Second Person Reference in Indonesian Christian Prayer: A Sociolinguistic Analysis

One might expect that the divine person addressed in prayers by Indonesian Christians matches those in biblical prayers. However, this seems not always to be the case. Since referential differences in such texts are not always obvious, the aim of this paper is to define steps for identifying who exactly is being addressed. For that purpose, sample prayers in Indonesian are analysed. These samples consist of prayers from an Indonesian Bible translation, Christian prayers in Indonesian books, and spontaneous prayers by Indonesian Christians, which were recorded and transcribed. The following steps were defined: 1) the grammatical analysis of nouns and pronouns, 2) the listing of relevant instances of referents, 3) the assignment of these instances to certain referents and 4) the comparison of the identified referents with the context of the analysed prayers. The findings show that the person addressed in Indonesian Christian prayers cannot reliably be identified without looking at the context. As for the recorded spontaneous prayers, the socio-religious background and a close look at the actual perception of the person praying are crucial for a reliable identification of the referent. This was done by comparing the results with interview responses of these persons. By applying the four mentioned steps, different addressees can be identified in prayers. In the examples of this analysis, the most significant difference was found between the addressee of prayers in the Bible compared to the addressee in spontaneous prayers. While 9 out of 11 Christians spontaneously address Jesus in their prayers, all investigated biblical prayers do not address Jesus. The findings show that the four steps applied are beneficial to a high degree, but in some circumstances, ambiguity may remain. DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403-11


INTRODUCTION
Identifying the second person referent in Christian prayers ought to be redundant. On the first thought, most people would agree that this referent is God. However, according to Wehrli, Norsimah and Idris (2013) the person addressed in Indonesian Christian prayers is not always the same. Looking into the Christian doctrine of the Trinity this would make sense. The person addressed might be one of the divine persons, the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, in the prayers analysed for this study, Trinity does not seem to be the main reason for these differences. Volume 14(3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN:  The research described by Wehrli, Norsimah and Idris (2013) analysed the understanding and usage of terms for God. Besides grammatical and semantic aspects, usage involves reference. As soon as the same terminology is used for more than one referent,as seems to be the case with the data for the mentioned studya semantic analysis thereof is not sufficient anymore. Therefore, this paper lays out steps for identifying reference, especially in connection with divine terminology.
The main purpose of this paper is finding a way to identify referents. Besides linguistic aspects, this study might also be significant in showing complex differences of various perceptions of God in Christianity in a simple way. However, since the main focus is linguistic in nature, the latter is limited in complexity to a certain degree.
Due to the cross-disciplinary nature of this paper, we have to define several concepts and their respective terminology. These concepts are Second Person, Reference and Sense as well as Monotheism, Trinity, Oneness and Unitarianism. As this paper deals with a linguistic problem within a theological context, the term Second Person can be understood in two ways, which are both relevant for the topic and therefore need to be treated carefully. Linguistically, Second Person refers to the use of language when one or more persons are directly addressed. In Christian theology, the concept of Second Person is often understood as the second person of the Trinity, which generally refers to Jesus Christ.
The first usage of the term Second Person in this paper is the grammatical second person. In English, pronouns like "you", "your" and "yours" are used unless the function of the word used for the referent is vocative, where, for example, names, nicknames or titles are used. One might argue that the term vocative as used above is not appropriate, since languages like English and Indonesian lack vocative as a grammatical case. Despite that, the term vocative will be used when a pronoun or noun is in the syntactic position of an appellation.
One difficulty is that in Indonesian as well as in other Asian languages (Lee, 2012) speaker and addressee are very often not represented by first and second person pronouns. Instead, these pronouns are often substituted with or shifted into names, kinship terms, titles or a combination of these. Triana and Idris Aman (2011) name them Kata ganti nama diri binaan ("constructed personal pronouns"). Instead of saying Siapa namamu? ("What is your name?") one might say Siapa nama Bapak?, Siapa nama Ibu? or Siapa nama Adik? where the pronoun -mu ("your") is replaced by Bapak, Ibu, Adik ("Father/Sir, Mother/Madam, Younger Sibling") or other nouns substituting the pronoun, literally meaning e.g. "What is Father"s (i.e. Sir"s) name?" However, as we will see, in prayer this is less often the case, especially for the addressee: God is often addressed with Engkau ("You"). The persons praying, on the other hand, sometimes refer to themselves as hamba ("servant/slave") or hamba-Mu ("Your servant"). Besides a noun, hamba ("servant/slave") is also considered to be a personal pronoun (Pusat Bahasa, 2008), especially when praying to God or speaking to a human lord.
