Very specifically, the area in which I'm having to adjust my ideas is this: I thought most people (of Abrahamic backgrounds) took it for granted that God could read hearts and minds, and therefore made the logical deduction that mere wording of prayer (whether it's Cranmer's deathless prose or straight-out swearing) would make no difference in the attempt to communicate with God. He cannot be fooled. He cannot be manipulated. Attempting to manipulate or fool him is just giving him further data about your heart and its true wants.
What I'm reading suggests that at least a few people truly do think the external form of prayer matters to God--either that he CAN be fooled and manipulated, or else that he himself puts a surprising amount of weight on issues like swearing, proper address, and so forth, regardless of what the heart is saying. This surprises me.
On reflection...yeah. I think I'm with you there. Though I can think of a bit in the Bible where there's an admonishment not to repeat yourself excessively or make a big show out of it, but I think that's more about the external expression than the internal state.
And now there's a reflection about the relationship between the two....hm. This could turn into a Keryg thread...
Very specifically, the area in which I'm having to adjust my ideas is this: I thought most people (of Abrahamic backgrounds) took it for granted that God could read hearts and minds, and therefore made the logical deduction that mere wording of prayer (whether it's Cranmer's deathless prose or straight-out swearing) would make no difference in the attempt to communicate with God. He cannot be fooled. He cannot be manipulated. Attempting to manipulate or fool him is just giving him further data about your heart and its true wants.
I have found there to be a rather more fundamental difference between thought and speech. Speech is not just thought expressed through a different medium of communication. And this would be my experience of prayer. Thinking a prayer and saying a prayer are two very different things.
For me, this has nothing to do with fooling or manipulating God.
What I'm reading suggests that at least a few people truly do think the external form of prayer matters to God--either that he CAN be fooled and manipulated, or else that he himself puts a surprising amount of weight on issues like swearing, proper address, and so forth, regardless of what the heart is saying. This surprises me.
The heart feels and desires, but it doesn't speak. Having feelings and desires isn't the same as giving voice to those feelings and desires. Maybe God wants us to speak for the same reason that he chose to make us physical beings living in a physical universe, and he delights in hearing what we say and all the fantastic diversity of the ways in which we say it.
Indeed. Thanks for your elucidation by the way @Bullfrog.
I'm with @Lamb Chopped on this one, even though I'm in a church setting that places great emphasis on the 'right' formularies and so on. The clue is in the title - Ortho - which isn't to deny the small o-orthodoxy of other Christian traditions.
I'm no expert in this matters but I'm aware that some 'process theology' types have been accused of believing that God doesn't know everything and that he 'learns' as he goes along just like the rest of us.
He becomes as it were.
I may be doing them a disservice or misrepresenting their position but this is how it was presented to me back in my evangelical days.
I'm still in my evangelical days, of course - evangelical in the sense of having a commitment to the Gospel.
Process theology is a phrase I haven't heard in a long time. At this point evolution is so ground into my worldview that...it's just there.
Maybe there's some Episcopalian compartmentalization going on. Formal is formal and has no connection at all. I commit to the Eucharist, recite the creed, these things I do because they are Christian totems and reminders of who We Are as Christians. I don't assume they're grounded in objective reality.
Heck, I have enough seminary education that I can feel the snark included in that bit "begotten not made" that was included specifically to exclude the Arians. I agree with that call, anthropologically speaking, but it still amuses me as a political slap, and a line drawn in the sand, now set in concrete.
And maybe that helps me because, being a loosely attached ego, I like something to keep me in place. Being Pentecostal would be really weird, I wouldn't even know what to do because without a framework, I'm just a ghost, like that creepy little dude from the computer game Hollow Knight...
It's not a new game, so pardon the spoiler, but basically you eventually learn that the protagonist is a creature made of void held together by a mask. Isn't he cute? It's a neat image for a person. Break the mask and I'm just a blob of goo.
Figuring out what the blob wants is kind of weird. It's a blob. It needs a social structure to identify itself. Lacking that...I dunno, whatever. You have to poke it with a stick or something...
And I think that might be a funny take on the people who think prayer is uncertain. I think it might not be that people are uncertain about God. I think it might be that people are uncertain about themselves. Or maybe even being uncertain about God leads a person to become uncertain about themselves. Ontology doesn't go away just because you leave or relocate organized religion. It just mutates. Get a new mask!
