Church Voices

During one of our gatherings one of our elders asked if anyone would like to share any of their favorite verses. One guy stood up and said the (pretty close) to the following:

As we were sitting here I recalled the passage in Isaiah which says “come let us reason together”, as we go about our day we carry out the great commission in conversations in our everyday life

Boy that’s awfully missional. It was spoken by a guy approaching his 60s, who was raised in a very traditional church in what is usually seen as a traditional non-denominational denomination.

Later this week I’m going to post an interview I did with Virgil Vaduva, in our post-interview conversation he told me that a minister that he is very close to made the comment to him that emerging/emergent had already been done 150 years ago in that same non-demoninational denomination.

Many of the emerging/emergent ideas that are viewed as controversial by outspoken critics are simply gems of the past re-discovered by the church. So much so, that when I’ve stripped out names of authors and buzzwords from many of these ideas and presented them to people who were raised in traditional churches there’s very little disagreement.

Want to revitalize a church? Have some advice:

This principle was confirmed in a huge way in our study of Comeback Churches. According to Comeback leaders, the key to making a comeback was this – “renewed belief in Jesus Christ and the mission of the church.” That was the highest-rated single item in the study. How simple and basic is that!?

Here is the account of a guy who left Restoration Movement for Lutheranism.

As I read through his account it struck me how different the teaching I’ve received are from what he received. Check out his account of the Lord’s Supper:

In the Restoration Movement, the Lord’s Supper had always been about how well we cleansed ourselves via our sense of humilty before taking the Lord’s Supper. Instead of the sacrament being about how God touches His people, it was about how His people ascend to him through an impossible exercise of spiritual purity.

Contrast that with this from The Faith Once For All by Dr. Jack Cottrell, “The Lord’s Supper likewis is both worship and edification. We take the emblems not only as a memorial to honor our Savior, but also as a means of reminding ourselves that his blood is the only reason we are saved.” Now, I am by no means equivocating a sacramental view to the Restoration Movement, or to this particular statement. What I am saying though is that this view of the Lord’s Supper and the view that the Lord’s Supper is some sort of works based leaping towards God don’t equivocate either.

In fact as I found myself reading over his journey to Lutheranism I found myself thinking that if I were presented with the same sort of faith through the Restoration Movement that he was I would probably be Lutheran today as well.

Sadly, his story didn’t surprise me. Unfortunately, due to the decentralized nature of the Restoration Movement, and taking our theological identity from baptismal regeneration* there is a riptide of works based theology. I believe its fading, but its still out there, and I would rather have someone journey to Wittenberg than flail about in a vain attempt to work their way into the kingdom of God.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ingrid over at Slice of Laodicea continues in her quest to be holier than God with this little nugget of terrible theology:

I am going to say publicly that I believe the tidal wave of sex sermon series is due to the prurient interest of both pastors and parishoners.

Actually the “tidal wave of sex sermon series” has a lot more to do with the way the church has taught about sex in the past. It is a restoration of what the Bible actually teaches. The Bible does have a lot to say about sex, unfortunately in the past people like Ingrid made sure only half of what the Bible teaches gets out. The other half, the half that says that sex is a wonderful pleasure shared between married people was somehow, left out. The end result of this terrible methodology has been the impression (by many in the church and especially out of the church) is that sex is at worst, detestable, and at best, tolerated.

That is, of course, a bunch of crap. And thankfully, the church is starting to correct the malfeasance of the past by teaching what the Bible actually teaches about sex.

Ravi Zacharias has made the observation that the arts (music, photos, movies, etc) get around the normal brain functions and make their worldview by aesthetics rather than by arguments. For some reason the same thing happens when money gets involved. Inject money into a situation (no matter how little) and normally lucid individuals become outraged activists. Apparently the word “money” circumvents the rational part of the brain and strikes directly at the outrage center.

Here’s a prime example:

Contemporary worship songs, on the other hand, are a revenue stream for copyright holders and music publishers. They are aggressively promoted and now make up a significant share of the $4.5-billion Christian retail market…. And that, my friends, is a tragedy – another triumph of Mammon in the modern evangelical church.

