§ 147. Theorem.—Every prayer in the name of Jesus—but only such prayer—has the promise of Christ that it is heard.

Expos. simpl. xxiii.: Oratio fidelium omnis per solum Christi interventum soli deo fundatur ex fide et caritate.—Conf. Belg. xxvi.: Proinde secundum mandatum Christi patrem coelestem per unicum mediatorem nostrum invocamus … certo persuasi nos ea omnia impetraturos, quae a patre in nomine ipsius petierimus.—Catech. Heidelb. cxvii.: … . huic firmo fundamento innitamur, nos a deo, quamquam indignos propter Christum tamen certo exaudiri.

1. When we use the phrase ‘praying in the name of Jesus,’³ we may have more in mind praying about the concerns of Jesus or praying in His sense and spirit; but in fact the two things cannot really be separated. If we could desire to further men’s spiritual welfare otherwise than in His sense, we should have to conceive that welfare otherwise than as He did; in which case it would not be His concerns that were being thus laid before God in prayer. So far, then, it is true that every prayer is prayer in Jesus’ name where the petition (whatever it be) is offered with reference to the Kingdom of God. But the more definite the prayer is, the more necessary it becomes that its object should be conceived of as in agreement with the order according to which Christ rules His Church, so that the person who prays may as such be regarded as a true and acceptable representative of Christ. It follows that none can be true prayer in Jesus’ name except that which springs from the self-consciousness of the Church as a whole, i.e. such prayer as in its content keeps the whole condition of the Church in view. Prayer of this kind certainly belongs to the common prayer of the Church at any given moment, and that such prayer is heard it is impossible to doubt. If the Church’s need has been rightly apprehended, and if the dominating presentiment has arisen out of the Church’s whole consciousness of its own inner condition and outward circumstances, then the prayer is charged with the full truth: it represents Christ’s knowledge of His spiritual body and defines His ruling activity. Hence, in view of the power received by the Son from the Father, its content cannot but be fulfilled. Every other prayer springing from a less perfect Church consciousness, even though it touch equally Christ’s concerns and arise from a sincere endeavour to act in His spirit, can look for fulfilment only in the measure in which it harmonizes with the normative prayer as just described; indeed, it is only thus far that it ought to claim fulfilment. Such prayer, accordingly, can only gain confidence by subordinating itself to prayer that is normative and seeking to be heard only on that condition. An example of such ‘conditional’ prayer (as it is best named) used by Christ⁴ is found in more than one book of Scripture; but it merely concerns times and seasons, and therefore does not conflict with what we said above as to the utterly right character of His presentiments. From it we can see how such prayer may be without sin, including as it does resignation as a corrective of its own uncertainty, and only desiring to be heard in so far as what is asked for could form part of a normative prayer. So understood, our views are in perfectly natural accord with the explanation ordinarily given, for the most part, with respect to conditional prayer, namely, that the man is praying in Jesus’ name who only desires to be heard for Christ’s sake, or in so far as what is asked for is God’s will relatively to the divine purpose in Christ.

2. Still, the objection is constantly put forward that if this explanation really exhausts the matter, then the whole doctrine of the hearing of prayer is a delusion. The objection assumes that we really believe that by prayer we can exert an influence on God, His will and purpose being thereby deflected. Now this conflicts with our primary and basal presupposition that there can be no relation of interaction between creature and Creator; and a theory of prayer which starts with ideas like those just indicated we can only describe (even though it be held by Christians as devoted as they are believing) as a lapse into magic. True, the promises of Christ⁵ are adduced in support; but either the promises themselves are misunderstood, or the conditions to which the promise is attached are not fully taken account of. For how could one fail to have doubts regarding what—to use the ordinary phrase—can only be called a future accident, unless in another respect he took it to be necessary? And what can the Christian as such take to be necessary except that without which a regenerate person could not be sustained in the state of sanctification, or the Kingdom of Christ persist and advance? But this simply means that in this way we are brought back to unconditional prayer. When Christ makes faith the condition of prayer being heard, He does not in the least by faith mean a separate faith that prayer is heard, but faith in Himself, in the full sense of the word, therefore faith in the imperishable and supreme value of the Kingdom of God He was founding. In faith so understood all that has here been set forth is embraced. Thus by repelling all magical conceptions of the hearing of prayer, we do the promises of Christ no wrong. For as we do not grant that things, the prayer for which is heard, take place for that reason, even contrary to the original will of God, because prayer has been offered about them, so we do not assert that they would have taken place even had there been no prayer. But between prayer and its fulfilment there exists a connexion due to the fact that both things have one and the same foundation, namely, the nature of the Kingdom of God. In that Kingdom the two are one—prayer as Christian presentiment growing out of the whole action and influence of the divine Spirit, and fulfilment as expressive of Christ’s ruling activity in relation to the same object. Seen thus, fulfilment would not have come had there been no prayer; for then the point would not yet have arrived in the development of the Kingdom of God on which the fulfilment must follow. But fulfilment does not come because prayer was offered (as though prayer could here be regarded isolatedly as a cause in itself), but because the right prayer can have no other object than what is in line with the divine good-pleasure. Neither would it have come, in virtue of the divine decree, even had there been no prayer (as though the divine decree bore upon particulars apart from their natural nexus); it comes because the inward state that gives rise to prayer itself forms part of the conditions under which it was possible for the result effectually to emerge.

