by Steve | May 1, 1975 | Archive - 1975
World Evangelism…Our Sacred Task
An exclusive interview with Dr. Robert E. Coleman, the only United Methodist serving on the Continuing Committee of the Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization.
Q What is the purpose of the Lausanne Continuation Committee for World Evangelization?
A The International Congress on World Evangelization last summer in Switzerland expressed a strong desire that a group be selected to implement the goals and wishes declared at Lausanne. To this end, a committee of 48 persons, representing 25 nations, was elected by the Planning Committee from names submitted by the Congress. Care was given, in the final selection, to geographical and denominational balance around the world.
Within the guidelines of the Lausanne Covenant (see highlights in box), the aims of the Committee is to further the total Biblical mission of the Church, recognizing that in this mandate, evangelism is primary. Our particular concern must be the evangelization of the 2,700 million unreached people on the earth, as well as the other millions of nominal churchmen who have not yet heard or responded to the true Gospel.
The Committee envisions its role to be that of a catalyst – to communicate what God is doing and what we believe He wants do to in the world, and to stir the people of God to more effective action. That is, we do not see ourselves setting up big programs and budgets on a global scale. Rather, our purpose is to provide a clearing house and implementation center for evangelicals of the world to take initiative.
Q How do you propose to do this?
A The members of the Continuation Committee in each major region of the world have been asked to form a broad network at the grass-roots level to foster and coordinate national strategies. This seems, to me, a realistic way to proceed. All of us recognize that the wide diversity of situations in the world call for a variety of approaches. Therefore, persons from different regions and cultures should work out their own programs.
Several times during the Mexico City meetings in January 1975, we broke up into continental groups to consider what goals should be set for the next few years, and what resources and structures would be needed to attain them. I think that everyone was anxious to see some fresh cooperative ventures in evangelism. We discussed such matters as improved training for clergy and debate begun at Lausanne in such areas as evangelism and social action, Christian ethics, and church renewal.
How these and other concerns will come forth in concrete proposals has yet to be decided. But whatever is agreed on, it will represent a broadly-based process by the people involved, carried out with sensitivity and openness.
Q What will be the relationship of the new organization to the W.C.C. (World Council of Churches)? To what extent will it differ in organization, theology, and function?
A The Committee has no desire to become another W.C.C. In fact, we are opposed to any bureaucratic model that would presume global laity, better evangelistic methods, intensified cross-cultural ministries, and utilizing more effectively the mass media. The African and Asian groups were especially concerned with strengthening theological education. In the Arab world there was a cry for more full-time evangelists. The European continent reiterated the importance of continuing the authority. Hence the focus on regionalization. In keeping with this emphasis, the Lausanne World Committee has resolved to maintain a low profile for itself and to operate with a modest budget and staff. This stands in remarkable contrast to the W.C.C., as you know. However, our most significant difference is in the realm of faith. The Lausanne Continuation Committee unanimously affirms an unequivocal commitment to Biblical doctrine and duty, especially as expressed in the Lausanne Covenant. Moreover, we are united in our Lord’s commission to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20). The W.C.C., with its syncretistic and universalistic understanding of the Gospel, cannot even agree on a definition of evangelism. I am afraid that theological liberalism has so taken over the W.C.C., especially since the Uppsala and Bangkok Conferences, that W.C.C. seems more concerned with the breakdown of political structures in society than with evangelizing a lost world. While the W.C.C. embraces millions of Bible-believing Christians, the official leadership of the Conciliar movement, with few notable exceptions, has tragically departed from its original missionary origins.
What this means for true evangelicals caught in this monolithic W.C.C. vice becomes painfully obvious. The World Council of Churches, by its departure from vital Biblical Christianity, does not and cannot provide a fellowship for the evangelical community of the world. In all candor, we must look elsewhere for any meaningful spiritual home. If we think otherwise, we are only fooling ourselves.
Q Can you assume that the Lausanne Committee speaks for the vast evangelical world community? What about other existing organizations that are seeking much the same ends?
A Your point is well taken. The Continuation Committee is only carrying out the wishes of those representatives from 150 nations gathered at Lausanne. We do not pretend to be the only body concerned with uniting evangelical Christians. Nevertheless, I think that it is fair to say that at the present time evangelicals of the world are not being pulled together by any existing organization. The World Evangelical Fellowship, probably the nearest thing to it, does not reach the vast majority of people. Something on a much broader scale is needed.
Certainly we must approach this task with deep sensitivity. Where there are already existing associations which share similar aims and spirit, we will need to seek the largest measure of cooperation, and use whatever flexibility is necessary to achieve our goals.
Take our situation in the United States, as an example. The National Association of Evangelicals, while appealing to the smaller conservative groups, does not represent the largest conservative denomination in America, the Southern Baptist Convention. Nor does it include the large Missouri-Lutheran Synod, among others. Yet the Southern Baptists and Missouri Lutherans have no part in the National Council of Churches.
