Revelation: What about the Clergy?

In my last post I strived to show that to truly prophesy means to speak authoritatively for God. Every single prophet that God raised up had to be 100% accurate, because if they weren't the people could rightfully disregard their prophecies. In fact we saw that the people were commanded by God to ignore those prophets who made untrue and false prophecies (see Deut. Chaps. 13+18). My message was that if we claim to have received a message from God then the same standards and regualtions that applied to the prophets of old also apply to us today. The reason I say that is because when we believe we have an personal message from God we are really to prophets to ourselves and as such we must meet the same standards of any Biblical test for a prophet. If we don't meet those standards then we are but false prophets to ourselves! If we are wrong in our prophecies even only once, then it would stand that we are in light of Scripture unreliable as God's messenger and as such we should not trust ourselves as God's authoritative voice.

What about the clergy? Don't they prophesy in the manner of 1 Corinthians 14 (unto edification, exhortation and comfort) yet they don't have to meet such tests?

Yes they do indeed prophesy in a way, but their prophesies are on the application of Scriptures. Their prophesies are judged by Scripture and we have the right and duty to check sermons against Scripture. If a minister claims that a certain narrative or text is binding upon the Church as a whole or even you as an individual we have the right to check this claim in light of God's Word with the Scripture being the ultimate rule and guide of our faith and practice.

The type of revelation that I'm looking at in these essays is different. For example if someone claims that God told them to start going to the gym, how on earth can we judge this? The type of prophecy that ministers perform is on based entirely upon and controlled entirely by the Word of God as contained within the authoritative and inerrant Canon of Holy Scripture. Thus if the minister delivers a true exegesis of Scripture then his exegesis can be considered authoritative. A personal revelation like my gym example that aren't based on Scripture can't be judged in the same way as they nor their basis (the human mind) are neither authoritative nor without error.

Basically what I am trying to say is that anyone who claims to have received a personal revelation from God but hasn't is binding themselves to falsehood. No matter if the prophesy is given to the church or one’s own self, it is still false if it contradicts the Holy Bible or fails the accuracy test. All words that claim to be God’s inerrant and authoritative word when they are not are false prophecies and we should quit listening to those that peddle them!

Revelation: This Time It's Personal...

Well here we go with the first of my articles on knowledge being based on “God's” messages to us. The first thing I think needs to be noted is that there are two different ways to understand where our knowledge comes from. The first way is by observing the world around us, by using our senses. The second way comes through revelation. These two paths combine to create our whole knowledge of both the physical and spiritual elements of life. The first path allows us to use our rational minds which God has endowed us with in order to more fully appreciate His work in creation. The second path is really a combination of two parallel lines, both ultimately leading to the same source, which is God. One line is God's revelation and the other is the “secret things” of God. Now we all know from the 39 Articles and the Reformed Confessions that God's Revelation is His Word, contained in the Bible. But what about the “secret things” which belong only to God? (Deut 29:29)

Before we look closely at that question let's think about what a “personal word” from God is? Well they aren't observable in creation... God doesn't leave post-it notes, or send emails so “personal conversations” with God can't fall into our first parameter of “revelation via observation” of the world around us. Thus they must fall into our second understanding of knowledge, either they are special revelations from God or they are secret things only known to God. Now as most of us would agree that esoteric (occult) knowledge is generally evil, it would suffice to say that everyone who claims to have special conversations with God must consider them to be special revelations.

In my last post I quickly showed using Scripture that special revelation came through people chosen by God. Men like Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah and the Apostles, each of whom spoke with authority from God and for God. True Urim and Thrmmin (mentioned in Ex 28:30) were used to discern God's Will, but these only worked because they were ordained by God Himself as we are told by Moses. God's truth and message was always delivered the same way, via His own personally ordained speakers and writers. By taking our own chats with God as being special revelations we are implying that we have been personally ordained by God to speak on His behalf. We are saying that we are God's messengers, just as Moses and the prophets and Apostles before us. That's a big problem.

