Eliminating Unrealistic Expectations

Sometimes we all feel as if our prayers lack the power to penetrate our ceilings. It seems as though our petitions fall on deaf ears and God remains unmoved or unconcerned about our passionate pleading. Why do these feelings haunt us?

There are several reasons why we are sometimes frustrated in prayer. One is that our expectations are unrealistic. This, perhaps more than any other factor, leads to a frustration in prayer. We make the common mistake of taking statements of Jesus in isolation from other biblical aspects of teaching in prayer, and we blow these few statements out of proportion.

We hear Jesus say that if two Christians agree on anything and ask, it shall be given to them. Jesus made that statement to men who had been deeply trained in the art of prayer, men who already knew the qualifications of this generalization. Yet in a simplistic way we interpret the statement absolutely. We assume the promise covers every conceivable petition without reservation or qualification. Think of it. Would it be difficult to find two Christians who would agree that to end all wars and human conflict would be a good idea? Obviously not. Yet if two Christians agreed to pray for the cessation of war and conflict, would God grant their petition? Not unless He planned to revise the New Testament and its teaching about the future of human conflict.

Prayer is not magic. God is not a celestial bellhop at our beck and call to satisfy our every whim. In some cases, our prayers must involve the travail of the soul and agony of heart, such as Jesus experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane. Sometimes young Christians have been bitterly disappointed in “unanswered” prayers, not because God failed to keep His promises, but because well-meaning Christians made promises “for” God that God never authorized.

Do you have unrealistic expectations that account for seemingly unanswered prayers? Are you treating God like a celestial bellhop?

Passages for Further Study

Psalm 102:17-18
Psalm 141:2

A Clarion Call to the Modern Church

An interesting article regarding our modern church and how they have compromised the issues of today. How they have exchanged the truth for a lie. Calling themselves theologians and defenders of truth and at the same time, suppressing the truth and not  acknowledging His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, (Romans 1:19-20) and how has impacted every facet of our lives: Politically, judicially, education... total moral fabric of our nation and society in general. Are we paying the price for the disobedience of the modern church? Are we to speak out against her depravity without being called divisive? More than a decade ago, John MacArthur called modern churches to return to sound doctrine--we need to hear that call again.

Christians historically have understood that their calling is to be in the world but not of the world. As Os Guinness pointed out in a perceptive series of articles on the church-growth movement, traditional evangelicalism not only resisted worldly influences, but also used to stress "cognitive defiance" of the world spirit.

Now, however, "the world has become so powerful, pervasive, and appealing that the traditional stance of cognitive defiance has become rare and almost unthinkable" ("Recycling the Compromise of Liberalism," Tabletalk [May 1992], 51.). At some point, evangelicals decided to make friends with the world.

Guinness pointed out that although we are called to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:14-18), many Christians have reversed the formula, becoming of the world while not really being in the world. They did this by allowing cable television, VCRs, radio, and other forms of communication to infuse worldly values into their thinking, while isolating themselves from any personal involvement with the people in the world who most desperately need the gospel.

"Evangelicals are now outdoing the liberals as the supreme religious modernizers--and compromisers--of today," Guinness writes (Ibid.). The market-driven philosophy so popular among modern evangelicals is nothing more than "a recycling of the error of classical liberalism" (Ibid.).

The reason most evangelicals were caught unaware by modernism a hundred years ago is that liberals rose from within evangelical ranks, used evangelical vocabulary, and gained acceptance through relentless appeals for peace and tolerance. New church-growth movements are following precisely the same course, and that tactic has taken evangelicals by surprise once again.

Most of the market-driven megachurches insist they would never compromise doctrine. They are attractive to evangelicals precisely because they claimed to be as orthodox in their doctrine as they are unorthodox in their methodology. Multitudes have been sufficiently reassured by such promises and have simply abandoned their critical faculties, thus increasing their vulnerability. Unfortunately, real discernment is in short supply among modern evangelicals.

Like the modernists a century ago, churches in the user-friendly movement have decided that doctrine is divisive--peace is more important than sound teaching. Wanting to appeal to a modern age, they have framed their message as a friendly, agreeable, and relevant dialogue, rather than as a confrontation with the gospel of Christ.

