Limitations of the Right of Prayer
One of the puzzling questions in the minds of many Bible-believers grows out of the apparent positiveness of the Bible in promises of answer to prayer, and of the seeming uncertainty of answers to prayer in the experiences of those who pray.
On the one hand, the invitations and the promises seem to them explicit and unqualified: “Call unto me, and I will answer thee;” “Ask, and it shall be given you;” “All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive;” “If ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name;” “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” On the other hand, they know of many calls on God which have not been anj Prayer
swered, and of prayers innumerable which have received no response. And because of this lack of fulfilment of Bible promises, they stand bewildered.
It does not meet the case to say that God often answers prayer by giving something that is as good as that which was asked for, but which is very different from the thing requested. The promise appears to leave the choice to the petitioner; therefore, to deny him his choice does not seem consistent with either the letter or the spirit of the promise.
As the promises are made to plain people, it is fair to suppose that the meaning of those promises is on the face of them; and since their form is apparently an unqualified one, the expectation of an explicit and specific answer to them would seem to be fully justified. In view, therefore, of the apparent irreconcilableness of the specific promises of answer to prayer, and the obvious facts concerning prayer and its answers, many a child of God is Me ER ee ips pet nee s
Limitations of the Right of Prayer
wondering how this state of things is to be accounted for. “I can give no light on the subject,” said a distinguished theologian, who was asked his opinion on this vexed subject. “The unanswered prayers of Christians are a mystery to me.” And he spoke for many Christians, so far.
Yet there is no sound reason for perplexity on this point. There is, in fact, no such discrepancy between the answers to prayer promised and the answers to prayer received, in the experiences of Christians, as there might seem to be by the ordinary mode of stating the case. Both the invitations and the promises to prayer which seem so unqualified have in their very nature important qualifications which a plain man can recognize and appreciate; and within the limits of these qualifications the answers to prayer are assured to all who pray accordingly. The trouble with those who are bewildered on this point is, that they fail to bear in mind the essential limitations of the right of
a 33
Prayer
prayer, which they will have to admit are to be found in it. And so far the trouble is of their own making.
Does any one believe that the promises of an answer to prayer are to the open enemies of God, assuring to those enemies the power to overthrow God’s rule, or to thwart his purposes of love to his creatures? If not, then here is an essential limitation to the right of prayer, to begin with, — a limitation which a plain man can perceive and comprehend. The promises which in the Bible are made to “you” are clearly made to God’s children as his children, or to the disciples of Jesus as his disciples. They are not to everybody, regardless of the attitude of the petitioner toward God.
Even to a disciple of Jesus, can it be supposed that the promise is an unqualified one of harm to any one against whom he may pray, or of help to him in carrying out his intentions of evil? If not, then here is another limitation to the right of Limitations of the Right of Prayer
prayer, even though the invitation to pray should seem an unqualified one as it stands in the Bible text. The right of prayer is ‘obviously limited to those who turn toward God as his creatures, and to the asking of such gifts as God is understood to be willing to bestow. No one has a right, under any Bible invitation, to pray for that which is contrary to the loving nature and to the known will of God. A plain man can perceive this as clearly as a theologian. Any promise from one person to another, or any compact bc*-veen two persons, is to be interpreted in the light of the well-understood relations of those persons to one another. Take an illustration, for example, from army service in time of active warfare. A corps commander directs a colonel to take his regiment to a critical position and perform a specified duty. As he sends him out, he says, “Call on me for whatever you want, and you shall have it promptly.” Hardly is the colonel at his post before he sends back a request to 35
Prayer -
the commander for the suspension of all hostilities along the entire line — even, if necessary, at the cost of surrender — so that the new movement can be made without any danger to the life and limb of those engaged in it. The request is refused. “But didn’t you promise to give me whatever I wanted, if I would ask for it?” says the colonel. “Certainly I did,” replies the commander; “but that promise had reference to you as a Soldier, under authority, in time of warfare. You knew that you were liable to death on the battle-line. You knew that I must keep up active movements elsewhere along the front.” “Well, then,” says the colonel, “I don’t see that your promise amounts to anything, if you are to grant only such requests as you think it wise to grant. I thought the promise was unqualified; but it seems now to be so limited that all there is to it is a privilege of asking without knowing whether an answer will be given or not.”
