Rightly discerning the issue

We frequently need to weigh up actions to be undertaken while considering several competing issues. Different people weight the various considerations differently based on things like the importance they place on the relevant (and sometimes irrelevant) issues, or their depth of knowledge of relevant issues.

Often more information is very helpful. Many people realise this and sometimes seek it. What seems less common is thinking through how an issue is relevant. Recently I heard a conversation concerning how many people to train for the work force and weighing up issues like,

1. Quality of training
2. (Future) workforce requirements
3. Number we can train
4. Number who want to train

In unrelated reading on unemployment I came across this quote,

People don’t need to be forced to work. People need to be helped to find a job.

This sentence reminded me of the earlier conversation as neither speaker had rightly divided the issue.

Talking the second one, the speaker is (or may be*) falsely contrasting the issue. It is not just that a carrot is more effective (according to the speaker) than a stick, rather both can be true depending on what the problem is. So within a community there exist people who do not wish to work and for them a policy that forces them to earn their income is important. Even if there were jobs, the lack of desire to work prevents them taking one up. Within the same community are people who want to work but are unable to find a job. For them the motivation is there, and forcing them to work is less helpful when there are no jobs to be had. Presumably for many people both factors may be at play: they desire not to work but think they should; and jobs are difficult to find.

The relevant point is that the quote reveals inadequate depth of assessing the problem: thinking something is either/ or when it is both/ and.

The first example was about determining which of the issues is most important in addressing the training problem. Being a free-market type guy I think train who you can and let the market sort out the issues. Nevertheless, let's consider the problem as it was posed. The failure of the speaker here is equating all these variables to the total number of trainees rather than recognising they relate to either maximum or minimum numbers of trainees. Let's say that we could estimate these numbers (which we probably can't as they derive from several factors that we cannot determine; further they are dynamic). Even so, they put different constraints on the trainee number. Taking item #1. Assuming that high quality (or a minimum standard) is what is being sort, this means that the system will have a maximum number of workers it can train. Workforce requirements however is a minimum number: they will want to train at least that many workers. Total capacity to train is a maximum number, and number who wish to train is also a (different) maximum number.

These examples illustrate the common problem of failing to fully analyse an issue. Many a discussion or argument is at cross purposes because of superficial assessment.†

---

*The author may be saying that people do not need to be forced to work because they all want to work; they just cannot find a job.

†The opposite tendency is to make distinctions when they are irrelevant. This does not necessarily relate to the degree of division but rather whether it is relevant. The question to ask what is being assessed or compared here.

Prophecy is better understood after it is fulfilled

In an earlier post I wrote,

There is an aspect of hiddenness to Scripture. Related to this hiddenness is the concept that prophecy is better understood after the event than before it. That is, its fulfilment clearly relates to the prophecy, but this is much harder to grasp before the event.

This could seem to imply that prophecy is not really prophecy if we can only perceive it after it is fulfilled, or worse, that it is not prophecy at all and we just look to random events that may line up with vague ponderings—a Nostradamus approach where cryptic predictions have innumerable confirmations.

This is not really what I am getting at. I think it possible to understand prophecy before the event. And some prophecies are quite clear. Jeremiah clearly stated that Babylon was going to conquer Jerusalem. The Jews would be exiled for 70 years and then return. Daniel was praying near the end of that time asking God about the return (Daniel 2:9). So some prophecy is easy to understand. Nevertheless some prophecies are harder to grasp and some is very difficult to understand.

This may be intentional, God gives words he knows will be difficult to understand. This may relate to us not grasping the issue: for example, at times we relate 2 disparate things because they seem similar to us and we fail to see crucial distinctions. This may be because it addresses issues we have yet to encounter: new inventions, different culture.

Whatever the reason is that we struggle to understand, the reason for God giving elusive prophecies may relate in part to him wanting the prophecy to exist—that is, publicising the foretelling of events—without people knowing exactly what is to come, especially those who oppose God.

So I do not mean that the prophecy is vague and any number of events fulfil it, I mean that an event clearly fulfils it, but all the details of the prophecy become much clearer after we encounter its fulfilment.

An example is Isaiah 53, the 4th of the suffering servant passages (Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12). Isaiah 53 clearly applies to Jesus, as do all of the suffering servant passages. There has been no other life that fits these verses, and applying them to the nation of Israel fails. Yet who could really understand all that Isaiah 53 was saying before the incarnation of the Messiah. Perhaps there were several interpretations before Jesus, but there is only one after him. And did any one person get it correct before Jesus? Peter tells us that not only did the prophets inquire carefully about the salvation to be offered, but also the angels!

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. (1 Peter 1:10-12)

Post fulfilment clarity is not ad hoc, it is more an aha moment.

A potential application of this is that if an event accurately fulfils prophecy then this event may be the intention of the prophecy (or the first event in a duel fulfilment). If an event does not clearly match the prophecy (after it occurs) then perhaps the connection is strained and the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled.

Wild claims and healthy skepticism

Roger Olson wrote an excellent article encouraging Christians to be more sceptical at times. It is a hard balance, some are sceptical about everything, others buy every new claim and conspiracy theory. I think it fine to be open to the possibility of conspiracy so long one is able to be disabused of the idea. I think healthy scepticism need not be derided either. Possibly a slowness to come to firm conclusions when the is lack of data may be the best option.

I have long been of the opinion that Christians need to be led by their spiritual leaders into a default attitude of healthy skepticism regarding wild claims of supernatural occurrences. I think non-Christians also need to be educated to exercise a certain amount of common sense skepticism about things that seem blatantly doubtful such as alien abductions.

He discusses healings, cults and Satanism, and predominantly recovered memories of childhood abuse.

She revealed to me that under counseling she had recovered memories of being ritually abused as a child—by members of her church. I tried to suspend disbelief which is clearly what she wanted. But then she continued to tell me how, until recently, she had no memories of any of these events. Only under intense counseling by this man (an unlicensed, independent “pastoral counselor”) had she “recovered” these memories.

My skepticism began to kick in (which I did not show) as she continued her story. Gradually, over several months, she “remembered” more and more about the events. By the end, she had come to “remember” that the pastor and his wife, all the deacons and their wives, and even her parents were present at these Satanic ceremonies and participated in sexually, ritually abusing her and other children. Then she dropped the bomb. The whole town, including the mayor and every civic leader and business owner—hundreds of people—were involved in this intergenerational Satanic cult that encompassed the whole town and even the whole county.

I agree generally with the article so am reluctant to offer correction. However I think a couple of issues are worth noting.

The first is mentioned above: conspiracies are a possibility, though we probably shouldn't see them under every bush.

The second is that an explanation of phenomena is required. We may not know the explanation which is fine if we lack information. It may be that people are lying, or that they are convinced of a falsehood by another. Nevertheless demonic deception remains a possibility; whether confusing the mind, or deceptive appearances.

Toronto blessing or deception?

This is not recent news though it is the first I have heard of it. I could not find the original source.^* It has been placed on the Discernment Ministries website.

Paul Gowdy was apparently a pastor at Scarborough Vineyard Church in Toronto and his church had connections to Toronto Airport Vineyard Church, the location of the Toronto blessing.

In hindsight, Gowdy does not seem to think that much of what went on was of God.

Today I would call it a mixed curse concluding that any individual good that came from this experience is far outweighed by much harm and satanic deception. I suppose that therein has been my dilemma. I have tried to live my life in the fear of the Lord and Jesus told us that the unforgivable sin was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Attributing to Satan what was in fact a work of God. If pressed as to whether or not the Toronto blessing is all God or all Devil I will still be hedgy, but I am convinced that Satan has used this experience to blind people to the historical doctrines of God, to produce fruit in keeping with repentance, to failing to test and discern the spirits and failing to test prophecy.

My theology is decidedly charismatic and I do not think Scripture gives any reason to subscribe to cessationism. Even so, I can be somewhat sceptical of claims people make about God talking to them. The desire to experience God seems to encourage people to mistake emotion and counterfeit for the real thing. Unfortunately the presence of counterfeit leads others to dismiss charismatic claims wholesale. Others may quench the Spirit because he moves in ways that make them uncomfortable.

We should desire God move in power. We cannot limit the Holy Spirit to our expectations. Yet it is legitimate to test the spirits; Scripture is meant to aid us in knowing God and rejecting counterfeit. I am no expert on moves of God but reading some revival material and Scripture it seems that:

• People should be repentant of sin;
• People should become more Christ-like;
• God's revelation through people will not contradict his word; and
• Holy Spirit manifestations will be Christ honouring.

Gowdy's analysis and confession is well worth a read.

^*I would appreciate any confirmatory material or websites.