Uncommon Book of Prayer

No. 37, a prayer of St. Andy.

This is a brilliant song. Whatever else it may be, it is also explicitly a prayer.

I was trying to imagine what an appropriate response might be to such a prayer, which led me to wonder if this isn't also, unwittingly perhaps, a Christmas song.

Comments

[burgundy]

I am... not entirely sure how I feel about taking such an angrily atheistic, even anti-theistic song, and calling it a prayer or a Christmas song. Authorial intent counts for very little in the end, but still.

[Robin Z]

Well, it's written as an address to God. At the very least, it's apostrophe ("a figure of rhetoric in which an address is made to someone not present, or to an abstraction").

That said, while I can see where you're coming from and it's interesting to think about, I don't see that it could fairly be called a Christmas song.

[Robin Z]

Err, that made no sense. Read the second para as a response to Fred Clark, not burgundy - sorry!

(Incidentally: love this song.)

[Jesurgislac]

I'd never heard this song before. (It's "Dear God" by XTC, if anyone else needs to look up the lyrics.)

I won't believe in heaven and hell. No saints, no sinners, no devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown. You're always letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it's the same the whole world 'round.

It could be a Christmas song, in the sense of a song that I can really see taking off around Christmas - it ties into a lot of Christian concern about homeless people/people suffering especially at Christmas.

What it reminds me of, rather quirkily perhaps, is another not-very-Christian Christmas song (which hit the charts around Christmas, one year at least): The Power of Love, sung by Frankie Goes To Hollywood.

I wanted to play it at a Christmas party my parents were organising, and tried to summarize it to my mother as "It's a love song to Christ!" which I fear made her even more uninclined to let me share...

[Robin Z]

Jesurgislac: That's a thought-provoking choice - that song does seem to work as a Christmas song, for me, although more as Christ singing to anyone than anyone singing to Christ.

[Tonio]

To me, the song seems to embody a fallacy that some atheists make - using the existence of suffering as evidence against the existence of a god.

Some of my posts appear to make that mistake. But instead I see the existence of suffering and the existence of a god as separate questions. The first is a philosophical question and the second is a scientific question.

But it's possible that the suffering question may influence the question of the nature of a god. A god wouldn't have to be benevolent. Theoretically, a person could believe in Mark Twain's famous "malign thug" while regarding the god as unworthy of praise or worship. The person might certainly wish that the god was different, but simply regarded the god's malign nature as a reality that would have to be accepted.

[Vermic]

A person could probably put together a whole album's worth of songs of this type. How about "Terrible Lie" from Nine Inch Nails?

(Hey God) Why are you doing this to me?
Am I not living up to what I'm supposed to be?
Why am I seething with this animosity?
(Hey God) I think you owe me a great big apology

[Tonio]

How about "Terrible Lie" from Nine Inch Nails?

Sounds more like an allegory for a toxic parent.

[Vermic]

Sounds more like an allegory for a toxic parent.

Yeah, it's tough to say. When it comes to the writings of St. Trent, there's plenty of bile for everyone.

[libraripagan]

A person could probably put together a whole album's worth of songs of this type. How about "Terrible Lie" from Nine Inch Nails?

Hrm... God by Tori Amos:
God sometimes you just don't come through
Do you need a woman to look after you?
God sometimes you just don't come through

You make pretty daisies pretty daisies
Love I gotta find what you're doing about things
Here a few witches burning
Gets a little toasty here
I gotta find why you always go when the wind blows.

[daniel]

A person could probably put together a whole album's worth of songs of this type.

"Blasphemous Rumours", Depeche Mode

Girl of eighteen, fell in love with everything
Found new life in jesus christ
Hit by a car, ended up
On a life support machine

Summers day, as she passed away
Birds were singing in the summer sky
Then came the rain, and once again
A tear fell from her mothers eye

I dont want to start any blasphemous rumours
But I think that gods got a sick sense of humor
And when I die I expect to find him laughing

[Tonio]

Maybe we should rename this entry "The Blasphemy Mix" or "Songs to Question God By." Does "Free Will" by Rush count? If the old devil-metal bands like Mercyful Fate and Venom really wanted to be unsettling, they would have written songs like these. It doesn't take much courage to dress up like Satan's chew toy.

