Formation for participraying

As I've been thinking about the difference between group processes for intercessory (rather than 'merely' petitionary) prayer meetings (see previous post if you've started on this one). It has been occuring to me that there are certain characteristics of behaviour and attitude that are needed by participants -this then is about Christian formation.

I've been aware too, as I wrote, that some of what I've been suggesting is quite like Quaker discernment practices -so that's a cross-reference point. I have long thought that part of the unspoken (!) underpinning for Quaker practice* is a set of internalised rules about conduct in a meeting. It is this sense of  the processes needing a good human habitus that I'm trying here to sketch out.

So, what is required, humanly speaking, for a group intercessory prayer process to work as well as it can?

Well, the things that most readily come to mind are as follows. They form a sort of core competency list which suggests some things that are necessary in initial Christian formation (discipling, baptism and confirmation preparation -probably). They are in no particular order. Though perhaps the first really is foremost.

Listening to God. As a gateway to this, I'd suggest a thorough grounding in lectio Divina or a robust version of the Quiet Time. It seems to me that the core of this discipline (I take they view that they are basically the same thing differently contextualised), is hearing the words of scripture with openness and sifting our own responses to note what in our own reactions may indicate God's Spirit drawing us to a particular word or phrase and being prepared to stay with that long enough to understand how and why it is settling with us.

Listening to others. This means not only hearing and understanding (which may in turn imply we ask some questions sometimes to improve our comprehension) but dwelling with what is said in such a way that we can suss out what it in resonates with us, unpick our own responses and so weigh up what is of God in it. It's rather different to listening for the next cue or gap where we can say our own piece. It requires patience and self-control (fruit of the Spirit). Asking clarificatory questions well will require gentleness and kindness (also fruit of the Spirit) in attitude to enable a genuine sharing and not trigger defensiveness or anxiety in our conversation partners.

Self awareness -related to the previous paragraph; being aware of our own responses and being familiar enough with our habits of response enables us to own our own 'stuff' and so refrain from projecting onto other humans or onto God.

Self examination. Being aware of our own motivations and being prepared to notice and take responsibility for our own reactions. This enables us to offer things to the group with less entanglement from the less worthy side of us. It won't go away except by us becoming aware and dealing with it appropriately. So we may want to set aside time to consider our participation and what drives it.

Becoming comfortable with silence. Much of what is written above requires us to be able to give attention to what our inner world is doing. This is likely to mean that we (and others) are quiet for periods of time to do so. We need to be okay with that for enough time to let things happen.

Loving challenge: kind and respectful speech. It is likely that from time to time, we find that we sense that something is mentioned or shared that for some reason seems 'off'. Obviously we need to examine ourselves to understand better why it may seem 'off' to us. However, if having done so we feel we should try to put things right or back on track, we will need to offer a corrective or at least a question. As we do so, we do well when we recognise that the person who shared has probably done so in good faith and may feel somewhat vulnerable having done so. Loving challenge recognises that and seeks to reassure that person that their effort is appreciated, that they are respected even while questioning what may have been shared. It may not always be explicitly said, depending on the level of trust and friendship in the group, but it should always be conveyed by the way that things are said and by choices of words that are not derogatory or shaming. We want people to feel that they can continue to be wrong sometimes without being derogated for it. Being wrong is a great way to learn how to be right more often. We'd want that encouragement for ourselves, so we should model it ourselves in relation to others. Having a meeting which is slow and thoughtful, will help in this since we are less likely to 'shoot from the hip' in such an atmosphere.

 There's a PS to this short series here.

Starred Note

*I'm not a Quaker but I have long been interested in their origins and sympathetic to their historical roots. I dissent from their standing aside from the dominical sacraments. I value their conviction that there is that of God in everyone -I'd elucidate: the Spirit is at work in all. And I value their experience in  developing ways to listen to the movements of the Spirit in individuals and collectively. I think that churches could and should learn from their discernment processes.

Participraying processes

Following up the previous blog post...  which I nearly delayed posting because I wondered whether to write more. Instead I've opted to write this further piece having now published the previous one. Very near the end of the prior post, I set the agenda for this post:

how do we change a typical prayer meeting from a collecting of concerns in prayer leading to a serial presenting of requests (more or less elaborated), to a sharing, naming, listening and discerning mode in which we begin also to share what we think God is responding and discerning those promptings and tentative suggestions we begin to sense?

 In some ways the answer is there; implicit in the list: sharing, naming, listening and discerning. I think that there also needs to be a further stage about how we then pray after significant discernments. I think that list probably names some tasks, but not necessarily a step-by-step process.

Sharing is fairly typical in the conventional prayer meeting. Either a leader or leaders suggests some matters of concern or the members of the group are able to say what they'd like prayer for. Typically, this involves giving a bit of background and then usually anyone in the group can then make a prayer of that, usually that happens once everyone has had a chance to share what they would like prayer for*. This might be still a part of a more intercessory meeting but there needs to be consideration for the amount of work involved in processing a suggestion for prayer. So a way to sift suggestions (what would be "requests" in a conventional petition presenting meeting) is probably going to be needed. In fact group intercessory prayer might be best to try to focus on one thing at a time. And there may be need to processes to help centre in on one. So there could be a time of discernment and various ways to capture a sense of what people are feeling drawn to pray about if there are several possibilities on the table. One could be to delegate to a leader or leaders, possibly before the meeting. They would then present the matter at hand, perhaps with some background and perhaps with initial thoughts about the character and ways of God which might give clues as to how to start reflecting and dialoguing with one another and God. In other cases a process of quiet reflection on what has been brought to the meeting for potentially deepening of prayer, and listening to ones heart individually with a means to then share what seems to be 'settling' with group members. All this takes time.

Naming is perhaps not a separate item, really -I think it is the outcome really of the previous process of identifying what is to be held and explored in prayer. But we should be aware of how the way that we describe and term things can be helpful or unhelpful in directing our attention and our thoughts. A good naming enables insight, a less good naming may distract or frame our thoughts misleadingly. It would be wise, I think, also to consider naming in relation to discerning (see below).

Listening is where the nub of things begins to be identified. What are we drawn to pray about? What do we think God's stake and agenda might be? It's a process of hearing one another as we try to listen to God and to make sense of the various things that seem to be implied or relate to the matter at hand. Listening to the situation and context: what is actually happening and what does it mean? What is at stake to whom? What do we not know? Listening to God alongside all of this: are there things in what we are sharing and learning that seem to us to draw us, lectio-divina-like; things that seem to carry a mark of God with them?

Discerning -this is about becoming aware and more sure of what it is that God is pressing upon us or inviting us into. I'm envisaging activities of sharing 'weighty'** intuitions and insights -prophecy, if you will. I'm envisaging these resting on core disciplines such as lectio divina which (it seems to me) is pretty much what lies at the heart of the classic evangelical Quiet Time practice. Same rose, different name. Same rose, different traditions' gardens.

In a group context this means both attending to our own sense of what God might be highlighting to us and also sharing that with the others and then applying the careful listening and weighing up discipline to what is shared. This might look a bit like contemplative dialogue: people offer something in a gentle tentative way -after all this is offering a thought or possible insight for discernment, this is not the time for 'Thus says the Lord" but rather "I think God may be drawing my attention to...". The rest of the group sit with it, holding it before God. This takes time in quietness. In time others respond -or even offer further thoughts or insights.