The other usage of the term Second Person concerns the second person of the Trinity. Generally, this is considered to be Jesus Christ, while the first person would be God, the Father and the third person, the Spirit of God. In order to not confuse the two very different concepts of Second Person, whenever necessary, they will be treated explicitly, e.g. with wordings such as "the grammatical second person" or "the second person of the Trinity".
Trinity has just been mentioned and explained as it is believed by mainstream Christianity. Although it is sometimes disputed how Trinity and Monotheism go together, the identification of theological correctness is not the aim of this paper. Different doctrinal standpoints will be treated as neutrally as possible. In order to be able to analyse reference it is inevitable that these different standpoints are looked at. There are mainly three perceptions of God in Christianity. Besides Trinitarianism, we will have a deeper look at Oneness and Unitarianism. Volume 14(3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN: 1675-8021 The term Trinitarianism or Trinity is used for the belief emphasizing that although there is only one God, the same one God always exists in three persons (Tuggy, 2013). Then, the meaning of Oneness and Unitarianism is very much overlapping, both dealing with "one unit". In this paper, however, the term Oneness will point to the perception that there is only one God, which is Jesus, while the term Unitarianism will be used to refer to the belief that there is only one God, which is not Jesus. In practice, it is often not possible to separate between these three perceptions. There may be believers claiming to be Trinitarians but unconsciously believe that Jesus is the one God. These perceptions will be further explained in the background section of this paper.
In linguistics, the term "reference" is used for the relationship between a word or phrase and the actual entitye.g. a person, a place or a thing (Bach, 2002) this word or phrase points to, i.e. the referent this word or phrase refers to or denotes. This has been discussed for more than a hundred years now (Frege, 1892;Salmon, 1986;Comrie, 1989;Biro & Kotátko, 1995;Gundel & Hedberg, 2008;Gibson & Pearlmutter, 2011), especially the so called Frege"s Puzzle (Frege, 1892). Applying Frege"s perspective on referent(s) in this paper, the following is believed as true by people of the respective backgrounds ( ) and the Son is not God. Figure 1, based on the traditional Scutum Fidei ("Shield of Faith"), shows the three perceptions with its referents. There are two difficulties with the illustration in figure 1 and with the referents per se. Oneness it would be more correct to say that Jesus is represented by [a]. This means in Trinitarianism Jesus is always the Son while in Oneness Jesus is the one God who may reveal himself as the Son, the same way he may reveal himself as the Father or as the Holy Spirit. Finally, the term "prayer" in this paper is limited to a more or less formal monologue addressed to a divine person that is not physically present, but is expected to hear the prayer. In accordance with Robson (1994) we consider the worshipper to be the speaker and God the hearer. This means, other practices that are sometimes also called prayer, which might range from the recitation of Scripture in a prayerful or meditative way to a dialogue between humans and Godthis is found in Scripture and claimed to be practiced by believersare not taken into consideration in this study.
The difficulty of knowing who the addressee is in an Indonesian Christian prayer demands how its referent is to be identified. This will include different steps, such as listing all possible referents and matching them by comparing the relevant context. Looking at different perceptions of God in Christianitywhich is part of the contextthere will be several options, for example God as a Trinity, God the Father, Jesus the Son or Jesus as the one God. As theoretical basis for the analysis of reference, the SMASH paradigm (Kehler, 2008) will be further looked at in the next section. As laid out in the Methodology section, this will be adapted resulting in four major steps.

BACKGROUND
In this section, we will further elucidate the background including relevant literature. This will first encompass the establishment of the concept Reference by Frege, and then the perception of the concept of God and the perception of the person of Christ by different groups in Christianity.
Meaning and Reference were not treated differently until Frege (1892) introduced his understanding about sense and reference, using the term Bedeutung for reference, from the German verb auf etwas deuten ("point at something"). Frege (1892) argues that the equation a=b can only be true, when a and b refer to the one same thing. However, although a and b refer to the same thing, they do not convey the same meaning or sense. Words, as a rule, have meaning, even if the meaning is not important to or consciously thought of by the user. Reference, on the other hand, does not always exist. In the phrase "We do not know which one is the most beautiful house" the word "house" bears meaning, namely "a building", however it does not bear reference, it does not denote an actual house.
By using the word "God" in English, speakers rarely think about meaning. They use the word "God" like a name (Gellman, 1995). Looking at the Indonesian word Tuhan ("God/Lord"), to differentiate between meaning and reference and the identification of meaning and reference is more complex compared to the example of the house, which wasa discussed earlier. Does the user of the term Tuhan think about meaning of the word while using it? And even more important, what or who are speakers referring to when they use Tuhan? Referents within a text, be it written or oral as in a prayer, are not always easily identified. Not only for assigned features as Comrie (1989) calls words without inherent reference, such as pronouns, but also for inherent features. Words like Bapa ("Father") or Tuhan ("God/Lord") may not be easily assigned to a referent by the hearer. Does the speaker use Bapa, Tuhan, proper names and pronouns within a prayer for one and the same referent or different ones?
As already mentioned, this paper is limited to the identification of the referent and does not intend to discuss whether a certain doctrine is true or false. However, in order to understand reference, it is necessary to identify possible referents. The list of possible referents may be expanded if the need arises. In Christianity, as in all monotheistic religions, Volume 14(3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN: 1675-8021 the oneness of God is a central belief. But, that does not mean that it is treated in one unique way. We already looked at the three major perceptions of God in Christianity. Here we will connect them to denominations and even compare these perceptions to other religions. Not looking at the practice of calling upon saints, which is common in a part of Christianity, such as Catholicism, the addressee in Christian prayer is the one God, however views are different. The Trinity is the perception of God held by most Christian denominations, including Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (I believe in God, 2012) states: We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.
While the Catholic Church knows an authoritative body in all questions of doctrine, the Protestant Church does not. Each denomination is independent in its teaching; however, there is an overwhelming agreement about the Trinity. One of the most influential documents from the Protestant side, The Lausanne Movement (The Lausanne Covenant, 2012) is in agreement with the wording of the Catholic Catechism, saying: "We affirm our belief in the one-eternal God, Creator and Lord of the world, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who governs all things according to the purpose of his will." Furthermore, this is agreed by the World Evangelical Alliance (We believe, 2013) representing more than 600 million believers.
Officially, Onenesssometimes also called Modalism, due to different modes or roles ascribed to Godis believed by Oneness Pentecostals or Apostolic Pentecostals (Macchia, 2010), with denominations such as the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World or the United Pentecostal Church International. They hold to the belief that there is only one God and his name is Jesus. The United Pentecostal Church International (Doctrine -60 Questions on the Godhead, 2013) states that there are not three distinct persons but the three titles "refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity." Dalcour (2005) opposes this view by stating that Oneness teachers today tell us that Jesus is the name of the single, lone Person behind the three masks of the "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" (in contrast to early modalism which taught it was the Father Person behind the masks). (p. 3) In practice, however, many Trinitarian Christians seem to believe this as well. One may often hear an analogy to the Trinity saying that a man can also be three persons in one. Junimen (2011) says that "Di kantor ia menjadi manajer, di rumah ia sebagai ayah bagi anak-anak, dan suami bagi istrinya." (p. 9; "In the office he is a manager, at home he is father of the children and husband of his wife"). Analogies like this, however, are much closer to the three modes or roles of Oneness than to the three persons of the Trinity. Finally, the third major perception, another form of oneness, called Unitarianism, holds that only the Fatherin Trinitarian terms, the first person of the Trinityis God. Jehova"s Witnesses (Do you believe in Jesus?, 2012) are a well-known example for this standpoint. With Unitarians, a part of messianic Judaism (Is Yeshua G-d?, 2012;Trinitarianism, 2012) and of course orthodox Judaism as well as Islam hold that there is only one God who is not Jesus.
Having looked at these three perceptions of God, we can already list possible referents for addressees in prayers: 1) God as a Trinity, 2) God, the Father, 3) Jesus Christ in Trinity, 4) the Holy Spirit, 5) Jesus as the only God and 6) the only God who is not Jesus. This can be considered as a preliminary step for identifying the referent. Volume 14 (3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN:  Much work has been done on the process of identifying referents of pronouns. However, Kehler (2008), who summarises this process as the SMASH paradigm, finds that this paradigm fails and "should be abandoned as a framework for theorizing about pronoun interpretation." (p. 119). The three steps, 1) Search, 2) Match and 3) Select using Heuristics, are not sufficient to reliably identify the referent of a pronoun. Ambiguous or indefinite nouns can be ascribed similarly. We can assume that the mentioned steps will not be sufficient for nouns either, since, as Bach (2008) warns, "Referring is not as easy as is commonly supposed." (p. 49) There needs to be at least one more step, such as the analysis of the context (Khan & Bughio, 2012).
In linguistics, the notion of context is used in different ways. This can include both verbal as well as social context. Meibauer (2012) classifies them in four dimensions: intratextual, infratextual, intertextual and extratextual. While the first three are concerned with text, the latter refers to the social situation which Hymes (1974) also calls a setting. However, these dimensions may overlap. In a written text, the setting or situation may be explained in its surrounding text and therefore become at least intertextual.

METHODOLOGY
Therefore, as a method, we will lay out possible steps and test them with different material containing Christian prayers in Indonesian. These prayers consist of three prayers in the New Testament of the Bible, 24 prayers from two Christian books and 11 spontaneous prayers. One prayer has been taken from each of these categories to explain the steps in detail. The findings from the other prayers will be summarized.
The three prayers of the Bible are taken from the Alkitab, teks Alkitab Terjemahan Baru (1974), the most often used Indonesian translation of the Bible. The three prayers which are analysed are from the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 6, verses 9-13, the Gospel according to John, chapter 17 and the Book of Acts, chapter 4, verses 24-30. These three prayers were chosen because they are the most extensive direct quotes of prayers within the New Testament. All other prayers in the New Testament are limited to one or two verses.
The two Christian books are Buku Doa: Doa yang mendatangkan Mujizat (Daud Tony, 2012), mainly containing prayers, and Dinamika Pendidikan Kristen (Cully, 2009). All 22 prayers from the first book will be analyzed. From the second book, which is not a prayer book, the two identified prayers are looked at. These are prayers from the English Book of Common prayer (The Second Sunday of Christmas, 2013 & The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity, 2013) which were cited in and translated from Cully (1958). These two books were chosen because they contain entire examples of prayers. This was not found in other available Christian books in Indonesian.
Finally, the 11 spontaneous prayers are part of semi-structured interviews about the usage of terms for God in Indonesian and Malay (Wehrli, Norsimah & Idris, 2013). From the 12 Christian prayers recorded in Indonesia, one was a recitation of "Our Father" (Matthew, chapter 6, verses 9-13). Since the latter is not a spontaneous prayer, only the other 11 prayers were included in this study.
The steps applied in this paper are: 1) identifying all nouns, noun phrases and pronouns and assigning grammatical person or whether the word or phrase is a substitute thereof or a vocative, 2) locating and listing all instances of reference, 3) assigning all instances to certain possible referents and 4) comparing the findings with the context. Context here may involve the following areas: As for the prayers from the Bible, this may involve the narrow and wider textual environment as well as the text in the original language. For the books, it may be the narrow and wider textual environment, but also the background of the author. If the book is translated, the text in the original language is also seen as context. For Volume 14 (3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN: 1675-8021 the spontaneous prayers, background and stated perception of the interviewees constitute the context.

DISCUSSION
The four steps mentioned were applied on actual samples. For a closer look, three prayers were chosen: one from the Bible, one from a Christian book and one from an actual spontaneous prayer that was recorded and transcribed.
As for the Bible, the prayer which is analysed is from the Book of Acts, chapter 4, verses 24-30, in the version of the Alkitab, teks Alkitab Terjemahan Baru (1974). First, we will grammatically analyze all noun phrases as well as all nouns and pronouns denoting to a person.
Ya Through this initial analysis, we count 38 instances: 22 nouns or noun phrases (two vocatives and 20 in grammatical 3 rd person) and 16 pronouns (two in 1 st person, 11 in 2 nd person, three in 3 rd person; six personal, nine possessive, one relational).
Since the focus of this study is the addressee, we only locate those instances of reference that are either grammatical second person, a substitute thereof or vocative. First, we ignore grammatical first person, i.e. two kami ("our"/"we"), and a substitute thereof, i.e. hamba-hamba-Mu ("your servants"). This last instance can be either a substitute for "us" or also include other "servants" besides those praying. But it is clearly not the addressee since it stands in contrast. Then we ignore those 3 rd person instances that are most likely not substitutes for a 2 nd person pronoun. There are nine instances referring to members of a group we call "the enemies": twice bangsa-bangsa ("nations"), twice suku-suku bangsa ("ethnic groups"), raja-raja dunia ("kings of the world"), para pembesar ("the rulers"), Herodes ("Herod"), Pontius Pilatus ("Pontius Pilate") and mereka ("they"). Then there is orang ("people"), which does not have an actual referent yet, and there is hamba-Mu ("your servant"), Daud ("David") and bapa kami ("our father") which is denoting the historical person of King David. This leaves us with 22 instances.
The remaining 22 instances can be categorized into 15 references for Tuhan ("God/Lord"), six references for Yesus ("Jesus") and one reference for Roh Kudus ("Holy Spirit"). The references for Tuhan consist of all instances of grammatical 2 nd person, the two vocatives and two instances of 3 rd person (i.e. the noun Tuhan and the pronoun -Nya "by Him"), which are not substitutes for 2 nd person, since they are used within a direct quote. In Table 1, however, these two instances are categorized under 2 nd person and marked with an Volume 14(3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN: 1675-8021 asterisk (*) because they refer to the addressee. Jesus is referred to twice by name, twice by Hamba-Mu yang kudus ("Your holy Servant"), once by Yang Diurapi-Nya ("His Anointed One") within a direct quote and once by the relative pronoun yang ("which"). Since the instances for Jesus show a high degree of contrast to the instances for Tuhan ("God/Lord"), we can conclude that in this prayer the one addressed is not Jesus. Looking to the three major perceptions of God, we can exclude Oneness with high certainty. This leaves us with Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, where the addressee is God, the Father. The second example we look at is one of the 22 prayers in Daud Tony (2012), i.e. prayer no. 14. Again, we will first grammatically analyze all noun phrases as well as all nouns and pronouns denoting to a person. While in the first example, the prayer from the Bible seems not to fit into the perception of Oneness, this second example may either be Trinitarian or Oneness. If Trinitarian, the person praying would switch between addressees. If Oneness, the different addressees had to be the same person. It is not Unitarian since Jesus as well as the Holy Spirit are addressed. Volume 14(3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN:  From the grammatical analysis of this prayer, 63 instances were found: 15 nouns or noun phrases (six vocatives and nine in grammatical 3 rd person), 47 pronouns (31 in 1 st person, 14 in 2 nd person, two in 3 rd person; 39 personal, seven possessive, one relational) and one adjective.
Then we only locate those instances of reference that are either grammatical second person, a substitute thereof or vocative. We can disregard 32 instances, 31 of grammatical first person, i.e. aku/ku-("I") and -ku ("me"/"my") and one denoting to the person praying, anakMu ("Your child"). Then we ignore those 3 rd person instances that are most likely not substitutes for a 2 nd person pronoun. There are five instances referring to members of a group we again call "the enemies": manusia ("humans"), orang ("people"), mereka ("they"), banyak ("many") and yang ("who") as pronoun relating to "many". Then there are six nouns or noun phrases which can be either identified as actual 3 rd person instances or as substitutes for 2 nd person. The noun or noun phrases identified are roh adopsi ("spirit of adoption"), Tuhan ("God/Lord"), terangku ("my light"), penyelamatku ("my saviour"), Tuhanku ("my God/my Lord") and Yesus ("Jesus"). Terangku ("my light") and penyelamatku ("my saviour") refer to the addressee. As for roh adopsi ("spirit of adoption") some may argue it is not an actual personal being but rather an attitude or identity, others may argue it refers to the Holy Spirit, which is perceived as a person in this prayer, being one of the addresses or the addressee.
The remaining 20 instances, consisting of 14 2 nd person pronouns and six vocatives, form the actual difficulty. Does this prayer address just one person or three distinct persons?
The actual content suggests that the person praying switches between addressees. Paragraph 1 and most likely paragraph 2 are addressed to the Father, paragraph 3 and likely paragraph 4 are addressed to Jesus and the last paragraph is addressed to the Holy Spirit. One reason is the statement "Aku percaya kepada Tuhan dan aku juga percaya kepadaMU" ("I believe in God and I also believe in You") most likely leaning towards the words of Jesus in the Gospel according to John, chapter 14, verse 1: "You believe in God, believe also in me." Another reason is the six nouns or noun phrases referring to the addressees. These are not vocatives and four of them are not used within the same paragraph these persons are addressed in.
One might argue, if that prayer is not Oneness, then paragraph 4 cannot be addressed to Jesus, since Tuhan is used as vocative. However, looking at the context of the entire book, i.e. all 22 prayers, out of 32 instances Tuhan is used seven times for Jesus: besides the vocative in this prayer, three times as a title before his name and three times with the 1 st person possessive pronoun -ku. Therefore, with high probability, this prayer can be described as Trinitarian, with all three persons represented one after the other: God, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, referred to in Table 2   In this last prayer we found 30 instances: 17 nouns or noun phrases (12 clear vocatives and three in grammatical 3 rd person; two thereof could be either vocative or 3 rd person) and 13 pronouns (five in 1 st person, four in 2 nd person, four in 3 rd person; seven personal, six possessive). Again, we only locate those instances of reference that are either grammatical 2 nd person, a substitute thereof or vocative. Therefore, we ignore grammatical first person, i.e. five kami ("our"/"we"), and those 3 rd person instances that are most likely not substitutes for a 2 nd person pronoun or do not refer to the addressee in another way, i.e. one Pak A, and four dia ("his"/"he"/"him"), referring to the interviewer, and one keluarga besar ("extended family"), denoting to the family of the interviewer. This leaves us with 19 relevant instances.
These remaining 19 instances refer to the addressees. Are all these instances of Tuhan ("God/Lord"), Bapa ("Father"), Kau ("You"), -Mu ("Your"), Yesus Kristus ("Jesus Christ") and Tuhan Yesus ("Lord Jesus") denoting to the same person? There are at least two reasons supporting the assumption that this is the case: First, there seems to be no switch of addressee as was clearly visible in the second prayer, where this switch is shown by starting a new section with a new vocative. Second, besides one Bapa, the person praying uses mostly just Tuhan, including once Yesus Kristus, Tuhan, and once Tuhan Yesus. This last Tuhan Yesus, however, is neither a vocative nor a 3 rd person substitute for 2 nd person, but a formula used to close the prayer. As in prayer one, due to its referent being the addressee, Table 3 shows this instance under 2 nd person with asterisk (*). When we set the hypothesis that in this prayer Tuhan, Bapa and Yesus is referring to one and the same person, we consider the person praying as adherent of Oneness, i.e. Jesus is his Lord, God and Father. However, since the evidence in the prayer itself is relatively weak we need to cross-check this assumption with the whole interview.  September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN: 1675-8021 The interviewee, a 23 year old male Protestant, stated in the interview that the one who created heaven and earth is Tuhan ("God/the Lord"). Furthermore he explained that he is either called Tuhan Yesus, Tuhan Yesus Kristus or Mesias. When formally asked about prayer, he made it clear that he prays to Jesus, calling him Bapa ("Father") or Tuhan ("God/Lord"). This is in agreement with his actual prayer and leads us to the only possible conclusion that this prayer is addressed to Jesus, believed to be God and Father. The referent in this prayer is Jesus in the perception of Oneness. After looking at these three examples, where one clearly was not Oneness and one clearly was, the findings of all other prayers is summarized in order to have an overall view. In the following three tables, only instances that are identified as grammatical second person or referring to the one addressed are shown. In contrast to Table 1, 2 and 3, Table 4, 5 and 6 compare the actual words used. Table 4 summarizes the three sample prayers from the New Testament of the Bible. Most prayers in the Gospels are spoken by Jesus. Both samples prayed by Jesus address God as Father. The first one (Matthew 6) can be considered an example prayer, with which Jesus taught his disciples to pray (compare Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:1). Although the believers in the prayer from the Book of Acts do not use the appellation Bapa ("Father") for God as Jesus does, it is clear from the context that the referent is the same: God, the Father. The second prayer looked at, the one from the gospel according to John, shows an interesting combination for a prayer: kita (here "us" inclusive) combines two referents, the addressee and the person praying. Table 5 shows the referents in all 22 prayers of one prayer book (Tony Daud, 2012) and two prayers from another Christian book (Cully, 2009). The latter two prayers are addressed to God, the Father while from the 22 prayers in the prayer book 20 prayers are only addressing God, the Father, one prayer is addressing God, the Father and Jesus Christ, while one prayer, the one chosen to be the example above (prayer 14), is addressed to all three persons of the Trinity. All these prayers differentiate clearly between God, the Father and Jesus. Volume 14(3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403 ISSN: 1675-8021 Holy Spirit -Finally, Table 6 gives an overview of all 11 spontaneous prayers from Indonesian Christians. Nine of them perceive God, the Father to be coreferential with Jesus Christ. In the interviews with these 11 Indonesian Christians, the interviewer did not use words for God but asked who created heaven and earth. All interviewees referred to the one who created heaven and earth by using Tuhan ("God/the Lord"), Allah ("God/Allah"), Tuhan Allah ("the Lord God/the Lord Allah/the God Allah") or Tuhan Yesus ("the Lord Jesus"). Interviewee 1 to 8 either stated that the name of Tuhan, Allah or Tuhan Allah is Jesus (six persons) or when praying, they would call Him Jesus (four persons). Interviewee 9 did not state the name of Tuhan as Jesus and did not formally acknowledge to call God Jesus or to pray to Jesus, but in the actual prayer she started with "Makasih banyak, Tuhan Yesus,..." ("Thank you very much, Lord Jesus..."). This suggests that interviewee 1 to 9 only address Jesus in their prayer. Now the question is, whether it is Jesus as the second person of the Trinity or Jesus as the only God, who they also consider as their Father. Since interviewee 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 call Jesus Bapa ("Father") in their actual prayer and interviewee 2 and 9 at least formally acknowledge to call Jesus Bapa when they pray, it can be claimed that interviewee 1 to 9 perceive God according to Oneness.
For interviewee 10 and 11 it is slightly more difficult. They both use Bapa ("Father") as addressee in their prayers, and there is no indication of co-reference to Jesus Christ. Looking at their interview responses, both called the Creator Tuhan Allahmost likely in the sense of "Lord God"without mentioning the name of Jesus at all. Therefore, these last two interviewees seem to pray in the same way as Jesus does in the Gospel according to Matthew and John and as the believers do in the Book of Acts. If this is the case, comparing these findings with their background leads to the explanation that interviewee 10 and 11 are used to praying in this way since they are of the older generation and always lived in a Christian majority region while interviewee 1 to 9 are either younger or lived for a long time in the diaspora.

CONCLUSION
Through the analysis of these 38 prayers, we have seen significant differences of reference. While all the biblical prayers address God, the Father and not Jesus, and while the prayers from books mainly address God, the Father, and when Jesus is addressed he is clearly distinct from God, the Father, most spontaneous prayers (i.e. nine out of 11) address God, the Father and Jesus coreferentially, and not as distinct persons. The latter is in significant contrast to biblical prayers. One might argue that this contrast is due to the different mode of communication,that is written and forma,l versus oral and spontaneous. However, this could only be relevant if the biblical prayers were written only, and not, as the context claims, a written account quoting actual oral prayers within direct speech. For a deeper understanding of the reasons for these differences, further research is needed, for example through comparison of the original texts and the Indonesian translation. This is especially important for the term Tuhan which, according to all 48 interviewees of the mentioned study, is always divine. However, respondents use them differently, e.g. as proper noun ("God") or as title ("Lord God/Lord Jesus").
The application of the proposed four steps, 1) grammatical analysis, 2) list of instances, 3) assignment of instances to referents and 4) comparison with context, have demonstrated to be beneficial although not unlimited. Without comparison with the context, it is seldom possible to identify reference and coreference. But even when consulting the context, ambiguity to a certain degree may remain, as we have seen from the last two spontaneous prayers. Volume 14(3), September 2014(http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1403