AUDIO
![]() |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Pretty much everyone prays.
Prayer is a nigh-on universal human activity in which human beings seek to communicate with the divine. In Plato’s Timaeus for example we read of the necessity of prayer to safeguard all human endeavours:
Socrates: And now, Timaeus, you, I suppose, should speak next, after duly calling upon the gods.
Timaeus: All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call upon God. And we, too, who are going to discourse of the nature of the universe, how created or how existing without creation, if we be not altogether out of our wits, must invoke the aid of gods and goddesses and pray that our words may be above all acceptable to them and in consequence to ourselves.
The philosopher William James, in his justly famous book The Varieties of Religious Experience attempted by means of an exhaustive study of religious phenomena to get to the essence of the religious impulse in human life in a non-theological and non-ecclesiastical context.
Comparing accounts of prayer across religious traditions and moments in history, he determined that prayer was the vital heart-beat of all religious consciousness. Religious individuals claim to have intercourse with a higher power – and so must rest on the belief that prayer does something: ‘energy which but for prayer would be bound is by prayer set free and operates in some part, be it objective or subjective, of the world of facts’. A ‘scientific’ analysis of prayer ought at least in theory to be able to observe some difference being made by prayer.
In many ways Christian prayer does not differ from prayer in other religions, or taken as a general phenomena of human existence. Notwithstanding that many scientists of religion have had Christian paradigms, and so articulated what they found in non-Christian religions in terms congenial to Christianity, making the unfamiliar perhaps more familiar than it really is: still, prayer is above all a normal and even ‘natural’ human activity.
While there are claims that prayer in general ‘works’, as far as I am aware no statistical study exists that vindicates Christian prayer as more ‘effective’ in changing events than prayer in other faiths.
But to analyse Christian prayer only from the outside, from the phenomena, is to grasp it without understanding it at all – other than that it is a human activity.
Theologically, Christian prayer is enabled by the Spirit’s gift of adoption into the family of God. The invocation of God as ‘Father’ is much more than incidental: it is essential to Christian prayer. We are given a share in the sonship of Jesus, which makes it possible to pray to the Father ‘in the name of Jesus’ (see Rom 8:15, 26; Gal 4:6).
Jesus’s own practice of prayer had this shape: it was as the beloved Son that Jesus addressed the Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit. As we are brought into union with Christ, adopted as sons, we too share in this intra-trinitarian life.
The prayers of the Christian are not, then, the implorings of those distant from divinity, but the words of those already bound into the divine life itself. It is to the generous Father who longs to give that we pray (Luke 18:1-7).
What does Christian prayer do? Like all prayer, Christian prayer takes its shape from the particular doctrine of providence that is on view. Since a Christian account of God’s interaction in the world involves Jesus Christ and especially his death and new life, Christian prayer knows somewhat the will of God for the world is and prays accordingly.
Christians pray with the expectation that prayer is not superfluous. Not only is it a clinging to God in the midst of our own uncertainty about the future, the Christian prays with an expectation that her prayer is part of God establishing his kingdom in the world. The Christian is no fatalist.
What can Christians ask for in prayer?
There is in principle nothing for which the Christian cannot ask. Christian asking is premised on the generous character of God our Father, who knows already our needs before we ask (Matt 6:8) and who loves to give to those who ask.
Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
Asking God is greatly preferable to the murderous wrestle with others for things (see James 4:2-3). The petitions of the Lord’s Prayer however remind us of the nature of the times in which we are living – that we pray not only on account of and according to God’s general providence, but also on account of and according to his special providence. We learn to pray for God’s will to be done – not because this is some remorseless impersonal force, but because we recognize his wisdom and sovereignty alongside his Fatherly care of us.
And we are permitted to wrestle with God in our prayers. We see this in the Psalms of course, which give voice to human doubts. The remarkable instance is of course Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. The pleading of the Son - that it be some other way - clearly do not fall outside the bounds of what is righteous behavior for the creature. At the same time he acknowledges the priority of the Father’s will – which is done, and revealed to us, by the crucifying of the messiah. The prayer of Paul for the Colossians that they be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding (1:9) points not to some secret knowledge of providence, but to the revelation of the will of God the Father in the cross of the Son. Praying for the provision of daily bread – or the eschatological bread – points to the way in which the Lord Jesus is the answer to the prayer he teaches his disciples. The special providential nature of prayer does not negate the general providential aspect – rather it orders it, in Christ, to an eschatological end.
And what should a Christian expect to receive in prayer?
Firstly, we can expect that our prayers are heard by a God who as our Father wants for our good, and has provided for us in Christ.
