Outstanding post over at Bobvis:
Look at this well-known prayer by Reinhold NiebuhrGrant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
That is pretty much the secret. I learned it from the Hindus though. They stress the difference between outcomes and duty. The Gita-practicing Hindu attempts to live a life detached from outcomes. Attachment to outcomes (also known as desire) ultimately makes life miserable by making you look for happiness to be delivered to you by the benevolence of the outside world. Instead, Hindus attempt to focus on fulfilling their duties. Duties are performable actions. Outcomes are influenced by these actions, but they rarely are determined completely by actions.
I had no idea that Hindus were proto-Calvinists!
I did take issue with this:
I never pray for outcomes. I find it humorous that Hinduism (and Christianity) are replete with examples of people praying for outcomes and getting them and yet Hinduism advocates indifference to outcomes and Christianity advocates a trust in the outcomes G-d provides.
I responded in the comments:
Let's look at an example from the life of King David found in II Samuel 12:
15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."
19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked. "Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
My thoughts:
1. By the time David is praying for the life of his son, prayer was the only duty he had left with respect to his son's illness.
2. David's prayer for a specific outcome in this case represented a worshipful acknowledgement of God's sovereignty: God did, in fact, possess the power to save his son's life. Likewise, we who pray for specific outcomes should hold to this understanding. Yes, we should avoid the attitude that God is somehow a celestial gumball machine and our prayers its quarters; however, we must also avoid the attitude that our prayers are irrelevant.
3. David's response to the news of his son's death likewise recognized God's sovereignty.
1 comment:
prayer was the only duty he had left
That's a valid point, phi, but for whatever reason, I've decided to dispense with that duty. I feel like if there is a G-d, he knows my desires and will act accordingly. I don't see why my desires should be overweighted relative to other concerns, which for better or worse is how I view prayer.
I can respect someone who prays according to your "My thoughts" items.
Post a Comment