On the Boundaries of the Spirit

We are not only living in the postmodern age, but we are also entering the post-religion age as well, which is to say that spirituality and religion are still generally identified with each other.  Christianity and Islam still provide the standard models for what it means to be spiritual.  But, as we dip our toe into a new era where spirituality is expressed in different, less classically religious ways, we are finding that the boundaries between what is spiritual and what is not are shifting.  The Spirit is encountering us in unexpected places and non-traditional ways.

A sports news posting entitled, "Strike a pose: Gophers embrace yoga" provides a striking case in point.  It reports that University of Minnesota Golden Gophers football head coach Jerry Kill and Gopher strength coach Eric Klein have introduced a regular course of yoga exercises into the football team's training program.  The rationale is that yoga restores the players physically and mentally, helping them to recuperate from the stresses of playing big time, Big Ten football.  It also helps them became more flexible, which will reduce injuries.  Gopher yoga instructor, Christine Ojala, explains that she is teaching the players to, "access the breath in a more informed and intelligent way." She observes that, "Yoga is one of the best methods for restoring the mind, body and spirit to their essential, balanced and strong states of being."

In Protestant Christian circles, prayer is generally understood to be talking to God. It is, to quote the website All About Prayer, "our direct line with heaven. Prayer is a communication process that allows us to talk to God!...To many people, prayer seems complicated, but it is simply talking to God." Asian spirituality, an increasingly important post-religious spiritual tool, is more about listening than it is about talking.  It often invites practitioners to learn to be still, to allow healing to take place.  In Western prayer we speak to God; in Asian meditation technologies the Spirit talks back.  Even when said before football games, prayer is mostly about religion and church.  For most westerners, yoga and other forms of meditation are spiritual practices that do not carry those same associations.  In them, the Spirit crosses the traditional boundaries, makes new connections, and finds new ways to entice us forward toward the full bloom of the Kingdom.  Amen.

Einstein On Prayer

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

In 1936, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to a sixth grader named Phyllis who had written him on behalf of her class asking, "Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?"  In his reply (see here), dated January 24, 1936, Einstein wrote, "Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish." He went on to say, however, that, "everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

An appreciative thought: whether we capitalize it as Spirit or not as spirit, there is here a recognition of a higher "something."  Einstein avoids the word, God, but no matter.  "Something" lurks behind the physical world and its laws, dimly perceived in a corner of science's pursuit of knowledge.  In some vague sense, it seems to us to be a "phenomenon" parallel to the "phenomenon" of the human spirit, but vastly greater.  "Something" is there.  Science alone will never figure out what that something is.

A critical reflection: a couple of years ago, I shared with readers a series of four postings (beginning here) on the relationship of prayer to science, making the point that non-theistic scientists often dismiss prayer on the basis of their own theological bias against the idea of god rather than on the basis of the nature of prayer itself.  Einstein does precisely that here.  Since for him there is no personal god involved in the workings of nature, he reasons that prayer does not work.  The experience of people of faith across many faiths and over thousands of years finds that assertion itself to be naïve.  Always, always, always beware of non-theistic scientists when they write about matters of the Spirit and theology.  Their ignorance of what they write about is generally abysmal.

Pray for Your Enemies - How Come?

"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matthew 5:44, NRSV)

In the larger passage in which this injunction is contained, Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus taught his disciples that they must pray for their enemies in order to gain the reward of becoming something like God.  He did not explain exactly what that means, which leaves us with some "running room" in our understanding and application of the command itself.

So, why love and pray for our enemies?  Basically, as long as our enemies remain our enemies they own us.  They have our attention and dominate our emotional state.  They infect us with feelings of disgust, anger, hatred, and fear.  They have an internal power over us that can easily turn us into what we think they are.  To allow someone to be our enemy is to give them great power over us.  The same is true even for those that we merely don't like or irritate us—to the extent that we let them get to us, to that extent they own us.

