On Criticisms Against "Thoughts and Prayers" (Updated 10/02/22)

 

Before I even begin to get into it, I want to point out this entry will both recognize and acknowledge certain circumstances when the popular criticism of “thoughts and prayers” might be warranted, but will primarily be a defense of “thoughts and prayers.” The idea there is something inherently wrong about offering “thoughts and prayers” is a idiom we are frequently confronted with nowadays from the headlines of newspapers to memes. Despite the concessions I’ve made, the overall air of the phrase is done mean-spiritedly rather than offering any real critique. When more material from the source of this mockery is available, this oft becomes evident by additional evidence.

If we assume the mockery to be non-existent motive, then it is usually used to impress upon anyone offering their cares in the form of “thoughts and prayers” a certain level of guilt which may make them change their tune on whatever issue is at hand. As if to say, “Your thoughts and prayers are useless, and something more about this issue needs to be done. Your thoughts and prayers haven’t changed anything and your inaction has lead to the issue becoming prominent in society.” Maybe, then, the target who feels guilt or pressure for what they have not done and will swap sides.

This method is, at least, conceptually accurate and one of the elements which makes it so is, often, those who pray and who believe prayer to be a powerful force in the world differ from the progressive society we find ourselves in. It is neither far-fetched in practicality due to the Christian Progressivism and Unitarian ideas creeping into the Church. Christian houses of worship are getting more and more progressive because they, in part, have been heavily influenced by progressives. It is my contention the impression of guilt upon people does, indeed, sway them as does the appeals to emotion which spur it on.

These are generalities of course, but the fissure between Progressivism and Evangelicals can be denied. As Progressivism moves forward, Evangelicals become a bigger and bigger threat. Hence, the other outcome of attacking “thoughts and prayers,” namely, to furrow the brows of those already against the people who engage in these practices. It is interesting the comfortable camaraderie people find under banners of hate. No matter what side of the aisle you fall, it is trustworthy observation. It should be noted such a method isn’t used to just present disagreement, but to vilify and make any opponent the object of utmost scorn. Unlike the concept of a “dog whistle,” where proponents get the message loud and clear while going unnoticed by others, the message is said loud and unblushingly by all.

Those motives aside, the real issue with “thoughts and prayers” and those who criticize it, is it represents a misconception on how it works to being with. Admittedly, if you see a person get injured, say, right in front of you and you swan off to keep from getting your hands dirty, or because you have something better to do, the criticism is warranted. However, in the broadest sense, it isn’t how “thoughts and prayers” work among Evangelicals. There are numerous studies which show faith is one of the determining factors in helping people, both with volunteer work, and with donations to charitable causes. Given this, faith being such an important element to increase the probability of one giving and helping, the Evangelical, or say more generally someone of faith, doesn’t have the view on “thoughts and prayers” which is assigned to them.

Let us say you yourself were homeless and a person came up to you on the street and asked you for money. You might respond, “My friend, if I had anything at all I could give you I would. But I myself have no money.” An understandable reaction since you are limited in what you could do for the said person. Sometimes in life too we are limited by proximity and nearness to be able to do anything of any physical help or worth. It just the nature of things. For instance, at the time of this writing hurricane Ian just swept across Florida and now is making landfall in South Carolina. I myself live on the west coast, and am quite limited on my power or what I could do for anyone there at this time. I can’t take them into my home. I can’t feed them. Provide shelter or any of the rest. I could certainly donate to the cause and give to those charities who are proximate to the event, yet I can’t be there to help. Nor can millions of other Americans.

If a person yet has faith and believes in the power of prayer, they might be offered up so God may protect, bless, and heal the land. Even if you aren’t a religious person, you certainly know prayer is engaged in by believers and when there are times of helplessness, as if your actions won’t or can’t change anything, then prayer is logically where the faithful would go next. One can debate the worth of prayer until they are blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact people engage and do so when they are not near to an event. I might go so far as to suggest, in this context, there is a relationship between proximity and prayer.

The practice of blessing is something to consider on our next point. Many people within the Church have their children blessed by a pastor or priest. This is a very common practice but even though it has prayer as a part of the ceremony, nobody would rationally think it excludes action. The child still needs to be reared up correctly, nourished, cared for, instructed, and all the like. Children are a lot of work and the presence of prayer and blessing doesn’t remove responsibility in any degree, nor is it expected to. Using this example, we see one of the errors made when people mock “thoughts and prayers,” for there is no extant evidence of there being a disjunction between prayer and action. “You either use prayer or you use action,” is not a valid characterization of the beliefs of those who pray and it is evident it is a logical fallacy (false dichotomy).

