Is it wrong to collectively address the Lord in prayer and worship?

The background to this question is the teaching current in some circles that because ‘we do not read of the Lord Jesus being addressed in public prayer’, collective worship of the Lord Jesus is to be discouraged or even censured. The word public is key, because it is undeniable that prayers to the Lord Jesus in a private or individual capacity were offered in the New Testament. Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” and “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7: 59, 60) and John exclaims “come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22: 20). Saul of Tarsus asked, “Who art thou, Lord?” (Acts 9: 5), addressed “Jesus the Nazaraean” as “Lord” (Acts 22: 8, 10) and later (as Paul) implored the Lord to remove his thorn in the flesh (see 2 Cor. 12: 8). Ananias is involved in a conversation with the Lord in a vision (see Acts 9: 10-16) which he later summarises as “the Lord has sent me, Jesus” (v17). All these examples are, of course, individual prayers rather than the collective worship or prayer of the Assembly—but they do at least prove that it is right to address the Lord Jesus in prayer.

   Now an individual saint who prays audibly when the saints are gathered together prays on behalf of the assembly. In himself he is nothing—he is simply, as under the power of the Holy Spirit, the mouthpiece of the assembly. Is it right then for the Lord Jesus to be addressed in this collective way? In answer, it needs to be understood that just as the children of Israel called on Jehovah (see 2 Chron. 6: 14 etc.), so Christians “call” (epikalew) “on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1: 2). It is not only that they have called upon the Lord in the past for salvation (see Rom. 10: 13) but that this calling on Him characterises them in the present. Now to “call upon the Lord” (2 Tim. 2: 22) is not remarkable in itself (the Jews would, for example, instinctively assume “the Lord” to be Jehovah). However, to have the Lord defined also as “our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1: 2)—a man, and a known man at that—was a claim of staggering magnitude. Consider what the OT teaches us: when Abram “called on the name of Jehovah” (Gen. 12: 8) he addressed God. The proof of this is in what Abram did: “And there he built an altar to Jehovah” (v8). An altar signifies worship. Indeed, Abram built his altar in order that He might call on the name of Jehovah—the calling and the worship were essentially one and the same. So when Christians are said to be characterised by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus that is tantamount to saying that He is the One they worship. To counter this, some argue that the altar (and certainly the sacrifice on it) represents Christ as our means of approaching God. True, but it is facile reasoning to say that this means that the Lord Jesus cannot be objectively before us in worship. Again, some read 1 Cor. 1: 2 so carelessly that ‘calling on’ (epikaloumenoiV—one word in Greek) the Lord’s name is taken to mean the same as prayer offered ‘in’ (en) His name (see John 16: 23, 26). You might as well argue that calling on the Father (or ‘invoking’) means praying in the Father’s name, for the same verb (epikalew) is used for calling in 1 Pet. 1: 17 as in 1 Cor. 1: 2! It is obvious that in reference to prayer in refers to what is subjective—the means of access—while on refers to what is objective—that is, who is addressed.

 

   So is calling on the name of the Lord a purely individual matter or does it also characterise the saints together? If it includes the latter, then it proves that public worship of the Lord Jesus is in line with apostolic teaching. Calling on the name of the Lord involves an altar. What is that altar in Christianity? The writer of the book of Hebrews tells us that “We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle” (Heb. 13: 10) and the reference is clearly to the death of Christ. Now while Abram came to the sacrificial altar as an individual, in Christianity there is a fellowship associated with the death of Christ—“[the] communion of the blood of the Christ … [the] communion of the body of the Christ … are not they who eat the sacrifices in communion with the altar?” (1 Cor. 10: 16, 18). Such are not at the altar simply as individuals and therefore their calling and their worship is a collective matter. Where is that worship of the Lord particularly expressed? “When ye come together in assembly … to eat [the] Lord’s supper” (1 Cor. 11: 18, 20). That supper is for the “remembrance of me” (v25)—for the calling of the Lord to mind. When it says “Christ … loved the assembly, and … delivered himself up for it” (Eph. 5: 25) such love necessitates a response. Some say that the Father should be thanked for the cup and the loaf, but while the Father loves us (see John 16: 27), the love of Eph. 5: 25 is distinctly and uniquely Christ’s. Of course, when the Lord instituted His supper, He thanked God and not Himself, but Scripture does actually record who He thanked (see 1 Cor. 11: 24). I believe this omission in the text leaves it open for us to now also thank Him together at that occasion in an attitude of worship.