|
|
|
Testing Words and Discernment |
Discernment needs
to be a corporate rather than a purely private
affair.[2]
Back in the seventeenth century, the early Quakers
greatly loved and respected the Word of God, but
many, unfortunately, could not accept that the Word
itself should always be considered superior to
individual leading. Because they were convinced that
it the Spirit Who had inspired the Scriptures was
the same One that they possessed, they even
suggested that their ‘inner light’ should test the
Word instead of the other way round.
The Quakers’ emphasis on being led by the Spirit
produced much lasting spiritual fruit, but it
unfortunately also left the gate wide open for an
ever greater degree of subjectivism. In time, this
led to many Quakers entertaining highly unbiblical
beliefs and practices. Richard Baxter, the Puritan
divine, reacted to some of these extremes by issuing
the sternest of warnings:
| |
All
sober Christians should be the more cautious of
being deceived by their own imaginations. Experience
telleth us that most in an age that have pretended
to prophesy, or to inspirations or revelations, have
been melancholy, crack-brained persons, near to
madness, who have proved deluded in the end.[3] |
|
Baxter had an
important point to make, but whilst the fact that
many ‘crack-brained’ and downright immoral things
have been undertaken in the name of the Lord should
cause us to double check our utterances, and our
life-direction, it should by no means hold us back
from seeking to listen to the authentic Still Small
Voice.
Within fifteen years or so, the Society of Friends
realized that trusting the leading of the Light in
every Friend was not sufficient. Words and leading
were henceforth to be tested by the corporate will
of the group – which hopefully included sufficient
awareness of Biblical teaching to be up to the task.
For Reflection and Prayer
As we seek to listen to the Still Small Voice today,
we face very much the same questions that the early
Quakers grappled with. The first question to
consider therefore is: ‘with whom do we check and
test our hearing?’
The second is, ‘When we pass on to others what we
sincerely hope are inspired suggestions, are we sure
that we are not merely transferring onto them the
things that we have found ‘work’ for us? Analogies
are helpful, but we should never dump them
indiscriminately on others – it can lead to a
‘hardening of the oughteries!’ (ie making people
feel that they ‘ought’ to be doing something, as
opposed to feeling genuine led to do it).
Christian tradition – ‘what the Church has always
believed’ – is by no means infallible, but neither
is it something to throw away lightly. We should
certainly not be so eager to embrace the new and
novel that we overlook basic questions: ‘Does this
word (or manifestation) bring glory to God and
Jesus?’ ‘Are they people of sound mind and behavior,
who are walking with the Lord?’ ‘Does it promote
unity in the Body of Christ – or does it draw people
into someone else’s orbit, and incline towards
divisiveness?’
|
