Hearing

I would like you to think through this with me. Because, as we know all to well, ideas have consequences.

It has, as the years have gone on, never ceased to amaze me how powerful the role of a teacher is. Especially for the one's who teach who God supposedly is. For with that role comes the demand to teach what is true and to avoid tales and canards of who He is not. If one has an opinion one can describe it to others but it shouldn't be taught as if it is beyond disrepute. The stakes for the teacher as well as the students are enormous. For ideas about God and His nature which happen to be false will likely be taken by the uninformed and absorbed and ultimately believed as true. And that can't be a good outcome. Bad informational teaching maybe worse than no information at all. Though not by much.

Some prerequisites that we should agree on before I make my points:

1. Each one's theory must fit reality. I mean that universal reality that God holds together by His own decree. We must forbid ourselves from the formula that reality will be rearranged so as to fit ones own working theory. The challenge is for objective and not subjective truth. Where too many sadly take refuge. Are many creating and insulating themselves in their own bubble of reality? Probably more than we would like to know of. So for us, finding Truth is to be about more than each others pet agendas.

2. Communication techniques; such as 'figure of speech', metaphoric intention, prophetic hyperbole, fantasy simile and allegorical stories are about describing what something is 'about.' Using the faculty of language to point to what it is we are defining and making clear some cherished concept. But these guides of language are not the actual thing they are trying to describe but only a literary device and aid to provide the very meaning of the matter.

3. A position one has maybe right or wrong but its veracity has nothing to do with the sincerity or goodness of the person making the claim.

4. Law of non-contradiction is in use all the time:

5. Law of causality: the irreducible definition being; for every effect there must be an antecedent cause. Whether we can perceive by our senses or not. You don’t see causality necessarily, you see actions in sequence. The example you may have heard, which is a fallacy, is when a rooster crows and, then presto, the sun comes up. The farmer, oddly, thought the sounds of the rooster was the cause of the sun rising. Is the farmer wrong? This is the informal fallacy in logic called ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc.’ Which translates, after this therefore because of this. Just because something happens after something else does - does not mean that the previous thing had anything to do with that which came after. Things seem connected but that doesn’t establish a relationship of causality! (This has helped me meaningfully to not be tethered to my pet ideas but if I find that I am loopy and falling into this subtle trap of illogic, I let them go)

6. This is not about ones character for I assume the best of character and intention at Mosaic or The Church at the Beach or The Bed and at large among the many brethren, from the outset.

Wisdom dictates that I should take nothing for granted. We should allow each to fight for the right to bring our case to the other.

So here it goes:

Here are some of my own phrases for what Erwin McManus was trying to communicate Saturday night, in the month of March, from the notes I took directly afterwards of his lesson on his proove for one's ability to hear God: 'intimate relationship of talking to each other… you come to know God by experience….you must have divine words that come to you or also stated as 'assignments' by hearing them.' 'Divine assignments are what one 'hears' from God when one is doing everything right and in His will.' ' The 'hearing' comes in small steps. His will is about waiting and being given instructions.' ' It comes from a selection of places. You cannot discover them they are revealed.' ' You sense god's leading, or you felt the lead of God from your secret place. A failure to receive messages is a failure in one's love relationship with God.' "Once you have an intimate love relationship with God, He will show or tell you what He is doing." "If the Christian does not know when God is speaking, he is in trouble at the heart of his Christian life." I think I can safely say that this was the wording or the intent; including some of his quotes as to what Erwin was trying to get across.

Now, the proof-text that Erwin used as his summum bonum, was that men and women of faith will "hear" God, and was highlighted from the passages contained in John 10. He made this as his only reference to make his case for "the sense and need to hear" and how one should use these 'words we hear' and to its application to one’s life. Though he said there were other references. But he made it clear that no others were necessary. This was his paramount text.