[Vermic]

I was thinking more along the lines of songs not merely about God, but rather those in which the lyrics are addressed specifically to God (in a rebuking or skeptical way).

[Jason]

Thanks for the link. My only prior experience with this song/video is from it's inclusion in a "documentary" called "Hell's Bells," an excellent piece of early-90s Evangelical kitsch, hosted by a mullet-headed minister. (If you've got 3 hours to kill, it's also on YouTube in 10-minute chunks.)

[Ian Cunningham]

I was trying to imagine what an appropriate response might be to such a prayer,

The appropriate response to this prayer is the same response Job was given in Job 38-41.

[Robin Z]

To me, the song seems to embody a fallacy that some atheists make - using the existence of suffering as evidence against the existence of a god.

I think Andy actually dodges that bullet, although possibly accidentally. "Believe in" and "believe exists" are not exactly synonyms, as demonstrated by "I don't believe in premarital sex".

[Ray]

And the correct response to Job 38-41 is, "Yeah, I get it, you're bigger than me. And clearly a total wanker."

[Ian Cunningham]

If all you get from 38-41 is "You're bigger than me", you're sort of missing the point.

Hm. It's the same problem one sees with parents and children - the parent gives this explanation, where they point out that they have more experience, more knowledge about how the world works and just because something seems unfair now, you'll understand when you're older, and the child hears, "I'm bigger than you. Suck it."

If you accept the existence of an anthropomorphic God, He's either a complete and utter asshole, or operating in a world of responsibilities we only have the faintest inkling of. If those are my choices, I'll assume the latter until proven otherwise.

[Ray]

Most of Job 38-41 is "I can do this, you can't, so shut the fuck up" list. Job says "Okay, I'll shut up", and God replies, "No, pipsqueak, I'm not finished - Admire the thunder of my voice and the fury of my wrath. I can fuck over behemoths, and make the leviathan my pet, and the leviathan is pretty fucking tough, let me tell you."
That's not an explanation of how much experience God has and why he knows better, it's a show of strength. He's quite explicitly saying that he has no responsibilities , because no-one is tough enough to tell him what he can or can't do.
The Bible has been round fr a long time, long enough for the edges to get smoothed off, but its obvious that the people writing the OT were most concerned with telling everyone how much ass their god could kick.

[Mark J.]

The song reminds me strongly of not only Job (which some people caught) but also many of the Psalms--not to mention a few encounters I've had at bedside in the hospital or graveside. It is not an uncommon reaction to look to God and say, "I don't understand. This is too horrible. I can't believe in you!"

But to rant and rave in such a manner rather assumes that you aren't yelling at a wall, that you're addressing something or someone. Rather a measure of faith.

[Ian Cunningham]

16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?

17 Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death [b] ?

18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.

19 "What is the way to the abode of light?
And where does darkness reside?

20 Can you take them to their places?
Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!

Experience, Age, and Sarcasm. Sure, there's a lot of "I'm awesome" in the THREE chapters of verbal smackdown God delivers, but there's also a lot of "You can't even BEGIN to understand the shit I gotta deal with."

[Robin Z]

If you accept the existence of an anthropomorphic God, He's either a complete and utter asshole, or operating in a world of responsibilities we only have the faintest inkling of. If those are my choices, I'll assume the latter until proven otherwise.

I'd rather believe the latter, but is there evidence to support it?

[Ray]

In context, God is not saying, "Oh, I am a great wanderer who has seen things you can but dream of", he's saying "I made ALL THIS SHIT, and YOU dare question ME?"

