Book Review: Praying With The Church

Praying With the Church, by Scot McKnight, is a new book about old ideas. McKnight urges the Christians to unite their hearts with others in prayer by praying at set times throughout the day when others are praying as well. In so doing, he has offered some thoughts that I have never considered.

The premise of the book is that the church has historically observed regular times throughout the day when the church prays, even though they may not be assembled together. It draws on the OT practices of Jewish prayer such as recorded in Psalm 55:17 (morning, noon, and night), and shows the apostles in Acts following the pattern when Peter and John go to the temple to pray at the ninth hour (Acts 3:1.). (McKnight stops short of showing this practice of prayer as a mandate for continuation in the NT church.)

The book is centered on the idea of “sacred rhythms,” or praying at fixed times with set prayers (p. 1). He calls this “praying with the church.” It is contrasted with praying in the church, when “an individual prays exactly and only what is on his or her heart” (p. 1). In praying with the saints, we come closer to God and closer to God’s people, and we “confess the communion of the saints” (p. 11). By doing this, “we are invited to join a revolving twenty-four round of uninterrupted prayer offered by God’s people all over the world” (p. 13).

This focus on regular set times of prayer for the church is undoubtedly the highlight of this book. McKnight urges believers to plan their day around prayer times, rather than considering prayer and interruption, or something you schedule around your day. This idea is an idea worthy of serious consideration, whether or not one follows McKnight’s other suggestions.

The book is divided into four major sections. One chapter each is devoted to the introduction and conclusion, with two longer sections about “Jesus and Daily Rhythms of Prayer” and “The Church and Daily Rhythms of Prayer.”

A large portion of the book focuses on the use of prayer books, such as the Book of Common Prayer (Anglican), The Liturgy of the Hours (Roman Catholic), A Manual of Eastern Orthodox Prayers, and The Divine Hours (ecumenical). These books contain pre-written prayers and prayer schedules. After having read McKnight’s evaluation of these books, I remain unconvinced of the value of using such prayer books, in particular these books. McKnight reminds us that “everything Israel and Jesus learned about prayer can be found in the psalms” (p. 44). He says “If the Psalter was good enough to be Jesus’ prayer book, it is good enough for ours.” So I can sum up my thoughts on this third section about prayer books by simply wondering this: If the Psalter is good enough for Jesus and good enough for us, why did not McKnight skip the five chapters on prayer books and write on the Psalms? This theme of Jesus and the Psalter (which I think is correct) seems to undermine a large part of his book. And quite frankly, I think the book would have been better had he focused on the prayers of the Psalms rather than the prayers of the prayer books. Prayer books can serve a function in the way that hymns and poems, that of crystallizing scriptural truths that are found elsewhere in Scripture. But I am not sure that these are the best prayer books, nor are they necessary for prayer.

There is much good in this book. McKnight issues a healthy call to formulate our lives around prayer, rather than considering our lives interrupted by prayer. It is helpful to think in terms of set prayers as a way to schedule our days, knowing that others are praying with us at that time. Used in a corporate setting of a local church, encouraging church members to pause throughout their days at set times could be a way of giving the church some concrete solutions to the age old struggle with prayer. He says “Learning to pray set prayers at fixed times according to a sacred rhythm can reinvigorate our prayer lives and life the burden of creativity off our shoulders” (p. 14). I can certainly identify with this.

McKnight rightly comments that the use of set prayers does not lead to vain repetitions. Mindless use of set prayers leads to vain repetition. Set prayers are not magic wands. They help to formulate our own prayers using the prayers of others as a basis. Though I cannot recall McKnight saying this (and I think he should have), I would urge that set prayers be the bases of our prayers, not the totality of them. Of course, I would urge that we use the set prayers of the Psalter, perhaps worded in a more personal and direct ways, such as Ken and Karen Boa do in Simple Prayers (a prayer book that I greatly enjoy).

McKnight concludes his book with nine excellent suggestions about prayer. These help to summarize his book in an effective manner.

