{"id":23559,"date":"2022-10-31T18:00:11","date_gmt":"2022-10-31T18:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/the-theological-problem-of-spirit-versus-scripture\/"},"modified":"2022-10-31T18:00:11","modified_gmt":"2022-10-31T18:00:11","slug":"the-theological-problem-of-spirit-versus-scripture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/the-theological-problem-of-spirit-versus-scripture\/","title":{"rendered":"The Theological Problem of Spirit versus Scripture"},"content":{"rendered":"

A radical move<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 2002 I was contemplating an interstate move on the basis of a dream. \u2018Move to Sydney,\u2019 the Spirit had said, \u2018and you will become the Academic Dean of Hillsong College.\u2019 At the time, I had been working two part-time jobs \u2013 one at a local Bible college, and the other, pastoring a church in Melbourne. I was thriving in both positions, happily settled in a lovely home and had no plans to move to an unknown city a thousand kilometres away. In Sydney, Hillsong College wasn\u2019t advertising a new position externally, nor was it their policy to do so. I was an unknown entity, connected only vaguely through my current networks. Still, the guidance had been spectacularly clear. Dreams and prophecies from six to seven independent sources all pointed in the same direction. The Spirit\u2019s leading had checked all the boxes.<\/p>\n

\"\"
This excerpt is chapter 4 from Tania Harris, The Church Who Hears God\u2019s Voice: Equipping Everyone to Recognise and Respond to the Spirit<\/em><\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

At the same time, the idea of leaving my jobs, friends and family with no possibility of employment was a radical one, particularly for a risk-averse single woman. When the time came to move, I was confronted with the ludicrousness of my situation and the all-consuming question: could I trust what God said?<\/p>\n

At first, the answer seems obvious. Scripture assures us that God does what he says he will do: the word from God\u2019s mouth does not return to him \u2018empty\u2019 but \u2018achieve[s] the purpose\u2019 it was sent for (Isa. 55:11); \u2018God is not a human, that he should lie \u2026 Does he speak and then not act?\u2019 (Num. 23:19; also 1 Sam. 15:29). But then the question comes: did those verses mean the same for me as they did back then for Samuel? Would God\u2019s words \u2018not return empty\u2019 for me just as they wouldn\u2019t return empty for Isaiah?<\/p>\n

The answer depends on your theology. Some would say \u2018yes\u2019. Others would say \u2018no\u2019. Most Protestant theologians would say that my \u2018hearing God\u2019 experience was not<\/em> as authoritative as those in the biblical accounts and could not be trusted in the same way. The experiences of the Bible are seen to be \u2018special\u2019 and unrepeatable, while contemporary encounters are seen to be more subject to human influence. Hence, the only reliable way to hear God today is through studying the Bible, listening to sermons, reading Christian books and obtaining the \u2018wisdom of counsel\u2019. Conversely, another group of theologians (largely from the Catholic tradition) would say that we can hear from God in the same way as the Bible characters did. So, if my Spirit revelation was authentic, I should follow it and believe for it to come to pass. Still another group would say that my experience was illegitimate from the outset: God doesn\u2019t speak like that any more, so it was either the product of mental instability or, worse, diabolical influences.<\/p>\n

On the surface, there were no clear answers about what God\u2019s direction was: The practitioners had limited theology and the theologians had limited experience.<\/em><\/strong><\/div>The situation was made more complex when I sought answers in my local Bible college library. There I found two groups of books. One was written by Protestant theologians<\/em>. They applied historical-exegesis skills to make claims about the nature of contemporary experiences such as mine. The other group was written by Pentecostal practitioners<\/em>. They told of amazing hearing God stories that were akin to the biblical accounts but seemed to have little theological depth. I was left with no clear answers. The practitioners had limited theology and the theologians had limited experience.<\/p>\n

My questions about moving to Sydney highlighted a theological problem that has existed ever since the Scriptures were canonised in the fourth century. It is the reason why many churches today reject the idea of direct Spirit-revelation. The problem boils down to how we view the relationship of our Spirit-talking experiences to Scripture: how do our Spirit encounters compare with those in the Bible?<\/p>\n