Praying for our enemies, if done with integrity, takes the poison out of us and allows us to be at peace with ourselves.  It also opens the door to the possibility of being at peace with them as well—depending on factors that we don't have control over.  The scales fall from our eyes.  Our hearts are less encased in ugly feelings.  As God is love, so we drift in the direction of love.  As God lies at the heart of peace, so we sink slowly into the realm of peace.  We enable the prayer, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done." Yes, this is easier said than done, but it remains doable, and our own peace of mind depends on our being able to love and pray for our enemies.  And, no, we don't have to become naive or overlook seriously bad behaviors, it is just that we no longer let all of that own us and destroy our own sense of inner peace.

And "enemies" here need not mean individuals.  It can also mean an addiction, for example, which for millions and millions of people is their greatest enemy.  It can mean the poisons implanted in us by an abusive relationship, which itself is over.  It can mean our prejudices against another race or class of people.

A Measure of Church Health - Two

In a recent posting entitled, "Eight Diagnostic Questions for a Church's Health," Dr. Chuck Lawless of the Billy Graham School of Missions & Evangelism lays down what amounts to a set of standards by which churches can measure themselves.  If they measure up to the standards, they are healthy. Second on his list of questions is:

"Is the church a praying church? Legitimate church growth is a gift of God, who empowers His followers and draws others unto Himself. Another danger in church consulting is that we will offer solutions that are based on our ingenuity rather than God's power. For that reason, I want to know that the church is focusing on prayer before, during, and after a consultation. In fact, I expect the church to enlist a prayer team that prays together during the length on the consult. Is your church a praying church?"

A couple of quibbles are in order.  One is the way that Dr. Lawless so easily transposes "church growth" with "church health."  Throughout the eight questions, he tries to be careful about not doing so, but he still does it—starting here, for example, with "legitimate church growth" as a gift of God when his subject is church health, not growth.  Church growth may be a measure of church health in most instances, but it is not always so.  Second, he is very focused here on his own role as a church consultant and apparently is discussing the measures of church health in that capacity.  One wonders how well these measures of church health apply outside of that context.

Quibbles aside, Dr. Lawless is correct.  Prayer is a key aspect of church health, and the spiritual discipline of prayer is generally one of the weaknesses of mainline churches.  The point here is that prayer is not about getting what one prays for and it isn't a test one has to pass to prove that they have "real" faith because they "got what they prayed for."  Prayer is about focus and orientation.  It is an aide to a life focused on God and oriented to the life of faith.  It grounds one in the Spirit—or, better, it helps one better understand and, perhaps, experience how all of life is grounded in the Spirit.  It is also not about warm fuzzy feelings of piety.  Like all spiritual disciplines, it involves patience, persistence, and repetition in the face of "nothing is happening."  "Something" is happening in much the same way that "something happens" when we eat healthfully even though on a daily basis we don't experience any particular change.

Of course, there is prayer and then there is prayer.  Like all spiritual disciplines, it can be abused by the spiritually arrogant.  There are those who boast about how much they pray and self-proclaim how God "answers" their prayers (see Matthew 6:5-6).  It can also be a thoughtless, rote thing—a habit in search of a purpose.  None of this changes the importance of prayer for our personal life of faith or for our church.  Amen.

The Church & Charity

According to various media outlets, Pope Francis has begun his tenure as pope by calling for the spiritual renewal of the Catholic Church.  He has made the point that if the church does not return to its spiritual roots and its task of proclaiming Christ its risks "becoming no more than a charitable organization" (quoted here).  Mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. will do well to take his call for renewal to heart.  Many of our congregations have already drifted into the back eddies of functioning largely as charitable organizations.  Members do not cultivate personal lives of faith and the church does not promote personal piety.  Members do not know the Bible and do not work on articulating their own faith.  Sharing the gospel with others is, if anything, actively avoided.  These churches often do impressive amounts of good works, which is... well... good.  The problem is their charitable work seldom pumps new life into the body of Christ, which they are supposed to be.

The central task of the church is to teach and encourage a Christ-like way of life that includes worship, prayer, reflection, faith sharing, and carrying out acts of charity.  In all of this, the church has the urgent task of teaching its members to learn the spiritual values of silence, slowing down, and prayer & meditation.  These practices are the surest foundation on which to build lively worship, happy fellowship, and  strong Christian service.  Amen.

