A pattern for daily prayers
A lot of the time, when it is time to pray, I am busy and preoccupied, and fail to devote careful thought to how to pray appropriately. I wrote this “liturgy” to help me establish a pattern for daily prayers. There are no specified prayers, but it provides a structure to pray from, and in a few cases, some scriptures that have helped to conform my mind to God’s. If it would help you, feel free to use it.
A PATTERN FOR DAILY PRAYERS
1. To be prayed upon waking, before morning Bible study.
- Thank God for the gift of another day. Acknowledge the reality of death and that He has numbered my days (Psalm 90).
- Humbly confess my sinfulness and continuing need for forgiveness
(Psalms 51, 32). - Pray for deliverance from temptation and from my besetting and unknown sins (Matt 6:12-13).
- Pray for God’s will to be done this day, and that I would spend all my time for His glory.
- Ask God for daily guidance and help.
- Confess my foolishness and my constant need for Divine wisdom (Jam. 1:5).
2. To pray after Bible study. Take brief notes to record the Lord’s faithfulness.
- Meditate on the Word read, and pray as the Holy Spirit leads.
- Praise God for His faithfulness and steadfast love revealed through Christ, in His Word.
- Make known my specific requests for Divine wisdom, mercy, and providence (Phil. 4:6).
- Offer prayers for others as I know their needs.
- Commit my way to the Lord. (Psalm 37).
3. To be prayed before going to sleep. Take notes, where appropriate.
- Thank God for the ways He showed Himself faithful today.
- Confess and repent of sins known and unknown.
- Thank God for the free gift of redemption through the blood of Christ
(Rom. 6:23). - Commit my life into God’s hands (Psalm 4:8).
- Thank Him for the gift of sleep (Psalm 127:2).
Voegelin quotes
I’m now 50 pages into Eric Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics, and boy is it dense. Part of his thesis is that we use certain words very sloppily when speaking of political societies–words like “representation”–and so he invents an alternate vocabulary to express specific ideas. Also, his style is very passive and wordy, so it is difficult to understand. Nevertheless, it is fascinating enough to be worth the trouble.
If someone translated this book into Russell Kirk-style prose, it would just too good.
Quotes:
The persistent arrogation of the symbol “representation” for a special type of articulation is a symptom of political and civilizational provincialism. And provincialisms of this kind, when they obscure the structure of reality, may become dangerous. Hauriou very strongly suggested that representation in the elemental sense is no insurance against existential disintegration and rearticulation of a society. (p.50)
In other words, although a society may retain the working structure we have come to know as “democratic,” this is no guarantee that the ordering principle which originally inspired this type of structure will continue unharmed. This ordering principle may be subverted over time while the structure it created remains (not a good thing).
Although writing in the 50s, Voegelin already realized the dangerous effects that encouraging American-style political structure would have in societies whose underlying philosophy did not naturally flow into such a structure–bluntly, any society without the European tradition.
Our own foreign policy was a factor in aggravating international disorder through its sincere but naive endeavor of curing the evils of the world by spreading representative institutions in the elemental sense to areas where the existential conditions for their functioning were not given . . . One cannot explain the odd policies of Western democratic powers leading to continuous warfare, with weaknesses of individual statesmen–though such weaknesses are strongly in evidence. They are rather symptomatic of a massive resistance to face reality, deeply rooted in the sentiments and opinion of the broad masses of our contemporary Western societies.
And I just learned that it was Voegelin who coined the epithet, “immanentize the eschaton.” 
Hasta,
PCS
Original Autographs
The question “Do you believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs?” is both a loaded question and a question-begging question. Hence, it is both fallacious as well as a defection from the standards of historic orthodoxy because it restricts the theological notion of inspiration to the lost original autographs alone, thus leaving believing communities without a present infallible Bible today. As such the phrase is in contradiction to the expressions of the historic orthodoxy of the past, which spoke in terms of initial inspiration and concomitant preservation and expressed this in the language of the infallibility of the apographs, rather than in the modernist phrase “inerrancy of the autographs”…
If we won’t admit to having God’s infallible scriptures to guide us today, how can we claim to be Christians?
Cliques
Looking around at school, one sees a lot of groups. Usually these are just informal associations of people who are friends with each other, and tend to spend time together. These can be either “loose” or “tight.” “Loose” groups are all friends, but no member spends all their time with the group, and the group does not have a quantifiable membership. It is more often just anyone and their particular friends who happen to be around at the moment. It is easy for newcomers to join loose groups. “Tight” groups are the ones that are so obvious on a small campus. They are all very good friends with each other, and tend to spend time with each other exclusively. Even when the clique is not together, another person may feel like an outsider around a member of the group, because he or she is a “known” member of the group. One may even be good friends with all the members of the group (very common on this small campus), and yet not be part of the group by anyone’s reckoning. The motivations for forming a clique are numerous. Intimate friendships are easier to develop when one’s circle is limited to a small number of people who are all close friends. Moreover, these friendships naturally develop more deeply in less time. It provides a good feeling of security for those who are in it. However, there is a size limitation with this sort of group. Its “inner circle” comprises generally no more than eight or ten members. It is difficult for a group of this sort to maintain the same meaningful relationship between more than this number of people. Once established, a clique is exclusive by nature, even though none of the members may have a desire to exclude others. A clique may even have an “outer ring,” which comprises people who are good friends with all the people in the clique and are trying to be “in,” but for whatever reason are not. Often the reason is that, given their particular situation and schedule, they are unable to spend enough time with each of the members of the group, and the group as a whole, to be accepted.
If these would-be clique members only knew it, the social benefits for joining a clique are actually much fewer than those found by associating with loose groups. For the garrulous person, there is a much greater opportunity for social networking and making new friends, and for the introvert, there is a better chance of having a good time with a small number of friends if it is not so tight as to exclude him or make him uncomfortable. For certain, one must work harder to develop very close friendships, as the natural structure of a loose association does not promote them. A loose group also does not provide the same feeling of “belonging” that one experiences—or seeks—as a member of a clique. But one is likely to have more friends and more opportunities for social interaction by avoiding cliques. Dating is also much easier with loose groups than with cliques. In order to date a member of a clique, one must either become a member of the clique, in essence having to “court” each member of the clique, and the clique as a whole, before he can go out with the one he’s interested in, or else he must separate his date from the clique. If he manages to get a date without joining the clique, it will inevitably weaken her position within the clique. Either way, he must be serious enough to jeopardize his social network in order to date her. In the first case, he will distance himself from people outside the clique by joining it, or in the second case, he will distance himself and his date from the people within the clique. Dating a member of a loose group, however, makes nobody feel threatened, and is therefore much more socially desirable.
Some cliques are formed intentionally; however, most arise naturally out of already-existing friendships. Sometimes one must actively avoid forming a clique, possibly by intentionally bringing new people into a group of friends, or spending some time with people one knows less well. Although there may be extra effort involved, avoiding cliques is worth it. Not only does membership in a clique limit one’s social horizons, it also puts him at a disadvantage in reaching out to others. Cliques are structurally unkind. No matter how sincere one may be in trying to include others in his activities, his efforts will either strain his closeness to the clique, or else his membership will interfere with his outreach.
In conclusion, to borrow from Cato,“Globi delendi sunt.”
Note: Roommates are a special case. These groups generally contain no more than three members of the same sex, and usually each member has his or her own network of friends. Dating one roommate is not likely to alienate the others. However, if entire groups of roommates are part of a clique or “tight” group, this arrangement only enforces the insularity of the clique.
1 comment