This Generation

13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;

14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.

15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I have long had a great respect for the era of A.J. Tomlinson. My parents and grandparents often told me of church services, prayer meetings, and various episodes in church history that were both exciting and inspirational. I grew up longing for something they were longing for, though my longing was based on theirs and not on any first-hand experience.

Not only did the stories of the old days excite me, but the doctrine that those days passed down seemed to me to be sacred. Indeed, they were and are passed down to us as a holy trust. Each generation needs to be very careful how they handle that which has been revealed and passed down.

Each generation has to be taught, but in being taught something even more vital is often overlooked. To understand this, we need to look at the passage in First Peter 1:13-21. It is unquestioned that Peter taught the early church. As one of the original disciples, he had a rare first-hand knowledge of Jesus as He walked the earth. This experience was invaluable for the early church, just as it is for us today. We hold the four gospels in high regard as the testimony of men who walked with Christ (Matthew and John) or were close to those who did (Mark and Luke, though it is possible they had walked with Christ as well).

Second Peter 1:2-8 gives us a glimpse of Peter’s role as a teacher. He is writing to the church of those things which he has received from God.

2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the book of Acts we have accounts of Peter telling what he has seen and heard (Acts 2:14-26; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 10:34-43). Though the Apostle Paul seems to be the dominant figure after the resurrection, Peter certainly fulfilled his own role as a teacher and preacher.

What he had to say was important. He had received a personal revelation of Christ (Matthew 16:16, 17). He had been on the Mount of Transfiguration and witnessed the visit of Jesus by Moses and Elijah, as well as the Glory of God appearing on Jesus Himself (Matthew 17:1-3). He had probably been nearby with the other disciples (John 12:20-22) when God placed His approval yet again on Jesus by declaring that He (the Father) had glorified Him (the Son) (John 12:27, 28). He had no doubt been close enough to the cross to witness the darkness that descended on the earth when Jesus was crucified (Matthew 27:45). He had felt the earth as it quaked, had probably seen the rocks being rent, or split (Matthew 27:51). He had been on hand to receive the first outpouring of the Holy Ghost on individuals (Acts 2).

Without a doubt, Peter was qualified to teach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. But Peter also knew that his time on earth was drawing to a close. He wanted to make sure that the witness he had shared would not be forgotten. He wanted the things he had taught to be passed on. This was not a matter of establishing his legacy. Rather, he had taught “Jesus”, and wanted to make sure that the church did not deviate from the right path (as it eventually would). He encourages the church to remember what they had been taught.

Next, it seems Peter wants to confirm yet again the authority under which he had spoken. He makes sure to tell them that his was not a set of stories to be read at bedtime as fairy tales, but were actual eyewitness accounts of the man Jesus Christ as He walked and healed and preached on the earth. But even here he does not stop in his confirmation of the truth. He goes on to point out that he was an eyewitness of Christ’s “majesty”. There was something more than just an appreciation for a significant person. He knew that this “man” was “The Man of God”. This man was the Son of God. He reminds them that he heard the Voice of God for himself when God said of Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.” He wants there to be no doubt that what he has taught is important and something to be remembered because it had to do with the Living Christ, the Savior of all mankind. It was confirmed supernaturally. It was significant enough for Peter to stake his future on.

But Peter then does something a self-serving man would not do. He lets his readers know that what he has written is not the last word. He directs the reader, not away from what he has taught them, but to the underlying prophecies that preceded his own personal revelation of Christ. He tells them they have a “more sure word of prophecy” with which they should compare all doctrine, no matter its source.

The value of the written Word of God is profound. Throughout the Bible God made sure to include passages that emphasize the Power of the Word. Through Peter and others, the Word is highlighted as vital to the Christian. But God does not stop even here. We often use 1 Peter 1:19 to bring attention the importance of Bible reading. But Peter takes it a step beyond simple reading. He writes that we should “take heed” to the Words of prophecy “UNTIL the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.”

In 1984 I was privileged to represent the Church of God of Prophecy in the state of Georgia at the International Youth Camp held in Colorado. I remember one evening a few of the campers, myself included, decided we would rise early the next morning, climb to the top of a very steep, very high hill nearby, and watch the sun, the day star, come up over the Rockies. We did so, and the transition from extremely dark to the light of day was astonishing.

This is what happens when Bible study is coupled with Divine revelation. While we can’t make revelation happen, we can certainly be open to the Voice of God. He reveals His Word to us with understanding we can never have simply through reading, studying, and meditating. Peter had his revelation, but he was encouraging the church to be open to revelation as well. He did not say to them, “I’ve seen it so just take my word for it.” No, he told them they could have revelation for themselves.

As I pointed out earlier, there is something vital for each new generation that can be missed. That “something” is revelation. This can happen when we expect those being taught to accept what is taught without seeking God for themselves. This can happen when we emphasize the move of the Holy Ghost in the past without encouraging it in the current learning process. We often expect people to accept what is taught because godly men and women who heard from God handed it down. But the truths of the preceding generation represent a starting point for each new generation. Each generation must hear from God for itself. Each generation must have a personal revelation. We need more than simple knowledge, no matter how correct, passed down. We need confirmation in our spirit from His Spirit as to the correctness of the doctrine. Indeed, we need the Spirit of God to reveal to us anything the previous generation may have missed. But herein lies a problem. Somewhere along the way there was a belief among a few that we need to leave the doctrine alone. We don’t need anything new added, and we certainly don’t need to take anything away. It’s as if somewhere a few years ago it was decided that we had arrived at a place of perfection regarding truth.