How does the spoken word of the Spirit relate to the written word of the Scriptures?<\/em><\/strong><\/div>As we\u2019ve seen in Scripture, God\u2019s words are both a vessel of his power and a reflection of his character. Therefore, the claim to hearing God\u2019s voice represents a claim to divine authority. If God has truly spoken, then his words have bearing over our lives and the circumstances to which they refer. At a practical level, that means that when God speaks, we should obey. It also means we should expect God\u2019s words to come to pass. So, in this way of thinking, it would be right<\/em> for me to move to Sydney and I should<\/em> believe for my circumstances to come into alignment with God\u2019s words. Just as Abraham moved when God told him to go to Canaan, and the apostle Paul moved when God told him to go to Macedonia, so should I move when God tells me to go to Sydney. If their response was to treat God\u2019s words as authoritative, so should I.<\/p>\n

Can you see our theological conundrum? The practical realities of contemporary revelatory experiences make them as authoritative as the Bible writers. This looks as if we\u2019re placing our experience on par with the Bible, something most Protestant Christians would emphatically reject as illegitimate. The question is: how does the spoken word of the Spirit<\/em> relate to the written word of the Scriptures<\/em>?<\/p>\n

Four answers to the theological problem
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The answer to our theological problem is crucial because it shapes our understandings of how the Spirit speaks today, how we recognise it and how we respond to it. In turn, this frames our ideas about discipleship and ministry, as well as the nature and role of the Scriptures.<\/p>\n

Four different frameworks have been proposed to address the problem of \u2018Spirit versus Scripture\u2019. In this chapter, we examine each of them closely. The first and third approaches assume that our contemporary experiences are discontinuous<\/em> with the biblical experience. The second and fourth anticipate continuity<\/em> with the biblical experience. We will see why the first three options are inadequate and why the fourth provides the only logical basis for a theology of hearing God\u2019s voice.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1. God on mute<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The first theological framework, \u2018God on mute\u2019, holds that the Spirit no longer speaks in the same way as in Bible times. As we\u2019ve noted, this position, known as cessationism, holds to the belief that divinely inspired speech ceased with the close of the canon in the early centuries of the church (or when the original apostle died). Hence, the only way God \u2018speaks\u2019 today is via the Scriptures: God\u2019s voice is heard through studying the Bible, listening to sermons and reading books that expound the Bible. Direct revelatory encounters are no longer plausible.<\/p>\n

This perspective also holds that God can only speak about that which has already been said in the biblical past. The Spirit does not speak specifically on personal matters such as where to live or what job to take. Neither does God speak about his plans for the future or how to deal with ethical issues beyond the Scriptures. Instead, divine insight comes through careful application of the biblical text \u2013 we hear God best when we hone our hermeneutical skills. As evangelical theologian James Packer wrote:
\nWhile it is not for us to forbid God to reveal things apart from Scripture, or to do anything else (he is God after all), we may properly insist that the New Testament discourages Christians from expecting to receive God\u2019s words to them by any other channel than that of attentive application to themselves of what is given to us twentieth century Christians in holy Scripture.1<\/sup>
\nThe cessationist perspective has ebbed and flowed in the church since its inception. Today it is typically found in the Reformed and dispensational segments of the Protestant evangelical tradition,2<\/sup> but it is becoming less popular under the influence of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement in mainline churches.3<\/sup><\/p>\n

The thinking behind contemporary cessationism largely stems from a desire to protect the authority, uniqueness and sufficiency of the Scriptures. This is not an unimportant concern, since history shows us that whenever the Scriptures lose their priority in the church, doctrinal compromise soon follows. For cessationists, then, any claim to extrabiblical revelation is invalid, subversive and even demonic. It is seen to \u2018add\u2019 to the canon and attack the Bible\u2019s uniqueness. Any additional voice \u2018weakens the power of the Word\u2019 and results in a \u2018spiritual free-for-all\u2019, giving rise to heretical movements in the church.4<\/sup> As one of cessationism\u2019s leading proponents, John MacArthur laments: \u2018New revelation, such as dreams and visions, are considered as binding on the believer\u2019s conscience as the book of Romans or the Gospel of John.\u20195<\/sup><\/p>\n

The cessationists have a good point. As we\u2019ve seen, when we claim to hear God\u2019s voice, we are invoking divine authority. The Scriptures themselves tell us that authority derives from the speaker (e.g. Jer. 23:29; Heb. 4:12). If God were truly speaking, we would be expected to obey his words to us as much as the biblical characters were expected to obey his words to them (e.g. Rev. 1:3). Any valid perspective on Spirit versus Scripture must acknowledge that a true word from God is authoritative, whether situated within the Bible or outside it.<\/p>\n

However, the great tragedy of the cessationist position is that it silences the voice of the Spirit in the church, the very pinnacle of the New Covenant. It defies the words of the apostle Peter when he proclaimed that Pentecost represented the long-awaited fulfilment of God\u2019s promise for the communicating Spirit. Peter made it clear that the ability to hear God\u2019s voice in the manner of the Old Covenant prophets (Acts 2:16\u201317) was not <\/em>just for those gathered in Jerusalem that day but was also for all those who were \u2018far off \u2019 (Acts 2:39) \u2013 in Judea, Samaria and the nations beyond. It wasn\u2019t just for the first generation, but for their children and all those who followed. As prophesied by Joel, the Spirit would remain for ever <\/em>under the New Covenant.6<\/sup><\/p>\n

The promise of the New Covenant remains today. God has spoken and continues to speak by his Spirit. While the preservation of Scripture\u2019s role is crucial, there is another way to maintain it.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Christians who don\u2019t read the Bible<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a tribe of Christians in Zimbabwe who are known as \u2018Christians who don\u2019t read the Bible\u2019 \u2013 and proudly so. This group, known as the \u2018Friday Apostolics\u2019 (because Friday is their Sabbath), represents a second approach to the relationship of revelatory experience to Scripture.<\/p>\n

Unlike the cessationists, the Friday Apostolics believe that contemporary experiences of hearing God are continuous <\/em>with those of the biblical characters. That is, the outpouring of God\u2019s Spirit meant that we can all hear from God in ways that are phenomenologically equivalent to the ways the Bible characters heard. Contemporary encounters are analogous to the biblical experience in purpose, manner and kind. At the same time, this capacity to hear from God directly is seen to make Scripture irrelevant. The reason the Friday Apostolics don\u2019t read their Bible is because they say it \u2018gets in the way\u2019 of hearing from the Spirit.<\/p>\n

To our ears, this perspective is an alarming one, but there is some sound reasoning behind it. The Apostolics recognise that God\u2019s presence is always with them and cannot be limited to a material object. Rather than relying on a book, their emphasis is to live \u2018like the apostles\u2019 and have an experience of Christianity that is \u2018as vibrant and alive as when Jesus walked the earth\u2019. As leader Nzira says: \u2018Here we don\u2019t talk of Bibles. What is the Bible to me? Having it is just trouble. Look, why would you read it? It gets old. After keeping it for some time it falls apart; the pages come out. And then you can take it and use it as toilet paper until it\u2019s finished. We don\u2019t talk Bible-talk here. We have a true Bible.\u20197<\/sup><\/p>\n

Anthropologist Matthew Engelke, who spent time studying the group, notes that part of the Friday Apostolics\u2019 aversion to the Bible is that it is seen as a \u2018white man\u2019s book\u2019. As such, it carries the baggage of colonialism that has plagued the tribe ever since the whites came. Moreover, the Apostolics say that the missionaries often said one thing and the Bible said another. Polygamy is cited as an example. For one elder, \u2018We learnt that we could not trust the whites or their book.\u20198<\/sup><\/p>\n

The Friday Apostolics also argue that because the Scriptures are culturally embedded, they are unable to adequately address the needs of modern-day Africa. The ancient Palestinian context of the New Testament means that it has limited relevance in a place that is haunted by AIDS and witchcraft. As they say, it is \u2018out of date like a newspaper\u2019. Instead, answers are found in hearing from the Holy Spirit live and direct<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Apostolics even go so far as to say that the Bible acts as an obstacle <\/em>to hearing from God. Like all religious artefacts, books are limited by their materialist nature. The very presence of the Bible, they say, threatens to detract from the immediacy of faith. When God\u2019s voice is contained in a book, it takes away from the central focus of Christianity.<\/p>\n

The position of the Friday Apostolics is not an option for those of us who place high value on Scripture. However, the Apostolics also raise some important questions. It is true that God\u2019s presence cannot be contained in a material book. Whether a book, icon or building, God\u2019s presence is never limited to a physical object. Solomon observed this in the building of the First Temple (1 Kgs 8:27), as did Paul with the Second Temple (Acts 17:24). People in our churches today can be guilty of this when they use their Bibles like a lucky charm or a magic tool, dipping into it whenever they want their wishes fulfilled. Like any object, the Bible can become an idol that is revered above its maker. Some scholars have even given this tendency a name: \u2018bibliolatry\u20199<\/sup> \u2013 described as worshipping the \u2018Father, Son and Holy Bible\u2019. As the Apostolics say, when treated in this way, the Bible can <\/em>\u2018get in the way\u2019 of hearing the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Any follower of Jesus that gives the Bible a low priority is in precarious place.<\/em><\/strong><\/div>The Friday Apostolics are also correct in saying that as a first century Greco-Roman text, the Bible does not always speak to contemporary issues. We need to do a lot of hermeneutical back-flipping to make the Bible address the quirks and idiosyncrasies of contemporary ethical concerns. The wisdom insights of the Ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world cannot always speak to the questions of our day. Indeed, Jesus never said they would. Jesus held to the veracity of the Scriptures (in his case, the Old Testament), but he didn\u2019t position them as the one-stop shop for all our questions. This is why <\/em>he sent the Spirit. Jesus knew there was more to say beyond what he could cover in his three-year ministry (John 16:12). The Spirit was given for the very reason of addressing the questions of Samaria, Rome and beyond. This is what makes Christianity such a powerful reality. As \u2018temples of the Holy Spirit\u2019 (1 Cor. 6:19), we can access the wisdom of Jesus wherever we go.<\/p>\n

And yet, the Friday Apostolics put themselves in a precarious situation by giving the Bible such a low priority. When you discard the Bible, you risk displacing the church\u2019s very foundations. We need the Bible. We need the Spirit. We must not dispense with one at the expense of the other.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3. Good, but not as good<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The cessationists dismiss the Spirit; the Friday Apostolics dismiss the Bible. The third approach to our theological problem of \u2018Spirit versus Scripture\u2019 seeks to preserve both. This position says that contemporary revelatory experiences are valid, but they are phenomenologically inferior <\/em>to the experience of the Bible-writing apostles and prophets. In other words, you can hear from God outside the canon, but just not in the same way as the Bible-writing characters did. Our Spirit encounters are \u2018good, but not as <\/em>good\u2019.<\/p>\n

The position is best articulated by Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem in his widely known book The Gift of Prophecy<\/em>. Here, Grudem advocates for two types of revelatory experience. The first is the \u2018special experience\u2019 of the canonical writers, namely the Old Testament prophets and their \u2018equivalent\u2019, the New Testament apostles. The experiences of these characters are held to be flawless; God put his words directly \u2018into their mouths\u2019 and, as such, they are always accurate, infallible and authoritative. The second type is the \u2018ordinary experience\u2019 of New Testament and contemporary church members. For Grudem, these experiences are of lower quality and authority compared with those of biblical figures such as Paul and Peter. Contemporary revelatory messages are described as \u2018a report in human words which God has brought to mind\u2019. Because they cannot be God\u2019s exact <\/em>words, they are neither authoritative nor trustworthy. They can bring \u2018strength, encouragement and comfort\u2019 (see 1 Cor. 14:3) but should be treated in the same way as counselling and pastoral advice. As per the cessationists, Grudem argues that the only reliable way to hear God\u2019s voice is via the Scriptures.<\/p>\n

This \u2018two-tier\u2019 position is also reflected in the logos<\/em>\u2013<\/em>rh<\/em>\u0113<\/em>ma <\/em>schema so popular in churches today. Like Grudem\u2019s framework, this envisages two different types of experience and is based on the idea that there are two meanings for the Greek term \u2018word\u2019 in the New Testament. The first term, logos <\/em>(\u03bb\u00d3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), represents the \u2018written word\u2019 of Scripture, which is seen to be objective, infallible and fully authoritative. The second term, rh<\/em>\u0113<\/em>ma <\/em>(\u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1), represents the \u2018spoken word\u2019 of our contemporary experience, which is seen to be subjective, fallible and of minimal authority.<\/p>\n

