In church this morning I did something dangerous. I asked people to do what they felt comfortable doing.
Before leading the 'prayer of the people,' which traditionally closes with the Lord's Prayer, I gave an invitation for people to recite the Lord's Prayer in the words or language they were most comfortable with. If it meant there was a jumble of "thy's" and "thine's," then so be it. If someone spoke Chinese or Aramaic (like the guy who originally gave me the idea did), then that's ok.
The reason behind the exercise were simple.
First, I hoped that people would focus on the words more if they did what they were comfortable doing. At times I think the monotone "Our Father..." drone disconnects people with what they are meant to be doing. Note that the word's were still projected for anyone new or unfamiliar with the words (a practice I've written about before here).
Which ties into the second reason, prayer is a time (primarily) between you and God (yes, the Lord's Prayer has a communal element to it). I think God would want you to express what you want to say, not fall into line with what the screen demands.
2 comments:
Leaving aside the question of whether the prayer we know as the Lord's Prayer was given as a prayer to be prayed or an instruction about /how to pray/, I wonder if everyone praying the way they feel comfortable actually makes people feel comfortable.
If I'm part of a congregation praying ostensibly /together/, but the person standing next to me is saying different words to those I'm saying, I certainly don't feel comfortable.
Rather than institutionalising individualism, why not use different versions on different occassions (some more often than others, probably)?
Your point about changing up the form of the LP was a good one. But that could still cause some mix-up (and really, won’t people probably say the version they are used to anyway!?!). In the case of last Sunday, something done slightly differently in the more conservative morning congregation (like the majority of AM church services) was always going to be a risk.
I did acknowledge that there was potential for awkwardness if the person beside you was saying something different. But sometimes it's okay to do things you’re not used to. I feel, for a one off, it that was a risk I was will to take.
One of the points that the original idea generator brought up, and something which I didn't mention enough in the introduction or post, was the subtle invitation for those of non-English speaking backgrounds (an increasingly common occurrence in many churches) the chance to speak in the tongue that they would usually use.
Post a Comment