In other words the fact that churches pay copyright holders is a horrible thing that elevates money over God.

What? Let’s ask a few questions. Why is it wrong to pay for materials related to singing, but its not wrong to pay a minister to lead the service and preach? Or, an even better question: is paying for Bibles with copyrights wrong? I don’t see how you can be consistent and take the position that paying for Bibles and paying a minister is a-ok, but paying for songs just crosses the line.

Ah, you say, the problem isn’t the principle of the matter, the problem is the way its gone about. From that same article:

Contemporary worship songs, on the other hand, are a revenue stream for copyright holders and music publishers. They are aggressively promoted and now make up a significant share of the $4.5-billion Christian retail market.

In other words, the problem is that they’re aggressively marketed.

That’s an interesting argument, but I don’t think its successful because Bibles and ministers are aggressively marketed. Open up any sort of magazine sold to Christians and in the ads you’ll see various translations of scripture being advertised, skip around the internet you’ll see entire blogs devoted to appreciation and analysis of translations of scripture.

On the minister side of things, I talked to a guy recently who had finished heading up the search team for his church. In a four month period of time they received over 200 resumes. Guys were sending pictures, CDs, DVDs, extensive resumes that included philosophies of ministry, personal theologies, and all of this came in neatly packaged folders and envelopes all designed to impress.

In other words, both ministers and Bibles are aggressively marketed.

But maybe you’re going to grant a special dispensation to ministers and Bibles as the author does. Lets look at that perspective.

Contrast this with the “old” method. Hymn books contain songs that are mostly in the public domain and have little or no licensing fees. They have historically been published by denominational publishers who make them available to congregations more or less at cost.

Absolute crap. You don’t run a publishing house, not even one that publishes hymn books containing only public domain music and sell at cost. Someone owns that publishing house, and they expect to get paid, and their employees expect to be paid as well. In fact, the only person not getting paid in this scenario is the actual author of the music (who is either dead or so old their use for money is based on their diaper consumption).

But even with all that being said most hymnal publishers have at least some copyrighted hymns. Brethren Press, Concordia (Lutheran) and United Methodist publishing houses are examples of denominational publishing houses that distribute hymns under copyright.

Given all this what possible reason is there to object to the use of copyrighted works during worship services?

Wait for it… wait for it…

If you’ve been to a church at any time in the past 30 years, you have no doubt been subjected to the “worship wars.” Contemporary vs. Traditional. Modern vs. Postmodern. The worship wars have been fought in virtually every evangelical church at some time during the past generation. Those on the traditional side say the conflict is ultimately a matter of theology. Those on the contemporary side say it is ultimately a matter of relevance.

I’ve got my own opinions about this question, and – just for the record – let me say that I’m a traditionalist when it comes to matters of worship.

And there it is. The author has found himself on the losing side of a preference issue. Most people (and that is to say reasonable people) have rejected the argument put forward by hymnophiles that the scriptures demand, as a matter of theology, the use of hymns. Once that argument was rejected, and people began to choose based on preference hymns quickly became used less and less frequently. And so a new argument had to be devised, and the form the argument is taking is that the specific type of music being used and how that music is distributed.

Now we’re getting into the area of judging motives, which can be tricky, but when excessive rhetoric like this is the conclusion of the article:

And that, my friends, is a tragedy – another triumph of Mammon in the modern evangelical church.

Ooh, I stand POWERREBUKED!!!! Mammon! That’s like the super triple fatality of rhetoric when it comes to money. Unfortunately its being sadly misused. And not just misused, but its being used in an anti-Biblical position.

