on misguidedly despising contemplation

I came across this article a week or two back and I have been mulling it over in odd moments because I think that there is probably a fundamental misunderstanding. A first I thought 'O good, an article commending the use of the Lord's Prayer.' But as I read it I started to feel very uncomfortable. The author clearly feels that there is a problem with contemplative prayer and this article outlines why. Here's a quote that seems to get to the heart of the objection.

The question therefore arises, is contemplative prayer, or cultivating "the quiet," supported in Scripture? Is it a spiritual discipline encouraged in God's Word? Or is this manner of prayer simply a device of human invention? We turn to Luke's Gospel for insight. Even in Jesus' day the way of prayer was controversial. Jesus spoke about prayer to correct the wrong methods and manners of prayer originating from and employed by men. Jesus taught against the publicity with which hypocrites pray and the repetition by which pagans pray (Matt. 6:5, 7-8). So after having heard Jesus pray and on behalf of the other disciples, one of them requested, "Lord, teach us to pray just as John also taught his disciples" (Lk. 11:1). To the request, Jesus replied, "When you pray, say . . ." (Luke 11:2a). The word to "say" (Greek, lego) means to carry on a logical and cognitive discourse with the emphasis upon what is being or what is about to be said. As opposed to silence, to say involves both thinking and speaking. As is evident from the context and content of his instructions to the disciples, Jesus neither taught nor practiced prayer via mindless and "mute language."

He seems to be saying that because Jesus said 'say' then other forms of prayer without words are illegitimate. I suspect that there are a number of problems with this.

First off, I suspect that there may be an inconsistency. The author is clearly an American Baptist and seems to be in the more fundamentalist stable. Therefore, I adduce that he's not going to be keen to take Luke with utmost seriousness at this point because I suspect he will want to argue that simple repitition is not right either, and yet that is arguably what Luke says. If I am correct in my supposition about the guy's approach to the passage under a slightly different heading, then we are already in the region of not quite taking the passage as literally as this. So it is that we should be very wary of this argument from silence. Just because Jesus gave this set of words in response to a particular request out of a background where we know that rabbis often gave their disciples a 'set' prayer as a part of their belonging to that group of disciples, doesn't mean that it should apply in the way that this article tries to say it does.

I would go further though. The outworking of taking that prayer seriously arguably leads [as I say in Praying the Pattern] to something like contemplation. To pray 'Your will be done' requires being informed what God's will is. I can't see that happening except by being silent as we are instructed [whether through Bible reading, hearing sermons, reading books] and doing what is necessary to take on board what we hear have been attentive to what the Holy Spirit seems to be pressing upon us. As far as I'm concerned, contemplative prayer is about being more careful about listening to God and not presuming to babble at God our own agenda.

The author, Larry DeBruyn, goes on to say,

Think for a moment about the implication of wordless praying. If Jesus or the biblical saints had engaged in the "mute language" of contemplative prayer, there would have been no prayers recorded in Scripture! The Bible would contain no resident examples of prayer to stimulate and instruct believers in the grace, knowledge and practice of prayer.

This is still and argument from silence. The presence of discourse directed towards God does not rule out other forms of prayer, any more than David going out into a field to meditate rules out his writing verbal prayers. Even if it is true that the Bible only portrays talking to God, but it isn't. There are examples of meditation and contempation in scripture, and it is hard to see the Bible having been written at all if not for people engaging in the work of reflecting quietly on Who God is and What God has done and is doing and being open sometimes to God's more direct communication.

To do a reductio ad absurdam on the basic argument, Jesus is not recorded in scripture as driving a car or going to the toilet, "then why should we?". The more helpful riposte would be, however, to ask how it was that Jesus and the apostles 'received' communication from God, and to point out that trying to be open to the Holy Spirit bringing something to us from the Father is no bad thing.

And I think we should also be careful that we don't fetishise verbalisation. I communicate with others without words all the time. So do most of us, excepting hermits. I don't see that it should be a problem to bring our wordless communication before God, in fact I would have thought it an important part of bringing all of our life before God. 'Offering our bodies as a living sacrifice' is not primarily a verbal matter. I'd be worried if it were, I'd suspect that large chunks of ones being were actually being missed out of the offering. Prayer and worship is far more fundamentally about bringing the whole of who we are into positive relationship with God than just talking at God, which is what Mr DeBruyn seems to be advocating. I suspect his apparent fear of the so-called evils of emerging church is driving him away from the whole counsel of God.

PtpTopic20060626143019 < Ptp < TWiki: Filed in: prayer, Lord's_prayer, spirituality, contemplative, words, silence