In my experience of contemplative dialogue (which is not necessarily oriented to particular issues or questions), people share things that sometimes don't seem especially connected to what has been shared just before. However, over time threads and themes emerge. There is a degree of 'trust the process' -or, as I would gloss it: "trust the Spirit in the process".

In broad terms, then, a process of group intercessory prayer might go like this.

The group, or leaders beforehand, considers what is to be prayed about. There is some exploration of what is involved. This exploration itself is contemplative, that is it involves listening, questioning, weighing, getting a feel for the issues in relation to God, there might be sharing of scripture, theological perspectives and all of this (and more) in a quiet way giving time for people to hear and to weigh up what they hear before sharing further. There should be room for people to express how they feel before God and one another (this could be direct address to God -but resisting the habit*** of turning that into a petitionary prayer).

In time themes and guidance emerges. The group take note of these and there is an iterative process of receiving, weighing and discerning. Each time also expressing to God how we feel with honesty -think Abram at Mamre, or Amos's cry that Israel is too small! Processing those feelings in prayer is as important as the more cognitive dimensions. This kind of emotional honesty is also quite hard to acquire in prayer. At least I have observed it to be so both in myself and in groups I have prayed with. There's a tendency to take a message from the normal habits of not expressing how we feel (despite the example of the psalms). Well, certain things we feel: it's okay to show or express mild emotions and the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements have made some enthusiastic emotions almost mandatory in some circles. However, lamenting, expressing anger etc ... we tend to (self-) censor. We anticipate and move to the next stage without really allowing ourselves to sit with the difficult emotions. 

Yet again, scripture does actually model this. I've just mentioned the psalms and we can read again Jonah's responses, or Jeremiah's, or many of the prophets' writings. There's Elijah's post-competition depression, Jesus's weeping. Sometimes these things are described as taking 'many days'. Many days to process the enormity and the impact on ourselves. Perhaps this indicates that intercessory prayer groups need to factor in that their meeting together is not the only thing they do. There is work (self-work and God-relating) to be done between meetings. Which also implies groups need to spend time catching themselves up with one another and events in between.

The culmination point of this sort of (iterative) process of discerning may well be a sense of what is to be asked of God because this is what God wants us to participate in by praying. And maybe not just praying petitions but more bodily prayer, acting in ways that align with the prayer that is emerging from all the discerning and travail of heart.

And, I would suppose, that there comes a point of rest too. A sabbath before the next intercessory engagement.

I'm looking back at what I've written here and thinking that the clear process I thought I had in mind, does not seem that clear after all. I think this is because it is iterative and organic and may vary according to the kind of group and leadership involved. I hope it is clear that at the heart of it is making time for people to listen inwardly to what the Spirit may be pressing upon them and to find ways to allow people to share in a way that invites further discernment. And in addition to be open to the revelation that affective knowing brings as well as cognitive.

Next post in this brief thread.

Footnotes

*There's a whole other consideration that could be undertaken about the dynamics this creates around people remembering properly, about the fear of disrespecting someone because their request is forgotten, about an unwritten rule that the person who requested prayer shouldn't be the one to make the prayer, not to mention that the whole thing seems to suggest that God doesn't hear the prayer until the group has explicitly said it to God rather than to each other. I've written about this elsewhere.

**"Weighty" here is trying to indicate the sense that it has something of God's weight behind it: it seems significant and godly, wise or insightful. It has greater heft than a merely human thought.

*** A habit born of the normal format of prayer meetings that most of us have been socialised into. I've observed how deeply engrained this 'liturgy' is -to arrest it may require leaders or the rest of the group finding care-ful ways to stop themselves and each other running on into it as the habit is laid aside.

Praying against death in climate chaos

 Richard Beck has recently written a series of blog post on intercessory prayer which express well where I've been coming to in terms of seeing prayer as part of creation -more precisely creatio continua and itself an act of participation in continuous/continuing creation. This is very close to my own thoughts about the structure of creation in relation to justice and peace and the place of corporisations. The third post in Beck's series also puts the helpful perspective ... well, see here:

We have to know that, in this life, praying against death will be an experience of failure. You need to know that before going in. And yet, we also need to know that this failure isn't terminal or final, that Christ has defeated death. Eschatologically, God has answered every petition for life and healing with a resounding "Yes!" Easter is God's answer to every petition against death. All prayers against death have been answered in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I find that very helpful and my mind next goes to praying for /in climate and environmental crises about the things that are going on that makes them crises.  Beck goes on to say that prayers this side of the Last Day are a mix of lament and hope. It seems to me that to attempt to pray in climate and ecological crises is to pray, in some way, against death. Only here we don't only think about the death of people but of species, ecosystems, ways of life, biomes, civilisation ... and perhaps the same insight applies.  In Christ it is 'Yes, yes' but not necessarily before Resurrection. We will fail in our prayers and our physical efforts (which are also, in their way, prayers) for mitigating climate chaos: people and species and biomes will die. But all in the end is harvest, our work in the Lord is not in vain. Somehow. How does that, will that, look in the now-and-not yet, before the End? 

The tension is that we will not bring about the fullness of God's reign, and yet what we do, what we pray, now will be answered 'yes'. And even if it is not yet and not now the act of praying is hope. The act of praying is an act towards discernment whether this petition is for the now or the not-yet End, and if the former, then how are we called to petition with words and/or with deeds.

Time to ditch ‘We pray for . . .’

I really read this article because I am having a bit of a bugbear at the moment about the use of the word 'pray' and 'prayer' in worship and, in fact, prayer meetings. I'm starting to find the ubiquity of it feels like overuse: I no longer know what I'm supposed to be doing when some says 'we pray for ....'  And this seems to be part of the concern of Geoffrey Wilkinson who wrote the referenced article in the Church Times. Towards the end of the article, the author suggests,

“We pray for” is not prayer. At best, it is an invitation to the gathered assembly to pray for a particular concern" 

And I think that this may touch on part of my frustration with the phrase. It does depend, though, on what else is said. I agree that if a bare 'We pray for xyz' is used with no other qualification or elucidation, then the best we can do is bring a brief frisson of concern before God. Perhaps more than brief if the prayer leader gives pause and has signalled it. But often we will hear 'We pray for xyz and pqr and efg ...' without much gap to engage inwardly. I think this is what Mr Wilkinson is concerned about, at root.

However, I'm not sure how fully I agree with other points in the article.

By using the phrase “We pray for”, the Intercessor ceases to be a mediator between the people of God and God, and becomes instead a prayer leader. The proper meaning of “intercession” is thereby immediately lost.

I'm really not that worried about the distinction being made there, personally. And if I did, I think I might just come down on the other side of the issue. You see, I'm not really sure that the CofE means 'intercessions' in this part of the service: I think that the word was used because it has a certain gravitas but that what was really meant -and what is meant in practice- is 'petitions', 'requests', 'concerns', 'desires' and if we were honest to what a lot of people do, 'hopes' and 'wishes'. I'm not sure that 'intercession', as I understand it, is actually really suitable for regular public worship. The 'standing in the gap' stuff which involves the hard work of emotional engagement, empathy, patience, identification with others and so forth is really not something the average Sunday congregation is equipped to do corporately and most would probably find the intensity of it hard to be part of.

