The Church
of England, the mother church of the Anglican Communion, recently got itself into
a bit of a Twitter spat.
In response
to the news that scientist and author Richard Dawkins had suffered a minor
stroke, the Church’s official Twitter feed announced:
Praying for Richard Dawkins and his family
The message
was deemed insensitive and ignorant by many on Twitter, and the Church was
widely accused of smugness or even sarcasm, ‘trolling’ the famously-outspoken
atheist and opponent of organized religion.
An equal
number of Twitter users defended the Church, as did the Church itself. The Rev.
Arun Arora, the Church’s communications director, issued a statement that the
criticism of the tweet ‘stemmed from a misunderstanding of what prayer is’,
adding that he would indeed be praying for Dawkins as well; ‘It is the very
least I can do.’
You’re
welcome to jog over to Twitter and read the comments (which, this being Twitter,
runs to well over a thousand).
Much of the Twitter debate has revolved about the Church’s right- indeed, its duty- to pray for Dawkins.
The Church’s raison d'etre, they
argue, is to pray for those in need;
Some of it
argues that the criticism of the Church is just another attempt to forcibly
remove religion from public life;
Some of it
is a back-and-forth argument about the efficacy of prayer;
Others
point out what they see as the insensitivity of praying for someone who has so
often made clear their contempt for prayer itself…
There are strengths
and weaknesses in all of these debate points, but I don’t think any of them are
the central issue.
The
important issue for me is not the Church’s prayer, but the Church’s public announcement that it was praying.
It’s a small
distinction, but I believe it’s a vital one.
In the
account of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6, Jesus makes clear that public
prayer, or the public announcing that you are praying, is not only unnecessary,
but uncalled for:
When you pray, you must
not be like hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the assemblies and at
the street corners, being seen by others.
Truly, I say to you, if
that is what they want, then that is all they shall ever have.
But when you pray, go
into your room, shut the door, and pray to God who is in secret. And God who
sees in secret will hear you.
And do not heap up
empty phrases as the unrighteous do, for they think that they will be
heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for God knows what
you need before you ask him.
In the age
of mass communication, Jesus’s words can seem utterly confusing and
counterproductive… which might be why so many Christians simply ignore them. Not
let people know what I’m doing, especially when I’m doing something good and
righteous? Are you insane?
Evangelism-the
idea of openly and practically communicating the message of the Kingdom of God-
is so central a tenant of the Christian faith that doing so at every
opportunity, by any means available, and as publicly as possible is seen as an
intrinsic good, a ‘no-brainer’.
But Jesus
seems to be tempering that desire with a certain caution, an admonishment that
our desire for public display of religious devotion might actually spring from
other desires, less positive and darker…
He also
seems to be trying to convey the goodness and benefits of private religious
practice- benefits that are always in danger of being beaten into the ground by
Christianity’s penchant for very public witness. The desire to ‘get the message
out’, to ‘be seen and heard’, to ‘show the world our faith’ overwhelms all concerns
of deference, sensitivity, and grace.
This is why
Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount remains such a radical declaration. Prayer,
fasting, and acts of charity are all put into the realm of stuff we just
shouldn’t bring up:
Put simply,
if you’re tweeting that you are praying for someone, you’re missing the point;
If you post
to Facebook what you’re giving up for Lent, you’re missing the point;
If your
church posts photos on its website of the youth group working with Habitat for
Humanity, you’re missing the point.
I realize
that this idea will horrify some Christians. ‘How will people know we’re
Christians if they don’t see our good deeds?! People need to see the love of
Christ in action!’
They do
need to see our good deeds… but there’s no need for us to announce that we're doing them.
It’s not up
to me- or anyone else- to pass judgement on the motives behind the Church of
England’s tweet. But I can think of several instances in my own life when
someone informing me that they have been, or will be, praying for me has come not
as a comfort but like a smack in the mouth- condescending, judgmental, or point-scoring.
In the
Sermon on the Mount, Jesus seems to be saying, just get on with praying; talking
about it just puts the whole exercise at risk…
And who
knows? There might be instances when not praying for someone at all might be- just might be- the better option, the more
Christ-like option.
Taking part in a public debate in 2011, author, journalist,
and notoriously trenchant critic of all religion Christopher Hitchens related
an experience from his treatment for cancer:
I’ve had very involved in my care a
great American, Francis Collins, who is the director of the National Institute
of Health, and who has helped me sequence my genome- amazingly- and possibly
find a cure for an individualized mutation from which I suffer.
Francis is probably one of the most
devout believers I’ve ever met. In fact, I’m lucky to be his friend because of
the religion debate. He’s a very sincere and devout Christian.
And all he does is say he won’t pray
for me…
And on that, we have one of the
nicest armed truces it’s ever been my pleasure to observe.
Collins
chose to place the beliefs and feelings of a dying man above- or at least on an
equal footing- with his own.
He chose to
avoid utterly the dangers of public use of religious piety to which I think
Jesus was referring in Matthew 6- pride, hubris, self-importance…
Beyond even
that, he abandoned the petitioning of God on Hitchens’ behalf altogether- as though God
is dependent on us to tell him to get to work, or needs us to specifically
inform him of what needs to get done…
Collins obviously
deemed the contribution of his considerable medical expertise to Hitchens’ life
as sufficient enough.
That, to
me, was an act of true and genuine faith.
For
Christians living in the age of the smart phone, social media, and the ‘selfie’,
I think it’s a type of faith we might want to cultivate…
I think the C of E's motives pure, but OURS should be Dr Dawkins' well-being above any sectarian turmoil..
ReplyDeleteThe Church of England and other organised religions (decent ones, for that matter) can only pray for the sick and distressed people; they cannot cure them or relieve their distress. If the religions become mean and vindictive, even in offering prayers, then the free thinkers and opponents of religion such as scientists in medical, biological, physical sciences should withdraw their services from the religious adherents and see if their prayers alone come to anything! Taking advantage of sciences and then condemning scientists for not sticking to religion and blindly following it is despicable, to say the least.
ReplyDelete