John C. Peckham, addressing the question of why God sometimes intervenes but other times appears not to, wrote the following, which is rather insightful for any theology of prayer and the efficacy thereof:
We might wonder how prayer could have any impact at all. After all, would not God do what is best anyway, given his morally perfect nature? As noted previously, some texts seem to indicate that divine activity is tied somehow to belief and prayer such at least some impediments on divine action are dynamically related to these factors (See Matt. 17:20; Mark 9:23-28; 11:22-24; cf. 2 Chron. 7:14). Indeed, prayer may grant God jurisdiction to intervene in ways that otherwise would not be available. Whereas prayer may open avenues for God within the rules of engagement that were not otherwise (morally) available, there are many other factors and constraints beyond our perception such that prayer and faith do not open every avenue. This understanding entails that when our prayers are not answered as we had hoped, we should not assume that we did something wrong, did not pray hard enough, or did not have enough faith (cf. Matt. 26:39; Luke 22:32).
Christians often pray as if every outcome is strictly up to God, without any recognition that even God faces impediments, given his commitments to love and the rules of engagement. This assumption might cause severe dissonance when prayer for a loved one to be delivered from cancer appears to have no effect. It may be that God deeply wanted to cure that loved one, but that avenue was not (morally) available to him given the totality of other factors involved. As discussed in chapter 2, God often does not get what he wants. Here, Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane is especially instructive. “If it is possible,” Christ prayed, “let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will” (Matt. 26:39; cf. 6:10). The qualification “if it is possible” indicates that some avenues are not available to God, given his commitments and goals. In this case, God could not accomplish his greater desire of saving humans without Christ enduring the cross. Further, it affirms that God’s (remedial) will is the optimal avenue available.
Perhaps believers, particularly in times of great distress, should adopt such a framework for prayer, not only praying that God’s “will be done” but also praying, “If it is possible, let this cup pass,” in explicit recognition that not every outcome is morally available to God. However one decides to pray, the cosmic conflict framework exposes that there are far more factors involved relative to divine action and apparent inaction that we could fathom. We might fervently pray for divine intervention and even cry out to God that we feel forsaken (Matt. 27:46) while trusting in God’s unwavering benevolence (cf. Ps. 22; Dan. 3:17-18). (John C. Peckham, Theology of Love: Cosmic Conflict and the Problem of Evil [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2018], 159-60)
For more, be to check out the two-part discussion of divine providence and prayer, part of the Exploring Mormon Thought podcast series:
