Charles Hodge, in his history of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, written in the 19th century, was critical of the revival period known as the Great Awakening. Why? His opinion seems to cut against common acceptance that this was a mighty work of revival, and that the Holy Spirit manifested Himself in a particular way during this period.

Charles Hodge (no known relation to this writer) would not accept this view so readily. In his opinion, the church was in a worse state two years after the Awakening than it was two years earlier. Thus, he was not so ready to accept the Awakening was the work of the Holy Spirit.

His criticism, therefore, begs the question. And if you allowed yourself to dream for a few minutes, what would a spiritual revival look like to you?

I dreamed a dream. There was a spiritual revival under way.

First, the politicians determined that they would only live on whatever tax God said was payable to the political order. It was not very much. In fact, most of them lost their job.

Second, the principle of restitution would be applied for the past 7 years, and all the tax money stolen from the people would be returned. Stolen money is simple to figure out: it’s whatever God says you’re not entitled to.

Third, our political leaders would lead the way on this and start with their own income from the stolen money and repay it to the people.

Fourth, the religious leaders, agreeing that this is the right thing to do, might urge their parishioners to copy the politicians, and make restitution of all stolen money, even if they didn’t steal it directly, but were the recipient of it through a government program of taking form some and giving to others.

Fifth, that everyone demanded the religious leaders read and re-read the law of God day and night until everyone understood what was right and wrong.

Sixth, the biblical prohibition against usury was reinstated; money was no longer devalued through credit expansion and the printing presses because gold and silver became legal tender again; the sabbatical become the practice outside the university; and the year of Jubilee was taken seriously in an attempt to preserve the property-based family.

Seventh, then I saw the mess I was in and figured while I can’t change anyone else, I can make some changes in my own life. And this is where the revival needed to get its start, not with other people, but with myself.

Eighth, then I understood that revival is not something you ask for, it is something you do. And if I could identify real changes in my own life, then I knew that revival was already under way. I didn’t need to ask for its appearance: I just needed to recognize that revival is how God works ordinarily.

It’s not the politicians who need to practice restitution: I do.
It’s not the politicians who need to conform themselves to their God-ordained duties: I do.

To ask for anything seemed rather pointless, almost an admission that God needed to change everyone else except me.

Thus, to pray for spiritual revival as a future event denies the revival already under way in the lives of God’s people everywhere.

Then I woke up.

But for a while, I thought I was in the midst of a truly spiritual “revival,” the likes of which are never talked about.

Martin Luther King is not the only dreamer. What are your dreams for a spiritual revival? And is it already under way in your own life?

And when you pray for revival, thank God for that revival already in progress instead of asking it to be a future event.

God bless you this week as you seek to serve Him who alone demands and deserves our full allegiance.

In his book on prayer, Jacques Ellul makes the point that most people don’t pray because they don’t have their prayers answered. Or at least, not answered very often. In other words, if there are no results, then why do it?

In exploring the issue, perhaps our prayers remain unanswered because they are unacceptable to God. This should cause us to ask the question: What are the true conditions of acceptable prayer? This question was answered in a very specific way by Dr. A.A. Hodge in his book, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine (no longer in print). These were a series of nineteen public lectures on basic Christian doctrine, published posthumously in 1890. Here was his answer to the question which he posed (pp. 89-90):

1. The person offering the prayer must be in a state of reconciliation to God through Christ. This does not mean that God never answers the prayers of the unregenerate person; but the promise can be claimed only by those who have accepted the conditions of salvation, and are loyal to their Christian engagements.

2. The prayer must be sincere, must express a real desire of the heart, and it must be offered and the answer sought only through the merits and intercession of Jesus Christ.

3. The prayer must be offered in absolute submission to the higher, broader, knowledge, wisdom, and righteousness of God. It must follow our Saviour’s “Not as I will, but as thou wilt.” The only objects for which we have any warrant to press unconditional petitions are (1) our own sanctification, (2) the bringing on of the triumph of Christ’s kingdom, because God has positively revealed both of these to be his “will”. The unconditioned, unsubmissive demand for any other benefit, in relation to which the will of God is yet unrevealed, is obviously presumptuous sin, a ground for offence, and not an acceptable prayer.

4. In order that the prayer shall be acceptable, the person praying must in every case intelligently and diligently use the means provided by God himself in the great framework of second causes and natural laws for the attainment of the end desired. If a man who prays for a crop neglects to sow the seed; or if a man who prays for learning neglects to study; or if a man who prays for the cure of disease neglects to take the appointed remedies; or if a man who prays for sanctification neglects to use the means of grace; or if a man who prays for the conversion of sinners neglects to work for it as far as his power or opportunity goes — then, in every case, he disobeys and insults God; his prayer is a mockery and an offence, and it can be answered only by rebuke and chastisement.

Means in relation to ends, and ends in dependence upon means, are as much an ordinance of God and as obligatory on us as prayer itself. If God shuts us up in a situation where no means are possible, we have a right to pray for what we want in the absence of all means; and God is perfectly able to give it to us without means, if it seems wisest and best to himself. But in every case in which means are available to us their use is commanded, and the poor fanatic who neglects them and petulantly cries for what he wants dishonors God, grieves rational Christians, and gives occasion to the devil and to his friends to triumph.

5. We must believe in the efficacy of prayer itself as a divinely-appointed means of attaining blessings. We must believe that we do and will obtain blessings by means of prayer which we would not attain without it.

There’s the challenge for acceptable prayer. In an age where his point #4 seems to be ignored, these comments are a timely reminder that acceptable prayer is an attainable goal.

Now, why is it that prayers are not being answered? Is it because those prayers are unacceptable to God?

God bless you.