There is no such thing as prophetic or apostolic leadership AT THE TOP of the church. Prophetic and apostolic leading happens from WITHIN the community, DISCERNING the work of the Spirit with others instead of DECLARING to them.
There is no “And it seemed good to ME and the Spirit”.
There is only “And it seemed good to US and the Spirit.”
(Yes, I’m thinking of and speaking into the recent declaration by Alan and Kathryn Scott (and their board) to disaffiliate the Anaheim Vineyard from Vineyard, USA. See the Christianity Today article, the Anaheim statement, and the VUSA statement and FAQs. I’ll evaluate that particular situation below as a violation of the biblical ways of discerning the Spirit.)
But, some might say that..
- Abraham was called alone to a place that God would show him.
- And Moses went up the mountain alone to receive the words of God which he then declared to the people.
- And Jeremiah had to prophesy alone to a stubborn people, declaring God’s judgments.
Some might ask, “Didn’t each of these and many more receive the declaration of God which they in turn declared to the people? Aren’t the lead pastors, prophets, and apostles like this, boldly leading God’s people?”
My answer is, No.
Because these are all OLD TESTAMENT examples, before the Son of God
- died and was raised for all people,
- to cleanse us from sin (1 John 1:9),
- so that the Spirit of God could be poured out on all people (Acts 2),
- in fulfillment of Moses’ own desire (Num. 11:29).
BUT NOW, in this new age of God’s (Already / Not Yet) Kingdom we all DISCERN the will of the Spirit as our minds are transformed so that we will all know the perfect and pleasing will of God (Rom. 12:2), for by the Spirit we all have the mind of Christ (2 Cor. 2:6-16).
A Culture of Declaring and a Culture of Discerning
Those seeing their prophetic and apostolic leadership as primarily declaring the will of God to others will consciously (or unconsciously) create a certain culture in their churches.
And those emphasizing discerning will create another kind of culture.
A culture of Declaring what the Spirit said:
- Requires a strict leadership structure
- Requires one-way communication (top-down)
- Requires cultivating postures of certainty
- Requires practices of command and control
- Believes that only some people have gifts for the entire community
- Believes that only some people have power on behalf of the community
A culture of Discerning what the Spirit is saying:
- Requires porous leadership (but not a lack of leadership)
- Requires multi-directional communication (top-down, bottom-up, side-to-side)
- Requires cultivating postures of curiosity (about self, others, and God)
- Requires practices of listening (to self, others, and God)
- Believes that all people have gifts for the entire community
- Believes that all people have power to use on behalf of the community
A culture of Declaration assumes the leaders are mature in Christ, but also locks the rest of the community in immaturity.
A culture of Discernment assumes the leaders are mature in Christ, and will continually draw the community into more maturity.
But why this focus on discerning over declaring?
Because this is the model we see in the Bible—when it comes to huge decisions that will effect many people.
“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”: Principles of Jerusalem Council
God certainly led the early church in a radical new way.
Not only were Jews trusting in Jesus. So were Gentiles.
A crisis was created for the early church by the fact that Gentiles were trusting in Jesus for salvation and being filled by the Spirit.
- Did these Gentiles need to become Jews as part of their conversion?
- Or did they just need to follow Jesus?
The resolution of this crisis created a statement for the church based on what “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28).
How did they get to this “seemed good” to the Spirit and to us?
A reading of Acts 15 shows this discernment came through a combination of the
- Witness of the Servants
- Witness of the Spirit
- Witness of Scripture
Witness of the Servants
Paul and Barnabas had been “set apart” by the Spirit to go out on mission (Act 13:2). On their journey they saw many Jews and Gentiles believe the good news (Acts 13-14). But he addition of Gentiles to the church caused controversy.
So Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to talk with the apostles and elders there. They all met to consider the matter (Acts 15:6, 12).
Along with the witness of Paul and Barnabas, Peter witnessed to the group by reminded everyone that it was a vision from God that led him to Cornelius’ house to preach the gospel (Act 15:7).