However, there are some troubling things in this book. On p. 12, McKnight talks about “Christians throughout the entire world—Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Christians of other stripes and hues.” He later talks about getting to know our “brothers and sisters in the faith” (p. 137) through the use of their prayer books. This is troubling since historically, the definition of Christian has not been this broad, nor should it be now. The modern (and post-modern) move toward erasing the lines of distinction that have historically been drawn over the doctrine of soteriology is troubling inasmuch as it recognizes more ways to God than Scripture allows. Historically and theologically, Roman Catholicism has not been considered a Christian religion except in the social and cultural sense of the word. Christianity was distinguished from Catholicism over the issue of sola fide sola Christus. This is a matter on which we must not compromise. To broaden Christianity in such a way is disappointing in this book.

There also seems to me to be a lack of teaching about the role of Jesus in our prayer. While McKnight spends some time talking about Jesus and his prayers, the reader without theological background is left with the idea that Jesus is a great example of prayer, but it seems to leave it at that. After my initial read through, I sat back and thought, where was Jesus? He devotes four chapters to Praying with Jesus, but it did not strike me as particularly useful in the formation of his book. The first chapter, the section on prayer books, and the conclusion were much more instructive for me. I think an increased focus on the role of Jesus as our intercessor through his sacrificial death, as the one through whom we can enter boldly into God’s presence seems a needed focus any time we talk about prayer. I wish McKnight had focused on this more.

Throughout the book, McKnight cites some sample prayers, some of which are troubling in their theology, primarily because the people who wrote the prayers, or the people being cited are, at best, questionable in their orthodoxy. Let me cite just two. On p. 75, he cites a prayer from Robert Webber that includes “cleanse the thoughts of my heart by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit.” The inspiration of the Holy Spirit has not, to my knowledge, ever been used theologically in forgiveness. Inspiration has a very specific meaning in theology that deals with revelation, not forgiveness. Theological imprecision leads to confusion. It would be better to be precise and specific, especially with words that have specific theological weight.

He also cites Frederica Mathewes-Green on her habits of early morning wakefulness when she prays “Lord Jesus Christ, be merciful to me” over and over “until her body tells her it is time to go back to sleep."

‘The goal,’ she says, ‘is to focus on those recurring words, not on any other prayers or intercessions, not on Bible study or theological truths; you have all day long for that. For this half hour, just fall into the presence of God like warming your hands before a fire, without a conscious thought in your head’ (p. 80).

The idea that we can “fall into the presence of God” without any conscious thought in prayer is mystical and runs contrary to the idea that God is only known through the propositions of his revelation. Our experiences of God in natural revelation are coherent only because of special revelation. To divorce prayer from theological truth is not the biblical teaching on prayer. Prayers in Scripture are deeply filled with theology and truth, and personal cognitive and volitional response to that truth.. It is hard to imagine ours should be any different.

Given the ecumenical nature of the book, and the lack of clear instruction on the nature of true spirituality vis a vis the false spirituality so prevalent in our contemporary culture, I think much more could have been made about the theological foundations of prayer, and it would not have required a longer book. Such a section would have made it a much stronger book. Spirituality is all too often divorced from real life in Jesus. I fear with a book such as this, with what seems to be a lack of emphasis on Jesus' role in prayer, there is a doctrinal minimization that is unhealthy for the church. Prayer is not the most important thing in the church. The truth is. Suggesting the use of prayer books from various doctrinal orientations will likely not result in a church more strongly committed to the pursuit of truth, and that would be an unfortunate result.

Overall, I enjoyed the book. I found it thought-provoking in thinking about prayer and the prayer life of the church. Having listened to people pray in church and in prayer meetings, I am convinced that most Christians prayers would benefit from the use of set prayers to teach them how to express theology in prayer. I think McKnight helps to point this out. I would take issue with his selection of prayer books, and the breadth of his definition of Christianity. I think we need to be stronger on this issue, not weaker.

I think his nine closing suggestions are the best part of the book by far, followed only slightly behind by his ideas about scheduling life around prayer, rather than scheduling prayer around life.

**I received a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for my review. Thanks to Paraclete Press.

Hope Lives On ...