The goal of the two-tier schema is to preserve the role of the Bible while still allowing for the possibility that the Spirit can speak beyond the canon. As such, Grudem\u2019s work was welcomed by Pentecostal\u2013Charismatic Christians around the world. However, there are some real problems with this position. Perhaps the most obvious has to do with what Scripture says about the New Covenant in relation to the Old. While the two-tier position advocates for contemporary experience to be viewed as inferior <\/em>to the Old Covenant experience, Scripture emphasises the opposite. The Old Covenant prophets, Jesus, Paul and the writer of Hebrews all strongly affirm the superiority <\/em>of the New Covenant (see Chapter 6). The church era was long awaited because it was an upgrade of the old regime. This improvement would not just be for the leaders who were responsible for establishing the church, but for everyone<\/em>. It cannot <\/em>be that the New Covenant church has a harder time hearing from God than the Old Covenant prophets.<\/p>\n

A second problem points to the biblical evidence used in support of Grudem\u2019s position. His work has sustained heavy criticism from cessationist and Pentecostal\u2013Charismatic scholars alike. This has largely been based on exegetical grounds and the grammatically unlikely notion of correlating the role of the Old Testament prophets with that of the New Testament apostles (in Eph. 2:20). It is also clear that Scripture reveals a spectrum <\/em>of quality among the revelatory experiences of biblical characters. Most got it right, but some got it wrong (see Chapter 10). Furthermore, there is simply no textual evidence that God explicitly changed his way of speaking when the original apostles died out.<\/p>\n

There are additional complexities with the two-tier position when it comes to its practical outworking. Some of them are seen in my own story as I contemplated relocation from Melbourne to Sydney. The question became: if what I heard was non-authoritative, should I move? And if I did move, should I believe for God to fulfil his word? Unfortunately, Grudem does not address the implications of his position in real-life experience since, as a New Testament scholar, his focus is on the text.<\/p>\n

An additional problem lies in the fact that Grudem\u2019s work is directed almost entirely towards prophecy <\/em>(where a person hears from God for someone else), rather than the universal experience of hearing the Spirit first-hand. This means that most of his discussion is limited to the specialist gift of prophecy in church meetings, as described in the Corinthian letters (esp. 1 Cor. 12 \u2013 14). While these passages are helpful in providing guidelines for the regulation of prophecy in the public service, they do not give us details about the universal experience in the context of everyday life. For that, we need to look<\/p>\n

elsewhere.<\/p>\n

It is in the books of Acts and Revelation that we find copious examples of the full revelatory experience. We learn how God spoke, how it was discerned and how it was then responded to. It is here that we see that the New Testament characters all <\/em>treated their revelatory experiences as authoritative, irrespective of whether they were apostles or Bible writers (e.g. Philip, Stephen, Barnabas, Agabus, Ananias and James). Once God\u2019s words were received and discerned, they were seen to be reliable enough to act upon in expectation of fulfilment. Their testimonies provide us with clear principles for hearing God in the contemporary church. We cannot ignore them.<\/p>\n

And yet oddly we do. In spite of their prevalence in the Bible, these experiences are rarely addressed by academics in the Protestant arena.10<\/sup> Grudem\u2019s emphasis on the specialist gift of prophecy to the exclusion of everyday revelatory experience is typical of scholars. Part of it has to do with a tradition that values the teaching of the epistles over the New Testament narratives and a mistrust in deriving theology from stories. But if we are to talk about how to hear, recognise and respond to God\u2019s voice today, we must take into account how the early Christians heard, recognised and responded to God\u2019s voice. After all, it is their revelatory experiences that form the backdrop of the epistles.11<\/sup><\/p>\n