[Vermic]

There may indeed be situations in which God, acting on a rarefied level of understanding unattainable to humans, is obliged to cause suffering. But not in Job's case. We're told right from the start the reason for Job's suffering: God is trying to test Job's faith and win a bet. It's a lame reason, it might even be a malevolent reason, but it's hardly one impossible for our primitive simian brains to encompass.

The fact that Job's God trots out the "You just wouldn't understand!" song and dance, when in this instance the reason is in fact one that Job would understand, does indeed make Job's God an asshole in my book. Job's God could explain himself, but doesn't, hiding behind bluster, and that says a lot for his character.

The story would have worked better, IMHO, if the beginning had been left out, so that we the readers are as bewildered as Job is about God's motivation.

[Ian Cunningham]

I'd rather believe the latter, but is there evidence to support it?

About as much as for the former. If I'm going to make assumptions based on no evidence, I'll take the Pascal's Wager variant. :D

[Ray]

You know, God hates gamblers more than anything else. And you wouldn't believe the hell he has dreamed up for existential gamblers.

[JayDeeJaye]

I imagine God responding, "Can't blame you. I wouldn't believe in a god like that either. Good thing I'm not like that. Must have me confused with someone else. Oh, and by the way, brilliant voice you got there. You've got a great way with words. I really, really love you."

Or, something like that.

[Ian Cunningham]

you wouldn't believe the hell he has dreamed up for existential gamblers.

Does it involve actually having to spend time with Blaise Pascal?

[Ray]

listening to Blaise Pascal argue with Soren Kierkegaard.
"Oh, that's not so bad - I like Kierkegaard" you think - but Kierkegaard is arguing in Danish

[Spalanzani]

"I was trying to imagine what an appropriate response might be to such a prayer..."

"God's Song" by Randy Newman imagines God's response, though not necessarily the sort of response we'd want to hear:

Cain slew Abel Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

"Man means nothing he means less to me
than the lowiliest cactus flower
or the humblest yucca tree
he chases round this desert
cause he thinks that's where i'll be
that's why i love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
from the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why i love mankind"

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said "Lord the plague is on the world
Lord no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please please let us be?"

And the Lord said
And the Lord said

"I burn down your cities--how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You must all be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why i love mankind
You really need me
That's why i love mankind"

[Lady Sabrina]

“I think Andy actually dodges that bullet, although possibly accidentally.”

You have this upside down. For an atheist, addressing God is purely a rhetorical structure. All these analyses by believers are missing the point if Andy is, in fact, an atheist.

I'll try to illustrate this in a way that even the believers can understand.

Suppose your wife gets out a big piece of paper and a marker, and says (outloud) as she writes, "Dear Santa, this year I don't need anything for the car. I wish you'd buy me something less practical for once. I saw a beautiful pair of earings back in October, but my husband said I'd probably never wear them."

Now, quick quiz before you go home for tea, do you think your wife believes in Santa Claus? Is it just possible that the letter isn't for him at all?

[Ian Cunningham]

Andy is, in fact, a sort of mushy nature-revering sorta-pagan. And a bit of a luddite.

[Tonio]

"Believe in" and "believe exists" are not exactly synonyms

Is it possible to believe in a god without believing that the god exists? What would the former belief look like?

If you accept the existence of an anthropomorphic God, He's either a complete and utter asshole, or operating in a world of responsibilities we only have the faintest inkling of. If those are my choices, I'll assume the latter until proven otherwise.

The "world of responsibilities" notion goes against the doctrine of omnipotence, since such a god would have no responsibilities.

Explanating Job 38-41 in parent-child terms treats emotionally mature adults as forever being children who don't know what is good for them.

I see no reason to explain suffering in terms of a god or gods in the first place. Not only is there no evidence for it, it solves nothing and creates an unnecessary theological puzzle. It may be possible to believe in the existence of a god who has no involvement in the universe at all. In any case, I see the goal as simply accepting the existence of suffering instead of seeking a source of blame for it.