Oh yeah, I went there. The stance taken in this piece is the opposite of Biblical teaching. Check it out:

For the Scripture says, “You must not muzzle an ox to keep it from eating as it treads out the grain.” And in another place, “Those who work deserve their pay!”
- 1 Timothy 5:18

Next time you walk into a church look around. Every thing you lay your eyes on was paid for either by the church or a generous donor, and no one would suggest things like chairs, projectors, pulpits or anything else inside of a church should be ripped off by the church. The people who made those things deserve to be paid for their efforts. No one would ever suggest that there was a “triumph of Mammon” because a church paid for everything inside of a church (and the church itself).

So why is it different for worship music?

Read the rest of this entry »

As I noted before I’ve been following the Driscoll church planting video “controversy” closely and came across this from Tall Skinny Kiwi. What was telling was this comment from a particularly nasty egalitarian named Paul. Check out his condemnation:

The men here who are defending the Driscoll view of women are strangling themselves with the long cord that runs from ancient female oppression in all cultures through to the burqa today.

I pity you all for the trajectory of history is not on your side.

Now, egalitarians consistently tell us that they have honestly and legitimately come to the conclusion that scriptures doesn’t just allow for the option of female elders, but demands it in the name of equality. In other words there’s a scriptural mandate for female elders.

So why is it when I see egalitarians condemning complementarians it is never in terms of scripture. Take a note of Paul’s rhetoric, he’s claiming that God, through his word, demands female eldership, yet, the biggest condemnation he can level is that the “force of history is not on your side”. You’d think if someone believes you are violating God’s commands and twisting his word that he’d be a bit more concerned about the trajectory of God than the trajectory of history.

This is why I don’t take the vast majority of egalitarians seriously (by that I mean those in the blogosphere, and especially those that crank up the rhetoric to holy war level). While they claim their views are grounded in scripture, it doesn’t really seem like even they take that seriously. I’m casting a wide net here (and I realize there are exceptions) but we’re generally talking about people who believe when Jesus said “its harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle” he meant “its harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle” while doing backflips with texts that read as complementarian supports on their face.

Meanwhile, their ultimate judge is the “trajectory of history”. And that’s what I keep coming back to. Choosing that as the judge of complementarians is so telling. When Tupac rapped “Only God can judge me” that resonated with a lot of people, because that’s understandable. After all God knows the truth, God knows our hearts, God knows what is just. There isn’t anyone or anything more qualified to judge us. So when someone writes “the trajectory of history is not on your side” thats far more than just smack talk. Its indicative of what that person believes our ultimate judge will be. In this case complementarians aren’t being judged by God, they’re being judged by the “trajectory of history”.

Maybe I’m wrong here, but when I read egalitarians, especially their hysterical outrage, I don’t get the sense that scripture is driving their rants, rather that they’re outraged because of their culture, and their view of history. Not their view of scripture.

As I stated in an earlier post, I would prefer to open the doors of the eldership wide to women. But I can’t do that and remain faithful to scripture. Sadly, from what I’ve read in this latest dust up egalitarians in the blogosphere are letting their culture shape their theology, instead of the scriptures.

I’ve got a secret. Oh yes, a deep dark secret. If I could I would believe that all levels of church leadership are open to women as well as men (a position commonly referred to as egalitarianism), however, when reading the scriptures I just can’t take that position (I subscribe to the view known as complementarianism which in a nutshell means male only eldership). And it seems like every time this issue kicks up the blogosphere the egalitarian arguments rarely actually deal with scripture. This latest dust up with Mark Driscoll really drove the point home. As I trolled the blogosphere for reasoned commentary on both sides of the issue the one thing I didn’t find on the egalitarian side of the aisle was an honest parsing of scripture. Mostly what I found was a lot of outrage, and mis-characterization.

While this post is a bit more militaristic its pretty much in-line with the egalitarian outrage at Driscoll. Check it out:

So, I was in a bit of a tizzy today and was talking with a friend – asking if I’m off base on what I’m going to say here. She responded that once upon a time she heard a woman Pastor make the statement that “gender equality isn’t a theological issue, it’s a justice issue”.

