Prayer and Life Workshop (PLW) - A Critical Review

LATER ADDITION and WARNING: An insightful associate (J.S.) who follows this blog, asked for a photograph of the Imprimatur page for The Prayer and Life Workshop (PLW) material. We have a number of PLW publications, including all their workshop materials, study guide, leaders guide, and a large document that traces the history of the organization. THERE IS NO IMPRIMATUR. The organization has a very large presence on the web, with workshops in dozens of countries. But when you ask Google to find the term IMPRIMATUR in connection with PLW, NOTHING COMES UP.

PLW

The Prayer and Life Workshop, which is presented in many parishes around the world and in many different languages, has a noble goal and evidently has helped thousands develop an authentic prayer life. This is commendable.

My wife, Pam, has taken the PLW leadership training, which is extensive although a bit repetitive, but has successful produced confident workshop leaders.

The workshop is an authentic "workshop" in that it meets once a week for 2 hours for 15 weeks and interactively involves the participants. Participants learn to pray in a variety of ways and are immersed in the Christian Scriptures. Interactively, during the workshop sessions, there are exercises for relaxation in an effort to disengage from the worries of the day and to focus on God, especially by invoking the Holy Spirit. There are Bible readings, songs, quiet reflections, times of silence, times of sharing in the small group that meets, and two fairly long talks in two parts of each session, presented via CD by a slow speaking, serious, male voice.

I have started taking the workshop, mostly because Pam has asked me to. But, normally, we have always prayed a lot together, and when the kids were around we conducted daily devotions of Bible readings and prayers. Even today, privately, I will spend easily an hour day in some form of prayer. I start before I rise from bed by listening to the Divine Office's Office of Readings. After dressing and before breakfast I will write in a prayer diary, which I've kept since I was a teen, my meditations on Bible passages (sometimes contemplations) and a list of intercessory prayers. At noon my iPhone alarm reminds me to stop and pray the Rosary. Before Pam and I start in on our daily activities, we will pray together extemporaneously, and at night before bed we will do the same. At the end of our evening prayers we will recite the Our Father, a Hail Mary, the Fatima Prayer, the Prayer to the Archangel Michael, a Glory Be and finally Bless ourselves. Then, finally, as I go to sleep my iPhone will play the Divine Office's Night Prayer.  Prayer and related times of reflection, meditation and contemplation, are invaluable in communicating with God and the saints. They are important forms of therapy, and irreplaceable tools for accomplishing things out of my control.

I write all of that to reinforce that the PLW is something I easily support. But, I have....

Some Criticism

I'll begin with some non-consequential issues, some a matter of taste (granted), and work up to what I believe are consequential theological issues.

1. Poor Grammatical Translations

Evidently, the course material we are using in English has been translated from its original Spanish.  In preparation for the facilitating the workshop, Pam spent time editing an information page to be handed to participants during their first session. The document, provide by PLW, was littered with typos, bad translations, and grammatical constructions typical of a bad translation. Considering the size of the PLW organization and that participants pay for materials, we should expect professional translations and copy editing into the local language...evidently the PLW administrators were upset that Pam and improved the readability. 

2. Poor Cultural Translations

More challenging issues are raised in the talks delivered by audio CD. 

a. Void of Personality. 

The CD's are voiced by an unidentified male narrator, whose voice is best described as resonant, slow, methodical, and hypnotic. The phrasing does not come off as natural. There are long pauses. Late in day the talks act as sedatives. But this is a matter of taste and not a significant issue. 

b. Esoteric Jargon. 

The language used is not theological, but it is philosophical. It is jam packed with propositional statements, most of which are not supported with evidence. One gets the sense that the character of the voice alone is all the evidence one should need to embrace the truth of what is being said. Here is an example from Session 3 Part 1 titled Pilgrims of Faith:

Deep prayer is an attempt to possess God, a prelude of eternity that will only be the simultaneous and total possession of eternal life. During deep prayer, when it seems as if God were within reach, he disappears like a dream, becoming only absence and silence. It's like a continually fleeting face which appears and then disappears, materializes and then vanishes, draws near, then retreats, in some cases, turning the adventure of faith into frustration. In this instance, faith itself becomes a real drama. It's the drama of a man who is given an appetizer but is denied the banquet. Imagine the anxiety and frustration as the Gospel says, the kingdom is already among you.

