Stirring the Pot - A response to the objections on yesterday's post

Well, it seems that yesterday’s post caused as bit of a stir. Not that you would know it by the comments, for it seems that most of those who objected to what I had to say preferred to do so in phone calls and private messages. And since all the objections were pretty much in the same vein, I decided against individual responses and to address them here.

The objection went like this:

Corrective prophetic words have no place in the New Testament Church. They are restricted to the Old Testament.

The funny thing is that no one, not a single person offered up any Scriptural support for this idea. I was told that they had received a different message from leadership, books, and other believers – but did I mention that no one offered me a single passage? In case you didn’t guess, that’s kind of a big deal to me.

So not being above reproach or correction, I decided to do a little research. I mean I would really love for this to be right. Do you know how much weight it would take off my shoulders? How much responsibility I would be absolved of? There is nothing but good things in it for me if this is true. All I needed was one passage confirming what has become a popular notion in today’s church.

Here is what I found:

1 Corinthian 12, 13, and 14

I read through the passages carefully, trying to find where and how the use of corrective words in the New Testament church was forbidden. I read them again. And again. I even stop typing, right here > < to read them yet again, because if you know me, you will know that I hate being wrong. This doesn’t mean that I am never wrong. It just means I will avoid it at all costs.

The only verse that I can see that might be interpreted as a prohibition against corrective words is 1 Corinthians 14: 3 –

One the other hand the one who prophesies speaks to the people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 

Alright, let’s look at the words here, but let’s do it backwards.

Consolation is defined as comfort received by a person after a loss or disappointment by the writers of the Oxford Dictionary and Merriam Webster says pretty much the same thing, something that makes a person feel less sadness, disappointment, etc. Encouragement is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the action of giving someone support, confidence, or hope. Merriam Webster gets a little more generous in its definition - the act of making something more appealing or more likely to happen; something that makes someone more determined, hopeful, or confident; and something that makes someone more likely to do something.

So far this all falls in line with what I have been told by concerned reader, but here is where things get interesting. Upbuilding is usually translated as edification or strengthening. Merriam Webster defines edification as teaching someone in way that builds strength or character. Oxford defines it as the instruction or improvement of a person morally or intellectually. This is where we put on our thinking caps and consider the fact that teaching and instruction are corrective by nature. The fact that Paul chose to include this word in addition to the words we see as kind and gentle, tells us that he intended for us to have a balanced view of prophecy that functions within the tension of discipline and grace.

Now, I know that no sound theological argument hinges on a single verse or word, and it was pointed out to me that all of my examples from yesterday’s post were from the Old Testament. So allow me to present two examples of corrective, even harsh prophetic words from the New Testament:

Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.  And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” (Acts 8:22-24 ESV)

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4 ESV) Emphasis added.

In each of these cases, Paul and Peter speak what the Holy Spirit has revealed to them in the hearts and minds of these men. Each instance is a demonstration of a prophetic word given that was not kind or gentle but corrective and, dare I say, a pronouncement of judgment.

We should also not overlook the fact that by relegating corrective words of prophecy to the Old Testament we are invalidating the writing of the New Testament. Revelation is blatantly a prophetic word and full of correction. Paul’s letter also full of correction, warning, and frequently describing consequences of persistent sin in the life of a believer – consequences that should be enacted within the church and consequences that will be enacted by God.

Furthermore, the distinction between Old and New Testament is flawed because it is not merely a distinction between one set of texts and another, it is distinction that we have tried to impose upon God. Declaring God to be changing and capricious in his dealing with humanity as the God of the Old Testament is all judgment and wrath, while Jesus is love and kindness, and when taken to an extreme this leads us to deny Jesus declaration that he and the Father are one. The New Testament is not a new covenant, but rather a continuation and manifestation of the original covenant given to Abraham, renewed at Sinai, confirmed in Acts, and celebrated by Peter that Abraham’s children would become a blessing to the world and priests to all nations. (Genesis 12:1-3, Exodus 19:5-6, Acts 1:8, 1 Peter 2:9).

Correction is part of being in this family faith – giving it and receiving it. There is just no way around it. I wish there were. I would love to be able to tell everyone who felt so obligated to correct me, either for yesterday’s post or for other legitimate reasons, to go jump the lake. I wish I could avoid the responsibility for acting when called, but no serious study of the prophets, be it Old Testament or New, allows us the luxury of believing that this is a matter of choice or personal desire. It is not a position of power but one of humility and perfect awareness of one’s own weakness. Moses declares, Jeremiah laments, Jonah ran from it, and Paul wrote of it – each one decrying the necessity of confrontation even as they walked towards it. They knew that leaving sin unaddressed and unchecked would only cripple the individual believer and ultimately the body as a whole.

Hannah - The Story Of A Brazen Woman

The women of the Bible will never cease to fascinate me. Living in a time and culture of total male domination, one would think that only the meek and the docile would be deemed worthy or remembrance, but with few exceptions, we find the women most celebrated to be those whose actions pushed the boundaries of societal constraints and refused to be silent in the face of injustice. One such woman was Hannah of I Samuel chapters one and two.

Too often we read this story at the mercy of our modern conditioning. We fail to see the historical and religious significance of her actions, and as usual present her as a pious soul who meekly turned to God in her hour of need. However, a closer reading of the text coupled with an understanding of the times reveals a bold and daring woman who was not just going to shut up and take what life, or God, had given her.

Her story opens with the introduction of her husband, a man with an impressive family tree, and her inclusion in a family where she was one of two wives. Unlike the second wife, Hannah was barren and like so many women the first wife was catty, constantly rubbing it in Hannah’s face that she was a failure as a woman. Despite this Hannah managed to be her husband’s favorite, meriting special treatment and receiving his feeble (and, oh, so male) attempts at comfort. This is our first tip off that Hannah was something special for in this day a woman’s value was often calculated based on the number of sons she presented to her husband. Love matches were a rarity, and marriage was more of business agreement between families than a romantic venture.

