His Apostles by extension were specially commissioned to
'finish' (again, as it were) His ministry and bring out the full revelatory
glory of His Person and work as well as provide us the authoritative
foundations for the New Covenant era. They weren't just Prophets, they were
akin to the Twelve Patriarchs, but this time of the New Israel.
While perhaps an oversimplification I usually make a
distinction between Prophecy and prophecy. Prophecy capitalised denotes the
authoritative type of revelatory declaration that I believe no longer exists in
This Age. The Apostles declare in Acts 15 'it seemed good to the Holy Spirit
and to us...'
No one can declare that kind of authority today though many
try to. Such claims are not exclusively limited to the Charismatic realm. This
is the foundation of the Papacy and even the claims of many Protestant
polities.
The lower case use of prophecy denotes proclamation and
exhortation, this being more or less akin to what the New Testament describes
as preaching, a form of exhortation rooted not in the wisdom of the world but
in the foolishness of God. Why foolish? It is incoherent to those who lack
faith, it is often in defiance of conventional logic and notions of what we
might even call 'common sense'. It is not reasoned evidentiary discourse but
holy proclamation. It only finds coherence in a spiritual framework that is
able to apprehend some notion of transcendence vis-à-vis the nature of this
world. It is only in this context that evidence can find a place and meaning.
So while we don't have 'Prophecy' today we certainly have
'prophecy'. We can proclaim the Word of Truth, hold forth the Word of Life but
we cannot expand on or explore these truths with the same authority that exists
in either the Old Testament or the Apostolic era. Our authority is secondary
and derived.
Jesus taught as one with authority and not as the scribes. We
can't teach quite like Christ did but at the same time we need to avoid the
methodology of the scribes that parsed and dissected the authoritative Word and
then used their contrived divisions and categories as a basis for new
speculative doctrinal and ethical frameworks.
Even during the Apostolic era the Bereans were praised for
examining the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true. We are
constantly warned of the danger of False Prophets. They represent the demonic
enemy that seeks to wage war on the Church and if it were possible destroy it.
The False Oracle, the False Word is the great threat to the Church. It can
seduce, tickle ears and/or destroy.
To speak prophetically in our day is to take up (in a sense)
the mantle of the prophets. The Apostles condemn the world and call the Church
to live as pilgrims, strangers and exiles. The imagery of the world in the New
Testament is that of the Beast which during this era 'seems' to be a constant
continuation and recapitulation of the Roman Beast which was in existence
during the New Testament era. At least that's the vision and expectation we are
presented with.
In the Old Testament the prophets represented the Oracle of
God. In that capacity they brought the covenant lawsuit as some have described
it. When Israel embraced the kingship, the era of the prophets (properly
speaking) began. There is of course some overlap with Samuel who represents a
sort of transitional figure, bridge between the judges and the kings.
By covenant lawsuit I mean they held the king and the people
to account. God was still sovereign over the people but under the kingship, the
monarch functioned as vicegerent of the heavenly Kingdom. But being a
descendant of Adam he was less than perfect and subject to error. The Prophets
held the king to account, warned and rebuked the people by appealing to God's
covenant.
They functioned almost as Divinely sanctioned prosecutors
making the case against the covenantally unfaithful people, their
transgressions, defections and consequent idolatries.
Today, this can still be done and is called for and yet no
one today can claim the authority of a Jeremiah or a Paul.
Some might claim at this point that what is left of this
function would be restricted only to ordained officers of the Church. Within
the capacity of the Church meeting I will grant that properly speaking the
teaching and thus prophetic exhortation is limited to those with authority,
namely the elders of the congregation. The modern pastoral system actually
represents a deviation from New Testament norms and represents the early stages
of the hierarchy that would become the episcopate.
The New Testament envisions elders teaching but seemingly
does not entirely or exclusively restrict the function to them. However, the
church has been corrupted by factionalism and the formation of denominations
along with their bureaucracies and hierarchies. They have in many ways limited
the Scripture, restricted it and appropriated authority which does not belong
to them. In light of this unfortunate development it is desirable if not
imperative that witnesses arise who are outside of this corrupted framework, those
who can testify to their systemic corruption of God's Word.
