Prayer

Front matter

v

.

ah oa

Part I PROLEGOMENA TO A PHILOSOPHICAL INTERPRETATION OF PRAYER

I. Current VIEWs ON THE QUESTION OF PRAYER. BU

if. “Yue Prostem or MerHopotrocy: 2.2.6 si) 3) e380

Tl]. Uniry anp UNiversALiTy oF PraYER . . . ~~ 40 Part II

PHENOMENOLOGY OF PRAYER

IV. THe AWAKENING OF THE SOUL TO PRAYER. Be (LA Tae

V. Macicat AND Reticious PHAsEs oF PRAYER . : ate cs

VI. PrrsonaL Prayer AND INsTITUTIONAL PRAYER ; . 106

WiC oP ee WMeEretons OF PRAYER) (6009) ee Ci aly Wan ene Mere Dae Part III

MEANING AND VALUE OF PRAYER

UNE ya a i ts CRS A eh aA ee nan CS AV LAAN Ce

IX. EvpAEMonisTIc PRAYER Se AMPH bE dS ah Yu

X. AESTHETIC PRAYER Ba alha) Te ER VL) acs ALO

XII. Eruicar Prayer . ‘ : ‘ . ‘ x «IGA

XIII. THe Evaruation oF PRAyER Ay Ae er YAU Us hE Part IV

XIV.

PRAYER IN THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF TO-DAY

PraYER IN THE Reticious Lirk or To-pay . . . 227 BistioGRAPHICAL APPENDIX: 0) )00 80) ess 257

Part I

PROLEGOMENA TO A PHILOSOPHICAL INTERPRETATION OF PRAYER

CHAPTER I CurrENT VIEWS ON THE QUESTION OF PRAYER

(a). On the Borderland of Metaphysics. Owing to the effect of centuries of tradition, Western thought, in its speculations on the significance and value of prayer, has constantly insisted on limiting it almost exclusively to its ordinary etymological meaning of “request,’ and on determining its value solely by its objective results. This latter tendency indeed was, not many years ago, carried to such extremes that it led people to regard prayer solely from the point of view of its therapeutic efficacy. In support of this position various explanations were put forward, some religious, others purely scientific.

It is well known how that section of modern Christianity which is called “Christian Science” practically reduces prayer to a means of healing. The traditional view of the Church has always been that prayer can bestow a blessing on remedies used for the recovery of health and the relief of suffering, but Christian Science repudiates all assistance from medical skill.

An intermediate point of view between Christian Science and the Church is that which considers prayer to be capable of creating a state of mind favorable to healing by producing patience, resignation and that sense of rest and peace which arises from conscious submission to the Divine Will. This point of view is not a religious, but a scientific one. Modern psychotherapy has devoted a great part of its activities to the discovery of the laws through which mental energy acts upon bodily states; and in this field of secular inquiry psychologists have been invited to collaborate, although they are quite aware that the method of religion is different from that of suggestion, inasmuch as the latter does not concern itself with the truth of what is suggested to the patient.

Lastly there is a fourth solution, which recognizes medical science as included in the divine economy that regulates the scheme of the universe. This solution has the advantage of not resorting to the extreme remedy of Christian Science, which is compelled to deny the real existence of evil and to assign an exaggerated remedial power to enlightened thought.

Whichever of these explanations is adopted, however, the barrier still remains which separates normal human agencies from the results to be achieved by prayer; for prayer, even if regarded only as a means of calling out a latent divine force, seems to presuppose the intervention of a power which eludes our normal human faculties.

Meanwhile, much attention has been given to the question: Does God answer prayer? According to the theologians, both the authority of the Scriptures and the experience of believers who practice the habit of prayer prove that He does. To meet the difficulties which arise from conflicting experiences the following different reasons are given to account for a petition not being granted:

(1) It was not in harmony with the will of God.

(2) It was not in harmony with the mental state of the suppliant. (3) Its fulfillment would have been contrary to his true welfare. (4) It would have been unduly prejudicial to the interests of others. (5) It would have clashed with someone else’s reasonable petitions.

From these explanations it may be gathered that prayer, when understood in its etymological sense as a request directed to superior powers to bring about, or it may be, to prevent certain occurrences, requires a statement of the objective results that are to justify it and the way in which it is to be answered.