Now of course the argument is “ah Wandering Pilgrim you are taking it in the wrong context, God's messages to me are not for the church but for me personally”. Deuteronomy 18:22 shows us that the Prophets who spoke for God had to be completely accurate. So if these personal revelations are from God then are they also inerrant? Well as God cannot lie then it would seem that our own personal revaluations must also be inerrant, yet there are very few of those whom believe in their own personal revelations from God who claim their words were 100% accurate and on the same level as infallible Scripture.

What if some personal revelations are really from God and others simply in error? How can we tell the difference? Often because they are specific to the individual it is nigh on impossible to test them with Scripture. An example I mentioned in my last post was about Coffee. Let us say that God has told me to stop buying the local shop's instant coffee and instead I am to choose the costlier instant coffee made from the finest Ecuadorian coffee beans. How can I test that? Well some say consult other Christians. But this is flawed too because if my message can't be tested by Scripture (which doesn’t mention anything about coffee) then where is the point in getting together a group of fallible people who are not prophets of God in the hopes of them receiving a special revelation? After all they are no more infallible or authoritative than I am.

I often find that those who believe in these personal revelations usually rely on tests to back up their claims. Often they are portrayed as “miracles”. Normally someone says they have had a personal message from God, followed the advice of the message and the results are often something amazing. Quite a few church leaders today use this method of supporting their special status as “God's anointed”, they tell so many miracle stories that many are often convinced of their favour in God's eyes... as though their pastor was a modern day Moses. But what happens when questioned about all those miracles that didn't work out, where the action based on a personal revelation was mistaken? Well you get told that the mistake doesn't mean that the revelation wasn't truly from God.

Here lies the problem with this sort of test. Somebody gets a special revelation telling them do a certain action. The revelation is not infallible, the receiver is not infallible (nor do they claim to be). The person then does whatever the revelation has told them to and the result is either:

1. Something amazing happens
2. Nothing special happens

Either way the person still doesn’t know if their revelation was correct. They do not know if their message was an inerrant and authoritative word from God because good things can happen to misguided people and bad things can happen to good people and their test could simply be the result of providence rather than insider knowledge. For this very reason “miracle” stories or tests of this nature cannot be used to prove the validity of personal revelation.

Jeremiah by Michelangelo

Think about the prophet Jeremiah, ordained by God to speak authoritatively for Him. Yet this calling didn't lead Jeremiah to happiness. Instead his prophecies brought him almost continual misery and agony as well as earning him rejection from his fellow men. The nation of Israel didn't bother to listen to him and in the end he was taken to Egypt by people who refused to listen to his calling. Using the test mentioned above, Jeremiah would be considered a failure, yet his words were truly from God and are now included in the canon of Scripture.

Miracle guidance stories, used to make certain people appear to have “heard from God”, are of no value. They are not the Biblical test for prophets, which are instead found in Deuteronomy chapter 13 and later in chapter 18. They are there to protect us from “words from ‘God’” that are not from God. These tests require perfect accuracy and the teaching of faithful doctrine about the “God we have known.”

The failure of “miracle” tests means that in the end, once someone has received a supposed message, whether something favourable or unfavourable resulted, doubt still remains that it was truly God who spoke. Such personal guidance is impossible to test. Which makes a big problem for would be prophets. After all everyone supposes that they are authoritatively bound by a “will of God”, revealed specifically and personally to each of us. But the Christian can never be sure that he knows he has found this “will of God.” How can errant, non-authoritative words that may or may not be from God be binding? 

Revelation

I haven't come to any decision about going to London yet. My heart tells me to remain in Northern Ireland but my head tells me to go to England. My own thoughts and feelings (often contradictory to one another) are drowning out the one voice I truly wish to hear. God is near, all I have to do is simply listen to Him. Admittedly that is easier said (or even blogged about) than done but I will continue to try.