And, in fact, I'm not really sure I want to conceive of my role when I lead 'intercessions' at communion -or would want others taking that role- as mediating "between the people of God and God". I think I'm trying for "expressing requests and concerns" as a kind of spokesperson-in-congregation. I actually think that the kind of role described at that point feels uncomfortably close to usurping the role of Christ. I think that intercession is more like standing between God and the situation/people concerned -and we do that as a response to a vocation and as part of our ministry (lay or ordained) and, crucially, it's something we do in Christ -we take a share of the mission of God in the ministry of Christ. This is not what those Sunday morning prayers are largely attempting. Though I think that there is room for a conversation about how we situate our corporate petitions in the mission of God and our apprehension of it.

I'm also not fully with the assumption behind one of the remedies offered in the final paragraph:

THERE are two main ways of extracting ourselves from the “We pray for” mire in which we now find ourselves. The most obvious is to address God throughout the prayers, without faltering.

My main quibble with this is the assumption that it is not what is being done. I agree that the literal grammar of the phrasing suggests that we are, in a sense, describing what we are doing. However, I do actually think that most people who say this actually conceive of the phrase performatively, that is in saying 'we pray...' they are actually doing what they describe and bringing the matter to God, they do not conceive of themselves as merely inviting others to 'think their own thoughts prayerfully'. I guess that I am taking issue with that first quote I repeated: for a number of people it actually *is* prayer and the words are performative in intention. Now you might, as I do, wonder whether we can't do better, but I don't think quibbling about grammar is the right way to go to address that.

So, I guess the question then devolves to what I think could be done, going forward.

The article I'm reacting to is found here: Time to ditch ‘We pray for . . . It is possible that it may be behind subscription /limited sign up barrier.

I'm thinking that we actually need to encourage people to think more about what could be meant we the/we say 'we pray...'. One way to get a sense of that would be to ban using the phrases 'we pray...' or the word 'prayer' in our corporate petitions. This would make clear that what is often going on is a truncation of petitionary activity; we are coming to think that the word 'pray' is sufficient to say something. But what something?

So, take a phrase like "We pray for our government." Now, sometimes that may be followed up with some concerns which would be actual prayers in Wilkinson's terms: things like 'that they might have wisdom in their deliberations" for example. And if we followed up the ban on 'pray' we might just come up with an alternative like, "We ask for our government to have wisdom ..." or "We request you to send your Holy Spirit to work through the deliberations ..." The use of words like 'request' or 'ask' more strongly require a transitive construction than 'pray' now seems so. I suspect that once upon a time, when 'pray' was only just taking over from 'bede' or 'bid', it would have been nigh on impossible to say 'we pray for the queen.' Full stop. Without feeling it necessary to complete the sentence which was so obviously felt to be unfinished.

To refuse to use 'pray' might also encourage or even force us to consider what we are doing in terms of specifically asking for something or mainly giving expression to our concern. Those are not opposed matters; the latter can run into the former. Our concerns should be expressed before God: 'We are worried about ...'; "We fear for ...."; "We hold N in high regard"; "We hope ....". With those latter examples, we start to shade into naming our requests.

But there is one other component needed in leading public petitioning of God. That is the 'according to your will' or 'in the name of Jesus' dimension. This involves making requests that we truly believe are part of what God desires and is working for by the Spirit. This is no light or mean thing. In many, perhaps most cases, therefore, we will want to be restrained and perhaps a little imprecise. Perhaps we will want only to name our concern and encourage ourselves to hold it before God with a degree of unknowing about what the right thing to ask for us, seeking God's further wisdom and enlightenment. Perhaps sometimes that is what we need to say in public rather than being quite so bold before we understand better what we might be asking and best to ask.

Perhaps we should give up 'praying' for Lent! -Instead let's be 'asking', 'requesting', 'petitioning', even 'imploring' or just 'bringing our concern'. In taking up the challenge to 'say what we mean', we might just also discover that we say less and enquire more: that we learn more fully to 'wait on the Lord'.

Hearing God in Conversation: How to Recognize His Voice Everywhere: Samuel C. Williamson

I am reviewing this book having had a free e-copy for the purposes of review but my review is not obliged to be favourable because of that.

So what do I make of this book? I was drawn to it because I think that for many people I deal with, hearing and listening to God is important, So I was looking for a potential resource to recommend on to them. Personally, as well, I'm interested in how we discern and know God speaking to us. I have to say that this book is fit for those purposes. It comes from what I think of as a classic evangelical background (classic is not code here for militantly conservative but rather rooted in the kind of piety which has a generosity to it and an affectionate approach to God). So, I recognised the classic quie time disciplines of attention-giving to God in and with scripture and the in-life expectation of reflection, and ongoing conversation with God. So in many ways this is a clear and gently encouraging restatement of what used to be considered normal evangelical spiritual practice. What is interesting, of course, is that the author writes this because he perceives that so many in supposedly evangelical churches do not know this stuff and have even been warned off it by a particular kind of biblicism which is scared of iner spiritual experience. This book does a great job of normalising in a low key way the expectation that God does address us personally.

Thire are stories of hearing God to illustrate the points being made. Many of them are the author's own experience and are helpful for  their honesty and power to enable the reader to grasp how it might look in their own experience.

Hearing God is anchored, for this writer, in the discipline of reading scripure ruminatively with the expectation of finding in it things that inwardly resonate and which may then be reflected on and kept company with to disclose to us something of God's communication with us. He also shows how this process can be followed in everyday life, with the biblically-based and learnt basis forming a kind of training ground and filter.

I'd commend this book to people wanting to connect or reconnect with classic evaneglical discisplines of quiet time and converse with God. In this book we get to see how scripture memorisation might make sense as part of a living relationship with God rather than a way of arguing with people. In this book we see the Bible as a devotional tool rather than a textbook or apologetic tool. I think it would also, potentially, be enjoyed by Christians with a Catholic background as it is, in more catholic terms, an exposition of Lectio Divina.

One thing that I think deserves more consideration, though, is the way that Scripture is conceived of to be functioning in the devotional life of a believer. The writer is clearly keen that people are not misled by mistaking inner voices for the voice of God (there is no sure-fire method except learning by experinec and reflection to distinguish the various voices, some are obvious, others are not). A big part of the remedy for this is seen to be testing the voices/feelings by scripture. So far, so evangelical and clearly a reassurance to the traditional evangelical presumptive readership. However, there is a lacuna, a missing piece in relation to this in the book. The author, discussing hearing God through Scripture, points out that it is possible to mistake things. In other words, just because it is in Scritpture dosen't mean that whatever you 'pick up' is of God; we need to triangulate (my phrase, not his) with the rest of Scritpture, but also our reason and to take advice from the wider Christian communtiy through space and time (again my expression). So, the point here is that the same difficulty also applies to listening for God in Scripture as in oher areas of life.This may not satisfy some hard-line biblicists but it is true to human experience and the nature of creation and Christian Scripture. Implicitly we are invited to enter into a life-long learning to discern the Spirit's leading. An anchor point for this is Scripture, but it is not something that can be read text-book-wise or oracularly but a place to learn to hear but with its own potential pitfalls.
This is a good book to think about psycho-spirituality and to recover a wise and gentle Evangelicalism rooted in a warm God-centred piety rather than finger-pointing alledeged doctrinal rectitude.

