Letters to Malcom: Addendum to Formalized Liturgy

I just to add a couple of other perspectives on formalized liturgy that perhaps are worth contemplating:

1) Words have an underlying, perhaps mystical meaning, that is understood and appreciate only by religious masters such as our Sages who instituted and concretized the liturgy. This is the reason, for example, why the Talmud records it was so difficult to identify someone who could compose an extra blessing against the heretics in the amidah service. If the task was simply to compose a paragraph, how hard could it be? However, only a uniquely talented and wise individual could include in that paragraph deep religious themes, shades of meaning, hints, and mysticism. 

Though the typical individual may not appreciate the richness, beauty, and religious importance of the words of the formal liturgy, they are there. And praying it sensitizes a person to all held within in a way similar, l'havdil, to why high-school kids read Shakespeare, though there is no hope they will at this point understand the depth of his writing.

A more extreme form of this argument (which I admit to not resonating with) is to say, that the words of the Sages-composed prayer fill mathematics like equations that are known to influence God is certain ways. It is these words that must be said for the prayer to achieve maximum effectiveness. Other words may seem to say the same thing on their surface. Nonetheless, no matter how much intent or concentration one prays with, these words are simply better. 

2) One might also take the opposite approach. What right does finite man have to pray to the Infinite God? How can we ever give enough praise, enough thanks, or even make enough requests for the myriad of things that we need to go about our seemingly un-miraculous, 'daily routine'? How is it even possible? The answer is that we can't and it is impossible. In truth, “For You silence is praise” (Psalms 65:2). Even attempting to start to praise or make requests of God is insulting.

So, how can we? 

Because our ancestors did - and only by following in their ways can we do so as well. Hence, it is necessary to follow the set liturgy, because deviating from it is at best hopeless, because how can we approach the Infinite, and, at worst, smacks of insolence, as if we have the right to approach Him. 

OK, hopefully next time we'll go further... 

 

Who Has Rewarded Me With Goodness

"He was as safe as if he had been in bed, though he did not feel so." 

(Prince Caspian)

Trumpkin the dwarf's first meeting with Aslan was quite eye-opening for the (then) unbelieving dwarf. Aslan quickly demonstrated who was the boss, tossing Trumpkin in the air and then catching him, safe and sound. Lewis describes the scene with the above quote - Trumpkin was perfectly safe, Aslan had great things in store for him, he just didn't feel that way twisting and turning in the air. 

One might think that this should always be the case. A person will live if God wills it, and will not if God wills otherwise. A priori, it doesn't matter if one finds himslef in seemingly dangerous circumstances (as Trumpkin did) because all is by the will of God. Hence, one need not worry, pray, or beseech God any more in a dangerous circumstance than in a normal one, because one's survival is only dependent on God.   

That this is not the case can be demonstrated on multiple levels. First note Jacob's reluctance to send Benjamin down to Egypt with his brothers. Jacob is concerned that some accident will happen to him. But why is Jacob more worried about Benjamin elsewhere? Either God decrees evil upon Benjamin or not, who cares where he is? The midrash already addresses this question saying, "From here it is derived that the heavenly accuser accuses only in a time of danger." In other words, someone is more likely to judged harshly if they are in danger. 

Another source demonstrating this is the existence of the Thanksgiving offering (now fulfilled by the recitation of the 'birkas hagomel,' the benediction recited over goodness). This offering is brought after a person survives a particularly dangerous event: travel across desert or over a sea, spending time in prison, or suffering a grave illness. The details of the offering are such that a lot of food has to be eated in a short time, forcing the owner, the survivor, to invite others to partake. This will naturally lead to his publicizing God's kindness to him and sanctify God's name in public.

Though we currently do not have the ability to bring offerings it appears to me that the opportunity to publicly thank God for his kindness should be taken. So, with that in mind, I would publicly thank God for protecting my son during his just-ended service in the Israeli Defense Force. I am not going to try to describe the worry and concern we, his parents, had during that time, especially being so far away, but we can now look back and see how God was with him at every step and in every decision. 

