A072 The Future of Liturgy And the Opportunity for Constitutional Amendment

By

The Rt. Rev. C. Andrew Doyle

In the season after the General Convention 2022, there has been debate about 2022-A059, which is now returning to the convention as A072. The Anglican Theological Review posted an article by The Rev. Dr Matthew Olver of Nashotah House.  As a member of the drafting group for the House of Bishops regarding the 2022-A059 revision, we bring background and clarity into the ongoing dialogue with an eye to the argument made by Olver. He wants to convince the deputies that the actions of the last Convention were not wise. Below, I offer a defence of General Convention actions regarding 2022-A059 and a response to Olver’s argument. 

I first offer seven critical contexts operating on the floor of the House of Bishops during the debate and within the group assigned to work on a means forward. These themes of conversation are: a) the 2022-A059 as presented was not going to be approved; b) there were issues raised about what belongs in the Constitution vs what belongs in the canons; c) members of the House did not want the process that has been underway for existing trial rites to be delayed – specifically those regarding marriage; d) bishops who hold a traditional view on marriage, or whose diocese were in their processes of dealing with the change, were concerned that a passage of the new rites would require canonical obedience; e) there was a lot of concern over having an actual paper bound book; f), there were issues about the continued translation of texts; g) and finally, there was concern that bishops had not been attentive to and that rules were changing around those rites permitted by bishops alone as the chief liturgical officer of the diocese.  While it may be suggested that 2022-A059 in the form presented was simple, the context in which it arrived upon the floor of the House of Bishops for debate was decidedly not simple, and failure was its immediate apparent outcome. 

Another subtext is that the typical member of the General Convention seated in either the House of Deputies or in the House of Bishops do not understand the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, especially regarding those with an effect upon liturgical forms and the use of liturgical terminology. This context means that when different liturgical resolutions come before the two houses, people may very well pass them but not understand if they passed a text for "Experimental Use," "Supplemental Use," or "Trial Use." There is also confusion over which are to be used freely and which are not. Not all of these are oriented towards the revision of The Book of Common Prayer.  This fact was admitted by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. These terms were generally used among the liturgists but not understood by the wider church.  

This is essential background because the history of how things are changed and the context in which they are changed is essential to the continuing life of the Episcopal Church's constitutional, canonical, and liturgical life. With the above in mind, I turn to the text of 2022-A059, now A072 itself. 

Let us begin by saying that we do not agree with all of Olver's constitutional and canonical points about The Episcopal Church's Constitution generally. Part of the work of this proposal was to help TEC navigate the future regarding the nature of a physical book, an online book, and the wide variety of approved BCP liturgies and liturgical forms available to the local priest and churchgoer alike. Many churches today use booklets and projection and even devices to help with the service. Some still use the book itself. This clouds the issue. The reader should remember that the context of the amendment included different understandings of the proposal's intention. These sometimes-conflicting perspectives were and are at the very root of the issue that faced 2022-A059 and our Constitution and Canons. These opposing forces and disagreements might be categorized in this way:

• Those who envision a Book of Common Prayer produced by a printer and those who envision an Ebook of Common Prayer
• Those who envision marriage equality within the Book of Common Prayer and those who are concerned they will be constitutionally forced to bless all marriages for an ever-expanding LGBTQ+ community by placing the marriage rites in the Book of Common Prayer.
• Those who experience the latent reality that translations of liturgical materials are not seen as essential to a multiethnic and multinational church and those who don't understand the issue of flexibility with liturgical texts achieve parody across our diverse church when it comes to liturgy
• Those who want structure and clarity for revision and those who didn't know we were without such clarity and structure
• Those who want to create openness in the process and those who don't want openness
• Those who want to be able to work with others to develop mission-responsive and those who want to slow down the process 
• Those who want to build a new prayer book from scratch and those who don't want this at all

The conflict we saw in 2022 regarding 2022-A059 was very much rooted in the same conflict, which has been building for three decades and came to a head in 2018, resulting in B011. I helped author this proposal with the very best liturgical minds of the church, as was my participation in creating the amendment that will surely be before us.  