If we cast a rapid glance at the principal theories that have been advanced by modern apologetics in defense of the objective results of prayer, we soon notice that the great conflict centers round the conception of natural law. In order to avoid this conflict, it is argued that prayer is really no more than a means — of communication between man and God—a means which, in human relationships, finds its analogy in language, writing and gesture. The example of telepathy is often cited. “What is there,” it is said, “to prevent a kind of telepathy between the finite and the infinite?” This theory clearly assumes as proved that conception of natural laws which has been expounded with such ability by Emile Boutroux. But when looked at in its concrete aspect, this means of communication often assumes the appearance of a new energy, penetrating from time to time into the natural order of things so as to produce results that differ from the normal.

Another theory that has been advanced, while not denying, as the preceding theory does, the scientific position with regard to the immutability of the laws of nature and the conservation of energy, tries to reconcile this scientific position with divine answer to prayer, maintaining that God has from eternity made provision for such answering and has arranged the cosmic forces in such a way as to give effect to it at the proper moment. This theory would evidently have no need to admit the contingency of natural laws and would not, on the other hand, conflict with the conception put forward by James Martineau,* according to which the laws of nature are merely eternal acts of self-limitation. In other words this theory views the immutable order of nature not as a thing apart and to some extent opposed to prayer but as a whole in which prayer itself is included. In the first half of the last century this was the favorite theory of Christian apologetics, but for some years past it has gradually been given up, since it contains the same inherent difficulties as the Calvinistic scheme of Predestination.

A third theory tries to explain the objective results of prayer, not by means of a pre-arrangement in the laws of nature, but by assuming the existence of a certain energy which is released by prayer without any violation of natural laws. One may recall in this connection the phenomena of magnetism, which, while

7Cf. A Study of Religion, Oxford, 1888, The Seat of Authority in Religion, London, 1890.

they prevent a body from falling, are yet in only apparent conflict with the universal law of gravitation. But as this theory fits in with an atheistic as well as with a theistic conception of the universe, it does not find favor either with Christian apologists or with theists. It resembles the theosophic conception of prayer and further coincides, in certain points, with the telepathic theory referred to above, being open to the criticism that it places prayer on a level with a magic force. But, as a matter of fact, wherever in contemporary literature the idea of a living God grows feeble, there creeps in, under the guise of prayer, faith in an animistic force, a kind of electrical energy, sublimated and spiritualized.?

To return to the metaphysical problem of prayer, Gregor Holtum® recently put forward this alternative: Either we must admit that God gives an answer to prayer directly—and in this case we have a miracle—or we must recognize that the structure of natural laws does not preclude exceptions. Fechner and Ulrici* had remarked that the circumstances in which events occur are never repeated and it is, therefore, erroneous to assert that events recur through the repetition of the conditions. Ulrici, in fact, put forward the following dilemma: Either there are free energies, or there are constantly changing circumstances which modify events; in either case we find an explanation of change. Without this indefinite and varied possibility of change, history would be nothing but a monotonous repetition of the same events. This conception, it will be seen, widens indefinitely the field for variations in the course of events and in concrete results, which will differ in quality, degree and extent, while remaining immutable in their essential nature.

With all this, however, the question remains substantially unaltered, and, as may be seen, modern investigations into the objective results conclude with a final appeal to faith. Nor are

? Paterson and Russell, The Power of Prayer, London, 1920.

® Cf. Die Naturgesetze und das Gebet, in “Wissen und Glauben.” Mergentheim, a.d.T., 1926.

“Cf. Gott und die Natur, Leipzig, 1875.

we carried any further by the theory of more or less spiritualized energy being released by prayer. This indeed would complicate rather than solve the problem of causes, for, in such a system of contingent laws causes themselves would have to be subject to contingency.

All the elaborate modern investigations, then, about the objective results of prayer may be said to remain on the borderland of the real metaphysical problem—either because prayer involves more than a request or because prayer is something for which no explanation has yet been found.

