A Move of God and Good Hermeneutics

I was recently involved in a forum discussion about a speaker in my university's chapel service. Most of the commenters were criticizing the speaker's message, and discussing that while she had a noble main point, she expressed it poorly, with bad exegesis (exegesis: a systematic study of scripture) and bad hermeneutics (hermeneutics: interpretation of the meaning of scripture as it applies to our lives today). They criticized her evidence given for her main points, since it did not measure up to the standards they are being taught to expect at a college level, and they criticized her logic, since she probably crafted the message to appeal to the maturity of high-school students.

And, in the midst of all this, a couple of students joined in and scolded the rest of the students for engaging in this discussion because it was disrespecting the move of God that "was happening" as a result of the speaker's message. They shamed the woman who started the conversation and suggested that she should have "spoken about this in private." They also shamed all the commenters for attacking the character of the speaker (which had not happened, only her message was the topic at hand, though some had poked fun), and told them that they would not hear anyone's defense on the matter unless they were being moved by the Holy Spirit or were using scripture.

I have not heard the message itself yet, and this post is not about that message or the speaker: it is about how people perceive the move of God in relation to preaching.

Here are some facts that I think many congregants do not acknowledge:

1. A message spoken from the pulpit does not reflect the character of the speaker.
2. A move of God as a result of a message/sermon does not mean that the sermon contained correct or sound doctrine
3. A move of God does not happen as a result of the moral character of the speaker, neither does it indicate the moral character of the speaker.

A message spoken from the pulpit does not reflect the character of the speaker.
I was raised to assume that because someone has been given the microphone at church, that they are morally worthy to do so. I know that church leadership tries to insure this by being very selective about who they let speak, and by holding their leaders accountable and so on... but no one can truly judge a heart. I have sat under some pastors who preached powerfully on Sunday, and saw many people saved, but off the platform were some of the most prideful, manipulative men I've ever met.

Corrupt pastors are able to walk in their anointing by the grace of God, and because the gifts are without repentance (Rom 11:29 KJV). The truth is the truth, whether spoken by an angel or spoken by a demon. And the Word has power despite our failings. Just because you hear a good message, it does not mean that the speaker is a good person! Sermons give no indication of the moral character of the speaker. It only means that he or she knows how to preach!

A move of God as a result of a message/sermon does not mean that the sermon contained correct or sound doctrine.
God has the grace to move even when the hermeneutics and exegesis are bad. God's grace is sufficient for the uninformed. God still reveals Himself to us even when our understanding is wrong, and He still accepts our love, even when our motives are selfish.

If the sermon accomplished in its listeners a heightened desire for God--despite how incorrectly it did so--then why would He not respond? He is so good, that he meets us where we are, despite how right or wrong we are. How many years did I go along thinking that God was disappointed in me, and yet He still gave me the grace to feel His love, still helped me to grow, and still provided for me. I had a totally wrong idea of who He was, and yet He moved in my life. And you probably can tell me a similar story about times when you said the word, "Father," in reference to Him, and you had no idea what a good father is like. You told Him you loved Him when your life was steeped in sin, and you said He was your king when you idolized other things. And yet He met you.

Why would a sermon be any different? Why wouldn't God meet us even when we are wrong? He meets us even when the Spirit is being quenched! He speaks to us even when we are downright sinning! So if God meets you, it's because he loves you, not because the sermon was powerful enough to motivate Him to do something. If anything, it was His Spirit who enabled you to desire Him, and He will use the things and people around you to stir that desire up.

The best exegesis and hermeneutics, the best theology always leads to a heightened desire for God. And so, a good sermon does lead us to experiencing a move of God, but not because a sermon has power in itself, but because the Holy Spirit uses it to make us more aware of God, who is the real power.

A move of God does not happen as a result of the moral character of the speaker, neither does it indicate the moral character of the speaker.
As I said before, sermons give no indication of a speaker's character... and neither does a move of God. If "God moved," it only means God responded to a genuine desire for Him from imperfect people. A move of God is always a pouring out of His grace in light of (hopefully not despite) what is happening on or off stage. We must never think that our goodness generates spiritual power. We must never think that moral character is a prerequisite for God to move. We must never credit a human being for something only God can do. We must give credit where it is due: Only the Holy Spirit can change us. Only the Holy Spirit gives us power. Only the Holy Spirit moves us.

God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

If God only moved when people met His standard of moral character, He would never move. If the move of the Holy Spirit depended on the moral quality of the speaker in order to do something, we would never experience God. God may use the speaker to enlighten our minds, but it is not because the speaker is of high moral standing. Yes, we expect that, and they should be. The Bible tells us that our teachers should be held to a high moral standard. BUT, the reality is that they are still people. And people still fail.