To this end, the great revision underway in the 21st century regarding liturgy hoped to create a constitutional framework that would allow for the existence of these views, not to continue the muddled past which was created as times and contexts have changed, and enable us to move forward, while holding onto one of our greatest assets The Book of Common Prayer as the shared prayer of this church. Olver implies this was slapdashed and needs more consideration. That is just not the reality of the overall history of the proposal, the authors involved, and the bishops and deputies in the last convention.

Unfortunately, The Episcopal Church does not have the time, money, or clarity of intention to produce a single book today. Therefore, we agree with Matthew Olver's perspective that, indeed, "yes", we had to find a way for the Episcopal Church to revise the contents of the Book of Common Prayer in steps.  However, as Olver implies, this was not to mimic the ever-expanding books of liturgies as in the Church of England. Instead, it was to make clear that the doctrinal and unity of the BCP must be maintained and that a process for relieving pressure and allowing the work of liturgical formation to move forward also needed to be dealt with constitutionally and canonically. 

An astute friend once quipped, ‘The Book of Acts is about the church catching up with a resurrected Jesus and the mission of God.’ The truth is that in our era, the Book of Common Prayer cannot keep pace with the mission underway, and we need time for that mission to bear fruit theologically and liturgically.

Olver also implies that 2022-A059, now A072, as we have it before us, rejects a systematic doctrinal revision and does so piecemeal.  That is not true. Olver's argument infers that the modifications to the marriage canon do not come out of deep thought and wrestle with doctrinal theology. Yet, they do, and several texts illustrate the work the Episcopal Church has done through convention over thirty years to build a doctrinal case for the passing of these liturgies. Indeed, those who hold to this church's traditional view of marriage might disagree and side with Olver.  We need to remember, though, that the church has made a particular decision about marriage and that those rites are going through a process of liturgical approval for the Prayer Book as outlined in previous texts – it has been approved for trial use. We also suggest that this is not true for other proposed and used texts of material that have come before the General Convention for entrance into The Book of Common Prayer – if we are deliberate in how we proceed. The fear of a crashing plethora of liturgies entering our doctrinal life is a "fear", not one founded in the 2018-B011 or 2022-A059 proposal that is now before the church for a time of consideration. It is instead a fear and an anxiety. Those against the amendment hope to share this unnecessary fear to defeat the text.

Olver and Robert Pritchard’s proposals that will also come before the constitution and canons and possibly liturgy committees will indeed create precisely the problem that they fear – multiple books. You will discover as you read is that all of the other proposals seek competing Books of Common Prayer in one form or another. The proposal I have helped to write and argue for below is the only one that keeps a solo Book of Common Prayer while maintaining the use of 1979 and older books.

It is true that in the end, the church may choose to reject the offer made by 2022-A059, now A072, to engage in careful, theological work, which allows us to overcome our church's liturgical lethargy and offer a both/and solution. This solution would allow the competing desires mentioned above to all be true during this season of revision while we give time for the church to determine if it will have both an ebook and a physical Book of Common Prayer. However, our work here creates an adaptive and doctrinally centred church liturgical life.

It is an approach approved by chancellors and carefully written in the language outlines of the constitutional language.

Please note that both 2022-A059 and Olver’s proposal retain the current and historical requirement that neither an "alteration" (which I understand to mean a change in the existing text) nor an "addition" (which I understand to mean adding text, not just a phrase or two, but a significant addition) may be made to the BCP without the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Convention. 

 

The next concern by Olver is the implication that A072 will get rid of the two-convention rule. Both 2022-A059 and Olver's proposal would add to Article X the requirement that, in addition to the action of two successive regular meetings of the General Conventions, no alteration or addition to the BCP could be made without previously – that is, previous to the first voting General Convention – being authorized for Trial Use. The good news for marriage equality advocates is that the marriage rite has already been set up this way and will not keep it from moving forward. Moreover, under the carefully proposed A072, Article X would speak only to the BCP and its alteration and amendment; it would be silent as to other liturgies that the General Convention might authorize and would leave any discussion of such liturgies to the canons. Why? Because only the liturgies in our BCP are doctrinal. 

