Posted: 01/07/2009 at 10:22am | IP Logged

Ray Steadman has defined the prophetic function as "galvanizing the Body to action." Art Katz used to say how typically Jewish it was to answer a question with a question. The Greek style of teaching is primarily one-way lecture, whereas Jewish teaching (discipleship) encourages interaction, which often includes answering a question with a question. It can be said that Gentile may have all the answers, but it is the Jew who has all the questions. We see this principle throughout the Scriptures. Many of the most significant, powerful, and thought-provoking passages are expressed in the form of questions. I will not take the time to provide examples as your superior familiarity with Scripture will immediately call several to mind. Today, to our shame, much of the Church is not unlike the son depicted during the traditional Passover Seder who doesn't even know enough to ask a question at all.

You have heard me make the point that the practical application is the missing link, or bridge, to the practical outworking of the Scriptural. It has occurred to me that this is only partially correct. However, there is a secondary bridge, not in the sense of importance, but that it is more subtle, that is just as critical to the fulfillment of God's purposes through practical means. It is, what one might call, the "Nehemiah effect," who put flesh to the vision, the practical outworking to the Scriptural/spiritual vision.

What I am getting at is this. In sharing God's purposes from Scripture, we must endeavor to bring people to the point of asking those critical questions which holds them accountable to what they have heard. They must be brought to the point where they are compelled to make a decision, one way or the other. If they are not prepared to make that decision on the spot, which I have no problem with, since these things are not to be treated tritely or taken lightly, then at the very least, they are compelled to "think on these things" and to examine them in the spirit of a Berean.

People may say to us, "What a great message that was!" To which, we should be obliged to respond, "So, what are you going to do about?" Before we can realistically hope for the practical preparation to be realized or even pursued, people must be brought to those types of questions. The ideal is that they should initiate these questions. But, if not, consistent with the spirit of the prophetic, we must be prepared to pose the questions for them, to be accepted or rejected, but not ignored. For once the hearer has heard the "whole counsel of God," he no longer has that option.

When we have heard that most significant of questions, in the spirit of, "Brethren, what must we do?" It is at that point, and only at that point, that we can have some assurance that we have at least laid a significant plank in that bridge that leads to the other side of practical preparation. Anything short of that is akin to the vision of "Dry Bones," having sinews and skin, but no breath in them. The significance of this particular analogy should not escape us.

Fred London

Posted: 01/07/2009 at 2:20pm | IP Logged

My brother, I would simply qualify your posting with a simple addition.  Those who are "being brought to the point where they are compelled to make a decision" MUST be brought to this point only by the leading of the Spirit.  Otherwise, we run the danger of getting into "pushing" people to Christ, instead of Him "drawing" them to Him.  One is push the other is flow.  One is indicative of the fallen ways of man, the other is an expression of true Kingdom life.  I pray we are found guilty of the latter and not the former.  Thank you for your posting.

In Him,

-Benny-

Posted: 01/07/2009 at 7:53pm | IP Logged

My brother, I would simply qualify your posting with a simple addition.  Those who are "being brought to the point where they are compelled to make a decision" MUST be brought to this point only by the leading of the Spirit.  Otherwise, we run the danger of getting into "pushing" people to Christ, instead of Him "drawing" them to Him.  One is push the other is flow.  One is indicative of the fallen ways of man, the other is an expression of true Kingdom life.  I pray we are found guilty of the latter and not the former.  Thank you for your posting.

In Him,

-Benny-

Benny,

I appreciate your comments and understand the point you are making.  As it says in Proverbs 27:17, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another man."  If I might, maybe I can clarify and expand a bit on my thinking here, regardless of whether it ultimately leads to agreement or disagreement.

There is no question as Jesus taught, "No man comes unto the Father except through Me, and unless the Spirit draws Him."  However, if you look at how the prophets of old presented the Word of God, and how Jesus, Paul, Peter and John presented the gospel, they were very direct and "cast their bread upon the waters" and left the rest to God.  Their responsibility was to plant, to water, but God in response to men's hearts, coupled with sincere repentance, was responsible for the reality of redemption by the Spirit. 

These spokesmen for God were earthen vessels which compelled men to be brought to a place of confrontation between flesh and spirit, to a place of accountability, a place where you received the gospel, rejected the gospel, but rarely could you ignore the gospel.  Jesus didn't "pull any punches" and neither did those who carried on the gospel message.  Stephen gave an especially hard message which ultimately cost him his life, but as a result, he planted the seeds of salvation within a man named Saul and as they say, "the rest is history." 