So while I'm having difficultly hearing God above the din of my own thoughts others apparently have no such problem. My cousin and her husband recently converted from Presbyterianism to the Baptist church. Cue a couple of re-baptisms and a worship band later and boom... God is calling. From the type of coffee they should buy, to the film they see at the cinema God is always talking. What often amazes me is that God often seems to disagree with every church except the baptists. He also doesn't seem to mind disagreeing with the Bible in favour of the “pastor's” interpretation. I have found this before, once I found myself disagreeing with a Pastor from Belfast. He denied the trinity and was also an advocate of arminianism. Anyhow to cut a long story short it turned out the Pastor in question (I was reliably informed) was in direct communication with God and had angels visit him and as such I should stop disagreeing with the Pastor because Scripture said “touch not mine [God's] anointed” else I would be under a curse. It's okay though because a year later the assistant Pastor would leave the same grouping because God had told him to, though God also told the main Pastor that his assistant should stop being prideful and stay. So why all the mixed messages?

After all the Bible tells us that God has spoken. Infallibly and authoritatively spoken through chosen people. Hebrews 1:1, 2: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”

Christ's words were confirmed by His contemporaries and the eyewitnesses to the His life... the apostles. Hebrews 2:2, 3 says, “For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard.” It's thanks to the Apostles that we have a New Testament and it's thanks to them that we can know the actual words of Christ.

Over the next couple of days I'm going to look into the subject of special revelation. Can we really receive special revelations like I described above? Revelations that are God's revealed will for our personal lives? Can I receive revelation like the apostles did? If so what are the implications of such revealed revelation?

Changing Attitudes... Changing Doctrines

Changing Attitudes Ireland which is "a network of people, gay and heterosexual, lay and ordained, working for the full affirmation of lesbian and gay persons within the Churches in Ireland" and for the "blessing of same-sex relationships in church" is to publish a booklet about homosexuality within the Anglican tradition in Ireland.

I know the author and he is a genuinely intelligent and warm hearted man. He was once a politician and served as a party officer in the Alliance Party which would help explain his uncanny ability to show the positives of his position (pro-homosexuality) without showing any negatives.

The real problem with this document is that it paints a picture of the Church of Ireland as being too hard line. Homosexuality it says is not a sin but a way of life. People are gay whether we would like them to be or not, as such we must accept them even if we disagree with their viewpoint.

Now the problem here is that the Church of Ireland is meant to be a Christian Church. Not a social club. It is the responsibility of the Bishops and the clergy to tell us what the Bible says so we can keep ourselves from sin and live in Christ. The church is not meant to be morally neutral, respecting everyone's own views on what is sinful. In truth I don't care what you think is sinful, I don't care what I tell myself is sinful... I want to know what God thinks is sinful.

This booklet on the other hand takes the Bible, cuts out all the “nice” bits about how great everybody is and then quietly dumps the other “thou shalt not”/ “abomination” bits onto the scrapheap. It takes the Holy Word of God and runs it through the filter of society, removing everything that is at variance with the views of high society.

The document is not a reasoned and open look at homosexuality. Instead the fundamental ideology of the document means that, despite its Anglican sounding broad church approach, it requires an acceptance that being gay and gay sex are good things. If that's your view, fine. But if it's not this document has nothing for you. Within the Christian Church, homosexuality was prevalent when it was set up 2000 years ago and it's still there like other forms of sinful behaviour - that's the nature of life this side of heaven.

The world has moved on and progressed, that much is true. Things do change, we can build on previous knowledge but always with the hermeneutic of continuity - that's the approach Blessed John Henry Newman took. But dealing with the specific issue of same-sex attraction and the related sexual conduct, I don't see any change in the fundamental teaching. Jesus himself knew that His teaching was difficult, but He was clear that sex was for marriage, and Scripture is clear that marriage was for a man and a woman for the entirety of their lives.