In Old Testament times the faithful could not always follow
the rules and exceptions had to be made. The exceptions were not the rule nor
were they treated in a light or inconsequential manner. The faithful then as
now are grieved over the degenerate state of Covenant Israel and lament the
fact that they cannot always faithfully follow the normative expectations.
Sadly when everyone else 'does what is right in their own eyes', the faithful are
left to function in the wasteland and reduced to an endless series of
impossible situations that they must prayerfully and with careful study make
the best of.
The prophets of old condemned the forces of apostasy and
idolatry and of course in order to do this they were inevitably at odds with
the ecclesiastical establishment who resented the charges and denunciations. In
most cases there was and (if emulated) will be conflict.
The difference today is that both parties, both the
ecclesiastical leadership and those who criticise them in a prophetic capacity
are both fallible. At this point many ecclesiastics will appeal to the passages
in Scripture that exhort believers to obey those that have authority over them.
And indeed in the normative sense this is certainly the case.
And yet this power is curtailed and qualified. The people are warned repeatedly
in Scripture to beware of false teachers and prophets. How are they to do this
apart from weighing the word and doctrine of the teachers against what the Scriptures
teach?
We are to obey those who possess authority but their power
does not allow them to demand obedience in the realm of extra-scriptural
commands and traditions. In the spirit of charity we should and ought to 'bend'
as far as we can until Scripture is being violated. At that point the rule of
faith (Romans 14) demands non-conformity. We will not be compelled to Judaize
or Hellenize. We are not under obligation to the Mosaic Law or man-made
pagan-synthesised innovations.
If we are merely to slavishly follow the leaders of an
assembly then under no occasion should anyone ever leave a church and seek
another. Luther was wrong to question the authority of Rome. In fact
historically speaking Rome's consolidation of power is something everyone
should have acquiesced to. Conservative Protestants are in the wrong for
breaking with Rome but for also breaking with the Mainline denominations. And
any congregations that did breakaway, when people showed up from other
congregations, they should have been sent back. Most modern Reformed
congregations would cease to exist because in many cases they are filled with
people who have left other traditions, disobeying and rejecting ecclesiastical
leadership in search of a more Biblical structure. The idea that the commands
to obey the elders are unqualified is without warrant.
In fact, it's absurd. A rather enlightening passage is found
at the beginning of Matthew 23. The Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. They have the
authority, they are the anointed (at least in terms of the covenant made
visible in space and time). That doesn't mean they aren't in the spirit of Saul
(who was also anointed) as it made all too clear from the rest of the passage.
Obey them but don't follow after their works. This means that
ecclesiastical authorities are to be respected but their authority is not
absolute. They do not have the power to command that which Scripture does not
command. Their burdens and yokes they would tie onto people are not to be
obeyed.
In our contemporary setting this is equally applicable to the
leadership of congregations and certainly denominational structures which are de facto extra Scriptural.
Denominational claims to authority as well as their requirements and rituals
are null and void, to be rejected and should not be submitted to.
That said, we are also called to love, forbearance and
longsuffering and we are to live with the understanding that no congregation is
going to be perfectly ordered. Wisdom is required in order to navigate these
difficult waters. But at this point, voices of dissent and criticism, voices
which turn people back to Scripture are desirable even necessary.
Prophets also foretold the future both in the short-term and
in light of the Day of the Lord, the Eschaton-event associated with the coming
of the Messiah. Only later do we learn this event is essentially divided into
two phases or more properly the completion of the second or final phase has
been placed on hold (temporally speaking) due to the longsuffering of God. The
hour is short and thus our call is urgent to bear witness and bring the Word to
the nations before the Judgment which is even now at the door.
