But not the vain kind!

The use of the Lord's Prayer, or "Our Father", as a model for all prayer has a rich history in the long tradition of catechesis. The patristic period produced many carefully written, line-by-line commentaries on the Lord's Prayer. Subsequent ages took these up and continued to build upon them. All of this is wonderful, in my opinion. But then there's a more modern assertion--one that I hear very often, much to my confusion--that we mustn't *repeat* the Lord's prayer. I begin to wonder, then, what could be lacking in the words of Our Lord that requires us to avoid their utterance? How could it be vain to make the words of the Master our own?

And again, do we suppose that Our Lord never sang the Psalms? A thorough reading of the Gospels is enough to dispel this notion. The Psalms were chanted prayers (and in fact still are). Praying them requires repetition. Again, if I compose a hymn, ought I warn those who might potentially sing it, lest they vainly repeat?

On the other hand, why would Anglicans, whose Book of Common Prayer is meant to be repeated, translate the "battologeo" of Matthew 6:7 as "vain repetitions" anyway? The King James is, after all, an Anglican version. The two words from which "battologeo" is formed would be more literally translated "babbling words". Surely, then, the old Anglican translators could have used this instead.

This is really a poor defense of repetition, even for a short one. Still, should it have moved anyone, I'd like to venture a request: offer up an "Our Father", or one of the Psalms for my family. Pax!

+JMJ