What makes something wrong?

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Two

I made a big assertion in my last article. I said that the non-religious people of the West basically see themselves as the final authority when it comes to deciding what is right and wrong. I see that as the primary reason for conflict between Christian moral standards and the norms of the non-religious West, because if people are their own final authority then they tend to define right and wrong in a way that suits their self-interest. They tend to define things as right that make them feel good. And therefore the Judeo-Christian moral code is seen as oppressive, because it limits their enjoyment of things they have given themselves the right to enjoy.

It’s a big assertion and it masks a lot of variety and complexity in the presentation of those beliefs. But don’t worry. I’m not going to leave that assertion ungrounded. I may not explore absolutely every angle of the issue, but I hope that I’ll talk about enough for you to see the direction of the argument and the logic of it.

I think having shown that both Christians and non-religious people have standards of right and wrong, the next place to go is some discussion of how we decide what makes something wrong. That’s obvious for the Christian, or the Jew or Muslim for that matter. Something is wrong if God the Creator, the King of the Universe, says it is wrong. For the non-religious person it’s more complex. Of course, the application of God’s law to different situations is not always clear-cut, and therefore there is legitimate debate amongst Christians. But at least we all agree that God is the final authority and we turn to His Word for guidance.

For the non-religious, the source and rationale for their morality varies from person to person. A couple of brief examples will hopefully suffice in the limited space we have.

Let’s ask an imaginary atheist why it would be wrong of me to kill them. What would they say? Because it is wrong to hurt other people, they might say. To which we would say, why is it wrong to hurt other people? We may point out that doctors often hurt people in the process of helping them to get well. 

The atheist may reply that doctors hurt people in order to benefit them in the long term, so the principle is that we must do things that benefit other people. Why, we should ask again, should we benefit other people? 

Because the survival of our species depends on us helping each other to survive – that could be the answer. One of the things which separates human beings from other species, and which has made us the dominant species after millions of years of evolution, they may say, is our ability and urge to help each other. But why is the survival of our species important? After all, evolutionary theory suggests that all species are the result of random chance mutations and changes. Why shouldn’t we expect to be superseded in the evolutionary process?

They may respond that it may not be important or meaningful for our species to survive, but it is a natural urge to survive. It is what living things do, they may say. And caring for each other is the human way of living out the collective urge to survive. But, we could answer, why then do we see human beings who like to kill people – cannibals, serial killers? They obviously don’t feel the same way about the wrongfulness of killing. Why is my atheist friend’s principles and arguments any better than the cannibal’s? What right has my atheist friend to say that the cannibal is wrong to kill people, or that Ted Bundy was wrong to kill all his victims?

At this point the atheist is in a really sticky place, because he cannot say that killing is absolutely wrong for everyone. To say that he must have some absolute authority to appeal to. But he denies the existence of absolute authority. So all he can say is that the majority of people in our culture have decided that killing in certain circumstances is unacceptable. In fact, he can’t really talk about things being right and wrong at all. All he can say is that he doesn’t like people murdering other people, and so on. If he can get enough like-minded people on his side then together they can enforce that as a rule.

But notice the final authority is nothing absolute. The authority is the individual. Collectively the majority view is forced onto the minority, who are supposed to either accept it or they suffer the consequences. So the atheist’s final authority is himself. He decides what is right and wrong, and seeks to be in the majority to promote those views in democratic systems.

What of the non-religious person who claims some church background? It seems still fairly normal in England for people to say that they are Anglican when it comes to filling in surveys or school application forms. And yet much less than 5% of the population is in church every Sunday. So there are some people for whom the Christian church is a badge or part of their heritage, but means nothing more to them on a day-to-day basis. They too are practically non-religious.

It is not unusual for people such as these to be sexually promiscuous, or to have sex before getting married – they simply fit in with whatever the fashion of the day happens to be. If most couples live together and enjoy sexual relations before they get married, then so do they.

If they were asked why they don’t see that as wrong even though they call themselves Christians, a high proportion might just reply simply that they think parts of the Bible are old fashioned and out of date.

And there again we see the final authority is not God, but themselves. They give themselves the authority to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they accept as having influence in their lives and other parts they choose to ignore. But if they do that they fall over the same problem as the atheist. They have no grounds on which to say any particular thing is right or wrong for all people – if they are the final authority for determining right and wrong in their lives, then there is no absolute right and wrong.

They may or may not find this perturbing. I do. You see, when people start to accept that there is no absolute right and wrong, and they start to see themselves as the ultimate authority over their own moral standards, then they start to act in increasingly selfish ways. If they can decide what is right and wrong for them, why not make up rules that make them rich and happy? If I’m a bloke and I can’t get a girl, then why not see if I like sex with other blokes? And if I don’t like sex with adults, then why not get thrills with children? If I am a girl who gets pregnant from casual sex, why not kill the baby to save the hassle? If I am brought up in a poor family and have a rubbish education, why not rob rich people to get money? If I have a depressing life, why not take drugs or drink to excess at the weekend to block out reality and get at least some thrills in life? If I see rioters attacking police, why not take advantage of the situation and steal from an electrical store? If a rival gang is threatening my neighbourhood, why not teach them a lesson with a gun? Why not? Why not? Without an absolute standard of morality that we all appeal to, we have nowhere to get the answer.

