At the very beginning of the first English Book of Common Prayer, the 1549 Prayer Book, we find an essay titled “A Preface.” In this essay are articulated several key principles of Anglican prayer and worship. These principles are rooted not only in the teaching of the Holy Scriptures but also the practice of the early Church Fathers.
And moreover, whereas s. Paule would have suche language spoken to the people in the churche, as they mighte understande and have profite by hearyng the same; the service in this Churche of England (these many yeares) hath been read in Latin to the people, whiche they understoode not; so that they have heard with theyr eares onely; and their hartes, spirite, and minde, have not been edified thereby.In this passage the essay is referring to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14. It is to the same passages in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians to which Article XXIV is also referring. “It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.”
The essay goes on to further state:
Yet because there is no remedy, but that of necessitie there must be some rules: therfore certein rules are here set furth, whiche as they be fewe in nombre; so they be plain and easy to be understanded. So yt here you have an ordre for praier (as touchyng the readyng of holy scripture) muche agreable to the mynde and purpose of the olde fathers, and a greate deale more profitable and commodious, than that whiche of late was used. It is more profitable, because here are left out many thynges, whereof some be untrue, some uncertein, some vain and supersticious: and is ordeyned nothyng to be read, but the very pure worde of God, the holy scriptures, or that whiche is evidently grounded upon the same; and that in suche a language and ordre, as is moste easy and plain for the understandyng, bothe of the readers and hearers.The language used in public worship should be not only one that the people understand and can profit from hearing, but it must also be a language that is most easy and plain for the understanding of both the readers and the hearers. It must be a language that members of congregation and any visitors can readily understand. It should not require a particular level of education or literacy.
The essay contains this caveat:
Though it be appointed in the afore written preface, that al thinges shalbe read and song in the churche, in the Englishe tongue, to thende yt the congregacion maie be therby edified: yet it is not meant, but when men saye Matins and Evensong privatelye, they maye saie the same in any language that they themselves do understande.In our private devotions, in our own nonpublic reading of the Daily Offices, we however, may use any language that we ourselves understand. We can pray in Tudor English, Latin, Spanish, French, Japanese, and so on.
We hear banded about in some quarters of the church that Anglicans should use a sacred language in their services of public worship. We should use Tudor English and some Latin.
As we can see this notion is contrary not only to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the principles of The Book of Common Prayer, but it is also conflicts with the practice of Christ himself, the apostles, and the early Church fathers. When Jesus taught and prayed in public, he spoke in Aramaic, the language in common use in the part of the ancient world where he carried out his earthly ministry. There are indications in the New Testament that he may have also been familiar with Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. It was also the language spoken in the Jewish Diaspora. The apostle Paul, born in Tarsus and raised in Jerusalem, spoke Greek and conversed with Greek philosophers in Athens. The early Church fathers spoke Greek or Latin, whichever was the language commonly spoken in their part of the ancient Mediterranean world.
We do not find any passages in the Bible, which suggest that we should use a special language in our services of public worship. While the Jews may have avoided uttering the name of God, this practice does not set a precedent for the use of such language in our services. Jesus spoke of God in intimate terms and taught his disciples to do the same. His choice of words reflect the kind of relationship that we enjoy with God. It is not the language of the throne room but the presence chamber.
In some church traditions what may be described as a hieratic language, a priestly language, would evolve. The evolution of this kind of language in these traditions, however, has nothing to do with biblical teaching or apostolic practice. It reflects the prevailing influence of the culture of the time. In the Coptic Church ancient Coptic and the Western Church Latin would become such a language, essentially turning public services of worship into something that resembled magical rites. It led to the decline of common prayer and corporate worship. In the Eastern and Oriental Churches the practice of praying and worshiping publicly in a tongue that the people understood, however, was retained.
Should we then eliminate the use of Tudor English from our services of public worship? Not at all. However, it does mean that we should limit our use of that language when it becomes an obstacle to hearing and understanding God’s Word; to joining with understanding in the prayers that we offer and praying them from the heart; and to following Jesus’ teaching about long, wordy, repetitious prayers.
In The Church at Prayer and the World Outside (London: James Clarke 1923), Percy Dearmer notes that “Jesus condemned all ostentation in prayer.” He criticized the Pharisees for their long prayers. Dearmer further notes that Jesus “condemns vain repetitions and all methods which assume that men will be heard for their much speaking.” He writes:
God who knows our needs before we open our mouths is not impressed by the length of our prayers, by the wordiness of our prayers, or by our use of archaic and unfamiliar words, phrases, and grammar patterns and obscure honorifics. What matters to God the most is that our prayers are heart-felt. They are genuine—the real deal.
