Tertullian was one of the Ante-Nicene Church Father (Ante-Nicene means before the Council of Nicea, 325AD) from the city of Carthage in North Africa (modern Tunisia). He wrote at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd centuries and is often considered one of the most prolific Latin Christian writers. During his time the dominant language for literature began to shift from Greek to Latin. Tertullian is known for an ability to craft sharp and memorable turns of phrases that have endured through the centuries. Perhaps even in recent weeks you have heard his phrase “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” (Apology 50), or “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (Prescription against Heretics 7). His phrasing was also foundational for some important but non-biblical terminology, such as “original sin,” the distinction of “person” and “nature” in the Trinity, sacrament, merit, and others.
Later in Tertullian’s life, he was drawn into the sect of Montanism. Montanism appeared in Phyrgia (modern Turkey) around 150AD. It was an unorthodox sect that revolved around prophecies that Montanus and two female prophetesses received from the Paraclete (Jn 14) which focused on ascetic and legalistic practices. On the whole the sect was mostly orthodox in their beliefs, but the emphasis tended to focus more on the fantastic than on the biblical.
Tertullians treatise On Prayer was likely written around 192AD and predates his entry in to Montanism. Tertullian begins by explaining a new form of prayer that has come to us through the instruction of Jesus Christ. The Lord’s Prayer in its words, spirit, and brevity serve as the “epitome of the Gospel.” He finishes his explanation of the seven clauses of the Lord’s Prayer with a Trinitarian flourish of praise to the God who would condescend in order to teach his people how to pray, “What wonder? God alone could teach how he wished Himself prayed to. The religious rite of prayer therefore, ordained by Himself, and animated, even at the moment when it was issuing out of the Divine mouth, by His own Spirit, ascends, by its own prerogative, into heaven, commending to the Father what the Son has taught.” Tertullian then begins to explain some of the practical aspects of prayer.
The Lord’s Prayer is very brief in its language. Tertullian explains that there are circumstances in the individual’s life that might call for other language, more petitions, or different prayers. This is acceptable, “yet with remembrance of the Master’s precepts.” This gives the Christian great freedom in her prayers while maintaining appropriate boundaries. Prayer is more than a mechanical recitation of mere words, but it is an offering up of the desires of the heart for things agreeable to the will of God (WSC 98). The practice in the broader church of reciting a formulaic or set prayer without thought or heart did not develop from Scripture or during the time of the early Church. Tertullian rejected the “mantra” type of prayer.
The rest of Tertullian’s instruction on prayer deals primarily with freedom and humility. The Christian entering into prayer needs to be free. He should be free of anger with his brother. If you are odds with a brother or sister, reconcile, then come to pray (Matt 5:22, 23). The Christian should be free from mental angst (Eph 4:30). The Christian should have “clean hands.” By this Tertullian explains that he does not mean physically washed, but rather free of the stain of sin through confession and repentance. And the Christian should pray at times that have been freed up for that purpose. Again, this is not a slavish obligation to pray at the third, sixth, and ninth hours, but rather at a regular time set aside for prayer. “Albeit these practices stand simply without any precept for their observance, still it may be a good thing to establish some definite presumption, which may both add stringency to the admonition to pray, and may, as it were by a law, tear us out from our businesses unto such a duty.”
Tertullian also encourages the Christian to pray with humility. He addresses the posture of the person in prayer. Some say you should kneel in prayer; others suggest raising hands toward the sky. Tertullian argues that the posture is far less important than having humility in one’s heart. The Pharisee raised his hands to heaven, but it was the publican who beat his chest and looked downward in humility (Luke 18:9-14). And in humility, the Christian should expect God to respond to our prayers. If Daniel prayed powerfully, how much more will God answer prayers brought before him by the intercession of His Son, Jesus Christ. Our prayers matter.
 Everett Ferguson, Church History, Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2005), 127.
 Tertullian, On Prayer, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. III, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classis Ethereal Library), 681, accessed April 12, 2017, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.vi.iv.i.html.
 Ibid., III:684.
 Ibid., III:690.