I was a bit surprised to be see this tact taken, after all we’re dealing with the structure and operation of the church. What could possibly be an issue that should be more grounded in theology? Also, does anyone else find it at least a little bit odd that a “justice issue” is placed as a greater priority than a theological one? Unless the term “theological” is being used in a sense other than the study of God it seems that the author is implying that justice exists apart from God, and is greater than God (or at least a greater urgency). Frankly, I’m at a loss to even begin defining actions as just or injust without studying God, so I’m not sure how filing this in the J file does much to advance the egalitarian argument.

As I continue to read it strikes me there’s not just a difference of interpretation of scripture, but completely different sources of authority. While I’m looking for appeals to scriptures (as a way of accessing God) for the basis of how the church operates, the author of this piece doesn’t bother even mentioning scripture (in face, as far as I can tell she simply takes it on faith that her position is correct, no need for discussion, or scripture), and as I continue to read the hermeneutic being employed is so foreign I can’t see how there’s any chance of agreement:

Now, I’m a great proponent of can’t-we-all-get-along theology in the cases of Baptism, liturgy, worship style, etc., the non-essentials, as I see it.

I’m almost at a loss for words here. Calling baptism a non-essential makes me think I’m missing some of the scriptures here (or have extras, what with Acts 2:38, Romans 6, etc). I mean the idea that a reading of the scriptures can lead to a conclusion that baptism is optional, but that female leaders are a requirement is just mind blowing. But again, as I pointed out I rarely see egalitarian views in the blogosphere actually using scripture. Driscoll quotes from 1 Timothy and his detractors largely take it as a statement of faith that he’s wrong.

Honestly, the more I read egalitarian spleen venting, the more I think this comes down to a difference in the way leadership is viewed. Egalitarians seem to view church leadership as an extremely authoritarian, almost master/servant relationship. Check out the comments. Almost right off the bat we get a comparison of complementarian views to black American slavery. Apparently egalitarians believe that those in church leadership are supposed to lead in the same way white masters lead the people they enslaved.

But that’s not how church leadership should be. Check out Luke 22.24-30

Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This is why I have such a hard time getting all worked up about the “injustice” of male only church leadership, if church leadership is actually the way its meant to be there’s no lording of power over an oppressed class. In fact, it works exactly the opposite way, it means the all-male leadership will be the greatest servants in the church, they will, by definition and necessity, be servants of the disproportionately female congregation.

Flashback to Jesus’ comments in Mark 12 (and Matthew 18). The disciples are arguing about who is the greatest. Jesus’ response is that the greatest in the kingdom of God will be the least. When I read egalitarian outrage about the injustice of it all I don’t see this view towards leadership. What I see is a view that leadership is a highly coveted position, a prestigious call-up to the big show, and sure, with that view I can see why you’d be all pissed off that women would be excluded from eldership. But that’s not the attitude towards leadership any Christian should have, and that’s not the type of leadership that men are called to.

Last week at church one of my congregants made the comment that he was listening to Larry King and agreed with him that one of the major errors Christians have made is allowing things like the Easter bunny to creep into Easter.

I disagree.

First, just let me say that I understand that things like the Easter bunny and Santa Claus, if taken as the reason to celebrate can turn a celebration of Jesus into a celebration of chocolate and gifts. But, I also don’t think that’s anywhere close to as huge an error as being Grimly Christian.

We probably all know someone who is Grimly Christian. Generally its someone who seems to take things like the Easter bunny, wearing proper clothing and Sunday School Attendance as salvation issues. To give you an example there used to be a minister in the area who would yell at people to sit down from the pulpit when they would get up to use the restroom, even if they were older, or younger, or he was rolling up on an hours worth or sermonizing. Want to know if someone is Grimly Christian? Well that’s pretty easy. On Sunday morning look around and try to spot someone who isn’t laughing or smiling (of course the lack of smiling and laughing doesn’t automatically make them Grimly Christian, after all it is early and the coffee and donuts may not have hit their blood stream yet) and tell them a joke, or even better, tell them a joke involving Jesus, or one that is self-effacing. For example:

A rather pompous deacon was teaching a children’s Sunday school class, and asked the kids, “Why would people look at me and think I’m a Christian?” One small child looked up and answered, “Because they don’t know you?”

