The Ethics of Prayer

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Gen. xviii: 25 “Men ought always to pray.” Luke xviii: 1

THESE TWO SCRIPTURES bring us into the realm of ethics which has to do with the Tightness and oughtness of things. When a man is ethically sound, he is what he ought to be. Abraham with holy boldness applies the ethical test to God himself. He

rightness ^ees tnat woul<y De wrong to destroy the and righteous with the wicked, and he is equally

oughtness certain that it would be right to spare the many wicked for the sake of a few righteous. His horror at the thought of God’s doing wrong and his approval of his doing right make him ask the question, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” This gives us the divine side of prayer from an ethical point of view. Is it right for God to answer prayer? Does the “Judge of all the earth” do right when he gives audience to such petitioners as Abraham pleading for Sodom?

The second text gives us the human side of prayer from an ethical point of view. It answers the question: Who is ethically right, the infidel who boasts that he never bows the knee, or the christian who prays? Is a prayerful life a moral life and, conversely, is the prayerless life immoral? In other words, can one who refuses to pray be ethically sound in his relations to God and man? Are ethical Associations that divorce morals from religion moral or immoral institutions? Jesus answers these questions: “Men OUGHT always to pray.” Prayer belongs to the realm of oughtness. It is an ethical proceeding, so that the institution which inveighs against praying is unethical in character. It would prevent God from doing right in answering prayer, ami man from doing right in praying. The philosophy of this is found in the teaching of Jesus Christ.

We will look first at the Divine side:

First, God is King, and it is right for a king to hear

and answer the petitions of his subjects. Prayerlessness

ignores, if it does not despise, the ruler of the universe

by refusing to consult or petition him about any

GOD AS j rrn5 i i”

KING need or grievance. lne prayerless man has placed himself outside the pale of civilization by denying to the ruler the right to hear the petitions oi his subjects. If he admits that there is a God, while at the same time he denies that he hears prayer, he has brought his God down to the position of a petty savage chieftan who lives for his own pleasure “without regard for the welfare of his subjects. Prayerlessness is, therefore, a species of barbarism.

Second. God is Judge, and it is right for a judge to hear and answer the prayer of a plaintiff. In the parable the widow has a grievance against her adversary, and pleads that he shall be punished. Though JUDGE the judge is unjust, his judicial position compels him to hear her plea, and her importunity constrains him to grant her petition. Now if an unjust judge is compelled by official position to hear the plea, and constrained by the importunity of the plaintiff to grant it, how much more will a just God respect his judicial position and answer without demanding importunity, u I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.” For men to reject God as the arbiter of their affairs and wreak vengeance upon their own adversaries is an index to the spirit of barbarism, where there is no recognition of judicial power, but every man is his own judge and jury. Prayerlessness is ethical anarchy. It ignores or despises the “Judge of all the earth” by refusing to consult or petition Him about grievances.

The parable of the Pharisee and the publican, which follows without break the parable of the unjust judge and the widow, carries with it the idea of God’s judicial position. It is really a parable of the just judge who has ip -slti introduced to you by contrast with the unjust judge, A we have a different type of petitioner. The widow’s plea was for herself against her adversary. The Pharisee’s plea is also for himself, though he recognizes no adversary. He tells God all the good things he can think of about himself and makes self the plea for self. He has come into the court not for defense but for parade, a most unseemly proceeding. He does not seek for a verdict of acquittal, because he has pronounced upon himself a verdict of approval. He simply addresses the Judge and then pays attention only to himself, going out as he came in inflated with his own importance. He has simply patronized the court, and evidently feels that the Judge ought to be complimented by the appearance of such a man before him. He stands as the type of those whose reverence for themselves displaces reverence for God.