I'm looking at CPE at the moment, and this is all very fruitful. Part of my own life is I've had to pick up and put down a variety of masks over the course of my life. It makes "tell me about yourself" a remarkably challenging question.
Pentecostalism does have a framework. It's just a different kind of framework. People learn the cues or pick them up by osmosis, the same as they do in any other faith community.
We are all socialised into whatever tradition we inhabit.
We pick things up from those around us. That applies if we are Episcopalian, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Quaker or whatever else.
Pentecostalism does have a framework. It's just a different kind of framework. People learn the cues or pick them up by osmosis, the same as they do in any other faith community.
We are all socialised into whatever tradition we inhabit.
We pick things up from those around us. That applies if we are Episcopalian, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Quaker or whatever else.
Fair point, that's one end of the church I know mostly by reputation. I'm mostly mainline to Episcopalian, tend to feel like a mutt.
Pentecostalism does have a framework. It's just a different kind of framework. People learn the cues or pick them up by osmosis, the same as they do in any other faith community.
We are all socialised into whatever tradition we inhabit.
We pick things up from those around us. That applies if we are Episcopalian, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Quaker or whatever else.
Fair point, that's one end of the church I know mostly by reputation. I'm mostly mainline to Episcopalian, tend to feel like a mutt.
Thanks for these contributions Bullfrog. I don't find them easy to follow, but it feels like you are digging for something that is relevant to me, and which I haven't thought about much.
Nor do I understand why you feel like one ... whatever one is.
Mutt meaning mongrel, mixed breed. Meaning that my church background is a bit mixed up. I don't really have a single church structure that I'm strongly attached too. I've been through several and so my particular approach to religion is a bit of a hybrid, I think.
Another phrase I coined once was "Freelance Protestant." Though I have a weird attachment to early church traditions thanks to seminary.
Coming in from a slightly different angle, for those of us familiar with traditions of spiritual direction, there's an understanding that the more present we are to ourselves, the more present we are able to be to God in prayer.
So that if I'm with a spiritual director or companion and she hears me talking about how I experience God as indifferent, distant or oblivious, or just very far away and 'thin', she's going to ask me about how I experience being present to myself or others in my life. The odds are that I might be struggling with intimacy or closeness with those I love, or just feel a profound disconnect from myself. It's one thing to say God 'reads' us as we are unable to 'read' ourselves, and knows what is in our hearts, all we can't express of our longings, desires and fears, but if we can't trust that God is there listening and loving us, prayer can be a lonely thankless place.
Very specifically, the area in which I'm having to adjust my ideas is this: I thought most people (of Abrahamic backgrounds) took it for granted that God could read hearts and minds, and therefore made the logical deduction that mere wording of prayer (whether it's Cranmer's deathless prose or straight-out swearing) would make no difference in the attempt to communicate with God. He cannot be fooled. He cannot be manipulated. Attempting to manipulate or fool him is just giving him further data about your heart and its true wants.
What I'm reading suggests that at least a few people truly do think the external form of prayer matters to God--either that he CAN be fooled and manipulated, or else that he himself puts a surprising amount of weight on issues like swearing, proper address, and so forth, regardless of what the heart is saying. This surprises me.
On reflection...yeah. I think I'm with you there. Though I can think of a bit in the Bible where there's an admonishment not to repeat yourself excessively or make a big show out of it, but I think that's more about the external expression than the internal state.
And now there's a reflection about the relationship between the two....hm. This could turn into a Keryg thread...
I think you're remembering this text:
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." (Matthew 6:5-8)
IMHO the basic problem with both of these practices grows out of the heart, and that's what Jesus is aiming at. The showing-off thing is clearly a heart attitude. Jesus is not ruling out all forms of public prayer, just the ones that are done with the purpose, "that they may be seen by others." As far as God is concerned, that isn't really prayer at all. None of it is addressed to God himself--if God didn't exist, they would still get exactly the same desired result (honor from others) as if he did.
Similarly, the repetition thing is a problem because of the heart attitude that lies behind it. "They think that they will be heard for their many words," and so they "heap up empty phrases" as a way of manipulating God. Jesus is not ruling out ALL repetition. If, for example, you are afraid or grieving and praying the same thing over and over again gives you comfort, that's not a problem. That isn't "heaping up empty phrases," your whole heart is in it, and God is willing to listen to that, even if you are saying the same thing for the forty-seventh time.