On the other hand, within the N.C.C. denominations, like the United Methodists, there are multitudes left out. Some may actually feel more identity with some of the para-church groups, like Campus Crusade for Christ or Inter-Varsity, which provide spiritual ministry to many people across denominational lines. The charismatic movement is yet another dimension of this vast throng of basically Bible-believing people. Put these all together and you have a potential force staggering to contemplate!
Some framework is needed for a fellowship which appreciates distinctive church doctrines and the government of each group, yet unites around a common evangelical commitment to world evangelization. I believe that the Lausanne Covenant and purpose offers the best hope for this in our generation.
Q What is your personal expectation for Lausanne, and why are you willing to serve on its Steering Committee?
A Apart from the joy of association with this body of evangelical leaders, I count it a privilege to have a part in this daring dream. If, by God’s grace, we can approximate our goal, it will be the greatest ecumenical breakthrough in modern times. Admittedly, our aspirations at this point are projected largely on faith. But I would rather give myself to something great, even though exceedingly difficult, than to spend effort on a comfortable cause of little consequence.
And what greater task can we set before us than the fulfillment of our Lord’s Great Commission? In this supreme mission of Christ, I see every person involved who takes the Bible seriously. Our particular roles will vary according to gifts and calling, but all of us share the same objective.
Q Is it true that Billy Graham runs Lausanne? If not, what will make it an authentically open group?
A In answer to your first question, I can say unequivocally that Billy Graham does not run Lausanne. Those who may have this notion simply do not understand what it is all about. The spirit of Lausanne is too big for any one person to manipulate.
It is true that Billy Graham has given inspiration to evangelicals of our time as no other single individual, but he has never tried to dominate the movement. The only reason that he took initiative and gave so largely of his resources in getting the Berlin and Lausanne Congresses together, is because there was no one else who had the facility to do it. For this we owe him an immeasurable debt, though he would be the first to deny it. Billy Graham, wherever possible for years, has sought to push others to the fore. This magnanimous concern was clearly evident when we met in Mexico City. He insisted that he have no responsibility on the Continuing Committee, though he did accept our unanimous invitation to become Honorary Chairman of the Consultative Council.
Q What things about the Lausanne Covenant make it the possible ideological-theological point of polarity for evangelicals around the world? What about those who can’t buy its strong position on the inerrancy of Scripture? To what extent will leadership of Lausanne be protected against the termite influence of those with other views?
A Your concern is appreciated. Doubtless there will come attempts to subvert the doctrinal content of the Covenant. The particular statement which you alluded to has already caused considerable foment. To say that the Scripture is “without error in all that it affirms” is indeed a strong witness. But it clearly aligns Lausanne with the convictions of the great Reformers, and to take a less definitive position in our day would open a “pandora’s box” of possible serious theological deviations.
There are many other aspects of the Lausanne Covenant which might raise objections, such as the strong emphasis upon social action or the simple life. And some may have semantic problems with the document. Where one cannot subscribe to every detail of the document, hopefully there will be some kind of an affiliate arrangement for those who may desire identity with its spirit. This is a matter which still needs clarification.
Q Will the historic Methodism of the Wesleys be entirely submerged in Lausanne? Or could Lausanne provide a means of vivifying our tradition?
A I am confident that there is no desire by anyone that the Wesleyan message be lost in Lausanne. They sincerely want our witness to be heard! Unfortunately, in the past generation, the historic Bible based message of Wesley has been obscured in most of the official agencies and schools of Methodism. This has had the effect of so watering down our heritage that the United Methodist Church has lost much of its original evangelical identity. What, today, so often goes under the name of Methodism is not Wesleyan at all, but rather a form of semi-pelagian humanism.
Doubtless, this accounts for a smaller Methodist presence at Lausanne than, say, the Reformed tradition. But as far as John Wesley is concerned, I do not recall hearing anyone mentioned more often at the Lausanne Congress. His clarion faith in an infallible Bible and his blazing heart for evangelism puts him at the very center of the Lausanne movement. So in regard to your last question, I think that Lausanne, emphasizing those basic motivations which gave birth to the great worldwide Methodist revival, dramatically calls attention to our spiritual roots. Let me say something, too, about the balance of the Continuation Committee. Though I am the only United Methodist serving on it, Wesleyan theology is represented by some men from other communions of the world. I feel that in terms of our evangelical strength today, worldwide, the teaching of Wesley has been given a very fair THE NATURE OF EVANGELISM voice in Lausanne. If we would like more, then let us take to heart more earnestly what Wesley believed and enlarge our numbers through Biblical evangelism.
Q In the light of what you have said, could you sum up the implication of Lausanne for the Good News Movement?
A The Good News fellowship within The United Methodist Church reflects the same yearning which brought Lausanne into being. What is seen in our small sphere of the church is happening in com-world. Evangelicals are on the march.
In this sense, Lausanne gives visibility to our cause on a global scale. It will help us know a strength and solidarity which we could not have alone. We can see ourselves now as part of a vast and growing army of committed disciples from every nation. Our evangelical fellowship literally embraces hundreds of millions of like-minded people. Never before have we been so united. Before us are many struggles and disappointments. I am sure that there will be some agonizing trials as we seek to find ways to work side by side. But we must not let any secondary conflict divert us from our all-consuming mission of world evangelization. In this dedication we have come to our finest hour.
Q As individual United Methodists, what can we do to relate ourselves and our churches to this worldwide evangelical movement?
A For the moment, we can align ourselves with the Lausanne Covenant. Here is the best articulation in modern times of an evangelical consensus on basic issues. Congregations might find it stimulating to study in depth this document. A commentary on the Covenant has been prepared for just this purpose. It is: The Lausanne Covenant, by John Stott, price, 95¢, and is available from Good News.
In addition, the major addresses and papers delivered at the Congress can be read with great profit. They are now available in book form and on cassettes. A series of six studies entitled “Reaching All,” developed from the Congress messages, also offers an exciting opportunity to become better informed about evangelizing the world for Christ.
The most significant thing, of course, is that we take to heart the practical implications of our evangelical faith. This should find expression in a vital church evangelistic and missionary outreach on the local scene.
As cooperative programs are developed across the country, I would hope that United Methodists will assume a prominent role in the action. This should come naturally to us! We have always looked upon ourselves essentially as a company of Bible Christians united to pursue holiness of life and to herald the Gospel of redeeming grace across the earth.
Those who share this spirit, by whatever name they are called, certainly should be in the forefront of evangelism in our day. Here, without hesitation, we can work together as loyal sons and daughters of Wesley, and in so doing we will most clearly show the world that we are a Good News Movement.
by Steve | Mar 2, 1975 | Archive - 1975
Getting to Know the Old Testament
Part Two
Answering Some Old Testament Problems
by John N. Oswalt, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature, Asbury Theological Seminary
Elder, Kentucky Annual Conference, United Methodist Church
If the previous article has made a case for the Church’s need for the Old Testament, it has left unanswered the serious problems which were posed at the beginning of this series. It now becomes our task to suggest some ways to deal with these “problems.” It would not be possible, in one short article, to present detailed solutions to all the Old Testament difficulties. Nor would the author be capable of doing this, even if space permitted. What is intended is to suggest four or five principles which should be helpful in working through the most commonly expressed Old Testament “problems.” In the course of discussing these principles, certain representative issues will be treated as examples.
The attempt to demonstrate the necessity of the Old Testament for the Church was consciously put before this treatment of the “problems,” because the manner in which one approaches difficulties in the Old Testament is largely determined by one’s attitude toward the Old Testament. If one is convinced that it is basically a non-Christian book, and thus of little value to the Church, the “problems” will be allowed to stand without serious attempts to find any solution. They will be merely treated as evidence by which to confirm one’s prejudice.
On the other hand, if one is convinced that the Church cannot survive without the Old Testament, one is much more likely to make a strenuous effort to solve the “problems.” When this happens, one makes the pleasant discovery that, in most cases, satisfying solutions can be found. Those who downgrade the Old Testament often accuse its defenders of manipulating the evidence to save the Old Testament. Unfortunately, this has sometimes been true. This tendency must be carefully guarded against. On the other hand, it is fair to say that failure to seriously explore and accept the evidence because one has prejudged the case is equally dishonest.
When one begins to seek solutions to the Old Testament difficulties, one of the usual first discoveries is that the “problem” has been isolated and overstated. When the background and the situation are fully understood, oftentimes the “problem” is much less massive.
A case in point would be the slaughter of the Canaanites. This one instance, perhaps more than any other, is used to show that the Old Testament is sub-Christian. One hears such statements as, “If God had commanded such a thing (assuming that He did not), He would have been violating His own commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.'”
Such a statement fails to understand that the Commandment, as worded in the original, had to do with murder and was not directly related to either capital punishment or warfare.
However, it still may be asked, “How could a loving God simply order a people wiped out so that His own people could have that land?”
This question is based upon two false assumptions: one that killing and love are never consistent; two, the slaughter of the Canaanites was merely to enable the Hebrews to take possession of the land. Thorough study of the Scriptures makes it plain that the Hebrews’ action was God’s judgment upon the Canaanites. In Genesis 15:16, God tells Abraham that he and his descendants cannot yet possess the land because the sin of the Amorites (Canaanites) is not yet complete. In other words, it would have been unjust for Abraham to have destroyed the Canaanites then. They did not yet deserve it. Bur 400 years later, after the tendencies already evident in Abraham’s day had run their course, the actions of the Hebrews in destroying the deeply perverted and decadent Canaanite society was an act of Divine justice. If there is one thing with which love is surely inconsistent it is injustice. To allow flagrant sin to go unpunished is no act of love. On the part of man it is irresponsible; on the part of God it would be demonic.
This action of God’s love, expressed in terms of righteous justice, not only related to the Canaanites’ past sins – it also related to the future. Joshua makes it plain that a further reason for the annihilation of the Canaanite people was so that the Canaanite culture would be wiped out. Why? So that it would not become a trap for the Hebrews. The Hebrews were a people chosen by God to convey His redemptive self-disclosure to the earth. The culmination of that redemption, Jesus Christ, was to be a part of them.
The Canaanites were a near-perfect example of world religions which, by deifying human and natural functions, seek to gain control over the universe for the sake of human security. If the Canaanite religion could somehow contaminate the Hebrew faith, God’s whole future expression of love to the world could be jeopardized.
As a matter of fact, this is precisely what did happen. The Hebrews did not carry out God’s command carefully. (Did they, like we, think it too harsh?) As a result the Hebrew faith was saved only by the narrowest of escapes. Had the Israelites obeyed God’s commands, who knows what agonies they might have been spared or how much sooner God’s redemptive love might have been manifested in its fullness to the world?
Another principle to be kept in mind when dealing with Old Testament “problems” is that of progressive revelation. Not all of God’s truth is revealed at once. Only what can be assimilated at a given moment is opened up; more is added later when God knows the time is right. The process is much the same as that used by wise parents who teach their children only what they are able to comprehend.
A case in point might be the afterlife. Some wonder why the Old Testament is so “this-worldly” when the New Testament depicts salvation in “other-worldly” terms. This is one of those overblown distinctions. The New Testament says much more about this present life than many people realize. Nonetheless, the Old Testament is largely silent on the afterlife. Why? Very possibly because the Israelites had come out of Egypt, where efforts to ensure a happy afterlife through magical rites and a complex polytheism[1] dominated the lives of many.
Before God could reveal the true afterlife to His people, some preliminary points had to be made: there was only one God in all the universe, and He was not pleased by magical rites, but instead required utter trust demonstrated in ethical behavior. Until these important points were fixed in the Israelite mind, any teaching concerning the afterlife could only confuse God’s people.
Similarly with retribution and blessing, the fundamental point had to be made that obedience from the heart results in bliss, and that any other kind of response to God was disaster. (To the Hebrews, in a fairly adolescent stage of development, the blessings and disasters were described in very materialistic terms. After this basic point had been made, then mankind would be ready to learn that in the final analysis, material things do not determine either bliss or disaster for us).
The laws relating to sacrifice, foods, purity, etc., must be understood in this same light. They functioned as concrete object lessons to make a spiritual point. On a spiritual plane, there is that which defiles and that which makes clean. On a spiritual plane, sin is a matter of life and death and therefore may not be treated lightly. How better to learn these and other important truths than through the daily experiences of sacrifice, eating, etc.?
But, it may be asked, since we have progressed beyond the adolescent, object-lesson stage, can we not dispense with those rather boring sections of the Old Testament? The sobering question must be asked, “Have we?” When the Old Testament object lessons do not illuminate and reinforce the reality they symbolize, then we have either perceived truth in its full intensity – or perhaps we have not perceived truth at all.
A third principle is that the Old Testament never idealizes. This is surely one of the marks of its Divine authority. Nowhere else in the literature of the ancient world are human beings depicted so really, both in their glories and in their horrors. Thus, although a David or an Abraham is a hero of God, when he sins it is reported with a kind of clinical exactness. The great man’s weaknesses are neither celebrated nor minimized. The inspired writer seems to be telling us that God is indeed at work in human lives, not in some never-never land of unreal sainthood (unless it is in the kinds of imperfect saints found in Paul’s Corinth). Moreover, the Old Testament writer is saying that we are to worship God, not our human “fathers.” Some of their failings were barbaric and their ends desperate. Yet, praise be to God, He could and did accomplish His purposes through even them! If a Samson was the best that could be had, God could use him. But the Bible does not idealize these heroes, and neither need we. Let us only be sure that we are at least as open to God’s working with us as they were long ago.
Finally, it is important to understand that Old Testament culture was different from that of either Greek and Roman times – or our own. We have said before that the Holy Spirit did not dictate certain timeless truths to men apart from and regardless of their situation in life. (Whenever the Bible is so treated, endless difficulties result). Rather, God began to manifest Himself in certain historical situations. At the same time (or even previously) He began to move in the lives of certain individuals so that they might authoritatively interpret what He was doing and saying in His actions. Necessarily, then, the Old Testament revelation had to be expressed in terms and styles which communicated with the people of that day. Thus, had God somehow contrived to set down an Ezra in the Judges period, he would probably have been much less successful in achieving God’s purposes for that time than were Ehud or Jephthah.
Along these same lines, when certain strange or even apparently immoral acts performed by Biblical figures are examined in the light of the customs of the day, they will often be found to be quite consistent. A case in point would be Abraham’s begetting Ismael by Hagar. In our sub-culture this is a gross and un-understandable act on the part of God’s chosen. However, in that day and time, this was an acceptable way of getting children if one’s wife were barren.
Before leaving this point it must be remarked that despite this different cultural conditioning of the Old Testament, human nature has remained remarkably the same across 5,000 years. Once one gets behind the strange ancient customs and, to us sometimes bizarre behavior, we find the same humanity as exists today. Whether peasant or technocrat one’s hopes, his aspirations, his sins, his failures, his crying needs remain the same. The marvel of the Bible is that it has so well diagnosed the essential human situation as it appeared in persons 3,000 to 4,000 years ago in the Near East … that this diagnosis remains so true today. With these several principles of interpretation in mind, no “problems” need be so severe as to prevent us from seeing in the Old Testament God’s description of ourselves and His provision for becoming our true selves.
