Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

want it?) or about the object (Is it sufficiently desirable?). Here the prayer is
suddenly potent. But it still fails, because the request “is for the wrong object”
(Laws, 173).
God does not and will not answer self-centered prayers. They run totally
counter to the pattern of the Lord’s Prayer, which the Savior taught his
Church to pray (Mt. 6:9-15). Every aspect of this prayer is God-centered.
God’s Name, God’s Kingdom, and God’s Will, all three are and should be as
central on earth, as they are central in heaven. When it is finally man’s turn, it
is some turn! The “necessities” that we (may) ask for are (only) the C-rations
of the soldiers of Christ. 324 This means that the fourth petition continues to be
God-centered. So does the fifth and sixth one. There is a constant need for
forgiveness. The soldiers of the cross do not always carry themselves as they
should. Finally, there is the equally constant recognition of the overpowering
temptations of the Evil One. The acknowledgment of the utter helplessness in
the face of these temptations precipitates the cry for deliverance! But this
helplessness does not signify hopelessness. Quite the contrary! God’s royal
omnipotence, ever present glory, and unbounded dominion guarantee a positive
outcome of all the petitions.
That James’ readers failed to follow the pattern of this Model Prayer can
hardly be disputed. Frankly, the Church will invariably bog down in failure
until selfish lusts are replaced by “holy desires” (Manton, 342), allencompassing,
selfish and damnable hedonism by God-centered, equally allembracive
“Christian hedonism.” 325 There is every reason for selfexamination
to determine, whether the disposition of my heart, the direction
of my thinking, the content of my will, and the quality of my emotions, are
324 Somewhat tongue in cheek, but coupled with a good deal of seriousness, I have at times
suggested to audiences in the USA that they might want to skip the fourth petition. If God
were to honor this petition in an affluent country, such as the USA, he might end up having to
take a hefty percentage away. If this would evoke a (loud) protest, he would simply respond
to the petitioners that he complied with their request for their “daily” food. He gave them no
less, but neither would he give them any more. This is why reduced their income to(ward) the
level of “daily bread,” without lots of amenities. Compared to massive numbers of people
who live off $1 per day per person, this most likely would still leave them in the lap of luxury.
325 This term, of course, was coined by John Piper in his Desiring God (Portland, OR: Multnomah
Press, 1986), which carries the undertitle of “Meditations of a Christian Hedonist.” His
thesis is that we glorify God by enjoying him. He glorifies God most who is most satisfied in
God. This is a precious biblical truth that admittedly has been underplayed historically. However,
when we bring James into the equation, we must conclude that he presents the complementary
truth that we equally (should) enjoy God by reflecting his (communicable) perfections.
He enjoys God most who most mirrors God. Piper’s emphasis runs the risk of producing
a pendulum swing, that could marginalize the message of James for the unsuspecting in
practice, even if not in principle. Hence the phrase “Christian hedonism” should be used with
caution and always in quotation marks.
662