 

To the faithful, prayer and action go hand and hand. Prayer supplements action. Some Evangelicals pray over their day before they get out of bed. It doesn’t mean they don’t swing their legs off the bed and plant their feet firmly on the floor and take care of responsibilities, it just asks a blessing over their day so the results might surpass the efforts. This, in essence, is a common formula to prayer, that whatever our object of worship, by their hand a greater output may be experienced by what we can input. Such as, “Lord may this letter (or paper) be effective,” or “bless the work of my hands.” Yet, this always just applies to the silly faithful who are incapable of changing anything right? Not so much because the term also includes thoughts which is a consideration extending beyond faith to normal human experience.

 

 

(Hopefully you plant your feet on the floor and it is not one of “those” mornings.)

 

From the position of an atheist this should be rejected outright. The suggestion thoughts go apart from action is irrational, absurd, and even unscientific. Often times we have to think on issues before we find the best and most correct way to respond. Sometimes, we actually have to pause an action to give it thought so we may not do the wrong action or go about something the wrong way. It in no sense removes action from anything. So, both on the basis of prayer and of thought, we have a complete misunderstanding of the nature of both.

I did say, however, there is a part which is accurate. This is written unto the faithful though and I don’t think the secularist would have much use for it. First, the idiom “thoughts and prayers” used as a message of concern where there really is none is dumb. Some who mock “thoughts and prayers” are those who have seen it hash-tagged enough to where it just got annoying and a tool of gaining clout. Again, dumb. Let’s put in a Christian context where it might also be an accurate criticism.

 

Some who mock it are not going after thought as much as they are going after prayer, but since Christians are supposedly not very deep thinkers anyway, attacking thought appeals to them. This aside, let us say you have a dear friend whose family member is in the process of passing away. Or, it doesn’t even need to be a friend, just any acquaintance. They ask you, “Please pray for so-and-so” and you agree affirming to them you will “keep them in your prayers.” Then, let us say, you do not. Not because you are spiteful or anything, you just forgot with being busy, or you just didn’t have so much invested in this person passing on so it skipped your mind. As terrible as it may sound.

 

 

We can make all the excuses we want, but to say you are going to pray for someone, and you don’t, is wrong. In the end you gave someone your word you would do something and you didn’t. It is in this kind of context criticism against “thoughts and prayers” becomes applicable. It becomes a platitude which you ultimately shrug off. Indeed, I have no doubt people have used this as a platitude before, and it has a part to play in the mockery it has become.

 

 

 

In addition, you ever notice how even among the secular community, you still occasionally get a request for prayer when they are in dire need? It is a fascinating thing where someone will mock prayer at one time and ask for it another. Notice the main target of this “mob” against “thoughts and prayers” is generally the ones offering them, not the ones asking for them. If someone approaches me Online from across the country and asks for our prayer, should we say, “I can’t pray for you because I can’t do anything for you.” Of course not. Such a response would lack compassion.

This is another thing the secularists have a hard time understanding: Prayer is often an expression of compassion. Many suggest through “thoughts and prayers” we just don’t care. This is a faulty assumption because though you might conclude prayer has no value, it is not universally concluded. Those who do find prayer an appropriate response, often pray for the needy and those terrible events which confront our world and act in accordance when they can. Yet, I can’t discount, as mentioned above, the “hash-tagging” of the phrase, which is the spiritual equivalent of putting a countries flag on your profile picture when they’re facing some crisis. “Hey, look at me, I have a Ukraine flag behind my head. I really care!” It is a horrible thing to use to get clout. However, if you are sincere then more power to you. Likewise, avoid “thoughts and prayers” hash-tagging (as a platitude it needs to be removed from people’s vocabulary), but if sincere keep those thoughts and prayers coming.

It is our conclusion then the criticism of “thoughts and prayers” is irrational based on the elements within the phrase. It is absurd because neither thought nor prayer necessarily remove action or effort. Not only this, but there is nothing wrong with offering “thoughts and prayers” when a person is unable to provide effort due to not being proximate to the event, but still has great concern. These are somewhat irrelevant though since much of the criticism itself isn’t really an argument as much as it is mean-spirited anger being expressed over disagreement, which can function as a means to get clout in and of itself.