Coming in the next issue of Good News Part III: “How You Can Study The Old Testament.”
[1] Polytheism: belief in, or worship of, many different gods.
by Steve | Mar 1, 1975 | Archive - 1975
God will answer prayer always, IF…
A thoughtful look at a beautiful and mysterious part of our faith.
By Robert D. Wood
Department of Home Ministries, OMS International
Elder, Kansas West Annual Conference
Good News Board of Directors
It is God’s intention to answer prayer-always. And I do not mean what most persons seem to mean when they make such an assertion. We often hear people say that God intends to answer with a “yes.” “All the promises of God are ‘yes’ and ‘it shall be so,”‘ writes the Apostle Paul (11 Corinthians 1:19). It seems to me, in the light of clear statements from the Scriptures, that to say that God sometimes says, “no,” is to misunderstand the Scriptures or is a cop-out on our part – or both.
God intends always to say, ‘yes,’ though I will concede that experience and the Scriptures seem to lead to the conclusion that ‘yes’ sometimes follows on ‘not yet.’ But ‘no’ never appears in what God intends to happen when the Christian prays. Let us look at the evidence. The place ·to begin is with the Bible promises we have regarding prayer.
“Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:13-14).
“If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you” (John 15:7).
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you” (John 15:16).
“Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name. Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16:23).
“Ask, and it will be given you; seek and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened” (Matthew 7:7-8 and parallel passage in Luke 11:9-13).
”… if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my father in heaven” (Matthew 18:19).
“… Whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith” (Matthew 21 : 22).
“… We receive from [God] whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him” (I John 3:22).
“… this is the confidence which we have in [God], that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him” (I John 5:14).
Here is enough material to keep us busy for a long time! Notice how many of these come from the lips of Jesus himself. Notice also (and this is extremely important), the inclusiveness of these statements on prayer. We find the words “whatever” and “anything” repeated time after time. “Ask whatever you will”; “whatever you ask”; “ask anything“; “agree … about anything.” Any sincere Christian, any believer wanting to follow the Lord and grow up into Christ, is going to have to deal with such blanket assertions as these. While we add, to cover up our failures, our “buts” and “howevers” and “we must be sensible and reasonable” and “it can’t mean,” etc., the voice of Jesus is still speaking: “ask whatever you will, and it shall be done.”
I have suggested above that we throw the dust of disbelief into the air for self-defense. It allows us to hide in a cloud of verbiage and so-called rationalism our utter fruitlessness in prayer. If what I am saying is true, then we stand under a frightening indictment. We cannot stand that kind of guilt and failure so we begin to say, “Let’s be reasonable people; Jesus surely didn’t mean ‘ask anything’; let’s not get carried away.”
I protest but He said, “ask anything.”
However, experience gets to its feet and makes a very damning confession: “I have prayed and prayed and nothing has happened.” A woman once said to me, ” I don’t believe in Jesus anymore.” I asked why. “Because,” she explained, “I asked Him to help me once, and He wouldn’t do it.”
The disciples could not help the young man who had seizures and whose father took him to them for healing. He later explained to Jesus, “I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they failed” (Matthew 8:18, NEB). Phillips makes it even more pointed: “I did speak to your disciples to get them to drive it out, but they hadn’t got the power to do it.”
Damning.
Here, then, is the reason why we may not lie back on our “flow’ry beds of ease,” and say that it really is not such an important failure after all when we are ineffective in our praying. It is important! And serious Christians must discover the keys to the problem of “whatever” and the “anything” of Jesus’ promises.
These promises are given in the context of the Will of God. That is key number one. Key number two is that they are given in the context of ministry. That is to say that the only restrictions or constrictions which we may attach to these singular promises are: a) that one must pray in the will of God and that b) the promises often are related to fruit-bearing.
“Aha!” you say; “there’s the rub.” Yes, there’s the rub. Praying effectively is dependent upon ascertaining the will of God before we pray. And that is not always easy, though it would seem to be always possible (John 7:17; Romans 12:2).
The second thing to keep in mind is that effective prayer is directly related to discipleship. Jesus was not speaking to the clergy (rather to the laity) when he called them, chose them, and ordained them, and gave them the challenge and promise of John 15:16. Every one of us who names the Name of Christ is under divine appointment. This means discipleship. My authority for this is John 15:16 to which I have already referred. Notice here, however, something more than that Jesus says, ” … whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.” That very phrasing suggests that there is more to it; Jesus relates it to fruit-bearing, to ministry. If it were only “ask whatever you will” without the condition, it would make God a Super Santa. It was this notion that the crowd of 5,000 had in mind when they tried to make Jesus King Santa (John 6:15). Jesus proceeded to disabuse them of this idea with a mindboggling explication of the meaning of discipleship (John 6:53). Such an explication of prayer as ministry ought to disabuse us of the tendency to make prayer self-serving. Prayer is the Christian’s secret weapon for carrying on God’s warfare in the world of men and evil forces.
