No Voices in MY Head

Razormouth.com ^ | 07/08/2003 | Bill MacKinnon

[sheltonmac]

I’m a lousy Christian. There, I’ve said it. People say that admitting it is the first step. What makes me a lousy Christian you ask? Hidden sin? Lukewarm commitment? Worldliness?

I wish.

At least if it were one of those, I could do something about it. No, what makes me a lousy Christian is something I don’t seem to be able to do anything about. You see, God isn’t speaking to me. He won’t give me assignments. He didn’t tell me who to marry. He was obstinately silent when I had to decide whether to take my current job. He doesn’t give me secret knowledge about other people or situations. In short, He isn’t doing for me what the rest of the evangelical church seems to claims He is doing for them.

Why not me? What have I done wrong? Why this slight? Everyone else has all this extra revelation straight from God. They’ve got intense feelings, and power, and special instructions and don’t have to make any of their own decisions. God tells them what to do and when to do it. In fact, some of them claim they don’t do anything until it is clear what God wants them to do. If I waited for God to tell me what to do, I would never get out of bed.

All I’ve got is a Bible and the Holy Spirit within me. At least, I hope He’s there. I can’t feel Him moving about, but the Bible says He’s there—right?

I’ve done quite a bit of study on this issue and I’ve gathered quite a few theories and teachings. God seems to be telling different people different things, but perhaps we can sort them all out and come to some conclusions.

First is what I like to call the Ham Radio theory. I’m sure you’ve seen people fiddling around with the dials on a ham radio. They twist and turn and adjust until the voices become clear. The voices were there all along—they just couldn’t hear them until the right adjustments were made.

Some people say God is like that. He’s always speaking. He just can’t get through to us until we make the right adjustments in our lives. As soon as these adjustments are made, His voice is loud and clear! The adjustments generally involve getting rid of all sin in your life. How lucky for the really good guys in the Bible like Cain and Jonah to get it right the first time. Oh wait…

Second is what I call the Walkie Talkie theory. If you have used a walkie talkie, you know that as long as you are speaking, the other party cannot be heard. You can only hear them when you stop speaking and listen. I naively thought that prayer was generally one-way communication with God. But I’m told it is really two-way communication, and that I can’t hear God until I stop talking. Then I’m supposed to listen. How long I wait to see if God is going to say anything is directly proportional to my faith. I apparently missed this part when Jesus taught His disciples to pray, but I’ll go back and look.

Next on the list is the Easter Bunny theory. God’s will is mysterious and he hides it carefully and then asks you to find it. People are always saying that they are “looking for God’s will for my life.” Things like strong feelings and coincidences are clues. God wants you to do things, but He won’t tell you what. But evidently He will hold you responsible if you don’t do what He wants you to do but won’t tell you. Hold on, I’m looking up the verses that support that now … no, no, just a moment … no, not there. Well anyway, I’ll find them later.

There’s the Bull Ring theory. Have you ever seen a ring in a bull’s nose? It’s not there because he’s rebelling against his parents. It’s there for people to pull on. When someone pulls on the ring in a northerly direction, the bull “feels led” to walk North. When the person pulling the ring changes direction, quite remarkably the bull does as well. I have probably heard the term “I feel led” or “I felt led” from other Christians more than any other phrase. But when I ask them what “feeling led” feels like, they are at somewhat of a loss to explain. From what I can gather, it’s a kind of strong desire or impression. Well, if you can’t trust strong desires what can you…uh, never mind.

One of my favorites is the Paxil theory. Paxil is a drug that calms you down and gives you a feeling of peace. I’m told that if I’m wavering between a number of options on an important decision, I should kind of semi-decide upon one, and see if I have a “feeling of peace” about it. If not, move on. Now the thing is, I don’t get stressed or nervous about much of anything. So if “peace” is my main decision making criteria, most of the decisions I’ve made in my life have been correct. Woo-hoo!

Last but certainly not least is the Back to School theory. Put simply, you can’t hear God’s voice until you learn how. Somehow, without it being recorded, it is known that all the folks God spoke to in biblical times had learned how to hear God’s voice. How they learned it or what is involved in learning it has never been fully explained to me. If I ever do learn it, I will gladly teach it to others, but only if they call me “sensei.”

Well, that was fun. There’s a whole lotta teaching goin’ on out there about God speaking. They all seem to be a bit different but perhaps we can find a common thread among all or most of them. I think I’ve spotted it. Have you? The common theme among most of these—which although I’ve presented them in a tongue and cheek manner, are common and serious teachings—is that God is trying to speak to people and often failing to get His message across.

So now I have a few questions.

Is that a picture of the God of the Bible? Does the God of the Bible try? Does the God of the Bible fail? Is the God of the Bible limited by the failures and foibles of His creatures? Did Abraham “feel led” to go to the land of Canaan or did he hear God speak loud and clear? Did God hide Jonah’s mission to Nineveh? Was all the sin out of Job’s life when God spoke to him from the whirlwind? Did Moses have to learn to hear God speak from the bush? In short, where the heck did all these ideas come from? Certainly not the Bible.