In spite of the problems, the idea of an \u2018inferior quality\u2019 for contemporary experience has been adopted by most evangelical Christians in the West, including those in Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. This is a better place to land than cessationism. However, it is still a modified <\/em>form of cessationism. It is good, but not as <\/em>good. We maintain a belief in the ability to hear the Spirit\u2019s voice but lose the fullness of its power. It also means that we don\u2019t take hearing from the Spirit as seriously as we should. We make it an add-on rather than an essential part of the normal Christian life. It may bring \u2018strength, comfort and encouragement\u2019 (see 1 Cor. 14:3), but it has a low priority in the discipleship process.<\/p>\n

As we\u2019ve seen, the good-but-not-as-good position also leaves us with serious problems when applied to the practice <\/em>of hearing God\u2019s voice. Without a framework that assumes consistency with the biblical characters, people end up applying \u2018discontinuous\u2019 thinking to understand their experience and, in doing so, say one thing and practise another.12<\/sup> They say their experience isn\u2019t \u2018authoritative\u2019, but then they act as though it is <\/em>by obeying it and expecting it to come to pass. The good-but-not-as-good position simply doesn\u2019t work. It\u2019s as if one of our legs has been broken by cessationism but hasn\u2019t been properly reset, and now we walk with a limp. It is time to adjust our thinking. Either we can hear from God in the same way as the biblical characters could, or we can\u2019t. If we can, then we must follow the same practices as the biblical characters. Only then can the stories and testimonies of Scripture truly become our model.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4. \u2018This is that\u2019<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The final theological framework in our discussion allows for the fullness of the Spirit\u2019s voice to continue today without compromising the uniqueness of the Bible. This approach sees no phenomenological distinction between biblical and contemporary experiences. That is, we can hear from God today in the same way as the New Testament church did. It may be surprising to learn that this fourth perspective is found in the Catholic tradition.<\/p>\n

Our reference point here is the Day of Pentecost when the apostle Peter proclaimed his famed words to the crowd: \u2018this is that <\/em>which was spoken by the prophet Joel\u2019 (Acts 2:16, kjv). God\u2019s promise of the communicating Spirit was for people of all nations and generations. The voice of God that spoke to the Old Covenant prophets and the New Testament church is still the voice that speaks today. The Spirit speaks to continue the mission and ministry of Jesus. This means that the forms and patterns of revelation depicted in the early church continue in today\u2019s church. The Bible itself is a collection of God-conversations \u2013 the \u2018journals\u2019 of people who heard from God and responded to it. It provides us with the models we need in order to understand and respond to our own experiences.<\/p>\n

The \u2018this is that\u2019 position is based on the principle of consistency<\/em>. This consistency applies first to God. It assumes that God\u2019s ways of working haven\u2019t changed. The God who spoke to the prophets aligns with the God who spoke through the incarnate Jesus and the Spirit in the early church. God continues to speak with love, power and authority. His voice still expresses the divine character, will and plans. Just as God spoke to the early church to apply the message of Jesus to the Greco-Roman setting, God speaks to the contemporary church to apply the message of Jesus to ours.<\/p>\n

It wasn\u2019t easy, but as I acted in obedience and faith, I saw God\u2019s hand moving pieces of the puzzle together.<\/em><\/strong><\/div>The notion of consistency also applies at the human end. Humanity has been and always will be flawed, imperfect and sinful. Until Jesus returns, the testing and discernment of our experiences will always be necessary. Regardless of who <\/em>can hear from God \u2013 the specialist prophets of the Old Covenant or the sons and daughters of the New \u2013 we can all get it wrong. Getting it right comes with learning and development in the context of a two-way relationship. God hasn\u2019t changed his ways of working and neither have we. But in spite of our flaws, we can still hear God\u2019s plans and act on them. This is the good news of the New Covenant!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Where experience and theology meet<\/strong><\/p>\n

The fourth \u2018this is that\u2019 position was the one I arrived at when contemplating my interstate move back in 2002. It made sense that if God was the \u2018same yesterday and today and for ever\u2019 (Heb. 13:8), the divine principles embedded in the lives of the biblical characters could be applied to my <\/em>life. So, I resigned from my two jobs, farewelled my home and moved to Sydney.<\/p>\n