The fact that every non-religious person does not act so selfishly is a blessing, but is ultimately only due to the fact that we are in reality all made by God and have a conscience. But as that conscience is increasingly and collectively ignored, we will descend further and further into anarchy. 

There is so much more to be said, but there is not enough space left today. I have sketched very faintly the contrast between the firm source of Christian morality and the crumbling foundations of non-religious Western morality. I have not laid out positively the Christian position, or made any calls for change at this stage. Those will come, but there are more areas to cover.

Whose Rules Rule? - Part One

Part One - What is sin?

When non-religious people talk with Christians about morality they normally do so with the belief that there is common ground that can form the basis of discussion. But there ultimately isn't! In terms of the ultimate principles that underpin and guide what we feel is right and wrong, we are in completely different belief systems. I'm going to try to illustrate this over what is currently planned as a series of twelve articles, by looking at several questions where Christians come from a completely different basis of belief than the non-religious person.

Ok, let's pin this down with real brutally honest examples before we start on the philosophical reflections:

Christians believe that abortion is wrong. It is killing a child. It is murder. Killing other people is wrong, except by accident, in war or in self-defence. It is sin. We are given a hard time for saying that by the non-religious masses. Not only do they think that abortion is not wrong, they believe that Christian opposition to abortion is wrong. Christian opposition is a sin against their freedom.

Christians believe that sexual intercourse outside heterosexual marriage is wrong. That means, of course, that we believe that 'living together' is a sin, one-night stands are sinful, adultery is sinful and that homosexual sex is also sinful. We are frowned upon big time for saying that too. Not only does the modern non-religious person think that homosexuality and sex outside marriage is not wrong, they believe that Christian morality is wrong. Christian sexual standards are a sin, in their view, against their freedom. And they find that offensive.

So it’s not the case that Christians believe in sin and the non-religious person doesn’t. The non-religious person clearly believes in sin, but their definitions are different.

(And when I talk about the 'non-religious person', as I outlined in my article about the riots in England in August 2011, I intend to talk about the majority of people in the UK, Western Europe and other English-speaking nations. Some of these people are confident enough to call themselves atheists or agnostics. Others still want to call themselves Christians, Anglicans, Catholics or Jews, but what they are really saying is that they don't want the hassle of arguing about the existence of God, but they still just want to get on with living life without religion intruding on it.)

Where views differ so radically it is normally because we have different basic assumptions. But many of us fail to recognise this, and we continue to argue as if we were agreed on certain principles and are only arguing about the particular details. This is the case when non-religious people in the West argue about moral standards with Christians.

You see, for the 21st century non-religious person there are two things that annoy them. The first is when someone transgresses their own standards and does something that they believe is wrong – for example when someone sexually abuses children or defrauds the state benefits system. The second is when someone tells them that their standards are wrong – i.e. when someone says something is wrong that they think is not wrong. And these opinions may be different from one person to another.

Why is that? I believe it’s because both scenarios are a challenge to their authority and autonomy (control) in the world. When other people do things they don’t like that is an implicit challenge to their authority. When other people tell them that they are wrong in their moral statements, that is an explicit challenge to their authority. Either way they are confronted with the brutal fact that they cannot control what goes on in the world, because other people have different views of right and wrong. Normally so long as these other views do not impinge directly on their freedom to live in the way they want they just get on with life, with a slightly uneasy feeling. But when crimes are very bad, in close proximity, or their freedom to do what they want is at risk they become very unhappy.

To put it bluntly, effectively 21st Century non-religious people take it personally when someone does something they believe is wrong, or tells them their morals are wrong. And it is personal according to their basic assumptions, because they believe that they have the final authority to set the rules in their lives. Even law-abiding citizens only agree to be bound by the law of the land because it has their seal of approval, their vote, because they recognise that their own peace and prosperity depends on everyone limiting their behaviour by agreeing to go with the majority. To get political about things, in a democracy this clearly only works when people have similar basic assumptions and similar moral codes. The wider the divergence of opinion, the more likely factions will occur, as one or more group starts to feel their power for self-determination unacceptably limited by the majority, without apparent benefit to them. And when the benefits of self-control cease to outweigh the cost to their freedom there is often resentment and then occasionally violence.

In summary, for the 21st Century non-religious person their moral authority is ultimately themselves alone.