If you email me and tell me I’m putting God in a box I swear I will hunt you down and kick you in the shin. This isn’t about what God can do. This is about what we can teach. And, hopefully, we can agree that our teaching authority and doctrine comes from the Bible, not the voices in our heads. God can do whatever He wants. But we can’t teach whatever we want.

What does the Bible teach about God speaking? Well obviously God spoke to people in many ways: the burning bush, angels, a voice, writing on the wall, et cetera. Notoriously absent are things like impressions, feeling led, and feelings of peace. When God wanted someone to do something, He told them and they heard and understood. Period. They didn’t always like it, and they didn’t always obey, but they heard. How could they not? Were they more powerful than God? Are you? Is there anything within your power or imagination that can keep God from getting a message to you? Who do we think we are?

God may choose not to speak to you, but if He does speak, you will hear.

Please don’t come back and quote me the “if you have ears to hear” verses. Read those in context. To “hear”, as Jesus was employing the term didn’t mean to hear, as in perceive with your auditory appendages. It meant to accept and obey. Obviously the crowd “heard” him in the sense that I’m talking about.

It is curious to me that if someone in a typical evangelical church stood up and said an angel spoke to him and told him that God wanted him to be a missionary to Africa , we would be very skeptical at best. Yet if that same person stood up and said that he “just really feel led to go to Africa to be a missionary,” the "amens" and applause would be deafening. Yet the former is biblical and the latter is not.

So, should we be looking for angels or burning bushes? No. Moses wasn’t even looking for one. We shouldn’t be looking for anything. What we should do is read our Bibles. You want to hear God speak? Read your Bible. If you have a Bible, you have thousands of years of God-inspired instructions, messages, exhortations, rebukes and praises right at your fingertips. Why do we think we need more than that? God’s will for your life is written there. God’s instructions for living are there. To want them piped directly into your brain is just foolishness and laziness. Worse, it opens you up to the worst kind of doctrinal errors.

So in conclusion, I may be a lousy Christian for many reasons. But my inability to hear God’s voice isn’t one of them. I have a Bible, and God speaks to me whenever I open it.

Bill MacKinnon is the IT Coordinator and Instructor for the Clarkon University School of Business in Potsdam, NY. He would fish for a living if someone would pay him to do it.

[jude24]

I do not understand what you mean by local church ecclesiology ?

Plurality of elders.

[drstevej]

Brethren ecclesiology:

non-denominational
avoid a person's name in the title of the church
strongly elder rule
few paid pastors and staff
weekly separate breaking of bread meeting with open biblical sharing from male believers.
offering not taken in preaching of the word service (i.e. worship service)

BTW, here are the groundrules for breaking of the bread in my former church, I wrote them (they were informal and unwritten before) so new folks would understand what we were doing. I loved this service weekly.

http://www.capebiblechapel.org/bread.htm

[jude24]

Timmy likes....

[drstevej]

I defer to jude24 on the current status of the brethren. He is one and has more heritage among them than I.

BTW, Jude24 read my summary of brethren ecclesiology in post 102 and critique. Also follow the link and see if our approach is similar to your experience of the breaking of bread services.

[drstevej]

you are too fast for me.

[RnMomof7]

Interesting short course on the Brethren . Almost Quakerish. Who preaches at the worship service? How is the preaching handled when there is a diversity of doctrine, do people take turns?

[drstevej]

***Who preaches at the worship service? ***

Usually one of the teaching elders in a smaller church. At Cape Bible we had three teaching pastors with one in the prinamry role. Our elders were very involved in teaching adults and were quite competent.

***How is the preaching handled when there is a diversity of doctrine, do people take turns?***

In the breaking of bread it is unplanned / Spirit lead but usually focused around Christ and his work for us. The elders would address any doctrinal deviations.

[jude24]

Who preaches at the worship service?

Depends on what you mean by "worship service." There are two services each sunday in an Brethren church -- the "breaking of bread" or "worship" meeting, and a preaching service.

The Breaking of bread service is ad libbed. As the men of the assembly feel compelled, they may rise to give a short Scriptural thought (though short depends on the speaker, I usually aim for 5-10 min.), or call for a hymn or pray. Any man in fellowship at the assembly is invited to participate publically and audiblely. You might be suprised how well it works out for an ad-libbed meeting; generally a theme unfolds in the course of the meeting.

The second meeting, the preaching service, is fairly standard. The teachers are usually an elder, or someone whom they deem gifted in that area. In a larger PB church, like the one I attend in Rochester, there is a large pool of gifted men to select from. In a smaller one (such as Amherst), the selection may be limited to the elders.

In the event of a doctrinal problem arising, the elders handle it depending on the severity of the issue. If its relatively minor, or obviously a misstatement, then its usually handled privately, after the meeting. A more major variance would probably have to be handled immediately and publically, though I've never seen it come up.