Earlier in the same book Dearmer makes an important point. The words that we provide for people to use in private devotions and public worship “are repeated with little thought of their meaning, till prayer degenerates into patter.” What should be the prayer and worship of the heart deteriorate into perfunctory ritual. The performance of such ritual will not improve our standing with God. It will not earn us merit that we can cash in at a later time. Rather it falls into the category of what Jesus describes as “vain repetitions."
This does not mean that we should not use written forms of prayer. It does, however, mean that we should pray them with understanding and from our hearts. Ideally they should serve as a springboard to our own spontaneous prayer. They are like the formal patterns with which we may begin a conversation. Prayer, after all, is a conversation with God. It is a two-way conversation. We speak and God listens. God speaks and we listen. For the latter reasons our prayers, private and public, should include periods of silence for attending upon God and listening to what God is saying.
Our prayers should be humble, unpretentious, and respectful, offered in the spirit of Christ. They do not, however, require that we use a special language in order to exhibit these qualities.
We do not find any passages in the Bible, which suggest that we should use a special language in our services of public worship. While the Jews may have avoided uttering the name of God, this practice does not set a precedent for the use of such language in our services. Jesus spoke of God in intimate terms and taught his disciples to do the same. His choice of words reflect the kind of relationship that we enjoy with God. It is not the language of the throne room but the presence chamber.
In some church traditions what may be described as a hieratic language, a priestly language, would evolve. The evolution of this kind of language in these traditions, however, has nothing to do with biblical teaching or apostolic practice. It reflects the prevailing influence of the culture of the time. In the Coptic Church ancient Coptic and the Western Church Latin would become such a language, essentially turning public services of worship into something that resembled magical rites. It led to the decline of common prayer and corporate worship. In the Eastern and Oriental Churches the practice of praying and worshiping publicly in a tongue that the people understood, however, was retained.
Should we then eliminate the use of Tudor English from our services of public worship? Not at all. However, it does mean that we should limit our use of that language when it becomes an obstacle to hearing and understanding God’s Word; to joining with understanding in the prayers that we offer and praying them from the heart; and to following Jesus’ teaching about long, wordy, repetitious prayers.
In The Church at Prayer and the World Outside (London: James Clarke 1923), Percy Dearmer notes that “Jesus condemned all ostentation in prayer.” He criticized the Pharisees for their long prayers. Dearmer further notes that Jesus “condemns vain repetitions and all methods which assume that men will be heard for their much speaking.” He writes:
This seems to exclude such practices as the daily recitation of the Psalter, the rosary, those long litanies which are mainly the repetition of the names of saints or of epithets applied to S. Mary, much extemporary prayer, and all long and tedious services. It suggests that the words used in public worship should be few and well chosen.It is notable that the use of a special language for prayer and worship is itself a form of ostentation.
God who knows our needs before we open our mouths is not impressed by the length of our prayers, by the wordiness of our prayers, or by our use of archaic and unfamiliar words, phrases, and grammar patterns and obscure honorifics. What matters to God the most is that our prayers are heart-felt. They are genuine—the real deal.
Earlier in the same book Dearmer makes an important point. The words that we provide for people to use in private devotions and public worship “are repeated with little thought of their meaning, till prayer degenerates into patter.” What should be the prayer and worship of the heart deteriorate into perfunctory ritual. The performance of such ritual will not improve our standing with God. It will not earn us merit that we can cash in at a later time. Rather it falls into the category of what Jesus describes as “vain repetitions."
This does not mean that we should not use written forms of prayer. It does, however, mean that we should pray them with understanding and from our hearts. Ideally they should serve as a springboard to our own spontaneous prayer. They are like the formal patterns with which we may begin a conversation. Prayer, after all, is a conversation with God. It is a two-way conversation. We speak and God listens. God speaks and we listen. For the latter reasons our prayers, private and public, should include periods of silence for attending upon God and listening to what God is saying.
Our prayers should be humble, unpretentious, and respectful, offered in the spirit of Christ. They do not, however, require that we use a special language in order to exhibit these qualities.
We do not dishonor God when we pray and worship in the language that we learned at our mother's knee. When the Holy Spirit fell upon the disciples in the upper room, they spoke in the languages of the nations of those who overheard them proclaiming the might acts of God, They did not proclaim God's deeds of power in an unfamiliar or unknown language. In that act, one of God's deeds of power, God anticipated the day when all the nations of the earth will worship him, each in its own language. In that act we have more than a hint of how God sees our use of a special language, an insider language, a language that excludes outsiders, in our worship of him.
No comments:
Post a Comment