Archive for April, 2014


American Christians tend to focus on private as opposed to common prayer, or prayer in worship.  Your writing indicates you’re not comfortable with that tendency.

I’m not.  The paradigmatic prayer is not solitary but in community.  The fundamental biblical context is [corporate] worship.  That’s why worship seems to me to be the place.  It’s the only context in which we can recover the depth of the gospel.

Does that mean we learn how to pray in community, that what we do in solitude is something we take from the community’s worship?

That’s what I mean.  If somebody comes to me and says, ‘Teach me how to pray,’ I say, ‘Be at this church at nine o’clock on Sunday morning.’  That’s where you learn how to pray.  Of course, prayer is continued and has alternate forms when you’re by yourself.  But the American experience has the order reversed.  In the long history of Christian spirituality, community prayer is most important, then individual prayer.

What things do we learn in common prayer?

One thing we learn is to be led in prayer.  I’m apt to think of prayer as my initiative.  I realize I have a need or I am happy, and I pray.  The emphasis is on me, and I have the sense when I pray that I started something.  But what happens if I go to church?  I sit there and somebody stands before me and says, ‘Let us pray.’  I didn’t start it; I’m responding.  Which means that I am humbled.  My ego is no longer prominent.  Now that’s a very basic element in prayer, because prayer is answering speech.

Prayer has to be a response to what God has said.  The worshiping congregation–hearing the Word read and preached, and celebrating it in the sacraments–is the place where I learn how to pray and where I practice prayer.  It is a center from which I pray.  From it I go to my closet or to the mountains and continue to pray.

A second thing about praying in community is that, when I pray in a congregation, my feelings are not taken into account.  Nobody asks me when I enter the congregation, ‘How do you feel today?  What do you feel like praying about?’  So the congregation is a place where I’m gradually learning that prayer is not conditioned or authenticated by my feelings.  Nothing is more devastating to prayer than when I begin to evaluate prayer by my feelings, and think that in order to pray I have to have a certain sense, a certain spiritual attentiveness or peace or, on the other side, anguish.  That’s virtually impossible to learn by yourself.  But if I’m in a congregation, I learn over and over again that prayer will go on whether I feel like it or not, or even if I sleep through the whole thing.” (Eugene Peterson, “Foreword” to The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction, pp. 8-9)




Read Full Post »

A shorter version of this essay appears in the latest issue of The Harvard Ichthus:

JesusNo historical issue related to the life and teaching of Jesus is more perennially resistant to scholarly consensus than his frequent use of the expression “son of man” in the Gospels.[1]  Frustratingly enough, neither is any single matter more critical to recovering Jesus’ own original sense of his identity and mission.  Simply put, we cannot hope to understand Jesus if we fail to grasp what he intended by repeatedly designating himself as the “son of man.”  It may seem unwise and even naive to venture another interpretation of Jesus’ enigmatic form of self-reference in such brief, summarizing fashion here, but my intention is captured well by Oliver Wendell Holms: “For the simplicity on this side of complexity, I wouldn’t give you a fig.  But for the simplicity on the other side of complexity, for that I would give you anything I have.”  No one familiar with the history of debate over the phrase “son of man” can doubt that the theme is chock full of complexity.  But what many continue to sincerely doubt—that a basic simplicity does exist underneath all the evidence that can make sense of all the data coherently and compellingly—is what I seek to assert and defend here.

A concise overview of why the “son of man” issue proves to be both important and difficult (in equal parts) is apropos as a starting point—particularly in light of how ignored the expression tends to be in spite of its self-evident prominence in the Gospels.  As one recent writer laments, “Rarely does this ‘title’ [“son of man”] function regularly and significantly in Christian thinking and spirituality.  Such a situation is remarkable.”[2]

The Importance of “The Son of Man”

The importance of the “son of man” expression in Jesus’ ministry is obvious for several reasons.  First, (more…)

Read Full Post »