He says to obey your sense of what your private message and assignments are. He exhorts us to be faithful to the storyline one 'hears'; to surrender to it, have faith in this process and follow Christ in this message of 'private hearing' even when we don't understand all the normal rationales of this assignment. Erwin goes on to say, that regardless of the chaos, the price, the difficulty, and the hardship it brings, we must follow our private inner talking points from God. Our very own personal 'hearing' and private revelation from God. This hearing mode, he claims, is the capacity to listen to the correct voice from a selection of competing voices that may drown the real one out. He went on a while in how you might go about deciding which one is the right voice to hear. Some knack or developing sifter will be required from each one of us to do this he said.

Here is my response:

My question in lieu of this is simple. According to the very big Bible we read, the measuring rod and canon of divine authority, does experiencing God's voice in our lives depend on this sole characteristic of receiving personalized assignments from Him? Does intimacy with God depend on our ability to "sense by our ear" His "leading"? Is this taught commonly in Scripture? Is hearing and being able to say that I heard from God, modeled by the apostles or the early church in general or the men and women captured therein in the first 50 or 159 years after the close of the New Testament? Is there any reference to the process in all these writings? If so, it should be well established in the 4 gospel's, Acts which spans over 30 years of time and the doctrine proscribed in the epistles by the apostles.

There is only one way to answer these questions. The way the scores of regional Councils did in the formation of scripture and afterwards also. Head to head and within the Church of Christ where reason and evidence were highly regarded. Where they described, explained and refuted strongly blatant heresy. Doctrine, truth and deeds were serious business back then. They all argued and said all Scripture will be your source of authority for faith and practice. You cannot depend on pet human traditions, your esoteric experience, mysterious utterances or the supposed experience of others to be accurate authorities on God's will and ways. Is their method something we can agree to?

Is Jesus the model for us to mimic and be like? That is where many will go to draw their ideas of how to conduct themselves in this issue I bring up. Is this what John wanted to convey in his book? I think, to a great extent, the apostle would say no. Because the whole context of John’s chapters 1, 5, 4, 8 and 10 and more, are statements that have to do with the divinity of Christ. His very Deity publicly being revealed. He is solely unique as the incarnate Son of God and therefore had unique obligations, unique abilities, and a unique relationship with the Father. For they are One which is the motif John brings out. John 5:17-23 and John 8: 26-28 bear out some of this.

John 10 is frequently, even today in our time without so much as blinking, is misapplied as the legitimate source for a real ability of 'hearing' the shepherd. It is important to know precisely what Jesus has in mind when He uses these terms. John records four mentions by Jesus of His sheep hearing or knowing His voice (10:3, 4, 16, 27). Verse six is key to understanding this passage. Here John explicitly states that Jesus’ remarks about hearing His voice are a figure of speech. And, elsewhere, the sheep know each other (14). When His other sheep hear His voice, they also become part of His flock (16). The Jews fail to completely understand (v. 19-21). What is the problem? Jesus’ answer is crystal clear: "You do not have faith and it's subsequent believe because you are not of My sheep."

In context, Jesus’ meaning is unmistakable. He says, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me and I give eternal life to them" (v. 27-28). Note the sequence: They hear His voice. They follow Him. Then He gives them eternal life. Hearing Jesus’ voice results in salvation, it is not the result of salvation. We can't assume that the drawing of the Holy Spirit which leads to saving faith is the same precise idea of hearing about what you are assigned to do today, and in the evening and on some special topic you are thinking on.

What "voice" is it that draws us to Jesus and results in our salvation? Most likely, and I’m communicating here by my insight, it is the ineffable drawing by the Father through His Spirit of those who are His, a concept John has already introduced and developed in earlier chapters of his Gospel (5:25, 5:31-34, 5:37-38, 6:35-40, 6:44-45, 6:65, 8:18, 8:47). It is a figure of speech, a manner of analogy for clarity, for the inner working of the Holy Spirit that leads to our salvation and becoming alive in Him and sealed spiritually. The Jews, here, know what He’s saying. They hear His instructions just fine. Their problem is responding. The voice being referred to here is not the whispers of private direction given by God to your heart, but the effective call of the Holy Spirit bringing us to Christ. Jesus tells us plainly, they do not "hear" because God is not "speaking" to them. They are not among the sheep the Father has given to the Son. That is Jesus' unambiguous teaching. The task of hearing God is to bow the knee not hear the deepest mysteries.

