Praying to Jesus: A Review (Part 9)
Appendix B discusses proper worship involving both logic (in truth) and emotion (in spirit). All brethren would likely agree with what is presented here (185-89), which leaves us with only the four pages of the "conclusion" to consider. Hallenbeck says that he abhors "the idea that, once again, churches of Christ are debating an issue that encompasses such an important aspect of the Christian faith" (173).
This statement is somewhat akin to squirting kerosene on a campfire while lamenting forest fires. Not one congregation needs to split over this issue. Not one!! How can such a catastrophe be avoided? In much the same way the split over instrumental music could have been avoided. Those who advocated adding instruments to the worship acknowledged that it was Scriptural to sing a cappella. Therefore, in the worship assembly they could continue to sing without the accompaniment of mechanical instruments of music—and at home or in private situations could have used them. But using instruments in the assembly affected the worship of all present.
Likewise, those who sincerely believe that Christians may pray to Jesus can do so privately as often as they want. But publicly, they should not protest brethren praying to the Father through Christ, which they admit is an acceptable practice. Thus, the problem would be resolved. This is not what the pro-praying-to-Jesus crowd, however, wants. They want to impose their views on other brethren; they want public acceptance of the practice every bit as much as the pro-instrument crowd did.
Is that being too harsh? Think of all the statements made against the opposition in the course of Hallenbeck's book, starting on page 11 with Wayne Jackson calling the opposition "misguided souls" with an "antagonistic viewpoint" (12) and ending with Hallenbeck's echo on page 176 that "there seems to be an uprising of individuals who are advancing an aggressive posture against anyone who holds this position." Don't forget all of the unflattering statements in between.
To question praying to Jesus is to question His Deity (14, 133, 170).
Since Jesus is worthy of worship, and worship includes prayer, then the implication is that it is wrong not to pray to Jesus (63).
Those who disagree with praying to Jesus do not believe that Christ is equal with the Father (128).
Those who disagree with praying to Jesus are guilty of exalting themselves as the man of sin does (135).
None of these are fair criticisms.
Despite these comments, Hallenbeck acknowledges before the book closes that he believes that those who oppose the viewpoint he espouses "are sincere in their motives" (173-74). We can return the compliment since there seems to be no particular advantage to his ideology. Considering some of the statements made, however (as just cited), it can be safely asserted that he argues the viewpoint quite aggressively.
O Logic, Where Art Thou?
Two of the greatest logicians of the last century were Thomas B. Warren and Roy Deaver. It has correctly been pointed out that Mac and Weylan Deaver did not inherit Roy's skills. Neither is Hallenbeck a spiritual descendant of Brother Warren's use of logic. He calls upon (but does not pray to) both men on page 174. He quotes a paragraph from Deaver's Ascertaining Bible Authority, which this writer reviewed for Terry Hightower's 1990 lectureship book, Rightly Dividing the Word: Volume 1—General Hermeneutics (524-25).
Brother Roy said what most brethren believe when he said "The 'law of rationality' holds that 'we ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence'" (174). Deaver further wrote:
We are not talking about guesses, or speculations, or probabilities, or possibilities. We are speaking of that conclusion which is absolutely demanded by the evidence at hand (174).
These comments deserve a hearty, "Amen!" The reader should know, however, that when Brother Deaver wrote these words, he was not discussing the topic of praying to Jesus. Hallenbeck is citing them because he thinks he has proved his case logically and that, therefore, his conclusion is to be believed. Could no one at Apologetics Press—especially his father-in-law—tell him that his use of logic was faulty?
Brother Warren is also summoned to testify. He is quoted as saying that some "refuse to see the connection between evidence and conclusion, which can be reached only by valid reasoning" (174)—which is a true statement. But Warren was not talking about praying to Jesus, either. He and Brother Deaver were talking about the use of evidence and the value of logic in general. Few would likely disagree with their assessments.
Apparently, Hallenbeck thinks he has proved logically that "Jesus Christ is an authorized and proper object of prayer" (174). He also must think that no one ever saw Brother Warren use logic. Perhaps he himself never saw Brother Warren give a logical presentation, or he would have used a syllogism to establish his case. He fails to do so. He is good at quoting Warren—but not at following Brother Warren's example.