Godric's View of Prayer

What's prayer? It's shooting shafts into the dark.  What mark they strike, if any, who's to say?  It's reaching for a hand you cannot touch.  The silence is so fathomless that prayers like plummets vanish in the sea.  You beg.  You whimper.  You load God down with empty praise.  You tell him sins that he already knows full well.  You seek to change his changeless will.  Yet Godric prays the way he breathes, for else his heart would wither in his breast.  Prayer is the wind that fills his sail.  Else waves would dash him on the rocks, or he would drift witless tides.  And sometimes, by God's grace, a prayer is heard.

Fredrick Buechner,

Listening to Your life (HaprerOne, 1992), p. 66

The Contemplative Option

Much in the spiritual life depends on where we place our attention and what we allow to take up space in our minds. One ought never to underestimate our horrible external and internal resistance to the contemplative option. By contemplative option I mean the choice to respond contemplatively and prayerfully to ourselves and the world. The contemplative option awakens the power of Christ in us that allows us to be reconciled and to enter into right relationship with creation and one another--a relationship of gentleness, love and forgiveness. Contemplation is a choice about what we will have on our minds. Sometimes contemplation is a choice to step back, wait and to tolerate the withdrawal of not satisfying every appetite and desire. The contemplative option may be a choice to face into our own insatiability and discern what truly satisfies from what leaves us numb, jittery and still hungry. There is no getting around it. The contemplative life is a sacrifice. Our yes to God is likely to mean a no to something else.

Loretta Ross

Source: Holy Ground (newsletter of The Sanctuary Foundation)

From: inward/outward

Notice the Wonder

To pray is to take notice of the wonder, to regain a sense of the mystery that animates all beings, the divine margin in all attainments. Prayer is our humble answer to the inconceivable surprise of living.

Abraham Joshua Heschel

Source: Quest for God

From: inward/outward

A Prayer to Begin the Day

Lord, help me to live today with anticipation.  Give me eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to receive the blessings salted throughout it.  Focus my attention on listening, caring, helping, and loving.  Give me patience with myself so that I might be patient with each person I meet today.  Take the sting out of my thoughts so that the peace in me might be peace for them.  You promise life, Lord, and that is what I ask—but just for today.  In Jesus name, Amen.

The Quiet God

Like [Elijah], we need to be silent in order to be attuned to the quiet God.  We often make a lot of noise, speak a lot of words—even to God and about God.  If we would stop shouting or even talking sometime, we might hear a gentle sound of love, or simply realize that we are together with God, embraced by the divine Presence.  If we are going to be aware of God, touched by God, hear God's Word, we need to be silent sometimes.  We need to develop a place of solitude in our hearts.

Don Postema,

Space for  God (1997)

page 114

North Woods Meditation

The common loon (Gavia Gaviidae Gaviiformes)

Two or three mornings a week, weather and life in general permitting, my wife, Runee, and I get up early and spend an hour to two hours or more canoeing on Beaver Lake, which is about a 30 minute drive east and north from Lowville.  From east to west, the lake is about a mile wide and it is roughly the same north to south.  The Beaver River flows into the lake on the east and out of the lake on the north.  One can paddle down river for something under two miles but upriver only less than half of a mile.  There are dams both east and north.  There are at least 40 cabins, probably more, and two church camps located along the lake and down the river, although there are portions of the shoreline that are truly wild.  There is also a creek that flows into the river beyond the north end of the lake, which you can get a canoe up for a half-mile or so.

Beaver Lake is a northern lake.  It has loons, as any self-respecting north woods lake does.  In the morning, before the local folks get too active and the big boats come out, a humble canoe owns the water.  It is usually calm.  The breeze is generally gentle.  And occasionally we see wildlife, mostly birds.  Maybe one time in five, a loon will call.