The relevant issues of our modern age--radicalism, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and other politically charged moral issues--pose the most obvious threat for user-friendly churches. Their undefined theology and seeker-sensitive philosophy do not permit them to take a firm biblical stance on such matters, because the moment they defy the spirit of the age, they forfeit their marketing appeal. They are therefore forced to keep silent or capitulate. Either way, they compromise the truth.

If a church is not even willing to take a firm stand against abortion, how will it deal with the erosion of crucial doctrine? If a church lacks discernment enough to condemn such overt errors as homosexuality or feminism, how will it handle a subtle attack on doctrinal integrity?

Many evangelical churches have wholly abandoned strong preaching about hell, sin, and the wrath of God. They claim God's primary attribute is benevolence--one that overrides and supersedes His holiness, justice, wrath, and sovereignty.

Rather than addressing humanity's greatest need--forgiveness of sins--modern sermons deal with contemporary topics, psychological issues (depression, eating disorders, self-image), personal relationships, motivational themes, and other matters a la mode.

The market-driven philosophy of user-friendly churches does not easily permit them to take firm enough doctrinal positions to oppose false teaching. Their outlook on leadership drives them to hire marketers who can sell rather than biblically qualified pastors who can teach. Their approach to ministry is so undoctrinal that they cannot educate their people against subtle errors. Their avoidance of controversy puts them in a position where they cannot oppose false teaching that masquerades as evangelicalism.

In fact, the new trends in theology seem ideally suited to the user-friendly philosophy. Why would the user-friendly church oppose such doctrines?

But oppose them we must, if we are to remain true to God's Word and maintain a gospel witness. Pragmatic approaches to ministry do not hold answers to the dangers confronting biblical Christianity today. Pragmatism promises bigger churches, more people, and a living church, but it is really carnal wisdom--spiritually bankrupt and contrary to the Word of God.

Marketing techniques offer nothing but the promise of popularity and worldly approval. They certainly offer no safeguard against the dangers of the down-grade toward spiritual ruin.

The only hope is a return to Scripture and sound doctrine. We evangelicals desperately need to recover our determination to be biblical, our refusal to comply with the world, our willingness to defend what we believe, and our courage to defy false teaching. Unless we collectively awaken to the current dangers that threaten our faith, the adversary will attack us from within, and we will not be able to withstand.

Yet, surely, there must be some who will fling aside the dastard love of peace, and speak out for our Lord, and for his truth. A craven spirit is upon many, and their tongues are paralyzed. Oh, for an outburst of true faith and holy zeal! (Charles Haddon Spurgeon)

NOT A CHANCE

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11).

John Calvin

Modern Americans often find the biblical view of divine providence hard to swallow because we are accustomed to living in a republic in which no one can govern without the consent of the electorate. The right to vote is an external constraint on politicians; in other words, our elected officials know they can lose their seat in government if they act against the wishes of their constituents.

However, there is no external check on the reign of our Creator. There is no limit to His sovereignty. The extent of His control knows no bounds; everything that happens is ordained by the Lord. No person or force can thwart anything He has purposed to do.

This doctrine is taught throughout Scripture. In today’s passage, Paul tells us God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11). The first part of the Westminster Confession’s section on providence helpfully restates the biblical position: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1).

“Whatsoever comes to pass” includes the predestination of His people to salvation (Rom. 9) and the rise and fall of human empires (Acts 17:26–27a). Even evil is not outside the scope of our Father’s control (Isa. 45:7), although God relates differently to wickedness than He does to righteousness. The difficult issue of providence and evil will be discussed more in detail at a later date.

Moreover, the Lord ordains the outcome of seemingly chance events. “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33). We speak of things happening “by chance,” but God knows with certainty all things that come to pass. We say there is a fifty-percent chance a tossed coin will turn up heads or tails only because we do not know fully the causal factors (number of rotations, force of the flip, density of the air, weight of the coin, and so on) that would enable us to make a perfect prediction. But there is no “chance” for the Lord. He knows beforehand with certainty whether the coin will land heads or tails. Indeed, He has already ordained the outcome of the toss.

“When that light of divine providence has once shone upon a godly man, he is then relieved and set free not only from the extreme anxiety and fear that were pressing him before, but from every care” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.17.11).

Knowing the Lord’s sovereignty frees us to take risks for the kingdom, because we know that our failures cannot throw God’s plan off course and that our final victory over the world, the flesh, and the Devil is guaranteed.