Hearing God in Conversation: How to Recognize His Voice Everywhere: Samuel C. Williamson: 9780825444241: Amazon.com: Books

Sacramental Politics: Religious Worship as Political Action

This is a book that reads like a PhD thesis which has been slightly redacted for more public consumption. As such, it is not a book that many will find easy going: it has a lot of detail; it is extensively end-noted; there is a good amount of presentation of texts and commentary on them. The texts, in this case, are mostly transcripts or the written basis of spoken prayers or of speeches.

I was disappointed that the pdf copy I have had not been properly prepped for reading in this way: the footnotes were not hyperlinked between the main text and the footnote. I hope that this might be fixed in any other e-versions that might be released.

I have to say that one of the effects on me of reading this book was that I became more deeply concerned and at times scared by what I was reading. That may sound a bit dramatic and it would do so particularly to many readers who might be from the USA. And there is a degree of irony in that since we are considering a nation in which the separation of Church and state is highly valued constitutionally enshrined. And yet, this book seems to show that this separation seems to be less in some respects than in Britain where we have, in theory, an established church. My fear at reading the research in this book is for the way that USAmerican influence might be prodded and pushed along by a form of religion which is not good for the global community (let alone for its host nation).

The form of religion which I saw as I read the research presented in this book is one in which the global dominance of the USA is pretty much equated with the will of God. It reminded me so much of how Victorian England seems to have viewed itself (and now we are beginning to understand the history better we can see more readily how much Godly values were betrayed by that empire). I don't think I'd truly grasped the depth of popular USAmerican exceptionalism until I read the way that public prayers in The USA assume and promote that the Kingdom of God is pretty much co-terminous with USAmerican interests. Of course, there is, for many on the political right there, a contradiction -given the vehemence with which liberal values are attacked as ungodly- when a Democratic regime is in power. This contradiction, is in practice resorved by the fact that in foreign policy terms, a Democratic regime is scarcely any different. Just as in the British Empire, it seemed to make little difference whether Whigs or Tories were running the government: military power continued to be used worldwide to asset-strip and terrorise colonies and trading 'partners'.

This poisonous mix of religion (and not just formally Christian, either) and chauvinism is seen expressed and assumed in prayers and rhetoric. And for the rest of us it is deeply scary and gives no real sense of benevolence to the rest of the world; so we have to live with edgy appeasement or fearful opposition. here is Empire and the Constantinian settlement is alive and well. The problem is, we are the barbarians in this way of looking at the world.

There is some let up from the mostly disturbing and grim picture revealed. Some of the confluence of prayer and politics shows those with concern for the marginalised, poor and for respite from violence and militarism enacting their prayers also into public space. But, of course, that happens to fit my own understanding of Godly values. I keep hearing in my mind's ear one of Cromwell's better insights expressed thus: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, to think that you could be wrong". This exposes the biggest problem of all in so much of what the research shows up: the lack of humility to consider that we may have insights and something of the mind of Christ to learn from those we consider or have presented to us as 'enemies'.

I kept longing for the prayers to show some recognition that the prayists might have misunderstood God's will or that some insight into God's purposes might be gleaned from people who take a different view and therefore to pursue some kind of consensus building approaches. Instead so many of the prayers were, in effect, a presentation before God of the dialogue of the close-minded.

Of course, God is not the only audience and on page 46 (electronically. p.35 otherwise) a helpful reminder is given:

"all public prayer contains an important difference from that of private prayer: the addition of a public audience. Even in the case of someone praying/speaking in tongues (that is, speaking in sounds not understandable by the speaker or even other people present), such rhetoric cannot be considered as only for the divine"

I think that this is an important thing to remember and is a matter I am currently reflecting on as I write Hacking the Prayer Meeting (if that's what it ends up being called): noting that we have to pay attention to the social effects and reception of acts of praying within and beyond a prayer meeting. Sacramental Politics is doing us a service by reminding us that such a reception has, necessarily, political effects and even Political heft.

Quibbles

On p.21, we're informed: 'For faithful Catholics, transubstantiation does not occur gradually or as a process; rather, it occurs instantaneously when the priest utters the “Words of Initiation.”' Of course, there's a typo there or a lapse of the keyboard: these are the words of "Institution".

Then, next sentence, we're also told 'The priest speaks into existencethe transformation by saying “this is my body” (for the bread) and “this is ...my blood” for the wine. Without these words spoken, transubstantiation does not occur.' There are two problems with this, and I have chatted with Roman Catholic priests who confirm the points I'm about to make. First, we should be aware that transubstantiation isn't a dogma in the RC doctrinal framework, merely one way to express and defend the assertion of the Real Presence. The other point is that in official RC theology, the words of institution do not constitute transubstantiation or make the Presence of Christ real. The reason for this is that there is an eastern rite church in communion with the Bishop of Rome which has a Eucharistic prayer in which there is no narrative or words of institution. This church's prayer is considered to be Catholic by the Roman Church. But this really is only a quibble in this context, since the main point is unaffected by it.


Link-Love: 
Brian Kaylor's website
Brian on Twitter
Brian on Facebook
Brian- Linkedin
Sacramental Politics - Amazon

#SpeakeasySacramentalPolitics
I should point out that I received an electronic copy of this book via Speakeasy in return for agreeing to post a review within 30 days. The review need not be favourable.

Sacramental Politics: Religious Worship as Political Action (Frontiers in Political Communication): Amazon.co.uk: Brian Kaylor: 9781433126154: Books

Relating Christian disciplines to research on meditation

A year or so back, I flagged up briefly the possiblitiy that we could relate results of research into meditation with Christian spiritual disciplines (see Research on Meditation: -changes in brain's emotional processing: for my original posting).

my question is whether (as I suspect) practising prayer related to these meditative practices. For example, how about looking into the effects of self-examination and confession? I'm pretty sure that these have made a difference to my neural 'wiring' over the years in ways that might well show up in the amygdala. Or what about intercessory prayer related to matters of compassion? Come to that what about lectio divina /traditional evangelical Quiet Time?

I'm feeling that I'd like to spin that out a bit more. Obviously, the research has tended to accumulate around something that has caught the imagination -meditation. But my intuition -related to my experience- is that Christian disciplines can do the same sort of things albeit sometimes starting in a different place. I would say that since it's all dealing with human psychology and physiology, we would expect to find similarities and the use of common human capacities albeit accessed in different ways or for diferent (to varying degrees) purposes. This also means that there can be cross-overs, borrowings and adaptations between different spiritualities which would in effect be reframings.

So, what of the ways that we might see Christian disciplines producing similar 'goods' to those being investigated through meditation? The synopsis of research can be found here.
In that synopsis we note words like 'continued practice' and 'develop psychological distance'. We also note 'increase empathy' and 'eliminate attachments ... and aversions' and 'skill set for reducing biases'.

