There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. (John 1:6-8)

The Gospel calls John the Baptist a man who was “sent from God.” This means that God conceived of him and decreed that he would serve a specific purpose. And after he was born, God prepared him to be the exact instrument that he wanted him to become. Then, God authorized him and anointed him with his Spirit. John was conscious of his purpose because God communicated this to him. He had received a commission from God. John was conscious of his obligation and authority to speak and to act because of this commission. Within the boundaries defined by the commission, John was speaking and acting on behalf of God with the authority of God, since he was sent by God.

There is a crisis of confidence and authority among Christian ministers. This is partly due to confusion regarding the proper basis of spiritual authority. The problem exists among all groups and denominations. Their theology of ministry is entirely inadequate to explain the legitimacy of their work.

Suppose I ask, “Who authorized you to lead and to speak, men or God?” I would not get an adequate answer from the typical minister, whose self-understanding is usually deficient.

If his authority came from men, then why is he speaking for God? What makes the men who authorized him better than other men who believe very different things, and who therefore might not have authorized him for ministry? And since his authority came from men, why do I have any obligation to listen to him? If he argues that these men were placed in position of authority by God, so that they exercise legitimate authority, in this context it changes almost nothing at all. It still does not explain which particular minister has authority over me, or if I must heed the authority of all the ministers ordained by men who oppose one another. If the argument amounts to saying that a man has legitimate authority if he is authorized by any organized group of men, then unless some qualifications are made to this, it would also legitimize any religion that has any kind of authority structure. But if to answer this he appeals to the authority of divine revelation, so that not all authorities are legitimate on matters of religion, then this brings us back to all the previous questions: Who authorized him, men or God? Which group of men, even “Christian” men, are legitimate? His answers appear to make him no different than any other person.

Perhaps he would be unwilling to say that his authority came from men, but that God himself had authorized him to perform the work of ministry. But then suppose I say, “Good. On what basis do you say that your authority came from God?” He might give an answer that again appeals to the approval of men. Why should I believe that you know anything? “Well, I have a degree from the seminary.” But often this tells me only about the poor standards of the seminary, so that someone like him could come from it, or that the seminary had overlooked a dud – or probably thousands of duds. What authority do you have to lead and to speak? “Well, I was ordained by my denomination.” Right, but why must I respect your denomination? Who authorized your denomination? If the denomination is just a group of men who approve one another, and if your ordination is only another instance of this mutual approval, then it is not very different than a bunch of Pharisees calling each other righteous. It is totally meaningless. Human approval many times over does not divine authorization make.

When they talk about the canonization of Scripture, they insist that the church only acknowledged the divine authority that was already in the collection of inspired documents, and did not confer authority upon it. The Bible would be just as authoritative even if the church had failed to acknowledge it for whatever reason decreed by divine providence. Of course, although the Scripture claims divine authority for itself, since it does not promise that the church as a community would acknowledge its authority, in principle we must allow to stand the possibility that the church could have failed to acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Otherwise, we would make the church’s acknowledgement the test of the authority of Scripture, which would make the authority of Scripture come under the authority of the church, which in turn would defeat the very doctrine that the church tries to affirm, that it only acknowledged the authority that was already there.

The question is whether the same thinking applies to how the church regards divine authority in other areas, such as individuals called to the ministry. We find one example in Acts 13: “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off” (v. 2-3). The Holy Spirit had already called these men. It was not up to the church to authorize or not authorize them, but only to agree and to obey. Again, God had already called them, so even if the church had disobeyed, the men would have still been commissioned and authorized by God, just as the Bible would remain a divine revelation even if no one acknowledges it.

Likewise, to assume that the church would without fail acknowledge every person that God has called leaves no possibility for an imperfect or even an apostate church. However, Scripture does not say that the church will acknowledge every legitimate minister without fail, or that no church can be imperfect or even apostate. Sometimes it is said that even if an individual is called by God, he should not be allowed to function until he receives the church’s recognition. But the Bible does not teach this anywhere, and the doctrine is rather suspicious. It grants the church the right to ignore or nullify God’s call. It also makes church reformers impossible – at least it makes all of them sinners until their views become the norm. If the claim is that God himself has instituted church order and therefore will ensure its proper function, this is refuted by examples of confused and disobedient churches in the New Testament. Scripture leaves room for God to raise up faithful servants to address and correct churches that have strayed from his principles and that would fail to acknowledge legitimate authority.

