John Wesley and Prayer: Lunacy or Perfection?

"God does nothing except in response to believing prayer."

Take a long hard gander at that. Really read it. Ruminate on it. Mull it over.

I certainly did. And I didn't like it at all.

Now I'm not going to tell you where I found this quote (OMS), nor how often I see it (all the time). But I was curious about its origin, because surely such an inflammatory statement had to be heretical, or at the very least, misquoted.

You know what I found? You know who the miscreant is?

John Wesley.

Sweet baby Jesus in the manger.

Now I like John Wesley as much as the next Protestant. You can't say a bad word about him (especially when you work for a holiness mission agency.)

But I had to wonder if even he had overstepped his bounds a little with this statement.

I did what I always do when I come across something suspect. I Googled it. A lot. Here's what I found:

• Just about every Wesleyan thing (college, church, mission) has this quote on their website. Usually without qualification or corresponding text, other than to say that prayer is very important.

• A few books have quoted Wesley, again to emphasize the importance of prayer. They usually mention that Wesley spent two hours a day or more in persistent prayer.

• A Methodist church in Iowa produced a 14-page document on the proper posture, type, wording, time, and place of prayer.

• One link sent me to a page written by someone at serveOK.org, which I figured had something to do with Oklahoma, but I thought also might be the slacker's response to missions. We'll serve, but only OK. Also, they offered me free decals, but when I clicked the link, they said too many people had ordered them.

Okay.

• I knew Patheos wouldn't fail me, and sure enough, on the atheist channel I saw an article entitled "Nothing Fails Like Prayer."

It's possible we've moved a bit too far in the other direction. (Incidentally, if you get curious and decide to read the article, let me know what conclusions you come to. I know how I'd answer him, but I'm curious about your own experiences with this kind of argument.)

Finally, I found something that offered context for the quote. It comes from "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection," written by Wesley somewhere between 1725 and 1777.

I skimmed through the document and found much of interest. (Notably that Wesley apparently did not  originally like the term Methodist.) Honestly, the thing is long, and it takes a while before he says the above quote. He includes a lot of hymns, too. I think it's supposed to be like the Methodist Manifesto.

Anyway, his main gist is that it's totally possible for Christians to achieve perfection in this life. He defines perfection as "loving God with all our heart, and mind, and soul" and that this means any "inward sin is taken away."

(I happen to agree with Wesley that it's possible to achieve perfection in this life. However, like him I also believe that few, if any, have actually done this.)

Finally, we get to the infamous quote. (Which actually reads "God does nothing but in response to prayer." Is it very different? No. But I believe in accuracy.) I was not assuaged by what I read. It wasn't an error.

Here's what he says immediately before: "God hardly gives his Spirit even to those whom he has established in grace, if they do not pray for it on all occasions, not only once, but many times."

And immediately after: "Even they who have been converted to God without praying for it themselves, (which exceeding rare,) were not without the prayers of others. Every new victory which a soul gains is the effect of a new prayer."

Wow.

Confession time: I may have blurted out "This man is a lunatic!" in the middle of the office.

I'm trying not to be derailed by those statements. I think they are utterly wrong, and I have no idea what he was thinking when he wrote them, but this post is about prayer, so he's getting a pass.

I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, here. I'm trying to remember that he wrote/lived in a different time, that he doesn't really define what he means by prayer, and that I may actually be way off base here.

I'll also be the first to admit that I have a tenuous relationship with prayer. I tend to think the benefit is to the pray-er more than the pray-ee. I'm less inclined to see a direct link between my prayer and the subsequent action. I try to attribute those actions to their actual source, which is God.

Do I think God prompts us to pray for certain things? Yes. In His time, when He's ready to move, He puts things on people's hearts so that they are prepared for the work ahead.

Do I also think God tells us to stop praying for things? Yes. And we would do well to listen. A 'no' is still an answer, and we can waste a lot of time chasing after things that are never going to happen.

Wesley obviously believed prayer was important. I mentioned that this quote is mainly used next to a subsequent sentence about him praying for two hours every day. And I can't really argue about prayer being important. It's mentioned a lot in the Bible, Jesus taught how us to pray, and he told us to do it without ceasing.

But I think people can overemphasize the power of prayer. It becomes a work, something we have to do to be saved, and that is totally contrary to the Christian faith. There are so many times I have to bite my tongue before I say something that will undoubtedly get me in trouble.

I just can't get behind the idea that it is our prayers that prompt God to act, and that without them, He can do nothing. Because that's what I think is implied in this quote. I refuse to limit God that way. He does what He wills, whether we've prayed for it or not. His actions are not contingent on my faith.

(Rabbit trail: This was a storyline on Stargate: SG-1. These aliens had created a religion and had enslaved millions of people because their powers were fed by people. So the more people who believed, the more powerful they became, and the more people they could enslave. Actually, I think this was the plot of the TV movie about Merlin, too. And now I've totally lost you.)

Ironically (is this actual irony or am I being American and not getting the concept of irony?), I'm going to leave you with a verse about prayer. This is one I fully support and practice as often as I can.

"Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:6-7

Let the Nations Be Glad! Review

Remember that goal I had to read 50 books this year? I may have vastly overestimated my capabilities in this matter. Turns out I actually don't have a lot of free time on my hands that can be devoted to reading. Who knew? Anyway, even if it turns into one a month, it's still worth it.

I blame part of my seeming reticence to read on the second book I chose to pursue.

Title: Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions
Author: John Piper
Published: 1993, 2003

As a missionary, this book should be primo on the list of things to read, right?

Maybe.

Honestly, it's more a treatise on worship masquerading as an argument for missions.

This book is not for the faint of heart. It's not for people with even a mild case of Attention Deficit Disorder. You will definitely feel the need to put it down and uncross your eyes.

Still, for as dense as Piper can get, he still has a lot to offer.

There can be no doubt that Piper has a deep love of God. (He also has an abiding love for Jonathan Edwards, but more on that later.) For him, everything we do should be an expression of how amazing God's nature really is. I can only imagine that John Piper is utterly exhausted much of the time with how much effort he puts into highlighting the supremacy and awesomeness of God in everything he does.

This is not a bad thing. But it can lead to some interesting conclusions.

I should mention that Piper tips the scales toward hyper-Calvinism. I do not. There was plenty I disagreed with. And some things that seemed to stretch the limits of 'useful information.' (I think Piper might actually need to evaluate his seeming devotion to Calvin. Based on a few contradictory passages, I don't think he believes certain things as much as he seems to think he does.)

But there was also quite a bit that was challenging and revelatory. For example, there was a very interesting study of the Greek word proskyneo. Of course, you need to know ancient Greek (or have access to someone who does) in order to follow the reasoning. But it's a really fascinating process with mildly useful implications.

Mostly, Piper confirmed resoundingly what I already believe: missions is extremely important. Maybe not for the reasons you'd immediately think, but extremely vital nonetheless.

Will I keep this book? Probably. If for no other reason than it can act as source material for the complete works of Jonathan Edwards. (Seriously, he is referenced every few pages.)

Favorite lines:

"God is the absolute reality that everyone in the universe must come to terms with."

"The reason we are not to exalt our own glory but God's is because he is God and we are not."

"God has given us prayer as a wartime walkie-talkie so that we can call headquarters for everything we need as the kingdom of Christ advances in the world."

"Unity in diversity is more beautiful and more powerful than the unity of uniformity."

"This is the essence of worship: to act in a way that reflects the heart's valuing of the glory of God."

BONUS: As an OMSer, I got a little thrill when Piper referenced Touch the World Through Prayer by our own Dr. Wesley Duewel.

BONUS, PT. 2: In the extremely fascinating section on hell, Piper includes part of a letter John Stott wrote to him. I underlines the following, because it's hilarious. "I just find you over-dogmatic ... leaving no room for the humble agnosticism which allows that God has not revealed everything as plainly as you make out."

BONUS, PT. 3: Piper includes part of a poem by Thomas Carlisle titled "You Jonah" that I found particularly resonant right now.

And Jonah stalked
to his shaded seat
and waited for God
to come around
to his way of thinking.
And God is still waiting for a host of Jonahs
in their comfortable houses
to come around
to his way of loving.

Threshold

"You would not have called to me unless I had been calling to you," said the lion. 

~ C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

The Silver Chair is not my favorite of the Chronicles of Narnia. In fact, the first time I read it, I came close to hating it. It felt like a very different book from what I had read previously. I loved the Pevensies, and they were nowhere to be found except in passing. I had a hard time following the plot and figuring out where the three heroes were, especially when they are Underland. Puddleglum was odd, Eustace was a bit useless, and Jill had an appalling memory. And then when they found Rillian, everything got a bit weird. My initial skepticism of this particular chronicle was not helped in the slightest by the BBC film. I'm hoping the new one will be a vast improvement.

Contrast this with my feelings on The Horse and His Boy. I can make a very good case for this being my favorite of the series, despite it falling under many of the same categories as The Silver Chair. It still feels like a very different book, because you start in Calormen and take forever to actually reach Narnia. The Pevensies are there, but in the height of their reign. The heroes are a boy with questionable judgment, a Calormene girl, and horses. If anything, this book should be last on my list. After all, C.S. Lewis basically wrote fan fiction about his own universe. (Actually, maybe that's why I like it so much. I love exploring the construct of a universe. Anyway.)

As with many things, however, I have grown to appreciate The Silver Chair more as I have grown. 

That's not what this post is about.

This post is about that quote up there, the one at the beginning. Narnia is, of course, largely allegorical, with Aslan (the lion) standing in for Jesus Christ. (Lewis, interestingly, denied that his stories were allegorical in nature, instead referring to them as 'supposals.' Suppose a world such as Narnia existed, where animals can talk and nature is much more important. How would God redeem such a world?) The Emperor Over the Sea is God the Father, who has a very hands-off role in the Chronicles, and the role of the Holy Spirit is usually filled by Aslan. 

Now, it's entirely possible to read too much into the parallels of faith between this world and Narnia. There are a few things I would be hesitant to embrace should they be taken to their natural conclusions, chief of which (for me) is the role of the young Calormene soldier in The Last Battle who faithfully serves the false god Tash but still ends up in True Narnia. There is a disturbing spirit of universalism in this passage, whether Lewis intended it that way or not. 

I'm getting off track again. 

I want to analyze just this one line, keeping in mind that it may not translate to Christianity at all.

But I'm pretty sure it does.

I want to start with the ways it bothers me, just because I think I'll end up on the other side of this fence.

I think part of my issue is related to why I loathe the silent drama that churches like to put on to "Everything" by Lifehouse. You know the one.  Partly, it's because I don't like the whole mime thing. It creeps me out. Also, it's too long. But mostly, it's because they always portray it as the young girl straining and straining to get to Jesus, and Jesus takes too darn long to bust some heads and get to her. I understand the whole get-distracted-by-the-world thing and the turning-your-eyes-from-Jesus thing. But in the depths of my despair, when I cry out earnestly for God to rescue me, unless I'm in Hell, Jesus is going to answer me, and not with a 'yeah, this song is really long so give me two more minutes.'

So I'm bothered by the implication that we aren't crying out for God on our own.

But that's where my old nature and lack of understanding come in. Because this is really a moot point. It's not even a chicken and egg situation. Before everything, God. Did he want the Fall to happen? No. Did he know it would? Yes, so he planned accordingly. Could he have prevented it? Undoubtedly. But only by creating beings without free will, and what's the point of creating something that can't think for itself?

Ooo, my Arminian side is showing. Don't worry, Calvin is lurking right around the corner. But not Hyper Calvin. That guy's crazy. (And let's not get on the subject of angels. For now.)

So, God knew we were going to choose evil. It's what we do. And he knew it would separate us from him. So he built in a way to draw us back to himself. Because his desire from the beginning was fellowship with us.

From the beginning, he was calling to us. Peter (the apostle, not the king) said it best. He tells us that God doesn't want anyone to perish, but for all to desire and pursue a relationship with God.

The interesting thing in The Silver Chair is that Aslan does not rescue Eustace and Jill right away when they start calling to him. They first have to make their way to the door in the garden. And here's where the parallels could get incredibly deep and technical, but I see it very simply.

A lot of people call on God. There's a reason "no atheists in foxholes" is a saying you often hear. God doesn't want anyone to perish, and calling on God is important, yes. But just believing in a vague notion of a supreme being and asking for its help when you're in a jam isn't enough. When we call on God, he shows us how to get to him, and it's not always easy, but it is very clear. There is one path, one door - and until we take the steps of repentance and faith, we won't be in fellowship with God.

I feel like I'm dancing around a point here, and I may have lost the plot a bit. Let's go back to what bothered me. I was bothered by the implication that man doesn't cry out for God on our own.

But the truth is, we don't. If there weren't evidence of God in this world, what would we appeal to? Would we appeal to nature? That quickly reveals itself to be fickle and unreliable. Would we appeal to man? I've seen a lot of people appealing to the better nature of man, and guess what? That, too, fails. We have nothing good in this world except what comes from God.

The only thing we can appeal to that will never change, that is True and Just and on whom we can rely, is God. And we can appeal to him because he so desperately wants us that he's been revealing himself to us for all of time.

We just have to answer his call. 

Editing Ain't for the Faint of Heart

Here's the thing.

OMS is very Wesleyan.

I am not.

OMS is very holiness-oriented.

I am not.

And honestly, that's okay. We both believe that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, rose again, and is coming back. We believe he is the only path to salvation. We believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We believe God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and immutable. We believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

So the basics are solid.

But there's a reason there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations around the world (according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity). Believers don't always agree on things, anything from what day to worship to the place of secret societies (the reason for the division of my own denomination). This is also okay, to a certain extent. As long as the fundamentals are in place, I'm pretty okay with most differences.

All that to say this: I'm editing the T&M booklet on the Holy Spirit right now. I don't agree with some of the theology, but not in a life-altering, this-completely-changes-all-religion way. Just in a I-don't-think-that's-what-this-verse-means way.

Makes life interesting.