Prayer as Unveiling and Engaging
Integrated Study Guide, Session #4
This session is part of the multi-post Study Guide titled "Learning to Pray with C.S. Lewis." You may find it helpful to refer to the introduction and session one to understand the nature of the project as a whole. There will be 10 sessions in all.
"By unveiling, by confessing our sins and 'making known' our requests, we assume the high rank of persons before Him. And He, descending, becomes a Person to us." — C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm
Primary Readings:
Letters to Malcolm, Letters 1-4
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Book 2, Chapters 4-5: "The Perfect Penitent" and "The Practical Conclusion"
Theological Context: Foundations of Prayer
In the opening pages of Letters to Malcolm, Lewis establishes a theological foundation for understanding prayer as communication and communion rather than technique. He challenges both ritualistic formalism and unbounded spontaneity, seeking an approach that honors tradition and considers it complimentary to extemporaneous personal prayer.
As he considers the nature of prayer, Lewis addresses fundamental theological questions, such as: How can finite creatures meaningfully communicate with an infinite Creator? How does divine omniscience relate to human petition? What is the proper balance between structure and spontaneity in addressing God? Lewis raises these questions not as abstract problems to be solved but as existential tensions.
Lewis’s reflections in Letters to Malcolm extend the cosmological vision established in The Abolition of Man (Sessions 1-3). In both works, his view is cosmological so we should not be surprised to see him approach prayer as responsive participation in the eternal Word (Logos) which precedes and transcends us. This living Word is not an abstract principle but the second Person of the Trinity, who desires to inscribe His law into our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). Consider the following sample of New Testament passages emphasizing the “cosmic” role of Jesus Christ.
John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
John 1:10: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him."
John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Colossians 1:15-17: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Colossians 2:9: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."
Hebrews 1:2-3: "But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power."
Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."
Revelation 19:13: "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God."
Revelation 21:6: "And he said to me, 'It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.'"
Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."
Ephesians 1:10: "As a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth."
2 Peter 3:5-7: "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire..."
Just as moral formation requires submission to objective values, Christian prayer requires submission to objective reality – the eternal Logos. Prayer entails aligning ourselves with the eternal Word that constitutes reality's true nature.
Lewis’s insights on prayer emerge from a deep engagement with classical Christian tradition and a listening ear attuned to modern challenges. Against contemporary tendencies to reduce prayer to either psychological self-expression or religious performance, Lewis offers a vision of prayer as responsive participation in divine relationship—a conversation initiated by God that we are invited to join through the mediating work of Christ and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
Connection to Mere Christianity:
The meditation on Christ's redemptive work in Book 2 of Mere Christianity sheds unexpected light on the seemingly simple act of prayer. Lewis's observation that Christ's death fulfills what we ourselves cannot achieve—perfect surrender and penitence—reframes our approach to divine-human communion. "A perfect man," Lewis notes, "would never act from a sense of duty; he'd always want to do the right thing." Similarly, perfect prayer would transcend duty to become the natural communication between creature and creator, which was originally intended. The paradox emerges: we learn prayer from Christ who, as both perfect God and perfect man, embodies the communion we seek yet cannot achieve through our own efforts. When Lewis suggests that our most profound desires point to "another world," he hints at prayer's fundamental character—not a request for temporal blessing but an expression of the "inconsolable secret" that finds satisfaction only in God.
Key Concepts
The Value of Liturgical Stability
In Letter 1, Lewis addresses the tension between liturgical innovation and stability, expressing his preference for permanence in worship forms. He writes:
"Novelty, simply as such, can have only an entertainment value. And they don't go to church to be entertained. They go to use the service, or, if you prefer, to enact it" (Letter 1).
Lewis suggests that worship forms are neither magical incantations that work automatically nor arbitrary expressions that can be endlessly revised without consequence. Rather, the church’s liturgies provide the stable framework within which genuine communion can develop. He uses the analogy of learning to dance:
"As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don't notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling" (Letter 1).