Of course, prayers are still needed for all of the soldiers protecting the people of Israel and for the hostages whose suffering is unimaginable. But that in no way lessens my obligation to thank God for the kindness he has done to me and I feel priveleged to be able to share my story with all of you. 

Letters to Malcom: Letter 2 (Part 3)

I have been admittedly hesitant and procrastinating on writing on standardized liturgy versus personal liturgy. This is in a large part because I don't believe there is a clear traditional Jewish view of on this question. Nonetheless, it's time to write something so let me just start and we'll see how we do. 

Traditional Jews have set prayers for all services - which means at least three times a day. Now, that does not mean that any given service has not evolved over the years, of course it has. Nor does is mean that every traditional Jew, or even any two particular synagogues will have the exact same service - that's not true either. There are a myraid of minor differences and sometimes relatively major differences based on country of origin, subsect, and rabbinic leadership. And there are even some slots in which one can fill in personal prayers when praying quietly. Yet, within those boundaries traditional Jews tend to be quite conservative when it comes to changing or updating liturgy. Try to walk into any synagogue and say, we should try doing this some other way, and you will be shouted down if not worse. 

This then begs the question, why is our liturgy so unyielding? Why not provide people or at least leaders the lattitude to pray what they want (during the standard service)? For the purposes of this post, I'm going to not concentrate on the historical circumstances that caused a standardization of the prayers (see Maimonides), rather, I'll concentrate on the view from where we are now. 

So why have a standard liturgy?

1) A first answer is inline with Maimmonides claim: sometimes it's hard to express oneself. Do we really want to use our own words when someone has already expressed the same feelings much more eloquently? Nevertheless, Lewis' comment, "we shall continue to pour into them our own meaning," is very much on target. 

2) Connection to the past: there is something to be said to using the same prayers my grandfather recited in Auschwitz and his ancestors recited during the Cossack rebellion and his ancestors during the massacres of the Crusades. Sure, again I will pour in my own meaning but that doesn't blunt the power of connecting to the past and realizing that God must have answered them since I'm here. 

3) Congregational prayer: power in numbers if everyone is praying the same thing. Not to mention everyone knows what's going on and no one has to guess. And even if someone is praying alone, he or she can still feel part of the congregation who prays knowing that they are reciting the same words. 

4) Standard liturgy also enables concrete teaching of the prayers.

OK, those are my thoughts for now.

If I don't have a chance to get back online, I would like to wish everyone a happy and sweet New Year. A year of peace, joy, and gladness in which we see the hostages returned, the IDF soldiers are safe, and hatred is no more. 

Letter to Malcom: Letter 2 (Part 2)

The second form of prayer that Lewis relates to in this Letter, is the behavior of the congregation during prayer. Lewis speaks highly of a Greek Orthodox mass he once attended in which, "some stood, some knelt, some sat, one crawled about the floor like a caterpillar," and no one cared what anyone else was doing. 

What Lewis does not address in his liberalism of behavior is are there any limits? Certainly, Lewis is assuming that the particular behavior is chosen in order to maximize concentration on the prayer or some other aspect of prayer. If not, what would be the point? So any behavior that would work against this goal would be rejected. Even beyond that I would assume that Lewis would limit any sort of obscene or irreverant behavior during prayer, even though he doesn't say so. An example, would Lewis be accepting of someone coming to pray in a bathing suit? I would assume not. God of course, knows what a person looks like so in that sense it doesn't matter. The person, however, is demonstrating irreverance - one would not appear in front of an important personage in that dress, so how can a person appear in church that way? 

Traditional Jewish prayer allows for a range of behaviors through most of the prayers assuming they are honorable and fitting (I don't think crawling around like a caterpillar would qualify). An exception is when the Holy Ark is open and/or the Torah scrolls are being carried. The only prayer exception is during the amidah in which we stand with feet together in the stance of the straight-one-legged angels who stand before God. 