The key definitions of the disciplines being studied are these:

mindful attention meditation -- the most commonly studied form that focuses on developing attention and awareness of breathing, thoughts and emotions -- and compassion meditation, a less-studied form that includes methods designed to develop loving kindness and compassion for oneself and for others.

And I see three things there: one is developing (training) attention through sensory focus; another is awareness of thoughts and emotions; the third is strengthening empathic identification.

I'm inclined to take those in reverse order.
First strengthening empathic identification. This is important because in empathy we find motivation to help, to expend effort for others' good. We should notice, in passing, that empathy need not be a good thing: we can develop empathy with those engaged in cruelty or lustful acts, for example, where such empathy draws us into evil. However, we are focussing on the capacity for empathy to enable us to understand the hurts, hopes and fears of others and drive us to make things better. Now it seems to me that this is what we're being invited into where Jesus calls us to love neighbours as ourselves or to do to others as we'd have them do to us. Compassion meditation as I've experienced it gets us to start with ourselves and those emotionally close to us, to feel our bonds of compassion, love and benevolence towards them and to bring others imaginatively into the compass of our feeling -or perhaps to expand the compass of our feeling out to wider bounds.

Loving others as we love ourselves is inviting a similar exercise: to become aware of our desire and drive to work for our own well-being and to extend that to others. For Christians this exercise tends not to be a set-piece meditation so much as an ad hoc reflection. In a situation we become aware that other-love is required and we reflect on how we might recognise love being shown if we were in the other's position. This kind of imagination is bolstered by the disciplines of scriptural reflection where passages encourage us to consider what neighbour-love might be and by petitionary and intercessory prayer where we consider what might be for the good of others and begin to desire it for them. It can happen in reverse, so to speak, when we reflect on what we may ourselves need, we can become aware of others who have similar needs. All of these I have experienced and the disciplines of reading scripture -especially the gospels- and praying have helped cultivate, it seems to me, a growing tendency and ability to empathise as more and more connections are made between the imperatives of scripture and the awareness of human life and my own needs for nurturance and compassion.

Secondly awareness of thoughts and emotions. My thoughts go to confession of sin and the self-reflection that is require if it is taken seriously as part of cultivating a lifestyle of repentance. Whether one confesses sin in the hearing of another person or simply to God, to do it properly one has to unpick what it is that is being recognised as sin, and what it is that is simply circumstances or unblameworthy; what belongs to others or simply the tide of events. It is also necessary to consider it in the frame of what is required to prevent it happening again. All of those considerations mean looking honestly at what took place and discerning our motivations, perceptions and reflexes and with that discernment to ask and accept forgiveness then moving on to consideration of how to use our self-understanding to approach (or even avoid) such occasions in the future. The more we do this (and Christian spiritual traditions all promote various patterns and aids for self-examination) the more we become aware of how our minds are working in the flow of life: the reflection begins to inform our self-awareness 'live'.

Thirdly we consider training attention. I think that this is less emphasised in Christian disciplines as something in itself. However, it does show up a propos of other things. For example, I suspect that the discipline of memorising scripture may actually do this as might also things in the Catholic tradition like adoration of the blessed sacrament. Lectio Divina or a traditional Evangelical 'quiet time' may also fit the bill in that they require giving attention to the passages concerned.

Noting that research indicates that both meditation and participation in religious community seem to confer health benefits, it may be worth considering that some of those benefits may devolve from the spiritual disciplines benig faithfully practised. of course, we should beware of practising them in order to live longer, be happier or healthier. It seems that the benefits come obllquely and not as some kind of gym membership: they have to be pursued sincerely for spiritual growth or it seems that the health benefits don't tend to appear. Nonetheless, it is good to know that in pursuing the things of God, 'all these things' may be added to us as well.
The article at the bottom of this is here.
It actually helps by defining the forms of meditation (emphases mine):

Three main meditative techniques are taught: mindfulness of breathing (i.e., cultivating awareness of one's breathing), mindfulness of mental events (i.e., cultivating awareness of the contents of one's mind, such as thoughts, emotions, etc.), and awareness of awareness (in which awareness itself becomes the focus of meditation). In contrast to mindful-attention practices aimed at improving attentional skills, compassion meditation is a distinct form of contemplative practice aimed at cultivating higher levels of compassion.

We really should keep journals

At the moment I'm working on a couple of projects at work involving putting together learning materials for people to help them to be better resourced at work. In one of them, I'm proposing to encourage participants to practice, at least from time to time, journalling and other self-reflective disciplines. Some of it is emboldened by knowing that research in psychology etc seems to show that they help well-being in various ways. For me the sweet-spot is that they are also involved in spiritual disciplines helping us to relate positively to God. 
I'm amused/bemused by this bit:

... you shouldn't view journalling as an attempt to formulate solutions to your problems; the real benefit comes from the third-person perspective that's attained when you externalise your thoughts. It's interesting to speculate whether the effect may be similar to that of meditation: not changing your thoughts and feelings so much as changing your relationship to them – so that you no longer take them to be an unquestionable, intractable, non-negotiable reality. Why you really should keep a journal, no matter how cheesy that sounds

The reason is not because of the starting advice: I think it's vital that we find ways not to approach problem-solving directly at times. No, I'm convinced that finding the third-person reframing is vital and is part of cultivating a proper obliquity. The reason for my a/bemusement is that it seems that prayer is clearly going to perform this function (obliquely to relating to God, naturally). I guess that it's the relatively large amount of research on mindfulness meditation that pushes the mention of meditation to the fore, but really the way that this is being explained does seem to indicate that prayer can function in this way. In fact, I think it is time to look more carefully at the 'fashionable' mindfulness/meditation research and consider how the various aspects uncovered are represented in Christian spiriutal practice. I do this in an earlier blog post albeit in a very outliney sort of way which references an article which actually prefigures some of the Guardian article's references.

I'm also interested to note that the advice is to not do it daily but less frequently. That'll go well with some of the people I'm wanting to work with on this. Check out this article for a bit more thinking and advice on the topic.

Answering the Contemplative Call -a review

The subtitle of this book is "First steps on the Mystical Path". And that's about where it is pitched -so; does what it says on the tin. In the bumph I got through about it, it was also described as "Open-source mysticism. For everyone". Which is certainly intriguing to someone like me who is with the program on open-source! I think that this latter description is reaching for the sense that the book seems to be trying, in a way, to demystify mysticism. Which I like. And certainly there's been a lot of enjoyment by some of the cachet of the mystical, so it's good to 'open-source' it.

It's very easy to read this book. The chapters are a good length: not too long but long enough for some good stuff to be passed on. The style is accessible; some story, some helpful explanation. I'd be very confident in this book to put it into the hands of someone just starting to look at the Christian traditions of mystical prayer. It gives some basic perspectives in a helpful way and offers a way in to some of the most helpful writings. It also gives really helpful  explanations of some of the more enduring ideas and approaches that have shown up in the history of Christian mystical traditions. There's even some mind-blowing philosophical theology wrapped up in an accessible way. The style is sane with some gentle humour and a pastoral concern for healthy habits and proper support and self-care shines through.