My early spring skepticism was perhaps misguided. The boys of summer have almost reached the Midsummer Classic (which has been shamefully jerked around for promotionalism), and the Tigers will be no worse than tied for first come Sunday night when the first half of the season is in the books. Even if the Tigs lose tonight and tomorrow they will still have best record in baseball since the Pale Hose lost today. Who'd a thunk it? They might have 60 wins at the break. In 2004, the Tigers got their 60th win on August 27th. In 2005, they improved by six days, getting their 60th win on August 21. In the Disaster of 2003 (119 losses), the Tigers missed 60 wins by 17 games. At their winning pace, it would have taken the Tigers another 64 games to reach 60 wins. They would have been playing till December.

But now, things have changed. Will this be the miracle year? It might be time to start holding your breath. These guys look like they are for real. If they can get a few bull pen things nailed down, and stay free from injuries. They have more than a half-dozen blown saves already this year, and have not won many against the big guns in the AL. But they don't have to right now. If they can play decent ball against the Yankees, Red Sox, and White Sox, and take care of business with the rest of the league, they will make the postseason. And in baseball's postseason, perhaps unlike any other sport, all bets are off.

So find your hats and mittens. We might see October baseball in Detroit before it's all over this year.

Memo to MLB: Stop awarding World Series home field advantage to the representative of the league that wins the All-Star Game. After 162 games, the team with the best record should get the home field advantage. Something that important should not rest on an exhibition game played by people trying not to get hurt or work too hard.

New York and Gay Marriage

New York's Supreme Court recently upheld the state's marriage law that says marriage is between men and women. In so doing, they have upheld the civilized world's long standing position that God instituted in Genesis 1 when he made male and female and brought them together.

Not unexpectedly, this has many people up in arms. Those who praised the Massachusett's court ruling of 2004 are condemning the NY decision. What do many of these all have in common? They are gay marriage supporters who have never been able to win in the legislature and so they have taken their battle to the courts. They are the same people who praise the courts when they rule for them, and condemn the courts when they rule against them. While that is not unique to them, it shows that they are not driven by principle of government, but by principle of position. When they get what they want, the givers are enlightened, forward thinking progressives. When the same people do not give them what they want, those same people are backwards thinking regressives who would still own slaves if they could get away with it.

New York Representative Jerrold Nadler says,

This is a sad day for families, a sad day for justice, and a sad day in the struggle for equal rights for all Americans. The promise that, in this nation, all people are created equal, and entitled to equal rights, compels us to end discrimination against same-sex couples. Today, the Court of Appeals has failed to take that stand.

Why doesn't Mr. Nadler solve the problem by getting the congress to adopt his position? Simple: He can't. Because the vast majority of Americans do not agree with him, and their representative in Congress do not agree with him. At every turn, Americans have voted overwhelming against gay marrigae.

Consider Mr. Nadler's statement. He argues that all people are created equal and are entitled to equal rights. The truth is that all people do have equal rights. Gay people are not prevented from getting married. They are allowed to go down, apply for a marriage license, and get married just like everyone else in this country. And just like everyone else, they must obey all relevant laws. There is no discrimination against same sex couples here, not unless discrimination has changed meaning and I did not get the memo.

Conservatives have too long allowed the discussion to be framed as "gay marriage." What is that? Nothing. It is like talking about a round square. Gay marriage does not exist by definition. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It has always been that way. What homosexual activists are looking for is a redefinition of marriage.

Conservatives need to emphasize loudly and clearly that homosexuals can get married. They simply have to do it like everyone else. Find a partner of the opposite sex and marry them. That's what we had to do. If you can't, then stay single, just like everyone else who did not (or could not, as the case may be) find a partner of the opposite to marry them.

If that has legal and financial consequences for you, then accept it. Be a hero, not a whiner. That is the price of making choices. When I got married, it had legal and financial consequences for me. As I often remind my wife, it is a decision that I will pay for for the rest of my life. (And it is worth every penny it costs me.)

Too often we live in a world where people want to make decisions without accepting the consequences of those decision. If you choose to live with a partner of the same sex, you choose to accept all the consequencese of that decision. You may argue that you were created that way, that you have a built in attraction to the same sex. Fine. That may or may not be true. Science has not proven either way, and attraction is not easily defensible from Scripture. Many people have evil attractions and many people have good attractions. Your attraction is not at issue.