It wasn\u2019t easy, but as I acted in obedience and faith, I saw God\u2019s hand moving pieces of the puzzle together. One by one, the picture took shape. Watching God\u2019s words come to pass was breathtaking. At every step, I witnessed his genius manoeuvres and piercing foresight. Even though my story was vastly different from that of Peter, Paul and other biblical characters, the same patterns remained. God was still faithful, sovereign and deeply personal. Hearing, recognising and responding to God\u2019s voice not only helped to build the college in Sydney; it also transformed my life. The kingdom of God moved forward and I began to know God in ways I had never experienced before.<\/p>\n

It was experiences like these that also led me to study for a PhD in practical theology. I longed to fill the gap between academia and practice that I had discovered as an undergraduate student in the Bible college library. Driven by a deep conviction that theology must work<\/em>, my goal was to address the problems created by the \u2018inferior position\u2019, as well as to understand why the cessationist church believed as it did. From my vantage point, they have tragically missed out.<\/p>\n

The field of practical theology is unique in that it takes Spirit-experience seriously. Practice and theology meet together as scholars bring the voice of everyday people into dialogue with experts. This approach is based on the simple idea that \u2018everyone\u2019s a theologian\u2019.13<\/sup> Whether we are aware of it or not, we are all constantly reflecting on how God is working in our lives. This \u2018ordinary theology\u2019 is worked out in the context of everyday circumstances and church traditions, rather than just by theologians, who may be removed from them.14<\/sup> It values the insights people have gained from their experience because it assumes that the Spirit operates consistently in us all.<\/p>\n

The data from my study was gathered over a nine-month period and involved listening to the \u2018ordinary theology\u2019 of people from three different Pentecostal churches as they reflected on their own \u2018hearing God\u2019 experiences. Each interview lasted up to an hour and involved questions such as: How did you hear God\u2019s voice? How did you know it was God? What happened afterwards? After recording, transcribing and collating the findings, I identified notable patterns and themes. Then I examined them closely in the light of the four theological perspectives and the experiences of Scripture.<\/p>\n

In the end, my research provided the answers to many of my original questions. Some were surprising; others were not. Many of them challenged the ideas of those I was raised with. Others provided solutions to the problems we face in our churches. The problems of Spirit-revelatory encounters have not gone away. My own experience with the ministry of God Conversations has been a constant reminder of the widespread confusion throughout the global church. I have seen evidence of cessationism and its impact. I\u2019ve heard the tales of disillusionment and defeat. Experience continues to be held at arm\u2019s length in the name of theology. We need to address the problems that Luther faced, deal with the dilemma of Joseph Smith and learn from the story of the murdered abortion doctor. We need to maintain the vital role of the Scriptures while still allowing the Spirit to speak as powerfully to us as he did to those in the first century.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Some people find theology a daunting topic. Perhaps it is because we tend to complexify what is really rather simple. Theology is simply our ideas of how God works. This is why this chapter, though theoretical, is so important. Whether we realise it or not, our thinking about hearing God starts with our theology of Spirit and Scripture.<\/p>\n

In this chapter we\u2019ve seen that there are four different approaches to the contemporary revelatory experience. These diverge at the point where Scripture comes to the fore. Either we see continuity <\/em>with the experiences of the biblical characters or we see discontinuity <\/em>with them.<\/p>\n

There <\/em><\/strong>are <\/em><\/strong>answers to our questions. There <\/em><\/strong>are <\/em><\/strong>solutions to our problems. Good theology always works.<\/em><\/strong><\/div>The fourth theological framework, \u2018this is that\u2019, allows us to emulate the revelatory experiences of the early church while preserving the unique and foundational role of Scripture. Part II of this book unpacks this position further by exploring the fundamental questions of how we hear, recognise and respond to the voice of the Spirit. There is no competition between Spirit and Scripture. You do not need to subvert one for the sake of the other.<\/p>\n

Bringing experience and theology together also allows us to address the theological and ministry problems that threaten the potential of our prized New Covenant gift. Some of these solutions will become apparent in Part II. Others will be addressed in Part III, \u2018Strategies for Building the Church Who Hears God\u2019s Voice\u2019. There are <\/em>answers to our questions. There are <\/em>solutions to our problems. Good theology always works.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