Witness of the Spirit
And Peter reminded everyone that, “God, who knows the heart, bore witness (martyre?) to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us” (15:8 ESV).
So, according to Peter’s witness, the Spirit was also witnessing to the Gentiles (and to the Jewish Christians) that salvation had come to all.
Witness of the Scriptures
After considering the witness of the servants in mission, and the witness of the Spirit, James turned to the witness of Scripture to test and confirm the witness of the servants and the Spirit (Acts 15: 13-21).
James turned to Amos 9:11-12 (as translated from the Septuagint):
“‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
things known from long ago. (Act 15: 16-18)
The Three Witnesses
These three witnesses (the personal witnessing from experience, the witness of the Spirit’s work/manifestation, the witness of Scripture) are really all the one and same witness of the Spirit.
So we always know the leading of the Spirit, we can always discern the work of the Spirit with confidence, when all three witnesses align.
If they don’t align, or if we neglect one or two of them, then we should be skeptical if this is really the Spirit’s leading.
And we should be skeptical of those declaringthings to be the leading of the Spirit if they had left out any of the three witnesses.
Application to Anaheim Vineyard
Regarding Anaheim Vineyard’s decision to disassociate from Vineyard USA, it is clear the leaders (including the board) did not consult the witness of servants—the people involved (beyond the small board).
They did not discern this decision with their local church community on any level outside their board. And they did not discern this with anyone from Vineyard USA. (It might be claimed and might be a reality that the board consulted others…but these others were drawn in by the board’s own direction and discretion.)
A “discernment” of the Spirit’s leading done in secret and then declared to others is not biblical, and is therefore not really Spirit-led.
The leaders of Anaheim Vineyard also failed to follow the witness of scripture. But I need to say something more about the leading of the Spirit in Acts to show that.
The Specific Leading of the Spirit in Act (is always toward something specific)
The leading of the Spirit in Acts is most often clear and concrete (not vague or unclear).
Here are just some examples of the Spirit’s clear leading.
- Philip was told to walk a certain road headed toward Gaza, where he famously ran into a man who had questions (Acts 8:26)
- When Paul was converted by Jesus he was told he would be sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15).
- And then Paul and Barnabas were set apart for mission by the Spirit of God through the prophets in Antioch (Acts 13:1-3).
- And so when Paul was sent on mission with Barnabas, while they started with the Jewish synagogues, they also quickly preached the gospel to the Gentile (because he already was led to do that—they had clear direction).
- We also hear the Paul was twice kept by the Spirit from preaching in Asia. This is followed by a vision that led Paul to Macedonia (Acts 16:6-10).
Certainly all the details of Paul’s missionary journeys were not given in detail by the Spirit. And certainly Paul and his companions made practical decisions as they saw fit. As we all do in life.
But the larger principle is that the Spirit led concretely toward something, not vaguely away from something.
Application to Anaheim Vineyard
Alan Scott admits that there is no clear leading into what is next. Just a call to leave the Vineyard Association.
In his words, reported by Christianity Today, ““We don’t really understand why…I wish I really could sit before you today and say, ‘Here are the six reasons,’ ‘Here’s our issues,’ ‘Here are our grievances,’ or whatever. … We don’t always know what’s on the other side of obedience.”
Certainly there are valid reasons for a church to leave their denomination. Sometimes there are antagonistic relationships between the church and the denomination that can’t be resolved. Sometimes there are theological differences that are unreconcilable.
But Alan Scott says it is none of these things (and Vineyard USA confirms they haven’t been given any reasons).
So, either this is a questionable decision they have mistaken as the leading of the Spirit (which I doubt), or, the leadership of Vineyard Anaheim is less than forthcoming about why they are leaving Vineyard USA and where they are going.
I fear this second option is mostly like the case. I can only speculate about whether it is specific broken relationships or vague conviction that the Spirit’s “anointing” has left the Vineyard for other movements (which I hear regularly).