At this point the only event of substance we await is the
Return of Christ. There are no future prophecies to be made. As far as the
nations, the book of Revelation grants us idealised visions in parallel form
which tell their story... the same story which is virtually repeated throughout
this age. That said, though we don't know the specifics regarding each of the
Beast's empires, we do know they make war against the Kingdom and seek to
supplant it. They lie, cheat, steal and murder and in the process destroy
themselves.
In the Old Testament the prophets also frequently provide
what might be called a 'State of the World' report, as some have termed it.
They look upon the nations outside of the Covenant and denounce their
wickedness and proclaim judgment on them. These nations are not held to the
same standard. They are not condemned for failing to keep Sabbath or to offer
Sacrifice. They are not held to the standard of the covenant but an unnamed and
unelaborated standard of what we might call Natural Law or even the Moral Law,
though this nomenclature will cause some to stumble due to traditional uses and
commitments regarding that category. Basic ideas concerning truth, theft and
murder are elevated and the prophets also expose their schemes and the wicked
aspirations of their hearts. Their idolatries are exposed and their deeds
denounced.
Listening to the prophets the faithful would have been
somewhat informed as to what was happening in the world and more importantly
the nature of men's plots and aspirations.
But of particular concern was the way in which these nations
moved and schemed against God's people or the way in which they corrupted God's
people with their idolatries.
Today there are various factors which have destroyed the
capacity of Church leaders to fulfill this function.
Dispensational Theology has developed a false and unbiblical understanding
of the world order and has rejected the authority of the Apostles with regard
to the covenant, Israel and the fulfillment of prophecy. When the Apostles
declare a prophecy to be fulfilled in Christ, Dispensationalists say 'no' and
insist on a Judaized fulfillment. Obsessed with the Zionist state of Israel
which they claim represents God's covenant order they have created a
geopolitical-ecclesiastical narrative that has wedded various forms of Western
Imperialism with Zionist policy in the Middle East. This has led not only to
war and great violence but the condoning of Consequentialist ethics and a
justification for their own nationalisms.
Likewise many who have not necessarily embraced this scheme
have nevertheless embraced the Constantinian model which divides the world into
Christendom and non-Christendom. This is not to be equated with the Spirit
wrought antithesis between Church and world. This is a geopolitical and cultural
framework that creates a new definition (and extension) of what is the Church
of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of God is no longer restricted to the redemptive
realm of the Holy Spirit but is now equated with political and cultural power
and all that goes with it.
This heresy (if not apostasy) destroys the New Testament
pilgrim-antithesis, infuses the Church with a host of new doctrines born of men
and in the end completely subverts and supplants the ethics of Christ and the
Apostles.
Thus, its adherents have no capacity for discernment when it
comes to the signs of the times or the state of the world and its nations. The
leaders of this ecclesiastical paradigm are quite literally blind guides unable
to discern the state of the world or the signs of the times.
Through their doctrinally corrupted eyes, all nations are
viewed through the lens of their political allegiances, power paradigms and
aspirations. Their prophecies (as it were) are false and perverted.
Under that scenario and in light of this reality there is indeed
a calling for those that can speak truth and expose the lies not only of the
world but of the false teachers which run roughshod over God's people and teach
evil calling it good.
Both the world and the False Church (and its leaders) must be
exposed and condemned. That's a 'salt and light' many don't want to experience.
Just as the congregation/assembly
(bearing Baptism and the Lord's Supper) proclaim Judgment on the world and
Christ as Saviour and Judge, the rejection of these False Churches and the
establishment of dissident assemblies serves to condemn them and their errors.
The worship of the Church is prophetic, a proclamation of
God's presence, the presence of the Spirit, the resurrected saints and the
Angels. It is an intrusion or even a bridge between heaven and Earth wherein
the pilgrim people share in the heavenly worship and communion of saints. Our
two simple rites utilising common elements are transformed and vivified by the
Word attached to them. Common water, bread and wine become symbols of blessing
and curse and warning of Christ's coming as Judge. But with the threat comes
the good news, the hope of life and the promise of salvation.