So all in all, if it is possible to have open-source mysticism, this book is probably as good an introduction as we'll get.

For me one of the personal 'likes' is that the discussion about God's 'existence' (and the problems with attributing existence to God as if God were on a par with created things) helped me to make a connection with the ontological argument which I'd never really found plausible before. So not only does it give good, sensible, down-to-earth wholesome and intriguing but it's not lightweight; there's food for thought on several levels. Worth getting, worth giving to people beginning to explore prayer and spirituality more deeply.

  Answering The Contemplative Call: First Steps on the Mystical Path

A still big voice in the noise

Last week, in the Church Times'; Prayer for the week: There was an interesting prayer for those who don't do quiet well. It is by Martin Wroe.

They say you're available
on certain conditions. Quiet ones.
That if I can find an air of
 tranquillity
It carries that still small voice.
But I don't do quiet, stillness.
I am not tranquil except when
I am asleep
And then I am not available
As far as I know.
So, what's the chance of a still
big voice in the noise,
Of hearing you in the roaring
traffic, ...

Meryl Doney's comments on the prayer are, to my mind, pretty fair enough. However, there was a response in the letters this week from Mrs Viven Moores
Sir, - Meryl Doney chooses a "prayer for those who don't do silence" (Prayer for the Week, 4 January). Of course God can speak to us anywhere, but why should he have to shout?

Now perhaps I missed something about this, but I must admit I felt that it was avoiding the challenge. So I wrote back (though I doubt it'll be published).

I had taken Meryl Doney's "prayer for those who don't do silence" as something quite positive. As a Myers-Briggs (MBTI) extrovert (E), I came to realise that much spirituality teaching has tended to be by introverts for introverts. So I'd like to respond to Viven Moores' comment "God can speak to us anywhere, but why should he have to shout?" It's not a matter of God shouting: it's a matter of how we process information.

For introverts (in the MBTI 'I' sense), being quiet and processing internally is important. And I have, over years of spiritual practice, learnt to appreciate the value of silence and solitude -but it's not my native spiritual language. If Deity is everywhere, God doesn't need to wait for us to be quiet before speaking to us -we might need rather to learn to tune into God's disclosure in the everyday and to be helped in our discernment by being in conversation with others. Not all activity and noise is necessarily distraction.

Given that it is likely that the majority of the national population are MBTI E's, we church people surely need to be able to offer spiritual formation in the native language of E's as well as I's.

Research on Meditation: -changes in brain's emotional processing

Reading the synopsis of this research
Meditation appears to produce enduring changes in emotional processing in the brain: had me asking questions about prayer. First a bit of result.

In the mindful attention group, the after-training brain scans showed a decrease in activation in the right amygdala in response to all images, supporting the hypothesis that meditation can improve emotional stability and response to stress. In the compassion meditation group, right amygdala activity also decreased in response to positive or neutral images. But among those who reported practicing compassion meditation most frequently outside of the training sessions, right amygdala activity tended to increase in response to negative images -- all of which depicted some form of human suffering.

This would play well with what I think is a Christian noetic principle: what we fill our minds and hearts with changes our attitudes, behaviours and character in turn. So my question is whether (as I suspect) practising prayer related to these meditative practices. For example, how about looking into the effects of self-examination and confession? I'm pretty sure that these have made a difference to my neural 'wiring' over the years in ways that might well show up in the amygdala. Or what about intercessory prayer related to matters of compassion? Come to that what about lectio divina /traditional evangelical Quiet Time?

It's useful in considering this to look at this synopsis of research.

"Through continued practice, the person can develop a psychological distance from any negative thoughts and can inhibit natural impulses that constantly fuel bad habits," ... continued practice can also increase empathy and eliminate our attachments to things we like and aversions to things we don't like. "The result of practice is a new You with a new multidimensional skill set for reducing biases in one's internal and external experience and sustaining a healthy mind,"

This is a set of interprentations of research which puts together a set of plausible mechanisms for what is happening to produce healthy thought processes. In doing so it helps to begin to see how other kinds of religious practice might also contribute -as clearly they do.

Praying against famine

It bears thinking about that Britain is not self-sufficient in food production and yet we don't have famine. This issue should start to figure in our heads as we deepen our praying for east Africa.Abbey Nous: East African famine: preventable and prayable: "when we pray 'give us ...' we are praying inclusively in principle: if our food can come (as it does) from the furthest parts of the world from where we live, then we cannot shrug our shoulders and say that this is nothing to do with us. If our money can call forth food and drink from Australia and New Zealand (those of us in Western Europe, that would be, Perhaps South Africa or central Asia for those in America) then we realise that we are contemplating a problem with the way that food is produced and distributed. That is a political, economic and humanitarian matter."
So we pray, but if we are serious we pray for fairer economic conditions and systems, for greater justice, for the will on the part of (we who are among) those who have the means and the clout to change systems that overwhelmingly favour them/us. God normally supplies via the systems we co-create, God calls us to co-create with God and with the poor. I tend to think that God, when we pray for help to famine-struck areas might well be saying in response something like, "Yes, but organise it better for the long term; challenge greed and injustice; remember what you can do when you put your minds to it ..."

Praying amidst daily life

Another thing I am researching is resources for people to use to pray while at their desks -prayer breaks, so to speak. These come in various types: meditation; intercession; offices (that is forms of set-liturgical prayer like morning or evening prayer). Below is what I found today. I have an impression that I have seen others, but my bookmarks show no others and search engines show few others that I'd trust. What I've got less of is bible-devotional sites and, of course at this time, other faith traditions. I would rely on you, dear Reader, to advise me or at least make further suggestions. I'm hoping to produce an 'Amidst the Day Prayer' page myself in due course which would use the structure of the Lord's prayer as it's framing principle and having Northumbria University people as its target users in the first instance.

Meditational prayer sites.
Re:Jesus have a daily prayer site which is more reflective or meditational in feel and will often have things to do as part of their suggested journey of prayer. It also is time-aware, so adjusts to the time of day.

Quiet Space (which seems to be based in Australia) has an 'exercises' approach to a reflective time in front of your monitor based on an examen pattern. .  Supported by lots of white space and 'calm' graphics to give a sense of 'space'. They also have a useful gospel reflection page which has sound files.

In the same spirit the Irish Jesuits have Sacred Space, with a similar ethos and approach; this has been quite a popular site and probably inspired most of the others we find of a similar ilk. Their visual presence is even simpler and the use of fade between items is quite calming in effect too. One nice feature is that the scripture passage has an option with it to get a few more thoughts to help reflect on it, or you can simply move on when you are ready.

Also in a similar vein but with a title that may inspire others is 3-Minute Retreat which does what it says. It has a sound track for the meditation of quiet guitar playing -which may be important to know if you're doing it at your desk at work!

Explore Faith has some interesting options for meditative prayer: through visual art; music; poetry; reading.

Intercession or petitionary sites.
Re:Jesus also have a virtual candle-lighting stand where you can manipulate graphic candles and write a prayer for someone (and even post an email to let them know you've done so if you wish) and the candle will burn down virtually over time. By touching the candles on the stand you can read the petitions of others and pray for them you can click the candle and in so doing add an 'Amen' and these are totted up so you can know for any prayer how many people have 'amened' it.