The publican, on the other hand, comes unto God with becoming spirit and demeanor. His bowed head speaks his humility. He is unworthy to look up to heaven, much less to enter. Like the widow he would make a plea against his adversary — his own sinful self. He strikes upon his breast to indicate the home of that adversary — his own sinful heart. uGod be merciful to me a sinner” is more than a confession of guilt. A more literal translation is, “Be a propitiation, make atonement for me a sinner.” On this prayer is the blood of Christ. In it you can hear the heartbreaking of Calvary, as he who knew no sin is made sin for us. It is really a plea for mercy on the ground of Christ’s merit.

The Pharisee uses the name of God once and the assertive pronoun “I “five times. He would like to make a stream of mercy flow upward to God by the ,,, pressure of his own egotism. The publican links and the name of God with the dependent pronoun ME’’ u me,” and puts himself in the stream of mercy that flows downward from God through Jesus Christ on the cross. God shows his love, power and benevolence in a thousand ways, but I know of only one channel through which mercy, which means favor for guilty tinners, flows, and that channel is the cross of Christ.

It would not be right for a judge to forgive a man win has been proven guilty unless satisfaction to justice dk. be made. Without this satisfaction God could not be mercy U Just and the justifier of him that believeth.” may be Mercy without satisfaction to justice is a species injustice 0f injustice. It may be based upon kindness, but that does not rid it of injustice. The guilty one has not been treated as he deserves, but if his guilt has been atoned for by another, then mercy is prompted by justice to forgive. u If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive,” To punish sin after it has been atoned for would be an injustice to the atoner and unkindness to the one who has confessed the sin and accepted atonement. God righteously demands that guilt shall be punished, but Jesus Christ died the “Just for the unjust. “u He bore our sins in his body on the tree.” “With his stripes we are healed.”

To say that confession of sin is atonement enough ignores the righteousness of God. Confessing judgment in court is not equivalent to satisfying judgment. Contudgment f essing the debt does not pay the debt; it and rather enforces the obligation to pay it. But

debt if the judgment has been confessed and the

demands of the law satisfied by another, it would be injustice to enforce the judgment a second time. If the debt has been confessed by the debtor, and justly paid by another, it would be flagrant injustice to demand a second payment. It is well known that Henry Clay, the orator and statesman, became involved in debt until he was bankrupt. A wealthy political friend offered to pay Mr. Clay’s debts, but the proud Southerner refused to accept the offer. However, the pressure of the creditors and the injury it did his reputation led him, when the offer was made a second time, to accept the payment with thanks. The friend, prompted by love, had a right to pay Mr. Clay’s debts, and Mr. Clay had a right to accept the payment. The creditors could noc, of course, collect a second time. Jesus taught us to pray “forgive us our debts.” Sin is a debt to justice and must be paid by someone. The bankrupt sinner confesses the debt and is willing that Jesus Christ by his death on Calvary should pay it. It is right for God to accept the payment and cancel the indebtedness. Of course the publican went down to his house justified. He had been dealing with a just judge, and when he pleaded for mercy through the propitiation of Christ, a clear receipt was given him at once.

It would have been wrong to forgive the Pharisee,

because, in the first place, he confessed no debt, and, in

the second place, he attempted to bring the judge into

debt to him. His so-called prayer was

PHARISEEISM more of a charge that Qod was under obli.

gation to him because he had been such an ideal citizen. To justify a man like that would be to justify self -inflated vanity and the spirit that despises others. To take such a man to heaven would be to fill the Father’s house with sensorious critics rather than obedient children. Such a man, spreading the peacock feathers of his own vain assumptions, would be an incongruous figure among those who are singing, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain.” He could not join in the song, because the only hymn he knows is, u Worthy is myself.” This Pharisee stands at the head of the class who to-day exalt man and talk of the divinity of human nature, while they reject the deity of Christ. When they come before God in prayer, it is to tell him how great man is, as seen in the discoveries he has made, the books he has written and the civilization he has produced. They preach sermons on the love of God in which they declare that God can love only the worthy, and they infer from this that they are very worthy, because God loves them. ’ 6 Salvation by