There is more that God wants to add to our understanding. On the one hand, we need to address issues not covered in the past. On the other hand, we need to revisit issues previously addressed to consider exceptions that may exist and new revelation that may have arisen. But often fear keeps us from dealing with issues. We are so afraid of the flesh that we won’t entertain the Spirit. We have seen so many examples of “Holy Ghost” interpretations that were actually a reflection of the desire of the one giving the interpretation that we have essentially said we won’t allow tongues and interpretations to be the basis for Assembly rulings. Of course, we need more than tongues and interpretations. But we need interpretations that agree with the Word. We have also encountered so many different personal experiences among our people that we no longer trust the subjective experiences of our people as helps in evaluating various issues. We need the Spirit to interpret the Word, and we need the Word to confirm the Spirit. Then we can use the personal experiences of the people on the field to authenticate what God is trying to do in the Assembly.

There is an intellectual approach to the Word that involves much study and many words, but does not seem to allow for a word from the Spirit. Yet, the recognition of this distasteful approach to the Word must not cause us to draw back from the reevaluation process. We must adjust our course, not run into the ditch. We must find a way to be open to the Spirit of God, to the revelation of the Word, and to the dynamic experiences of our people. Anything less will cause undue confusion and division. But we must be free to evaluate where we stand on the Word. In the book In Search of the Church, I wrote the following passage, which I believe, illustrates what should be the nature of our gatherings:

In the church, when God speaks to me, I can then take what I have heard to the group and allow it to be discussed. Coupled with what others have heard from God, we can then weed out that which is personal bias and leave only that which is from God. The resulting information or vision can then be disseminated to other groups in our fellowship so that we can all “…walk by the same rule…” and “…mind the same thing.” (Philippians 3:16)[1]

We should be able to discuss the experiences of the individual members from the field, compare them with the Word, and have them ratified or rejected by the Spirit.

Should we reevaluate? Yes, but not from an academic perspective. While we need to continue the teaching of truth to each new generation, we need to reexamine where we stand according to a few principles that are exceedingly simple.

First, the Bible, not the Assembly rulings, is our rule of faith, practice, government and discipline. We sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that it isn’t official until the General Assembly takes a stand. In the first draft of this article, I included an issue about which the General Assembly had not made a stand. This disturbed me. But then a wise man pointed out that perhaps we didn’t need an Assembly ruling on an issue that is dealt with in so obvious a manner in the Bible as that one was. We must always fall back on what the Bible says. The General Assembly is judicial, not legislative. It interprets the Word in some cases, but its job is never to make laws.

Second, an issue becomes the focus of the Assembly when there is dissension in the ranks over the issue. In Acts 15, the church addressed circumcision because the issue was volatile and divisive among the various churches. A word of discretion from an assembled group of church leaders who were themselves divided over the issue, but who were also open to the Word of the Holy Ghost, caused the churches to be at peace over the issue (Acts 15:30, 31). Clarification of how the church stands might avert a split. On the other hand, it might give the final word on a subject so that the people will understand what we teach in spite of dissenting views on the field. A split might occur, but it will happen over a clear understanding of what the church teaches about the Bible rather than over vague feelings and ideas.

Third, an issue may not cause division, but there may nevertheless be confusion over something that needs to be settled. In the 1926 General Assembly, the following question was asked.

Q. Why is it that everybody that goes up in the rapture won't be in the bride?

A. I do not know, only God has arranged it otherwise. If all were the bride, where were the brides' maids, guest, etc. [sic].[2]

As far as I know, this was not a question that threatened to divide the organization. It was an issue that was not understood well and which some insight from the Assembly might have clarified for those on the field.

The General Assembly is not the only place where reevaluation can take place. Indeed, much of the process must take place in the local churches. Teaching and discussion can be of benefit within the environment of a local congregation. The large, controversial issues can then be dealt with in the larger gathering. Fog over issues requiring clarity can be dealt with in the Assembly.

The spirit of the individuals involved in the evaluation process is of great concern to many. The church should be a place where we can disagree agreeably. It should not be a place where we “bite and devour one another” (Galatians 5:15). It should be a place where we can express our hearts, proclaim truth, and even submit for the good of the church as a whole. What will kill us are the aggressive attitudes of a few who don’t seem willing to speak the truth, or anything else, in love. But if we continue this attitude, the issues we discuss will get lost in the smoke and fire of our passions. Paul said, “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Galatians 5:15). Our best efforts to get an item passed to our satisfaction can be our undoing as we descend into the depths of anger, arguing, and belittling our brothers and sisters. We must express and accept our differences. We must be able to work out those differences that threaten to split us. We must, above all, demonstrate love to a world so desperately in need of love and acceptance.

I pray we will be able to reevaluate doctrine without destroying ourselves. We need to be able to express that which is controversial in an atmosphere of love. But most of all, we need to here from God. His Voice in our midst will settle the unsettled, reveal the rebellious, and comfort the congregation of His people.

[1] J. Rob Hutto, In Search of the Church (Villa Rica, GA: J. Rob Hutto, 2003) p. 28.

[2] 21^st General Assembly Minutes (Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House, 1926) p. 49.