Theological Musings

ne of the questions that often gets raised regarding simple church is how to handle teaching and prophecy that comes into an open, participatory meeting. The thinking seems to be that, with open participation, it is too possible for “wrong doctrine” or actual heresy to be spoken.

This is often managed in the institutional church with the leadership serving as a barrier to open participation. By that, I mean one of two things:

1. Any open teaching that takes place is “by invitation only”, or by getting spoken words “pre-approved” by a pastor or elder in the church.
2. Open teaching is simply not allowed for the most part, and the teaching is handled only by the leaders.

While the efforts and motives in these situations are usually quite noble, I think that it’s possible to consider the approach outlined in Scripture, and rely on it. Most of the time, in situations like this, my ideas are viewed by many as “idealistic”. Something that would be nice in theory, but “in the real world”, we have to make other accommodations. I find that this thinking, however (the contrast between idealism and real world practicality), belies our reliance on our own ability to control things and not on God’s revelation.

So, what does the Scripture say about open speaking in a church gathering, and how does that affect our thinking along these lines? I’d like to point out some things that I’ve mentioned before here on this blog, from 1 Corinthians 14. Specifically, I’d like to focus on verses 29-32 (NASB):

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;

Notice what is absent from this passage. There is no mention here of prophecies being “pre-screened” by anyone. The prophecies are spoken in the gathering, and others weigh the prophecy. This provides the very “check and balance” that is so often feared to be lacking in simple church. Those who believe that anyone speaking will quickly lead to heresy or false doctrine have neglected the very protection offered by Paul in this passage. Things that are spoken in a meeting are not merely left hanging out there. They are evaluated. They are judged. They are weighed.

Another very key point to be made in this passage is that the speaking is not restricted to the one who “has the floor.” In fact, quite the opposite. If one is speaking, and another gets a revelation, who is responsible for being quiet? The one who feels the need to interrupt? Or the one who is already speaking? I think the answer is rather obvious. “The first one must keep silent.”

How does this play out in our churches? I mentioned above two things that often end up taking place. There seems to be an “either/or” choice of how to handle this. Either we restrict sharing to those who are “pre-approved”, or we forbid open speaking completely, both of which completely avoid Paul’s instructions on allowing people to speak.

Even in churches that regularly offer a portion of their service for open sharing, it is only limited to a portion of time, and even then is rather tightly controlled. But these controls go beyond what Paul laid out in his letter to the Corinthians. And I don’t think they are necessary.

Paul instructs that things are to be spoken, and then weighed by others. This seems to clearly be in the context of a public gathering. By allowing things to be spoken, and then weighed, the entire body is edified, and the maturity of its members is facilitated. This should be the goal of any service (compare Ephesians 4). Each member gains insight into the “weighing” process, and the leaders are no longer functioning as the filter for what is said.

Recently, this came back to my thinking while watching a video of a portion of a church service from this past weekend in the UK. The guest speaker was Andrew Jones, with whom some of you may be familiar. He blogs under the title “Tall Skinny Kiwi“, because he really is a tall, slender man from New Zealand (although currently living in the UK)!

Andrew had blogged over the weekend about a group that he heard might try to interrupt the service at which he was preaching. As he had expected, some people showed up and interrupted the end of his sermon to deliver a prophecy. In that post, Andrew links to another blogger who videotaped the episode and posted that video. I would strongly encourage you to go watch that video so that you understand where I’m coming from on this.

Now, I must make it very clear here that I am not passing judgment on Andrew or the elders of the church where this took place. It is entirely possible that the above instructions from Paul do not apply to someone coming in from the outside. At best, the idea of walking into a service and interrupting it is questionable in its validity. However, I would like to take a look at how this situation might have been handled in a manner consistent with 1 Cor 14.

Andrew and others have defended their actions (basically prohibiting the two women from speaking in that service) based on the fact that they had told the women they could speak, provided the women met with the leadership and shared their prophecy ahead of time. My question, in light of Paul’s instructions, is whether the leaders of a church ever have that responsibility or authority given to them. I am not aware of any biblical reference to this concept of “pre-screening” prophecies.

Is it possible that these women really are in a cult, as Andrew concluded from his research? Yes, it’s possible. Does that give warrant for prohibiting them to speak? Perhaps. But, let’s continue on.

According to 1 Corinthians 14:30, what should Andrew’s response have been when he was interrupted? Paul says that he should have been silent. Instead, Andrew appealed to verse 32 in saying that the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets. However, it is important to note that, in context, this statement of Paul is related to the relationship after the prophecy has been shared. In this case, Andrew used it as a defense for restricting the prophecy in the first place.

“But wait a minute,” many will protest. “It also says that everything is to be done in order! God is a God of order!” Are Paul’s instructions not orderly? In the context of talking about order, he says that a speaker should allow himself to be interrupted! The “order” that Paul talks about seems to refer to how things are spoken and weighed, not the prevention of speaking in the first place.

Let me pose a couple of questions to my readership, especially those who function as professional ministers:

1. How would you feel/react if someone interrupted your sermon to share a prophecy?
2. How would you feel about a public time (as part of the service) of weighing what you have preached in your sermon?

If the answer to the first one has something to do with being annoyed or angered, or if the answer to the second one leans toward “Who are they to judge what I am preaching to them?” I think an appropriate follow-up question would be “why?” Are Paul’s instructions inadequate for our gatherings?

As a side note, I do realize that 1 Corinthians 14 says that women should be silent, but ironically these are not the verses that Andrew or the elders of that church appealed to in their defense. I don’t necessarily want to get into that subject right now because the reality is that there is no small amount of debating over what those statements about women mean (especially in light of 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul’s statement about men and women in Galatians 3:28). Not to mention the fact that there is even some discussion as to the existence of those statements in Paul’s original letter to the Corinthians! I think that the incident in the video would have happened even if there had been men speaking instead of women, given the responses of Andrew and others, given the defenses offered by Andrew.

According to 1 Corinthians 14, I think it is appropriate to say that the correct course of action in situations like this would be to let the interruption occur, let the prophecy be spoken, and then to have the prophecy weighed. Andrew referred to the tension and disorder that was present, and how many were troubled and distressed over what happened. I do not think that is completely the result of “cult members” disrupting the service. At least not from what I can see on the video. What I see is leadership of a church (along with a guest speaker) attempting to silence the women, forcefully trying to get them to sit down, etc. My opinion is that actions such as those created (or contributed to) a sense of disorder and chaos. (I have to say I was especially troubled by the footage of a man, identified by Andrew as a worship leader in that church, trying to shove the women down into their seats.)

Again, I’m not trying to pass judgment on anyone here. I think that the intentions of Andrews and the elders were good. And I’m certainly not trying to defend the actions of these two women at all! But I think it really highlights the need to give fair weight to the instructions we do have in Scripture before building up other layers of “protection”. As I mentioned in a comment on Andrew’s site, I felt like a process got short-circuited. A process that could have resulted in more edification and greater maturity was stifled because the leadership felt they had to handle the situation themselves.

I would be very interested in feedback from anyone on my thoughts here. Am I too idealistic? Are there other passages that bear on this situation that I’m ignoring? Is there another angle that I’m not seeing? I open it up for your comments.

Until next time,

steve