As soon, however, as we turn to consider prayer from the point of view of the part which it plays in the life of the spirit, its meaning grows wider and richer before our eyes. This is especially seen in those crises when it rises spontaneously from the heart, when the whole soul stretches like a shining arc - between the finite and the infinite. Its return to the lives of those who had formerly condemned it is explained by its being on a level that is more enduring and deeper than the fluctuating and superficial one of concrete temporal needs. Those who had rejected prayer as a survival of ancient superstitions and therefore not suited to modern ways were unable to understand how it could, during and after the Great War return so spontaneously to the lips of those who had condemned it and who could not fit it in with their view of the world and of life. On the field of battle prayer was bound to seem to such observers like a logical contradiction and a moral absurdity, yet it was only by way of prayer that the weary soul could realize its return to that haven of peace of which it had dreamed in youth, when innocent of regrets and disillusionments.

At an hour when the terrific hurricane of war had obscured the accustomed visions of ethical standards, had broken down the altars which in the long course of years had been erected to the principles of civilization and progress, had blinded men to the radiant, alluring prospect of an ideal humanity, nurtured on the conquests of scientific knowledge—in such an hour it was only natural that the unquenchable need for sure and decisive affirmations (a need that cried aloud amidst all that was tottering and collapsing) should express itself in emphasis upon an energetic return to the ancestral faith, The moment seemed favorable for organizing meetings in Europe and in America to summon people everywhere to prayer. Where the forces of the great ecclesiastical institutions were insufficient, so-called Leagues of Good Will were formed, which required meditation and reflection at certain hours of the day. Calls to prayer and prayer cycles sprang up everywhere; Prayer Bands and Leagues of Intercession were formed; and even where people did not pray equal anxiety was displayed to find out the meaning and value which prayer might have.

Phenomena such as the conversion of obstinate and hardened unbelievers, the growth in the numbers of mystics and seekers after God, the crowding of empty churches, have been attributed to post-war conditions. Was it a case of weary, disillusioned people grasping at the old faith, as at a sheet anchor, to avoid sinking into the depths of a bottomless whirlpool? It would be a mistake to be sure that this is the explanation; yet search for the answer to the question leads one inevitably to the recognition of a realm for the operation of prayer which is wider than that usually allowed. And it is certainly a sounder way of scientific investigation not to try to ascertain the meaning and value of prayer by basing it on the old schemes furnished by tradition, but to realize the need for appealing directly to experience, calling as witnesses the men and women who actually make a practice of praying and asking them what prayer really is.

Such inquiries have in fact been suggested and questionnaires have been circulated. Their success has not been and could not be decisive, yet we are here on the more solid ground of experience. I need only refer to one of these inquiries which was started soon after the war and elicited no less the 1667 replies® sent from all parts of the world (three from Italy) and written by persons who had been born and brought up in widely varying

5 Cf. Paterson and Russell, The Power of Prayer, London, 1920.

religious environments. One cannot, it is true, draw important conclusions from communications coming from so many diverse nationalities and creeds, nor from the reasons adduced by some for not taking part in the inquiry. But one does gain a fairly clear idea of the position occupied by prayer in contemporary life and thought—a position which, starting from the new need for a synthesis of religious views and for an enrichment of the ordinary scheme of Christian thought (whether by means of the assimilation of elements furnished by the history of Christianity itself or by those of oriental religions, philosophy, science and mysticism) insures for us a fuller and truer view of the function of prayer and points the way to an interpretation very different from that which was assigned to it either within the usual limitations of religious thought or in the superficial denial of religious values.

Another notable feature which emerges from this inquiry, and also from a recent collection of essays on the nature problems and value of prayer,’ is the fruitful combination of the strongest personal convictions with a wide spirit of tolerance and charity —a fact that enables us to trace the sense of prayer to a common store of religious feeling. Here we find the first suggestions which help us to focus our new inquiries on the mystery of the man at prayer, eternally athirst for the Divine and eternally filled with the ineffable joy with which prayer floods his soul.

