On "Form" Prayers

I saw this post over at Turretinfan's but wasn't terribly interested, because I consider the issue to be pretty insignificant, and I think that the Protestant arguments that I've seen on the question are pretty weak. But I took a few minutes to read it today, and decided that it might be worth a few minutes after all.

The first thing that must be said is that Catholics by no means reject extemporaneous prayer. It is perfectly valid - as are "form" prayers (I'm not sure that "form" is the best word to use to describe prayers that one either reads or has memorized, but I'll go with it in the absence of something better). The more important thing is that we pray. The question isn't "either-or" but rather "both-and" from the Catholic's perspective. So this post isn't intended to reject the way that Protestants pray, nor even to criticize it per se (although, as will be seen, a thing or two can be said about that, too). So this isn't a "my dad can beat up your dad" post, and I'm going to pass over without particular comment on his justification of extemporaneous prayer, since we Catholics don't have a problem with it.

Turretinfan's first justification of extemporaneous prayer is Scriptural example. But the Psalms are not just Israel's song book; they are also Israel's prayer book. So we have 150 examples of form prayers in the Bible. I'll also say from personal experience: I was quite fond of praying (not just singing) the 23rd psalm. And it was extremely common in the PCA congregations of which I was a member for the corporate prayer of confession to be the 51st (or portions of it). Now I don't know what Turretinfan's experience has been in that regard, but if he has never had the opportunity to do that in corporate prayer, then I'd say he has been sadly deprived :-)

Anyway - given that Psalms are a prayer book, and not merely a song book, I'd have to say that the "tale of the tape" for his first argument is a wash: Extemporaneous 1, Form 1.

His second point is that the Our Father/Lord's Prayer

is not presented in Scripture as a form prayer to be prayed as such, but as a template for prayer. It is pray "like this" not pray "these words."

Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

(the more specific - Matthew, providing the interpretation for the more general, Luke)

The Greek word in Matthew is ουτως = thus, like this, in this way
The Greek word in Luke is λεγετε = lay out, relate

"Say" is not a very precise translation, even though it is accurate. In short, the point of both Matthew and Luke is to provide a template...

Okay, he lost me there :-)

In the first place, to say that it is a template absolutely does not exclude the perfect legitimacy of praying the template. Again, appealing to my own PCA experience: we prayed the Our Father/Lord's Prayer often. I may indeed be mistaken, but I would consider it to be quite shocking if Turretinfan has never prayed it himself - both privately and in public worship. And I seriously doubt that his experience could reasonably be considered typical for Reformed types; as I've said, it was a regular part of all the PCA congregations of which I was ever a member.

So the silence here is as telling as anything (and that goes for the Psalms-as-prayer book, too). Maybe Turretinfan's own congregation never prays the Lord's Prayer, and maybe they never pray the Psalms, but I doubt it. Of course, it doesn't help you to make your case against form prayers if you have to concede that you use them yourself... :-)

In the second place, the Greek doesn't require that the prayer as recorded be understood exclusively as a "template" at all, and given that Israel had a prayer book, it seems absurd to suggest that the Lord meant it as no more than a template: that would have been contrary to the experience of his people.

"After this manner" in Mt. 6:9 seems to me to be a fairly self-serving (by the KJV's translators, not by Turretinfan) interpretation. The RSV has "like this". The NASB has "in this way". The NIV has (in its dynamically equivalent fashion) "This, then, is how you should pray". Maybe the KJV was less biased-seeming in its day, but it has the whiff of an attempt to avoid legitimizing form prayers - something that was a live issue in their day, no doubt. The other versions I've mentioned seem more honest, and more consistent with what Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich say as to the meaning of ουτως when it precedes that to which it refers: "in this way, as follows" - which has no hint of this "template-only" idea. For those who are interested: the Confraternity edition has "In this manner"; the JB has "like this". Yes, it certainly can be used as a pattern as a template. No, this is certainly not its exclusive intent in Matthew - and it hasn't even been treated that way among modern Reformed Christians, either (the PCA being a good example of its continued use as a form prayer).

The same sort of thing must be said - and more emphatically - about Turretinfan's treatment of Luke 11 and the Greek there. He says, "'Say' is not a very precise translation" and would prefer "lay out" or "relate". Well, good for him. Except that the only place I could find that sort of thing as a "base" translation for λεγω is in Strong's Concordance. Even the NASB exhaustive concordance has "to say". Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich have "utter in words, say, tell, give expression to". Machen's grammar (I used this in seminary) has "say". I know my first Greek grammar (I think by Hale) had "say, tell". So unless Turretinfan is using Strong's as a lexicon, I have no idea where he's getting the idea that "lay out" or "relate" is a better translation of λεγω than "say". I would say that if the goal is to throw up a roadblock in front of using the Our Father/Lord's Prayer as a form prayer, then his suggested rendering is maybe more serviceable - but it seems to me that the Greek doesn't require that at all. The translators of the KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, JB, and CCD all agree: "say".