[JesseShurun]

some churches that've I've visited have a members only rule, one loaf, one body. In England, I hear some just exclude outsiders period. I too hold that it's the Lord's Supper, have any idea why members only? I suppose to protect the person from himself, if he really has no clue

[drstevej]

***have any idea why members only?***

I'll guess that it is because it is viewed as an ordinance of the local church.

J24 and RF may be able to elaborate further. I know there are Open Brethren and Closed Brethren and I seem to remember that is the issue. Not sure though and too lazy to google.

[JesseShurun]

not a problem, thanks.

[jude24]

You're more or less correct.

[RochesterFan]

DrSteveJ is correct. Both jude24 and I are in fellowship in an Open assembly. Our practice is to welcome to the Lord's Supper all who claim a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We are careful to point out that the Lord's Supper is of no benefit to an unbeliever and can be detrimental to a believer who has not obediently examined himself (1 Cor 11:27-30). We request that any who fall into these categories simply pass the emblems. One of the early Open Brethren writers (I think it was Anthony Norris Groves) stated it aptly, "How can I refuse one whom Christ accepts?" Those in closed assemblies claim that the elders in the assembly have a duty to "protect the table." Norman Crawford has outlined their rationale for this practice in his book "Gathering Unto His Name". Mr Crawford's message on this subject is availible online at http://www.gospelhall.org in the "Audio" section (http://www.gospelhall.org/images/stories/pdf/assembly_4.mp3) . This is one area where godly men who desire to submit themselves to the Scriptures have come to different conclusions. Those on each side of the issue believe that they are honoring Christ by their practice.

[JesseShurun]

Thanks for the reply. can't help to think though about "protect the table", how the man died who tried to keep the Ark from falling. God has no need of man's protection

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

We're the Pneumatological Stick-in-the-Mud. ~ Funny dude! So, how does this lil' ol' continuationist fit in your pneumatological "soup"?

In my opinion and "the_doc"s, I'd have to say: sadly underrepresented. ;-)

IMHO, moderate Continuationism is marginally preferable to Strict Cessationism (and immensely preferable to Charismaticism).

[Sass]

I find this topic fascinating (although the anti-Pentecostal and Charismatic comments were less than articulate). I find the ambiguity of God's speaking to us expressed in Scripture itself. I have sometimes wondered if a close reading of God's call through Samuel to Saul to become King might reveal this ambiguity. Samuel describes his speech to Saul as "the word of the Lord" (1 Sam. 9:27) which would seem to assert that Samuel views it as free from error. In addition, the narrator informs the reader at the conclusion of the fulfillment of the signs that "all these things were fulfilled" (1 Sam. 10:9). While these signs were fulfilled, there was a portion of Samuel's prophecy that was not completely without error. Samuel prophesies over Saul telling him that after these signs were done, he should do whatever he sees fit to do (1 Sam. 10:7). Yet when Saul does whatever he sees fit to do (1 Sam. 13), he loses his kingship. Samuel's prophecy demonstrates for me God's ability to accomplish His will through human error-filled prophecy. Hearing God's voice is often messy as it was for Samuel.

This is often mirrored in the daily life of a pentecostal person. This helps me even understand the paradox that is Jimmy Swaggart - a sinful man whom God used as an instrument to bring some to salvation. I personally become bitter with such expression of God's grace - I would prefer God not to use such sinful men as Jimmy Swaggart, yet He does. I would prefer Kenneth Haggin's ministry to die a quick and painful death, yet God uses it as a weak vessel through which God saves.

I wonder if another ambiguous expression of God's will is seen in the book of Acts. Paul receives a vision of a man (aner - which is definitely masculine) calling him to Macedonia for help (Acts 16:9), yet when he arrives, Paul evangelizes a crowd of women (Acts 16:13-14). God's plan is accomplished despite the details be slightly off.

Finally, I found it rather odd that Matthew 18:19-20 was first quoted out of context on this thread. When someone added the context, they quoted what followed rather than what preceded. These verses often annoy the begeebees out of me because they are never quoted in reference to church discpline which is their true context. In this passage, Jesus is assuring them that though they may be alienated from fellow believers when they perform church discipline, they can rest assured that God remains with them. God is even alive in the midst of church discipline?!?!?

[malakhi]

Hi Sass.

Samuel's prophecy demonstrates for me God's ability to accomplish His will through human error-filled prophecy.

Sorry, can't agree. A prophet who prophecies in error is a false prophet. I don't read the passage the same way you do.

Then the spirit of the LORD will come mightily upon you, and you shall prophesy with them and be turned into another man.
Now when these signs meet you, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you. (1 Samuel 10:6-7)

In other words, when the spirit of the Lord is upon him, he should do whatever he sees fit to do. This does not imply that he will choose correctly or wisely when the spirit of the Lord is not with him. Nor does this mean that God is giving him a completely free hand. Saul can freely choose to do good or to do evil, but God will not sanction evil choices. Adam and Eve had a choice, too, to do "whatever they saw fit". They chose wrongly as well.