The Bereans who "were more noble-minded that those in Thessalonica," were confronted with claims about Jesus and the need for redemption.  In response, they were compelled to "examine the Scriptures to see if these things were so."  In other words, they were brought to a place which made them accountable and required an active pursuit of the truth, which culminated in a definitve response.  To be sure, coming to an intellectiual conclusion was merely the first step in the right direction, but they had to come to a place of repentance and to open their hearts to the Spirit of God and submit to the Lordship of Christ.

Now, let me be clear about this.  As believers, we need to rely on the Holy Spirit's leading as to how and where we share.  "There is a time for every purpose under heaven.," a time to give a witness and a testimony through our lives, which is a continual expression, but when it time to present the message through verbal expression, we must present the full gospel.  Yes, "speaking the truth in love," but because of that love, and love for the truth, being diligent not to sugar-coat the message.  The objective is not to get "decisions" or "professions," but rather that the seeds of salvation might take root and grow in "good soil."

I don't believe in formulas, techniques, or methodologies in sharing the gospel, and I certainly am not suggesting some form of an evangelical inquisiton.  Being a Jewish believer in Jesus myself, I am particularly sensative to anything that smacks of inquisitions or crusades.  "Whosoever wills" means just that!  "Whosover wills..."  But a man "must be born again" in his his spirit, by the Spirit, "For even the demons believe and tremble." 

I often say, "God isn't going to drag anyone screaming and kicking into the Kingdom of God."  In no way am I suggesting that we push or pull anyone into the Kingdom, as if that were even possible.  But I don't believe we should be timid or lax in purposefully throwing them a rope, either, and making sure they know, by the way, that apart from grabbing hold of that rope, there is no safety net below them.  As Paul was able to declare, "For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God."

Appreciate the dialog.

Fred

Posted: 01/08/2009 at 7:27am | IP Logged

Fred,

EXCELLENT clarification. I agree with you on all points.  Too many good thoughts for me to list here.  Thank you, and I too appreciate the dialog.

Pursuing my King,

-Benny-

Posted: 01/08/2009 at 6:55pm | IP Logged

Fred,

EXCELLENT clarification. I agree with you on all points.  Too many good thoughts for me to list here.  Thank you, and I too appreciate the dialog.

Pursuing my King,

-Benny-

Benny,

Thank you for your gracious and encouraging reply.

Best regards,

Fred

Posted: 01/08/2009 at 7:10pm | IP Logged

[QUOTE=Dave Spencer]
So, where's the questions, already?

With His Love,
Dave

Dave, 

It is for the teacher and preacher to stimulate and cultivate those questions in others, and not short-circuit that process by supplying them ourselves. 

Fred

Posted: 01/09/2009 at 10:03am | IP Logged

[QUOTE=Dave Spencer]
Isn't the important thing to allow each one who is prompted to speak by the Holy Spirit to do so in a orderly and respectful manner?

When we take the Greek mindset, the "learned teacher" preaches/teaches and the pupils sit and learn, usually with little or no interaction.  Isn't this just indoctrination,  a impartation of facts and even methods, but usually without an impartation of wisdom and communication skills?  Perhaps that's why we (the church) are often seen as preachers and not as people who love to talk with others and learn about what they think?

When we are allowed to tell our stories (testimonies) about the wonderful things Jesus-Father-Holy Spirit has done in our lives, then we can just tell it like it is.  And answer any questions as best we can.

But when we are venturing into the deeper water of God's Being, is it not more humble and friendly to begin phrasing our thoughts/opinions as questions?

Anyway, just some ramblings of an old man with an eternal spirit given by God's Grace.

With His Love,
Dave

Dave,

What you have expressed here are not "ramblings" by any means.  In fact, I have expressed many of the same things verbatum as you have, such as the Greek style of teaching is a one-way lecture approach which lends itself to indoctrination, whereas, the Hebraic style of teaching is very interactive, which lends itself to true discipleship.  We clearly see in the gospels that this was the very approach which Jesus employed.

To be clear, I am one who is vehemently opposed to a clergy-laity mentality and practice, "for you are all brothers."  That said, I do believe in legitmate church leadership and those who are called and have the measure of grace in the expository gifts.  That is a matter of function, but certainly not a higher class of church member which has predominated our Post-Reformation mindset for centuries.  Yes, apostles and prophets and teachers (elders) instruct in the Word of God, and are given a certain amount of authority, but "not as lording it over the flock."

As to meeting as an assembly, as is depicted in I Cor. 14, in principle, everyone has the liberty to express their gifts and what God has laid upon their hearts and give testimony to what God has done in their lives.  Now, you will notice that there is a recognized distinction of "prophets."  However, it is also clear that is another brother has a word, they are to defer to that brother. And as you rightly cite, it must be conducted in "decency in order, for God is not a God of confusion."

I hope that clarifies a bit as to my thinking along these lines.  Your comments are much appreciated and well taken.

Fred