(b). Prayer in History, Science, Psychology and Religious Philosophy. The closer examination that we have made of the special part played by prayer in the life of the spirit has enabled us to see more clearly the inadequacy of limiting it to its etymological meaning and the value of its objective results, and has given ground for hope that our investigations may unfold to us its new significance and the value that it acquires in the modern conception of reality. This does not mean that we have got rid of the old haunting problem of metaphysics. That is only postponed. For as we proceed in inquiry from the simpler to the

© Concerning Prayer, London, 1918.

more complex phenomena, from the direct or near at hand to the indirect or distant, the problem of the objective results of prayer, which we met originally at the starting point, now confronts us at the goal.

Prayer has been studied under four main aspects:

(1) The historical aspect, which describes it in its empirical manifestations, within the limits of each religion.

(2) ‘The comparative aspect, which considers it not, like the historical aspect, in some particular epoch or environment, but surveys the different forms under which it appears in all the historical religions.

(3) The psychological aspect, which aims at tracing its inner source and its outward expression within the domain of the religious consciousness of the individual and the community.

(4) The philosophical aspect, which seeks to ascertain its meaning and its value, while assigning to it its proper place in a reasoned interpretation of the world and of human life, and which may therefore be said to sum up in itself all the preceding aspects.

The historical study of prayer in particular religions aims at describing the ideas and the practices to which prayer gives rise within the bounds of a religious institution. This task is much more difficult than would appear at first sight and is bound to be incomplete. For the documents which have been preserved and which are the indispensable material of history contain only such prayers as were included in the forms of religious services drawn up by particular institutions. But it is clear that history in this way loses sight of that rich source of prayer that may be called unofficial prayer, which is spontaneous and is the truest prayer of all, being dictated by the soul of the suppliant. Such prayer is not found in any of the documents.

At the same time there are several important monographs on prayer in particular religions. We have some on prayer among

VIEWS ON THE QUESTION OF PRAYER II the Eastern peoples, the Greeks and the Romans. The remarkable progress that has been made in recent years in archeological and philological studies has from time to time opened up new and most interesting vistas for our knowledge about prayer in Ancient Egypt, in Babylonia and Assyria, in Vedism and Buddhism, as well as in Zoroastrianism and Hinduism.’ Prayer in the Jewish and Mohammedan religions® has also been an object of close study. Although Christianity has been called more than once the religion of prayer (e.g. by Bousset and Heiler among recent writers), yet the study of Christian prayer still remains, as Heiler himself has recognized, behind that of Greek or Jewish prayer.

Prayer in the New Testament, the prayer of Jesus, of Paul, of the early dawnings of primitive Christianity, has indeed been examined—sometimes with acute psychological insight. Certain recent publications on special objects of worship’ have also made some contribution to the history of Christian prayer. Few, however, have occupied themselves, from a historical point of view, with mystical prayer in Christianity. Recently the attempt which has so often been made to give a complete history of Christian prayer has been renewed by two learned and scholarly workers, Fr. Heiler and R. Will;*° but it can hardly be said that the attempt has so far been completely successful.

When we pass from the history to the science of religion, we find that the investigations into prayer enter upon a new phase. This is seen especially in the noteworthy fact that, when the prayers of different religions are placed side by side, the great similarities which they present at once lead us to recognize a fundamental unity amid the various forms of this characteristic of religious life.

One of the first to develop this line of injuiry was C. Mein-

1 CE. the Bibliographical Appendix at the end of the book.

Idem.

°Cf. Karl Richstatter, Die Herz-Jesu—Verehrung des Deutschen Mittelaters, Munich, 1924.

* Cf. Fr. Heiler, Das Gebet, Munich, 1920; Robert Will, Le Culte, Strasbourg, 1925.

ers,t a writer who is now almost forgotten. The bringing together of the histories of various religions which we have in the most familiar handbooks” is limited, it is true to a simple historical exposition of individual religious facts. These works seldom proceed to true and strict comparisons, still less to conclusions which are outside the narrow field of history, philology and archeology, yet for many reasons they are indispensable not only for an adequate view of prayer in its historical aspect but also for making comparisons between different cults. Obviously the increasing accumulation of testimony, coming sometimes from quarters far removed from each other both geographically and ethnographically, could not but lead men to ask what was the reason for such resemblances.

Various methods have been adopted for explaining them. Some have thought that the surprising regularity in the recurrence of beliefs and cults implied that all religions were derived from a single source and that the different peoples, even after thousands of years of separation, preserved intact an original nucleus of common myths and rites.

