Who to pray to?

Do we pray to Jesus? Where is this in Scripture? I haven't found it. The only way we can do this is through a mathematical formula based on doctrine:

If Jesus = God and we are to pray to God then we can pray to Jesus.

Somehow that just doesn't seem right. After all what of the Father? After all, this is what Jesus taught us to do.

The Holy Spirit? How can the Spirit pray through us if we are praying to it?

The Trinity? And how, pray tell, do you do that?

No matter what I do or think or see or study or ask, it always comes back to One. I pray to God (which, from my understanding, is the Father).

He is, after all, the Source, no? So if we pray "to" Jesus shouldn't we in some sense pray "through" him, kind of like a filter, to the Father?

By the Spirit we pray through Jesus to the Father?

I don't know but it's always been a baffler when in congregational prayer I hear something like:

"Father God, Lord, Jesus, in the name of Jesus, we (blah blah blah). Lord God, in the name of Jesus, we (blah blah blah). And we ask it all in Jesus' name. Amen."

Huh? Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but that sounds like babble. Granted, I'd imagine God would rather hear honest heartfelt prayer than some ritual prayer that is but a mantra and if this heartfelt prayer is spoken in a way that makes no sense, it wouldn't matter to Him.

But it just sounds weird, especially this whole "in Jesus' name" movement. God forbid you leave that off your prayer. It might make it null and void.

No Jesus, no Trinity?

If Jesus had never appeared on the scene would we have the Trinity doctrine? Just wondering...

Vision or illusion?

These visions which are 'trinitarian' in nature have me thinking. The Trinity has been something I've wrestled with for years, more intensely at times than at others, but nevertheless consistently for all these years. The visions have come in smaller and smaller intervals which parallels the intensity with which I've been studying.

Reading the books by Clement and Lossky have truly intensified my grasp of the Trinity and in reflecting on the 'bad' theology of many modern worship songs, I am wondering if I have merely created fertile soil with preconceived images and philosohpical underpinnings in which to receive the Trinity openly.

In a sense, I wonder if I 'created' the experience. Yet it obviously aligns with the understanding and experience of others but is the collectiveness a sign of the truth of it? Or is it a form of suggestion, wishful thinking, so to speak?

Or am I having visions of the true 'nature' of God? Are all such visions received only when we have opened up our minds to receive such things, the soil that of the mental framework we have created?

In other words, if I had never heard of the Trinity, had never read a single work on the subject, would I have the ability to haev such a 'vision'?

But by the grace of God there go I...

The statement often has a subtext that sounds more like this:

By God I'm glad that's not me.

Is it me or has it become just a cliche?

Theology fatigue...

Wow does theology get heady, intellectual, tiresome. I still can't help, however, but feel that the Trinity is laced with Hellenist influence and philosophical conceptualism. Had it never left Jerusalem, I can't help but feel the idea would never have developed (but, then again, had it never left Jerusalem it would never have become a worldwide faith).

In studying the development of the Trinity and its course through the centuries and the various variants of it from Antioch to Alexandria with their variant 'heretical' views against which doctrine was formulated it feels as if it is defending an idea. I am still not convinced of it.

I can say, however, that much of modern day neo-Protestantism does not emphasis the Trinity. It may be given lip service but the focus is almost completely on Jesus. The Spirit is seen as the thing that makes you speak in tongues and the Father is in there somewhere but it is all about Jesus, as a modern day worship song says.

Somehow this just doesn't seem right, at least not in terms of how the ancient church worshipped. The ancient church stands on the Trinity.

"I'm coming back to the heart of worship

And it's all about You

It's all about You, Jesus..."

- Michael W. Smith, The Heart of Worship

All about Jesus.

It is?

What about the Father? The Spirit? The Trinity?

Sounds to me like Oneness theology. Seems to me that Modalism has run amuck in today's Church. In defending the deity of Christ, i.e. the Jesus is God camp, the emphasis of this proposition has led many today to comprehend it in Oneness fashion. Many lyrics in today's worship songs reflect these things.