There is a spiritual quality in these times on the water.  And it's not just in the forest or in the presence of the water.  That quality is embedded in the act of sitting in and paddling the canoe itself.  We use an old beat up 17 foot  Grumman, a beast on land and a queen on the water.  Canoes are about balance and timing.  They are about two people sharing the load, pulling together in a single rhythm.  In the stillness of the morning, the canoe runs silent and responds quickly to the gentlest turn of the paddle.  One sits still, centered in the canoe, and concentrating on the rhythms of paddle.  The shore glides by, always and never the same.  The quiet seeps in, and for long minutes there are no mechanical noises—especially none of the whirring and buzzing of the typical house at all hours.  Silence.  Balance.  Concentration.  A sense of the sameness & uniqueness of each moment.  All shared.  One rests in the moment and for the moment.  And that is precisely what eastern meditation and western prayer disciplines are intended to inspire—silence, balance, mindfulness, insight, and profound stillness.

Allow me to bring this posting to a close.  We are headed for the lake again this morning.

Standing by the Well

O God as you have made mountains and valleys in the earth so have you made them in me.
For moments when I stand on a peak and am filled with wonder, I am thankful.
For uplifted moments when I walk the quiet mountain path in light, I am thankful.
For moments when I feel you near and sense the print of joy upon me, I am thankful.
But every day is not a mountaintop and every moment is not filled with joy.
When I walk in shadows, show me the way.
When I trip on my bumpy inner self, uphold me.
When I run and miss the beauty of the valley, forgive.
When I stop trying for fear of falling, pace me.
During these days when I cannot run and tell or walk without being weary
help me stand by the well with my cup.

From: Jeanette Struchen,

Prayers to Pray Without Really Trying (1969)

Testing Prayer (v)

I really meant to end the series on the scientific study of prayer yesterday.  The series looked at a research project that had results that suggest that "prayer works," in the sense that personal one-on-one prayer led to measurable improvements in seeing or hearing for a test group of 24 Christians in rural Mozambique.  It also considered a critique of those results by Dr. Steven Novella, who rejects out of hand the premise that intercessory prayer works.  As best as I can tell, it appears that in rejecting the efficacy of intercessory prayer what Dr. Novella is actually rejecting is the notion that a divine being answers prayer, which was not what the Mozambique research was trying to determine.  There is no way to test scientifically the statement that intercessory prayer does not work because a divine being does not answer prayer.  Given the superficial understanding of a god who sits on the rim of the universe and manipulates human life, all a believing theist has to say is, "God chose not to answer test prayers.  Scripture itself says that we are not to test God (Deuteronomy 6:16, Luke 4:12)."  The scientist's answer that such a response is ridiculous is based only on the scientist's own notion of what is commonsensical and what is not.  The debate is a theological one, which science cannot decide on the basis of research because its results can in all cases be attributed to the action (or inaction) of God.

But, are there ways to see if "prayer works" if we stay out of the realm of theology?  The Mozambique approach is one that does, because it tests a common form of prayer.  Dr. Novella claims that it is bad scientific method to test subjects who know they are being prayed for, but that form of prayer is a common, everyday form.  Believers pray for each other with each other.  Another common form of prayer is to pray for a person not present but who knows that she or he is being prayed for.  If science is prevented from studying these forms of prayer because of methodological considerations, then we have a clear indication that science is ill-equipped to study prayer—not that "prayer doesn't work."

Let's reject the idea that science is unable to study prayer in its various forms including one-on-one prayer.  In that case, an interesting approach would be to study a group that prays for other people and for specific outcomes and see how frequently those outcomes actually take place.  The goal is not to test whether or not a deity answers prayer.  It is simply to see if prayer in some way or another allows us to manipulate our world.  From a non-theistic point of view, science may eventually discover entirely naturalistic explanations for the conclusion that under certain circumstances "prayer works" in a measurable number of times.

There are a couple of limitations involved.  First, scientists will have to try to discover the impact of their own observations on the prayer process.  How does the presence of an observer skew the results?  Perhaps, they will have to "blind" the research subjects not from each other but from the observer, but that raises ethical questions about using people for research purposes without their consent.  Second, researchers cannot definitively say that prayer doesn't work in all cases or under all circumstances because they can't test all cases and circumstances.  Theists can always account for science's failure to find positive test results for prayer, as I indicated above—using explanations science can't test.  Science could theoretically affirm that prayer does work (sometimes under some conditions), but it cannot theoretically affirm that it does not work.  The best it can do is to say that the scientific study of prayer finds no data proving that it works.