If it is agreed that church ordination only acknowledges a divine commission, then the commission exists without the ordination, and there must be a basis for the authority other than and prior to the ordination. In other words, our ministers have their Acts 13:3 event, but where is their Acts 13:2 event? Does the completion of Scripture render this unnecessary? Does the doctrine of cessationism render this impossible? But the Scripture does not affirm the relevance of its completion to this question, and it does not approve the doctrine of cessationism. These are religious traditions invented by men to cover their own unbelief and deficiencies, and to divert attention away from questions about their competence and authority. All this is sheer made-up rubbish.

A true representative of God wields divine authority because he has received a commission from God and he has been empowered by the Spirit. Do you have a seminary degree? Men will despise it. Unless you have what it takes apart from your seminary degree, it will only accentuate your incompetence. Do you have ordination papers? Try using that in place of the shield of faith. The devil will laugh at it and drive his fiery darts straight into your heart. Regardless of how many men endorse you, human approval will never transform into divine authority and power. After all, a degree, ordination, and such things are nothing more than and nothing other than men’s opinion regarding your qualifications. A true man of God is taught by God and filled with his Spirit. A man who has received a commission from God is a man who has authority from God, and he will produce fruit that is consistent with the biblical description of a man of God. If a person leans on human approval in his own thinking or in defending himself to others, it shows either that he has no commission from God, or that he is in such a state of weakness and unbelief that he has no confidence in it.

Let me offer an example on how a loss of divine authority can distort our thinking about ministry. It might be too subtle for some people to notice, and perhaps for this reason, it is a good illustration of the depth of the damage.

First, we need to read 1 Peter 4:10-11. The passage says, “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.”

The passage makes a broad statement to the effect that all believers should faithfully administer the abilities that God has given them, and then it divides these believers into two groups – those who are gifted to speak and those who are gifted to serve. Of course, every believer may speak the truth about God, but Peter has in mind those who have received a spiritual gift for a ministry of speaking. Also, to speak is to serve in a sense, but a distinction is made here so that serving stresses those spiritual works whose chief characteristics do not involve speaking. Peter is saying that each person should use whatever gift he has received. The one who speaks should use his gift to speak, and thus do it as one speaking the very words of God. The one who serves should use his gift to serve, and thus do it with the strength God provides.

Now, John Piper cites this passage in his The Supremacy of God in Preaching; however, according to his interpretation, Peter’s meaning is that the one who speaks should use the Bible! Of course we should use the Bible, but the passage makes an altogether different point. Peter does not say, “If anyone speaks, he should quote the Bible.” No. He says, first, each believer should use the gift he has received to perform his ministry. So if he speaks, let him speak using the gift he has received, and he would be doing it as one speaking the very words of God. If he serves, let him serve using the gift he has received, and he would be doing it by the strength of God.

Piper transfers all authority to the Bible alone, although Peter is talking about the person that God has called and gifted. Three times Peter states the principle associating a believer to a charismatic (“grace”) gift, but Piper changes the second so that the one who speaks is now associated with the public and objective text of Scripture. But then the one who speaks is cut off from any relation to a charismatic gift, subverting the structure and meaning of the passage.

As if to maintain a relation between the person and the gift, Piper combines the two groups into one, and construes the passage into saying that the one who speaks should speak the Bible with the strength of the Spirit. This is an outright alteration of what Peter says, done to maintain one’s theological prejudice. Peter’s point is clearly that the one who serves can serve in God’s strength because he has received the charismatic gift to serve, and that the one who speaks can do it as one speaking the very words of God because he has received the charismatic gift to speak.

This is embarrassing to those who affirm cessationism, or who reject this aspect of biblical teaching. It might mean that they are not speaking by the gift of God, or that they are not called to speak at all, and thus do not have the gift. I am convinced that most ordained ministers of whatever persuasion or denomination are in this position. On what basis do you speak to me? By whose authority do you lecture me? Do you speak to me on the basis of human credentials and by the authority of men? Get out! Send in someone who knows that he has received a commission from God, who has been endowed with a gift from God, and who can address me as one speaking the very words of God.