character” is their watchword. They do not a god*G come to the judge for acquittal, but rather to

inform him that, so far as they are concerned, he may as well adjourn court, for they are not on trial. All the charges of original sin that come to them through their forefathers, or of actual sin which they are alleged to have committed, are false. Sin does not deserve condemnation, and there is, therefore, no need of atonement. For God to pronounce a sinner guilty and worthy of death would be to deal harshly. They, dear, soft, tender souls that they are, would not treat a sinner in that way, and

pi course God would not do what they would not do. Their God they have created in their own image, and he must accept their confession and their standard of right and wrong. What appears harsh to them God must not do; and, if he does it, they will reject him as their God. In other words, they have pushed God off His throne of judgment and seated themselves on it. Instead of allowing him to try them, they are boldly trying Him. And they have decided that He has no right to be judge. They will permit him to be only a very indulgent father. They assert that the vilest of earth are his children, forgetting the libel which this implies, since children are expected to be like their father. The king who rules in righteousness is made a weakling in dealing with conspirators and traitors. His decrees have no weight, because he is too gentle to enforce them. His laws of nature are acknowledged to be inflexible, but in the moral realm he must not be judicial.

It would, of course, not be right for God to forgive when His right to condemn is denied. How can He forgive when the authority of His throne has been impeached and no forgiveness is asked, because no guilt washing s acknowledged? The Pharisee goes out of vs. court unforgiven because he did not ask it.

^j/?iiNG Unjustified before God because he had justified himself independently of God. The only God he recognizes is one to be thanked and informed as to his own merit. Satisfied with whitewashing himself, he did not ask God to wash him white.

But it is right for God to answer prayer for forgiveness when his authority to condemn is accepted and the guilt of sin has been confessed. And this authority is based not upon sentimentality or even mercy, but upon justice, for the guilt of the petitioner has been borne by another, not compelled to do so by the sentence of the court, but prompted by His own heart of love. And the Tightness of such a procedure becomes apparent when we learn that the judge himself has had part in making the atonement by which the guilty may be not only acquitted but declared righteous. Judges have been known to pass sentence upon criminals and then set them free by paying the fine which the law imposed, and they have been applauded for it. They have the right to do so, if they wish.

Though there is much in the atonement which we cannot understand, and all illustrations of it are imperfect, yet from this it is plain that it is ethically right for God to answer prayer for remission of sins when sins have been confessed in such a way as to acknowledge His authority; and when such confession is made with a prayer for forgiveness on the ground of Christ’s atonement, it would be wrong for Him to refuse to answer. Such a refusal would be injustice to Christ.

Third. God is Friend, and it is right for one friend to hear and answer the appeal of another friend. In Luke 1 1: 5-8 we have these words of Jesus: u Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him friend a midnight, and say unto him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, for a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.’” This takes us a step beyond the parable of judgment. If we have confessed sin and received forgiveness, we have become friends of God. Abraham approached God as friend comes to friend. A friend on a journey applies to a friend for bread, and the friend, not having it, goes to his friend and requests the loan of three loaves. Now is it right for one friend to apply to another for the supply of urgent need? Is it right also for one friend to make friendship the basis of appeal for another friend in need? Is intercessory prayer ethical? The friend at first refuses to rise at the inconvenient hour of midnight, and gives as his reason that his children would be disturbed. His consideration for others makes him hesitate; as if to say, Why should one person be deprived of sleep, which body and mind need, in order that another should be supplied with bread? Can your friend not wait until morning, so that in helping him I will not disturb others?

Here is a conflict of friendship with love. The father’s love for his children makes him seek their comfort, while the friendship of the man for his traveling friend causes him to be importunate in his entreaty. The

Rev. A. C. DixoiJs Sermons

importunity of friendship prevails against the desire of love to give rest and comfort. The children in bed arc not praying to be allowed to sleep. Their helplessness is their only plea. But here is a friend i*v friendship need with a friend to plead his case, and thj

inconvenience, the out-of-seasonness of thfc, hour, suggests the urgency of the need. God cares foi His children, though they do not ask Him; but, when a friend of His comes with a prayer for others in need, he is willing to put His children to inconvenience that this, prayer may be answered and the need supplied.

