Church of England has a problem with the Lord’s Prayer

OldAbramBrown said:

have you noticed that all the things we've listed are "evangelical"?

In 1966 evangelicals were warned not to seek to influence. Led by the annihilationist with political connections, "evangelicals" took over the C of E including the nominally "non evangelical" with their patronising attitude. Ordinary pew goers are either embarrassed or, mor e likely, taken in and go too much with the shallow flow.

regarding Gary's point obviously Jesus would repeat psalms.

Click to expand...

Jesus inspired those Psalms so how could they have ever been liturgical to Him? Did He pray to, or praise, Himself?

Gary K said:

Jesus inspired those Psalms so how could they have ever been liturgical to Him? Did He pray to, or praise, Himself?

Click to expand...

Christians are Trinitarians, not Unitarians. Even Jesus expressed devotion to God.

FireDragon76 said:

Christians are Trinitarians, not Unitarians. Even Jesus expressed devotion to God.

Click to expand...

What's that have to do with anything I've said? Jesus is God. The Psalms were written to praise God under His inspiration. Jesus inspired the Psalms. He led the Israelites out of Canaan. He told us no man has seen the Father except for He Himself.

Joh_6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Click to expand...

Fascinatingly I came across a 1996 article by Grace Jantzen, 'What's the difference? Knowledge and gender in (post) modern philosophy of religion', in Philosophy of religion: the big questions 1999 ed Stump & Murray.

Jantzen had read in Church Times that a bishop said "in the christian tradition God is a relatively genderless male deity". (Speaking grammatically, subtly and wittily.)

Jantzen thought that to French thinkers any analogy however complicated, between human persons' characteristics and their applicability to God would be unthinkable. She thought they would be nonplussed at the English speaking apologists' of that day not genuinely addressing civilisational implications (though the latter claimed to).

She commented that Derrida disrupted the psychoanalyst Lacan's compulsory heterosexuality of gender structures by working out what would happen if "the autonomy of the male self" gets taken literally. (I think this was the subtext of the interlopers in my class at age 14 and of gender theologians *. I decided "sweeping a girl off her feet" wasn't respectful enough.)

Jantzen cites in turn a 1985 article (reprinted 1990) by Donna Haraway, 'Manifesto for cyborgs', about the challenge to draw connections in fragmentation. "Some differences are playful; some are poles of world historical systems of domination." Epistemology was about knowing which was which.

(I agree with these as general points because givens like the meanings in Nature and Scripture have sometimes been misused by some *, as part of domination, and sometimes not.)

RileyG said:

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the Our Father/Lord's Prayer used by all Christians regardless of denomination or background?

Click to expand...

It's widespread but there are Protestant sects that don't use it, considering it "vain repitition".

RileyG said:

(Also, I wasn't aware Jewish people don't pray much extraneously. I assume that means they mostly pray from the Torah and Psalms. That's really interesting).

Click to expand...

Judaism is a highly liturgical, communal religion. Like Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, intimacy with God is seen as something extraordinary, not a claim to be taken lightly.

The notion that religion is only authentic if it is extemporaneous and highly personal, is more of an Anglo-American thing owing to the legacy of Romanticism, individualism, and to some extent, Trascendentalism.

Dale said:

SeekingIAM: "... traditional liturgical churches are rather fond of the notion that the entirety of their corner of Christianity is praying the same thing at the same time. It is not a mantra. It's not vain repetition. It is common prayer."

Thanks for this comment. It helps me to understand the liturgical point of view.

Click to expand...

This is from the Alexsei Khomiakov, a Russian Orthodox writer:


So even a desert hermit, or a monk out on some cave on Mt. Athos, is still part of the ekklesia just as much as someone who attends a large cathedral as we pray in the litany

FireDragon76 said:

It's widespread but there are Protestant sects that don't use it, considering it "vain repitition"
...

The notion that religion is only authentic if it is extemporaneous and highly personal, is more of an Anglo-American thing owing to the legacy of Romanticism, individualism, and to some extent, Trascendentalism.

Click to expand...

Why would repetition be vain - unless it's vain?

"Your Own Personal Jesus", are you "saved", demanding to know what are your orientations and your genders, etc (to patronise)

John Stott was warned in 1966 not to go the route of influencing. Has "evangelical" (a virtue signalling word) replaced supplicating as the main work of Christians?

Most churches have as their slogan "Changing [ name of city / nation ] for Christ" but aren't clear what that is. Sermons can be OK as they go (and are often spoiled by bad amplification), but don't add up to a jigsaw in the long term.

Touting a false individualism by its intrusiveness negates true individuality, initiative and healthy boundaries.

1 - Can sects which maintain that all repetition is vain, including Scripture, explain how they conduct general supplications?

2 - We used to understand father metaphorically, like grandfather (and I didn't know mine). I do realise many grandfathers have been tyrants (that's probably where some mothers got it from ;-) ) Long cottonwool beard all the better. We used to understand the paradox in just-so stories.

3 - In a 1996 article 'What's the difference? Knowledge and gender in (post) modern philosophy of religion', Grace Jantzen mentioned she had read in Church Times that a bishop said "in the christian tradition God is a relatively genderless male deity" (bearing in mind grammar is at bottom metaphorical regardless of the claims of fundamentalists, and usage of "gender" for "gender role"). (Jantzen's overall point was to highlight the value in examining abuses of power as exercised, but this article didn't go much into a range of means for how to do so.)

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Esau McCaulley (I've forgotten where I saw it):

~ When did you stop hating your father?