Very specifically, the area in which I'm having to adjust my ideas is this: I thought most people (of Abrahamic backgrounds) took it for granted that God could read hearts and minds, and therefore made the logical deduction that mere wording of prayer (whether it's Cranmer's deathless prose or straight-out swearing) would make no difference in the attempt to communicate with God. He cannot be fooled. He cannot be manipulated. Attempting to manipulate or fool him is just giving him further data about your heart and its true wants.
I have found there to be a rather more fundamental difference between thought and speech. Speech is not just thought expressed through a different medium of communication. And this would be my experience of prayer. Thinking a prayer and saying a prayer are two very different things.
For me, this has nothing to do with fooling or manipulating God.
What I'm reading suggests that at least a few people truly do think the external form of prayer matters to God--either that he CAN be fooled and manipulated, or else that he himself puts a surprising amount of weight on issues like swearing, proper address, and so forth, regardless of what the heart is saying. This surprises me.
The heart feels and desires, but it doesn't speak. Having feelings and desires isn't the same as giving voice to those feelings and desires. Maybe God wants us to speak for the same reason that he chose to make us physical beings living in a physical universe, and he delights in hearing what we say and all the fantastic diversity of the ways in which we say it.
This is very interesting, though it's not at all what I was getting at. I was saying that I found it odd that some folks on the thread appeared to believe God valued (or devalued) the external expression of a prayer quite apart from what it sprang from in the heart---that, for instance, if I were terribly upset by an injustice I had just witnessed, and I prayed about it, that God would care whether I swore or not in the course of that prayer--that he would alter his attitude toward me, or his willingness to respond, simply based on whether I said "fuck". And that still seems to me to be odd.
But taking up what you are saying--
I agree with you that spoken prayer can be a very different thing from unspoken prayer, particularly if there are others around to hear it. This is why I go off to my bedroom to pray most of the time--when I speak out loud, it--how do I describe it? It puts the prayer arising from the heart "under pressure," as it were--it forces me to turn at least some of my attention to finding the right words to express what I mean, and that slows down the whole experience of communication, and occasionally causes me to lose track altogether of what I meant to say to him. This happens even if I am completely alone, with no one but God to hear me. It's not necessarily a bad thing--there are times when I need to slow down and think about what I'm saying, and sometimes I may gain some new insight from that very slowing down. But you're right, it won't be the same experience as unspoken prayer.
So I'm more than happy to have both spoken and unspoken prayer, both public and private--I mean, why not make use of all the variety that is possible in this world? Heck, go for written and drawn and danced prayer as well, every kind of communication that you and the Holy Spirit can dream up. Variety is a wonderful thing. And the prayer will be different in all these cases, which is also a good thing.
But I seriously doubt that God ever simply ignores the heart as he listens or watches or otherwise interacts with our prayer.
This is very interesting, though it's not at all what I was getting at. I was saying that I found it odd that some folks on the thread appeared to believe God valued (or devalued) the external expression of a prayer quite apart from what it sprang from in the heart---that, for instance, if I were terribly upset by an injustice I had just witnessed, and I prayed about it, that God would care whether I swore or not in the course of that prayer--that he would alter his attitude toward me, or his willingness to respond, simply based on whether I said "fuck". And that still seems to me to be odd.
Yes and no.
Many of us were bought up believing that swearing (expletives) is sinful, and the practical outcome of this is typically avoiding swearing in the presence of another person or God.
I don't believe that God is any more or less likely to answer our prayer if we swear, but I do believe that God hears our prayer differently, that God's attitude to us is different. In a sense, God does care if we swear - not in the sense of seeing us failing to conform to a moral standard, but in the sense of caring about us and caring for us.
I agree with you that spoken prayer can be a very different thing from unspoken prayer, particularly if there are others around to hear it. This is why I go off to my bedroom to pray most of the time--when I speak out loud, it--how do I describe it? It puts the prayer arising from the heart "under pressure," as it were--it forces me to turn at least some of my attention to finding the right words to express what I mean, and that slows down the whole experience of communication, and occasionally causes me to lose track altogether of what I meant to say to him. This happens even if I am completely alone, with no one but God to hear me. It's not necessarily a bad thing--there are times when I need to slow down and think about what I'm saying, and sometimes I may gain some new insight from that very slowing down. But you're right, it won't be the same experience as unspoken prayer.
I like that (including slowing down). I found the effect of hearing myself pray has all sorts of interesting and (what I take to be) positive effects. It can make apparent things on my heart / mind of which I wasn't very aware.
So I'm more than happy to have both spoken and unspoken prayer, both public and private--I mean, why not make use of all the variety that is possible in this world? Heck, go for written and drawn and danced prayer as well, every kind of communication that you and the Holy Spirit can dream up. Variety is a wonderful thing. And the prayer will be different in all these cases, which is also a good thing.
Interesting. Writing prayers wasn't something that appealed to me, but I can see how that would be a positive thing.
But I seriously doubt that God ever simply ignores the heart as he listens or watches or otherwise interacts with our prayer.
I wonder if God can ignore something that God knows?
Similarly, the repetition thing is a problem because of the heart attitude that lies behind it. "They think that they will be heard for their many words," and so they "heap up empty phrases" as a way of manipulating God. Jesus is not ruling out ALL repetition. If, for example, you are afraid or grieving and praying the same thing over and over again gives you comfort, that's not a problem. That isn't "heaping up empty phrases," your whole heart is in it, and God is willing to listen to that, even if you are saying the same thing for the forty-seventh time.
Thanks. I get a lot of comfort out of the repetitive use of the 'Jesus Prayer' (I should wrap that up a bit better - 'I just really feel the Lord's presence when...') and this is a pastoral response to a problem I (genuine, not snarky) hadn't got around to noticing
IMHO the basic problem with both of these practices grows out of the heart, and that's what Jesus is aiming at. The showing-off thing is clearly a heart attitude. Jesus is not ruling out all forms of public prayer, just the ones that are done with the purpose, "that they may be seen by others." As far as God is concerned, that isn't really prayer at all. None of it is addressed to God himself--if God didn't exist, they would still get exactly the same desired result (honor from others) as if he did.
Similarly, the repetition thing is a problem because of the heart attitude that lies behind it. "They think that they will be heard for their many words," and so they "heap up empty phrases" as a way of manipulating God. Jesus is not ruling out ALL repetition. If, for example, you are afraid or grieving and praying the same thing over and over again gives you comfort, that's not a problem. That isn't "heaping up empty phrases," your whole heart is in it, and God is willing to listen to that, even if you are saying the same thing for the forty-seventh time.
Yes! I think that jives well with what I'm thinking.
@MaryLouise , same to you regarding distant God and distant self. I think that's also in line with what I've been thinking about how people who aren't clear in their prayers to God might also not be clear with themselves about what they want (what they really really want.)
Pardon the random pop culture reference from a long time ago.
Similarly, the repetition thing is a problem because of the heart attitude that lies behind it. "They think that they will be heard for their many words," and so they "heap up empty phrases" as a way of manipulating God. Jesus is not ruling out ALL repetition. If, for example, you are afraid or grieving and praying the same thing over and over again gives you comfort, that's not a problem. That isn't "heaping up empty phrases," your whole heart is in it, and God is willing to listen to that, even if you are saying the same thing for the forty-seventh time.
Thanks. I get a lot of comfort out of the repetitive use of the 'Jesus Prayer' (I should wrap that up a bit better - 'I just really feel the Lord's presence when...') and this is a pastoral response to a problem I (genuine, not snarky) hadn't got around to noticing
I can get really repetitive too sometimes (like last night!) and I don't think he minds at all, because there's content there--there's intent, emotion, a desire to communicate. It's a person talking to another Person. And that's not a waste of time--unlike the people for whom prayer has so little relational and interpersonal meaning, really, that they sometimes outsource it to computers or other objects, like prayer wheels and flags!
FWIW, I'm having an email conversation with a person who's very distressed and it's coming out in what she writes to me--very very repetitive. I'm not shutting her down--she needs that. I don't think God would shut us down either under those circs.
There's also the meditative technique of chanting. I could see someone turning that passage into a condemnation of the practice (for instance, "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, for I am a sinner...rinse and repeat." But I find it sometimes a useful exercise for calming and centering. And honestly, there are some prayers that seem to be true for all occasions.