IN SUMMARY, it may be the leading of the Spirit for Anaheim to leave Vineyard USA. But this leading is certainly not confirmed according to the three witnesses of the Spirit. In fact we just have the declaration of the leadership without alignment with the witness of the servants (community) or the witness of scripture.
Last thing: On “Not Quenching the Spirit”
Has Vineyard USA lost its “anointing” as it grows and matures, putting in organizational structures, and seeking accountability? Has God’s anointing passed to those of the Toronto Blessing, to the Kansas City Prophets, or to Bethel Redding, and The New Apostolic Reformation?
First off, the Spirit’s anointing is not a sum zero entity, that decreases here so that it can increase there (and this trade on an Old Testament view of the passing of the Spirit, like from Elijah to Elisha).
Second, the call to not quench the Spirit is followed by the command to test prophecies.
“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt. But test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22)
It is obedience to the Spirit to receive prophecies. And it is obedience to test them.
- Testing a word is not quenching the Spirit.
- Discerning a word is not quenching the Spirit.
- Examining scripture is not quenching the Sprit.
- Consulting the community is not quenching the Spirit.
- Accountability and structure is not quenching the Spirit.
For the Spirit of prophecy and apostolic leading is the same Spirit that gave us scripture, is the same Spirit that inhabits the community, the same Spirit that led past communities into the future, is the same Spirit that brings order out of chaos.
The excesses of certain charismatic and pentecostal leaders who claim they are being led by the Spirit, who have received a “word from the Lord”, this is often really just a mixture of arrogance and cowardice (pride that they have individually received the word; fear of testing it with others). This is a dangerous and potentially abusive combination.
If they Vineyard USA has sought to be a community discernment (testing prophesies, manifestations, and movements) according to the witness of the servants (community and tradition), and the witness of the Spirit, and the witness of Scripture, then I’m certain the anointing of God’s Spirit has not left the building.
But to those who lead from cultures of declaration, the likely consequences will be (at best) short-term success with long-term burnout, paranoia, and anxiety, or (at worst) a distortion of God’s kingdom come coupled with suspicious, narcissism, and abuse.
As a pastor and a professor of theology who resides within the Vineyard movement, I feel compelled to reflect on this situation. But I in no way speak for Vineyard USA. Also, I know it grieves some and feels divisive to speak so plainly about the leadership of another church. But this is actually how God’s kingdom comes, in and through the conflicts, just like Paul opposed Peter “to his face” (Gal. 2:11).
2 replies on “Is Spiritual Leadership about Declaring or Discerning the Spirit’s Work?”
Great post Geoff. I do have some pushback to offer. I can think of at least two significant New Testament examples of “apostolic leadership” declaring the mind of the Spirit to a group of believers without any “and it seemed good to us and the Spirit” group discernment going on.
First, Peter received a vision on the rooftop and, with no record of group discernment, took the radical step of bringing along some brothers from Joppa to go into the house of a Gentile centurion to share the Gospel (Acts 10:1-23).
Second, on Paul’s second missionary journey, he and his team were stumped about where to preach the Word next. After several Holy Spirit vetoes (wonder how that worked?), Paul had the vision of the man from Macedonia and the missionary team departed for Macedonia without any apparent group discernment.
Perhaps this is the case of both/and instead of either/or. I think your argument would be stronger if you stressed the group discernment is underpracticed in Vineyard circles (at least in the circles I run in, including our church). I’m grateful for your post helping me to recognize our shortcomings there.
I have great respect for these collegial practices of close reading of biblical texts. WADR, here are some possible nuances: (1) Peter’s follow up on a vision would have been impossible without the Cornelius team bringing a word of confirmation (strange, though, they were Gentiles!); (2) The Acts 16 text does witness to group confirmation; the text does not immediately ascribe the vision to God, but then: “we prepared to leave for the province of Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them” (CEB) or “After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.” (NIV) — in both translations, “concluding” is the verb for the subject “we.” I fully agree with the need for deepening practices of corporate discernment.