. Both parties endorse the welfare state, and the Republican Party hasn’t fundamentally opposed it since Goldwater. There is a reason why Goldwater lost; the American people also endorse the welfare state.
When I look at the pertinent issues to this election, health care is up there. The Democratic candidates have serious proposals that involve the government and that would make affordable health care available to millions who currently have no real access. That is a moral issue if there ever was one. McCain has no real plan except to throw more government money at the current situation without fixing any of the problems with it; and the amount of money he is throwing is not enough. $5,000 will not buy decent insurance for a family.
That first article says that Democratic leaders despise charity. That is obviously false. Democractic leaders do not despise charity and neither do I; however, I do realize that we need compulsory programs to fully address some of the social issues that we have because people are not really that philanthropic. Average Americans give 3.1% of their income to charity, and I assume that most of that is going into religious institutions to be used for their own purposes and not really directly addressing issues like poverty and healthcare.
It’s no surprise McCain has no real plan. I’m not convinced any of the candidates have any plan outside of making themselves appear the electable answer to all our problems.
The first article was an older link I haven’t read in a while. Misrepresentation aside, I found it interesting. Yet the fact being I detest statistical polls even when they bend in my favor.
I’m not going to stand for religious institutions on how they spend their money. We could both point to rich churches who are both monetarily greedy-spirit poor and vica versa. I would still rather give the money to the people and expect, dare I say educate them to wisely manage than shifting the issue, thereby the blame to any government.
Health care cost is a huge issue I believe to be supported by greed at its core. I don’t believe the answer is more government-sanctioned “assistance” billed to the masses it’s intended to help. The answer may lie in revamping the entire system. Expensive? Yes. Instant fix? No. The McDonalds band-aid approach isn’t going to work for health care in the long run.
I have many family members in the position of paying outrageous costs for health care they mostly don’t even use whilst working low wage jobs. It’s those same family members that prevent me from supporting the government getting billed for their hospital visit.
My aunt lived off welfare for years. Spawning more offspring to increase her monthly take, which in turn taught her children to do the same. A lady at work has a daughter who cannot get government assistance because she doesn’t have enough children to qualify, yet not enough money to provide for the children currently in her care. It’s sad when good people are forced to live in poor situations, yet even worse when poor people are given good situations freely. Where do you strike a balance?
“I would still rather give the money to the people and expect, dare I say educate them to wisely manage…”
Your unquestioning hope in the completely unproven largesse of the American people is touching but unrealistic. You can hope that people would take all the money that is currently taxed for social security and welfare and unemployment and other aid programs and invest it themselves into similar private programs themselves… but that is a very silly thing to hope for. You don’t seriously think that, do you? Would you even personally do that if the government cut your taxes by all the amounts that go towards any type of social program? Even if you would, you are evidently a freak; most people would just keep all that money just like they keep 96.9% of their money already.
Maybe you should just pray that people will become more generous since it is the holiday for that.
The moment my worldly exposure expanded beyond the Harding bubble and Searcy, my vision of prayer and even religion as a whole, changed. You sound a bit bitter about the “prayer holiday.” I love Harding, Arkansas, and the South in part but living in that constant state of near, dare I say Six Flags over Jesus, overbearing Republican landscape that is Harding, it tends to wear one down. Hang in there.
No I don’t believe everyone would go about investing their money willy nilly into the private sector, but I do have faith that, given proper education the people would be a better judge of how their money is spent. Unproven yes, because to my knowledge no government has ever attempted to educate and trust its public with that great responsibility.
Thank you. I am a freak. I would rather place my pennies where I want them placed. I would rather do my part to save the environment, aid the needy, create non-profit social groups, and provide for my family without paying someone else to do it for me. Are people greedy because it’s in their nature or because nothing else is modeled for them?
“…no government has ever attempted to educate and trust its public with that great responsibility.”
How about this government before the 1930s? Or most other world governments before the period between the 30s and the 90s? Is there perhaps a reason why societies are evolving to have more social programs and not less all across the world? Are they all failing to see the obvious truth that you seem to see regarding private spending?
Yes, people are greedy by nature. You can hope for something different, and maybe you can even be different as an individual, but you cannot change the mass of humanity in a country as large as ours.
I don’t particularly care to delve into this discussion, but the notion that giving money to the government in the hopes that they will serve as the benevolent caretaker of the sick, poor and down trodden is about as inane as believing that people will act in an altruistic manner with a potential tax break.
Take away the incentive for people to help themselves and they won’t. The welfare system may be one of the largest enablers of lazy and uneducated people that pollute the system and make it into something it isn’t suppose to be — a system of dole payouts.
I suppose the key is incentive and education. Without any analysis to back me up here, I am going out on a limb to say that a chief flaw in our welfare system is the lack of incentive to work and the lack of educational requirements.
I have not much more faith in government bureaucracy to distribute dole handouts than I do in people giving altruistically.