Its even better if you can take a shot at the denomination you’re a part of, this is a great one for our Baptist readers.

What is the difference between a Baptist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist!

If the person in question laughs he’s not Grimly Christian. If he says “that’s not funny” he’s also not Grimly Christian as he’s clearly indicated he knows what a joke is. If all you get is a cold glare, then you’ve got a live one.

Now lets be clear, the Grim Christian is a Christian (he’s just Grim), and he’s going to be at church every Sunday morning, and Wednesday evening, and will speak up in Sunday School, and may even be leading Sunday school class (God forbid!) and will be volunteering for VBS, and whatever else his church does (or at least whatever else his church has done since he was a child).

So why in the world would I say that Grim Christianity would be a bigger problem than secular practices creeping into Christian holidays? Well, first, take a gander at this:

That’s what Christianity does, makes you hate yourself. To be a Christian, one must believe that their self, their essential self is bad. Christianity takes away the natural exuberance from life. That’s what happened to me as a child, and I spent the next 20 years trying to make peace with the angry sky-god I was told about as a young child. Finally something in me snapped, and I said “ENOUGH!”. The last 10 years have been a search for self and truth. I will not go back to the mental slavery and self-hate that has so colored my life.

I am now trying to get back what was stolen from me years ago.

This is why Grim Christianity is a threat. This is what stone faced, humorless, grimacing, Grim Christians do to people, especially when they end up in leadership. Grim Christians understand salvation, and they understand sin, oh do they understand sin, but they miss completely the results of salvation. Take that last quote and compare it to these verses:

The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life.
- John 10:10

After this interview the wise men went their way. And the star they had seen in the east guided them to Bethlehem. It went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were filled with joy!
- Matthew 2:9-11

I have told you these things so that you will be filled with my joy. Yes, your joy will overflow!
- John 15:11

The results of salvation is not Grimness, it is joy and life.

Or take the central idea of the writer that the essential self is a terrible thing. This is not the message of scripture (although the message of scripture is that the essential self has been twisted by sin, but more on that in a moment).

So God created human beings in his own image… Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!
- Genesis 1:27, 31

For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.
- Ephesians 2:10

You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.
- Psalm 139:13-14

Do these scriptures indicate that God has created humans in a way that is so awful that each of us should be hating ourselves? In fact, as we take a look at scripture we see that only through Christ can the essential self truly be revealed, because its only through Christ that the destructive effects of sin can be rolled back to reveal who we really are, and it is only through Christ the self has the freedom to be exactly what God intended it to be.

Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.
- Romans 6:14

For the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
- 2 Corinthians 3:17

A church full of Grim Christians can never, ever communicate these things. Grim Christians exchange the freedom and life that Christ died to give them here, on earth, right now for soul crushing guilt and obligation that has to be endured for the sake of eternity. That’s not what Christ came to do, that’s not what the scriptures teach, and that’s not how God created us or meant for us, so when someone writes earlier about leaving Christianity because it has caused him to hate himself we shouldn’t be surprised because the very nature that God has created us with, and the Spirit that He’s sent to us don’t agree at all.

Hattip: Jolly Blogger
Grim Christian bait

“…your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”
—Matthew 6:8

This Sunday I was talking to my youth minister about a conference at which he spoke over the weekend. I was told weeks in advance he was scheduled to speak but forgot that it was this past weekend. I expressed my regrets about not having prayed for him during the course of the event, which led to him mentioning his belief in retrospective prayer. Retrospective prayer, ordinarily understood, is prayer offered for events which we know have already occurred.¹ I have heard people talk about retrospective prayer before, and am even familiar with several stories where it truly seems like prayer is answered retrospectively.²