Erwin claims, "Knowing God's voice comes from an intimate love relationship with God", and again, "As you walk in an intimate love relationship with God, you will come to recognize His voice. You will know when God is speaking to you." But Jesus never suggests such a thing. Jesus says the Father is the cause and is Sovereign enabling those sheep He has given to Jesus to hear and respond. This "hearing" representing what John is trying to convey is not for believers after salvation for growing in grace, but for non-believers prior to salvation. It is not dependent on the quality of our love relationship with God, as many claims are made today but here in this particular message it is the Father’s choice of drawing. We don’t have to be quiet for the Father to work this to completion.

There is another damaging consequence of misreading this text. According to Jesus' comments, hearing His voice is essential to salvation. Those who do not hear are not His. Rather they are outsiders, bereft of eternal life, lost. I am not the type to like this kind of outcome to the story. But there it makes its presence clear anyway.

Trouble

There is an unavoidable consequence of blending the wording of John 10 with Erwin's and others in the definition of hearing Jesus' "voice" and all that is ‘read’ into this assumption. For I say that it says, "Those who do not have this relationship sequence (do not belong to God) and do not hear what God is saying to them (John 8:47)". In the verse it quotes that, Jesus is castigating the Jews for unbelief, calling them the sons of Satan (8:44). Yet on the Saturday I heard there was placed a tremendous burden on the listening believer sitting there, the young and tender one at that, who must, Erwin said, question his spirituality and even his salvation if divine messages are not forthcoming. He used the word 'trouble'; that whoever you are, you are in deep doo-doo if you are not 'hearing' these messages. Erwin made another condition to his claims, making the case that the Spirit will have a hard time speaking loud enough if we are not quiet and still. It is on us to tune in and not on God for the transmitting quality. As if He has problems getting our attention. People pontificate and spin the yarn that He, you know that Creator guy, he wants to, it is His intention is reach us, but if we are busy He can‘t get through. So from that notion there is a flaw in God for He is not capable to proceed with his created beings who are inattentive [I can hear the notion coming, ‘oh, it is about free will’ but that is a red herring and rabbit trail because you must say then that God cannot do what he chooses and cannot override that which He creates]. So a modern teacher of this particular view will use counter punches to muddy the already muddy waters, saying, we human beings have to strain to hear Him, night and day, be mystically silent in heart and do what is necessary to 'hear.' But if you can’t hear then it is your own fault. For God is speaking, but the teaching goes, He is speaking quite softly or at the wrong pitch. Fix it is Erwin's defense and go find the right pitch.

This is not Jesus' meaning in anyway shape or construct. This understanding of 'hearing the voice' of God is completely foreign to the text of John 8 and 10. To Jesus, hearing God is not a skill to be developed. It is not an advanced discipline opening the lines to personalized assignments from the Father. It is not a fruit of a deepening love relationship with God. It is a figure of speech to refer to some other truth. John says this explicitly. He refers to a communication device to stand in as a parabolic metaphor for the real intention of what he is trying to convey. And as I said earlier about devices in literature: of prophetic hyperbole, fantasy simile, etc. they are about describing what something is 'about'. Using the faculty of language to point to what it is we are defining by the analogy of something one more easily can understand. But these guides are not the something they are trying to describe but only a literary device and aid to the true meaning.

Hearing Jesus' voice, here in John 10, is not about getting an inner message about His will; it's getting 'the Kingdom of Heaven', saved and unlost. It's the result of the Father drawing the bearer of his own sin, a non-believer as to God‘s intentions, into Jesus' arms (onnother of the many figures of speech I used writing this).