Christians, on the other hand, put moral authority wholly outside of themselves, in the hands of the One who created us all – the Almighty God. When we say something is wrong it is not on our say-so, it is on the basis of higher authority, the ultimate authority of God.

This has several implications for the way that we approach each other:

The non-religious person often feels that Christians are acting ‘superior’ when they point out things they think are wrong. However, this is often because they think Christians are arguing on the same basic assumptions as themselves – i.e. that they have final authority in their own lives. Actually when a Christian says something is wrong it is not because we are trying to force our own personal opinions on everyone else. It is because we are trying to help our friends, families and culture avoid the anger of the Almighty God, whose rules have been broken. So I’d urge our non-religious friends not to take offense, taking it personally when we talk about sin and morality. We believe we are under the same rules, and have also transgressed those rules. We are equally sinners. 

Christians have, I tentatively suggest, also allowed that misunderstanding to go unchecked. Realising that we live in a culture that does not accept God’s Word as a sufficient reason for restraining behaviour, we have tried to find common ground on which to argue for traditional moral standards (that we believe God requires). For example, when arguing against abortion or assisted suicide, we tend not to say that God forbids it because it involves killing someone. Instead we try to persuade people on the basis of science and psychology. In general terms public opinion is divided on these issues, so the success of these arguments is mixed. But the point is that in an attempt to lead society to behave in ways that do not openly displease God we have tried to use worldly arguments, and ended up giving the impression that our motives are the same as the non-religious people we argue with.

So when we say, “abortion is wrong” or “euthanasia is wrong”, what most people hear is, “we are better than you, we have better standards than you and we want you to join our party”.

What I am urging is that we allow the argument to go deeper. We should recognise that we have different morals because we have different principles and beliefs, and discuss those as well. Then we may find we both understand each other better, but hopefully also start to see the firm rationality of Christianity compared to the irrationality of non-Christian principles. That’s what I hope to drive into in the next few articles.

Riots in England 2011 - thinking about the reaction

A lot of articles have been written trying to come to terms with the recent riots and looting in England (August 2011). Most people I spoke to while it was going on were asking "Why?" 

In fact, just stating the fact that the incidents occurred in England says a lot. Nothing of note happened in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. So there were no sectarian undertones involved. There may initially have been a hint of racial disgruntlement, but this was actually expressed peacefully and was not part of the violence. The attacks were mainly on property, rather than people. People who got hurt were almost invariably protecting property. No organisation, as far as I can tell, played any part in encouraging or organising violence. 

But why? Few of those involved can really give a reason or purpose that anyone else can understand or believe. Many people have attempted explanations based on political agendas. Some point to the withdrawal of community services because of cost cutting, and the social exclusion of the lower classes. Others point to the dismantling of the fabric of society (e.g. the attack on the traditional family) by the "liberal intelligentsia" and the previous socialist government. Others cite the "entitlement culture" which encourages people to feel they should expect to be provided for, whether they work hard or not.

We've heard the offenders spoken of as "feral rats". I've heard people I know rant about them, saying they should be packed off to Afghanistan to see what it's like at the sharp end. Some have ranted that they should be lined up and shot, or that they don't deserve any place in our society.

So there has been widespread condemnation of the rioters and thieves, and a whole lot of finger pointing as we try to understand the reasons. And on top of that there was criticism of the police for not preventing it all.

The Prime Minister spoke of pockets of society being, "not just broken, but sick." In the Daily Mail article by columnist Melanie Phillips (11 August 2011, www.dailymail.co.uk), she begins her lengthy analysis by saying that these events were the, "all-too-predictable outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value." She goes on later to say that, "What has been fuelling all this is not poverty, as has so predictably been claimed, but moral collapse… We are not merely up against feral children, but feral parents." 

She brings her article to a close by saying that, "Repairing this terrible damage also means, dare I say it, a return to the energetic transmission of Biblical morality… When church leaders stop prattling like soft-headed social workers and start preaching, once again, the moral concepts that underlie our civilisation, and when our political leaders decide to oppose the culture war that has been waged against that civilisation rather than supinely acquiescing in its destruction, then - and only then - will we start to get to grips with this terrible problem."

And lest I be misunderstood in what I am about to say, I believe that Melanie Phillips has some very perceptive observations. I too have been concerned through the New Labour years at the attempt to break down the family, but I think if we're honest the rot started a lot further back than 1997. And it wasn't 1979 either, when the socialists say that we all became materialist through the work of the Thatcher government. It was probably also further back than the "permissive society" that boomed in the 1960s (before I was born). 

I also think it is right to track down lawbreakers and see that they face justice - that should go without saying. People who do wrong things should be punished for their wrongdoing.

So what is my take on it all… for what it's worth!?

I tried to think of where Jesus might have focussed his attention. Did He condemn the rioters, fraudsters and thieves of His day? Did He condemn the lone-parent families, the prostitutes and the drunks? Who were His harshest words reserved for?