It was really when I stopped looking at him as my dad and saw him as a human being. I don’t want anybody to die and never have a relationship with their children. If I’m looking from the outside, I would say, that’s a tragedy. It became more and more difficult for me to speak about grace all the time to everyone else, but not extend it to the people around me. Once I saw my father as a fallible human, then I could begin to wish for him what I wish for everyone else. The whole point of Christianity is that the story is not over as long as we draw a breath. Once I began to see him as someone in need of the grace of God, that gave me the strength to begin to hope for more for him.

I feel like his death speaks to a lot of my family’s story — that they were reaching for something and didn’t quite get there. And I would say that happens to a lot of black people in America. We are reaching for this promised land — this place where we can live our lives in peace and security. But a lot of us haven’t gotten there.

(Esau McCaulley) ~

I would have thought "evangelicals" like the archbishops could set an example in identifying a remedy to their codependency? Or do we have to stop looking to them, but at Esau McCaulley instead (who wouldn't condone projection by leaders)? The week when they tried to push church abuse off the agenda?

Gary K said:

I ask because I've never seen/heard a liturgy.

Click to expand...

Adventist services may include liturgical elements. Next time you are in church turn in the Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal to number 712, which is a responsive reading from Psalm 136. It is repetitive. It is not vain.

RileyG said:

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the Our Father/Lord's Prayer used by all Christians regardless of denomination or background?

Click to expand...

To add to the list, I have seen it prayed each week in some Baptist congregations.

For those who have never considered pre-written prayers, you might want to look at this example of praying the hours. You can read and pray on your own, or listen and pray along.

Praying the hours is a way of intentionally seeking the Lord throughout the day. In such exercises you reflect, give thanks, repent, ask, etc.

The times of silence can be filled with more free silent prayers, and listening for the Lord.

Gary K said:

Were Jesus' prayers ritualistic? He would sometimes pray all night and we have no evidence from scripture that God had given Israel prayer rituals to perform. In fact Jesus told us not to use repetition in prayer. Which rells me we are to send up prayers that are meaningful to us at the moment we pray.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between repetition and using a prayer model. In a moment I will post from Ellen White's Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing where she discusses the Lord's prayer. I post from her because you are more likely to hear it from her.

It points out that He did intend it to be a model for the disciples. A prayer model doesn't just mean repeating the prayer over and over. It means that each element of Jesus' prayer tells us something about how to pray, in our own words.

That Jesus intended the disciples to use it this way is also clear from Scripture. It is in the very context of speaking of not using vain repetition that Jesus introduces the Lord's prayer as a prayer model. Since he introduces it as a proper alternative to vain repetition, we know it is not, in fact, vain repetition.

Matthew 6:7 And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 “Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him. 9 In this manner, therefore, pray:

Here is Ellen White discussing how the prayer is a model:

Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, chapter 5, Ellen White

"After this manner therefore pray ye." Matthew 6:9.


The Lord's Prayer was twice given by our Saviour, first to the multitude in the Sermon on the Mount, and again, some months later, to the disciples alone. The disciples had been for a short time absent from their Lord, when on their return they found Him absorbed in communion with God. Seeming unconscious of their presence, He continued praying aloud. The Saviour's face was irradiated with a celestial brightness. He seemed to be in the very presence of the Unseen, and there was a living power in His words as of one who spoke with God. {MB 102.1}

The hearts of the listening disciples were deeply moved. They had marked how often He spent long hours in solitude in communion with His Father. His days were passed in ministry to the crowds that pressed upon Him, and in unveiling the treacherous sophistry of the rabbis, and this incessant labor often left Him so utterly wearied that His mother and brothers, and even His disciples, had feared that His life would be sacrificed. But as He returned from the hours of prayer that closed the toilsome day, they marked the look of peace upon His face, the sense of refreshment that seemed to pervade His presence. It was from hours spent with God that He came forth, morning by morning, to bring the light of heaven to men. The disciples had come to [103] connect His hours of prayer with the power of His words and works. Now, as they listened to His supplication, their hearts were awed and humbled. As He ceased praying, it was with a conviction of their own deep need that they exclaimed, "Lord, teach us to pray." Luke 11:1. {MB 102.2}

Jesus gives them no new form of prayer. That which He has before taught them He repeats, as if He would say, You need to understand what I have already given. It has a depth of meaning you have not yet fathomed. {MB 103.1}

The Saviour does not, however, restrict us to the use of these exact words. As one with humanity, He presents His own ideal of prayer, words so simple that they may be adopted by the little child, yet so comprehensive that their significance can never be fully grasped by the greatest minds. We are taught to come to God with our tribute of thanksgiving, to make known our wants, to confess our sins, and to claim His mercy in accordance with His promise. {MB 103.2}

tall73 said:

... That which He has before taught them He repeats, as if He would say, You need to understand what I have already given. It has a depth of meaning you have not yet fathomed. {MB 103.1}

Click to expand...

You and even EW are right in saying that its meaning depends altogether on what Jesus already taught (archbishops and their partisans forget that Jesus taught a lot of things).

The Lord's prayer just like the rest of Scripture belongs to individuals for use how or when they like, and to groups as common custom, etc.

Archbishops (who are government officials and exceedingly prominent international and national public figures) forget that the Lord's Prayer isn't their property and especially to cause a diversion from justice (adopting the conduct of bad fathers in the act). They should refrain from commenting adversely on Scripture and simply excise it from their own orders of service when individually presiding. Evangelicalism became mere influencing, with this result.

Ordinary Congregationists begin with it instead of the Gloria. Standard Methodists use it. These don't distort their faith with codependency.

Those that claim to despise inarticulacy continually raise this as part of their virtue signalling. But the excuse that "dads are nasty" when it isn't about dads, and mums are nasty too, and the best of it for us always was that they are just like their children when all together in front of God, is a sneaky and materialistic / essentialist / ad hominem innovation, especially as diversion from very justice.