I think...yeah, the critique is more against the idea that your prayers become more "powerful" through repetition, as if it's some kind of magical spell.
Gambling comes to mind as another analogy. "Maybe if I say it this time, it'll come out the way I want it to!" Like someone walking into a casino and continually doing the same thing hoping they win the jackpot at a game of chance.
Somehow I don't imagine prayer is about leveraging God. Seems bass-ackward and leads to a lot of philosophical problems when people naturally come into conflict.
I think "leveraging God" is exactly what Jesus is warning us against. It's kind of rude, isn't it? Both the intent, which is to use God to get something we want, as if he were an instrument of ours; and also the way it's done, as if we actually thought we could pull the wool over his eyes. Better to just come straight out and ask for what we want, the way you do to a person.
@Lamb Chopped I think in traditions where there's an emphasis on very specific formularies, such as the RC church, the thought that others will also be saying the same words during eg the rosary is often comforting. But at the same time, I have found with my RC family (various levels of observation) that there is definitely a view that the "official" prayers are the proper way to address God and the saints. It's seen as being akin to wearing your Sunday best for church.
I can see both sides with this one ... both/and ... and would not disagree with any of the observations made about 'repetition' so far - whether @Lamb Chopped's, @Bullfrog's or @Pomona's.
I don't wear 'Sunday best' to church but I do adopt a certain formality when addressing the Almighty - at least at the beginning of the conversation as it were.
It's a funny thing, I'm quite emotionally turned over as my relationship has come to an end and although my mind was elsewhere for much of the Liturgy this morning (I attended our midweek service) it was the repeated and most familiar phrases that 'got through' to me or which I was able to take hold of for sustenance and comfort.
I should have also said that for my RC family it's very cultural as well as religious, as it is for a lot of people raised in churches with very specific formularies - I think especially for those from a church strongly connected to an ethnic diaspora (my RC family are Irish Catholic, and certainly there are specifically Irish RC practices that have been passed down in this area).
It's a funny thing, I'm quite emotionally turned over as my relationship has come to an end and although my mind was elsewhere for much of the Liturgy this morning (I attended our midweek service) it was the repeated and most familiar phrases that 'got through' to me or which I was able to take hold of for sustenance and comfort.
I should have also said that for my RC family it's very cultural as well as religious, as it is for a lot of people raised in churches with very specific formularies - I think especially for those from a church strongly connected to an ethnic diaspora (my RC family are Irish Catholic, and certainly there are specifically Irish RC practices that have been passed down in this area).
Yes, of course. The same thing happens in Orthodoxy and other Christian traditions. I sometimes think that some Protestant groups aren't aware of this tendency within their own settings. Informal formularies are still formularies.
I should have also said that for my RC family it's very cultural as well as religious, as it is for a lot of people raised in churches with very specific formularies - I think especially for those from a church strongly connected to an ethnic diaspora (my RC family are Irish Catholic, and certainly there are specifically Irish RC practices that have been passed down in this area).
Yes, of course. The same thing happens in Orthodoxy and other Christian traditions. I sometimes think that some Protestant groups aren't aware of this tendency within their own settings. Informal formularies are still formularies.
Comments
On reflection...yeah. I think I'm with you there. Though I can think of a bit in the Bible where there's an admonishment not to repeat yourself excessively or make a big show out of it, but I think that's more about the external expression than the internal state.
And now there's a reflection about the relationship between the two....hm. This could turn into a Keryg thread...
For me, this has nothing to do with fooling or manipulating God. The heart feels and desires, but it doesn't speak. Having feelings and desires isn't the same as giving voice to those feelings and desires. Maybe God wants us to speak for the same reason that he chose to make us physical beings living in a physical universe, and he delights in hearing what we say and all the fantastic diversity of the ways in which we say it.
I'm with @Lamb Chopped on this one, even though I'm in a church setting that places great emphasis on the 'right' formularies and so on. The clue is in the title - Ortho - which isn't to deny the small o-orthodoxy of other Christian traditions.
I'm no expert in this matters but I'm aware that some 'process theology' types have been accused of believing that God doesn't know everything and that he 'learns' as he goes along just like the rest of us.
He becomes as it were.
I may be doing them a disservice or misrepresenting their position but this is how it was presented to me back in my evangelical days.