I dare anyone to explain that to me in plain language. At best it is ambiguous, and ambiguity is not a healthy attribute for teaching religion. 

c. Odd Illustrations. 

Pilgrims vs. Tourists

The point of illustrations to explain abstract concepts by citing familiar comparisons. The oddity of the illustrations in these PLW talks, I suspect, comes from Spanish culture of a generation ago—although at 72 years old, I'm actually of the last generation, and these illustrations were lost on me. 

Here are two examples that give cognitive dissonance new meaning. Both these are also from Session 3 Part 1.

We are pilgrims and travelers, not tourists. A tourist knows where he will sleep tonight, what city he will be in tomorrow, in which museums he will visit the next day. A pilgrim doesn't know any of these things. He has no idea where he will sleep tonight or what he will eat tomorrow. Exhaustion, doubt and uncertainty are common elements of all pilgrimages.

In 2019, American, English, a Catholic pilgrim knows exactly where they are going on a pilgrimage. They are not wandering aimlessly like this passage suggests. Modern day pilgrims travel to specific and designated pilgrimage sites, and they are on a schedule.  They have hotel reservations. They may even travel with a tour group with every minute of their journey shepherded and scheduled, and a tourist is typically no different. While exhaustion is certain, doubt and uncertainty of destination and schedule are not common elements of any modern pilgrimage but rather enlightenment, historical and spiritual inspiration, insight, and life-long memories. So, the language of this illustration causes the hearer to struggle to understand what the point of the paragraph is. It's not clear. Supposedly, it has something to do with prayer as if we don't know what to pray for, or how, or where it is going to lead. But no explanation of such is given. Thus, the CD creates a sense that the speaker is on a wandering pilgrimage himself.

War Ships vs. Savages

The second illustration is more archaic and harkens back to a time when greedy Spanish conquistadors invaded Central America looking for gold in the 16th century. Here it is:

In this instance, a risk means that we have to leave our safeguards. For example, let's suppose we're going out to conquer an island and we leave our warships at the port. However, upon arrival we encounter an unexpected number of savage natives. We are in danger of being annihilated, so we run back to the war ship, return to sea and are saved. We have a safe backup, but what if upon arriving at the port, we burn the war ships right then and there. What will happen in conquering the island? We either annihilate all the natives or they annihilate us. We win or lose everything. We run the risk because we have relinquished all of our backups, security. In other words, we burned the ships. We have to let go of our safety backups. The ships must be burned. Like Abraham, we have to put common sense aside as well as explanations and demonstrations, which in the long run explain and prove nothing.  With our hands and feet tied, our eyes closed and hearts open, we must take the leap like Mary and Abraham did so rendering ourselves to that almighty other with an Amen. Thy will be done.

Yes, we have all thought long and hard about conquering an island...burning our war ships...annihilating savages. Aside from the absurdity and inappropriateness of the illustration, it embraces two H U G E fallacies. 

A. It presents a false alternative. 

If the warships are burned we are not faced with either the natives are annihilated or us being annihilated. The army that goes ashore is not faced with winning everything or losing everything. Instead there is an infinite number of in-between possibilities, including peaceful coexistence and cooperation, conversion, even slavery. 

But the more striking weakness is that...