The conclusion I came to was that Jesus reserved His harshest words for the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the religious traditionalists, who thought they were above everyone else because they kept the law. They looked down on the tax collectors (fraudsters), prostitutes, the adulterous, the irreligious. They would have been the ones wringing their hands over the collapse of the moral fabric of society. They were morally upright and perfectionist down into the fine detail.

But why did Jesus condemn them? Why did He call them "whitewashed tombs" (Matthew 23:27)? 

Basically it was because they thought they were better than everyone else. They thought that their morality and uprightness made them more acceptable to God than the ordinary Jew, and certainly a cut above the tax collector and sinner. They followed the letter of God's law, and even embellished it, but they did not understand what God's law was all about.

And that's what I think we see today too. We see non-religious Pharisees, the respectable middle-classes, the Daily Mail readers… those who spit blood as they talk about lone parents on benefits, immigrants, youths outside Tesco Express, the language of young people today. We think we are so much better than the looter, the rioter, the inarticulate gangster ("init bruv"!), the heroin addict, the binge drinker, the uneducated. In contrast we are respectable, we are upright, we give to charities, we are on the school PTA, we discipline our children, say 'please' and 'thank you', we don't have too many children and we are polite to our neighbours.

I think it would be just as much a shock now as it was then for the Pharisees to hear Jesus call us sinners, as much sinners as the rioter. Perhaps Melanie Phillips might be shocked (although I don't know her, so I shouldn't personalise my point) to be called a sinner alongside the looter and the liberals and Harriet Harman.

The truth is that Jesus calls us all to repent of our sin, and to turn to Him. If we "return to the energetic transmission of Biblical morality" - and we should - it should be to serve the energetic transmission of the good news of salvation for all sinners. Truly Biblical morality, of the kind that Jesus preached, is the kind that calls us all sinners, all under the judgment of God, and all heading for Hell. But the Christian gospel is the good news that all are called to repentance and faith, and all are offered eternal life through Jesus' death and resurrection.

And I could leave it there. But I think this opens a bit of a can of worms. You see, whilst the Jewish Pharisees of Jesus' day at least believed in God and knew what sin was, we middle-class Pharisees of the 21st Century do not even comprehend the word sin. We do not see why God shouldn't accept us. In our own eyes we are not bad people. I remember many years ago bringing an unbelieving friend along to a Sunday morning church service at which Lindsay Brown (of IFES and Lausanne) was speaking. Lindsay spoke very strongly of the need for repentance. My friend was extremely offended and fumed quietly afterwards that he had no need to repent because he had done nothing wrong. Many of us these days think like that.

So I'm going to spend a few more articles reflecting on Christian belief about sin and morality, how we should talk about it as Christians, and how it contrasts rationally with the non-religious worldviews of 21st Century Britain. I hope and pray that it will be useful.

Prayer - Ask for Anything? (Part Fifteen)

Conclusion: Learning and submitting

I can remember learning - but I can't remember where - as a teenager, that actions spring from belief. And it's something that resonated so strongly with me that it has stuck in my consciousness since then. Actions spring from belief. What I believe about things will affect what I do and the way I do it. Or put another way, the way I act is evidence for what I really believe, no matter what I say. Actions speak louder than words, as they say. So I should challenge myself in both directions: Examining my beliefs, how do they affect positively the way I live my life? Examining my actions, are they consistent with what I say I believe? Of course, it's more complicated than that, because we don't know ourselves as well as think we do sometimes. And that's where I often get frustrating inconsistencies in my life, and sin. And that's the way this series about prayer came about, and how it has concluded, but in different ways. 

I think that when I came to James 5:15 last year I knew deep down that God would only grant the requests that He wanted to grant, and therefore there is a possibility that some of our prayer requests are not granted. And therefore I was content (was that rest, though, or resignation? There is a difference, and I confess to oscillating). James 5:15 removed my contentment, because I felt the strain of an apparent inconsistency. "The prayer of faith will make the sick person well." Should I be content? Or should I be holding out for healing for all those sick people that I regularly pray for? Different passages in the Bible appeared to say different things.

But I think that the challenge to put my beliefs into action has become more pressing through the study of the passages I identified. And in rounding off this series I just thought it would be helpful to briefly list all those challenges.

• Ask God boldly for what we need;

• Humbly acknowledge God as our heavenly Father, who knows what is best for us and who loves us, and will give us what is best;

• Pray for what will enable us to glorify our heavenly Father by seeking His kingdom before anything else;

• Pray specifically for the Holy Spirit to fill us more and more.

• Prayer requests are not granted to those who have no faith.

• Conversely, if we have faith in God then we must have boldness to pray for big things as well as small.

• Faithful prayer involves perseverance.

• Praying in Jesus' name means having the glory of God at the heart of all we desire.

