It's been a busy week and a busy month. I felt that I'd been reading snippets of the same book for an eternity, but Friday night I finally made it the end of Wayne Grudem's The Gift of Prophecy. It was definitely an interesting and thought-provoking read - including all 10 appendices which added an extra 133 pages to the book.
To try to summarize Wayne Grudem's view of prophecy in a single sentence: he believes that the gift of prophecy remains today, but that the words of prophecy do not possess absolute divine authority and that prophecies remain subserviant to Scripture and should also be tested by the hearers. To quote Wayne Grudem on the difference between the advice of friends and the gift of prophecy - "I don't see that it is a qualitatively different thing." (from an interview with Tim Challies).
I've been talking about this subject with a few people for some time now, so by the time that I got the book I was already somewhat familiar with the idea of non-authoritative prophecy. Thus one of the primary questions that I was hoping the book would address was the historical background to this all - if the gift of prophecy remains then where and who utilized it over the last 1800 years. This historical problem was one that the last of the appendices to the book addressed. This historical evidence was introduced by the following words:
The history of the church contains many examples of the gift of prophecy functioning in the way I have described it in this book. It was somewhat of a surprise to me to discover these after this book was first published. This largely happened because people who read my book sent me or called to my attention such material in the writings of Samuel Rutherford, Charles Spurgeon, and others. Such historical evidence happens to be especially significant for Reformed cessationists, since several of these writers were champions of Reformed doctrine in their own day. (p. 347)
The first example given in this section is John Knox and an instance wherein he prophesied fairly specifically the type of death that a particular individual would suffer. From this point he goes on to talk about the Westminster Confession and the sort of meaning that should be applied to the phrase "private spirits in the following section of chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
To argue that the phrase "private spirits" herein referred to something like his idea of non-authoritative prophecy, Grudem refers to the theology of a number of delegates to the Westminster Assembly. The first of these is Samuel Rutherford and some of his writings are cited, of which I'd like to quote a brief portion (pardon the antiquated English):
There is a revelation of some particular men, who have foretold things to come even since the ceasing of the Canon of the word, as John Husse, Wickeliefe, Luther have foretold things to come, and they certainely fell out, and in our nation of Scotland, M. George Wishart foretold that Cardinall Beaton should not come out alive at the Gates of the Castle of St. Andrewes, but that he should dye a shamefull death, and he was hanged over the window that he look out at, when he saw the man of God burnt, M. Knox prophecied of the hanging of the Lord of Grange, M. Ioh. Davidson uttered prophecies, knowne to many of the kingdome, diverse Holy and mortified preachers in England have done the like. (cited on p. 351)
Other delegates to the Westminster Assembly that Grudem cites are George Gillespie (p. 352) and William Bridge (p. 353), but I'll refrain from echoing his words there to save space. Outside these Westminster delegates further quotations are taken from Richard Baxter and Charles Spurgeon in support of Grudem's thesis. I found the latter to be of particular interest, given the esteem and influence he still holds now more than 100 years after his death. To quote Spurgeon's words:
I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it (cited on p. 357)
This was not just generic conviction of sin that might occur under many a preacher today, but very specific. In one instance, he referred to an instance wherein he prophecied not only that a particular person had their shop open the past Sunday, but also the exact revenue and exact profit which the shopkeeper had made on that day (cited on p. 357). Another example is of an incident in which he interrupted a sermon and, pointing in a particular direction, said "Young man, those gloves you are wearing have not been paid for: you have stolen them from your employer." He follows this up by stating that the individual repented and then confessed to him after the service that this was in fact the case (cited on p. 358).
Thus, it seems that if you look historically, even at some very influential individuals, there is some evidence of the existance of the sort of non-authoritative prophecy that Grudem describes.
Two other questions that I have posed to several individuals include things such as the following:
- Can one be a prophet and prophesy without explicitly acknowledging or even recognizing their utterings as prophecy?
- To what extent should prophecy be present in corporate worship? Is it already being practiced many small groups (given that they tend to operate less formally and be open to a greater degree of participation)?
I think that the answer to the first question would be yes, although perhaps this should not be considered an ideal state.
I'm still mildly skeptical of how exactly prophecy can function and whether it should be recognized as prophecy if it is not qualitatively different than advice from a friend. However, if prophecy is viewed as described by Grudem (fallible, subserviant, to be tested, and to be conducted in good order rather than creating chaos) then I think that at the least a church that practices prophecy in this manner should be in no greater a danger of great theological error than a similar church which does not.
One final word to some of my charismatic friends: Do consider Grudem's suggestion to prophets (or those who believe themselves to be such). He advices them to avoid such phrases as "thus says the Lord" or "o my children" at the start of their prophecies and to avoid speaking as if in God's own words to explicitly acknowledge their own fallibility.