But this hypothesis, so dear to the traditionalists who uphold the old orthodoxies, must for many reasons be regarded as untenable. It is, for instance, not consistent with the fact that myths and rites recur with greater frequency and persistency in the early ages before civilization arose, at the very time, that is, when tradition, which according to the hypothesis was so assid-

Cf, Allgemeine Kritische Geschichte der Religionen, Hanover, 1806-7. K. Beth, Einfiihrung in die vergleichende Religionsgeschichte, Leipzig, 1920; A. Reville, Prolégoménes de l’Histoire des Religions, Paris, 1881; E. Burnouf. La Science des Religions, Paris, 1885; M. Miiller, trans. G. Nerucci, Quattro Letture d’Introduzione alla Scienza delle Religioni, Florence, 1874; E. Lehmann. Erscheinungs-und Ideenwelt der Religion, in “Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte” by Bertholet and Lehmann, Tibingen, 1925.

12 We possess some good handbooks of the history of religions. Only three need be mentioned—

Chantepie de la Chaussaye (rewritten recently under the direction of two distinguished historians, A. Bertholet and E. Lehmann), Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, Tiibingen, 1925; G. F. Moore, History of Religions, 1919; N. Turchi, Storia delle Religioni, Turin, 1922.

One might add also the handbook of S. Reinach, Orpheus, Paris, 1909, but his judgment is not always quite sound.

uously preserved in men’s memories, had not yet taken hold upon mankind.

Another explanation is based upon chance contacts which are supposed to have been made in different times and places and @m@] to have determined the great religious syntheses which were afterwards spread through the civilized world. This theory certainly finds some strong corroboration in history. It receives confirmation in the story of the religions of Greece and Rome and the story of Hinduism, as well as that of Judaism and Christianity. But this theory of religious syntheses, though it is a key that will unlock some doors, does not serve for all. When there is no proof that the peoples concerned have ever had any spiritual contact it is a fruitless task to attempt, as some have done, to explain similarities in creed and cult by means of an imagined synthesis. Nor can it be claimed that the resemblances are of themselves sufficient to prove the actual occurrence of such contact, without falling into a petitio principit which assumes as proved the very thing that requires proof.

Yet another theory has arisen. Turning aside from those divergences among nationalities which seem to reflect very old and almost mythical separations of peoples, and also from those correspondences and syntheses which have been brought about by the accidental or intentional meeting of different streams of culture, this third hypothesis dispenses with the need of any spiritual contact either original or subsequent. It is the hypothesis of a parallel process of culture, brought about by an identity of internal motives and of psychological causes instead of by fortuitous meetings or separations of peoples or cultures. It involves the recognition of a kind of psychological mechanism in accordance with which men would constantly tend to interpret certain phenomena on the same lines, to give corresponding answers to questions which all men raise about prime causes and ultimate ends, to react in a similar manner to external impressions, thus creating everywhere, by spontaneous and parallel action, similar systems of beliefs and of cults or ritual practices."*

* Cf. R. Otto, Das Gesetz der Parallelen in der Religionsgeschichte, in “Vischnu Narayana,” Jena, 1913.

This was clearly a direct appeal to the psychological basis of the religious consciousness, to the fundamental unity of the human spirit, to the generic character of prayer as seen not through its specific manifestations but at its originating source. It simplified the explanation of the fact that prayer had everywhere formed, both in primitive civilizations which were ignorant of metaphysical notions and in those which were richer in elaborate philosophical speculations, the central act of worship, the crowning glory of human religion and of religious institutions. Psychological inquiry, in fact, serves not only to explain how it is that prayer is a universal phenomenon in the history of religion, but also to show us why the religious man has at all times and in all places sought in prayer the highest consecration of life’s most critical moments.

Tt is now clear that the universality of the historical fact of prayer, and of the particular emotion that determines its specific manifestations in time and place, cannot depend except in a secondary degree upon external circumstances. It comes rather from the deep inner needs of the spirit, which it is the task of psychology to analyze and of philosophy to embrace in a comprehensive vision of the world and of life.