B. It Ignores Common Sense and Reason.

Humans make decisions based on the collection of facts, evidences and reason derived through sensual experiences. We rely on knowledge and memory precipitated by our interaction with our physical surroundings. At least sane people do these things. But, no sane or noble person would burn the ships in order to conquer an island, although a few during Span's greed for gold did, murdering Indians as they went about it. I hope we're not using the evil conquests of Cortez as an allegory to understand Christian faith.  Faith does not require irrationally letting go of our wits, our knowledge, or our experience.  In fact, authentic faith in God cannot exist sanely without reason. Abraham did not set out from Ur without physical resources nor did he leave his wits behind. When he left Ur he still had a host of alternatives and ways to live as a nomad, which many did at his time and place in history. Abraham did not allegorically burn any ships. He left Ur, but there's no indication that he was cut off from sustenance, nor was he left without a sane and analytical mind. But that is what this PLW message conveys that the Pilgrimage of Faith is. 

Mary was troubled by what she was told. Why? Because she applied reason to the vision of Gabriel before her. Mary's devotional life had given her a basis for understanding the supernatural.  It wasn't blind, stupid faith that led her to believe Gabriel, but informed, rational faith...to say nothing of the tangible sign of Gabriel standing (or hovering) before her no doubt with some spectacular artifacts. Her Gabriel physical experience was less faith than sensory experience, but the faith that was required was but an extrapolation of the stories she grew to understand from Jewish history.

Faith cannot exist without the reason demanded by our sensory capacities. This was true of Mary and Abraham. In both lives there were mountains of facts, evidences and reasons to believe the urgings of God upon the future path of their lives.

But let's go further.

Linguistic and Logical Fallacies (Faith and Reason)

I have saved the best for last. 

There is a significant emphasis (especially in Session 3) on the importance of faith at the cost of reason.  In fact, common sense, evidence, and reason are demeaned and cast aside. It is a "faith alone" lesson. I had to leave the session room during the talk. I found it heretical to Catholic understanding of faith and reason, and how both are necessary in the pursuit of truth. 

Let's start with the opening paragraph of Session 3, Part 1, Pilgrims of Faith.

Faith is not feeling. It is knowing. It is not evidence. It is certainty. It is not emotion. It is conviction. To believe is to surrender. Surrender implies a tireless search for the Lord's face. To believe is always a new journey arising each morning and setting out again in search of the Lord's face.

The Either-Or Fallacy

The author (or speaker) sets up several EITHER-OR fallacies. These fallacies are extensive in Protestant theology, whereas in Catholicism you'll find "AND-BOTH" reasoning.  

Feeling vs. Knowing

The first is "Faith is not feeling, it is knowing." While on the surface, or at first blush that seems to be correct, it is also true that knowing something with certainty gives one an emotional feeling of peace that reinforces the sense of truth. In a spiritual context we call such a feeling "consolation." Thus, you cannot separate knowing and feeling. Faith constitutes AND enjoys BOTH.

Evidence vs. Certainty

The second is "Faith is not evidence. It is certainty." But certainly, it is sensory evidence that produces certainty, unless one is omniscient or psychotic. Dr. Ray Guarendi talks about his work in the shrink ward of hospitals where he met patients who were certain they were God. There was no evidence of it, but they were certain. And while it is true that faith is not per se evidence, it is evidence that reinforces and informs faith, and it is evidence, and evidence alone, that provides certainty. Thus, "Faith requires evidence to affirm certainty." 

Surrender vs. Search

One more. The speaker's phrase, "Surrender implies a tireless search..." is a paradox at best and more likely a contradiction considering the earlier sentences.  For to "surrender" means in its most common use the opposite of "search."  Surrender is a passive concept. Search is an active concept. A "tireless search" is even more aggressive than just a "search" and it is clearly not a surrender. Surrender means to do nothing. Cognitive dissonance runs wild with this kind of writing, for surrender implies doing nothing.