But still, it has always seemed sort of nebulous to me. What is it exactly we are praying for? Are we praying that God should bring it about that an event which already occurred did not occur? This would include even slight alterations of events, and so includes bringing it about that an event which already occurred not to have occurred in exactly the same way it did. For if past event e is altered ever so slightly, such would no longer be identical to e but would constitute an entirely new event, e’. If so, we are praying for God to perform a logical contradiction, which is impossible. No acceptable definition of omnipotence allows for God to perform logical contradictions, such as creating a square-circle, making a stone so big not even He could lift it, or causing something to exist and not exist at the same time. Similarly, it is logically contradictory to bring about something which has already occurred not to have occurred. A. J. Ayer explains, “The past is closed in the sense that what has been has been: if an event has taken place there is no way of bringing it about that it has not taken place; what is done cannot be undone.”³ The inalterability of the past is simply a matter of logic.⁴ Indeed, logic is most plausibly grounded in the nature of God Himself. This means that if changing the past is logically contradictory, God acting to change the past would amount to him acting contrary to his own nature, which is absurd. So retrospective prayer cannot involve God altering the past, as it were. So what does it involve?

Instead of God altering the past, how about the possibility of God acting in the present to bring about an event based on his foreknowledge of future prayers? This seems a bit more plausible. On this account, all retrospective prayer amounts to is asking God to have brought something about at an earlier time.⁵ For example, say, I am reminded of my youth minister’s scheduled activities this past weekend. Not yet knowing how they turned out, I pray, asking God to have spoken to the audience through his message. Suppose God grants my request. The sequence would be as follows: God, foreknowing I would pray that, answered my prayer during the time of the event. So my prayer in the present didn’t cause God to produce an event in the past (which would be contradictory), but rather God produced an event in the past (which was then the present) because His foreknowledge of my prayer in the future. Divine foreknowledge, then, is the key to understanding retrospective prayer.

Also on this account we aren’t stuck with affirming the possibility of backward causation, where effects precede their causes, which I take to be impossible. For the truth of present-tense propositions may be based on God’s knowing the truth of future-tensed propositions (as would be the case in retrospective prayer). God doesn’t produce events in the past so that their effects occur prior to their cause. Rather, He produces events in the present which are the effect of future causes.

God’s promise in Isaiah 65:24 says “I will answer them before they even call to me. While they are still talking about their needs, I will go ahead and answer their prayers!” Notice that it says God will “go ahead” and answer prayer. Maybe this is hinting that God answers retrospective prayer by foreknowing the future rather than altering the past. Even though the context of this passage is set in the future, and hence hasn’t happened yet, it nonetheless implies that a retrospective prayer scenario is at least possible for God. Similarly, Daniel 9:20-21 emphasizes that while Daniel was still in prayer, God sent an answer.⁶

One thing that remains unclear to me, however, is that retrospective prayer does seem to necessarily involve ignorance on behalf of the person praying concerning the concrete outcome of the events about which they pray. For if I already knew the concrete outcome of the events about which I pray, the only thing left to pray about would be non-concrete things—things which aren’t disclosed by what we know has in fact happened—things always beyond our immediate knowledge (such as whether God has spoken through someone). When I possess knowledge of how past events have already occurred, I can’t pray for a different outcome. But that does not restrict me from praying about those things which are not disclosed by knowledge of concrete outcome. For example, suppose a woman receives a telephone call and is informed that her husband was involved in a serious car accident. That’s all she knows. Because she is ignorant about the concrete events which have already occurred (namely, whether or not he died), she can retrospectively pray for her husband’s safety. However, if during the telephone call she was informed of her husband’s death, she no longer has the option of praying for her husband’s safety. But she does still have the option of praying for non-concrete things. Suppose her husband wasn’t a Christian. She could still pray that he accepted Christ sometime before his death. Dummett also recognizes this, imagining the following scenario:

…suppose I hear on the radio that a ship has gone down in the Atlantic two hours previously, and that there were a few survivors: my son was on that ship, and I at once utter a prayer that he should have been among the survivors, that he should not have drowned; this is the most natural thing in the world. Still, there are things which it is very natural to say which make no sense; there are actions which can naturally be performed with intentions which could not be fulfilled.