Moreover, the authors 2022-A059 suggest a canonical amendment that would add text to Title I.1.2.n.2 addressing liturgies authorized for use. Returning to 2018 B011, this canonical change must follow the approved four-part articulation – with careful editing.   This suggestion is essential to the success of A072. The order of approval here makes the accountability work. The group of authors and I would not be in favour of approving the new A072 without the amendments to Title I.1.2.n.2. Let me explain. By contrast, under the ATR proposal, Article X would address liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and liturgies permitted for "Supplemental Use." In Olver's words and the words of the authors of the Constitution, amendments need to be precise. Olver writes and quotes from the following:

The function of a constitution is to provide "a concise statement of the most basic and important of the Church's laws," to embody "the organic law or principle of government of an organized society," and to articulate "those laws which are 'constitutive' of the nature and function of a community." (Stevick, Canon Law, 97.) Williams Jones Seabury wrote that a constitution is "a law to lawgivers." (Williams Jones Seabury, Notes on the Constitution of 1901 (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1902), 8; qtd. in Stevick, Canon Law, 97-8.) "It lays down broad powers; details are left to the Canons." (Stevick, Canon Law, 98.) Unlike the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Preamble to TEC's Constitution is not aspirational, which is to say, its purpose does not communicate the intentions of its framers.

As proposed, this is correct, and A072 makes clear what the Book of Common Prayer is and what it is not. This keeps the "Prayer Book for the Episcopal Church is enormously disproportionate compared to other related churches"…regarding the "teachings of the church."  It also keeps other liturgies from using doctrinal power as the Constitution prescribes. This is essential. Olver’s proposal would leave such vagueness.

 

The process and limits for liturgies authorized for "Experimental Use" and "Supplemental Use" under the canon suggested by 2022-A059 are identical to the process and limitations set out for such liturgies by Olver's proposal, with one important exception.  Disregarding the need for missional liturgical application, Olver's submission seeks to slow down the experimental and supplemental use under the direction of a bishop. His proposal actually places more power for mission principles to guide liturgy at the local diocesan level and places them at the General Convention level. Moreover, it potentially places all liturgy at a doctrinal level. The 2022-A059 proposal to amend Title I.1.2.n.2 spells out those processes and limits in the canons where they belong. Instead, Olver's proposal spells them out in Article X of the Constitution, tremendously slowing the operation of any missional adaptation. It is not our opinion that a church as diverse and needing liturgical breadth (not doctrinal breadth) is better served by having experimental and supplemental use in the canons and not the Constitution. The proposers desire a way for the liturgy to be crafted for mission purposes. 

 

The group’s edit of Article X includes the words "is intended to be…" We disagree that it is aspirational but argue instead that it is intentional. It is not "aspirational language", as Olver suggests. Etymologically the word “intended” is to direct and move forward – borrowed from the French in the 14th century. It is to call attention to in Latin. It is a plan and a purpose. It is to direct a course of action.  The Constitution offers a course of action for the church and the people of the church to use this doctrinal text in common and private devotions.   

The full phrase with which Olver regards imprecise is this: the book’s nature is “intended to be communal and devotional prayer.” The church knows that not everyone uses the Book of Common Prayer as intended, and not every person uses it as a devotional. Yet it has been something that sets the course of action within and without the church. Olver overlooks this in his argument. In this way, the intention is more than aspirational; it is a statement of rootedness in our prayer book tradition. The book is in the language of the people, clergy have been at times constitutionally ordered to say the daily office – daily. Cranmer and the reformers desired that the Book of Common Prayer become all that was needed besides the bible to stir and support reformation. Each American Book of Common Prayer included prayers for saying at home, and the Daily Office itself has become a rule of life for many baptized. Priests and bishops have so many well-worn little Book of Common Prayers given to them that observation alone suggests they were used more than on Sunday. 