• Praying in Jesus' name means acknowledging that we are only able to come to God in prayer through Jesus' death and resurrection.

• Praying in Jesus' name means asking for God to work in our lives to enable us to do the work He has given us - namely, bearing fruit in good works and sharing the gospel with other people.

• Be assured that God is ready to help us as we work for His glory and the coming of His kingdom.

• Don't pray for our own pleasure and self-satisfaction. Pray with God-centred motives and for God-centred motives.

• We see more of our prayer requests granted when we know we pray for things that God wants, as revealed in His Word, and as we understand and align our lives with that more deeply.

• Praying according to God's will means knowing the Bible.

• Praying according to God's will means accepting and rejoicing that God has the final decision in the answer to my prayers.

• Praying with the church is an important and special privilege, giving us even deeper access to the presence of Christ.

• Don't shy away from praying for big and amazing things, not least the raising of a dead soul to life to receive salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ.

• Our faith when we pray should be based on our knowledge of God and His promises in His Word, not on our past experiences of answered prayer.

• Praying with righteousness, repentance and confession, in the community of the church, will result in healing… but the full extent of that healing may have to wait until Jesus' second coming.

• Just keeping praying and don't give up.

And of course, those are just the things we learnt about prayer. I'm sure that we also learned a lot of other things as well, such as the importance of caring for the weak and those in the margins of the church, such as the way God assures us of His work in us, and many other things.

One of the things I pray for is that I may never lose sight of all that I've learnt through these studies. 

It is quite moving for me to realise that when I started studying these passages I was just approaching the end of my course of chemotherapy. As I come to the end of this series of blog articles, just over a year later, I am fully fit and have been back in work for six weeks. The Lord has been very gracious to me. Not only have I been "raised up" from my illness, which is amazing enough on its own. But I have felt the warmth of His love through the church. And I've been given the time to study and benefit from His Word, and to share His Word with other people. 

Apart from to urge us once again to never neglect persevering and faithful prayer, my final point is this: God uses our questions and confusions, weaknesses and doubts, to teach us huge amounts more than we ever expect, if we turn to His Word with faith.

It started, if you remember, with simply reading the Bible. Literally, just reading. How many of us miss out on learning all these big things about God and His infinite love for us simply because we don't simply read the Bible?

And then I allowed myself to ask an honest question. My reading led me to some confusion, and into asking questions. And I turned to God's Word to get the answers to those questions.

And all that learning about prayer, and the other things as well, stemmed from that one simple honest question, "Does God guarantee I will be healed if I pray for healing?" It started with weakness and doubt, and the result was a superabundance of encouragement.

I am certain that the Lord will do the same with your weaknesses and doubts, whatever they are. Read the Bible. Allow yourself to ask questions. And turn to the Bible to find the answers. Act on the answers. And the Lord will provide you with an overflowing amount of learning and encouragement.

"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God." (Philippians 1:9-11)

May God bless us and glorify Himself in us.

Prayer - Ask for Anything? (Part Fourteen)

Pray!

So after studying thirteen or fourteen Bible passages about prayer and faith, what were my thoughts as I turned back to the passage that had set me thinking? That's what I will share with you as I come close to the end of this series. I learnt a lot about prayer and about God, and I hope that you have done too, as I've taken you through the verses that challenged me.

The verse that triggered my thoughts was James 5:14-15, "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." Is it as simple as that? Pray, and get better?

Back in Part 5 of this series I said that, when we consider the rather blunt statements James makes throughout his letter, we ought to have in mind the purpose of the letter. Once you get to know him James is not difficult to understand. He's just knock-down blunt! 

He starts his letter, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings. Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." (1:1-4)

He is straight to the point. The letter is all about the right response to suffering and hardship. It's not scattered, random, thoughts ranging from temptation, to favouritism, to faith and deeds, to grumbling, to prayer, to healing sick people. It is challenging the responses to hardship that come from lack of faith. It is encouraging an uncompromising walk in the wisdom of God, through faith, with love, underpinned by prayer.

So when we come to the fifth chapter, let's spend a little time looking at how he leads into the verse we are looking at. Here's the passage (James 5:7-18) in full so that we can refer to it:

"Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. Don’t grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door! 

"Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. 

"Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned. 

"Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. 

"Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops." 

James has been condemning, in the verses immediately before this, the rich believers who are using their wealth as protection against persecution and hardship, rather than helping their poorer brothers. They have "hoarded wealth" (v3) just in case they might need it as they face hard times for the Lord. But they have ignored those who have hardly anything and the people who are starving to death around them.

The godly response to this hardship is not in using wealth, but to, "be patient… until the Lord's coming." (v7) They are not to "grumble against each other" (v9) over who has and who hasn't, or whether they can avoid persecution. In short, they are to have faith, believing and trusting that the Lord is coming again to bring judgment on their oppressors and bring them salvation as He promised.