[hapax]

All things dark and dangerous
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot

In re Job, it helps to remember that the book of Job as we have it now, is two totally different books inadequately stitched together -- the folktale in the opening and closing chapters, and the poetic meditation on theodicy in the long center. I've always thought that the point of the story is not WHAT God answers -- that's almost incidental -- but THAT God answers. That seems to be whole point of the crucial Chapter 19: "I know that my Redeemer lives, and ... I myself will see Him with my own eyes."

But one of the lovely things about Scripture (any Scripture, ancient or modern) is that it IS open to interpretation. It isn't limited by the text, but by the reader.

Words with interpretation are as dead as faith without works.

[konrad_arflane]

Most of Job 38-41 is "I can do this, you can't, so shut the fuck up" list. Job says "Okay, I'll shut up", and God replies, "No, pipsqueak, I'm not finished - Admire the thunder of my voice and the fury of my wrath. I can fuck over behemoths, and make the leviathan my pet, and the leviathan is pretty fucking tough, let me tell you."

Ray, that is quite possibly the funniest and most succinct paraphrase of a biblical passage I have ever seen.

[Indecisive]

Don't forget to add U2's "Wake Up Dead Man."

[Tonio]

Lady Sabrina, while I appreciate your allegory, I'm unsure as to who is the target. Are you saying that Robin Z is right about "Dear God" being an apostrophe? Are you suggesting that most people who pray see "God" as a hypothetical ideal listener and not an actual listener for their prayers?

[Lady Sabrina]

“Is it possible to believe in a god without believing that the god exists? What would the former belief look like?”

I don't think so, but "I believe in X" is idiomatic English for something loosely akin to "I support X" or "I'm behind X" particularly when addressing the subject. For example, when a mother says "I believe in you" to her son, she's not just confirming her reality-based consensus opinion that he exists, she's offering moral support. "I don't believe in you" could just as easily be idiomatic, although actually I don't think it is here.

[Jeff]

It's "Dear God" by XTC, if anyone else needs to look up the lyrics.

The lyrics are "open captioned" on video, as well. Mr Deaf-Person (not total, but enough to REALLY enjoy captioning) here appreciated that.

===================

Does "What if God Was One of Us" by Joan Osborne fit in a similuar category?

[Tonio]

But one of the lovely things about Scripture (any Scripture, ancient or modern) is that it IS open to interpretation. It isn't limited by the text, but by the reader.

While I admire your view, how would one know that it's permissible to find one's own interpretation of scripture? I encounter believers and churches all the time who insist that their interpretation is the only correct one, with personal interpretation not allowed. In addition, much of the national conversation about religion is dominated by literalist extremists by James Dobson. I don't know how less extreme views would even get any exposure. It's like someone with an acoustic megaphone struggling to be heard over a wall of Marshall stacks.

[Dave Lartigue]

It really bugs me when people take this song and go, "Oh, but it's actually deeply religious and very Christian." I think it's pretty obvious what's going on in it, and to try to diminish that by saying, "It's really a way to know God" or whatever is callous and almost insulting. If you don't like your Christian songs praising God then write one you like, but don't try to appropriate a song that isn't praising God and make it into something that is.

[Tonio]

The Osborne song seems on first listening to be a straightforward definition of faith, But the line "Except for the pope maybe in Rome" suggests that the whole thing is tongue-in-cheek.

[Froborr]

While it is true that the existence or nonexistence of God is a scientific question to be answered by empirical data, while the nature of good (and therefore whether or not a given version of God is good) is a philosophical question, once we have *picked* a definition of good the question of whether God is good becomes a scientific one. Does his observed behavior accord with our definition of good? That's an empirical question. If we further make a particular definition of goodness a requirement for being considered God (thus, an omniscient, omnipotent universal creator-being that fails the requirement is not God, but some other entity), then in fact one *can* disprove the existence of God by proving that the universe is inconsistent with a good creator.

