20140506-141244.jpg

Would Jesus pray at a city council meeting?

The more that I think about the recent Supreme Court ruling defending the use of explicitly Christian prayer to open government meetings, the more it offends me. I have no problem praying in public. I do it all the time walking on the sidewalk mumbling the Jesus Prayer to myself with my prayer beads. When somebody else needs prayer, I don’t have any problem laying hands on them in the middle of a Walmart or any other public space. I don’t want to be the pastor who says, “I’ll pray for you” in the disingenuous way that we say “Let’s do lunch sometime” instead of actually praying for people right then and there. But prayer as a pro forma function of “civic religion” really bugs me. And Jesus himself had something to say about it in the sermon that is more widely ignored by supposedly “Biblical” American Christians than any other Biblical text.

And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites for they love to stand and pray on the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. [Matthew 6:5-6]

That is Jesus’ most explicit teaching on prayer. So which Christian leader submitted it as an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to peruse as part of its deliberation on public prayer? The basic problem with prayer that Jesus identifies is that it’s often used disingenuously as a pretend conversation with God whose primary purpose is to confer status upon ourselves before other people. The most abominable form of this occurs in Christian Internet debates when we say, “I’ll pray for you” to our opponents as a way of expressing our disapproval. Yes, I’ve done it before, and it was no less sacrilegious than when Sarah Palin said that “waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Nothing is more disrespectful to God than to use our supposed conversation with him as a way of leveraging our own legitimacy. That’s the cheap “reward” that Jesus talks about in his teaching. It’s not only cheap and shallow, but it actively sabotages the secret reward that God wants to give us through prayer. How can I have intimacy with God if my conversation with God is a public performance and an inner farce? There is nothing in the world like the rich intimacy that we receive from a true spiritual connection with God. And the way we gain this intimacy is when we pray in secret. Jesus did this over and over again in his ministry life: he would always retreat to a quiet place to pray.

To me, prayer is primarily about creating a monastery where we can sit and enjoy the presence of God. It’s awesome when we can share that monastery with other people. The world needs that monastery more desperately than ever in our era of spiritually alienating constant “connectivity.” Part of my vision for the campus ministry I’m going to be starting this summer at Tulane University is to offer the monastery of prayer in public space on a regular basis.

We can and should bring the monastery of prayer into public, but it must take the form of sharing a secret with others if they are to receive the secret reward that God wants to give them. If praying in public is about marking turf and standing up for the “rights” of “persecuted” Christians, then the secret reward is utterly lost. No inner monastery is created by a prayer that has been clipped onto the beginning of a secular meeting. When communication with God becomes “official,” it loses its intimacy. This is because God can only truly reign over us in secret; when his reign is made “official” through invoking his name in government ceremonies, that means that somebody is hijacking God to baptize their own authority. And if I personally amen this blasphemous baptism, then “God” ceases to be the voice that I strive to hear in prayer and becomes instead the great big yes-man in the clouds who approves my political tribe.

The most sacrilegious statement that politicians make is when they end their speeches by saying “God bless America,” because they aren’t really talking to God and they aren’t really asking for America’s blessing. They’re using God’s name in vain to anoint their own legitimacy. Democrats and Republicans alike do this. Christians who care about the dignity of God’s name should be actively protesting its blasphemy in civil “religious” events. Maybe if the plaintiffs in the next government prayer lawsuit were all Christians protesting the sabotage of our secret conversations with God, then the Supreme Court will reconsider its ruling.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    You’re confusing personal prayer with public prayer with that quote. Public prayer was common in His day, in fact traditional. There’s nothing to sugget that Christ was against public prayer, and as a traditional Jew I imagine He would have supported public prayer.

    • MorganGuyton

      There’s a difference between praying in public which I do regularly and have no problem with and hitching God’s name onto a secular meeting as a formality which dilutes the perception of prayer to those listening.

  • Hominid

    Great essay. Government should have nothing whatsoever to say about freedom of conscience.

    • fredx2

      But we have a constitution that gives us freedom of relgion, so even you can squelch thoughts you don’t like.

      • Hominid

        Perhaps you could rewrite your post to make it comprehensible?

  • http://westernhero.blogspot.com/ Silverfiddle

    Jesus’ most explicit teaching on prayer was the Lord’s Prayer.

    Another error the author makes is assuming that these city council and county boards pray disingenuously. How does she know that? Of course, she doesn’t.

    Jesus told people to ‘pray in private’ as opposed to making big hypocritical shows of it to gain public favor like the pharisees do. How does the author and other finger waggers know these people are doing this to make a show to gain favor?

    I have been a public gatherings that commenced with a prayer, and I do not presume to know the motives, but the people looked sincere to me.

    This article is a slap in the face to millions of small communities everywhere that believe in starting a public function with a prayer.

