I heard a preacher say . . .

[Michael Butterfield]

Just this evening I could have spit out my false teeth (if I had false teeth) over soemthing I heard a preacher say in a Presbyterian Pulpit, in sermon. He said, "if you pray out of duty your prayers will fall on deaf ears." Is my reaction to strong (I have actually toned it down a bit)? I really was ready to spit bullets In all seriousness is there a problem here? Is it just me or do I have some legit concern?

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Can you explain a bit more - I do not understand what that statement means.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
... I heard a preacher say in a Presbyterian Pulpit, in sermon. He said, "if you pray out of duty your prayers will fall on deaf ears." Is my reaction to strong ... In all seriousness is there a problem here? Is it just me or do I have some legit concern?

What? Did you let him get away with that? Go back and ask him what he means by it! Be nice but direct.




Robin

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I would class it as one of those expressions that probably said a bit more than the author intended, or else he just wanted an "extreme" phrase to shock people. I suspect he was talking about prayer that is heartless, soulless, formal. If you are praying purely from a sense of duty, then you are not likely praying from faith.

I suggest that one may, in fact, pray out of a sense of duty because he knows that God so directs his people to pray. Duty can be a powerful motivator. Duty (and habit) can bring us into God's presence even when our "feelings" aren't in it. But as God said to Cain, "If you do right, will there not be a lifting up?" Gen 4:7 (compare with verse 6). Obedience leads to proper attitudes in the heart of one who is at peace with God. But if one rises up from prayer, done out of duty, with no more warmth of affection for having had his conversation with God than when he knelt down, then yes, I suppose that his "communion" with God was distinctly one-sided.

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Can you explain a bit more - I do not understand what that statement means.

I think that the statement is about as plain as I can make it. It was that direct of a statement. He said that if you pray out of duty then you prayers fall on deaf ears. The sermon was in the context of Psalm 128 and his three points were 1. Freedom expresses itself in joyful praise; 2. Freedom expresses itself in joyful prayer; and, 3. freedom expresses itself in joyful promise.

Granted a running theme in the sermon was joy and the statement about duty was stated under point 2. However, one thing that disturbed me was the underlying assertion that if you prayed out of duty rather than joy you would not be heard. My contention is that even if we accept his definition of joy (which I found a bit dubious) you will not convince me that it is possible to always pray in such a manner. There are times when the vicissitudes of life and its accompanying difficulties cause us not to be "bubbly" with our experessions of joy and, consequently, we are not always able to pray in such a manner. We just do not "œfeel" like praying, but pray any way out of duty, because it is the right thing to do, because we chose to do it. Sometimes, to borrow from the Nike shoe commercial, you have to "œJust Do It".

 

[satz]

Michael and Bruce...i think you guys pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I think sometimes we have to do things out of duty or obedience first, then trust that the appropriate feelings will come.

Having joy or loving the Lord, i believe, is very much something we do, an active act of obedience on our part.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by satz
Michael and Bruce...i think you guys pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I think sometimes we have to do things out of duty or obedience first, then trust that the appropriate feelings will come.

Having joy or loving the Lord, i believe, is very much something we do, an active act of obedience on our part.

Our feelings are not to be relied upon....plus, who says a sense of duty is not connected to love?

Robin

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
. . . Duty can be a powerful motivator. Duty (and habit) can bring us into God's presence even when our "feelings" aren't in it. . . . Obedience leads to proper attitudes in the heart of one who is at peace with God. But if one rises up from prayer, done out of duty, with no more warmth of affection for having had his conversation with God than when he knelt down, then yes, I suppose that his "communion" with God was distinctly one-sided.

This is a very good way of putting it. I looked at it from the perspective of the beginning of prayer and you are addressing it from the perspective of the finishing of prayer. This, then, covers the whole of the issue for me. Often it is duty that leads to the "œwarmth of affection." Thank you for putting it such a way. Oh, how I love the affections! My the Lord cause mine to burn ever more intently in all that I do for Him whom to know is life eternal!
Praise Him, Praise Him!

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by Robin

Our feelings are not to be relied upon....plus, who says a sense of duty is not connected to love?

Robin

This is also what I mean. I would even argue that this is a much better concept of duty. You see, today duty has been taken over by an unbiblical view of volunteerism. In our Grandfathers day their duty was to join the military during WWII, but was their love of country any less because of duty? No, they did what they knew to be the right thing to do precisely because of love of country. Today it is autonomous me that can pick and chose what I want to volunteer for and then do that. It is a diminishing of the whole of idea of duty.

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Gospel duties are to be performed with a Gospel temper. STEPHEN CHARNOCK

 

[Michael Butterfield]

You don´t come into the Christian life and continue in it half-heartedly, half in and half out, wanting the benefits but not wanting the duties, wanting the privileges but rejecting responsibilities.

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones (From a cassette tape)