Is there anything wrong in all this? Is it not right for a father to be tenderly solicitous about the comfort of his children? And then is it not right that the father should disregard the mere comfort of his children that he may answer the prayer of an importunate friend as he pleads for his friend in need? The whole matter reduces itself to this: Is friendship ethical? The reply of every noble nature is that it would be wrong for friend to refuse to help friend in need. Indeed, true friendship says that it would be wrong for a man to refuse to make known his need to one whom he knows to be his friend.

The one thing in this parable which appears at first glance to be harsh is the refusal of the friend to rise at midnight and give the bread, lest he should disturb his children. And yet that apparent harshness goes to confirm the fact that we believe it is right for one friend to answer another friend’s prayer, even though it puts him to inconvenience. Will the opponents of prayer deprive God of the right and privilege of responding to friendship, that he may supply the needs of His friends who call upon Him? Friendship justly claims the right to help friendship. And to deny to God what we concede to man is unreasonable.

Fourth. God is Father, and it is right for a fathei to hear and answer the cry of His child. If you confess the fatherhood of God and then deny that h father s influenced by the cry of His child, you would degrade him below the level of the beasts of the field and the birds of the air, for they heed the cry of their young in distress and hasten to their relief. So right vit for the Father to hear the prayer of His child, that the universal consciousness of mankind gives Him no option. He must hear it, or be branded as infamously heartless. Even pagan ethics demand it. For a parent to be insensible to the cry of his child is a sign of insanity, mental or moral.

The father has, of course, the right to use his superior wisdom in deciding whether or not the child’s request shall be granted. He has no right to give poison to his

child because he cries for the beautiful package that contains it, but he is compelled to answer the cry by uyes” or “no.” He has no right to be insensible or indifferent to it. I heard Mr. Moody say that he liked to have his children ask him for everything they wanted. They did not always receive it, because he might not be able to give it, or he might think it best to withhold, but he was pleased with their asking. It showed loving confidence. That is a true father’s heart; and God is a true father. He tells us in all things with thanksgiving to make our requests known unto Him. And if we ask anything according to His will He will grant it. The child has no right to command the father except by his obedience. In nature we can command God only by obeying Him. If we obey the laws of electricity or steam, we may command them and they will do our bidding. But if we refuse to obey their laws, they refuse to obey us. And so when God promises upon certain conditions, and we fulfill the conditions, His promise becomes our command, and we may lovingly insist upon its fulfillment.

Dr. Weston has said that prayer is not ordering God in an arbitrary way to do our bidding. If such were the case, he would not want to live in this world, for millions of people, many of whom are young and inexperienced, would be ordering God to do things every day, and in doing them he would give us u a mess of a world” to live in. But real prayer is asking and receiving from Uod grace to do what He wishes us to do. It is the child making known his desires to a father whose wisdom and love he can trust to do what is best, all of whose resources are at the disposal of the child within the circle

Rev. A. C. Dixoiis Sermons

of that loving will. For a father to give to a child what every whim of fancy or selfish desire might prompt him to ask, would be to injure the child and make the ordei

of home give place to the anarchy of discorddefined an*- demands. It is right, therefore, for God

as a ruler to give attention to the petitions of His subjects; as a Judge to hear the plea of a plaintiff; as a Friend to grant the request of His friend; and as a Father to give to His child all he asks within the limitations of His superior wisdom. So inuch for the Divine side of prayer.

Let us 7iow consider the human side:

Is it right for man to pray? The question has really been answered, for, if it is right for God to answer prayer, it is certainly right for us to pray.