The idea of copying the angels, or indeed, looking towards others for guidance rather then choosing ones own form of prayer, will be the central question when weighing formalized liturgy against spontaneous supplication. 

Letter to Malcom: Letter 2 (Part 1)

I have to admit, this Letter really threw me. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to Lewis' initial thought process was -  but let's see if we can break it down. 

The question at hand is the form of prayer and there are several modalities of form. First, there is standardized liturgy versus personal liturgy. Second, there is one's pose during prayer, and third, there is communication to God via speech versus thought as the means of prayer. In conclusion, Lewis seems pretty liberal and willing to let people decide what forms 'speak' best to them, but he still makes certain statements which I feel the need to bring up.

The first is Lewis assertion that the highest form of prayer is prayer without words. Now, in some respect I agree that there is a place for prayer without words. In fact, as we've discussed, such prayer may be the function of the shofar (rams horn) blown on Rosh HaShana (the Jewish New Year) or Susan's Horn - the realization that as a finite human I don't even understand my own needs, and so I am going to simply turn to go with a call or a cry and let Him fill in the rest. 

But that is not what Lewis is referring to. Lewis means prayer without any physicality whatsoever. In fact, he says that his first attempts was that even when praying for someone else he strive not to name the individual but to simply have a mental picture of the person. My guess is that via this sort of 'prayer' Lewis is hoping to shed as much physicality as possible and, by using on mentality, come as close to God as possible? 

It goes without saying that traditional Jewish prayer, which requires not only the words to be mouthed but also to be heard by the person praying, rejects such a notion. The Talmud is clear that God Himself comes to the synagogue. He is close by even in exile. There is no need to shed our bodies in order to reach out to Him. 

It's not my place to say, but I don't see why a Christian would feel any differently. Does not Aslan assert to Bree (in a way that is foreign to Judaism) that he can be touched and smelled? 

So, that is my first thought on this Letter. I would suggest the opposite of Lewis. Better that prayers should be spoken and names should be named. This enables people to better internalize, better concentrate, and better recognize that, even though they are physcial beings, they are beloved by God who 'lowers' Himself to hear our prayers. 

From a practical standpoint Lewis comes to this conclusion as well. I would argue that part of prayer is recognizing who we are, embracing it, and understanding that we can still approach Him. Thus, on Rosh HaShana we pray, whether we are sons or whether we are servants our eyes look towards You, until You have mercy upon us.  

Why Doesn't Susan Keep the Horn?

This is probably repetitive but nevertheless let's take a look at the question of Susan's horn from another perspective. 

Why does Susan not take back the horn when offered by Caspian? An easy answer would be that it doesn't work outside of Narnia. There seems to be some wisdom in that given that The White Witch's magic doesn't work in our world either (though it does work in Narnia - begging the question why magic seems to work in other worlds but not ours).   

But perhaps the real reason is that Susan realizes she doesn't need it. The horn brought Susan and her siblings to Narnia. They were the help that Aslan sent to the war-torn, beleaguered Narnians at their moment of desperation. If Susan were to blow the horn in our world - wouldn't it just call Susan? Obviously, that would be worthless. But it also suggests that Susan should be able to solve her own problems. She should be the one to bring her own salvation.

Now that's quite a statement - one should always pray to God and plead with Him for salvation. And God gets to choose His method of helping us. I trust everyone knows the joke of the person standing on a rooftop with rising floodwaters and refusing the assistance of a boat and helicopter because he's sure that God will save him. OK, so we need a balance - on the one hand we have to take responsibility for ourselves, on the other we cannot insist that "My power and the strength of my hand" (Deuteronomy 8:17) will bring about salvation. 

So, what should Susan do? The horn symbolizes God's help, but God's help is her. Keeping it may cause her to haughty and think that she is the source of salvation. So, she gives it away - enabling her to concentrate of God's salvation, but still with the realization that she can be God's messenger is bringing help to others. 

