*This is a rapid fire piece. I have so many ideas backlogged and I want to put something out each month, but I just can't bring myself to write a ton of full-length pieces. I decided to start a less formal format where I quickly lay out some thoughts I had. These pieces are often first thoughts, and should be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than pieces I've spent more time on.
The notion of "hearing from God" has been made a big deal of in our circles lately. It seems a lot of people are up in arms about this idea of hearing from God, or the idea that God speaks to someone today. My group is already pretty averse to charismatic experiences, and really, the Spirit in general (though that would be denied), but this whole hearing from God stuff has seemingly short-circuited a lot of wires. On one hand, I understand why the idea of hearing from God is looked down upon. How many people have used such a concept as a pass for their ideology or for their abuse of others? You may have heard God, but how do I know that you heard him? There seems to be a whole lot of subjectivity inherent in this idea that one hears from God.
But really, what a lot of people mean by the idea that God spoke to them is simply that they had a strong inner feeling or a seemingly spiritual intuition about some action or decision they were supposed to take. If that's the case - if someone didn't really hear God speak to them audibly, then shouldn't they be more careful with their language? Should they really say, objectively, decisively, and certainly, that God spoke to them? Language is extremely important. We don't want people to be able to wield a message that's endorsed by God, at least not with certainty. It's fine if God called you to the pastorate, me to the mission field, or someone else to prison ministry. He may have called you, but he certainly didn't use his voice to do it. But what then does it mean to be called and why do we give "calling" any credence if I really think that this calling is your subjective feelings rather than a godly discernment which can be known, of how God moves within you?
I want to press into this idea of God speaking to us a little more because I don't think everyone understands the implications of how this is often parsed out. We're so fearful that the idea of God speaking to us would remove objectivity from the situation. I'm fine with God having spoken through the Bible because I can look at those immovable words and you can't trick me since I can see the words right in front of me. But I can't know what voices you've heard and what feelings you felt or what motivation you have for telling me what God supposedly told you through subjective feelings.
First, notice how this view of God speaking diminishes the person of the Godhead we always love to diminish in non-charismatic circles. Thinking that the Bible avoids the difficulty of subjectivity and interpretation simply because it's written down ignores the truth. There are a wide variety of interpretations of many given passages in the Bible, and interpretation of God's words as presented to us requires the Holy Spirit to help us discern and apply those words. We are fine with the Bible because I can read and interpret it for myself apart from the Spirit of God speaking to me - non-verbally guiding me to the appropriate interpretation. I can rely on my intellect to comprehend rather than having to rely on something subjective, like a move of the Spirit within me.
Second, we have to ask ourselves why an audible voice makes any difference in regard to the idea of God speaking to us. Just put yourself back in the time of Noah for a moment and imagine that Noah comes up to you and tells you what God audibly told him. Let's even say you believe that Noah heard an audible voice and you didn't suspect him of having schizophrenia. There's still a huge problem of subjectivity present. "Noah," you'd say, "how do you know that was God's voice?" We believe in dark powers that are not God, and Paul warns us that we need to test even what angels of light may tell us. Hearing a voice and seeing an image are no less fraught with subjectivity, because the hearer must decide whether or not those words are correctly sourced and true.
When it comes to interpreting the Bible or when it comes to Noah or Moses trusting the audible words of God, the conclusions ultimately rest on subjectivity. This subjectivity may come in varying degrees. We may feel called to do missions when we're in middle school, but then truly know that we are called at some point in college. Some days we may feel kind of like a child of God, but then some days we know it to the core of our being. Some of these subjective feelings or intuitions may even reach the level of a properly basic belief - something foundational - something we couldn't refuse to believe even if we wanted to, like our own existence.
It seems like undergirding all of the truths we believe is a subjective feeling, intuition, or whatever you want to call it. There are no such things as "brute facts," as Dru Johnson says. But we don't want to acknowledge this. Why is that? While most who have problems with God "speaking" to us today believe they're coming from a position of higher spirituality and theological understanding, I wonder if this stance isn't really infected by an empiricist/rationalist/positivist worldview. Just think about it - if one holds the belief that God doesn't speak to us anymore, then the inner testimony and the witness of the Holy Spirit doesn't count as communication. How then is anyone saved if the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to them about the truth of the gospel?
