A few months ago, the United States of America went through what has been adjudged one of its most intense presidential elections, between President Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden.  There were prophecies on opposite sides, all claiming to have been the voice of God.  In the end, when Biden got sworn in, some of the prophets offered a public apology in the ostensible belief that they had given a false prophecy.  Did they indeed give a false prophecy?

You might find this short story intriguing, if you should find the time to hear it to the end.  Once upon a time, Jesus faced a certain sect of meticulous fanatics that made a show of their piety, but with hearts out of proper place; fanatics who had mixed up the order of priority in their service to God and to humanity; Pharisees whose right acts were being soiled by a wrong heart.  There were two general items on the discussion list with those fanatics: matters of righteousness and a matter of religious obligation; or personal acts of character and general acts of religious devotion; or inner integrity and outward show.

Read more

In case anyone would argue that Saul’s case cited above was the exception for a young convert, let us consider the case of an ‘older’ covert, even a prophet.  David heard the voice of God about a temple to be built for God.  In fact, he received express structural and operational details on the temple project.  However, he interpreted that to mean that he was to be the builder of the house whose vision he had seen. After all, he had the resources to do so.  He heard God right but erred in interpretation.  He was going to start the building project when God told him, through another prophet, that he had been wrong in his interpretation of what he had heard.  His son Solomon would be the builder, not he.  In other words, David, while he communicated with God and got such great details about the temple project, knew only ‘part’ of the whole of God’s infinite mind about that truth.  It took a later encounter to let him know that all he had heard, grandiose at it was, was only ‘part’ of a greater whole.

You probably have heard it said that everybody can hear God for themselves, so we do not need to be ‘running after prophets’ to seek the voice of God.  Whereas that position is understandably an attempt to address the spiritual indolence of worshippers and sometimes the idolisation of the prophet, it is unfortunately one extreme attempt to correct the opposite extreme.

For those in doubt as to who had appeared to Saul, 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 seems to be a casefile, listing the backslidden king’s crimes and the attracted sanctions.  For the proponents of the view that what appeared to Saul was not Samuel, there are many strong points to note from that passage.

In his anxious last days, with the drumbeats of an uncertain war looming from across the horizon of the dying day, Saul, the first king of Israel, consulted a medium popularly described as “the witch of Endor.”  He was desperate to know the future: hers was the burdensome task of calling up the dead Prophet Samuel, who would answer his worries. She did, but that event has been trailed by an age-long theological controversy: was it the dead Prophet Samuel that the witch called up, or was it an identity thief? a strange spirit that masqueraded as the prophet of God? (1 Samuel 28:3-25).

Between many options, it sometimes seems hard whom to choose, especially when divine vision is also unclear.  Simple rule: when you are unsure of whom to stand with; when it seems hard to tell the leader from the ruler, check who is very desperate for the office, who thinks that they must be there by every means; then check the other whom the office seems to be chasing even when they sincerely wish they were rather in their quiet corner; check who are takers and who are givers; check those whose crowd comprises praise singers and bribed servants, and those whose followers do so from their heart.  Check their language: threats or care?  Force or love?  Check their past: how many did they lead out and bring back in?  How many did they betray out there to get where they are now or seek to be at?  What songs do the simple women compose to describe them?  Whom do the sincere singers say that they are, as against bribed headlines?

Of David it was said, that he “led Israel out and brought them in,” like the shepherd that he was.  He did not lead them “out” and leave them there to wolves and other hazards.  He brought them back “in.”  He was a starter and finisher.  Of course, the speaker in our primary text was referring to how David led the armies out to war and back in triumph, but the remark was emblematic of the shepherd roles of David – the shepherd who often led the sheep out to feed and ‘back home’ to the safety of the sheepfold.

Jesus and the apostles spoke elaborately about “rulers of the synagogue” (Mark 5:22; Acts 13:15).  So, even in the synagogue, in the house of God, there are rulers.  Rulers are not restricted to the palace or other political spaces.

Read more

Usually, force, inheritance, or a political process produces the ruler.  On the contrary, a relational process produces the leader, and the people follow that person “out” and “in.”  The ruler has an ‘official’ connection to the people, the leader has a heart-connection with them.  One relationship starts and ends in or around the office, the other lovingly and mutually transcends that regimented space into the private recesses of the players.  One relationship is formal, the other is much more: respectfully and cheerfully cordial, unrestricted by the legalities of office.  One leadership style is self-centred, the other is people-oriented.  One is about power and control, the other is about service.  One is about rules, the other is flavoured with grace.  One is founded on fear, the other on love.