Olver's stated concern is the addition of the statement in 2022-A059/A072 that reads, "The Book of Common Prayer in this Church is intended to be communal and devotional prayer enriched by our church's cultural, geographical, and linguistic contexts." Olver suggests that this is wholly unnecessary. I have already addressed the nature of the word "intended" above and believe we ought to revise the term. 

His second concern with this statement concerns the time "devotional". He states that the Book of Common Prayer was never meant to be devotional. Yet, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is used by church members as a devotional text. The framers of the 1979 Book have included the daily office and compline. They included the prayers for "Daily Devotions for Individuals and Families". Also, there are the collects for all kinds of settings, the psalms, and the prayers for the sick – often prayed by the sick. While it is likely that Thomas Cranmer would not have imagined private devotional use of the Prayer Book, by the 13th century, clergy were using it as a private devotion, which has expanded wherein today, many use the book for private devotion. 

Olver's point that Cranmer might not have imagined it does not mean Cranmer didn’t mean for The Book of Common Prayer to be a tool in the hand of the church for the formation of individuals and congregations alike. We know that there are examples of families reading from The Book of Common Prayer and using it for devotion in their habitations.  If it is to continue to form us, then attention to both its devotional and worship implications for the church needs to be raised to the level of Constitutional consideration.

Prayer book commentaries have taught the baptized the importance of the liturgy – to pray constantly. And, there was published even the Family Prayer Book; a commentary for the home on the use of the Book of Common Prayer. Marion Hatchett notes in his Commentary on the American Prayer Book that ancient private prayer has always been prevalent and that the 1979 reformer (not unlike Cranmer’s tradition) sought to make the daily offices accessible and even to add simpler offices for individuals and families.  Therefore, we would suggest then that both by title, inclusion of prayers, and history it is meant for both communal prayer and individual.

I now take up the issue Olver and others have with the translation requirement. Given the concern over the diversity of context and the awareness of past colonial behaviours, our lack of respect for translation for the wider church and the many unfulfilled resolutions promising translation, the second part of the sentence was added by the group who felt strongly about justice. We as a church cannot shy away from the truth; we have yet to have a Book of Common Prayer in Navajo. A corrected Book of Common Prayer in Spanish has finally come to fruition while printed on cheaper paper than the English version. The Episcopal Church is a multinational and multiethnic church in which many languages are spoken, including Asian and African dialects. The Church's Book of Common Prayer needs to hold before the reality of being a Book of Common Prayer for all the people of our Church. This, like many arguments, seems lost within the current debate.

Matthew Olver suggests that the recent attempts to amend Article X "attempt to shift the Church's awareness that contemporary and future methods of publication may not be restricted to the form of a book. What the General Convention adopts as a Prayer Book is not a form of publication (a book) but rather the content, i.e., the text of the liturgies.  This has always been so and, in fact, was not copyrighted until recently. Moreover, even Olver points out that the church has a history of approving liturgies that have not always been readily published in book form.

The writing group and I believe we will have printed Prayer Books for the foreseeable future. If we took creation care more seriously, we would use the book and electronic media more often. The church cannot pretend that even now there is a strong use of liturgies printed in bulletins and online usage. Ebooks of Common Prayer are emerging and in gatherings it is more normal to see people using iphones and other devices. This is true in the House of Bishops. We even have ebinders now at the General Convention, so no future prayer book revisions will be seen in writing until a book is published.

As a church we need be aware that those who are legally blind, or have difficult with paper books because of physical challenges, find the eBook of Common Prayer accessible because they can enlarge the text, or even have it read to them. Inclusivity cannot be limited to ableist understandings of prayer book publishing.

Will ebooks, over decades, replace printed Books of Common Prayer? We do not know. However, the Constitution should not be shortsighted. As a constitution, it resides under the reality of the present and future context it seeks to guide. The design of Article X’s words need make room for such to happen without amending the Constitution at every convention to deal with change. 