In the end I think this whole issue illuminates a lot about our thinking. God doesn't speak to us, yet he calls us. The Bible is objective, yet I can't truly interpret it without the work of the Holy Spirit, who somehow internally communicates the truth of the Bible to me subjectively. We can have objective moral knowledge of our sins through conscience and the Holy Spirit, yet intuition and the Spirit can't be considered as knowledge elsewhere. I agree that words are important, but it seems to me that those who are most concerned about the connotations words carry may want to consider the ways in which their hair-splitting causes significant theological problems in their system by uncovering a syncretistic affair with the likes of full-fledged empiricism.
I want to press into this idea of God speaking to us a little more because I don't think everyone understands the implications of how this is often parsed out. We're so fearful that the idea of God speaking to us would remove objectivity from the situation. I'm fine with God having spoken through the Bible because I can look at those immovable words and you can't trick me since I can see the words right in front of me. But I can't know what voices you've heard and what feelings you felt or what motivation you have for telling me what God supposedly told you through subjective feelings.
First, notice how this view of God speaking diminishes the person of the Godhead we always love to diminish in non-charismatic circles. Thinking that the Bible avoids the difficulty of subjectivity and interpretation simply because it's written down ignores the truth. There are a wide variety of interpretations of many given passages in the Bible, and interpretation of God's words as presented to us requires the Holy Spirit to help us discern and apply those words. We are fine with the Bible because I can read and interpret it for myself apart from the Spirit of God speaking to me - non-verbally guiding me to the appropriate interpretation. I can rely on my intellect to comprehend rather than having to rely on something subjective, like a move of the Spirit within me.
Second, we have to ask ourselves why an audible voice makes any difference in regard to the idea of God speaking to us. Just put yourself back in the time of Noah for a moment and imagine that Noah comes up to you and tells you what God audibly told him. Let's even say you believe that Noah heard an audible voice and you didn't suspect him of having schizophrenia. There's still a huge problem of subjectivity present. "Noah," you'd say, "how do you know that was God's voice?" We believe in dark powers that are not God, and Paul warns us that we need to test even what angels of light may tell us. Hearing a voice and seeing an image are no less fraught with subjectivity, because the hearer must decide whether or not those words are correctly sourced and true.
When it comes to interpreting the Bible or when it comes to Noah or Moses trusting the audible words of God, the conclusions ultimately rest on subjectivity. This subjectivity may come in varying degrees. We may feel called to do missions when we're in middle school, but then truly know that we are called at some point in college. Some days we may feel kind of like a child of God, but then some days we know it to the core of our being. Some of these subjective feelings or intuitions may even reach the level of a properly basic belief - something foundational - something we couldn't refuse to believe even if we wanted to, like our own existence.
It seems like undergirding all of the truths we believe is a subjective feeling, intuition, or whatever you want to call it. There are no such things as "brute facts," as Dru Johnson says. But we don't want to acknowledge this. Why is that? While most who have problems with God "speaking" to us today believe they're coming from a position of higher spirituality and theological understanding, I wonder if this stance isn't really infected by an empiricist/rationalist/positivist worldview. Just think about it - if one holds the belief that God doesn't speak to us anymore, then the inner testimony and the witness of the Holy Spirit doesn't count as communication. How then is anyone saved if the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to them about the truth of the gospel?
In the end I think this whole issue illuminates a lot about our thinking. God doesn't speak to us, yet he calls us. The Bible is objective, yet I can't truly interpret it without the work of the Holy Spirit, who somehow internally communicates the truth of the Bible to me subjectively. We can have objective moral knowledge of our sins through conscience and the Holy Spirit, yet intuition and the Spirit can't be considered as knowledge elsewhere. I agree that words are important, but it seems to me that those who are most concerned about the connotations words carry may want to consider the ways in which their hair-splitting causes significant theological problems in their system by uncovering a syncretistic affair with the likes of full-fledged empiricism.
RSS Feed