I'm still in my evangelical days, of course - evangelical in the sense of having a commitment to the Gospel.
Maybe there's some Episcopalian compartmentalization going on. Formal is formal and has no connection at all. I commit to the Eucharist, recite the creed, these things I do because they are Christian totems and reminders of who We Are as Christians. I don't assume they're grounded in objective reality.
Heck, I have enough seminary education that I can feel the snark included in that bit "begotten not made" that was included specifically to exclude the Arians. I agree with that call, anthropologically speaking, but it still amuses me as a political slap, and a line drawn in the sand, now set in concrete.
And maybe that helps me because, being a loosely attached ego, I like something to keep me in place. Being Pentecostal would be really weird, I wouldn't even know what to do because without a framework, I'm just a ghost, like that creepy little dude from the computer game Hollow Knight...
It's not a new game, so pardon the spoiler, but basically you eventually learn that the protagonist is a creature made of void held together by a mask. Isn't he cute? It's a neat image for a person. Break the mask and I'm just a blob of goo.
Figuring out what the blob wants is kind of weird. It's a blob. It needs a social structure to identify itself. Lacking that...I dunno, whatever. You have to poke it with a stick or something...
And I think that might be a funny take on the people who think prayer is uncertain. I think it might not be that people are uncertain about God. I think it might be that people are uncertain about themselves. Or maybe even being uncertain about God leads a person to become uncertain about themselves. Ontology doesn't go away just because you leave or relocate organized religion. It just mutates. Get a new mask!
I'm looking at CPE at the moment, and this is all very fruitful. Part of my own life is I've had to pick up and put down a variety of masks over the course of my life. It makes "tell me about yourself" a remarkably challenging question.
We are all socialised into whatever tradition we inhabit.
We pick things up from those around us. That applies if we are Episcopalian, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Quaker or whatever else.
Fair point, that's one end of the church I know mostly by reputation. I'm mostly mainline to Episcopalian, tend to feel like a mutt.
Thanks for these contributions Bullfrog. I don't find them easy to follow, but it feels like you are digging for something that is relevant to me, and which I haven't thought about much.
A dog?
Nor do I understand why you feel like one ... whatever one is.
Mutt meaning mongrel, mixed breed. Meaning that my church background is a bit mixed up. I don't really have a single church structure that I'm strongly attached too. I've been through several and so my particular approach to religion is a bit of a hybrid, I think.
Another phrase I coined once was "Freelance Protestant." Though I have a weird attachment to early church traditions thanks to seminary.
So that if I'm with a spiritual director or companion and she hears me talking about how I experience God as indifferent, distant or oblivious, or just very far away and 'thin', she's going to ask me about how I experience being present to myself or others in my life. The odds are that I might be struggling with intimacy or closeness with those I love, or just feel a profound disconnect from myself. It's one thing to say God 'reads' us as we are unable to 'read' ourselves, and knows what is in our hearts, all we can't express of our longings, desires and fears, but if we can't trust that God is there listening and loving us, prayer can be a lonely thankless place.
I think you're remembering this text:
IMHO the basic problem with both of these practices grows out of the heart, and that's what Jesus is aiming at. The showing-off thing is clearly a heart attitude. Jesus is not ruling out all forms of public prayer, just the ones that are done with the purpose, "that they may be seen by others." As far as God is concerned, that isn't really prayer at all. None of it is addressed to God himself--if God didn't exist, they would still get exactly the same desired result (honor from others) as if he did.
Similarly, the repetition thing is a problem because of the heart attitude that lies behind it. "They think that they will be heard for their many words," and so they "heap up empty phrases" as a way of manipulating God. Jesus is not ruling out ALL repetition. If, for example, you are afraid or grieving and praying the same thing over and over again gives you comfort, that's not a problem. That isn't "heaping up empty phrases," your whole heart is in it, and God is willing to listen to that, even if you are saying the same thing for the forty-seventh time.
This is very interesting, though it's not at all what I was getting at. I was saying that I found it odd that some folks on the thread appeared to believe God valued (or devalued) the external expression of a prayer quite apart from what it sprang from in the heart---that, for instance, if I were terribly upset by an injustice I had just witnessed, and I prayed about it, that God would care whether I swore or not in the course of that prayer--that he would alter his attitude toward me, or his willingness to respond, simply based on whether I said "fuck". And that still seems to me to be odd.