The Bible teaches that all of us are sinners who need to come to a place of repentance and trust in Christ. But no matter how much we try to ignore it, or pretend the verses don't exist, the Bible still stands on the same ground it always has. The Bible is our rule of faith and practice and to be blunt the “I don't agree with that view/verse/law therefore I'm going to ignore it” doesn't work and is a rejection of God's Authority and God's Word. Homosexual behaviour is sinful, it is a sin that must be repented of and turned away from, not affirmed and even supported.

The Church is filled with forgiven sinners. 'Affirming' someone in a sinful lifestyle cuts them off from God's forgiveness - the very opposite of what a truly Christian minister should do.

Hopefully the church will be able to remember its old mantra of Scripture alone or even church tradition both of which forbid homosexuality, before making any rash, potentially divisive decisions in supporting this document.  

A Wandering Assistant?

So recently I have been exploring my calling to the ministry. What a lot of people don't know is that two years ago I was called to my minister's house (covenanter at that time) and told that he felt “God was working in my life” and after discussion we both felt that God was calling me into His service.

Super! But then just as quickly as the topic of ordination had been raised it was scuppered.

Banner of the Covenanters

For you see chapter 12 of the “Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland is entitled “The Church and Secret Societies”. It then goes on to rightly and Biblically denounce “unscriptural secrecy”, “unlawful oaths”, “unsocial benevolence”, “unchristian fellowship”. Freemasonry is of course the main target in the firing line (I'm not a freemason) but after a couple of pages of denouncing the masonic it moves the Orange Order into its sights. Which is where I - the loyal orangeman - fell upon the sword.

To the Covenanters the Orange Order is evil because:

“it usurps the place of the church” - For me the Order only ever encouraged me to attend my church, in fact it was the Order which first set me on course to turning my life over to Christ

“it's political emphasis” - I too wish the Order was more religious but then if it become more religious it is lambasted for taking the limelight from the church

“it's unqualified allegiance to the British Constitution” - The British government doesn't acknowledge the covenant and as such is breaking their promises before God, thus they are in sin and in opposition to Christ - supporting it is therefore sinful.

For these reasons (which are genuinely incorrect) the Testimony states quite clearly "it is inconsistent for Christians to identify with this Order.”

The implication was that a person in the Orange wasn't and could never be a Christian. Which understandably makes it quite hard to become a minister. The choice I had was leave the Order or leave the Church. Looking back I should have left the Order... I was young and thought of the Order as potentially a great tool for witnessing, a great example of a cultural organisation that had real power to change society for the better. But as I know now there is a large difference between potential and reality. But at the time I became disillusioned with church, mostly because I knew the Testimony (written by non members of the order) was actually incorrect, which made me wonder what else was incorrect. In time I just stopped going, preferring to sit alone at home singing Psalms and reading the Bible.

It would be a long time before I would go back to a church...

Archbishop Sharpe

Like James Sharpe before me I decided to go to the Anglican tradition. Maybe one day like my fellow ex-covenanter Sharpe I too will become an Archbishop. But Archbishop Sharpe didn't have a great end... (to quote Alexander Shiels) "Upon the 3d of May 1679, several worthy gentlemen [covenanters], with some other men of courage and zeal for the cause of God and the good of the country, executed righteous judgment upon him” - that means they murdered him - though hopefully I won't end up the same way.

Anyhow, I've settled into Anglicanism quite well and do really enjoy the prominence communion plays within the church. I also enjoy the beautiful liturgy (I'm starting to sound like Pope Benedict XVI) and feel at home within the church. God is a Father rather than a punisher, someone to respect and love in reverence rather than obey through fear. Anglicanism has brought me closer to God but I worry. As I've mentioned in an earlier post I still feel called and I suppose it is something that shall never go away but I worry about my calling. I just worry about what the Anglican tradition looks for or understands by ordination. I mean how do I know if I'm called to be a Deacon and not a Priest? How do I know if I'm called to stipendiary ministry or non stipendiary ministry? High church or Low church? Does Ireland even have a High church? Now strangely in the Church of Ireland one cannot be called to the Priesthhood unless you are over 23, which gives me time to answer my questions.

