I am imagining a couple of different scenarios.
In the first scenario, I have poured my heart out to someone. Something worries, troubles, or afflicts me, and I vulnerably divulge those burdens. And the person on the receiving end says, “I’ll pray for you.” This response is often genuine. But sometimes it’s not. Sometimes it’s the easy way out. Truthfully, it is easier to tell me that you will pray for me than it is to walk or talk with me through pain. Sometimes this response is a way to absolve them of their communal responsibility to respond to my needs, to carry burdens, to be present.
In the second scenario, someone who knows very little about me tells me they will pray for me. This, too, is often genuine (and appreciated). But why does the person feel the need vocalize their intent to pray for me? I think, in this case,the “I’ll pray for you” response may be marshaled as a means to gain greater access to me. Perhaps it is vocalized not to reveal their prayer intentions but their relational intentions. In other words, “I care about you” or “I want to be involved in your life.” So the relational desire is cloaked in spiritual language.
So, what to make of this?
I don’t throw these scenarios out as criticisms. I generally appreciate when people tell me they will pray for me (whether they actually do or not). I contemplate these scenarios because I think there is more to the utterance than what we interpret at face-value. There is more to it than simply revealing one’s prayer intentions. Isn’t it possible that “I’ll pray for you” is actually a rhetorical move to dodge the responsibility of doing the gritty community? Isn’t it also possible that “I’ll pray for you” is actually a rhetorical move to attempt to foster a greater sense of connectedness?