The poor widow comes to the Judge to avenge her of her adversary. Would it be right for her to refuse to submit the case to the Judge, while she takes vengeance THE into her own hands? No, for u vengeance

plaintiffs is mine, saith the Lord.” Is it right for RIGHT christians to pray against people as this

woman prayed against her adversary? Yes, for the martyrs in heaven say in Rev. 6: 10, u How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? “The feeling which demands that injustice and cruelty should be punished is not alien to heaven. It is a righteous feeling. But we have no right to do the punishing. It is our right to bring the case to the u Judge of all the earth,” believing that he will do right. If you have been wronged by another, do not try to right the wrong by punishing your adversary. Tell God on him. Leave the matter in God’s hands. You need not be importunate in your plea for justice. God wrill avenge speedily.

The imprecatory Psalms bring before God the enemies of the Psalmist, who are also the enemies of God, and plead that justice be meted out to those who will not repent and accept mercy. The Psalmist leaves his foes in the hands of a just God, and every christian has the same privilege. This does not mean that he is to bear hatred and malice. Far from it. He may even forgive them for the crimes they have done him, while he prays that God’s righteous rule shall be vindicated. He is

jealous for God’s honor, while he knows prayerAT0RY that Just retribution is the best that God

can do for any one who refuses to repent. The widow was making the best possible prayer for her adversary, when she asked for his punishment. Better for him, in the long run, that he should smart for his wrong doing than that he should go on unrebuked and impenitent. Thus we truly pray for our enemies when we pray against their evil doings.

It is right for any man as a subject of the King of Kings to come before Him with petition. If he has a grievance, let him not tell it to others, and thus back-bite the ne King. The King invites him into His

subject’s presence, and will give audience even to his RIGHT complainings. If he is in need “Let him

come boldly unto the throne of grace, that he may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” The throne stands for royal rule. God is enthroned in grace and invites every subject in need to approach with boldness. And the promise is clear: u My God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” The resources of God’s throne are at the disposal of all His needy subjects. With such a King would it not be wrong to refuse to make petition? Would it not be disloyal? Prayerlessness is, indeed, disloyalty to the King of the Universe.

It is right that a friend should come to a friend in need. Coining in need is as much a proof of friendship as supplying need. After God has not only told us, but the prcen that he is our friend, is it not right for

frieto’S us to believe it and show our appreciation by Right telling Him of any need for myself or others?

Shall I hesitate to apply to Him even at midnight when I have opportunity of doing good and cannot secure the means for it without His aid? Shall David refuse to tell Absalom of his danger and grief? Shall Damon keep from Pythias any secret need which he knows his friend will be glad to supply? Mutuality is the test of friendship. If we are God’s friends we are ready to do His pleasure; and, if God is our friend, He is ready to Jo our pleasure in a way limited only by His superior wisdom. Prayerlessness is, therefore, a practical denial of the friendship of God.

It is right that children should come to their parents not only with words of gratitude and loving appreciation the but with any burden of need. It is the right of

child’s children to be guided and supplied by parental RIGHT wisdom and wealth. It would give a loving father great pain to learn that one of his children had decided never to ask him for anything else. It would be an aspersion upon his love and friendship. Prayerlessness, therefore, proves an unfilial state of mind.

As a subject petitioning a ruler, as a plaintiff pleading before a judge, as a friend making known his need to a friend, and as a child crying to a father, every christian has a right to pray. Not to pray is, there right fore, to live an unethical life in our relation*

to God and man, in that we are not doing what we ought to do. To pray in the name of Jesus Christ is to be indued with the power of the King of the Universe, to receive pardon from the u Judge of all the earth,” to be supplied with the bounty of the richest friend in the world, and to have the constant care of a loving father.

If you are not living that life of prayer, will you not come before God with the publican’s penitent petition, ‘wGod be merciful to me a sinner,” and you will go down from this house justified before God and with a ^ong of praise in your soul.