Refusing to participate in the assembly of God is a sin for
Christians and demonstrates a serious defect in their understanding of covenant
life. And yet just as in Old Testament times there have been many occasions in
which that which was normative had to be set aside due to circumstance.
Jews were commanded to worship in the Temple and offer sacrifice
and yet there were times they couldn't, occasions in which the Temple was
polluted with idols. And so on the one hand they were disobeying the
commandment but on the other hand they had no real choice.
Further we might say at that point their non-compliance and
rejection of the Temple order was itself a prophetic proclamation and there are
certainly parallels in our own day. We need to be part of a Church. This is
absolute. And yet there are many occasions in which we specifically should not
be part of certain congregations and considering the state of things in our
day, it may mean we need to condemn the vast majority of congregations which
surround us. It all depends on the time and setting in which we live. There are
times that we like our Old Testament brethren worship in sackcloth and ashes
with praise and repentance on our lips.
How this question is answered is difficult and requires a
great deal of study, discernment and wisdom.
Our non-participation is prophetic. When you live in a very small
town and the only church is a United Methodist congregation, and your family is
known to be Christian but does not attend the local church... that sends a
message, a prophetic message. It is right that we do not attend that apostate
body and it sends a clear signal when they know we go elsewhere on Sunday
morning. We deliberately drive out of town and thus make it clear that not only
do we reject them but we make an effort to find someplace faithful.
In some cases there may be no place to go and in that
instance the believer must seek out others to form a meeting. It probably won't
be perfect and in many cases less than ideal. Eventually your hope is that a
viable congregation can be formed and things can be 'set in order'. You may
need to consider moving. Everyone's circumstance is different and wisdom rather
than hard and fast dictates or simplified checklists is required.
We are here to bear witness. We must be careful to obey the
Scripture and bend as far as we can, to be as charitable as possible. And yet
the authority of ecclesiastical leaders goes no further than Scripture itself.
Their creeds and confessions are of historical interest and often contain a
good deal of doctrinal instruction and even value but they are not
authoritative and their use as such supplants the authority of Scripture.
The Church proclaims the Salvation of Christ and the Judgment
to come and sometimes breaking with a congregation or denomination can be an exercise
in the same proclamation albeit in a more targeted and specific context.
The Prophets of old also proclaimed an Eschatological Hope.
We await the resurrection and the return of Christ. Due to our union with Him
we will escape the coming Judgmental fires and we have the hope of eternal
life. Such an eschatological hope properly framed will drive us to look beyond
the works of this world and all it has to offer.
To summarise:
In different capacities, as individuals and as congregations
we can 'speak' prophetically in our day and yet we must understand that we are
fallible and do not possess the same absolute authority of either the Old or
New Testament Prophets. That said, we also understand the Church itself and its
elders also do not possess that same absolute authority. They do have an
authority and are indeed necessary elements to Christ's administration of the
Church. But their authority is limited and when they do not faithfully follow,
teach and administer God's Word then individuals are right to bring the
covenant lawsuit (as it were). In that capacity they are effectively operating
in a prophetic role.
This will not be everyone's calling. In all things wisdom is
required including who you listen to and how you listen to them. All things
must be weighed and viewed through the lens of Scripture and with prayer.
Not everyone has the capacity or time to learn theology and
study Church history etc... And thus they need to be wise, learn what they can,
listen and weigh the words of those who speak. And yet even apart from a
detailed grasp of doctrine and the history of ideas, if they possess a deep
knowledge of Scripture and are willing to submit to it they will (I believe)
have a certain degree of wisdom and discernment when it comes to these issues.
There is no formal office of Prophet today nor what may be
called Prophecy but there is still a shadow of the role, still something of the
function both within the Church formally and informally. As in the past during
times of duress and apostasy those most dare to speak prophetically shining
light on dark deeds in the Church and world.
This essay in a large part explains what this project is all
about and hopefully provides some context for why I
write as I do.