To put the two keys together, the all-encompassing prayer promises are related to working out the will of God in the warfare of Christian discipleship. Jesus calls the latter “bearing fruit.”
A demonstration of this occurred during the last supper; in fact, it followed hard upon the first service of Holy Communion. This was a great spiritual experience, a mountain top. Love among Jesus and the Eleven was at a high point.
Judging by what follows, one wonders whether perhaps Jesus unexpectedly shivered as if a frigid northern blast of wind suddenly shook Him at the disciple’s partial understanding. For the Last Supper was much more than a “mountain top” experience; in fact it was a battlefield and the war cry had been sounded.
When lightning strikes the earth, the ground acts as a conductor. If one is outdoors and his body begins to tingle and his hair stand on it, it may mean that lightning is about to strike. At the Last Supper Jesus sensed that Satan was about to strike, and his target would be Simon Peter. Jesus had been speaking about their faithfulness to Himself during His trials. He spoke of their appointed place in the Kingdom; it would be a position of honor, yes, but of great responsibility. Then Jesus sent a shock wave through the gathering: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).
Several lessons can be learned from this, but at least two are pertinent to our theme. Jesus’ ministry was to call out a people for God, bearing fruit unto the Father. Peter was a part of that; so are we. We have entered into Jesus’ labors, and it is ours now to bear fruit, to reproduce believers. That is the first lesson. The second is related to Jesus’ estimate of the power of prayer. This estimate gave rise to the promises He has given us to answer all our prayers with a yes. He expected His prayer for Peter to be answered. He said, “I have prayed for you.” Then He says, “when you have turned again.” Our Lord meant “Peter, Satan wants you, but I have prayed for you. You will fall, but you will return. When you do return, strengthen the others.”
Jesus has prayed. He knows His prayer will be answered because He believes that whatever He asks the Father, He will receive. The prayer will be answered because God sent Him to bear fruit. Peter is part of that fruit. Therefore, it was the will of God to answer that prayer. God would respond to that prayer and cooperate in the accomplishment of it.
Remember Wesley’s belief that God does nothing but in answer to prayer? This is a matter of divine-human cooperation.
But what about discerning the will of God? God will say, “yes,” to all our requests which are within His will – the promises say as much. The reason we say that God sometimes says, “no,” is because we have prayed for something that is outside His will. In such instances, He does not say, “no”; he ignores it.
In the midst of this writing, I took a break and went off to hear a well-known speaker who said, “Despite what we hear a great deal these days, all of our prayers are NOT answered.” I pricked up my ears. He continued, “We can be praying for the healing of 10 people in a row; nine of them will be healed, and then suddenly the tenth one isn’t.
I will concede that. But does this mean “No,” or is it because we did not pray first for guidance on how to pray in that particular instance?
The most important thing to remember in seeking God’s will is that surrender is the secret, a complete selling out to the will of God. “I come to do thy will, 0 God” (Hebrews 10:7) was spoken of Jesus. It must be the mind-set of the disciple as well. When your will and God’s will are at cross purposes, how can you expect to receive answers to your prayers? Therefore, be very sure that you want only His will.
One of my favorite hymns expresses the idea of surrender to the will of God. Jane Borthwick translated the words of Benjamin Schmolck:
My Jesus, as Thou wilt!
0 may Thy will be mine!
Into Thy hand of love
I would my all resign.
Through sorrow or through joy,
Conduct me as Thine own,
And help me still to say,
“My Lord, Thy will be done.”
…………………………………………..
My Jesus, as Thou wilt!
All shall be well for me;
Each changing future scene
I gladly trust with Thee.
A number of years ago I was struck by the significance of the bond-servant idea in the Scripture. In the lsraelitesh economy, every 50th year was to be a year of jubilee during which all lands that had been sold or forfeited were returned to their original owners. All slaves were set free (Leviticus 25:13,14; 27:16-24; 25:39-54). If a slave chose to remain with the family to which he had been indentured, he was taken to a doorpost where an awl was used to pierce his earlobe. The resulting wound showed to all the world that here was a man or a woman who was a slave by choice, a love slave.
This concept appears frequently in the New Testament letters of Paul, where he refers to himself as a bond-servant of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1). James 1:1 and Peter 1:1 also make use of the concept of voluntary servanthood to the Savior.
What right have I to say where should serve?
I may not choose my Galilee.
To clutch the Cross is my sole right.
Am I not Thine to send and Thine to nerve?
Thou art my Shield ‘mid Lystra’s flying rocks;
Thou art my Freedom in Philippi’s stocks.
I am Thy Levite; Thou art my Portion
‘Tis Prize enough. What matters else,
If I am Thine and Thou art mine? “Hands off” is my foremost obligation.
Here, Lord, is the lobe; quickly fetch Thine awl.
The disciple’s badge is the chain and ball.
The point of all this is that surrender to the will of God as an attitude, as an on-going stance, as a way of Iife, is the very first and fundamental requirement for effective praying. We have been promised the mind of Christ (Matthew 11:29; John 13:15; Ephesians 4:20; Philippians 2:5; I Peter 2:21; I John 2:6,20,27). Yet we know from experience, and from common sense, that Christ’s thoughts cannot come into our minds when we have already decided any given matter for ourselves … when we have concluded what truth is and what is right and good.