He gives the example of the Old Testament prophets (vv10-11), who persevered in the face of suffering, never compromising, never failing to proclaim God's Word even if they were tortured, imprisoned or ignored. He gives the example of Job, who refused to speak ill of God, even in sickness, poverty and bereavement. And he assures us that, "The Lord is full of compassion and mercy." (v11)

When he says, in verse 12, "do not swear… Let your 'Yes' be yes, and your 'No", no…", he is warning against trying to bargain with God: "I swear on my life, I'll do xyz if only you will relieve my suffering…" We are to simply do the right thing because it's right, patiently waiting for our vindication at the coming of the Lord. 

Is anyone in trouble? "He should pray." (v13) God is full of compassion and mercy. We don't need to swear and try to bargain with God and twist His arm to do good to us. We should pray, knowing that He intends our hardship for our own good, persevering so that we, "may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." (1:4)

Are we happy? Let's not, in complacency, forget the one who provides "every good and perfect gift" (1:17). "Let him sing songs of praise." (5:13) Don't neglect prayer and praise when you are in trouble or when you are happy. Both are from God and are for our good.

Are we sick (vv14ff)? Here we get to what we wanted to understand. Isn't the tendency to complain, to languish in bed feeling sorry for ourselves, to ask why God has done this to me or let this happen to me? "He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord." James bluntly says, in effect, "don't just lie there! Have faith in God and go and gather the church around you and ask for God's help!"

James is not here giving a ritual or an instruction book for divine healing. He is telling us to wake up and get serious with God! Anointing with oil is not a magical remedy. Having the elders come and pray is not giving them wizard-like powers. Those are to picture someone who seriously, truly believes that God is powerful and compassionate. When one of us is sick, we should get on our knees, calling on the name of the Lord in earnest, persevering prayer.

So James says in v15, "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." Literally, the phrase is, "… will save the sick person." In the context, making the sick person physically cured of his sickness seems, at first sight, to be the primary intention, but James doesn't elaborate. Likewise, the phrase, "if he has sinned, he will be forgiven" does not imply that James makes a link between sin and sickness, as it appears at first. As we shall see, James is pointing at the mercy of God, who forgives our sins freely through faith in Christ and repentance.

So James is expressing the confidence that if we pray in faith, a sick person will definitely be saved - those who trust in Christ to such an extent that they confess their sins, ask for prayer, and are confident of forgiveness through him will receive forgiveness and eternal life. But James does hold before us the possibility that we may also receive physical short-term salvation from our particular illnesses. Whether our salvation is an immediate freedom from sickness, or a complete freedom from sickness and death after the Lord's coming (which James has only been talking about 8 verses earlier), faith manifested in earnest prayer will bring it about. Whether we are raised up from our present sick bed, or raised up from the grave, faith in Christ, manifested in prayer is what gives us access.

I think this is the right way of looking at the verse, since James says at the start of the passage that we are to "be patient… until the Lord's coming." Jesus never promised complete freedom from hardship or sickness before His second coming, even if we pray our socks off. In John 16:33, Jesus assures us that, "In this world you will have trouble." His promise is not to always relieve us of trouble. His promise is, "But take heart! I have overcome the world." In particular, Jesus did not promise His followers freedom from death before He comes again. Those who are not chosen to be alive when He returns will definitely die. And that means that some sicknesses will end in death, and some sicknesses will last until death. The greatest thing that Jesus did for us by taking the punishment for our sins on the cross, and rising from the dead, was to give us victory over death. Death is not to be feared, because it is the gateway into eternal life, when we will all be "mature and complete, not lacking anything" (1:4). As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:56-57, "The sting of death in sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 

What James wants from us ultimately, which is what God wants from us, he spells out in v16: "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed." We are to be a community, a church, a family that loves and cares for each other, so that we pray for each other. We are to be a family that strives together for righteousness, humbly confessing our sins and our failings, and encouraging each other to trust Jesus for forgiveness, and encouraging each other to look forward to His coming. In a community like that our prayers will be "powerful and effective".

However, lest we shrink from prayer because we know that we are not perfect, he gives the example of Elijah in verses 17 and 18. "Elijah was a man just like us." If you read about Elijah in the book of 1 Kings in the Old Testament, you will find that he showed both great faith and great cowardice. He argued with God and then spoke boldly in His name. He had failings and fears just like we do. And yet when he prayed God brought a drought, and when he prayed again God brought rain. God answered Elijah's prayers in an amazing way.