[Ian]

Most of Job 38-41 is "I can do this, you can't, so shut the fuck up" list. Job says "Okay, I'll shut up", and God replies, "No, pipsqueak, I'm not finished - Admire the thunder of my voice and the fury of my wrath. I can fuck over behemoths, and make the leviathan my pet, and the leviathan is pretty fucking tough, let me tell you." Brilliant.

What should really disturb us is that Job himself doesn't buy it.* His final answer to God is ironic, defiant and despairing; Job declares that God is all-powerful but evil. Job 42:1-6:

Then Job answered the Lord:
"You know you can do anything.
Nothing can stop you.
You ask 'who is this arrogant muddler?'
Well, I said more than I knew, wonders quite beyond me.
'You listen and I'll talk,' you say,
'I'll question you and you tell me.'
Word of you had reached my ears,
but now that my eyes have seen you,
I shudder with sorrow for mortal clay."

The funny thing about the Bible is that most of the good atheist arguments are in there already.

* This is the Jack Miles translation from God: a Biography. "I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes" is the standard translation of that last verse. There is no word translatable as "myself" in the original, but it's been added in by translators since the Septuagint. The translators seem to assume that repentance is the appropriate response to contact with God, and so they read it in.

[LL]

Life is often unjust, usually because of the actions of terrible humans. That isn't why I'm an atheist, but to me they're pretty good reasons why belief in a god isn't attractive or tempting to me. Seeing what often gets visited upon those who do believe, it's difficult for me to understand why they would. Also, if humans were made in God's image, I sure don't want to meet the original. The copies are bad enough.

In one of my college literature classes, we studied the book of Job. Yeah, God pretty much comes off as a huge asshole there.

[Ian]

One other thing: after Job denounces God, God declares him to be a righteous man and an example to his friends! One interpretation of Job is that being a righteous person means trying to do right by your own lights; we have a right and a duty to demand answers from God when God's words and deeds seem to be out of line with what we think is right.

[Tonio]

The translators seem to assume that repentance is the appropriate response to contact with God

Now I'm picturing the sermon scene from "Monty Python's The Meaning of Life" in my head...

One other thing: after Job denounces God, God declares him to be a righteous man and an example to his friends!

I don't remember that from my reading. For some reason, I remembered the ending as something like God making a heavy sigh and deciding that Job had been through enough.

[Froborr]

we have a right and a duty to demand answers from God when God's words and deeds seem to be out of line with what we think is right.
A very Jewish attitude, actually.

Life is often unjust, usually because of the actions of terrible humans.

Funny, it's always seemed to me that the most unjust things about life are the things no human has any say in. The inevitability and permanence of death, for example. Entropy. Time. Congenital disabilities. The need for sleep. That's how we know there is no good God, because if God exists then God is culpable for all things not caused by human agents.

This is why I call myself an agnostic atheist. I do not know whether the universe itself is a product of agency, but I *do* know, based on empirically provable fact, that nothing I'd consider worthy of worship exists.

[Mark Z.]

Tonio,

Where are you getting this "doctrine of omnipotence"?

[Tonio]

A very Jewish attitude, actually.

Maybe that attitude at the core of why RTCs like LaHaye and Jenkins are hostile to Jews, particularly secular ones. RTC seems to be the opposite of Judaism, where questioning is branded as sinful.

That's how we know there is no good God, because if God exists then God is culpable for all things not caused by human agents.

Absolutely.

I do not know whether the universe itself is a product of agency, but I *do* know, based on empirically provable fact, that nothing I'd consider worthy of worship exists.

While I agree, there are people who believe in the existence of a god but who do not worship that god, such as deists. So belief doesn't automatically entail worship.

Where are you getting this "doctrine of omnipotence"?

If Judaism and Christianity proclaim a god that is not omnipotent, that would be news to me.