Questioning the Still Small Voice and Personal Guidance
Question: Playing the devil's advocate for the evangelicals here. How are you ever going to hear the still small voice that tells the rest of us what to do all the time as long as you don't have a relationship with Jesus? P.S. Stop telling us to question the assumptions all the time.
When people speak of a "still small voice," they often mean an inner impression or sense of personal guidance that they identify as God speaking directly to them. My contention is that what is commonly labeled as that voice is, in most cases, the operation of one's own mind and conscience: psychology rather than new revelation from heaven.
The human psyche can be shaped by Scripture, by the Spirit's prior work through the word, by godly influences, or, negatively, by fears, desires, and anxieties. Because of this, inner impressions can feel very spiritual and can even coincide with biblical principles, but that does not mean they are fresh communication from God. They are often the outworking of what a person already loves, fears, or wants.
I take the position that God has spoken in the 66 books of Scripture, and that the written word is sufficient. That position is sometimes so offensive to experiential evangelicalism that some will question whether one even has "a relationship with Jesus" if he does not report ongoing private messages from heaven.
Future Subscription: In the future a subscription may be required to read the full answer. But for now it is free!
I once lived in that evangelical framework. In those days, I believed I was hearing from God continually. In hindsight, most of what I took to be his voice lined up closely with either my apprehensions or my strong desires. Because I was immersed in church life and in the Bible, those impressions usually were not in direct conflict with Scripture. Yet much of it was simply wishful thinking, then baptized with God-language: "God told me" became a pious way to describe my own conclusions.
As I studied more carefully, I became persuaded that the written word is sufficient "to make us perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" 2 Timothy 3:16–17. If Scripture is sufficient in that sense, then I am not lacking anything essential if I do not receive additional private words. That realization is profoundly liberating.
I can now say, "I really want to do this," without feeling guilty for not cloaking my desire in the phrase, "God is leading me." I can likewise say, "I wanted to do that, but circumstances did not allow it," without needing to find a mystical reason or to claim that God whispered a last-minute reversal. I can acknowledge my own will, my own preferences, and the ordinary constraints of providence, instead of attributing every decision and non-decision to individualized revelation.
This does not exclude God's providential ordering of events, nor does it deny the Spirit's work through the word. It simply refuses to redefine my internal thought processes as ongoing, extra-biblical speech from God.
From a biblical standpoint, God has revealed his will in propositional form in Scripture. He has given the moral and doctrinal framework for life and godliness, and he has created human beings with the capacity to reason, to evaluate, to choose, and to bear responsibility. Within that framework, I am free to make decisions, to desire certain paths, and to accept the limits of my situation, all while resting in the sufficiency of the written word rather than chasing an elusive inner whisper.
questiontransition