These quotations shed light on Lewis's understanding of the relationship between form and freedom in prayer. Just as one must master technique to achieve artistic freedom, so the disciplines of traditional prayer forms create the conditions for our own spiritual freedom` and flourishing.
The Tension between Reverence and Intimacy
In Letter 3, Lewis addresses the seeming contradiction between approaching God with both reverence and intimacy. Responding to Malcolm's suggestion that Lewis's approach to services is "man-centered," Lewis defends the importance of forms that facilitate genuine worship while acknowledging the mysterious balance between divine transcendence and immanence.
His reflections on Thomas à Kempis's instruction that the celebrant should "consult not your own devotion but the edification of your flock" reveal Lewis's concern for both objective worship and subjective experience. This tension extends to individual prayer, where we must approach God who is "nearer to me than I am to myself" (Augustine) and yet, utterly transcendent.
Thus, he criticizes Malcolm for making “things far too snug and confiding.” In contrast, Lewis suggests that we should follow St. John in Revelation 1:17 who, in hearing from God, “fell at His feet as one dead.” The biblical illusion suggests that our encounter with God involves both intimacy and awe, both closeness and recognition of an “infinite qualitative distinction.” Lewis cautions against approaches to prayer that resolve this tension either through excessive familiarity that diminishes divine majesty or through distant formality that obscures divine love.
Lewis’s approach seeks a healthy balance between God's transcendence (creating distant, impersonal spirituality) and God's immanence (creating casual, sentimental spirituality), ensuring that we don’t so emphasize one that we neglect the other. As Lewis observes, "You make things far too snug and confiding" (Letter 3), suggesting that authentic prayer must maintain the creative tension between intimacy and reverence.
Balancing Spontaneity and Tradition in Prayer
In Letter 2, Lewis explores the value of both spontaneous and pre-written prayers, acknowledging his own journey from exclusive spontaneity toward greater appreciation of traditional forms:
"For many years after my conversion I never used any ready-made forms except the Lord's Prayer. In fact, I tried to pray without words at all... I still think the prayer without words is the best—if one can really achieve it. But I now see that in trying to make it my daily bread I was counting on a greater mental and spiritual strength than I really have" (Letter 2).
Lewis suggests that authentic prayer emerges not through exclusive commitment to either approach but through their thoughtful integration. As he writes in Letter 2, "The ready-made modicum has also its use" – indeed, it provides the fertile soil that enriches a life of spontaneous prayer.
Lewis identifies three benefits of traditional prayers: they keep us connected to "sound doctrine," remind us of "what things [we] ought to ask," and provide an element of "ceremonial." This perspective honors both individual devotion and received wisdom, suggesting that genuine relationship with God develops through both personal expression and participation in well-worn "paths" (see Jeremiah 6:16).
The Paradox of Divine Omniscience and Human Petition
In Letter 4, Lewis confronts one of prayer's central paradoxes: How can we meaningfully inform an omniscient God of our needs? He writes:
"We are always completely, and therefore equally, known to God... But though this knowledge never varies, the quality of our being known can."
Rather than informing God of what He presumably doesn't know, prayer involves actively participating in what God certainly does already know. As such, prayer becomes a kind of unveiling of ourselves before God. Lewis describes the wonder of petition, suggesting that…
"by unveiling, by confessing our sins and 'making known' our requests, we assume the high rank of persons before Him. And He, descending, becomes a Person to us" (Letter 4).
Against skepticism, Lewis affirms that prayer effects real change—not by changing God but by changing our relationship with God. Against magical thinking, he insists that prayer operates not through manipulation of God but through personal communion with Him.
Prayer as Participation in Divine Causality
In "The Efficacy of Prayer," Lewis expands on Letter 4's insights by addressing the empirical question of whether prayer "works." He begins by reframing the question:
"The very question 'Does prayer work?' puts us in the wrong frame of mind from the outset. 'Work': as if it were magic, or a machine—something that functions automatically. Prayer is either a sheer illusion or a personal contact between embryonic, incomplete persons (ourselves) and the utterly concrete Person."