I think the best place to learn the answers would be in a Church environment. After all I don't want to go to my Archdeacon in a couple of years time, discuss a calling, then go to a panel of clergy and another of lay people, and then the Bishop. Before entering University for three years. Becoming a deacon for a year and finally being ordained before discovering God is calling me to “Preach the Word of God” , not to a congregation but instead to some five year olds in Sabbath School Class rendering all that work pointless and worse my vocation mistaken.

This is where “Ministry Assistants” come in. I have discovered that in England churches can receive grants of about £5000 to take on board an assistant who will live in a member of the congregation's home and work in the church. Here is a quote from one Anglican church's advertisement:

“Thinking about future ministry? Want some hands-on experience in church work? Want to be part of God’s work here in North London?

St James is looking for enthusiastic and energetic ministry assistants to work alongside our existing staff team here in Muswell Hill from September 2011.

Our one to two year scheme is a combination of practical work, ministry experience, and theological training. We’ll encourage you to use and develop your own particular gifts in this large Anglican evangelical church and to be a part of our vision as a church family – To live as Jesus lived : To love as Jesus loved.”

Now when I saw this thought it was great and I'm really interested in applying. But I have no family over there, I have no friends and I have here in N.Ireland the most loving and supportive girlfriend one could ever wish for. She has truly been a blessing in my life and she even thinks it would be a good idea for me to explore my calling in this way. It would be a big change for me and I don't know if I could just leave everything behind. A part of me thinks of St. Columba or even Patrick who left their native land -alone - to evangelise others. I may not be a Saint but I too feel called to evangelise the lost, but I worry if I have the strength to do it alone in a far off land like the Saints before me.

So what do I do?

Leave the ones I love in order to gain experience and discern my calling?

What would you do?

Maybe just trusting in God is my best option... I have a couple of days to decide and I would appreciate your prayers to help me think clearly that I may do what God wants me to do.

Through the Keyhole...

Well the elections have come and gone and I can't be bothered commenting on what has been a non-event so instead I'm reminiscing about TV programmes...

When I was younger there was a popular game show on television named “through the keyhole”. Every day at 3pm, just after school, the show would begin. The game consisted of a team having to guess which celebrity lived in a home after watching a short video tour of their house with  Lloyd Grossman wandering around before uttering the immortal line "So who lives in a house like this?" It wasn't exactly MTV's Cribs... but you get the idea.

I often wonder if God was the celebrity how on earth would I know which house was actually His. There are hundreds of thousands of churches and communities all over the earth, each claiming to be God's house. We confess at every communion in the Nicene Creed that we believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” So where is it? Where is this church? Which is God's house?

Now, I'm pretty sure that if you ask three Christians that very question, then there is a good chance you will get more than three answers. There is a great deal of confusion about the nature of the church. Is the church an institution? Is it purely spiritual? Is it some combination of the both? These are just an example from the multitude of questions that arise when we actually stop and think about the “church”.

What then about our common Christian creed? When confessing our belief in the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” are we talking about an ideal, or something that actually exists in some sense right now? What does it mean to make this confession in light of homosexual bishops and clergy, paedophile ministers, rejection and ignorance of Biblical doctrine and even worship services that feature puppeteers and stage plays? Is this the church? If not, “who lives in a house like this”?

If we were to simply look at what's on the surface, we could easily fall into despair. Thankfully, God has revealed in Scripture the true meaning of our common confession and the true nature of the church. Despite the imperfections present in many churches (including our own) around us today, we know that there is a day coming when God will tell us which is His true house. On that day the sheep will be separated from the goats, the wheat from the chaff and the wolves will be taken from the midst of the flock and all pretences will fail. On that day we, the church, will be presented to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as His Bride without blemish. Casting down our crowns before our King, we shall Coram Deo before the throne proclaim:

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

This is the real church.