Jesus was not adverse to logic. In fact, he often applied logic and rationale in his teaching: The person with a log in his eye (metaphorically, of course) is in no position to judge the one with a speck of sawdust in his (Matt. 7:3-5); Or if, as a parent, one is responsive to the needs of his own children, should not one view the heavenly Father as being approachable in terms of His children's concerns (Matt. 7:9-11)?; Or again, if leading one's donkey to water or pulling it out of a pit into which it has fallen on the Sabbath is deemed reasonable and responsible, is not ministering to a person's need on the Sabbath even more justifiable (Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6)? The list continues.
Even as a young person, various matters reflecting a seeming lack of logic tended to trouble me. Why was it, for example, that in praying one was to address the Lord in sixteenth century Elizabethan English (usually with heavy "holy" intonation) - e.g. "We thank Thee this Lord's Day that Thou dost..." ad infinitum.
Prayer of this nature derived largely from the concept that since God had deigned to reveal Himself to mankind via the King James translation of the Bible, its words, phrases and grammatical constructions constituted something of a sacred language. Where this all left the non-English speaking world, or for that matter, world at large in pre-English times, failed somehow to register with some. (Years later we would come into contact with a separatist pietism in which God was seen as desiring prayer and worship in the sixteenth century Tyrolian German of the group's cultural heritage.)
Given the fact that at no point had Scripture indicated a "sacred" (as opposed to "secular") language with which to address Deity; that the King James version of the Bible (to which the English speaking Church owes much) had been translated into Elizabethan English for the simple reason that it represented the language of the populace at the time; and that Jesus had spoken about praying in a direct, open manner as contrasted to contrived and unnatural modes of expression (note, for example, Matt. 6:7), I determined to discontinue the self conscious sixteenth century mode of praying.
The results were gratifying. Prayer assumed a new sense of meaning as tired cliches and habitual phrases were laid aside in the interests of speaking to the Father directly and from the heart. Nor was such gain totally unrelated to the fact that it became necessary to "think" about what was being prayed as opposed to the sometimes routinely recited "yea, ho verily" format of previous times.
One final thought: That we presently hear less of such praying relates in no small way to the fact that newer and more linguistically relevant translations of the Bible have done much to bring Scripture into greater clarity - not only in terms of applicable understanding but freedom of thought and expression in praying as well.
Burl Ratzsch