With that said, our system probably needs revamping — not soon to come.
Is the national day of prayer any more superficial than say, Easter, Christmas, or the 4th of July?
Perhaps. It is laughable to think that if we bombard God will enough prayers on the National Day of Prayer, good things will happen.
To clarify: when I defend the concept of “the welfare state,” I am talking about the notion that the government should be involved in social programs that benefit its citizens and not merely limited to national defense and public education. I am defending the ideas upon which Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are based, but not necessarily those programs exactly as they are now.
The fact remains that the government is able to address societal problems on a scale that is impossible for the disparate individuals of society to address. Individuals, no matter how full of love and hope, will not be able to fix our current health care crisis.
It is in a different category because the purpose of Easter or the 4th of July is purely human-based. We know that we can feel the effects of going to an Easter church service or watching a fireworks display. A National Day of Prayer is different, though, because it assumes that an Almighty God cares about trivial holidays like that and is more influenced by organized appeal than by individual appeal.
Maybe we should form prayer special interest groups to really organize the prayerful and get the message out. If God really is succeptible to organized lobbying like that, though, then he isn’t a God who can answer those prayers.
Suppose I’m optimistic to a fault. I would rather have that hope your candidate rails on and on about. A hope in the whole of an educated society. I would rather not apply reactionary Band-Aids to social issues. I would rather scrap for preventative measures. Is there a reason why governments are failing to meet the needs of the people across the board, even with these social programs? Will throwing more money at the problem or the government solve it?
Zu should read The Copenhagen Consensus in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs.
Denmark’s approach to the welfare state vastly differs from America’s. They use both Government and Money to ensure that citizens are educated, job flexible, and employed.
Far be it from me to discount the value of hope, but not all hopes are equal.
The hope that we can unite together to achieve our common purposes through combined resources is one thing. That hope is based upon our own years of experience doing it as well as the negative effects we have experienced with the opposite. It is also supported by even the most cursory analysis of the other industrial nations of the world.
The hope that somehow our society would function better if we broke apart and abandoned our organized common efforts at improving society is not only unproven, it is counter-factual and illogical. It still falls under the category of hope I suppose, but it is not a hope worth having.
The quote that S.C. put on our blog logo seems appropriate. In a similar way, humans can achieve great things when united together, but separate from organized systems, they fail to meet those expectations.
Thanks for the suggested reading Denney. I will walk over to B&N now in hopes they have back copies.
I agree. Abandoning any organized effort is illogical. I just believe these organized efforts could be better managed and supplied outside of government and her lobbyists.
In an ironic combination of events, today is also May Day, or International Workers’ Day.
So you can pray for the nation, and then go out and party with your comrades!
Da!
In his article on “Day of Prayer”, David Manes raises the question of whether formal organization and coordinated prayers can increase the amount of influence humans can have with God. Actually, the idea of having a national day of prayer dates back to Old Testament days. In the Bible the “Solemn Assembly” (Hebrew, atzeret) referred to gatherings of people for solemn religious purposes. In response to a national emergency, the prophet Joel said “Declare a fast; call a sacred assembly. Summon the elders and all who live in the land to the house of the LORD your God, and cry out to the LORD” (Joel 1:14).
The logic behind the Sacred Assembly appears to be that a communal religious activity will make a bigger impact upon God than an individual activity. To an extent, the people today who call for group prayer efforts are at least partly “biblical” in their thinking. There is a big warning to consider at this point, however. The Hebrew prophets also condemned some of the Solemn Assemblies because of the hypocrisies in the lives of the Israelites (Isaiah 1:13; Amos 5:21). So where does this leave us? Are our national days of prayer justified and desirable in the eyes of God, or should they be condemned as hypocritical wastes of time? This is not an easy question to answer. Only a Hebrew prophet would know for sure.
That is a good point. Perhaps another question to consider is whether the Old Testament prophetic and the ancient Hebrew views of how God related to the people directly translate to today’s world.
I tend to think that although the prophets are clearly powerful theologians and interesting writers, their concept of God was somewhat primitive in certain regards. Their view of God’s interaction through geopolitical and natural events is no longer accepted by very many people today. If there is anyone who proposes that kind of worldview, the rest of society generally responds very critically.
I guess I also wonder if their concept of God was incomplete or inaccurate. At times, they may anthropomorphize the Almighty too much. You are right, though. These are difficult questions to answer.
I actually think the National Day of Prayer was invented to draw attention away from May Day, the plight of workers, and European-style economics. Did you know that the Longshoreman’s Union shut down all 15 U.S. West Coast ports today? I think that was the number. How did that come across when they announced it in chapel? Or, didn’t they?
They didn’t… I don’t think. Honestly, I wasn’t paying attention.
I just stumbled across this blog and I must say you guys take yourselves WAY TOO SERIOUSLY.
You’re in college for f*ck sake. Have a beer and try to get laid for once. It will do you good.