The Determination of Truth: Navigating Spiritual Authority in an Age of Competing Claims

Renaissance Ministries Meeting #27 reveals the fundamental challenge facing any authentic spiritual community: How does one determine what is true in a world saturated with competing religious authorities, each claiming divine backing for their teachings? This meeting, continuing themes established in previous discussions, exposes the complex dynamics that emerge when sincere seekers attempt to discern between genuine spiritual guidance and sophisticated deception.

The Leonard Paradigm: Sincere Seeking with Divided Loyalties

Leonard Hofheins embodies what might be called the “conscientious seeker with heritage burdens” archetype. His situation illustrates the profound difficulty of breaking free from inherited spiritual frameworks, even when one recognizes their fundamental corruption. Despite his clear-eyed assessment of the LDS Church as apostate—”They don’t believe their own scriptures”—Leonard maintains allegiance to the Book of Mormon and Denver Snuffer’s teachings.

This creates, as Dr. Abshier identifies, the core problem: Leonard does not hold the Bible as his ultimate standard. Instead, he operates from a multi-source approach, treating various texts and modern revelations as equally valid pathways to truth. While this appears intellectually humble, it actually prevents the establishment of any objective standard by which competing claims can be evaluated.

Leonard’s defense reveals the sophistication of this position: “I think the Lord has things to say more than what has been said in the Bible… He will guide us to that word, and he will give us His word too, in our spirit.” This sounds spiritually mature, but it effectively places personal revelation and modern teachers on equal footing with Scripture, creating an interpretive framework where anything can be justified as God’s will.

The Authority Question: Who Speaks for God?

The meeting’s most penetrating moment comes when Dr. Abshier confronts the fundamental authority issue. Leonard’s reliance on Denver Snuffer’s revelations—including specific instructions about women’s roles in priesthood governance—illustrates how quickly personal revelation claims can become new forms of institutional control.

When Leonard describes Snuffer’s teaching about “seven women to approve a man’s priesthood exercise” and “twelve women to remove it,” he reveals how divine revelations from non-biblical sources often include specific organizational details that can serve as the basis for a new doctrine, dogma, sect, or cult. Dr. Abshier’s insight in this regard: “When somebody says, I talked to the Lord, and He told me this… you’ve now created yourself as a guru, a prophet, a speaker of a new divine revelation.”

This exchange highlights a critical principle: The moment anyone claims direct divine communication for doctrinal or organizational purposes, they have established themselves as a religious authority requiring the same scrutiny applied to any other teacher. The packaging may be different—Denver Snuffer says “follow Christ, not me”—but the functional result remains the same: followers must trust his claims about what Christ has told him or risk disobeying what God has revealed as His divine will.

The Taylor Helzer Cautionary Tale

Charlie Gutierrez’s account of Taylor Helzer provides a sobering illustration of where absolute trust in religious authority can lead. Helzer, once an exemplary Mormon who insisted “the Prophet can never lead you astray,” eventually became a serial killer when his faith in church leadership collapsed. His transformation from faithful adherent to murderous apostate demonstrates the psychological fragility that comes from placing ultimate trust in human institutions, prophets, or groups of disciples.

The Helzer story serves multiple purposes in the meeting’s narrative. First, it shows how even the most doctrinally committed can fall into devastating error. Second, it illustrates the instability that comes from having no independent standard by which to judge religious authorities. Third, it warns against the kind of spiritual dependency that makes individuals vulnerable to manipulation by charismatic leaders.

Most significantly, Helzer’s fall occurred not because he rejected Mormon doctrine, but because he accepted it too completely. When church teachings failed to provide the absolute certainty they promised, he didn’t question the system—he concluded that God himself was unreliable. This represents the predictable endpoint of any system that demands absolute trust in fallible human authorities.

The “Smart Sheep” Paradigm

Isaac Gutierrez introduces one of the meeting’s most important concepts when he observes that Christians are called to be sheep—but smart sheep. This insight addresses a fundamental tension in Christian spirituality: believers are commanded to follow their Shepherd while simultaneously being warned against false shepherds who come in sheep’s clothing.

The “smart sheep” concept suggests that discernment is not antithetical to submission but essential to it. True sheep learn to recognize their Shepherd’s voice precisely because they understand the danger of following counterfeits. This requires developing spiritual wisdom that can distinguish between authentic divine guidance and clever human manipulation.