Suppose Jesus, like the Ford Motor Co., “has a better idea.” Openness to the mind of Christ (another term for the will of God), precedes effective praying. Paul says, ” … we do not know how we ought to pray …” (Romans 8:26, Good News for Modern Man). Yet he says to the Corinthians that while “the natural [or unspiritual] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit,” “we have the mind of Christ” I Corinthians 2: 14, 16). Paul is not contradicting himself. Rather, he is saying that the Holy Spirit takes over where human understanding, even enlightened (inSpirited, if you please) human understanding, falls short. On the other hand, he says, “we have the mind of Christ,” which Moffatt translates as “our thoughts are Christ’s thoughts.”
In order to have “Christ’s thoughts,” we need to be certain that we have no thoughts of our own. This is not a plea for empty-headedness; heaven knows there are enough kooks running around in the name of Jesus Christ! It is a plea, however, for such absolute sold-outness to the will of God that we are open to the quiet suggestions of the Holy Spirit, remembering that God seldom comes to us as a clap of thunder, as Elijah found out. As intercessors before our Father on behalf of a sinning world or needy brothers and sisters in the faith, we often have our own notions of what God needs to do. We tend not only to diagnose but also to prescribe. That is not our function. It is ours to listen carefully to the voice of the Spirit, and to join our wills with His on behalf of others. These are the kind of prayers to which Jesus does not expect God to say, “no.” It is to this kind of praying that Jesus calls us. It is to this which He hopes to challenge us when He says, “ask anything you will, and it shall be done.”
The fact is, of course, that God does have a means by which He accomplishes His purposes. It is directly related to our ascertaining the will of God. The Holy Spirit, who is controlling the surrendered Christian, has an entrance into the thinking processes of that person. When Paul writes to the Galatians, ” … let the Spirit direct your lives, and you will not satisfy the desires of the human nature” (5:16, TEV), he is implying that following the Holy Spirit means that we are satisfying the “desires” of our higher nature, so to speak, and that “higher nature” is harmonious with the desires that God desires for us. For example, what do you think God had in mind for Solomon when He spoke to him in a dream at Gibeon and said, “Ask what I shall give thee” (I Kings 3:5)? He would have deplored the king’s asking for long life or riches or vengeance upon his enemies (vs. 12), but he was pleased that Solomon asked for “an understanding heart” (vs. 9).
Why was God pleased? Because it was exactly what God wanted Solomon to want. The text does not say so, but the context bears it out. Besides, Solomon who loved God (vs. 3), had by that love and obedience become what Peter was later to call a sharer in the divine nature (II Peter 1 :4). This made him privy to the mind of God. There is nothing particularly mysterious about the way God leads us. Nor wondrously dramatic most of the time. I suspect the two most common ways that God reveals His will to us is by the circum- stances and by our own sanctified desires. Check it out in the lives of Jesus and Paul. Certainly Elijah learned pretty effectively that God did not come to him so much in the dramatic as in the natural events (I Kings 19:11). Anyone except the hopelessly obtuse would be able to discern God in a burning bush that spoke as in Moses’ experience (though he might question his sanity after such a singular I not to say bizarre, experience). But it takes effort and will and time to discover and comprehend “the still small voice.”
I have suggested that God Himself moved Soloman to desire and therefore to ask for “an understanding heart.” Psalm 37:4 conveys the idea that God gives us His implanted desires of our hearts. Psalm 145: 19 declares, “He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him.” Join that with the astounding promise to those who ask, seek, and knock (Matthew 7:7; Luke 11 :9f), and we have then come back full circle.
Thus I will say again that God intends to say, “yes,” to our prayers; that “no” is not an answer but rather a non-answer to a non-prayer. In Him, everything is yes. ” … Jesus is God’s ‘yes'” (II Corinthians 1:19, TEV). We are truly praying, as God regards prayer, only when He can say “yes” to it. If you get what appears to be a “no,” something is wrong with your prayer, not with God.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves,” Shakespeare has one say in another context.
The seriousness of praying outside the will of God is far more profound than simply a failure to receive what we want from God. We may be even at cross-purposes with what God wants to do.
The Jerusalem of Jeremiah’s day was a city sated with wickedness and rebellion against God who had determined to punish its people by its destruction and their slavery in exile. Would you not suppose that a good spiritual man like Jeremiah, famed for his tears of lamentation, would be beside himself with anguish and storm the gates of heaven on behalf of his countrymen? Abraham had done as much for Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:23). But Jeremiah discerned the wilI of God: “therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me; for I will not hear thee” (Jeremiah 7:16). Suppose he had prayed for their protection …
Paul intended that his converts would arrive at the place in their spiritual development where they would be filled “with the knowledge of his will, with all the wisdom and understanding that his Spirit gives” (Colossians 1:9, TEV, italics mine). Could it be clearer? Could God’s intention for us be put in plainer language? The apostle’s admonition to the Ephesian Christians, while a call to sober behavior, could as well speak to their prayer habits when he writes, ” … try to find out what the Lord wants you to do” (5:17, TEV), or, in this instance, how the Lord wants you to pray. Thus, Paul, understanding that God’s ultimate purpose for the Jews is their salvation, as contrasted with God’s immediate purpose for a particular generation of Jews in Jeremiah’s day, prays for their salvation (Romans 10:1).