The point is that actually studying the phenomenon of prayer itself is complex and does not admit to simplistic conclusions, not if it is studied as it is actually practiced.

---

Later Note (5/16/12):

Science & Prayer (iv)

A group of mothers at prayer

In the last three postings, I have been looking at a research project on intercessory prayer conducted by an American team in Mozambique (here) and the criticism of that project by Harvard Medical School professor, Dr. Steven Novella (here).  The research team found that one on one prayer with 24 Christians suffering from hearing and seeing disabilities resulted in measurable improvement in their conditions—measurable by standard auditory and visual tests.  Dr. Novella dismisses these findings as meaningless because they are based on an unscientific methodology.

What is fascinating in Dr. Novella's critique of the Mozambique findings is that it is essentially a theological critique.  As I quoted yesterday, he partly bases his critique on his theological observation that, "I find that argument that a deity is better able to heal when the person asking them to do so is physically close to the person they are praying for absurd, lame, and convenient."  Now, the Mozambique team was careful not to claim that a deity had anything to do with their results.  They concluded that "prayer worked" because it results in measurable therapeutic benefit.  In their report, they state that they chose to study hearing and seeing conditions because they could be measured, thus limiting the influence of subjective feelings of being healed on the results.  The team also called for further studies to test their results and further explore the possibilities of using one on one prayer as a therapeutic aid esp. in remote areas where it is difficult to get modern medical care.

Dr. Novella changes the definition of "worked" in the conclusion that "prayer worked" in this instance.  He ignores the claim that prayer worked because it led to healing, which healing he dismisses as being subjective without explaining why the standard measures suggest that it wasn't merely subjective.  For him, apparently, "prayer works" means that there must be a"deity" involved and that the research team was actually trying to prove that God answers prayer.  He finds the whole notion ridiculous.  It appears that his theological prejudices have led him to misread the findings of the research.  Furthermore, his comment about a deity that "is better able to heal when the person asking them to do so is physically close to the person they are praying for" suggests that he has a narrow and superficial conception of God.  Like many non-theist scientists who have never studied theology and show disdain for it as a field of study, he has accepted as his definition of God one that is about as unsophisticated as you can get: the grandfather who sits on the rim of the universe and pulls our strings at his whim.  Christian theology has worked out over the centuries any number of other views of God, which would make more sense of the Mozambique data if we wanted to associate the data with a deity.

Prayer is a complex phenomenon, which requires a number of approaches if it is to be understood scientifically.  And that study has to be strictly about the phenomenon itself, leaving to others conclusions about whether or not God is involved.  Science can document the therapeutic value of prayer.  It cannot link that value to God.  Faithful followers of Christ can take the findings of science and find in them a universe compatible with a Creator God.  We don't expect Dr. Novella to agree.  It is fine that he doesn't.  However, I want to be clear here.  In the case we have studied, he disagrees for theological reasons, not scientific ones.

Science & Prayer (iii)

A group of mothers at prayer

In the two previous postings (here) and (here), I presented briefly the findings of an American research team, which studied the therapeutic qualities of intercessory prayer among evangelical and Pentecostal Christians in Mozambique.  The study provided data showing that individuals with hearing and seeing impairments experienced improved hearing or seeing after having someone pray with them personally.  The published version of their research is available online (here).  I also presented Dr. Steven Novella's critique of the research (here), which dismisses its findings as meaningless.  His conclusions seem to be based largely on his own theological biases, and he did not actually account for the flaws he claims are in the data or adequately explain why the methodology used by the Mozambique team was unscientific.  On the basis of his own comments, he seems to be biased against prayer and does not want to entertain data that might contradict that bias.

The point here is that the Mozambique study does suggest that prayer has a therapeutic value for those who believe in the power of prayer.  Regular readers of Rom Phra Khun know by now that one of the things I'm doing here is building a case for the value of science for the practice of faith and theological reflection.  This study is just one more building block.  It does not prove there is a God.  Such proof lies beyond the capabilities of science as we know it today.  It does not prove that God answers prayer.