PR<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup> James I. Packer, God\u2019s Words <\/em>(Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1981), p. 39.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/sup> Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today<\/em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000), Kindle edition: location 98.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/sup> Douglas Oss, \u2018A Pentecostal\/Charismatic View\u2019, in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?<\/em> (ed. Wayne A. Grudem; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), p. 239.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/sup> Tucker, God Talk<\/em>, p. 64.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/sup> John F. MacArthur Jr, Charismatic Chaos<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), p. 64.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/sup> See Jon Mark Ruthven, \u2018\u201cThis Is My Covenant with Them\u201d: Isaiah 59.19\u201321 as the Programmatic Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Acts of the Apostles (Part 2)\u2019, Journal of Pentecostal Theology<\/em> 17 (2008): pp. 219\u201337; and Jon Mark Ruthven, \u2018\u201cThis Is My Covenant with Them\u201d: Isaiah 59.19\u201321 as the Programmatic Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Acts of the Apostles (Part 1)\u2019, Journal of Pentecostal Theology<\/em> 17 (2008): pp. 32\u201347.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/sup> Matthew Engelke, A Problem of Presence<\/em> (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007), pp. 1\u20132.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/sup> Engelke, Problem of Presence<\/em>, p. 5.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/sup> James K.A. Smith, \u2018The Closing of the Book: Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and the Sacred Writings\u2019, Journal of Pentecostal Theology<\/em> 11 (1997): p. 59; Daniel E. Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit: A Ritual Approach to Pentecostal\/Charismatic Spirituality<\/em> (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p. 246.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/sup> As observed by Robert E. Sears in \u2018Dreams and Christian Conversion: Gleanings from a Pentecostal Church Context in Nepal\u2019, Mission Studies<\/em> 35 (2018): pp. 183\u2013203. Recent exceptions include Anna Marie Droll\u2019s work on dreams and visions in Africa, \u2018\u201cPiercing the Veil\u201d and African Dreams and Visions: In Quest of the Pneumatological Imagination\u2019, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies<\/em> 40 (2018): pp. 345\u201365; and John B.F. Miller\u2019s work in biblical studies, Convinced That God Had Called Us: Dreams, Visions and the Perception of God\u2019s Will in Luke-Acts <\/em>(Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/sup> Paul explicitly mentions his own Spirit experiences on multiple occasions: 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; 2 Cor. 12:1\u20137; Gal. 1:11\u201316.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/sup> Cecil M. Robeck Jr highlights this disconnect between theory and practice in \u2018Written Prophecies: A Question of Authority\u2019, Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies <\/em>2 (1980): pp. 26\u201345.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/sup> Pete Ward, Introducing Practical Theology: Mission, Ministry, and the Life of the Church<\/em> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017).<\/p>\n

[14]<\/sup> For further discussion of this theory, see Jeff Astley, Ordinary Theology: Looking, Listening and Learning in Theology<\/em> (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Author\u2019s bookstore page (where you may download and read an additional sample chapter): https:\/\/www.godconversations.com\/product\/the-church-who-hears-gods-voice\/<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Copyright \u00a9 2022 Tania Harris
\nPaternoster is an imprint of Authentic Media Ltd
\nPO Box 6326, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK1 9GG, UK.
\nauthenticmedia.co.uk
\nThe right of Tania Harris to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
\nAll rights reserved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A radical move In 2002 I was contemplating an interstate move on the basis of a dream. \u2018Move to Sydney,\u2019 the Spirit had said, \u2018and you will become the Academic Dean of Hillsong College.\u2019 At the time, I had been working two part-time jobs \u2013 one at a local Bible college, and the other, pastoring…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3169,"featured_media":23560,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[12,6862],"tags":[2748,6806,5612,3431,2891,6890,2853],"ppma_author":[4746],"class_list":["post-23559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-biblical-studies","category-fall-2022","tag-featured","tag-hearing-god","tag-problem","tag-scripture","tag-spirit","tag-tania-harris","tag-theological","author-taniaharris"],"authors":[{"term_id":4746,"user_id":3169,"is_guest":0,"slug":"taniaharris","display_name":"Tania Harris","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/TaniaHarris-amazon-396x396-150x150.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/TaniaHarris-amazon-396x396-150x150.jpg"},"0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3169"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23559\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23560"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23559"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/km7.a6a.mytemp.website\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=23559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}