But it was not always so with him. There can be no doubt that Paul, before his conversion, probably demanded in his prayers that God destroy the Christians. He understood later that this was to pray outside the will of God and thus unanswerable. For his pains, he had a nonanswer. Later he was to explain to the Christians at Rome that ascertaining the will of God in all of life, which surely included prayer, is possible only to those whose lives have been transformed inwardly “by a complete change of mind” (might he have had his own conversion experience in mind?), a change so profound and so far-reaching in its effect that one could therefore “be able to know the will of God …. ” (12:2, TEV, italics mine).
But how can you know? It is simple yet difficult. The secret, as I have been saying, is surrender. You know whether you want to do God’s will. You know whether there are unrelinquished areas in your life. That does not mean that as you continue walking in obedience, God will not indicate to you unsurrendered areas which you will then quickly surrender. A daily and hourly surrender is consequent upon, and complementary to, an act of surrender which you have already made as a Iifetime intention. Such surrender opens the mind to the gentle persuasions of the Holy Spirit. Ask Him to show you His will. Ask Him to shut out all other voices, the suggestions of the Evil One as well as “the murmur of self-will ,” as Whittier has it. This can be discerned by testing the suggestions with the Word of God, which is never self-contradictory. God is consistent.
Then there is the inner witness. This is subjective and therefore potentially open to error, but it is nonetheless one of the checks. I find that when I am asked, for example, to pray for one’s healing that I must first check it out with the Holy Spirit. I ask Him whether I should pray for healing in this instance.
I believe that healing is God’s will, that He always desires good health and wholeness for us. But under certain circumstances, His hands are tied and it cannot be done. It may be that the person does not really desire to be well; Jesus asked the man at the pool of Bethesda, “do you want to get well?” (John 5:6, TEV). Everyone does not want to be well, you know. Sickness can be a sure means of getting attention and one’s own way. Or perhaps the community of faith is a community of little faith, such as were the disciples to whom a distraught father took his son (Mark 9:18). Again, it may be that believers are not yet up to the task; Agnes Sanford somewhere suggests that it is useless to pray for world-wide peace when we cannot even pray with effect for the common cold!
Be that as it may, I discover as best I can what God desires to do. I have learned that here comes a sense of joy, of lightness of spirit, when I am to pray. Conversely, I sense a spirit of heaviness when I am not to pray. There is then no joy in praying. Let me give an example. I learned from Agnes Sanford the principle of envisioning, of seeing with the eye of my spirit what I am asking God to do. That is, I create a picture in my mind of the sick one well, and my prayers, being creative forces that cooperate with God who is Himself the Creator (do not forget), move God to give me the desire of my heart (Psalm 37:4).
Once I had a friend with cancer. He had only two months to live when he suddenly desired to go on a trip to see some people who were very important to him. By th is time we had known for about six months that he had cancer, yet I could never really pray for his healing. Whenever I would attempt to do so, I felt a heaviness of spirit. Perhaps it was too much for me to take on; I do not know. However, I do know that I could never, not one time, make a picture of him in my mind. But when he decided that he wanted to go off on an arduous journey to say goodbye to some dear friends, suddenly a picture came with ease to me. It was ridiculous in its way; I saw him with pink cheeks on a tractor. He suddenly improved enough to make the trip. But as soon as he was home, my picture left me, he worsened, and died within six weeks.
What, then, are we to conclude? We have the promise that God desires to answer our prayers. We have evidence that God’s will can be known by us. We have the responsibility of ascertaining the latter in order to use the leverage of the former. It is then that we are never to let go till God has blessed us with the answer. This is the sense of Jesus’ stories of the friend at midnight and the vexatious widow (Luke 11:5; 18:1). God will, Jesus believed, “give you everything you need because you are not ashamed to keep on asking” (11:8, TEV). Persistence is important, not to overcome God’s reluctance, but to purify our desires. Besides, the power of the Enemy is profound beyond telling. But greater is He who inspires our prayers than he who attempts to scramble the signals. So “pray on every occasion, as the Spirit leads” (Ephesians 6:18.TEV).
If there is one characteristic that is demanded of those who would discover God’s will, it is patience. He does not move with the speed of light, even though we would like to have Him do so. Once I knew a man who never hurried, regardless of the gravity of the situation. I soon discovered that he had no need to hurry because he always left on time. It is so with God. Knowing the end from the beginning, He has no cause for rush. But “He never comes too late,” and He will reveal His will to you in time enough for you to do what you must. It becomes a matter of your setting your watch by His and not the reverse. How else can he train you in the life of faith? He wants you to learn that He is utterly reliable and that He intends and hopes to say, “yes,” to all your requests.