Secondly, we can expect that he delights to use and respond to our prayers. The NT always speaks as if God responds to our prayers in ‘real time’ (not just that by chance our prayers coincide with what was decided beforehand).
Thirdly, we can expect in particular to receive the counsel and knowledge of the will of God that the Holy Spirit provides as we pray. Not for nothing Calvin calls prayer a treasure. As he describes it, prayer to the Father through the Son in the power of the Spirit is itself its own answer.
So why not pray? It seems that prayer is an undiscovered benefit of the Christian life for many of us – an un-exercised muscle that is surprisingly powerful when finally it is put to use. We neglect to pray because we don’t see how good God is, and what treasures lie stored up for us in prayer. What is more, we don’t pray because we don’t grasp the power and majesty of God. We confine our prayers, afraid to ask for too much, as if God were somehow either too stingy or too puny to give us what we ask for.
What we need is to cultivate our faith in God’s goodness and his greatness – both of them unmistakeably revealed to us in the Son, by the Holy Spirit. The glory and his righteousness are surely invitations to us to pray extraordinary prayers of boldness.
Photo credit: Lel4nd


In my experience Sydney Anglicanism tries to sit on a non-existant fence -- that it doesn't really work (where's the evidence?) but that it kinda/sorta does as far as personal anecdotes go, & hey, the bible says God wants to give us good things, so that's good. And we have it pretty good.
I think it's telling that those that take prayer very seriously -- the ancients who would do all kinds of weird things to petition higher powers for rain, victory in battle, etc; and charismatics today (God really will cure you!) -- are not people we take very seriously on this topic.
If prayer worked, drought-affected Australia would have constant rain, except for tiny, little patches in the weather map where people were getting married and wanted a fine day. But it doesn't, the holocaust still happened, North Korea still exists, cancer still kills, and in terms of "effective" prayer, tribal rain dances are just as good at changing events.
But that's not how most people understand it. To me it seems that it's those doing the praying -- in church services, in bible studies -- that fail to understand the reality of prayer. If they did, perhaps we'd hear more prayers starting with "Dear God, we know from statistical evidence you rarely, if ever, intervene, but... [insert meaningless requests here]".
After all, "Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer". Less praying, more doing.
Statistical studies of prayer have been carried out but are usually inconclusive at best. But this is because they misunderstand what prayer IS (in my view). Not to mention the unlikelihood that you could make a divine agent subject to an empirical study in the way usually attempted.
The point is that studies aren't conclusive in prayer's favour. There's nothing magical about empirical studies -- it's simply observing the world in a formal way. I dislike the argument that divine agency is beyond being observed in a formal way. The better explanation is that there is no divine agency to observe, and the burden would be on us to prove otherwise. As far as I'm aware, no one has done that. (And the only ones who really believe in it in our society are, I think we all agree, crackpot charros, which says a lot, really.)
The rest is a theological house built on empirical sand -- no matter how impressive the house, it's still built on sand. I don't know why this fundamental, empirical truth doesn't get the recognition it deserves. It has huge consequences.
I agree that the 'magical thinking' wasn't a caricature. You see I didn't follow that line at all.
In other words, it is possible to imagine means by which God could respond to prayer which are ultimately untestable yet remain consistent with the revealed nature of God. For example — and I'm not saying that this example has even the vaguest connection to reality — if God can operate outside the constraints of time (a proposition which seems to have some support in classical theological thought), then God could feasibly re-engineer past events in response to present circumstances. I suspect that scenario could only be tested if one stood with God outside of creation.
Let me reiterate that I have no particular evidence to support this example, just that such an example illustrates the difficulties any attempt to test prayer faces.
Consequently I think that basing one's faith on the perceived efficacy of prayer has the cart before the horse. Instead, out of faith should arise the confidence that God hears and responds to prayer.
So has Asklepios, Mercury, Amun, ...
It would seem that the default answer of the Christian God to specific petitions is "No".
Michael seems to be saying that the answer to all prayers is found at the Cross. That would make Christian prayer a process of inner adjustment (Spirit-aided) of one's consciousness to that definitive locus of divine intervention.
Thus prayer = wrestling within, inspired, to make oneself cruciform.
From crucible to cure-all.
But it isn't merely the answer to prayer: it is the grounds that gives confidence that this Lord is somewhat different than Asklepios and co.
The closest you'll get there is Amun, although Egyptian cosmogony maintained that the universe originated from divine material (I won't go in to details so as to maintain this thread's current G rating) as well so that may complicate the disjunction between creator and creature. Other ancient deities tended to be more a part of the universe than apart from it which means that the qualifications I've suggested may not be as readily applicable to them as to Yhwh.
