This is part 5 of a 6 part series
Recently I finished the book Praying With The Church by Scot McKnight. The book is a look at different traditions (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and roughly protestant ecumenical) of communal prayer. It’s an important book because it seeks to introduce protestants from non-liturgical traditions (Baptists, Charismatics, E-Free Church…etc) to a type of highly liturgical prayer.
Within the vast majority of evangelical protestant churches, prayer is strictly an individual endeavor. Yes, many churches have prayer meetings where the church gathers to pray, but the prayers that are offered are all individual prayers. Each person prays what is “on their heart,” others may agree and nod, or pray along similar lines, but it is really praying alone in a group. There is nothing wrong with this type of prayer of course, as McKnight makes clear, there is a time and place for it, but it has become the only type of prayer many protestants know.
Historical Corporate Prayer
If one is serious about looking at church history, one must look at the type of prayers offered up by past generations; both their content and their form. It is clear that praying alone in a group as we do now has not been the only way the church has historically prayed. Set prayers, at set times, is a tradition reaching back into Judaism and was employed right from the early church to today. Yet for fear of participating in “vain repetitions” and being “too Catholic” the majority of evangelical protestants have given up this tradition long ago. But should we have?
Much like reading through and reciting the creeds of the church can connect one to the past (as discussed in the last entry) so too can prayers anchor a person in the historic church. One of the major shaping factors of any group is its practice. This is even more true with prayer. I’ve heard the expression before from evangelicals that “you are what you pray” meaning that your prayer life will direct the type of person you become. If that is the case I want to be one who is conscious of my history.
The daily prayers of various traditions not only teach us a lot about where they come from - they go beyond academic knowledge and offer us new ways of looking at God outside of our tradition. Today in our churches, prayers of every kind are often offered up “off the cuff.” Little thought is put into the words used to describe God, man, and our relationship, often leading to clumsy wording that listeners find hard to follow or at worst promote incorrect teaching.
One of the beauties of set prayers is that a tradition has often wrestled with these prayers for ages. They are detailed, theologically set out prayers that one should have no problem learning from. Emphasis put on the central themes of scripture (Christ, sin, repentance, gospel) and not on whatever the preacher feels the congregation needs today (which is important but must be balanced with the whole of scripture).
Vain Repetitions or Consistent Communication?
The evangelical argument against set prayers is that they constitute “vain reputations”, but does repeating the same prayers each morning (with some changes) make for vain reputations? If we think about the words, and mean them is that vain?
There is a danger yes, one may start to only say them without thinking and without meaning them, but doesn’t that same danger exist with “off the cuff” prayers? If one has been in the church for a few years, you know how to formulate a prayer that sounds good, means nothing, and keeps the people around you happy. Vain reputations is not a scourge only on set prayers but exists on all types of prayers: it should not be an excuse to discount one type but instead to redouble the efforts to mean what you pray and think about it.
To go into detail about how to begin praying set prayers is beyond the scope of this post. McKnight’s book seems to be a good place to start. I myself have begun this past week to attend Anglican morning prayers each Friday for, among other reasons, to learn more about this tradition and develop the habit of praying with those who have come before me in the church. I loved the experience this past week.
Bryan,
This was a phenomenal article. I have often tried to nail down what I thought was wrong with a lot of the “prayer meetings” and corporate prayers in my body. But this is an accurate description at times:
sounds good, means nothing, and keeps the people around you happy
I do not think that the whole model of “praying alone in a group” is wrong, but I think there is a need for some set or more consistently articulated prayers.
This is part of general criticism I am developing for modern evangelical protestantism as I read many of the articles on this site: there seems to be a lack of “quality” at times in the way churches are set up and then engaged. So often, we like to preserve a sense of dynamics and “life” in a church via improvisation and freedom. Quality is shunned as a code-word for legalism. However, I think that in may ways we have gotten away from piety and seriousness in our approach to God within these situations. I think your ideas on prayer may indicate that we have gotten away from quality in that instance as well.
I always try to take a biblical approach to prayer, rather than a necessarily historical or traditional one. That said, there is definitely biblical precedent for repetitious prayers in the New Testament. Consider this prayer Paul prayed for the Colossians:
9For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
(Colossians 1:9-12)
I wouldn’t call this liturgical, but he says that he doesn’t cease to pray this way. So while he may not be using the exact words consistently (and I doubt very much he was reading prayers he had written), this does show the necessity of continual supplication for other believers.
People get into “vain repetition” when they think they are heard for their much speaking, as Jesus said. So the attitude is of prime importance in your approach to God. When I go to God, I approach him confidently because I approach him on the basis of the blood of Jesus Christ. And I KNOW that he hears me because I ask according to his will (His Word). Remember what Jesus said in John 15:7:
“If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.”
So effective prayer, whether liturgical or otherwise, is scripturally based. The assumption that praying the same thing over and over again gets results is incorrect if it assumes the answer to prayer is a result of repetition. That does not mean that prayer should not be repetitious. Indeed some prayer should be repetitious and continual, not because God is hard of hearing, but because there is a continual need to be met or direction is being sought.
Right on, Chris. I personally don’t find any form of prayer “better” than another. But I do see value in trying different forms. However, from what I’ve seen in the Catholic church, the set prayers are about as blandly done as one can imagine. Vain repetitions is a great term for them. And liturgical prayers, when used exclusively, can really tend toward repetitiveness.
Also, I think Bryan’s critique of Protestant churches isn’t accurate. From personal experience, I would estimate that a MAJORITY of traditional Protestant churches include some amount of set prayers/readings in their services from time to time. My small little Baptist church that I grew up in did so quite frequently. The current E Free church I attend does so less frequently. Again, how is this issue any different than all of the other “personal preference vs. Biblical doctrine” issues that have caused so many denominational splits the last few centuries? I’m all for learning church history and not forgetting some traditions (as long as they are Biblical), but we need to be careful not to go to the extreme that liturgical prayers should be the primary form of prayer in the church.