Seems others hold a like view. A quick search of "bad theology" and "lyrics" popped up the following:

Oneness Pentecostalism's influence in modern worship songs seems to be a fact. I spent four years in a church holding this doctrine. I can sense it a mile away. Many churches, perhaps not overtly Oneness in nature, are, by default, actually espousing this view. By not emphasizing the Trinity, Oneness views become a default, what Lossky calls "the natural tendencies of the human mind" (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 48).

And another example...

Is this just paranoia? Is a conspiracy?

Or is it the same problem the Councils had back in the day, the same tendency against which the Church has had to bulwark itself against, the natural tendency of the mind? Is today's religion, in its attempt to be more 'spiritual' and less 'religious' merely kowtowing to the spirit of man, becoming self-centered rather than God-centered? Is the growth of Christianity today one Grand Illusion?

Or is this just paranoia?

Ok, I admit that this can get out of hand, analyzed and overanalyzed to the nth degree. Here is an example of the heinous nature of music in the church, period:

Music is not worship according to this site. While I do agree to an extent that music has a hypnotic effect (I know about the trance inducing effect of music as a raver) and the feelings can be misunderstood as a spiritual encounter, the site goes a bit far toward the dead letter of things. It's a good piece, however, to read to be aware of tendencies of musical enjoyment. It's also a good piece to recognize the conspirational in overanalysis of just about anything.

And, finally, an interesting piece on the content of modern worship songs:

Let's turn our attention to Praise and Worship songs. They are in collections such as Songs for Praise and Worship published by Word and in the Maranatha! Music Praise Chorus Book. Except when specifically noted, these observations refer to the first of these collections, though most of what I say applies in either case.

Theologically, very many of these songs center on the attributes of God, and on the person of Christ, especially on Christ as King and as Lamb. These songs do not center on the person of the Holy Spirit, but they do include a few prayers to the Holy Spirit to come to us, and a few that offer hospitality to the Spirit in case the Spirit should come. Only three songs even mention all three persons of the Holy Trinity, and no songs focus upon the Holy Trinity itself. No songs even mention the Trinity, or the tri-unity, or the three-in-oneness of God. No songs do that; not even one song. Very few Praise & Worship songs praise God for the church, either, or for covenant, or for holy communion, and none do this for baptism, the sacrament that publicly recognizes our union with Christ and with the body of Christ.

What's absolutely characteristic of Praise and Worship songs is that they focus independently upon the person of God the Father, or of Jesus, or of an indeterminate person addressed simply as "You" without antecedent. They then praise the majesty, awesomeness, glory, holiness, faithfulness, love, or might of this divine person. The songs either praise this person or else they say they will praise this person. Often the hymns take the name of God or of Christ as synecdoche for the attributes I have mentioned, and in good biblical fashion praise God's name as God's alter ego.

What is striking about Praise and Worship songs is that they often detach God's attributes from God's acts. More than half the time it's not at all clear from inside a song why God is so praiseworthy or so worshipable. The Scriptures, as you know, typically give us reasons for praising and worshipping God. They tell us of God's mighty acts in creation and in the liberating exodus and in the resurrection of Christ, which is the new exodus. They tell us of the way God overturns corrupt social structures and elevates people we would never have guessed. They tell us of election, redemption, forgiveness, and culmination in Christ. They tell us why we sing.

But many–perhaps more than half–of Praise and Worship songs leave our praise detached from the mighty acts of God. It's apparently not necessary to remember them. Instead, "Let's just praise the Lord! Praise the Lord! Let's just lift our hearts to heaven and praise the Lord!" But detaching the mighty acts of God removes our context, as in the old Saturday Night Live sportcast: "And now for today's baseball scores: 2-1; 5-2; 6-2; 4-0."

- Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr. "Theological Particularities of Recent Hymnody," The Hymn, 52 (October 2001), p. 14

Lots of information out there, tough to get a handle on, difficult to process. Seems to me that there is no grand conspiracy but a battle against complaceny, against allowing our selves to be the measure of all things. We must always be on guard.

P.S. Is it any wonder theology is fatiguing...?