Therefore, the logic is that the Book of Common Prayer is at once a collection of texts that can always be found in a physical instantiation that one can open and read to the name given to all readers that receive two sequential General Conventions to authorize their presence; and, that it may also be found online. This is a both/and solution that many have a problem reconciling. Yet it is time to reckon with our present reality and provide constitutional and canonical frameworks to do.

Some approved Book of Common Prayer liturgies may exist electronically before the custodian of The Book of Common Prayer issues an entirely new edition. Both liturgists and canonical lawyers have a problem with this latitude and open possibility. However, the church must hold both these ideas simultaneously (a Book of Common Prayer and an eBook of Common Prayer). This is all the more reason to be clear about what is a Book of Common Prayer liturgy and what is not. 

Another fear that many remain concerned about and Olver seeks to prevent is a new Book of Common Prayer. I have been in conversation with the liturgical leaders both past and present.  There is no urgency of a total rewrite of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. 

We are at least 4 to 6 General Conventions away from a new Book of Common Prayer being created slowly within the financial means of the Episcopal Church and given the fast-moving tech trends of our culture it could be 2035 or 2040 before we could financially fully underwrite and bring to fruition the task. A conservative estimate places a new Book of Common Prayer out 20 years or more, given convention timelines, finances, and the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music's ability to bring forward the new book written wholesale plus accomplishing all their other tasks.  

Olver suggests that we have to do a revison of the Book of Common Prayer as one thing knowing full well that is not possible and placing the ability for change even further. 

The final problem that Matthew Olver notes is the importance of clarifying the process of new prayer book liturgies within Article X. He notes that the concern arises from the ability to bring the new marriage rites forward for inclusion. Olver omits this from his argument and reveals in his proposed changes that he would prefer to have the marriage rites defined as Authorized Liturgical Rites. 2018 B011 suggested this, which was itself a suggestion following the past authorization guidelines for the Book of Common Prayer book rites. (I believe it is essential to get such guidelines into the canons.) There was never an intention to locate an approved Book of Common Prayer rites not printed in a new book. 2018-B011 was meant to provide a way to create diversity in liturgical use without building a collection of texts in a new Book of Common Prayer.  While memorializing the continued use of the Book of Common Prayer 1979.

Olver's proposal implies relegating the new marriage rites to a new category that is not a Book of Common Prayer rite and has yet to be created by the SCLM and Convention. His suggestion does not exist and actually proposes creating paths for many liturgies that will create the very problem he hopes to avoid regarding the multiplication of rites. 

The Church has already decided to set the new marriage rites towards Book of Common Prayer status. We are already in a time of trial usage, and it comes before the convention. Olver’s proposal for the new marriage rite changes the midstream process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the writing group, liturgical leaders, bishops and deputies who passed what is now A072 supported the amendment because it represent a better understanding of our church's expression of common prayer. I continue, as do the authors, to support this amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, to then work and draft the necessary canons to further define our church’s process of liturgical revision. It is true that not amending Article X is in the power of both houses – to do so is also to continue a dangerous course where many do not have clarity about guidelines for liturgical use in this church.

 

Ash Wednesday Meditation

I was little.  Maybe I was 6.  I sat with my mother in the pew at Church of the Good Shepherd. 

My mother held my hand and we went in and found our pew, in the middle, the left hand side, the Gospel side.  My mother knelt…I fidgeted and I slid up and down the pew.

She prayed…I fidgeted and whispered her name over and over again.

She was quiet…I fidgeted and tried to get her attention, I pulled on her dress.

She told me to kneel with her and to pray to God before church began.  I said, “I don’t know what to say to God.” I’m sure I said this with a very loud voice.  She whispered to me that I was to go see my father.

I sulked. I sulked out of my pew. I sulked all the way back to the back of the church to the church doors…past the crucifer…past the torch bearers…I sulked past the lay readers…I sulked up to my father (the priest) standing at the back of the procession.

I looked up with my best sad face, I marshaled the tears, and I blubbered. Mom says to pray to God. I don’t know what I am supposed to say. What do you say to God? Does God even listen? Will God listen to me? Mom says pray. I don’t know how.