To quote George Stulac's commentary, "Having emphasised righteousness as a condition for effective praying, James is not wanting Christians to postpone praying while they try to attain some level of perfection or super-spirituality… James is saying: Strive earnestly for the goal of righteousness, but get down immediately to the business of praying." (p186)

And I can't think of a better way to sum up the passage in James 5, and indeed probably the whole of James' letter, than with Stulac again: "In your trials, you don't need the power gained by money or favouritism or selfishness or fighting or swearing; use the power of prayer, for which you need righteousness. Commit yourself to doing what is right without compromise; then you may rely on God in prayer for all your needs." (p185)

I'll write again to summarise the lessons from all these studies, but if there is one thing that has come through time after time it is this: Even though God does not promise to give us everything we ask for without exception, He is our Father, He is compassionate and merciful, He loves His children so much that He purposed that His only Son should die so that we can spend eternity enjoying Him in Whom is the greatest joy, and He wants us to pray. He enjoys giving us things we pray for, if they are according to His will. 

So I want to encourage you, as I have been challenged, if we have learnt nothing else together studying these passages - pray! Pray! Pray! Strive for righteousness, strive to know God's will from His Word, and pray some more! Pray privately. Pray with the church. Pray for healing. Pray for strength. Pray for more righteousness. Pray for small things. Pray for big things. Pray for amazing things. Pray at home. Pray at work. Pray in bed. Pray at mealtimes. "Pray continually!" (1 Thessalonians 5:17) Pray! Pray! Pray!

Prayer - Ask for Anything? (Part Thirteen)

I've nearly finished sharing with you the fruit of the studies I did in the summer of 2010, looking through some Bible passages that talk about prayer and faith. There are two more passages to go through. Next time I thought it would be good to come full circle and talk about James 5:15, which was the verse that starting me thinking in the first place. After that I may try to sum up the lessons learnt (I'm not sure how many more articles that will take, so I am making no promises now!).

For this time, though, God willing, we ought to look at probably the most difficult verse of all the ones I studied. That is Mark 11:24:

"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

It's difficult because it is the only verse that does not appear to have any limitations or conditions, except to believe. So it appears to force the blame for unanswered prayer onto our lack of faith. If we are not receiving what we want then Jesus appears to say that the reason would be because we do not have enough faith. And I think all honest Christians would admit that our lack of faith disappoints us. Are we then to feel guilty that we don't achieve more, or we suffer too much, because we don't have enough faith? I don't think so. There is a challenge, but I will get to that later.

Let's look at the context. Both Mark and Matthew include the events that led to the statement we are considering. Mark 11:12-25 and Matthew 21:18-22. There are one or two differences between the accounts, but it will only be a distraction if we go into them here.

Jesus has come into Jerusalem, riding on a donkey, to the acclaim of a great crowd who laid down cloaks and palm branches in front of him as a kind of royal procession (Matthew 21:1-11). He immediately puts himself in conflict with the Jewish establishment, who hated him. His teaching and his parables, from this point on, relentlessly chide them for being self-seeking and self-righteous rather than recognising the coming of God's Messiah, their Saviour.

For the benefit of his disciples, travelling with him, he gives a dramatic illustration:

"The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again.' And his disciples heard him say it….

"… In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, 'Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!'

"'Have faith in God,' Jesus answered. 'I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the sea," and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.'" (Mark 11:12-25)

The fig tree was a picture of the Israel of Jesus' day, which was largely fruitless because of its self-righteousness. Jesus was making the point that Israel as a nation was going to be cast aside because of their unbelief. He cursed the fruitless fig tree so that it withered in the same way that Israel would wither because of their unbelief and their rejection of the Messiah.

If you were to ask me what was the most surprising thing about this passage, however, it would not be Jesus' statement about faith and prayer. What is most surprising, in my opinion, is that the disciples were surprised! In Matthew's account we are told that, "they were amazed" (21:20). That's striking to me, because they had been with Jesus for three years and had seen him walk on water, heal the sick, feed thousands of people from a few loaves of bread and a few fish, drive out demons and do many other miracles. Why would they be surprised that he should curse a fig tree and that it withered? Surely they had seen Jesus do things more powerful and dramatic?

Perhaps it was a little bit unexpected. Perhaps they expected that when Jesus said, "May you never bear fruit again!" the fig tree would simply be fruitless and leafy for the rest of its life. Perhaps they did not expect it to dramatically die immediately. Perhaps after so many healing, liberating and creating miracles this destructive miracle startled them. But Jesus makes it clear that he understood their amazement as lack of faith. So his response was to challenge that lack of faith. "Have faith in God!" Jesus says.

Did the disciples not believe that God could move mountains if He wanted to in response to their prayers? Did they not believe that through Jesus Christ they had access to God to ask Him to do amazing things? They should not have been so surprised. But the picture that Mark and Matthew paint of the disciples before Jesus rose from the dead - throughout their gospels - is a picture of slow understanding and timidity. They did not yet clearly see the closeness of the relationship between Jesus and His Father, and the full implications of the access to God's power that went with that. Still less did they understand that Jesus' work enabled them to have that same access, through faith in Him, so that they too could ask for amazing things.