We know what happened to Susan. She is overcome with the vanity of the world and gives up her status in Narnia. But perhaps this is part of her salvation and that of others. Peter, Edmund, Lucy and the rest, never tell their story to anyone. No one is inspired by them, no one seeks to follow their path. One day the horn will blow calling Susan to return to God, to once again be His messenger. She will hear the call, and she will come - but when she does, she will bring crowds with her. 

All sorts of people will hear her story of youthful passion in God, the teenage cooling off as she substituted the spiritual for a physical focus, and finally enlightenment that only God is worth the time and effort.  They will resonate with HER story in a way they never could with the story of Lucy and Peter. 

Once and Queen of Narnia always a Queen of Narnia. Queen Susan of the Horn will always be the source of 'magical' help and salvation for others. 

Letters to Malcom: Letter 1

The family and I were up in the Berkshires this past week where we stopped off at Shaker Mill Books, which I heartily recommend to all those who loved used books. One of my finds was a 1964 edition of Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer and I thought it would be interesting to kind of live blog my thoughts as I read through.

Two caveats: (1) I realize, that I'm way behind on so many other things so hopefully I'll follow through on this and get to everything else soon as well. (2) I have mixed feelings about live blogging (or podcasting) through a book because I think any part of a book is better understood after reading through the whole thing. So, we'll see how this goes... 

Letter 1: 
This Letter surprised and confused me, and leads me to think that perhaps I have misunderstood church service. In traditional Judaism the need to pray with a quorum in a place dedicated for prayer (like a synagogue) is a given. And both matter - one should preferably pray in a synagogue even without a quorum and preferably pray at the same time as the rest of the congregation even if not at the synagogue. Hence, Lewis' almost immediate dismissal of congregational prayer as not a subject for discussion (outside of this first letter) was quite a shock. 

Where I find more room for agreement is in Lewis' emphasis on familiarity of the service. Tradiational Judaism certainly takes this to an extreme. While every (I can only speak for Orthodox Judaism) synagogue has its own flavor, the base service is very standardized, so that any Orthodox Jew can go to any Orthodox synagogue and have a good idea of what prayers are being recited (while in the Berkshires I prayed at a synagogue with a decidedly Hasidic influence. I am certainly not an adherent of Hasidism, but still followed along without a problem). Furthermore, the standardization of prayers exists even when not praying with a quorum, though certain parts of the service cannot be recited without said quorum. New prayers have been added to the standard service over the centuries, but a fundamental change of that sort takes decades to win acceptance. So, with respect to the habitual and familiar I am entirely onboard. 

Where I may find disagreement with Lewis is in his desire for the habitual in order to not have to fix attention on the service, but fix attention on God Himself. To some extent I understand this. If someone is not familiar with the tune or has a hard time reading the words that person may concentrate on the recitation of the prayer at the expense of its meaning. Still, this does not mean that the words of the prayer are besides the point, or should be recited in a habitual manner. Our goal is to fix attention on the meaning of the prayer, understand it, internalize it, for it is through the prayer that one speaks with God. So, what is it that Lewis wants people to concentrate on? I'm afraid I have not understood exactly what he wants. 

Finally, I have to comment on the question of language. From an early age we teach our children to read and understand biblical and rabbinic Hebrew. This does not mean that everyone successfully understands every word of every prayer (which is why many prayerbooks have translations). Nonetheless, the recitation remains the same. The Pslams and later prayers that make up the daily and holiday routines are recited in their original language and it is expected that people will strive to learn and understand the original language, even if modern Hebrew (and certainly English) is different than the language of the prayers. It is not my place to critiize, but I must admit, I am at a loss as to why the general Christian population does not learn the Greek and Hebrew necessary to understand their texts in the original.  

Perhaps I've misunderstood something in all this, and perhaps Lewis will clarify in later Letters. 

We'll see...