This view of the case meets another objection to the doctrine of the hearing of prayer, namely, that it is fitted to depress the activity of believers, or, to express it more fully, that if we believe in the hearing of prayer we are certain to separate ‘praying’ from ‘working’ and substitute prayer for work all through. Over against the formula ‘pray, and thou needst not work’ is set (if the hearing of prayer be denied) the other, ‘work, and leave no time for prayer.’ We are bound to reject both views, for, according to the explanation just given, right prayer only arises when we are engaged in the activities that go to fulfil our Christian vocation. Thus every true moment of prayer rests on a moment or element of action, so that prayer cannot destroy action without being itself destroyed; on the other hand, the presentiment expressed in such prayer as originates otherwise is bound to be purely arbitrary, and can carry with it no certainty whatever that it is in harmony with the ruling activity of Christ. No more can action destroy prayer, for action of such a kind could not be directed upon the Kingdom of God. The agent is readily satisfied with what he himself can achieve; and such action could give no guarantee of its being under the influence of Christ’s rule.

3. In thus interpreting prayer solely by its bearing on the concerns of the Kingdom of God, we started with the assumption that prayer in the name of Jesus is the only kind natural to the Christian. At the same time, our paragraph does refer to another kind, familiar to us all from common experience. Now, to prayer of this sort we can allow no share in Christ’s promise, yet it is so far suggested by conditional prayer in Jesus’ name that it ought not to be rejected. For human feelings and emotions always exist in combination with the God-consciousness, and in this combination they will always find for themselves a less passionate and more spiritual expression than without it. This sort of prayer (be it the prayer of piety, or of self-love, whether in its nobler or its more inordinate form) is not specifically Christian; whereas the hearing of prayer is a special promise of the Redeemer to His people. Hence such prayer can only share in the promise in so far as it stands in a close relation to the subject of the promise, i.e. in so far as the wishes laid before God can also be regarded as needs of the Church. The prayers of ‘piety’ (pietas) come nearest to this. For the higher place we give an individual, the more easily we may be seduced to believe that it is a distinct loss for the Kingdom of God that he should be snatched away from his sphere of influence, or hindered in his work. But on closer inspection we shall always be compelled to own that except Christ Himself no individual is indispensable to the Kingdom of God. At a still greater distance stand all wishes relating to our own external welfare or that of others, where too we are less easily deceived. But yet, as long as we have not attained to simple resignation that excludes all wishes, it is natural and wholesome for us even as Christians to combine these wishes with the God-consciousness.⁶ It is wholesome for us, however, only as we are led to simple resignation by the feeling that we cannot spread these wishes before God in the name of Jesus. Nay, if this is not the result, the prayer in question would have to be changed, almost in the moment of utterance, into a prayer for resignation; and this would be prayer in Jesus’ name. But every such prayer is simply an item in the individual discipline of the soul; it is therefore best that it should be confined to the circle of personal and domestic life, which is its natural sphere. But public and common Christian prayers ought always to be representative of the pure type of prayer in Jesus’ name, without bringing in subjects the connexion of which with the progressive development of the Kingdom of God is doubtful. Otherwise it would be part of the public cure of souls by means of public prayer to turn common wishes, springing from some worldly interest, into prayer for resignation. This is the rule which all public intercessions should follow, and scriptural injunctions on the subject⁷ must be interpreted in the light of the promise of Christ here treated as fundamental.

---

← The Power of the Keys · Contents · The Mutable Element Characteristic of the Church →

Footnotes

1. 1 Thess. 5¹⁷. ↩

2. Cf. Acts 16⁶·¹⁰. ↩

3. John 10²⁵·²⁶. ↩

4. Matt. 26⁴²ff.. ↩

5. Matt. 17²⁰ and 21²¹·²², ↩

6. 1 Pet. 5⁷; cf. Matt. 6³¹·³². ↩

7. 1 Tim. 2¹⁻⁴, Phil. 4⁶. ↩