Moving mountains may not be something we would ask God for, and if we did it would only be to test Him. But the point is that God is able and willing to do really amazing things for us in response to genuine prayer that has His kingdom and glory at heart. 

One of the reasons we feel we don't see God working in an amazing way is because we don't ask Him for amazing things. We need to understand that we can ask God for anything, and have faith that He can do anything. Nothing is beyond His power. I think this is a major thing for all of us. We don't have much faith if we're honest. If we did, wouldn't our church prayer meetings be consistently well attended? (I challenge myself in this too!) If we really believed that God is ready, willing and able to answer our really difficult requests, wouldn't we pray and pray and pray?

But am I ducking the issue of the strong words, "whatever… it will be done… it will be yours"? Perhaps. But once I understood that Jesus was trying to respond with something suitably scathing for the disciples lack of faith, I could see a deliberate overstatement. 

It would be an absurd interpretation to take the word "whatever" without any limitation, but because Jesus' point was about the disciples lack of faith he makes his statement without limitations. For instance, we can't ask to be greater than God! We can ask to be preserved from death, but since death has to come to everyone we cannot expect prayer to stave it off forever! We can't ask something sinful to not be sinful just because we enjoy that particular sin. We can't ask for the destruction of people we don't like. We must, therefore, understand the limitations in this passage naturally from elsewhere in the Bible, and we have spent many weeks uncovering those.

And yet that does not lessen the challenge to our faith. Whilst God does not promise to give us anything and everything that we ask for, the fact is that we very often miss out because we do not believe. We may say that we believe, but actions speak louder than words. We talk about the power of God, the sovereignty of God, the love of God for His people, and yet our absence in church prayer meetings, our laxity in setting aside time for private prayer, our small mindedness in prayer, demonstrate that we lack real faith. Without faith we either don't ask God for what we need, or we are too reserved in our prayers. And if we don't ask, how can God answer?

I'll be tentative here, but there may also be a sense in which Jesus is not overstating. He says, "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." (Mark 11:23-24) There is a specific assurance of receiving what we ask when we have no doubt about what we ask for, when we are so sure that we will receive it that it's almost like already having it. But apart from when we pray for things that are specifically promised in Scripture, the only way to have that certainty is if God gives it to us supernaturally. This is unusual. The apostles certainly experienced it, as they did great miracles with great confidence. But after the apostles it is more usual to have to pray, as we have learnt in earlier studies, "nevertheless, not my will but yours be done." I simply leave open the possibility. Whether this is the case of not, we are challenged to have more faith, and pray more boldly.

But what is the remedy for our lack of faith? I've said in Part 5 of this series that we are not to have faith in our own faith, or try to muster positive thoughts, wilfully suppressing mental doubts. We can fall into the trap of trying to manipulate God by our own power of positive thinking. Having more faith is not a matter of taking a big gulp, squeezing your eyes shut and dismissing anything negative that was in your mind.

You build your faith by filling your mind with the Word of God, learning about His love for His people, learning about the mighty works He has done in history, keeping God's promises in the forefront of your mind. And you build your faith by asking the Holy Spirit to increase it in you.

If I look back on my own life and the way the Lord has responded to my prayers, I am now almost ashamed that I was prompted to start this study a year ago. I have recounted on this blog how the Lord has blessed me and my family in the last few years, in the face of various hardships. And that has all been in response to prayer. There have been amazing "coincidences" that simply do not happen without prayer. I think of the way that my health has improved, even though slowly; and the way that certain sick friends have been graciously preserved even after the worst prognosis - all after prayer.

I think that most of us shy away from praying for what we consider to be big things because we are afraid that God will say no, and we will be discouraged. We like to only pray for things that we will definitely receive. But Jesus' challenge to us in Mark 11 is to be bold in prayer, even if God eventually says no. If a mountain needs to be moved - perhaps a metaphor for an illness, or a blockage to our ministry or service - God is able to move it and loves His children enough to do it, if it fits with His plans for His glory and their greater good. We should not allow the extent of our faith and faithfulness in prayer to be based on answered prayer from our past experience. Our faith in God and faithfulness in prayer should be based on the promises of God and the character of God revealed in His Word, the Bible. If our faith is in God, and our love is for His glory, then we will continue to pray even after He has turned down various requests.

However, I am sure that God gives us most things that we ask for, if we ask with believing hearts that truly treasure Jesus Christ and seek His kingdom. Jesus' words in Mark 11/Matthew 21 should be a challenge to us - myself very much included - be encouraged, believe… and pray… pray for big things, small things, amazing things… but above all, pray and don't ever give up praying!

Put in the Fire for the Sake of Prayer - Desiring God

The next part of my own series on prayer is coming up soon. But I happened to hear a sermon by John Piper this week that I thought was great. I commend it to you. You can find it to read, watch or listen to by clicking the link below.

Put in the Fire for the Sake of Prayer - Desiring God