My father leaned down to me and said, “Go tell God good morning and hello. Introduce yourself.  That is all you need to do.  Go tell God hello; like you might to an old friend.”

There comes a time in everyone’s life when we pray for the first time.  It doesn’t matter how one grew up. It doesn’t matter the tradition of one’s family.  Somewhere, in some quiet place, in some way, at an important time, everyone utters a prayer to God.

In a moment, then the moment is gone, a word of prayer bridges the gap between heaven and earth; between the creator and the created.

Some of us get mighty good at praying.

Some of us get very good prayer voices.

Some of us are good at making prayer gestures.

But in this season of Lent we are reminded of the importance of simple prayer and a simple conversation with our maker.  We are reminded of our need to go see a good friend…an old friend.  We are reminded to make ourselves known.  We are given an opportunity to again in a small quiet place, in a quiet voice, to say “hello” again to God.

Jesus, in our lesson from Matthew offers a bit of guidance. It is as if he is saying, “Hey…don’t get in people’s faces about your prayer life.”

Allow your prayer life to remind you of the importance of giving…but don’t be all high and mighty about it.

Don’t use that God voice when you pray.  It irritates God and everybody else. 

Being public with your faith is not all it’s cracked up to be. It is a lot better to pray privately and sincerely.  It is better for your life to model the very best of God’s love…then when people ask you about it you can tell them.  Sometimes the obvious is not as good as the subtle.

Remember when you pray that God knows what you need so you don't have to always be telling God out loud with a long list of how you would like life to be...

Please don't look dismal and sad.  Look happy and enjoy your relationship with God.

Remember that what matters is the love of God, the love of neighbor - these are the treasures worth having.  So pray and live for love.

If we opened the bible up and looked at this passage what we would see is that Jesus is teaching his followers to pray, and he offers to them what today we call the Lord’s Prayer.

It is as if Jesus is saying, “This is a good way of doing it. Pray like this.”

Jesus says, say “Our Father”.  Begin this way because we are to seek as intimate a relationship with God as I have.

Pray “Who art in heaven”.  When you do you’ll be reminded of your created nature as a gift from heaven. Life is given to us from God. We also recognize in this short phrase that we are not God.

Say to God “Hallowed be thy name”. In response to the grace of being welcomed into God’s community, bowing humbly and acknowledging our created nature, we recognize the holiness of God. We proclaim that God’s name is hallowed and that we are not holy.

Remember and ask for God’s kingdom to come; “Thy kingdom come”.  The words of Jesus remind us that, like the disciples’ own desires to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus, this is not our kingdom. The reign of God is not what you and I have in mind. We ask God: by your power bring your kingdom into this world. Help us to beat our swords into ploughshares that we might feed the world.

Say, “Thy will be done”. We bend our wills to God’s, following the living example of Jesus Christ. We ask for grace to constantly set aside our desires and take on the love of God’s reign. Let our hands and hearts build not powers and principalities but the rule of love.

“On earth as it is in heaven”.  Ask God to give us eyes to see this kingdom vision, and then ask for courage and power to make heaven a reality in this world. May our homes, our churches, and our communities be a sanctuary for the hurting world to find shelter, to find some small experience of heaven.

Then pray, “Give us this day our daily bread”.  In prayer we come to understand that we are consumers. We need, desire, and just want many things. In Christ, we are reminded that all we need is our daily bread.  And as we surrender our desires, help us to provide daily bread for those who have none today.

Ask God to “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Sanity and restoration are possible only because God forgives us. Because of that sacrificial forgiveness--made real in the life and death of Jesus--we can see and then share mercy and forgiveness. Help me personally offer sacrificial forgiveness to all those I feel have wronged me. I want to know and see my own fault in those broken relationships. May I be a sacrament of your grace and forgiveness to others.

