PRAYER. Does it matter HOW we address God in public prayer?

Peter Toon (September 24, 2005)

If we are to address God, the LORD, in praise, thanksgiving, confession, petition and intercession within public worship in the same way that we talk one to another over lunch or in the classroom or on the street, then there are in essence few rules to follow. We must be well-mannered, decent, amicable, clear and hearty – or something like this combination (depending on circumstances of course). Speaking to God within this frame of reference, means that we shall have little concern for the massive difference between us (i.e., between God and man) and great concern for avoiding formal, traditional, and liturgical forms and phrases, so that we can speak in familiar, relevant and reasonably simple terms to a God whom we believe is near us and likes familiarity. Here God is first the immanent One, alongside to help, before he is the transcendent Holy One.

However, if we are to address God in public worship in a similar way to how subjects address their Emperor, citizens their President, and soldiers their General, then there are specific rules to follow. First of all, there will be profound respect and reverence, shown in words, attitude, deportment and dress. Then the words themselves will contain phrases which make clear that it is the “inferior” addressing the “superior” and he is doing so to ask for gifts or favors from him, as well as to honor and thank him. Speaking to the Almighty Father, the LORD, within this frame of reference means that our whole form of address proceeds from and assumes that God is the Creator and we are the created, that God is the Judge and we are the condemned, that God is the Savior and we can be saved and that God is the Redeemer and we can be redeemed. Reverence, awe, respect, humility and submission together with adoring love are the primary affections of the soul in this relation to God. God is first the transcendent HOLY ONE before he is the ever-present Friend alongside his covenant people. He is not “a Father” but the “Holy Father.”

Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father, made a distinction between, on the one hand, his own communion with the Father in prayer (e.g., see John 17) and, on the other hand, the prayer of his disciples, and prayer in the synagogue and temple. The intimacy of Jesus with the Father was a holy and reverential intimacy and it was Person to Person, not public prayer. The disciples were taught not to pray, “My Father, who art in heaven…” but “Our Father….” which is corporate prayer. And the Lord’s Prayer is certainly not the language of the street or as between friends. It is profoundly formal, reverential and petitionary, the way we address the truly Superior and Transcendent One – “hallowed be thy Name.”

In general terms, we may say that much – but not all -- of what is called “modern” or “contemporary” liturgy belongs to the “be familiar with God” type and often is characterized by “dumbing-down” so that it will appeal to the lowest common denominator. Music accompanying it and the way folks dress suggest that it is a kind of special leisure activity! The pursuit of excellence is regarded as not appropriate for it will cause a barrier to many people. In contrast, the traditional Book of Common Prayer presents a form of excellence both in language and in doctrine. Here the idea is to raise up people to where the Bible says they ought to be, reverent and submissive, joyful and committed before the Holy Lord.

Lessons from history

The famous evangelical churchman of the early 19th century, Charles Simeon, whose powerful preaching and pastoral care in Cambridge University for many years was a great stimulus to the missionary movement and to the reviving of the Church of England, preached a series of sermons that he afterwards published as, The Excellence of the Liturgy. The series was on the content of The Book of Common Prayer (1662) and he proclaimed that in its language and address to God it was most appropriate for guilty sinners and adopted children of God to use; and in its doctrine it was a perfect summary and proclamation of primary biblical revelation and teaching. What Simeon declared was echoed not only by evangelical leaders after him (e.g., J.C.Ryle) but had been proclaimed before him by the great Caroline divines of the C of E. in the 17th century. Further, leading high-churchman of the 19th century commended enthusiastically the evangelical and catholic qualities of The Book of Common Prayer. And so have many 20th century worthies, including C.S. Lewis and leading novelists.

How would these “fathers in the Faith” describe the post 1960s attempts to write liturgy. Would they use “excellence” of any of it? Do well-informed and sensitive persons of today pronounce modern liturgies – Roman or Anglican – to be “excellent”? The most common word uttered in charity is “acceptable”! Even those who write and commend and use the new forms of worship in the West and North do not even think that they are working to produce excellence. Often dumbing-down is part of their strategy and follows from information gained in opinion surveys. They produce for today only, for they expect to have something now to present tomorrow.

And all this at a time when the biggest of the African Churches are clearly stating their commitment to the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (which of course is available in various African languages).

Now a final comment.

It is possible, I believe, to have excellence even when the traditional English language of prayer is not used (see further, Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete by Tarsitano & Toon from www.anglicanmarketplace.com for study of the genuine English language of common prayer). That is, it is possible to pursue excellence in a Liturgy that uses the vernacular of today (this is an aim that the present Pope has much in mind for current R C Liturgy). So there is no reason why there should not be, for example, in contemporary English the very same content, structure, doctrine and style as is found in The Book of Common Prayer (1662 and later editions). It is possible to do such a job that the result can be declared to be “in pursuit of excellence” because done for the totally excellent LORD JESUS CHRIST.” Such a Liturgy would be superior to the liturgies produced by liberal liturgists and found in the Canadian BAS and the American “BCP” of 1979 and Enriching our Worship of 1991.

The “orthodox” constituency of North America happily has the classic Liturgy of excellence in the 1928 USA and 1962 Canadian editions. It could have very soon a contemporary equivalent if there is the will to have such! Where there is a will there is a way.

[For frank details of the liberal characteristics of the 1979 Rite II services from an insider see: Urban T Holmes, “Education for Liturgy”, in WORSHIP POINTS THE WAY (ed. M.C.Burson) New York 1991. See also Neither Orthodoxy Nor a Formulary by Tarsitano & Toon, www.anglicanmarketplace.com