Is Prayerlessness a Form of Pride?

One thing that is often neglected for many believers is the continual dependence upon the Lord in prayer. Sure, we may give thanks for each meal, blurt out a quick blessings on our drive to work, or beg God to heal a loved one, but could we be described as a man or woman steadfast in prayer (1 Thess 5:17)? When one analyzes the answer to this question, do we dismiss it as a lack of time or an optional spiritual discipline? Something deeper may be at the root of our prayerlessness.

1 Peter 5:6-7 reads, "Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may life you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you." Until recently, I noticed two commands in this passage: 1.)Humble yourselves and 2.) Cast all your anxiety on him. At best, I reasoned, they are indirectly connected, but the Apostle Peter does not mean for there to be any direct connection between the two.

Thankfully, my study of the Greek grammar has help to correct some of the misconceptions about this passage. I have been reading through Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, and his insight to the particulars of Greek syntax has been particularly illuminating. Concerning the construction of this passage, he writes:

Although treated as an independent command in several modern translations, the participle should be connected witht he verb of v 6, tapeinothate. As such, it is not offering a new command, but is defining how believers are to humble themselves. Taking the participle as means enriches our understanding of both verbs: Humbling oneself is not a negative act of self-denial per se, but a positive one of active dependence on God for help (p 630).

Rather than being constructed as a separate command, the participle, often translated as "casting your cares on him," should be prefaced by the preposition by. This is a preposition of means, and it explains how we are to humble ourselves under God's might hand. To put it negatively, if one does not pray and cast our cares upon God, it reveals a haughty, proud spirit. It is the proud man that God will resist (James 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5).

My hunch is that when the Bible warns against prayerlessness, it does not do so simply because it is an optional spiritual disciple that should be accomplished, but that it is a barometer of the vitality of our spiritual lives. Moreover, when we are prayerless, we de-god God, for we declare ourselves to be self sufficient.

More Responses to John Piper

I admit I am becoming a little obsessive on this topic. Nevertheless, the article John Piper wrote soon after the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis has generated a lot of discussion.

Weighing in this time is Ben Witherington III. Here is a sampling of his critique:

John Piper on his website of course recently had a post about the disastrous collapse of the bridge over the Mississippi in Minneapolis. His view was that however random it might seem to us, that actually this was the will of God, and in essence we should just suck it up. God is sovereign and he disposes things as he will, and according to his sovereign pre-ordained plan. If you just happened to be on the raw end of the deal, so much the worse for you. Since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, actually God has a right to judge the whole world now, if he so chooses. The fact that he spared some shows God's mercy, according to Piper, but he was under no obligation to spare anyone. 'There but for the grace of God go I", so to speak. This doesn't sound much like an attempt to mourn with those who are mourning. It is interesting that Senator Chambers and Rev. Piper would seem to agree on the source of this sort of mayhem.

Click here to read his entire response. It really is quite worth it. To put it briefly, I find his theodicy to be lacking in numerous ways. Perhaps I can elaborate on some of them tomorrow, if I have time.Until then, thoughts?

Burk's surrejoinder to Boyd

When Pastor Greg Boyd posted his reply as to how the book of Job corresponds with his understanding of God's sovereignty, he was particularly responded to Denny Burk. In his blog, Burk asserted that Boyd's theology directly contradicts the teaching of Job. As you can read in my previous blog entry, Boyd responded in a lengthy fashion to Burk's accusations. In likewise fashion, Burk has offered a detailed surrejoinder, listing faults in many of Boyd's conclusions.

Burk begins:
Last month, I wrote a short blog post on the collapse of the I-35 bridge. In it, I took issue with Boyd’s open theist view of how God relates to calamities, and I did so using the book of Job as a case study. I recently found out that Boyd has a lengthy response to what I wrote in which he refutes my interpretation of Job, “The 35W Bridge Collapse and the Book of Job.”

I believe that Boyd’s reading of Job has serious problems. I will respond to each of his points in turn.

Click here to read Burk's critique.

Boyd on Job

The blog world has recently been filled with numerous posts from theologians debating the extent of control God had in the collapse of the 35W bridge. Pastor John Piper began the discussion a few hours after the tragedy, as Pastor Greg Boyd responded about a week later. Postconservative Roger Olson also weighs in here. These men bring many varying viewpoints, resulting in extended dialogue and debate. In particular, Boyd has received criticism for his failure to consider how the biblical character Job jives with his position.

Here is a snidbit of Boyd's response:

Hopeful what I’ve said has been adequate to refute the view that the book of Job depicts God as controlling “every move Satan makes” and the view that Job’s statement that “the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away” (Job 1:21) is a view the author of this book endorses.


Click here to see Boyd respond in full.