If you have another story line in the New Testament that supports your view of 'concisely hearing as equal to the canonical messages' then bring it forward. I'm all ears. But John 10 is absolutely not the passage to bring. It can't be. Even John says it is not about the real hearing of God for your own personal needs but it is figurative and about something else Jesus is referring to.

The worst statement I heard, maybe, was that he used the counter measures of ad hominum to his audience in trying to nullify the biblical record as the measuring stick for what is right and how to solve for the answer. He said that if you use the Word (the Bible) to critique his notion of "hearing" you are in a great deal of slippery trouble. Trying to establish a hedge around himself and projecting a palpable fear or 'trouble' for those who doubt him. As if he was saying he can't be in error but those who find his thinking substandard are automatically in danger of losing out and stinking in their own thinking. In this day and age one can hear a recording of his speech on this night on a podcast.

Is there more to say and convey in Acts about ‘hearing‘? Is that where we can find a plentiful supply for this endeavor of whispered ideas from the Spirit? Does Paul and Peter and John's epistles bring this idea to bear of personal messaging? What of the Old Testament? The Old testament has a couple of dozen in the course of a 1,000 plus years that God did have direct conversations with. But there was no requirement that they be quiet and still, it wasn't necessary that they be self disciplined in some way, it wasn't taught that you have a prerequisite test that you love people in some magnanimous way. One example is Moses which after he stopped a guard from abusing a slave and ultimately killing the gurard, he fled. Not including his before life of priveledge, Moses heard nothing for 40 years. He was intimately involved in his family and tribe, the floral and fuana and every water source. When he was walking he saw a bush which he probably had passed before burning. Moses had nothing to do with the hearing. But even when Moses went through this experience he didn't, and we shouldn't, conclude that if these things happened to someone you knew - then - everyone else around should think that they should have that same access. So I conclude that John’s gospel doesn't provide any evidence for this as well as Mathew and Luke. You can look to see if Mark does. Therefore 3 of the gospels are silent on this.

What effective arguments can be marshaled against these I offer? If I have given a solid case for where not to find a green light for believing what is not explicitly stated does not force me to stand against God reaching toward us, because I stand for God making known who He is, communicating what should be known, upholding our spirits, strengthening our resolve, letting us taste that He is good, providing insight, bearing in us wisdom, imbibing truth and knowing and worshiping His presence, being individually alert to what others need from us, being with us in sorrow and in pleasure, etc. and etc.

Extra sources:

1. Here is an excellent compilation of decision making and divine direction in the book of Acts
2. What the meaning of hearing means, Greg Koukl


Thanks for your time to read my position. The hosts of Heaven garner in me from time to time, to keep your passion, increase your curiosity, renew your mind, take all steps possible to hear total truth, make it a very part of your bones. I am prodded, almost wrestled, to ask the difficult questions -- the answers, if and when they come, will speak to the true nature of our new nature. I hope we possess these faculties of discernment in the most difficult of times.

To close, I believe in your sense of the Spirit and what it is bearing on you. I take you at face value that when you are pulled strongly or subtly in what you think is being heralded spiritually, I will take it fairly and with much esteem. So don’t take this defense as against all the battles and the various victories of what we have come to know of the God who made all and who knows all.

I thought I would sign off with a nod to 2 of my favorite tales, To Kill a Mockingbird; of Atticus Finch, his kids, 'Boo' their neighbor, Tom Robinson, his family and their allegorical story and the metaphors it describes for universal morals in life..…and also to Les Miserables and the historical fiction Hugo pens about the early 1800’s with Jean, Cosette, Fantine, Javert and to Bishop Myriel. In these 2 we hear either acute ecclesiastical wisdom or - the other perspective - of just plain undirected random chance in life for all who travel this human highway,

I speak as a friend and with the deepest regard,

Bruce