    Unless the author is a mind-reader, she is way off base and uncharitable in her characterization of what she thinks is on other people’s minds.

    • MorganGuyton

      I’m not a she, first of all. Slap in the face or not, starting a public function with prayer dilutes the meaning of prayer. It’s about listening to God, not making people feel like they’re comfortably in the majority of the population.

      • http://westernhero.blogspot.com/ Silverfiddle

        My apologies on misidentifying your gender.

        Many who commence activities with prayer would disagree with your opinion. Prayer is also about petitioning God. And again, you presume to know what’s on the mind of others when you have no way of knowing. Impugning the motives of others is uncharitable.

      • trytoseeitmyway

        “Making people feel like they’re comfortably in the majority.” My, my, how snide can you be?

        The Savior’s counsel about secret prayer doesn’t exclude a petition in a group setting for God’s blessings or guidance. You may as well cite Matt. 6 as prohibiting prayer to open a meeting in church. This Nation was not always so aggressively secular in its culture, and there is some reason for any American to believe that the change is not to our benefit.

        • MorganGuyton

          Opening a meeting at church is different than baptizing a secular entity with a pro forma vanilla prayer. It waters prayer down. That’s my problem. Period.

  • fredx2

    You make so many confusing and incorrect assumptions here. Basically, you say that anyone who offers public prayer is a hypocrite and does not mean it. You assume, for some odd reason, that any prayer given at a town meeting is insincere and fake.
    The quote from Jesus is really used out of context. He says a prideful, boastful prayer designed to make people think how wonderful you are is bad. A private prayer that is sincere done in a closet is better. But you need to return to your bible studies if you think Jesus condemned public prayer.

    I suspect something else is bugging you.

    • MorganGuyton

      Nope. I think I’ve explained myself pretty well. Nowhere in this post do I question the sincerity of the person praying at an official function. My concern is with the effect that turning prayer into an official pro forma “tradition” has on the people who then think that prayer is just something you do before you eat and have a meeting to make them “official.” Prayer is too sacred to use as an “official” meeting starter.

  • S. Keegan

    There is absolutely nothing detrimental to prayer in a legislative body choosing to open with prayer to ask God’s guidance or blessing. Prayer does not cease to be prayer simply because it is said in a group. The author is simply mistaken in attempting to relegate prayer to only those situations where he deems appropriate.

  • summers-lad

    Morgan, I understand where you’re coming from here, as I have reservations about this sort of prayer too, but I’m not really with you on this one. (I would like my prayer life to be half as rich as yours though.)
    Each day’s session in the UK Parliament starts with prayers. This is clearly an expression of having an established church in England, and it strikes me as formal rather than spiritual, though I could be wrong.
    The Scottish Parliament doesn’t have a formal prayer time but both the Scottish and UK Parliament have voluntary meetings of Christian MSPs/MPs who meet to pray for the work of their Parliament. A good thing too, and not what you are criticising.
    Highland Council, where I work, has prayers before every full meeting of the Council (though not before Committees or other smaller meetings). This used to be part of the formal meeting but is now, for legal reasons, held immediately before the formal meeting and attendance is optional. On the few occasions when I have been present (in my duties as a council official) I have felt certain that the councillor (not always the same one) who has led the prayers has been absolutely genuine in his prayer. What bothers me is the implicit assumption that everyone else present is joining in the prayer.
    In the days when almost everyone was a member of the church, and Christian belief (at least in theory) was a generally accepted aspect of society, official prayer was probably appropriate as the church was an integral part of the fabric of society. (I don’t subscribe to the idea of an established church or a Christian country, but I recognise that it has had some benefits. Whether these benefits included more people with a living faith, I’m not sure.) Nowadays things are different.
    So my discomfort with official prayer is not any doubt of the sincerity of those leading the prayers, but is twofold: the remnants of a state religion, and the assumption that everyone present shares the same faith, or indeed is a Christian unless they have clearly declared themselves not to be.

    • MorganGuyton

      Thanks for adding this observation. I think that my language in this piece is too cynical about the sincerity of the person offering the prayer when what I really meant to say is that it simply creates the wrong impression for an observer and establishes the wrong ambiance.

  • johnqp11

    Thank you for being brave enough to write about this. I’m not surprised that you are being attacked and that people are saying that the “Lord’s Prayer” is an example of public prayer, when it was Jesus teaching his disciples how to pray. He made a habit of praying alone, and occasionally the Bible says he prayed with his disciples, but it doesn’t tell us he went to the city square to pray. He didn’t break out in prayer with the Pharisees or the Romans. He prayed with alone or like minded people.

    • MorganGuyton

      Yup. That’s just what the story tells us.

  • Pingback: The Monastery Of Prayer | The Penn Ave Post