What is at issue is your choices. You may not have chosen to be attracted to the same sex, but you do choose who you take your clothes off with. Nobody forces that on you. And you do choose who you love. Nobody forces that on you.

So if being homosexual is more important than getting married, then be homosexual But realize that you must accept the consequences that are built in to that choice. Do not pretend like you are greatly persecuted. Do not pretend like you have no choice. You do. So live like it.

If you want to win the legal battle, then do it at the ballot box. Do not shame our constitution and the laws of this land by circumventing either. As the NY court said, there is a remedy; it is in the legislature. Win your battles there, not at the bench.

Elders and Pastors

I recently finished Mark Dever's excellent book entitled The Deliberate Church. This is a book well worth reading. But something caught my attention.

Dever rightly defines elders as pastors. He says "A pastor, then, is an elder, and an elder is a bishop/overseer—all three terms refer to the same office and the same work of pastoring" (p. 131, appealing to Acts 20:18-38 and Titus 1:5-7; cf. 1 Peter 5:1-2).

Curiously, he later says "Churches can get away without having elders. It happens all the time. But the biblical pattern is consistent, and the practical benefits are clear, both for the pastor and the congregation" (p. 135).

Now, if elders are pastors (as he rightly says), then how does a church get away without having elders? Surely he is not going to appeal to the plural form of elder vs. the singular form of pastor. He seems to be saying that a church with a pastor is getting away without having elders.

Which leads to my point: Our imprecise use of these terms has created much confusion, and led to a bifurcation of the office of pastor. It leads us to talk of "elders" and "pastors" as if they are two different offices. It seems that Dever falls prey to this several times throughout his book.

If we assert that elders are pastors, and pastors are elders, then let's quit referring to them differently.

Independence Day

I recently visited the site of some of the fiercest fighting of World War II. Remnants of fighting were all around. Tanks and guns still dot the landscape. Memorials to fallen soldiers and civilians stand in their memory. Bunkers, air raid shelters, and pillboxes can still be seen as a reminder that history really happened somewhere besides a textbook and movie reel.

As I traveled from place to place, I tried to imagine the terrain of sixty-two years ago, as waves of young men in the "bright morning of their lives" gave what Abraham Lincoln had eighty years earlier called "their last full measure of devotion." They stormed ahead into the fierce conflict to fight an enemy they had never seen, hoping to kill if only to avoid being killed. They knew they must defeat a foe whose desire was world domination, in contrast to their own desire of world freedom from tyranny.

They knew each breath could be their last. They knew the next whistling bullet could be theirs. Men from the streets of New York City and Chicago to the farms of Kansas and Oklahoma joined together in common cause for the sake of freedom. It is doubtful that anyone of them wanted to die, but they were willing todie because of the evident danger of standing aside and doing nothing. When their country called, they answered. When the bell rang, they sprang to action.

I can only imagine the fear of those days, loading into a landing craft knowing that the door will soon drop and you will have to exit the craft into an onslaught of machine gun fire. If you made it to the beach, you would have to fight inch by inch against an enemy well-prepared, who was dug in and waiting. You never knew what might spring out from behind the rock in front of you, or jump up from the tall grass in which you were walking. You knew some of the men beside you had seen their last sunrise, and if you survived, if might be your responsibility to carry the bodies of your fallen compatriots.

It is hard now to see the bodies, strewn across the landscape, bloody and lifeless. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but a picture will never do justice to the things these men faced. The Greatest Generation it has been called. More than 400,000 never saw their homes again. They left behind wives and children, mother and fathers, brothers and sisters, all because they were willing to fight for something bigger than themselves, even if they did not want to.

So on this Independence Day, thank a veteran for being there then so that we could be here now. Thank a soldier for following in the footsteps of the Greatest Generation, who followed in the footsteps of those before them.

Remember that the freedoms we enjoy to disagree, to have political fights, and to speak our minds did not come cheaply. The blood of soldiers marks the spots were freedom was won.