Concluding thoughts...
Did God move in the case of this speaker? Possibly. I wasn't there. Some are saying He did. Others are saying the only move was the guilt that the speaker was heaping onto the crowd (guilt isn't God, by the way). Those who were there can decide. I think both occurred. God may have been quickening hearts, leading some to stop doing certain things. And others may have been led by guilt, (which won't last... Guilt eventually fades away and does nothing to change us. Only God changes us. Let's put our focus and trust in Him and let Him take care of our sins).

Again, when we don't think critically about the messages that are being thrown our way, we become victim to heresy. We must guard our hearts against half-truths and non-"truths," or else our theology becomes unorthodox and un-Biblical. This is so important because it affects our relationship with God, which is the most valuable thing we have! A religious community that discourages critical thinking (and I don't mean negative or judgmental thinking) is a cult. We must not be afraid of questioning the validity of what is being said from the pulpit.

The problem occurs when we begin to cast judgment on people (Click here to read what I have to say about judgment). But we need to think critically about their message. We have to sift through bad messages in order to get to the good. And if a speaker is not open to criticism, he or she is not worthy to speak publicly. If people are buzzing about how badly you presented your message, you should take heed, especially if the problem is its doctrinal integrity (which is so important). Isn't constructive criticism the way we learn to be better?

With this in mind--that people can fail--we must be gracious to our pastors. The Bible says that no man can tame the tongue (James 3:8). Your pastor is not all-knowing. He is capable of believing false information just like the rest of us. It doesn't make him a bad person. While we expect our pastors to be forgiving and gracious, we must extend that same kindness to them, after all, we do have the same Holy Spirit.

The depths of God are vast, and there is no end. Thank God for His grace, and His power, and His love.

Memebusters: Oscars & BET

Memebusters: the part of my blog in which I take certain memes I come across on social media and discuss why they are destructive

Destructive meme of the day:

What does that make the BET awards? A by-product of white supremacy. In the world of logical fallacies, this meme is two fallacies in one!

1. The "tu quoque" fallacy: avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - answering criticism with criticism! 
2. The "black-or-white" fallacy (no pun intended): where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. 

Tu Quoque. This argument ignores the possibility that there is an actual issue and turns the criticism back on its protesters. It might have worked if the premise wasn't wrong. BET is the result of the Oscars being "too white." This argument actually proves it's opposing view.

Black-or-White. The argument assumes that having an all black institution and complaining that the white one is "too white" indicates hypocrisy on the part of the ones who complain. But it doesn't consider that there are other possibilities. Building on the first argument, this also avoids criticism because it dismisses the cause of the all black institution.  Let's change the content. Let's make it about women's rights. It's the same as calling the business world, "a man's world" and a man saying, "You're complaining that the business world is 'too masculine'... so what does that make the feminist rights movement?" If I heard a man say that, I would consider him to be completely oblivious to reality. I'd think he's either chauvinistic or completely ignorant. And I would also realize that in making this statement, he does not care about, nor is he willing to listen to the cause of women. I  would lose respect for this man. So when a white person posts this meme, I imagine black people feel very similar, and probably feel angry. Now do you see that the argument itself is hypocritical? (and makes people who post this argument seem very hypocritical).

You might think that the people who boycott the Oscars are being too sensitive, but when you've lived your whole life being told you're less valuable than others, it begins to wear on you. I understand this, because that is how I feel as a woman. No one has literally told me that I'm less valuable than a man--they've only devalued my ideas, dismissed my claims, and withheld titles from me that they've given less-qualified men!

People of color have not "drug-up" old issues--they've been given courage to express themselves about an issue that was never resolved.

As white millennials, we don't need to start feeling guilty. We don't need to be defensive. We weren't the cause of the problem. But we are part of the problem if we refuse to acknowledge it. Most of the white people getting defensive in my social circles aren't racist. But the people who set up our housing systems were. The people who set up our government were. Plenty of people still are! And we need to realize that this is a problem! Black people live in fear every day. They get the shaft all the time. They feel the hurt of being secondary. And here we are, arguing that their complaints are hypocritical because we don't know what the heck we're talking about. We feel attacked?

Maybe you've been accused of being racist when you weren't. Maybe you've been frustrated about the issue. Black people can just as easily be hypocritical, racist, and hurtful as any white person, sure. But there is an actual problem of systemic racism in this country, and it puts all people of color at a disadvantage. The emotional impact of this alone is a very heavy burden to carry. When we make arguments like this and spread this kind of thinking, we are perpetuating the problem, and in that way I think we are guilty.