But taking up what you are saying--
I agree with you that spoken prayer can be a very different thing from unspoken prayer, particularly if there are others around to hear it. This is why I go off to my bedroom to pray most of the time--when I speak out loud, it--how do I describe it? It puts the prayer arising from the heart "under pressure," as it were--it forces me to turn at least some of my attention to finding the right words to express what I mean, and that slows down the whole experience of communication, and occasionally causes me to lose track altogether of what I meant to say to him. This happens even if I am completely alone, with no one but God to hear me. It's not necessarily a bad thing--there are times when I need to slow down and think about what I'm saying, and sometimes I may gain some new insight from that very slowing down. But you're right, it won't be the same experience as unspoken prayer.
So I'm more than happy to have both spoken and unspoken prayer, both public and private--I mean, why not make use of all the variety that is possible in this world? Heck, go for written and drawn and danced prayer as well, every kind of communication that you and the Holy Spirit can dream up. Variety is a wonderful thing. And the prayer will be different in all these cases, which is also a good thing.
But I seriously doubt that God ever simply ignores the heart as he listens or watches or otherwise interacts with our prayer.
Many of us were bought up believing that swearing (expletives) is sinful, and the practical outcome of this is typically avoiding swearing in the presence of another person or God.
I don't believe that God is any more or less likely to answer our prayer if we swear, but I do believe that God hears our prayer differently, that God's attitude to us is different. In a sense, God does care if we swear - not in the sense of seeing us failing to conform to a moral standard, but in the sense of caring about us and caring for us.
I like that (including slowing down). I found the effect of hearing myself pray has all sorts of interesting and (what I take to be) positive effects. It can make apparent things on my heart / mind of which I wasn't very aware.
Interesting. Writing prayers wasn't something that appealed to me, but I can see how that would be a positive thing.
I wonder if God can ignore something that God knows?
Thanks. I get a lot of comfort out of the repetitive use of the 'Jesus Prayer' (I should wrap that up a bit better - 'I just really feel the Lord's presence when...') and this is a pastoral response to a problem I (genuine, not snarky) hadn't got around to noticing
Yes! I think that jives well with what I'm thinking.
@MaryLouise , same to you regarding distant God and distant self. I think that's also in line with what I've been thinking about how people who aren't clear in their prayers to God might also not be clear with themselves about what they want (what they really really want.)
Pardon the random pop culture reference from a long time ago.
I can get really repetitive too sometimes (like last night!) and I don't think he minds at all, because there's content there--there's intent, emotion, a desire to communicate. It's a person talking to another Person. And that's not a waste of time--unlike the people for whom prayer has so little relational and interpersonal meaning, really, that they sometimes outsource it to computers or other objects, like prayer wheels and flags!
FWIW, I'm having an email conversation with a person who's very distressed and it's coming out in what she writes to me--very very repetitive. I'm not shutting her down--she needs that. I don't think God would shut us down either under those circs.
I think...yeah, the critique is more against the idea that your prayers become more "powerful" through repetition, as if it's some kind of magical spell.
Gambling comes to mind as another analogy. "Maybe if I say it this time, it'll come out the way I want it to!" Like someone walking into a casino and continually doing the same thing hoping they win the jackpot at a game of chance.
Somehow I don't imagine prayer is about leveraging God. Seems bass-ackward and leads to a lot of philosophical problems when people naturally come into conflict.
I don't wear 'Sunday best' to church but I do adopt a certain formality when addressing the Almighty - at least at the beginning of the conversation as it were.
It's a funny thing, I'm quite emotionally turned over as my relationship has come to an end and although my mind was elsewhere for much of the Liturgy this morning (I attended our midweek service) it was the repeated and most familiar phrases that 'got through' to me or which I was able to take hold of for sustenance and comfort.
The Psalms have that effect too, I find.
Hugs and sympathy @Gamma Gamaliel [tangent]
Yes, of course. The same thing happens in Orthodoxy and other Christian traditions. I sometimes think that some Protestant groups aren't aware of this tendency within their own settings. Informal formularies are still formularies.
[tangent] Thanks @MaryLouise.
Agreed. You can even formalize a certain kind informality, which I think feels very American. "Business casual" turns into a uniform pretty quickly.