In short: there is no reason based on the text to shun the use of the Our Father/Lord's Prayer as a form prayer. It is consistent with the fact that the Psalms are a song book and a prayer book, and there is certainly no good reason why it could not be done. Again, I repeat: this is not to say that it doesn't also serve as a template. But to say that it does no more than that seems silly to me.

Turretinfan's third argument:

The analogy to sermons/homilies. Just as a pastor tailors the sermon or homily for the congregation, applying the truths of scripture to his flock, the man praying applies Scriptural principles of prayer (such as the template of the Lord's Prayer) to the situation at hand.

Of course, this is fine. And we have no objection to it. But it's just crazy to suppose that literally no one in the history of God's people has ever been in a situation like mine - like ours. So of course those prayers that they've given us in writing are perfectly appropriate, particularly when they are truthful and beautiful. Is David's prayer of confession in Ps. 51 not perhaps the most perfect form of confession there is? Why on earth would I not want to use it? That would be ridiculous! It's beautiful, it's heartfelt, and it expresses exactly how I feel when I have sinned against my Lord. Yes, extemporaneous prayers are often great. And Yes, the prayers of God's people from past ages, and the prayers of the saints, are just as valuable. They give us a sense of solidarity with our fellow believers from past ages in a way that extemporaneous prayers never can.

Turretinfan's last (and possibly most disappointing) point:

Last, but certainly not least, the specific Scriptural admonition against rote prayers:

Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Have you ever witnessed a Roman Catholic praying a rosary, especially a non-Latin speaking Roman Catholic praying a Latin rosary, and most especially a very experienced and devout Roman Catholic senior citizen doing so with something to be done afterwards, or while engaged in something unrelated, such as driving?

Would you like to try to tell me that those prayers are not vain repetitions just like the prayers of the heathen? They are certainly repetitious, and they certainly seem to be based on a theory that if you say the prayer a lot you will be heard.

First off, Matthew 6:7 has nothing to do with rote prayers. It has to do with what it says: "vain repetitions" (KJV) or "empty phrases" (RSV) or "multiply[ing] words" (CCD) or "meaningless repetition" (NASB) or "babble" (JB) or "babbling" (NIV). The very fact (which I keep repeating) that the Psalms were Israel's prayer book makes this notion of a condemnation of "rote prayers" ridiculous. Should we not pray the Psalms? Is it a bad thing to be able to pray Ps. 23 from memory?? Of course not! So it's not rote prayers that are the problem.

Second, the issue cannot be with the repetition, either. Counter-example Number One: Psalm 136, where every one of all twenty-six verses repeats the statement, "for his mercy endures forever" (CCD, but something similar in any version). Now we may say that it was intended to be antiphonal (which seems a reasonable guess), or that it was "meant" to be used in public worship. We may even concede that it was primarily sung.

What then? It's okay to sing repetitively to God, but not to pray repetitively? What's the gigantic difference? Are not both directed to God? Of course they are! So it's not repetition that is a problem. Period.

In short, then, it's not praying by rote, and it's not repetition in prayer that is a problem. Well, if it's not repetitive rote praying that's the problem, then Turretinfan's argument is DOA. Sorry. :-)

So we see that Turretinfan has simply not made anything like a strong case against repetitive prayers, nor against form prayers. But something more may be said about extemporaneous prayers. I have already said that Catholics have no problem with them, and I want to repeat that now. But if Turretinfan thinks that Protestants don't pray "repetitively" when they pray extemporaneously, then I submit he has either not been paying attention or he has a rather small sampling of examples. Because I listened to what my fellow prayers said, and I know for a fact that they all - and I mean all - had habits of thought and speech that were characteristic of their prayers. This is not a bad thing. It's how we are made. We are creatures of habit. But it's just crazy to pretend that it doesn't happen. Does Turretinfan not teach his children little form prayers for meals? I'll bet he does (and if he doesn't, there are plenty of Protestants - yes, including Reformed types - who do). There is nothing wrong with this.

Well, perhaps Turretinfan will say that to pray the Psalms repetitively is only to pray Scripture repetitively. But of course, if he says that I will immediately respond that we pray the Our Father repetitively - so that this defense is a non-starter. But if he says that we should only pray Scripture, then he would be demolishing his argument against form prayers, and would be demolishing extemporaneous prayers as well. Now if he says that it's okay to pray Scripture as a form but not the prayers of godly men and women through the ages...well, I'd say that's a silly distinction without merit.