The commendable 24-7 Prayer network have an online prayer wall which invites you both to leave a request and to pray for one someone else has left. I quite like, too, their invitation to join them in dropping everything at 12nn to pray the Lord's prayer. Not least because this imitates a Christian practice going back to the early church.

Office-prayer.
The Church of England has pages for morning and evening prayer which have all the readings and Psalmody for the day collected together along with the prayers that go with that day -so no fiddling around with lectionary and collects; it's all there, ready to go.

Recently-formed the Order of the Black Sheep has a daily prayer feed which includes video embeddings of songs (with a tendency towards metal style, as that represents their cultural context) as part of the liturgy.

A traditional Breviary approach which is adjusted for the day offering a menu for the various times of the day and Roman Catholic reflections and sanctorale is at the Universalis site. The site gives guidance on how to produce your own monthly e-breviary from the resources on the site. Similarly the Mission of St Clare has an online office which gives you the control of moving through the sections with a menu of the elements on the left hand of the page. At the Explore Faith site you can choose your time zone and be presented with the office that most closely fits your time of day. These are very simple and short with a lot of scripture in them.

Anglicans Online gives a set of links to various options for daily office-style praying: one of these is the much-used and loved Celebrating Common Prayer (modelled after the Franciscan office) which has links for the various days. What it doesn't do is intergrate the readings so you have to make separate arrangements for that side of things. The online Breviary linked to from here is another version of the CofE's Daily Prayer but on a simpler page format.

I like this site because it links to a simple aural office based on the NZ prayer book. This is great if you don't want to read or find it challenging but would like to hear the prayers and readings. The reader is not heavily-accented NZ.

A basic Divine Office with readings inserted can be found here, it's Catholic in feel and offers all the hours.

There's a page on the Taize site with  basic liturgy but it's not a fully integrated multimedia thing though elsewhere on the site are resources for learning the music.

The Northumbria Community office is available online and with some helpful advice on how to pray it. It has links to open the readings in new windows when you get to them. My main beef with it is that it doesn't do seasonal variations and what they call a canticle isn't; it's a prayer.

Labyrinthine wondering

Yes I know the title might look as if it should be "wandering" but -see what I'm doing here?- it's a near pun because I'm trying to collect together a bunch of what seem to be useful links about this. Y'see, I'm currently in discussions with our counselling service to put on a couple of days events on 'mindfulness' and the labyrinth has been accepted as something we should do as part of that. The thinking is that mindfulness meditation has developed a body of research-based affirmation as something that can help mental health. It was mentioned that Edinburgh University has a permanent labyrinth which I must go to see, it raises intriguing possibilities, of course ...

So, one of my resulting tasks (self-offered) was to research some resources that we could put into the hands of students and staff of the university. This in turn means that I need to be able to select a good set of websites which have something for (nearly) everyone as our equality and diversity approach means that such resources need to be accessible as widely as possible and reasonable.

So, what have I been finding?

One page "The Labyrinth" takes a more general view, perhaps with a New Agey feel where there is something of a personal development focus and edge though some of the pages seem more Christian. It's part of a bigger site called 'Lessons4living' which is something of a clue about that. It has a number of links to further pages giving succinct information in each case. One helpful page -for the purposes of my research here- is on building a labyrinth. One of the things it mentions is having people work together to build one as the culmination of a labyrinth workshop. There is a further link to constructing a labyrinth here if you can put aside the 'mantic'/shamanic approach informing the general site (for me the main thing to take away was the need for 8 or 9 metres of space). For the context I'm thinking of using it, it was intriguing to find a page on using it with youth, "As a part of their training they were to walk a seven-circuit labyrinth and to reflect on the meaning of the labyrinth as a symbol for life's journey. In small discussion groups they listed their insights and then shared them with the larger group. " and it lists some of the things that came out of those discussion groups, for example:

Life is a journey in which every day doesn't necessarily bring you closer--sometimes you're closer to your goal than others, sometimes you're further away, but ultimately you'll get to where you want to go if you stay focused.

Beginning, middle (center) and end are connected with the same thing (God or whatever it means to you).

Sometimes it seemed like you were in the same place you had been, but you weren't. (Life doesn't end once you reach the focus or center.)

On the path, you pass people who have been where you are, other times you have been where others have been, but you're never at the exact same place at the same time.

Many twists and turns around rocky journey of life.

There seems to be some validity in keeping in mind a certain cross-cultural and spiritual poly-valency of the symbol/practice; "from Northern Europe to India a common pattern appears: the labyrinth is a symbol of a distant, more or less mythological, city, destroyed in the past. Although the identity of the city symbolized by the labyrinth varies, it is never a nearby or contemporary city" (from here). This would fit with the medieval Christian usage as a kind of substitute for actual pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

In terms of some Christians (normally EPCs) there can be mistrust of the use of labyrinths. This is well and succinctly articulated on this CANA site. The articulation is to be commended because it is reasonable and simple and boils the problem down to basics. Nevertheless, I think that there are responses that could be made and I hope to do so in due course (if I don't find another site that does so -and this one hyperlinked, is quite nice in terms of a theological reflection and even comes up with a very intriguing take on the Garden of Eden story in the light of Ouroboros myths). The tenor of this article contrasts somewhat with this one which  from a Christian PoV questions the craze for labyrinths but does so by the dubious tactic of choosing a position which doesn't necessarily seek to engage with the concerns the writer's audience are supposed to have and to dismiss the whole thing by disposing of those positions. This, of course, misses the possibility that there may be legitimate reasons for using the 'tool' in terms that might be acceptable to at least some EPC Christians. The tactic is like dismissing Christianity because of unbecoming behaviour of a few people in a prayer meeting (cf the Toronto Blessing). Admittedly it doesn't help that some of the protagonists of labyrinth walking within the church are a bit 'eccentric' theologically, but the solution to misuse is not abuse ... Perhaps part of the response to these detractors is to read a good attempt to appropriate the practice in a reasonably orthodox Christian way, like here.

It's intriguing to find that Islam doesn't have much on Labyrinths, but there is something -though latent, as the article says.

Here is one example of a Jewish use of labyrinth which seems to illustrate the idea that this is a tool whose metaphors are usable by a number of religious (and indeed non-religious) traditions. I found intriguing the idea that the Jewish history with labyrinths is more verbal than actual; more info here.

As for Sanatarma dharma, well, there's some intriguing info here and there is some evidence for links with Buddhism too.

There's a fairly well-known thoroughly Christianised version produced originally by Jonny Baker and friends. The site has a diagram of how to make it (it is useful if you want stations and a separate exit and entrance, the only downside is that it is so square and blocky. a curvier alternative would be good).

There is also an online labyrinth, as in a virtual walk, on the re:jesus site. This uses the YFC format and so the main content is essentially a version of the prayer stations that feature in that site. Pretty much the same thing on the Labyrinth site by Jonny Baker and friends.