Furthermore, if God's actions cannot be subject to scientific analysis (and I should note that I haven't proven that they cannot be, and certainly haven't even suggested that none of God's actions can ever be), then there's no valid basis for concluding that God's default answer is "no."
Your extratemporal God is quite a dancer, whirling on (and yet off) that renowned pinhead with all those dizzy angels...
I submitted a few posts on this blog a couple of years ago. From memory I responded to an article by Michael Jensen on boat-people/asylum seeker policy entitled "Sink or Swim" soon after KRudd made his policy changes. I rejected Rudd's changes on the basis they would re-start a black-market in people smuggling...
I was thinking of you a month or two ago when I started reading a book by Graeme Goldsworthy, "Prayer and the knowledge of God. It is a biblical theology of prayer. The way Graeme Goldsworthy explores this issue reminded me of you.
I returned to this blog and scanned a few articles but didn't find you. Alas, I have found you... And on a post by Michael on the topic of prayer!
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Knowledge-God-Whole-Teaches/dp/0830853669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309268086&sr=8-1">Prayer and the knowledge of God @ Amazon</a>
If you are not aware of this book I suspect it would interest you.
Your Brother in Christ.
Andrew.
Prayer and the knowledge of God (Graeme Goldsworthy)
Can you elaborate? I don't understand how this relates to providence in a broader sense.
@Enkidu...
Right, and I vaguely recall John Polkinghorne suggesting information can be introduced into the world through some quantum means, i.e. the universe isn't a closed system, but sadly he didn't elaborate, and if he did I doubt I would have got it!
Either way though, surely something must ultimately be observably different in a praying population where prayer is effective (i.e. God intervenes). How he does that isn't really here or there, I just find it hard to escape that there still should be observable differences (which therefore can be subject to study) because it's not the *agency* we're observing, it's the *results*. Claims that God's means can't be subject to study therefore seem moot to me. And if there are results on any significant scale (anecdotes notwithstanding), we can observe them.
But we don't, which puts us in a very, very difficult place...
If you follow through my suggestion it is apparent that God's response to prayer need not necessarily be directly observable. If time and space are inherently part of creation and God stands outside of creation, then God's responses need not be temporally bound. If I pray for something to happen and God decides to act in response to my prayer, he could feasibly choose to orchestrate past events in order to answer my prayer. Now of course there are numerous difficulties associated with this sort of behaviour — one being that I would probably not pray that prayer once God had acted in the past to answer it! However, the Bible makes it clear that God also knows alternate outcomes. Thus he is still aware of my prayer.
Now I'm not suggesting that this is the way things work (although I can't rule it out). But it does illustrate possibilities based on the nature of God which are not measurable.
When I feel down, I frequently feel isolated, abandoned. My failings are all I see - I become this worthless thing and the sense of self as spirit - presence is lost. But when I turn to God in prayer, I experience myself as seen. Love recognises, primarily, not what we are but that we are. In this experience of being seen, I am restored to myself, not as anything in particular (good / bad / otherwise) but as spirit - presence. Borrowing from St Augustine of Hippo, in Christian prayer, I find God's nature - as love, lover and beloved - implicit in all of us, creates a point of realisation. With this, the externals of an occasion may not be altered, but its significance and the way I proceed to address it can be radically shifted.
Thanks, Michael, for your thoughtful essay.
I'm thinking of "If you have faith, you could pray and see this mountain cast into the sea!" I used to think, "Wow, God's saying my prayers are REALLY powerful — move over Luke Skywalker, I can move mountains!"
But of course I didn't know my Old Testament as much then. I didn't know that at the time Jesus said those words to his disciples, the mountain falling into the sea may have been the very specific mountain they were standing on at the time, the Mt of Olives looking back into Jerusalem. I forget which way it runs, but one of the mountains is 'split' in the Old Testament imagery and fresh waters flow out to water and bring life to the whole earth.
So was Jesus even speaking to me about my prayers for a job? I don't think so. I think he was telling the disciples that if they had faith they would pray and SEE that Jesus death was the splitting of the mountain (or in other imagery the destruction of the temple) and then with his resurrection and the Old Testament rivers flowing forth as the gospel shot out into all the earth.
And if I pray "in Spirit and in Truth" I might see that above a certain Samaritan well where living water was promised to a certain Samaritan woman, and I might even see it down here in Australia!
It leaves me wondering if that verse is even about prayer?