From this stand point it would be easy to say that Hannah was far more blessed than many other women of her time. For not only did her husband keep her as a wife, showing affection and consideration of her situation, he further blessed her with a double portion during the time for sacrifices to made.

To understand the emotional ramifications of what Hannah was experiencing we need to understand that barrenness was not considered a simple medical malfunction. Barrenness was a curse from God, often viewed as a judgement for wrong doing, and as Hannah was the only wife barren the judgement would have been seen as failing on her alone. This would have made her suspect among the other women and possibly held social consequence such as being ostracized and topic of small town gossip. Wrapping our modern minds around what she must have experienced is difficult at best.

The story unfolds as the family celebrates together, eating and drinking, while I can only imagine Hannah watching her husband blessing his children by his other wife and fending off the smug attitude of the other woman vying for her husband’s attention. The pain she must have felt knowing that all those present considered her to be a failure and a shame to their family was probably what pushed her over the edge.

For in verse nine we find that Hannah arose, leaving the festivities behind to go and pray at the Tabernacle.

I want you to really think about this for a moment – a woman, unescorted, goes to the Tabernacle! This is where the men gathered to make plans, to discuss battle strategies, to determine how to govern the people, and to do the bloody work of sacrifice. Women went there, but they went as a family to make the appropriate offerings together with their husbands or fathers. Just making that walk was an exercise in courage.

Or was it something else?

Verse ten literally said she was “marat nefesh” or “bitter of soul” - not the typical attitude we are encouraged to have when seeking an audience with God. But could you blame her? God was the one who opens and closes the womb. He was the cause of her disappointment and pain, and she knew this.

The writer of Samuel records her prayer:
“O LORD of Hosts, if you will look upon the suffering of your maidservant and remember me and not forget the sufferings of your maidservant, and if you will grant your maidservant a male child, I will dedicated him to the LORD for all the days of his life; and no razor shall ever touch his head.”

And with those words, she changed the nature of prayer forever – so much so that we do not even recognize them as radical as this has been the way we have been taught to pray since we were children, but to the fledgling nation of Israel, they are unprecedented.

The first words, the title of LORD of Hosts, had never been uttered until they fall from Hannah’s lips, here was a woman who recognized God’s sovereignty not only in her own life but in all the machinations of the universe.  Her prayer simultaneously exalts God beyond previous words spoken to him while declaring her need and right to be remembered as his handmaiden. The demand and glorification stand at odds with each other, presenting the divine tension between humanity and deity in stark contrast to the humility deemed fitting for a woman. Perhaps it takes one who has experienced such agonies to know that if God is too be great, he must be bigger than any pain we experience, and who knows pain better than one whose hopes and dreams have been ripped to shreds?

The Rabbis call her words insolent even as they laud her example as one who dared to speak their heart to the Creator. So impressive was this bold feat that the prescribed methodology for prayer was modeled not after the patriarchs of the Jewish faith, but upon the heartfelt cries of a woman. Daring to be this impassioned before God was a level of bravery that no man had dared to attempt, the fear and trembling of awe struck wonder had been erased as heartache compelled her to brazenness.

If her story had ended there, she would have been mocked and ridiculed as the drunken woman who dared to defile the sacred environment of the Tabernacle with profanity, but thankfully for us all, it did not. Eli confronts her, scandalized by her hysterics, demanding that she be proper before the Lord and in this holy place. Most women would have been cowed and accepted the harsh rebuke in silence, but not our Hannah!

She fires back him with both barrels, “No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the Lord. Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for all along I have been speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation.”

Now, read this as a woman who has been wrongfully accused, not as simpering milksop. Take her prompts for the proper tone and voice for her words. Remember that Hebrew is a very limited language in comparison to ours and know that words often have more than one related definition. She isn’t just saying she was slightly vexed. She deliberately chose a word that also means anger. She wasn’t just dealing with anxiety, once again she chose a word that can mean complain, as in legal complaint. She is letting Eli know that she is beyond just hurt she is MAD and with a just cause. Now plug in all that new knowledge and read her reply again.

Go back and read Eli’s response. Does it sound familiar? It reminds me of my husband when he knows that he had better not argue with me because I am going to go psycho crazy on him for even questioning my right to be upset. It’s the cautious pat on the head before hitting the door to avoid the fallout. It’s the placation in an attempt to defuse the ticking time bomb, but Hannah grabs on to it. You can almost hear her skipping away as she says, “Let your servant find favor in your eyes.”

In Hannah we find far more than an abstraction of piety and humility. We find a woman with a voice, a backbone, and fiery spirit who will not be silenced or dismissed. She rejects cultural norms that would threaten to remove her from the provision of her God, and declares that her identity is ultimately found in him and her relationship to him as his servant. She reveals the true object of her faith as her Lord and Creator, not the men who appeared to have authority over her and recognizes God’s sovereignty to act on her behalf and her right to request it – even when it meant rebuking the spiritual leadership of a nation.

Women should read her story not as rebuke to pray silently and in humility, but rather, that we take our requests boldly to our King. We should not see her as proper, because she wasn’t, and should learn when to disregard propriety for the sake of honesty. From her we should draw inspiration to cast aside societal constraints when they stand between us and our need to have the Father act on our behalf, and most of all, we should be reminded that God remembers us and all the things that have wounded our hearts. He is there, waiting in those holy moments to respond with blessings beyond our imagination if we are brave enough to take even bitter souls before his throne in prayer.