Praying 'vertically' and 'laterally'

I've been meaning to flag this up and mention a few things about it for a couple of weeks now. The interest for me is in the fact that it is dealing with something I've been writing on and off for a handful of years now. The working title is 'Unholy Praying' and the aim is to write up, give rationale for and reflect a bit on a series of group prayer experiments in prayerful conversation which doesn't go all holy on us. It comes out of noting that we talk the talk of taking our 'religion' into the secular, but actually just end up creating mini bits of 'sacred' within the secular rather than truly bringing the two together; and our praying together -'just talking to God'- is no exception: we have a whole set of unwritten rules (which may vary from group to group) -a set of conversational pragmatics, if you will- which have to be learnt and which would mark out a bunch of prayists in a secular setting as doing something a bit wierd.

So I'm right with Kester in asking further questions about what is actually going on, beyond our theo-ideological justifications for 'group prayer' and its typical formats and conventions. One thing he notes: "praying aloud in a group functions to give permission to words that would otherwise be too difficult or awkward to say directly." The thing is that it is talking to God that is deliberately overheard. This actually drives some of the conversational pragmatics (like not interrupting) - actually this is analogous to what I and fellow dog owners do when we talk to our dogs while walking them in the vicinity of others: we say stuff to our dogs that acts as interpretive comment for overhearing dog-walkers and passers-by. (Dog - God; not a deliberate palindrome thing going on there, but, well, perhaps the old subconcious is up to tricks there). But it's okay; we do it all over the place, we are skilled at taking note of our 'audience' actual and ostensibly-addressed and talking to both. Perhaps it's not surprising we do this with God stuff too.

If you want to follow this angle up check out the sub-discipline of linguistics known as pragmatics. It's one of the things I've been brushing up on in odd moments as part of thinking about this UnHoly Praying thing.

What I want to ask, though, is how we can just involve God in conversation and what the obvious physical difficulties with that (God's lack of somatic presence and accompanying vocal tract being the most notable) actually mean for potential practice of a truly 'unreligious' way of prayer. Some of the issue lies with the 'fictive' attribution of presence and how we handle that. By "fictive attribution of presence", I mean the way that we sometimes treat God as if They was* a finite presence: so we suddenly 'agree' God is there and listening and so repeat to Them everything we've just discussed as if They wasn't in the room until just then. (Of course, we're also doing things, quite often, like affirming the concerns of the others and strengthening social bonds). Or we 'locate' God in the sanctuary and bow ... Can we manage to pray together without indulging in these fictive strategies? Should we? Or should we recognise more readily that God is also beyond personhood and learn to do more 'mystical' prayer together?

Referring to: Kester Brewin � “Lord I just…” | Do you believe in Prayer? | Speaking into the unknown
*Just experimenting with pronouns for God. Taking a leaf out of the Hebrew Bible where the word for God -Elohim- is plural in form but singular in the verb forms it takes. I reckoned that a triune God might be worth mixing the forms for, especially as English for about 5 centuries has used 'they' to refer to unspecified or unknown antecedents ("That person ... whoever they are ...") so I'm just experimenting to see if extending the range a bit could begin to sound sort of alright once we got used to it.

Prayer for Global food crisis

I suggest that we make this a matter of urgency in prayer.
Global food crisis forecast as prices reach record highs | Environment | The Guardian: "Rising food prices and shortages could cause instability in many countries as the cost of staple foods and vegetables reached their highest levels in two years, with scientists predicting further widespread droughts and floods."
It's not only a matter of immediate relief of want and suffering -though that is certainly part of the picture. It is also that there political ramifications are quite frightening: remember that historically hunger has driven the instability and even collapse of societies. It is also that we need, as an international community and global citizens to be addressing the means to deal with this as a long term strategy: this is the harbinger of the structural-political-economic problems that climate change brings. We are praying for the very survival of civilisation (and against the collapse of order, law, stability etc and for the saving of human welfare for billions) it's that important. Really. 'Global resiliance' is the shorthand way to sum up this prayer, I think.

Oh, and of course, the second thing is the question we should ask ourselves, what do I /we do to better co-operate with the answering of our prayers?

Online Examen, Journal and Lectio Divina

Now this looks like a really helpful online tool. I found it as I was trying to find something else; the search terms returned this site as one of the top answers. I've had a quick look and I'm impressed. It can be used as a one-off standalone kind of thing -to try out, this is great. But you can sign up for an account and use this as a kind of spiritual journalling; the entries will be securely kept and you can export them if wanted. There are five forms of examen offered, including meditations on scriptures. It takes you through the prayers and stages step by step.
Give it a go!
EXAMEN.me | Start an Examen | Prayer of Examen, Online Journal, Lectio Divina

Lord's Prayer Complines: beta testing

I've been working on some Compline services informed by the Lord's Prayer shape. I'm hoping that you, dear reader, might try them out and let me know 'how they pray' with you. What I'm hoping is that you would be willing to copy & paste and print out these services and to use them for a month or two. I'm not suggesting any particular way of doing this except -obviously- that they be used in the evening at some point before going to bed or going to sleep. There are five orders of service. You could either use them one each day in turn or you could take one order per week or every few days, depending on your own routines.

Abbey Nous: Lord's Prayer Complines: beta testing:

Lord's Prayer Rosary

I've been doing a bit of work to produce small prayer book offering a way to pray the Lord's prayer using a rosary -or is that a way to pray the rosary using the Lord's prayer? - either way an initial stage has been to consolidate and edit a series of posts on a former blog which offered reflections from my own experience of using a series of short Scriptures to 'prime' each of the five sections of the prayer. So if you'd like to have a go or at least have a look, then go here Lord's Prayer Rosary | zinepal.com: you can download an e-zine formated document of the posts which should contain full-enough instructions and readings with reflections for five 'rounds' of prayer.

I'd love to hear any constructive comments either here or at the Zinepal page. I'd suggest you have a go for a week or two for the best effect of the way of praying but if I've missed anything typo-wise or similar, do let me know sooner.

"There are different forms of rosary. This guide and set of reflections uses the 'normal' Dominican rosary consisting of fifty beads on the main loop separated by further single beads. ..."

Service materials for Creationtide 09

I think it may be important for people to know that this has just been made available. "Central to the resources are sermon notes, with a choice of two 5 week frameworks, one based on the Lectionary readings, the other linked specifically to the theme. It is possible either to follow the whole 5 weeks or to dip into the material and use it as required. The final 'theme' sermon works particularly well as a stand alone Harvest resource.
Other items include a LOAF service which would be suitable for a Churches Together event, action ideas, additional prayers and liturgical material and discussion group ideas.
The material is available as free downloads. The sermon materials, LOAF service and discussion group ideas will be available in Welsh and Irish language versions, as well as in English." Go here:
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland - Creation in Crisis - Introduction:
And note that Creationtide this year is closing with a day of prayer:
"Sunday October 4th is suggested as the day of prayer (though individual churches will be free to make their own arrangements and dates). This date is St Francis Day and the final Sunday of the Time for Creation (September 1st – October 4th). It will also be harvest festival in many churches. The time of prayer could be from 12 noon to 6 pm and will encourage people to ‘stop' in a busy world and take time out in prayer and meditation. People may want to combine this with a time of fasting. People will be welcome to come for as short or long a time as they wish."