Analysis by cause and effect acting on categories of things is Not Ultimately True; because relationships between Beings are primary

The analysis by causes and effects, using abstract categories of entities, was developed in the classical and medieval periods when there was still a great deal of spontaneous, unconscious "participation" of human consciousness. 

In other words, when these abstractions cause/ effect/ category were devised; even "things" (such as stars and planets) were regarded - quite naturally, and by experience - as personifications, with the kind of innate nature and desires of a living being. 

But for the modern (especially adult) consciousness, participation has dwindled almost to nothing; and even living beings, even human beings, are regarded primarily as if non-living "things". 

Therefore, to seek understanding of people, the abstractions of category, cause and effects are deployed as if these are the primary and bottom-line realities - more real and important than the relationships between people...

Indeed; relationships between people are themselves subordinated to categorical, cause & effect analysis. 

The mainstream Christian churches have largely apostatized into secular modern consciousness and ideology; and even the most traditionalist of modern church Christians have continued to use the classical and medieval versions of abstract analyses. 

But nowadays, because modern consciousness is so different, these abstractions are not-participated, the abstractions do not return us to the mind-set of the ancients - but instead, the abstractions are alienated and alienating. 

This is why, for instance, Scholastic or Calvinist theologies are so cold and material-mechanical to the modern mind: because we cannot help but take them literally. When they (and older categories and causes) originated, the rigorous philosophy was experienced (quite spontaneously) in what we might regard as a warm, poetic, mystical, animistic way.  

And would-be spiritual explanations for group prayer, ritual, sacredness are often set-out (or, at least, asserted) in a kind of pseudo-scientific fashion: as if constituting a laboratory procedure, or a computer program: If you do this, then this, in such a fashion - then these will be the objective outcomes...

But if, as I believe, the ultimate (metaphysical) reality is that of "Beings in relationships"; then we ought to be trying to understand in these personal and interpersonal terms.

After all, within a good and loving family; the members are Not understood in terms of categories, and their relationships are not conducted as if cause and effect recipes for producing desired results. 

Instead; we realize that we cannot, and should not, treat each other in this mechanistic way; and that our influences on each other are not of a cause and effect nature. 

To read many trad Christians; one would think that getting married, raising a family and living in a family ought to be a matter of slotting members into the proper categories, then following the correct (and God-approved) procedures for implementing the desired changes and outcomes! 

But this is to reduce the family to a bureaucracy; and bureaucracy is intrinsically evil. 

And it matters not whether the bureaucracy purports to be conducted according to laws and regulations of some interpretation of the Bible, Church authority, tradition, theology, or whatnot.

We have all been ingrained with bad habits, actively-evil habits, of depersonalization; of mechanizing humans and other beings - and regarding such mechanizing as not just valid but superior - as (supposedly) validated by our understanding of ancient law and practice.  

Yet such behaviour leads us away from salvation, and by a very direct route; by making salvation impersonal, actually non-personal; reduced to a business of the abstract operations of cause and effect on things. 

Fortunately, it is quick and easy to repent such habits - once we have noticed them, and understood their nature and tendency. 

We all have built-into us - innately, from childhood - the instinct to understand other people and the world by means of relationships between living, purposive, conscious beings. All we require is to know, to be clear about, to decide; is that this is indeed the right and good way of understanding and acting. 

**

The Example of Prayer:

An an instance of the above, we may consider the influence of prayer on other people, as explained by Christians. 

In the medieval past, for instance, the individual conscious was less differentiated from, more immersed in, group consciousness. Therefore a prayer did not come entirely from any individual, and did not express the personal wants of any individual; but was significantly from the group-consciousness, it actually arose from the group. Its effect was because of this - from the group, to the group. 

The medievals may have interpreted prayer in a cause and effect way: I pray for this to happen to him; but in reality, when prayer was effectual it was because prayer operated in an unconscious and implicit group context. 

But the modern person has become detached (almost wholly) from the group-consciousness. This is our freedom and agency, but it also means that our prayers have a different origin. 

Our prayers may come from our selves alone - and without connection with other consciousnesses; and/or derive from second-hand sources, from perceived external stimuli interpreted by learned concepts (such as the political propaganda and the mass media, or from social media).  

Modern people lack a plausible or real basis for the effect of prayers. Mainstream people probably regard prayers as operating on the consciousness of the prayer, with a secondary group-psychological effect, derived from the experience of praying as a group. 

Modern traditionalists regard prayer (and indeed the church) as if it were an engineering project: a matter of particular words in a particular context leading to particular effects - albeit and importantly by the Grace of God, and not from purely human and material causes. 

Yet there is a very considerable quasi-objective "positivism" (materialism, reductionism, scientism) about the way that prayer, ritual, sacraments - even miracles - are understood by modern traditionalists (who have the modern alienated consciousness). 

For Trads; our business as mortal men is to regard Christian realities as objective categories with cause and effect interactions - yet this is, in practice and intrinsically, to reduce humans to things, whatever protestations otherwise.  

What I am suggesting is that we ought not to think of prayer in a cause and effect fashion, operating between our-selves and other people or other things. 

We should instead regard prayer in the context of those entities with whom we ourselves are bound by relationships of love - as we and they were of a family. 

Where there is not this inter-personal (inter-being) love, then there will be no real prayer - with love, all prayer will be significant, will make-a-difference. 

Where there is love, then prayer does not work by cause and effect, but works on the relationships. 

And by this, I means prayer works on the real and ultimate spiritual relationships, relationships that transcend and encompass physical relationships, and potentially extend to post mortal life, and potentially eternally. 

In everyday life, our beneficial relationships are those which are loving, and which regard the other persona as an unique person, our relationship as unique. Actual benefits are seldom planned, and sledom contrived; but consequent on loving relationships. 

And that is how our prayers work also.