The study is helpful, however, in two ways.  First, it reinforces confidence in the real value of praying with those in need of prayer.  This study suggests that intercessory prayer does work under certain conditions.  It doesn't say why praying with people is helpful, just that it is—measurably so in this case.  In the most general sense, this study is one more piece of evidence pointing to the value of living a life of faith for those who live such a life.  It is not conclusive.  It is simply one more data point.  Still, those who practice prayer with those who believe in prayer are not surprised by these scientific findings, restrained and limited as they are.  They only point to a possible conclusion that people who live in faith have already concluded from their own experience: prayer works.  We believe that God participates in our prayers, but whether or not God or a god is involved is beside the point here.  Prayer works.

Second, in an evolving universe created at the outset by God and since then superintended by the Spirit of God working within the parameters of the original creation we would expect that intercessory prayer would have "therapeutic value."  I remain convinced that on the whole credible scientific data reveals a universe that is compatible with the idea that it is created by God.  Not all of it does, but in general it does.  There have been prayer studies, for example, that suggest prayer isn't of any value, but those have to do with "distance intercessory prayer" (DIP) and sometimes seem designed to prove prayer doesn't work.  If I am correct, the more time devoted to discovering the actual healing value of prayer and the more scientists study prayer without an agenda one way or the other, the more they are going to find that prayer heals and can be a valuable element in the healing process given certain circumstances.  All I'm saying is that this is precisely the kind of scientific conclusion we would expect in a universe created by God and superintended by the Spirit.  That's all.

As for Dr. Novella's skepticism, one can understand it.  However, as a scientist he has a responsibility to deal with the data without pre-judging it on the basis of his own theological bias against a particular kind of god he thinks is implied by the conclusion that "prayer works".  His critique of the Mozambique study fails because he makes too much of its methodology while failing to deal with the data itself.  Twenty-four believing Christians experienced measurable improvement in their hearing or seeing impairments after a Christian leader sat and prayed with them.  Is that not data worth exploring rather than dismissing it out of hand?  One would think so.

I would like to return to all of this one more time, tomorrow.

Science & Prayer (ii)

A group of mothers at prayer

In yesterday's posting (here), I introduced a research project conducted by an American team in Mozambique, which found that "proximal intercessory prayer" (PIP) resulted in measurable improvements in hearing or seeing among a group of 24 visually or hearing impaired evangelical Christians.  Objective hearing and seeing tests were conducted on each subject before and after church leaders prayed with them for their healing.  The published version of their research is available online (here).

As we saw yesterday, Dr. Steven Novella of the Yale University School of Medicine has posted a critique of this research project (here), which dismisses its findings as being meaningless.  The study failed to "blind" the subjects (i.e. keep them from knowing they were being prayed for) or establish a proper control group.  The results, thus, were caused by suggestion.  The subjects were susceptible to that suggest because they already believed in prayer.  The results, therefore, were merely subjective.

Dr. Novella has evidently misread the results of the research, apparently because of his own theological biases.  In the course of his critique, he writes, "I find that argument that a deity is better able to heal when the person asking them to do so is physically close to the person they are praying for absurd, lame, and convenient."  He believes that such an argument is just a way to justify doing loose research.  Interestingly enough, the Mozambique study does not refer to God as being involved.  It does not provide any theological explanation for the healing that took place.  The researchers merely observe that PIP resulted in measurable healing (by standard measures) of 24 research subjects.  They, furthermore, intentionally unblinded the subjects and sought out subjects who believed in prayer in order to expand the field of research regarding intercessory prayer.  Dr. Novella dismisses the attempt, and one of his key points in doing so is theological.  He does not find a god that answers PIP but not "distance intercessory prayer" (DIP) credible.  Belief in such a god is "absurd, lame and convenient."  At the same time, Dr. Novella does not actually account for the measurable differences in seeing and hearing the Mozambique researchers claimed resulted from PIP.  He dismisses them was being "subjective" without explaining how they could fake standard eye and hearing tests.  The Mozambique research report contains the numbers, but Dr. Novella does not respond to them.  He dismisses them.