This significant appeal to the psychological basis of the religious consciousness need not in any way exclude, as it has sometimes been thought to do, the explanation of resemblances on the theory of similarity or difference of cultures. Rather should it include such explanations. The comparative method had, it is true, often abused its power** in its investigation of the origin and development of religions as well as of their lineal descent (witness the theory of Pan-Babylonianism) or in the discovery of a supposed nucleus common to all religions (e.g. Euhemerism, myths of the astral type, the theory of ancestor worship, contrast between the creative or active principle and the feminine or passive principle, personification of the forces of nature, etc.). But even in its obsession for reducing, by the simple process of external comparison, all the manifold differences to a

™ Cf, Maurice Vernes, L’Histoire des Religions, Paris, 1887.

single basic foundation, it had the effect, quite unconsciously, of bringing into prominence the universality of the essential facts of religion. Meanwhile the results achieved through investigating the history of particular religions, which had opened up the field for comparative studies, were reénforced by the no less surprising results attained in other sciences. Anthropology had penetrated to the remotest prehistoric times while ethnology had brought to light beliefs and cults of inferior civilizations. The store of documentary evidence on which the comparative theory relies for its completest justification was thus enormously enriched, and the way was opened for the discovery of principles and laws which govern the rise and development, the decline and progress of religion.

Such an achievement could not be expected from a purely historical method and would not be possible within the limits of simple historical facts. It could come only from a science which derived its data from anthropology, ethnology, archeology, sociology and philology, and which out of these materials formed a special system of knowledge.*® “The science of religion,” says a recent writer, J. Wach,"® “comprises and explains religions in their rise, growth and decline; it explains them historically because it cannot dispense with history, but it goes beyond it and completes it.” One may add, to make the point clearer, that the science of religion is not a summing up of the history of individual religions, but a description of religious facts, quite apart from those considerations of time and place

15 Cf, N. Turchi, Dei metodi storico ed etnologico nello studio della storia delle religionit, where he also makes appeal to psychology, in “Saggi di Storia delle Religiont,” Foligno, 1924; G. Van der Leeuw, Eznfihrung in die Phenomenologie der Religion, Minchen, 1925; M. Wernes, Histoire des Religions, Paris, 1887; G. Wobbermin, Die Religionsgeschichtliche Methode in Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, Leipzig, 1913; H. Jordan, Comparative Religion, Edinburgh, 1910; U. W. Hunzinger, Die Religionsgeschichtliche Methode, Lichterfelde, Berlin, 1909; J. E. Carpenter, Comparative Religion, London; R. Pettazzoni, Svolgimemento e carattere della Storia delle Religioni, Bari, 1924; K. Beth, Einfihrung in die vergleichende Religionsgeschichte. An excellent book is that by J. Wach, Religionswissenschaft, Leipzig, 1924. It contains a very rich store of material on this subject.

8]. Wach, Religionswissenschaft, Leipzig, 1924.

which are indispensable for history. In this way religious studies have gradually come to prepare the ground for psychology, which, being now in possession of a vast collection of documents, has become the fundamental science for dealing with the facts of religion.

In psychological investigations the resemblances and analogies that are observed are no longer considered in their external relations, to which the historian’s investigations are limited, but in regard to the special motives, the emotions and the mental processes which distinguish them from those that are not religious. Thus, while the history and science of religion stops short at describing beliefs, customs, songs and sacred dances, worship of the dead, theogonies, cosmogonies, sacrifices and prayers, classifying them in respect of their external characteristics and external relations, psychology on the other hand. goes farther It tries to trace the origin of these religious expressions in the inner depths of the spirit, and ends by finding in them not a common mold, an outward appearance which enables them to be grasped as empirical facts, but that common characteristic, that common sentiment, which is an essential element in the growth of myths, legends, cosmogonies, theologies and also of the social standards to which they give rise and of the forms of worship. For example, it has been possible successively to attempt, in the Rigveda and still more in the Atharvaveda, in the Brahminic literature and even in the Jewish sacerdotal law, to distinguish those superficial explanations which endeavored to disguise and enclose in a single system the popular beliefs and the animistic practices attached to them; and it has also been possible successfully to detect and differentiate the magic, the tabus, the totems and other popular beliefs and superstitions which are contained in the framework of the great historical religions.