“The promise was unqualified within 36
Limitations of the Right of Prayer
its well-understood limits, as between a commander and his subordinate,” is the commander’s answer. “If you had asked for forty rounds of ammunition per man, or for three days’ rations, or for a supply of shovels and picks, or for a covering party on either flank, or for an explanation of your orders on a doubtful point, you might have been as sure of an answer — as of the sun in the heavens. The promise was unqualified just so far as you had any real needs; just so far as you might properly want because of your need; just so far as you had a right to make a requisition in the line of your designated service. So far the answer was assured you.
“And even beyond all that, you might have asked for a cessation of hostilities, in order that you might work to better advantage; but as you could not know if that were practicable and wise from the commander’s standpoint of knowledge, you would have to leave it to him to say whether or not he would accede to that Prayer
request. Within your own sphere of need and knowledge the promise of help had no limits. Outside of that it must, in the very nature of things, be conditioned on the commander’s judgment.”
In such a case as this, would the difficulty be in the wording of the commander’s promise, or in the unreasonableness of the subordinate’s rendering of it? The promise was all that it ought to have been, and no more. Its scope and its limitations were plain enough to any fair-minded hearer. As in soldier life, so in the life of the disciple of Jesus.
The scope and the limitations of one’s personal responsibility in God’s service, define the extent to which one can confidently claim an answer to prayers for help in that sphere. Where God has given one of his children a specific mission and duty, God is pledged to impart power for the performance of that duty and mission. As children of God and as members of Christ we are workers together with God Limitations of the Rigbt of Prayer
for the establishing of Christ’s kingdom on earth, and we should pray and strive to that end, believing that our efforts and prayers are a force in God’s plan for bringing it to pass.
Yet we cannot claim an answer to our specific request for the evangelization of a dark continent, or for the turning to Christ of a soul for which we have no direct personal responsibility, as we can in a case where God has committed a soul to our personal care. When God has given to us a child, a pupil, a servant, or any other needy soul, that rests on our heart as a burden that we cannot upbear alone, we can bring that burden to him in undoubting faith, saying, “Here am I, Lord, and the one whom thou hast given me; if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” The answer to such a prayer will surely be, “If thou canst believe [for this child as for thyself]; all things are possible to him that believeth.”
God has already disclosed to us his will Prayer
on many a point where we have the duty and the privilege of special prayer. God has made it clear that he does not want us to yield to temptation; hence, when we are tempted, we can ask, nothing doubting, for strength of resistance. God has promised wisdom in any emergency to those who need and seek it, if they will come to him with unwavering faith. In every such case we can ask accordingly, without limitation or reservation.
So, again, in all our requests for help in doing any duty to which God has assigned us, or for the power to be faithful to any trust committed to our charge, or for the ability to represent God aright in any sphere where we stand as his representatives. To the extent of our knowledge of God’s will for us, or for those over whom he sets us, or to whom he sends us, we have a right to pray without qualification, and to expect in all confidence a specific answer to our prayers.
On the other hand, God has not made Limitations of the Rigbt of Prayer
it clear to us that it is best for us or for our dear ones to retain unimpaired health, or to be spared from death, or to have success in business, or to win honors, or to retain a friendship, or to be shielded from disgrace, or to labor on in our present field of endeavor, or to receive any one of a hundred longings of our heart in the direction of things that are not explicitly forbidden of God, yet that are not made known to us by him as sure to be for the welfare of all who desire them. For no one of these things have we a right to pray without qualification. Not knowing whether their bestowal would be a benefit or an injury, it is our duty to leave it to God to give or to withhold as he sees to be best.
In the very nature of things, it is clear that no child of God has a right to pray for that which he has no right to desire; and that he has no right to desire that which is not for his good, or for the good of those for whom he prays. Hence it is clear that a child of God has a right
4!
Prayer
to pray unqualifiedly only for those things which he knows to be for good; while for those things which he thinks may be for good, but about which he cannot be sure, he is privileged to pray with the qualification in his prayer that God will grant them if they are for good, and withhold them if they are not so.
Prayer is a privilege, and prayer is a power, But the right of prayer has its. essential limitations; and he who asks for that which he has no right to ask, or who asks unqualifiedly for that which he ought to leave it with God to bestow or to withhold, fails to bring his prayer within the scope of these essential limitations; and there is no promise of an answer to his prayer. God’s promises of answer to prayer never fail of their fulfilling; but man’s hope of answers to his prayer beyond the promises of God are always liable to disappointment.