“However, from what I’ve seen in the Catholic church, the set prayers are about as blandly done as one can imagine. Vain repetitions is a great term for them. And liturgical prayers, when used exclusively, can really tend toward repetitiveness.”
Yeah, I think we really have to guard ourselves against turning prayers into incantations, as if they are magic words. I have not studied much about liturgy or the Catholic (hail Mary full of grace) type prayers, so I don’t want to come off as overly critical. But I like to talk to God in a very conversational way. I mean, how else should you talk to your Father? That doesn’t necessarily suggest irreverence at all.
However, I will agree with what Colin has said about people getting away from seriousness. There is an air of irreverence in many churches. I just don’t know whether liturgy is the cure for that ill. I think the problem is more of a reflection of a condition of the heart than anything else.
I agree with the idea that “spontaneous” prayers tend to be just about as repetitive as liturgical prayers, and often less meaningful.
“I agree with the idea that “spontaneous” prayers tend to be just about as repetitive as liturgical prayers, and often less meaningful.”
That all depends on how much of the Word is abiding in you. I’ve had times when I can pray in English for an extended period of time while being inspired by the Holy Ghost, but generally that comes as a result of prolonged meditation in the scriptures. During these times of prayer the words just role off my tongue, and I become conscious of the fact that the words are coming from my innermost being and not my natural understanding.
I don’t put emphasis on spontaneity, but I do put emphasis on the inspiration of the Spirit. Nothing compares to it. I think that is what Paul was trying to communicate when he said we should be,
“Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.” (Ephesians 6:18)
There is a ditch on both sides of the road.
The written, standardized prayers of the liturgy and in scripture can be prayed either meaningfully or not.*
The spontaneous prayers of protestants can be prayed either meaningfully or not.*
Sometimes an ancient written prayer actually says what your heart and mind couldn’t quite verbalize in a spontaneous prayer. What an encouragement to know that saints of old had the same struggles we do today.
Sometimes a spontaneous prayer can express one’s faith in a specific way that a written prayer has no clue about. What an encouragement to hear a friend pray for me in a way so specific to my need that I know the Spirit is leading him.
I vote we keep both forms of prayer.
*see Chris’s post above this one.
Kind of like hymns versus modern worship songs.
“Kind of like hymns versus modern worship songs.”
What do you mean?
I interpreted it to mean it is good to have both kinds of music just like it is good to have both kinds of prayer in our corporate worship.
Exactly. An ancient hymn is usually more verbose and not so repetitive, but a worship song can offer a more modern way of praising God. In and of themselves, neither is wrong (though certain so-called worship songs are not very scriptural). A little bit of each can be quite useful.
“In and of themselves, neither is wrong (though certain so-called worship songs are not very scriptural). A little bit of each can be quite useful.”
I see what you’re saying. I have to agree with you on about the “so-called worship songs” not being very scriptural. That really irks me. I used to play in a worship band, and there were just some of those songs I flat refused to sing. I never voiced opposition to them, I just didn’t sing them or just skipped the really unscriptural parts. There is one our church sings that comes to mind:
“Oh, I wish I could sing like David sang…”
I’m thinking, “So what’s stopping you?” How is that worship or praise? That’s ridiculous! I could give you countless other examples, but I don’t feel like getting my dander up.
“I am a friend of God” [repeat over and over again]
Hope your dander isn’t up yet.
“I am a friend of God” [repeat over and over again]
I wouldn’t say this lyric is completely unscriptural. I mean Abraham was called the friend of God, and they blessing of Abraham is ours by faith. Plus Jesus called his disciples friends.
How about, “Give us clean hands…”
How can this lyric be reconciled with:
21And you, that WERE [past tense] sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet NOW [present tense] hath he reconciled
22In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
(Colossians 1:21,22)
The problem I have with some of these so-called worship songs is that they have a “before Christ” mentality about them. Any song that sings about being unrighteous and pleas for God to make us clean, etc. fails to take into account that the power of the redemptive work of Christ. Such a song, by definition, cannot be praise or worship. What? Are we praising God because we are so unworthy and helpless? The concept of reconciliation actually does denote righteousness or friendship. I mean, did not God ever make an unrighteous creation. If not, those who are new creations have no reason or right to sing about being unclean. We need to decide whether we are washed or unclean. Being washed IS actually a reason to praise God.
Yes, I see what you mean. I think of “Give us clean hands” as recognition that we still struggle with the flesh, even though we are technically clean before God.
As for “I am a friend of God”… I don’t think the lyrics of themselves are completely off-base (though some mention of Jesus’ statement that he is our friend IF we obey Him might be nice), but rather the emphasis or focus of the song. I, I, I. Me, Me, Me. Not really a worship song. Encouraging song, perhaps, but not fit for worship.
“Yes, I see what you mean. I think of “Give us clean hands” as recognition that we still struggle with the flesh, even though we are technically clean before God.”
Let’s assume that is what the songwriter meant, when he wrote “Give Us Clean Hands.” But should we be asking God to give us clean hands because of our struggle with the flesh? And if so, is that praise? Look at Paul’s take on dealing with the flesh:
“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Corinthians 9:27).
Is he asking God to do something about his flesh? Nope. This is what he is saying:
2Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
4When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
5Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
(Colossians 3:2-5)
Bringing the flesh under subjection to the inner man is about thinking spiritually instead of carnally or earthly (verse 20, because:
“For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace”(Romans 8:6).
Typo in previous post: not verse 20, verse 2.