“Lead us not into temptation”: As Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and replaced God with their own understanding of reality, we need help turning away from our own earthly and political desires and turning toward the wisdom of God in Christ Jesus. So we remind ourselves how we are so tempted to go the easy way, to believe our desires are God’s desires. We have the audacity to assume we can know God’s mind. Show us your way and help us to trust it.

Please God, “deliver us from evil”.  Only God can deliver us from evil. There is darkness in the world around us. We know this darkness feeds on our deepest desire: to be God ourselves. That deceptive voice affirms everything we do and justifies our actions, even when they compromise other people’s dignity. It whispers and tells us we possess God’s truth and no one else does. Deliver us from the evil that inhabits this world, the weakness of our hearts, and the darkness of our lives, that we might walk in light.

“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen”  I want to remember that I am powerless. Help me give my life up to an higher power and devote my life and love to God and my neighbor.   Help us to see your glory and beauty in the world, this day and every day.

So, in Lent…perhaps as your Lenten discipline, say good morning to God again for the first time; like you might say hello to an old friend.  

Pray simply, maybe just use the Lord’s Prayer every day.  Pray simply.  And let your prayer bridge the gap between heaven and earth.

A Survey of Scriptural Posts tagged #Prayer and #Jesus

Scripture is the first place for us to begin our journey of reflection on this topic of work that is prayer and flows from prayer. Jesus teaches those who follow him about prayer. One can almost understand that Jesus believes that we have, as God's creatures, a need to pray (Luke 18.1). Those who follow Jesus are to pray for others, and pray for those for who are your enemies (Matt 5.44). The Gospel of Luke records Jesus instructing that his followers are to pray for those who abuse you (Luke 6.28). And we are to pray for deliverance (Lk 22.40).



He instructs those who follow him to pray privately (Matt 6). He instructs his followers to pray in desert places (Luke 5.16). We are not to pray out in the open for fear of being like those who lord and show off their prayer in front of others.


Perhaps one of the greatest human sins is the sin of pride. And we like to take pride in our prayers, especially those spoken aloud. This is the beauty of the Book of Common Prayer which keeps our egos out of the work of prayer by praying ancient and holy prayers. It is the beauty of solitude and prayer through meditation, which humbles us before the throne and community of God. We are to seek out deserted places and private places in which we are to have intimate prayer with God.


In these intimate moments we are, as Jesus prescribes in the Gospel of Matthew, to pray out of our faith for what we need of God (Matt 21.22). In Luke's Gospel, Jesus connects fasting and prayer (Luke l5.33). I believe Jesus told us to fast and pray in order to help us understand his sacred solidarity with the poor and our overdependence upon the things of this world. He goes away to pray himself. He goes to the mountain and prays (Matt 19.13). He prays in the garden before he is arrested. And, he invites his followers to pray with him (Matt 26.36). He prayed in his anguish (Lk 22.44). We also know that Jesus prayed the psalms.


Over all, what we see is that Jesus prayed and instructed us to pray for what was needed. He thought it best to pray privately as if in conversation with our Father. If we looked at each of these passages in context we would find that they are connected with action. 


Jesus teaches the need of persistent prayer, the widow and unjust judge just before the healing of children in Luke 18. After Jesus teaches prayer for those who abuse you, he heals the beloved slave of the Centurion (Luke 7). Throughout the Gospel of Mark we see repeatedly prayer followed by healings and teachings. Jesus also seems to instruct his disciples that prayer was a daily need for those who followed him, a type of daily spiritual food. Moreover, Jesus seems to understand the importance of prayer in one's life, especially in times of trial or trouble.


Perhaps these themes and passages are not new to you, but they somewhat shape and form my beginning place in this conversation. These are the pieces that got me going and thinking, drawing myself deeper into a conversation with God about Prayer, the work that is prayer, and the work that originates in prayer. Jesus modeled a life of prayer and offers it to us as part of our Christian journey and vocation. Indeed we reflect and acknowledge its centrality in our own commitment to God when we say, "I will with God's help continue in the Apostle's prayers" (BCP 304).


Coming up next: A Daily Prayer Shaping Our Daily Work