Drawing the Wrong Conclusion, Misquoting Scripture

One last example of this text's strangeness. The author attempts to define mature faith by illustrating a childlike faith. He suggests that adult faith is better than a child's faith. As we get into this example, recall that it is Christ who said, "Unless one comes to him as a child (implying the faith of a child) one cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven?"  (Matthew 18:3)


In this instance, the author wants us to compare Mary and Zechariah and how they reacted differently to Gabriel's respective birth announcements for Jesus and John the Baptist. Here is the transcription of the passage from the CD:

Let's talk about adult faith as opposed to childish faith. In life a child is essentially dependent. In order to eat, walk and live he depends on someone else. An adult is independent and can stand alone. In order to allay the fears of taking the leap, childish faith needs support, security, assurance, and reassurance. Adult faith can take the leap without support. An example? The contrast between Mary and Zacharias (Zechariah in American English idiom which I will use.). Zechariah asks the Archangel Gabriel to confirm the news. "All of our lives we dreamed of having a child and now that we are up in years, it happens? I want to believe. Give me a sign that it's true." This is an example of childish faith. In order to believe the impossible or that for God all things are possible, Zechariah needed to touch or see something real. Mary received an even stranger proposal and without asking for promises, assurance or signs, she said, thy will be done in me. That is adult faith.

Several points of criticism.

A. The author claims that Zechariah asked for a sign that what Gabriel said is true, and that Mary did not ask for a sign. Now, indeed the Greek text is different, but both Zechariah and Mary challenge Gabriel and ask how their respective prophecies are to be. The Greek implies that Zechariah may be asking for a sign that it be true, where Mary is simply asking how it will happen. And that difference suggests that Zechariah did not believe and Mary did. But both DID receive a sign. What was it? God almighty, have mercy on us for not noticing. IT WAS A GIGANTIC ANGEL FROM HEAVEN (Gabriel no less) STANDING IN FRONT OF THEM AND TALKING TO THEM.  

Thus, both Mary and Zechariah were given SIGNS (flashing neon ones) before they ever asked for one. So, Zechariah was made dumb not because he asked for a sign (he got that). The issue with Zechariah was he just didn't believe, and probably would not have believed anything he was told. But Mary did. The sign of Gabriel appearing before her was enough. "She was troubled" the text says. Zechariah had seen it all. Being a priest who entered the Holy of Holies, he was used to seeing God, evidently.  So, the author suggests that the adult like faith of Mary did not need a sign (although she got one) and the child like faith of Zechariah did need a sign (although he got one, too). It seems obvious that asking and getting a sign had nothing to do with their faith.

B. Now, it is interesting that the author actually contradicts himself with this example. He claims a child needs a sign, and that adults don't need signs. But in this case, it was the child (Mary) that did not need a sign (if we believe this was the criteria, and I don't) and it was the adult (old Zechariah) that did need a sign (although he got one).  And so, who is standing independently here, the child or the adult? According to the speaker, adults stand independently and children need support. But, of course, his example contradicts that assumption. And that brings us back to Matthew 18:3, which I suspect the author had forgotten all about.

(Pam, who is the experienced teacher of children believes the author is speaking of how a child requires "concrete" examples or signs, whereas an adult can get by with "subjective" examples or signs. Thus, she reasons, Zechariah was asking for concrete proof and Mary was satisfied with the subjective. Again, this may be something lost in translation. The Bible doesn't tell us everything; it's likely an abbreviated account of the encounter. Suffice it to say Zechariah didn't believe, Mary did.)


C. Just to reinforce the obvious: Both Mary and Zechariah received magnificent, physical signs from the Archangel Gabriel, insofar as both sensually experienced Gabriel visually and aurally. Both challenged Gabriel almost exactly the same for the veracity of the prophecies.  Zechariah asked: "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And Mary asked "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" Thus, the difference in faith had nothing to do with asking for a sign or with challenging Gabriel. It was simply that one believed the angel and the other did not. The reasons for Mary's faith and the lack of Zechariah's faith are not given.


Thus, and in many other ways, these messages are not linguistically or logically robust and ultimately will introduce confusion in the mind of the hearers. 

----------------------

For further study I recommend two great resources we've spent years developing. Please check them out...except this isn't a library. You have to buy them. 

The Logical Case for Catholicism

Basic Christianity: Facts, Evidences, Reasons