The Problem Of Prophets: The Amazing Maze

Recently, prophecy has been wildly popular, or at least wildly prevalent. Pat Robertson suggested that Ariel Sharon was perhaps ill as a result of his misdeeds, with God protecting the land of Israel from being divided. Two days ago, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin pronounced that God wanted New Orleans to be "chocolate", and that God was punishing America with hurricanes for its involvement in Iraq.

Following two posts on this topic (here and here), this post is an exploration of prophecy as it plays out in Protestant America, particularly in Protestant Evangelical America. If you are not religiously inclined and yet are interested in the problem - and I think there is a problem - then I welcome you to the discussion. But for the most part this post is written to and for Christians, particularly those who are Evangelical in doctrine, worship and identity.†

First, this observation. Prophecy is not confined to religious conservatives. Leftists augur all the time. Leftists offer dire predictions about the consequences of war, for example, particularly war in Iraq. Leftists deign that 9/11 occurred, not as retribution because of sexual immorality, like some conservatives suggested, but because of greed or imperialism or conservatism in general. Religious leftists, like Jimmy Creech or Gene Robinson, believe that certain leftist ideals are indeed God's ideals. And Karl Marx, the leftist par excellence, predicted with religious devotion that history must culminate in the socialist state.

With that in mind, I would like to take a look at the problem facing the many churches in America who believe A) that the Bible is the final, authoritative revelation of God, and B) that the prophetic voice is alive in the Church.

To begin, let us look at the following articles from Statements of Faith accepted by four well-known Protestant denominations - the United Methodist (UM), The Church of the Nazarene (COTN), The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA), and the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC). I have highlighted in bold the salient feature I wish to discuss:

UM (1992): The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

COTN: We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

EFCA: (We believe) The Scriptures, both Old & New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.

CCCC: We believe the Bible consisting of the Old and New Testament, to be the only inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God written.

Each of these differs slightly from another, but there is one clear fact: The Bible is deemed final, not only in matters of authority, but in revelation. In short, what each of these hold in common is the belief that Christian revelation is closed, that the canon or scriptures are complete, and that nothing more can be added. In fact, as a warning against adding to the Christian revelation, particularly aimed at those intent on creating cults, this New Testament passage is often invoked by the Faith's defenders: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." (Rev. 22:18)

For my purpose here, I want to solely focus on the CCCC statement that the Bible is the "only inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God written."

Now, what follows is an argument I presented (in a formal letter) to a CCCC church about 8 years ago. The reaction I received was interesting: I was called to a meeting with the Church's senior and associate pastors, and the chairman of the elders. It seemed I was a problem. Here is what I asked them, in part and essentially:

"If the canon of scripture is closed, as the CCCC statement of faith suggests, if it is the only inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word of God written, then why are men and women permitted, in this particular church, to exercise the 'gift of prophecy?'"

Perhaps a little background will help. I was attending a CCCC church wherein periodically a man would stand up in the middle of a church service, raising his voice, booming out something that always began like this: "Oh, my people! I have heard your cries, I have seen your ..." You get the picture. Needless to say, every time this happened, I was freaked out. It seemed so, well, confusing, disorienting, and, more pertinently, subjective. Was this man actually channeling the Spirit of God? Who could tell?

Well, I could, and he was not (and yet, confident as I was, doubts nonetheless assailed me). Most of this man's prophecies were cut-and-pasted regurgitations of well-known biblical passages, drawn largely from the Psalms and Minor Prophets. They were offered in stentorian voice, and were just dripping with emotions, some urgent, some maudlin, some dire and confrontational. My heart literally shook when this guy spoke, and it goes without exaggeration that he confused many people: Was God really speaking? Really?

But this man is not the only sort of prophet in churches. There are others, more subtle, less flamboyant. There's the praise leader that says that God has told her the praise band should do such and such. There's the man at the men's prayer breakfast who announces that God has told him to quit his job. There's the associate pastor that declares that God has told him what NOT to preach when he walks up to the pulpit, with a new, unplanned, extemporaneous message (or is he just concealing that he's unprepared?). There is the teenage convert proclaiming that God told him he would be an evangelist. Each of these people have had something revealed to them, by God, beyond the realm of rational scrutiny. It is all about faith.

Now, I hope you see the problem. For if the prophet, particularly the dramatic, public, flamboyant one who is deemed to be exercising his "spiritual gift", if that prophet is indeed speaking the truth, what is the nature of that truth? Assuming that the man has not just stood up and shouted forth some scripture verse (how is that prophetic?); assuming that God is indeed showing something not before seen, is what the prophet said inerrant? For surely it should be if it is coming from God, just as it should be infallible, authoritative and inspired. If it is not these things, then it can't be from God, for God is believed infallible and inerrant. (Or does God transmit information to us that is not inerrant and infallible through these prophets?)

Similarly, the man who was told by God to get a new job must not be wrong, if he was actually told something by God, right? Let us assume that the man was indeed told by God to take up his home and move; let us grant that the woman who stepped out of the path of a speeding car was in fact told so by God; where does that leave us regarding revelation? Does it not mean that revelation is not closed, it is not over? Indeed, it does.

But most importantly it means that the Bible is not complete. For if a man stands up and declares that "God is mad at America" or that "Prayer moved a hurricane" or that "God wants me to move to Dallas," and I write those things down, I now have another "inspired, infallible, inerrant and authoritative Word of God written." In other words, I now have, as a result of the prophets who have spoken, extra-biblical truth, extra-biblical revelation, which I cannot disregard if God DID in fact show these things to those who have uttered them. Either God spoke to these people or He did not. If He did, if I write their assertions down, then they must be infallible and authoritative, and should be part of the canon, to which I am ADDING something new. If He did not speak to them, then they are not prophets, and they are not hearing God.

This is the Protestant Problem of Prophecy: If anyone declares that God has revealed ANYTHING to him or her, and it is true that God has revealed that thing, if I jot that news down, then that must be an addition to the written word of God.

How does one get out of this maze? Am I wrong for thinking this a maze?

Sadly, when I asked the CCCC leaders these questions, no answer was ever given.

†I am a confirmed Episcopalian on the threshold of disillusionment.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.