Brother Warren did teach that if all the premises are true and the argument has a valid form, then the conclusion must be true (174). The problem is that Hallenbeck did not set forth an argument—valid or otherwise. Here is what he did. He asked the reader if 14 premises which follow the comments on logic are true or false. Some of them are true, such as, "Jesus is God in all His attributes, yet is a distinct person" (174). Some are debatable, such as, "Calling upon can mean to pray to" (175). Although Hallenbeck cited some Old Testament examples, we examined the 32 instances of epikaleo in the New Testament and found that none of them is clearly interchangeable with "praying to." The 13th premise states, "Stephen prayed to Jesus," which we firmly and successfully denied.
Having premises that have not been proven is only one of Hallenbeck's problems. He never made an argument to connect all of the premises together. Even if they were all true (which they are not), he still has not proved anything logically.
His basic argumentation, when boiled down, is:
1) As Deity, Jesus is worthy of worship.
2) Prayer is worship.
3) Jesus is worthy of being prayed to.
How does the following differ?
1) As Deity, the Holy Spirit is worthy of worship.
3) The Holy Spirit is worthy of being prayed to.
Brother Warren always taught that every proposition must be precisely stated. The second statement above (in either syllogism) lacks that quality. It ought to read, "Worship is prayer," to have even a chance at validity. However, even if it was true, the fact that both the Father and the Son say that we should pray to the Father through the Son should tell us that, although Jesus is worthy of being prayed to, it does not prove that it should be done if the Bible says to do otherwise.
Immediately after this paragraph, Hallenbeck illustrates the same fallacy that he has exhibited toward Stephen—thinking that a direct exchange is prayer. Citing Matthew 7:22, he claims that many will say, "Lord, Lord," at the judgment. True, but they will be protesting—not praying. They will be seeking to justify their lack of respect for authority by trying to get their good deeds to exempt them from punishment.
Hallenbeck's argument is that, if we can address Jesus then, why can we not address Him now? The answer is that He will be functioning as our judge then, and we will stand before Him face to face. How else would we address Him but directly at that point? That circumstance furnishes a one-time opportunity to speak personally, just as Stephen had that one-time opportunity when he was dying. Special situations do not nullify the normal circumstances in which we pray to the Father through Jesus our Lord.
A Final Plea
We agree with Hallenbeck's sentiment that the Lord's church does not need "needless controversy and division" (175). For that reason, we should continue to pray to the Father through Jesus in our assemblies and allow brethren to do what they desire privately. However, this solution, which ought to satisfy everyone, is not proposed by Hallenbeck. Instead he talks about the uprising (sounds like the Creek Indians) of those "who are advancing an aggressive posture against" those who hold his view (176).
First, why does the above solution not cross his mind? Why does he not suggest it himself? Second, he has already said that some brethren hold a view opposite to his out of sincere motives (174-75). So why not try a solution that everyone can be happy with? If we all agree that prayer can be directed to the Father through Jesus, then why not practice what disturbs no one's conscience? If some insist on leading public prayers directly to Jesus, then others will not conscientiously be able to participate in the worship.
But think about the implication of this statement:
Yes, our Lord is worthy of invocation, whether spoken or sung! In closing, let the words of our Lord ring true, "[T]hat all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (John 5:23, ESV) (176).
Does this phraseology not suggest that if we do not pray directly to Jesus that we are not honoring Him and that, therefore, we likewise do not honor the Father?
This allegation has been implicit throughout the book—that, if we do not pray to Jesus, we do not believe He is Divine. Such is a false conclusion; Jackson and Hallenbeck know that. Such accusations—whether explicit or implicit—are both false and misleading. Their only goal could be to convince people that if they don't pray to Jesus, perhaps they are heretical.
Again, the roles in the Godhead were established by the three that share Deity—not mankind. They declare how we ought to worship—including how we are to pray. Our instructions are to pray to the Father through Jesus. Why should we feel obligated to fight against these instructions? If we were told to pray to the Father through the Holy Spirit, what difference would it make to us? We are but human beings, and we don't make the rules. Sincere brethren are only complying with what we are instructed to do. If the Bible said, "You may pray to any one of Us you desire to," we could do so with a clear conscience, but that's not what the Word teaches.
Brethren have long taught that in the Godhead, each Divine personality has His own sphere of work. Jesus is the One Who incarnates Himself, whether to wrestle with Jacob or to speak with Abraham. Neither the Father nor the Spirit had that function. We must let God do the commanding and devote ourselves to being obedient.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: