This Just In: Protestant Revelation

Christian critics often roll their eyes about the Mormon claim to modern revelation. Now I'm not sure whether the critics' position is that prophetic revelation (as opposed to pastoral or personal revelation) simply doesn't happen anymore, or whether their point is that if it does it would not be to an LDS President or a Catholic Pope, it would be to some Protestant luminary. But the general thrust seems to be that prophetic revelation isn't needed because we have the Bible. So I was surprised to read GR's post on the Rev. Pat Robertson's way of speaking. GR quotes an AP article: In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in “mass killing” late in 2007. Well.

Later, the post quotes another statement by Robertson:

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America’s coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring’s heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

Robertson is certainly not the only Protestant who thinks that way, although he seems to be a little freer in making public statements than others. Surprisingly, LDS Presidents and other GAs are rather circumspect in making specific claims to revelation. They boldly proclaim the general doctrine, but rarely invoke it in the context of a particular statement or decree. They wave a big stick but walk softly. Call it prophetic discretion. That's okay; discretion is good.

Comments

[Gary]

Dave,

Maybe I don't understand your point, but what about these recent examples?

[Dave]

Maybe I missed it, Gary, but I didn't see anything about tsunamis or terrorist attacks in the articles you copied ... just discreet allusions.

By contrast, here are President Hinckley's remarks from the pulpit in the Saturday afternoon session of Conference in October 2001 when he did address terrorism and big events:

I have just been handed a note that says that a U.S. missile attack is under way. I need not remind you that we live in perilous times. I desire to speak concerning these times and our circumstances as members of this Church.

... Now we are off on another dangerous undertaking, the unfolding of which and the end thereof we do not know. ...

Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could impact the work of the Church in various ways.

It just seems to me that the LDS President (and even moreso other GAs) avoid showy displays or predictions. Buying parcels of real estate and speaking in conference (the items noted in the material you linked to from the December 2006 Ensign) are rather low-key manifestations of the divine gift. Like I said, that's okay. Discretion is good.

[Todd Wood]

You had me grinning Dave. You beat me to something I was going to post with a little different twist.

No one in my circles of Christianity would consider Robertson a modern-day prophet. He is a perfect example of why I believe the canon is completely sufficient.

[John Remy]

Dave, I have to agree with Todd--although Robertson gets a lot of press, most moderate and even a lot of evangelical Christians think he is problematic (or even a total nutjob).

[Dave]

I appreciate the comments, Todd and John, but I'm not trying to bash or even marginalize Robertson. My point is that he states directly what most Protestant leaders believe in their hearts but decline to state openly, that God is actually directing their words and actions. How could they believe otherwise? And I don't see anything wrong with them believing that, either -- except when they turn around and criticize Mormons for believing and practicing the same thing, which makes them hypocrites. It's the hypocrisy that irks.

Furthermore, it's not really fair for Protestants to pick and choose, as if they can somehow bracket Robertson if his statements make them uncomfortable. They don't let Mormons do this, why should I let them? I think Bruce R. McConkie is rather problematic, if not quite a "nutjob." When Mormon Doctrine came out he was roundly (if privately) reproved by senior LDS leaders, who even considered dropping him from his leadership position. So if I don't get to marginalize McConkie, then Protestants don't get to marginalize Robertson.

[Eric Nielson]

I think many individual protestants mostly have no problem with continuing revelation. I think that it is only the ones who know and understand their own official doctrines that take a stand that revleation is over.

[Seth R.]

Doesn't the fact that Protestants feel a continuing need to invoke personal inspiration/revelation in contemporary matters just show that even Protestants never REALLY believed that the Bible is "all we need?"

I'm not disagreeing with them if that's the case. Truth is, the Bible is utterly inadequate, in and of itself, in isolation, to direct anyone today.

Of course, many Protestants will point out that they never claimed that the text is all that is needed. Even the Bible itself never claims that. But it does show how ridiculous some Protestant arguments against Mormons based on the SOLE sufficiency of the Bible actually are.

The difference between Protestants and Mormons is actually one of degree to which we supplement the Biblical canon. It is not a difference between a group who supplements the canon, and one who does not.

[Seth R.]

In all fairness Dave, I'm not sure the comparison between McConkie and Robertson holds.

We don't get to marginalize McConkie, because he was an Apostle in a rather monolithic church. As such, his ideas will still be pretty strong medicine in any average Sunday School discussion, even if he is marginalized by folk on the bloggernacle or over at Sunstone.

Robertson runs his own operation, but it is not a part of a centralized religion. The independance of various Protestant factions from each other puts them in a stronger position to marginalize their firebrands.

For the record though, I do think your point that most Protestant leaders privately believe a version of what Robertson asserts openly is still valid. A watered down version perhaps, but it certainly does seem like Protestants still believe in continuing revelation.

[Todd Wood]

Seth and Dave, you wouldn't see any difference between modern day illumination and direction from the Spirit on the living Scriptures and modern day revelation that is new and supplementary to the Scriptures?

How well is Pat Robertson doing in his modern-day prophetical statements connecting these brazen personal thoughts to the God-breathed Scriptures?

And I still don't understand how a conservative Christian would be hypocritical in making such distinctions. I think it would be a religious farce not to ask these sincere questions.

And I didn't realize the tension over McConkie. I have his book, Mormon Doctrine.

[Dave]

Help me out on this, Todd. What form of revelation is it exactly that Protestants feel ended with the close of the Apostolic era? General revelation continues with the world; is it special revelation that has ceased? But the sort of individual illumination by the Spirit that Protestants seem willing to affirm sure looks like special revelation to me.

It's a different terminology than Mormons use, so I'm probably a little off on my usage.

[Seth R.]

Oh, I'll admit to a difference of DEGREE easily enough.

But it's misguided to believe that this is a question of either believing in revelation or not. Of believing the canon is closed and unalterable or not. But that seems to be exactly how many Protestants choose to frame the issues when critiquing LDS theology and practice.

In reality, we all believe in some degree of change in the canon or other - some degree of continuing Divine intervention or other. What I'm talking about is an end to these artificial absolutist barriers that both sides have erected between themselves.

[Todd Wood]

Dave, yes general revelation is the communication by God we see in creation all around us. Specific revelation refers to the Scriptures.

[Seth R.]

Or in application of general and vague Biblical language to the specifics (making the guidance specific and not general) of modern life and society.

Frequently.

[Todd Wood]

Hi Seth,

I have a couple questions.

But first, let me say that I believe in modern-day prophecy in the sense of forthtelling. World magazine had a great, insightful, encouraging little article recently by one of the featured gals, Andre Seu (sp?) on God speaking today through specific revelation.

But in contrast, I believe Isaiah as a prophet had the gift of forthtelling and foretelling. I don't think there is the gift of prophetic foretelling today no matter how hard Robertson tries. His "prophetic" statements are an embarrasment to the Christian church in America.

The question is . . . what would be the authentic examples of foretelling among LDS prophets in the last 150 years that is along the same vein as Isaiah's prophetic, revelatory ministry?

And in your preceding post are you referring to Spirit-led hermeneutics of the Scriptures? And certainly, after correct interpretation, Christ and the apostles would call us to apply the Scriptures to our lives. This confirms that they are relevant and inexhaustibly rich in content for the Lord's direction for each of us.

But openly sharing with you my heart, I feel like I am still on the first page in knowing all that I need to know in the Word. The problem is not that the Word is inadequate. Here is the heart issue--I don't know adequately enough the Word. I lay the responsibility squarely on myself.

I do know enough of the Word to say that Robertson is off kilter in his latest comments. Of course, don't believe my opinion. Check the Word. Be a Berean (Acts 17).

Does this help you guys with understanding my belief on revelation?