In Tim Keller’s book Making Sense of God, Keller argues that it is a relatively recent phenomenon to believe that finite man has the capacity to sit in judgment over an infinite God. “Ancient people did not assume that the human mind had enough wisdom to sit in judgment on how an infinite God was disposing of things.” Keller’s understanding of the ancient mind is affirmed in Origen’s work On Prayer. Origen explains that prayer is a way in which humans can know and have discourse with God. When one realizes that he is entering into conversation with the Almighty, he quickly realizes this is no small feat. Origen explains the significance of prayer. He then explains the language and the disposition of prayer. Right prayer is prayer that is done for the right purpose and in the right manner.
Origen opened his treatise of prayer by placing man in proper perspective to God. The Almighty is so far above the thoughts of man that is an impossibility to consider that man could speak with God. The body is corruptible and the soul is weighed down by sin. The things of heaven are “impossible for man to trace out.” But God makes a way possible by his grace. Through Christ man is able to come to God. “No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but, I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” (John 15:15). Origen places the accent, though, on the fact that man can only know this on account of God’s gift. God is great and incomprehensible but God condescends to man that he might know him.
Origen then answers the question that might be in your mind, “What does this have to do with prayer?” We must accurately understand the greatness of God and our inability to come before God apart from his grace so that we’ll understand why we must only approach God in prayer with the right purpose and in the right manner. “It is necessary not merely to pray but also to pray as we ought and to pray what we ought. For even though we are enabled to understand what we ought to pray, that is not adequate if we do not add to it the right manner also.” Origen explains what he means by “as we ought” and “what we ought.” By the former he means the “disposition” of prayer. By the latter he means the “language” of prayer.
The disposition of prayer is illustrated by Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2. “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling” (1 Tim 2:8). He also refers to Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5, “if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt 5:23, 24). These passages point out the attitude one is to have when engaging in prayer. Beyond the words, the attitude and actions of the one praying is important. This is our disposition in prayer, or as Origen said the “as we ought” of prayer.
The language of prayer is illustrated by Jesus’ teaching to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matt 6:33). “Pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest” (Matt 9:38). “Pray that you may not enter into temptation” (Matt 26:41). And “when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their many words” (Matt 6:7). These passages point out that there is a proper content to prayer. We are to pray for a number of different types of things, asking for the kingdom of God, righteousness, for the growth of the kingdom, for deliverance from temptation, and that we should use humble words. This is the language of prayer, or as Origen said the “what we ought” of prayer.
In all of his instruction on the language and disposition of prayer, Origen keeps in mind the inescapable reality of God’s unfathomable transcendence. Our words and our hearts in prayer must be guided by the greatness of God. But that doesn’t mean we can’t pray for the seemingly smaller things in life. We just need to do with the proper perspective. “We should therefore pray for the principal and truly great and heavenly things, and as for those concerned with the shadows accompanying the principal, commit them to God who knows before we ask Him what things, by reason of our perishable body, we have need.”
Contrary to modern conception of God, we must come to God with an acknowledgment that he is so supremely great and above man than our finite minds can grasp. And yet, God in his great grace has condescended to us in Christ that we might approach him in prayer. As we balance the transcendence and immanence of God in prayer, we allow God’s Word to help us understand the proper language and disposition in prayer. We must honor God with right prayer done for the right purpose and in the right manner.
 Timothy Keller, Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical (New York, New York: Viking, 2016), 37.
 Origen, On Prayer, trans. William A. Curtis (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classis Ethereal Library, n.d.), 3, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/origen/prayer#.
 Ibid., 34.
Having looked at several examples of prayer in the Old Testament and the transition in prayer from the Old to the New Testament, it might be natural to then look at various prayers in the New Testament. We are, however, going to take a detour and first examine the writings on prayer from a variety of Church Fathers. Beginning with some early Church Fathers and leading up through a number of Reformed and Puritan theologians, we’ll take a quick survey through church history before we return to the New Testament and focus in on the Lord’s Prayer to conclude our study on prayer.
This detour through church history is meant to ground our understanding of prayer in Scripture as it has been handed to us through the church. The Reformed principle of sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone, is often misunderstood to mean that we look only at Scripture. The misconception is that the Reformation not only gives license, but instructs it adherents to read the Scriptures in a vacuum, completely devoid of any influence from ecclesiastical tradition. Not only is this impossible, it was never the intention of the Reformers.
Michael Allen makes the strong case in Reformed Catholicity that this abuse of sola Scriptura is more the result of modern rationalism and individualism than the intention of the Reformers. “Indeed, sola Scriptura has served for some moderns as a banner for private judgment and against catholicity. In so doing, however, churches and Christians have turned from sola Scriptura to solo Scriptura, a bastard child nursed at the breast of modern rationalism and individualism.”
The Reformed faith at its best does look back to the tradition of the church. Reading Luther, Calvin, and others shows that they were well acquainted with the works of the early Church Fathers. The looked at the history of the church to influence and guide their interpretations of Scripture. The Ten Theses of Bern (1528), an early Swiss Reformed Confession, makes mention of the “traditions of men,” but it gives no value judgment on them (Ten Theses of Bern, 2). It simply argues that these traditions must be held up to the ultimate standard of Scripture. The Scots Confession instructs to neither “rashly damn” nor “without just examination…receive” the work of general councils (Scots Confession, ch. xx). Allen points out that Zacharias Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, argued in his commentary on the catechism that there are three methods of teaching and learning the doctrine of the church. First is the catechetical instruction. The learning of the broad scope and sweep of Christian doctrine. Second is the lengthier and more developed theologies of the church. Primarily in mind here are the Patristic writings. Third is the highest method, Scripture itself. “The Bible is the ‘highest method in the study of the doctrine of the church,’ precisely because it contains the oracles of God; yet it is not to be engaged apart from the teaching instruments of Christ’s church.”
So it is wise for us to look at prayer through the work of the early church and the Reformation. And we do this before we return to the New Testament because what we will find in the work of the Church is that they consistently look to the Lord’s Prayer as the divinely given model for prayer. After listening to the voices of the universal Church, we will look at Jesus’ instruction for prayer. So over the next several weeks we are going to look at some of the key writings on prayer from the giants of the church. We will examine some early Church Fathers like Origen, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine. We will also look at some of the Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries on prayer. We’ll hear the voice of some of the Reformers and Puritans, like John Calvin, Wilhelmus À Brakel, Francis Turretin, Thomas Watson, and Matthew Henry. By looking at what some of the great minds of the church have taught about prayer, we’ll then refocus our attention on the Lord’s instruction in the Lord’s Prayer.
 Michael Allen, Scott R. Swain, and J. Todd Billings, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015), 85.
 Ibid., 68.
Prayers from Genesis to Malachi were offered up to God and answered by God. God’s will was sought through prayer and God implemented his will through the prayers of his people. But the prayers of the Old Testament show that the Bible reveals God through the Scriptures in a progressive manner. God does not change, but the manner in which he has revealed himself has deepened through the progression of the Scriptures. For example, Abraham was saved by faith in Christ, even though he didn’t know the name Jesus.
As Christ was revealed through the prophets and then the apostles, some of the aspects of how God’s people prayed changed. Since Abraham never knew the name of Christ, he could not have prayed in Jesus’ name. “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1:1, 2). No prophet or Old Testament saint was able to ask for anything in Jesus’ name (Jn 16:23), but now, those who knew the Christ could pray in Jesus’ name. This changes the intimacy and the immediacy of prayer.
The work of Jesus as the Christ also progresses the assurance believers of the New Testament and beyond can have in their prayers. Jesus acts as a Mediator (1 Tim 2:5) on our behalf. He is the Advocate for us before the Father (1 John 2:1). So we know that our prayers are heard by the Father. This is not a fundamental change in prayer from the Old Testament time, for the Psalms repeatedly assure us that God hears our prayers (Pss 5:3, 17:6, 34:17, 66:19, et al.). God’s hearing our prayers has not changed, but as the person and work of Jesus Christ has been revealed we are able to understand and appreciate more clearly how God hears our prayers. The mechanism by which the Father hears our prayers has been revealed to be none other than the Son. And the Son assures us that, “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (Jn 14:13, 14).
A final advancement we see in the progression of prayer relates to the role of the Holy Spirit in prayer. The Old Testament Scriptures are largely silent on the role of the Spirit in prayer. As God does not change, it is not the case that the Spirit was inactive in prayer in the Old Testament, rather it is that the Spirit’s role was unsaid in the Old Testament. There was, however, an advancement in the Spirit’s role in believers’ lives. After the earthly ministry of Jesus was completed, the Father and the Son sent the Spirit into the lives of all those in Christ.
The 17th century Dutch Reformer Wilhemus À Brakel noted, “A true prayer proceeds from the Holy Spirit…. In order for anyone to pray aright, the Holy Spirit must grant the disposition, the desires, and the expressions.” We are too weak to pray as we ought to pray. God, therefore, gives us the Spirit to empower us to prayer properly (Rom 8:26). The Spirit does not, however, make us slothful in our prayers, as if we were simply to blank our minds and allow the Spirit to take over. This is the way of Eastern meditation (as advocated and embodied in Eastern practices like yoga). This is neither faithful nor helpful. Instead, as John Calvin instructs, “the Spirit empowers us so to compose prayers as by no means to hinder or hold back our own effort, since in this matter God’s will is to test how effectually faith moves our hearts.” The Holy Spirit empowers and moves those in Christ to pray as they ought. This is a blessing that those who are in Christ on this side of the cross enjoy.
Prayer is distinctively Trinitarian. While the Trinity is certainly seen in the Old Testament, it is somewhat veiled. BB Warfield describes the Trinity in the Old Testament as “a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted.” It is the Spirit who brings us to prayer, through Jesus Christ, to the Father. This is revealed in much greater detail through the progressive revelation of the New Testament. It hasn’t changed from the Old Testament, but has come into sharper and clearer focus in the New.
 Wilhelmus Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015), 3.452.
 Jean Calvin, John T McNeill, and Ford Lewis Battles, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), III.xx.5.
The Prophets are full of examples of prayer. Isaiah’s prophecy is a hybrid of poetry and prose that uses exalted language to call the people back to God. His prophecy is littered with prayer. Jeremiah is full of the prayers of a man who weeps for the Lord. His prayers are seasoned with tears. These prayers are followed by the book of Lamentations. This book is five movements of lament in prayer. The Minor Prophets, too, have expressions of prayer that fit with every mood and situation. Jonah shows the answered prayers of heathens and the rejected prayer of the runaway prophet, the prayers of a repentant city and the prayer of an angry prophet. Habakkuk raises a prayer of complaint that is familiar to all believers, “Oh LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear?” (Hab 1:1). But Habakkuk’s raw honesty is followed up with unrelenting faith, “Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the…, yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation” (Hab 3:17, 18). The Prophets convey this emotion in a variety of circumstances and in a variety of forms prayer for the believer.
Perhaps the method of prayer among the Prophets is most clearly seen in the prayer life of Daniel. Few people show the determination to pray like Daniel. Often our prayer lives are stunted by the concerns of our day. Prayer takes a backseat to other priorities. Prayer is ignored because we don’t really see the value. Prayer is postponed because circumstances might make it awkward. Daniel would have none of this attitude.
Daniel was a prophet living in exile. The Babylonians had conquered Israel and taken all the best men back to Babylon. Daniel was one of these men. But he had resolved to not defile himself in exile. He committed to living a holy life and to continue worshiping the LORD. Three times a day, Daniel got down on his knees and gave thanks before his God (Dan 6:10). There was nothing in Daniel’s life that his enemies could point to as a pretext for his dismissal, except that Daniel was wholly devoted to the LORD. So the King’s satraps contrived to outlaw prayer. They knew this was the only way to get rid of Daniel. Would that the worst thing that could be said about our lives was that we were completely faithful in prayer. I fear that the faithfulness of the modern Christian’s prayer life would not often be cause for persecution.
Daniel’s life was preserved by the LORD. And Daniel continued to serve the King by answering the visions and riddles that befuddled all others. His visions foretold of God’s ultimate redemptive plan culminating in the Kingdom of God being inaugurated by his Messiah. As Daniel began to grasp the magnitude of this vision, it created in him a deep awareness of his sin before a holy God. Chapter 9 is Daniel’s prayer of personal and national confession. The people had rejected the LORD and been sent into exile. But God was not done with his covenant people.
Daniel’s prayer of confession is a great model for us today. It shows us that repentance requires honest confession, earnest contrition, and real change. Daniel’s confession is clear. He does not equivocate or make excuses. He owns up to the sin of the people. “We have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land” (Dan 9:5, 6). There is no blame-shifting or finger pointing in Daniel’s prayer. He confesses his sin. Our repentance should be marked by prayer that honestly confesses our sin.
Daniel’s heart is broken over his sin. When we truly understand the gravity of our sin, it should break us. “To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame” (Dan 9:7). “To us, O LORD, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you” (Dan 9:8). The knowledge of God’s holiness and Daniel’s sinfulness was a source of shame. He shows an emotional understanding of his sin. Our repentance should be marked by prayer demonstrating earnest contrition.
Finally, Daniel’s life was changed. Repentance is not complete until there is a change. Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11 that she should, “Go…and sin no more.” The practical demonstration that repentance was genuine is a changed life. The rest of the book of Daniel confirms Daniel’s faithfulness. And Daniel is assured by a messenger for the Lord that he, “shall rest and stand in [his] allotted place at the end of the days” (Dan 12:12). Daniel shows a life fully committed to the Lord. Our repentance should be marked by prayer that really changes us.
The Prophets declared God’s Word to the people, calling them to repentance and faith. Their prayers were prayers that glorified God, expressed the cries of the heart, and pointed the people to God’s redemptive hope in the Messiah. Our love of God, heart for the lost, and vision of God’s love for us would only grow if we sought to pray like Daniel prayed.
A good athlete conditions and trains his body so that he doesn’t have to “think” in the moment. Instead, his body is so accustomed to the situation that it simply reacts. Every scenario has been drilled into him by repetition that muscles and reflexes simply do. But this doesn’t just happen. The athlete must spend hour after hour in the gym, taking jump shot after jump shot, or swing after swing, or repetition after repetition. Every possible scenario is practiced so that there are no surprises on the court or field or mat. Prayer often operates in the same way.
There are times where the circumstances of life strike us unprepared, and prayer in those moments is visceral and unrehearsed. God hears those prayers. But prayer is better and more effective in expressing our heart, changing our situation, and communicating our needs to a generous God when we are well prepared in the full range of emotions. It is for this reason that the Psalter is the greatest training tool on prayer in the Scriptures. While the Lord’s Prayer is the perfect instruction on the form of prayer. The Psalms are the perfect instruction on the content of prayer. In order to prayer effectively, we need to be conditioned, trained, and practiced in the scope of emotional life that is expressed through the Psalms. The 8th century English scholar, Alcuin, wrote:
As angels live in heaven, so men live on earth who rejoice in the praises of God, in the pure heart of psalmody. No mortal man can fully declare the virtue of the psalms. In them are the confession of sins, the tears of the penitent, sorrow of heart. Here is foretold all the dispensations of our redemption, the wondrous delights of heaven’s mirth. Here shall you find the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Word of God.
The Psalms are the prayerbook of God which trains us in how to express our whole lives, dreams, hopes, fears, and pains to God.
The great prayers of the New Testament and the prayers of the saints throughout Church History are littered with references to the Psalms. A life of great prayer is nurtured on the pure spiritual milk of God’s Word. Eugene Peterson explains that God’s Word, specifically the Psalms, ought to be a tool for our prayers.
The Psalms are the best tools available for working the faith – one hundred and fifty carefully crafted prayers that deal with the great variety of operations that God carries on in us and attend to all the parts of our lives that are, at various times and in different ways, rebelling and trusting, hurting and praising. People of faith take possession of the Psalms with the same attitude and for the same reason that gardeners gather up rake and hoe on their way to the vegetable patch, and students carry paper and pencil as they enter a lecture hall. It is a simple matter of practicality – acquiring the tools for carrying out the human work at hand.
It isn’t that we cannot pray without the Psalms. But an ignorance of their content or a rejection of their use in prayer will result in our attempting to grunt our way through the task with inferior tools.
Our weekly Lord’s Day worship seeks to make use of the Psalms for prayer. The reason we pray through the entire Psalter is because we believe the entire Psalter is instructive for our prayer life. Pastorally, I want the praying of the Psalms modeled for the congregation. The Christian needs to see the use of the Psalms as a normal and regular tool of her prayer life. Personally, we need to be regularly reading and meditating on the Psalms so that their language easily flows from our lips in our prayers. T.M. Moore’s little book God’s Prayer Program includes a topical index of the Psalms. I recommend this full resource and share a sample of his index to help spur your use of the Psalms in your prayer.
For Confession of Sin – 6, 7, 32, 38, 39, 41, 51, 77, 78, 86, 130
For Pleading for Help – 3, 4, 30, 31, 42, 43, 64, 91, 120, 121, 123, 134
For Praise and Thanksgiving – 8, 18, 19, 22, 34, 92, 93, 95-100, 111-118, 144-150
For Pursuing Righteousness – 1, 5, 15, 23-28, 36, 50, 119, 139
 Quoted in, Bruce K. Waltke and James M. Houston, The Psalms as Christian Worship: An Historical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2010), 37.
 Eugene H Peterson, Answering God: The Psalms as Tools for Prayer (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 2–3.
 T. M Moore, God’s Prayer Program: Passionately Using the Psalms in Prayer (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2005), 181.
In early March the movie adaptation of best-selling book The Shack will hit theaters. It is the story of a grieving man, Mack, who receives a mysterious personal invitation to meet with God at “The Shack.” The book has sold approximately 20 million copies and that number will likely increase after the release of the film. It was deeply loved by many people because of the unconventional manner in which God is portrayed, the way the problem of suffering was handled, and its fresh perspective on faith. But the book was strongly criticized because of deeply troubling theological problems. The book’s portrayal of the Trinity is contrary to any branch of orthodox Christianity. The answer to suffering presented by the book offers little real Gospel solution to evil. Fresh perspectives on faith, as is the case with The Shack, are usually just re-warmed heresies for a new generation. Should Christians go see The Shack? Is there value in seeing it? How should a Christians discern whether or not to see a film like this?
Let me say from the outset, I understand the appeal of a book or movie like The Shack to the evangelical movement, overall. Many evangelical Christians long for popular affirmation of their faith. The broad evangelical church is pragmatic to its core. Results are validation of truth, and what speaks more clearly than 20 million copies and a major motion picture? Many Christians not only want this movie to succeed, but they need it to succeed. The success of “faith-based” films seems to offer a more solid rock on which to stand than the Scriptures and “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” can. The Shack will likely generate numbers that allow the modern evangelical to say, “I know this is true, look how successful it was.”
I also understand the appeal of the actual story. We’ve all had to deal with grief. To see a ray of hope in the midst of grief is a powerful thing. We’ve all struggled with periods when our faith grows cold or stale. The visceral reality and passive nature of Mack’s encounter with God is desirable. And when you start to chip away at that attractive façade because of something so unexciting as orthodoxy, it runs the risk of returning the person to his spiritual doldrums. People don’t like that, and they will let you know. Despite all the theological problems with The Shack, millions of evangelical Christians will go see it. And those who warn other Christians about the problems will be called legalistic, Puritanical, angry, and overly dogmatic (at least, those are the things I’ve been called because of speaking out against the book).
So, instead of being the curmudgeonly old man, who rails about the new-fangled moving pictures while listing all the theological deficiencies and out-right falsehoods in the book, I’m going to instead offer some broad advice about theological discernment at the movies. This might be somewhat ironic, since I’m not an avid movie-goer, but there are important things to think through before consuming any entertainment. We must remind ourselves that the content we enjoy is never value neutral. Thus, I believe it is helpful for Christians to think through the quality, message, and theology of a movie in order to discern if it is worth your time and attention.
The quality of a movie is important. Is the story compelling? Is it well executed? Does it accurately portray the human condition? Will it appropriately move your emotions: humor, empathy, joy, love, fear? Or does it use cheap tricks to elicit a laugh, scream, or lust? The vast majority of movies today are utterly forgettable. Good stories are worth the investment to think through and engage. Cheap stories end up robbing us of time and attention.
What is the message of the film? What is the problem and how is it answered? Does this answer fit with what the Scriptures describe as the fallen human condition? A movie does not need to be explicitly Christian to pass this test. Some movies accurately depict the sinfulness of man or the emptiness and absurdity of sin. Some films accurately portray the value of sacrifice, service, and love. Is the message honorable and/or redemptive?
Finally, from the message will come the underlying theology of a film. What kind of God does this film portray? What answer does it give to the human condition? What is the hope of redemption? Rarely will a secular film explicitly point to Christ, but often it will present a redeemer-type hero. Because of the image of God imprinted on all people, there is often true truth lurking just under the surface. I would add, though, that when a film claims to be “faith-based,” it gets greater scrutiny as to its faithfulness to Scripture because it is targeted to an audience ready to accept its underlying theology.
On the points of quality, message, and theology, I find The Shack to be deeply lacking. The benefits that might come from this film would be gleaned with greater ease and less heresy from a number of better places. As a friend suggested, do yourself a favor and stick to the shacks that are preceded by “Shake.”
The prayers of the book of Exodus primarily focus on the prayers of Moses. There is an initial crying out of the people, but that cry is answered by God in the person of Moses as their Redeemer. This brief survey of prayers from the book of Exodus will highlight that prayer does in fact change things, but often the thing most profoundly changed is the person who prays.
At the end of Genesis, the people of Israel find themselves escaping famine by taking up refuge in land of Goshen in Egypt. As the book of Exodus opens, however, there is a new Pharaoh who did not know Joseph (Ex 1:8). The Pharaoh feared the Israelites, so he oppressed and enslaved them. Their lives were made “bitter with hard service” (1:14). Pharaoh also sought to limit the births of the unwanted Hebrews, calling for infanticide of all the Hebrew males. The oppression and slavery of the people under the Egyptians was a heavy burden. Their response to the difficult circumstances was to “groan because of their slavery and cry for help” (2:23). The people’s simple prayer of anguish goes up to God. God hears their cry. He remembers the covenant. He sees the people. And God knew (2:24, 25).
God will ordain difficulties in our lives to draw us to himself. Just as God’s Word had explained through Joseph, “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen 50:20). The new Pharaoh in Egypt had forgotten about Joseph. But it seems that the Israelites had forgotten about God. The slavery and oppression in Egypt drove the people to remember and to cry out to the Lord.
How did the Lord answer the people’s cry for help in oppression? Did the Lord immediately whisk them out of hardship? Not even close. The Lord actually answered their cry by bringing heavier burdens on them. Their taskmasters reduced the straw, but the number of bricks remained. When productivity dipped, the beatings increased. Moses then prays to the Lord, “O Lord, why have you done evil to this people? Why did you ever send me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has done evil to this people, and you have not delivered your people at all” (Ex 5:22, 23). God is answering the prayers of the people by doing something bigger and more important than fixing their immediate situation. The answer envisioned by the people is far too small. God is preparing them for a redemption that is far greater than they can presently conceive.
God called to Moses from out of the burning bush. “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (3:6). God assures Moses that he is aware of the people’s suffering. And he will redeem them. But it will be according to God’s plan. One of the most amazing aspects of this scene is that Moses actually interacts and dialogues with God. Moses asks, “What shall I say to the people? Who should I tell them has sent me?” God responds, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (3:14). Herbert Lockyer comments that “true prayer is a two-way channel – we speak to God: God speaks to us.” But how does God speak to us today? God does not speak today in burning bushes, but he speaks to us through the Scriptures. God’s Word made alive by the Holy Spirit will burn in our hearts and yet not consume us. We speak to God in prayer and he speaks his answer to us in his Word.
The Lord delivers his people through the plagues that are laid upon Egypt. After the final plague, the Passover, Pharaoh is broken and releases the people. But he quickly reneges on his release. He chases after the Israelites with his army, only to be finally defeated and drowned when the waters of the Red Sea crash down upon him. Then Moses and the people sang a victory song of thanksgiving to the Lord (Ex 15). God had delivered the people and they responded in thanksgiving. When the Lord responds to prayer the appropriate response of the people is prayer.
The people’s deliverance is not complete yet. They will still wander in the wilderness for a generation. And they will rebel against God’s good rule. In fact, their idolatry will bring them to edge of destruction. But Moses intercedes with the Lord on their behalf (Ex 32, 33). Moses’ prayer for the people is answered by God and the people are spared. But it wasn’t God who was changed by this prayer. Instead, in Exodus 34 we see that Moses is the one transfigured. His face shines with a reflection of the glory of God. And then the people are instructed in how to construct the temple so that God’s presence can dwell in the midst of the people. The answer to prayer was seldom an immediate fix to their circumstances. Instead, God changed the people so that they might better know him.
 Herbert Lockyer, All the Prayers of the Bible: A Devotional and Expositional Classic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 32.
There are hundreds and hundreds of prayers in the Bible. The Psalms comprise a prayer book of 150 prayers all on their own. Man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26) and by nature looks to communicate with God. We see this communication in the opening chapters of Genesis through Adam’s dialogue with God. While there is no explicit prayer between Adam and God, we can infer that they likely conversed with one another in chapter 2 as Adam is tasked with naming the animals and then Eve is created. We also see Adam’s dialogue with God following his sin. The conversation between Adam and God in Genesis 3:8-13 seems to imply that God and Adam had had these conversations before. It seems likely that it was part of their daily routine to walk in the Garden and to talk. In shame Adam hid. But one of the first consequences of sin we see is that Adam is hesitant to communicate with God. Sin disrupts our communion with God.
After Adam and Eve are driven out of the Garden, we next see man conversing with God when Cain answers God’s question about the location of his brother Abel. Again, as with Adam, the conversation with God is very colloquial and informal. And also, as with Adam, the result of sin prompted Cain to be evasive and to obfuscate the truth in his speaking to God. Sin disrupts our communion with God.
After this, Seth was born to Adam and Eve. And Seth had a son called Enosh. Then Moses records that, “At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD” (Gen 4:26). This is the beginning of what we would consider formal prayer in the Bible. Now, it is unlikely that man had not worshiped God in prayer prior to this point. But it seems that with the growth in human population, men now began to corporately worship with a structure and formality that had previously been absent. God’s name was revered in a manner that was novel to man.
Enoch and Noah both “walked with God” (Gen 5:22; 6:9, respectively). Though the Hebrew is not explicit, it does imply that they had an abiding communion and fellowship with God in their walking. But the next development in prayer recorded in Scripture is with Abraham. Abraham is called by God to enter into a covenant with him. God made covenantal promises to Abraham and Abraham responded by worshiping and calling upon the name of the LORD at the altar (Gen 12:7, 8; 13:4). We then see Abraham praying for an heir (Gen 15:2, 3). Abraham offers up to God the desires of his heart, for things agreeable to the will of God (WSC 98). Abraham believed God by faith, and this was counted to him as righteousness (15:6). Abraham was declared righteous on account of faith and his communion with God was strengthened. Sin disrupts communion but righteousness strengthens it.
Though there are several other examples of prayer in Genesis, we will look here at only two more. First, Abraham prays for Sodom in Genesis 18 & 19. God, in his righteous wrath, is going to level the wicked city. Abraham intercedes on behalf of the people of Sodom, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” (Gen 18:23). Abraham pleads, “if there are 50, will you spare it?” then “if there are 45…” and so on. Until finally Abraham sees that there are not ten who are righteous in that city. There came a point where Abraham’s intercession ceased. Why did Abraham stop asking for God’s mercy at this point? Matthew Henry answers, “Because Abraham [came to understand] that [Sodom] deserved to be destroyed if there were not so many as ten righteous.” The barren tree must be cut down if it will never yield fruit (Luke 13:9). Abraham’s intercessory prayer was effective, but the effect was not to change God’s mind, but rather to change Abraham’s understanding and acceptance of God’s righteousness.
Last, we jump to the end of Genesis where Jacob prays a blessing for his sons (Gen 49). Jacob takes his final hours of life to offer up a prayer for his sons. Jacob was one who had personally wrestled with God (Gen. 32). He knew what it was to struggle in prayer. He knew what it was to see the mercy of God in prayer. So he lifts his eyes up and dies gazing heavenward while praying that others would find the fulfillment of the covenant promises of God. Jacob dies while praying that his people would experience sweet communion with God.
 Herbert Lockyer, All the Prayers of the Bible: A Devotional and Expositional Classic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 18.
 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 47.