Rather than treating prayer as a mechanism that might be scientifically verified through controlled experiments, Lewis presents it as a relationship that can only be understood through participation. Quoting Pascal, Lewis suggests that
"God instituted prayer in order to lend to His creatures the dignity of causality."
The idea of participated causality—that God works through creaturely actions rather than bypassing them—provides a theological framework for understanding how prayer can be genuinely effective without manipulating God or circumventing natural processes. Lewis writes:
"It is not really stranger, nor less strange, that my prayers should affect the course of events than that my other actions should do so. They have not advised or changed God's mind—that is, His overall purpose. But that purpose will be realized in different ways according to the actions, including the prayers, of His creatures."
This understanding of prayer as a participation in divine causality—rather than a manipulation of natural laws—echoes Lewis’s cosmological vision in The Abolition of Man. Just as human beings attain true freedom not by subduing nature but by aligning ourselves with its order, so authentic prayer draws its power not from magical control but from a willing harmony with God’s will.
Questions for Reflection
Lewis expresses concern about liturgical innovation, preferring stability in worship forms. How might his principle that "the perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of" challenge both traditional and contemporary approaches to worship? How does this relate to your own experience of public and private prayer?
Consider Lewis's balancing of formal and spontaneous prayer in Letter 2. How might this balance address both rigidity and formlessness in your own prayer life? What benefits have you experienced from both approaches?
In Letter 3, Lewis suggests we should approach God with both the closest proximity and "infinite distance." How might this paradoxical stance challenge both overly casual and excessively formal approaches to prayer? What spiritual disciplines might help cultivate this balanced posture?
In Letter 4, Lewis writes that prayer involves not informing God but "unveiling" ourselves before Him. How might this understanding transform your approach to petition? What would change if you viewed prayer less as providing information to God and more as participating in a humble and honest relationship with Him?
Lewis suggests in "The Efficacy of Prayer" that prayer belongs to a different category than magic or machinery. How does his distinction between "experimental verification" and relational knowledge illuminate the modern struggle to understand prayer's effectiveness?
Consider Pascal's insight that "God instituted prayer in order to lend to His creatures the dignity of causality," which Lewis quotes approvingly. How does this perspective transform our understanding of divine sovereignty and human agency? What theological difficulties might this resolve in your own understanding of prayer?
Lewis acknowledges the practical challenges of prayer, including finding suitable times and places. How do these practical considerations interact with deeper theological questions about prayer? How might attention to these practical dimensions shape your habitual practice?
Practical Exercise: Integrating Form and Freedom (2-3 days)
Over the next few days, reflect on the relationship between formal/liturgical prayer and extemporaneous prayer:
Begin with a traditional prayer from a liturgical source (such as the Book of Common Prayer, the prayer of St. Francis, or a Psalm). Read it slowly and attentively, allowing its language and structure to shape your approach to God.
Move into spontaneous prayer, bringing your personal concerns before God in your own words. Notice how the language and themes of the traditional prayer might influence your spontaneous expression.
Practice the paradox of intimacy and reverence that Lewis describes in Letter 3. Approach God both as Father (with familial intimacy) and as Lord (with appropriate reverence). Notice any tendency to emphasize one dimension at the expense of the other.
Conclude with silence, attempting what Lewis calls "prayer without words" for a brief period. Don't be discouraged if your mind wanders—simply return your attention to God when you notice.
After each prayer time, note briefly:
How did the traditional prayer shape your spontaneous prayer?
Did any phrases from the traditional prayer resurface during your own prayers?
How did this integration of form and freedom compare to your usual approach?
What was your experience of the tension between intimacy and reverence?
At the end of this period, reflect on how this practice has affected your prayer life. Has it helped balance structure and spontaneity? Has it deepened your sense of both personal authenticity and connection to Christian tradition? Has it enhanced your awareness of prayer as relationship rather than technique?