This seems to be an odd thing for a him to do—simply dismiss apparently objective measures of a physical phenomenon for patently theological reasons.  He is after all a scientist.  He doesn't accuse the Mozambique researchers of intentionally falsifying evidence, but he himself does not address the data directly.  He dismisses it on methodological grounds, but he seems to have a theological agenda in doing so.  Methodologically, what is "wrong" with seeing what happens when unwell individuals who believe in prayer are prayed for in a personal way?  One-on-one prayer is a common form of prayer, one especially important in pastoral ministry.  Why should it not be studied?  The researchers found that under such conditions prayer contributed to healing in a measurable way.  Honestly, Dr. Novella seems to dismiss these findings because he does not want to entertain any data that contradicts his bottom line conclusion that "intercessory prayer does not work."  He seems to want to consider only those research methods and results that confirm his own theological perspective (prejudice, actually) about prayer.

Instead of being intrigued by the possibility that PIP "works" where DIP does not, he is offended.  It turns out that Dr. Novella is President of the New England Skeptical Society, an activist organization dedicated to ferreting out quackery of various kinds.  That's fine.  It's just that he is a man with an agenda, and in the case of his critique of the Mozambique research findings that agenda is showing big time.

There's more to say tomorrow.

Science & Prayer (i)

A group of mothers at prayer

Recently, a group of American researchers studied the use of what they call "proximal intercessory prayer" (PIP) by evangelicals and Pentecostals in the African country of Mozambique to heal hearing and seeing disorders. They report that, "We measured significant improvements in auditory and visual function across both tested populations." And they conclude that, "Rural Mozambican subjects exhibited improved audition and/or visual acuity subsequent to PIP. The magnitude of measured effects exceeds that reported in previous suggestion and hypnosis studies. Future study seems warranted to assess whether PIP may be a useful adjunct to standard medical care for certain patients with auditory and/or visual impairments, especially in contexts where access to conventional treatment is limited." The published version of their research is available online (here).

The researchers very carefully do not claim anything about God or engage in theological explanations of why PIP worked in the 24 cases they studied.  They recognize that suggestion played a part, but they set up objective measures for improved hearing and seeing, which could not be achieved merely by their research subjects thinking they had received healing.  One goal of the research was to expand the research on prayer into a less studied area of that research.  To date, most of it has been done on "distance intercessory prayer" (DIP) in which those being prayed for had no knowledge of the prayers.  They were "blinded."  The Mozambique study purposely unblinds the research subjects to see if close, virtually hands on personal prayer would have an impact.  In this case, it did.  That is, in one rural setting in Africa one particular form of face to face intercessory prayer did help patients suffering from hearing and seeing disorders improve their hearing or their sight.  Those prayers, when used with individuals who believe in prayer, had therapeutic value.

The research has its critics including, for example, Dr. Steven Novella, an academic neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine.  Dr. Novella has posted a critique of the Mozambique study (here), which discounts its results as being unscientific and meaningless.  He objects that, "There was no blinding or control group – so everyone in the study, subjects and experimenters, knew that every subject was getting the treatment. The treatment involves active physical intervention with the subject. The protocol also calls for multiple interventions if initial treatments are not effective – essentially the subjects receive repeat treatments as long as possible until they report a response."  He states that it is obvious that the failures to blind the subjects and to have a control group results in a study that "tells us nothing."  Dr. Novella refers to other studies in intercessory prayer that were poorly done, clealry suggesting that the Mozambique study is but one more example of such research.  He concludes, "Bottom line‚intercessory prayer does not work."  By this he means that it does not work when research subjects are "properly blinded" so that they do not know they are being prayed for.  He dismisses the improvements in hearing and sight as being subjective and exaggerated.

Let me stop here for this posting.  The issue before us is whether or not proximal intercessory prayer "works".  The Mozambique study suggests that under certain conditions its application as a therapeutic treatment results in improved hearing and seeing for test subjects who believe in prayer.  Dr. Novella rejects these findings as being based on an improper methodology.  More tomorrow.