Assuming that I am not asking for a miracle-asking that if my son has died, he should now be brought to life again-I do not have to be asking for a logical impossibility. I am not asking God that, even if my son has drowned, He should now make him not to have drowned; I am asking that, at the time of the disaster, He should then have made my son not to drown at that time. The former interpretation would indeed be required if the list of survivors had been read out over the radio, my son’s name had not been on it, and I had not envisaged the possibility of a mistake on the part of the news service: but in my ignorance of whether he was drowned or not, my prayer will bear another interpretation.⁷

By way of conclusion, it seems retrospective prayer can be coherently stated if God’s foreknowledge is brought into the picture. This doesn’t commit us to praying for logical contradictions, such as altering the past. But it does involve us having some sort of ignorance of the things about which we retrospectively pray (be it of the concrete events themselves or the unknown, undisclosed possibilities which accompany them). Retrospective prayer may even enjoy Biblical support. If not, however, nothing of theological significance is altered.
________________________________________________________

1. Of course this act is accompanied by the belief that God can respond in some efficacious way, should he choose.
2. For example, in his book The Only Wise God, (from which I am drawing the main insights expressed here), William Lane Craig recalls, “…working with Campus Crusade for Christ, recruiting students to attend Expo ’72, a conference aimed at training a hundred thousand Christians in personal evangelism. In advance of the conference we heard a speaker tell of how God had used the recruitment drive in the lives of the headquarters staff. As the date for Expo ’72 drew near, he explained, applications were alarmingly low. Finally, in desperation the leadership and staff came together one weekend for intensive prayer for the conference, which at that point looked as if it were going to be a failure. As they prayed together, they experienced a sort of spiritual revival in their own hearts. And on Monday morning applications began to pour in. The speaker was not dull to the implications. ‘Those applications had to have been sent by Thursday in order to reach us Monday morning,’ he explained. ‘Therefore, God, foreknowing that we were going to pray, had already answered in advance, so that the response to our prayers came immediately!’” See The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (1999, Wipf and Stock Publishers), p. 88.
3. A. J. Ayer, The Problem of Knowledge (1956, Macmillan), p. 189.
4. In the words of Oxford philosopher Michael A. E. Dummett, “…you cannot change the past; if a thing has happened, it has happened, and you cannot make it not to have happened. This is, I am told, the attitude of orthodox Jewish theologians to retrospective prayer. It is blasphemous to pray that something should have happened, for, although there are no limits to God’s power, He cannot do what is logically impossible; it is logically impossible to alter the past, so to utter a retrospective prayer is to mock God by asking Him to perform a logical impossibility.” See Dummett, “Bringing About the Past,” Philosophical Review 73 (1964): p. 341. Though as Craig points out, the inalterability of the past is only true if one assumes what he calls the “common sense view” of time; the A-theory. The Only Wise God, pp. 75-82.
5. This possibility is suggested by Dummett, “Bringing About the Past,” pp. 342-43. Of course this possibility is not open for those who do deny God’s foreknowledge.
6. Pointed out to me by Christian Penrod.
7. Dummett, “Bringing About the Past,” pp. 341-42

From Here:

I am not saved by believing— I simply realize I am saved by believing. And it is not repentance that saves me— repentance is only the sign that I realize what God has done through Christ Jesus. The danger here is putting the emphasis on the effect, instead of on the cause. Is it my obedience, consecration, and dedication that make me right with God? It is never that! I am made right with God because, prior to all of that, Christ died. When I turn to God and by belief accept what God reveals, the miraculous atonement by the Cross of Christ instantly places me into a right relationship with God. And as a result of the supernatural miracle of God’s grace I stand justified, not because I am sorry for my sin, or because I have repented, but because of what Jesus has done. The Spirit of God brings justification with a shattering, radiant light, and I know that I am saved, even though I don’t know how it was accomplished.

That sounds an awful lot like what Bell was being criticized for saying in my earlier post.