I’ve been thinking of ways of knowing and how “christian reasoning” works on a practical level.   Here are a couple rough categories that I am working on:

Revelation: knowledge from outside, divine knowledge

Revelation is a knowing that interrupts our knowing, it needs neither logical explanation or “good sense:”  Take 300 men and go fight against Midian”  Revelation is self-authenticating, the revealer guarantees the efficacy of the revelation: Thus saith the Lord

Wisdom: Knowledge from below, earthly knowledge

Wisdom is knowing from below, it is human knowing - logic, experience, these are the pools from which wisdom pull.  Wisdom requires authentication, requires reference to some system that certifies the wisdom; reasoning has to be sound, experience is probabilistic knowing and has to be vindicated by new reality.

Christians appeal to both of these categories in the context of decision making.  We say:

“It seems that X is right” (Wisdom)

“We know that X is right” (Wisdom)

“The Lord told me X” (Revelation)

“Scripture says that we should do X” (Wisdom)

“I’ve prayed about X and feel led” (Revelation)

One distinction between these ways of knowing, at least as it concerns “Christians reasoning,” is that wisdom is public knowing, revelation is (mostly) private knowing. Another distinction:  Revelation is a higher order of knowing than wisdom for Christians: If God tells us to water the garden, it does not matter whether it is raining.  I really don’t want to exclude either forms of knowing from “christian reasoning.”

I am wondering how revelation functions when Christians discuss together about a decision that needs to be made: in public decision making. Perhaps an illustration is in order: A church committee is tasked with deciding whether the church should buy a new building, since they have outgrown the current building. During one of the committee meetings John says, “our budget cannot sustain this move.”  Steve says, “I think that, based on Matthew 28:19, God would want us to move to a bigger space.” Stacy says, “I was praying about this move and I am certain that God is telling us to move to the building on 4th street.”

John and Stacy make different kinds of claims, and their claims have different effects on the committee’s ability to make a decision:  If I were to disagree with John’s claim, I have only to demonstrate how the budget can sustain a move:  we appeal to a document available to the whole committee.  Steve’s claim works much in the same way; if I disagree I can explain how his interpretation of Scripture is inadequate.  How could I disagree with Stacy’s claim? It seems that I can only agree or disagree that Stacy has, in fact, heard from God.  And, how can any other committee member know? When one person makes an appeal to revelation in the process of making a decision, that person seems to exclude their conversation partners from the reasoning process, we can only trust the veracity of the report of revelation (and its content). How can the conversation continue?  

Here’s my question:  Is it (and when is it) appropriate for christians to appeal to revelation in the course of group decision making?