*This is a series of posts which might be of benefit for the first time reader to begin at the “Introduction” for continuity sake.
The same question could be asked of any of the FIVE office gifts or graces found in Ephesians 4:11. What real authority does earthly ministry leadership and especially prophetic ministry have over the individual or the church? I speculate, with lengthy experience in both the pastoral / teaching office, as well as the prophetic, that greater authority is at times granted to prophets (or those exercising a prophetic gifting) due to the dramatic aspects which spring forth in foretelling or hidden knowledge. It is sad, but many people seem to need a side show of revelatory drama from a prophet, rather than receiving the mundane biblical and wise counseling of a seasoned pastor. This is where cessationism has found ample illustration of Charismatic gullibility and immaturity. Many accept a prophetic utterance as final authority, rather than the plain pastoral counseling of Scripture. It is this kind of confusion that led Edward Irving to a downfall in the early 1830’s in the famous London Presbyterian Church when he assumed (mistakenly) that those with gifts must be in some way superior to those with legitimate and established governmental authority. Government and gifts must never be conflated or confused without some discernment.
One could make a case that in the OT, the prophet and priest exercised governmental authority with the people of God (Israel). Both of these offices moved with almost unquestioned authority. The prophet spoke as an oracle. The prophet’s voice was the inspired voice of God. This is why a prophet speaking out of his own thoughts or spirit would be accused of divination, a form of witchcraft. The repercussion would be the death penalty. However, as we move into the NT, we find a picture that emphasizes apostles and elders. Jesus never abolished prophets, but interestingly, He never called them to ministry while on earth. He instead called “apostles”. Peter never tells the churches to be subject to prophets, but rather shepherds and elders (I Peter 5:5). Paul did not call for the prophets of the Ephesian Church to give final counsel, but rather sent for elders (Acts 20:17). The dispute of doctrine at Jerusalem was not settled by the prophets, but rather apostles (Acts 15). Paul and Barnabas did not appoint prophets to govern every church, but they appointed elders. (Acts 14:23). Paul spoke to Timothy concerning elders who “rule well”, not prophets (I Timothy 5:17). This is not to infer that a man with a prophetic gifting or anointing could not be the Senior Minister / “set-one” or an elder. What it does clearly infer is that prophets are subject to the lines of authority and government within a local congregation.
The Sr. Minister (most often referred to as “Pastor”) should never surrender the solemn responsibilities of that office and leadership of the congregation. This is a prescription for anarchy. Paul had occasion to say, “I magnify my ministry” (Romans 11:13), to underscore the need for authority. In my estimation, true prophetic gifts relate to the local church as follows:
- A NT prophet has a connection to an actual, operating local church. They are not independent wanderers with no local accountability. This insures they simply cannot “blow in, blow off, and blow out” without being held to account for what they said. An isolated person with no attachment or answerability to another who can correct them in love is dangerous.
- Prophetic ministry needs mentoring and training as much as any other of the Ephesian 4 office gifts. This is why their “spirit is subject to other prophets” (I Corinthians 14:29, 32). Samuel and Elijah are recorded to have related to groups of aspiring ministers called “the sons of the prophets”. This illustrates this exact point.
- Ideally, a person with prophetic gifting and governmental calling would submit to the leadership processes of their local church and arise in God’s timing to the place of local leadership. This would provide a type of “endorsement” for the ministry for which they demonstrate a calling. So much could be said at this point with regards to affirmation of ministry. Paul sent letters (epistles) with remarks concerning people to either recieve them or reject them. (Phil. 2:19-20, 24-25; II Tim. 1:15, 2:16-18)
Just an interesting conclusion and side note to this discussion and series of posts. I Corinthians 14:29, 32, appears to make the case that the prophetic ministry might best be policed by other prophets functioning in the same calling and ministry. For example, could an itinerant evangelist speak to the unique issues of what a pastor faces? Would it be optimum for another pastor to input a pastor because of similar calling and assignment? The opposite is true as well. Could a pastor input an evangelist with no working knowledge of itineracy? It seems certain, that in the NT, apostles conferred with one another. Certainly, everyone can learn from anyone, but hopefully you understand my point. A physician has peer reviews for obvious reasons. A lawyer interacts with the state bar association with regard to their profession. Perhaps there is a place for peer review when it comes to prophetic ministry as well. Again, this in no way diminishes every minister’s need to have input from all the office gifts, but it is a fascinating thought.
Until next time…
No Comments