Charlie Gutierrez builds on this theme by noting that God apparently wants believers to struggle with questions of spiritual authority: “I think God wants us to struggle to figure out who are his friends and who are not. Who does he rely on as a prophet?” This perspective frames the difficulty of truth determination not as a flaw in God’s system, but as an intentional test of spiritual maturity.

Personal Experience vs. Objective Standards

Susan Gutierrez’s testimony reveals both the power and the limitations of personal spiritual experience in determining truth. Her vivid descriptions of divine encounters—hearing God’s voice, receiving direct answers to prayer, experiencing supernatural peace—provide compelling evidence that authentic spiritual communication exists. However, her experience also illustrates why personal revelation alone cannot serve as an ultimate standard for communal truth.

Susan wisely subordinates her personal experiences to biblical authority: “Everything our trust has to be in Jesus, first and foremost, before and before anything else, including the Bible. It’s He who helps us interpret the Bible and understand the Bible.” This approach acknowledges the reality of continuing divine communication while maintaining Scripture as the foundational standard by which all other spiritual experiences must be evaluated.

The contrast between Susan’s approach and Leonard’s proves instructive. Both claim personal spiritual guidance, but Susan tests her experiences against biblical teaching while Leonard uses extra-biblical sources to interpret his experiences. This difference in methodology produces dramatically different results in terms of doctrinal stability and spiritual fruit.

The Fruit Test: Pragmatic Truth Verification

Dr. Abshier and Charlie Gutierrez emphasize that truth claims must be evaluated by their practical results. As Charlie notes, “That is the test of truth, that it works… people who live Christian lives, by and large, have happier, longer, more prosperous lives than members of Antifa and the gay community.”

This pragmatic approach provides a helpful corrective to purely intellectual or emotional approaches to truth determination. Authentic spiritual truth should produce observable improvements in character, relationships, and life outcomes. False spiritual systems, regardless of their emotional appeal or intellectual sophistication, ultimately produce destructive fruit in the lives of their adherents.

The meeting participants’ own stories illustrate this principle. Susan’s transformation from militant atheist to joyful believer demonstrates the fruit of an authentic encounter with biblical truth. The Taylor Helzer tragedy shows the devastating fruit that can result from misplaced spiritual trust.

The Biblical Standard Imperative

Throughout the discussion, Dr. Abshier maintains his central thesis: the Bible must serve as the ultimate authority for establishing a universal ethic, epistemology, and ontology upon which world peace, purpose, and prosperity can be built. This position faces challenges from multiple directions—Leonard’s Mormon background predisposes him toward continuing revelation, Isaac’s intellectual honesty makes him reluctant to claim any text as infallible, and even Susan occasionally struggles with difficult biblical passages.

However, the practical necessity of this standard becomes apparent when considering the alternatives. Without a commonly accepted authority, the group becomes merely a collection of individuals sharing personal opinions with no mechanism for resolution when disagreements arise. With multiple competing authorities (Bible + Book of Mormon + Denver Snuffer for Leonard), there is no clear way to adjudicate conflicting claims.

Dr. Abshier’s approach acknowledges that biblical interpretation remains challenging: “I might have to qualify the way it’s interpreted. I might not know how to interpret a passage. I might interpret it wrong, but I know that underneath it is a spirit that is true.” This position maintains biblical authority while admitting human fallibility in understanding—a crucial distinction that prevents the kind of rigid fundamentalism that often characterizes cult thinking.

The Discernment Challenge

The meeting reveals several key principles for truth determination:

• Consistency Testing: Does the teaching align with established biblical truth? Susan’s approach of marking questionable passages and seeking divine interpretation effectively models this principle.
• Authority Analysis: What is the ultimate source of the teaching? Claims to personal revelation must be scrutinized with particular care, as they cannot be externally verified.
• Fruit Examination: What practical results does following this teaching produce? Authentic spiritual truth should generate positive character transformation and life outcomes.
• Historical Verification: How does the teaching relate to historically verified spiritual authorities? The closer the connection to Christ and the apostolic witnesses, the greater the credibility.
• Community Confirmation: How do mature believers evaluate this teaching? While not infallible, the collective wisdom of the spiritually mature provides important safeguards against deception.

The Multiplication Challenge

Dr. Abshier’s concern about scalability—”I can’t spend my entire life doing soul surgery on any one person and save the world also”—highlights a crucial practical issue. If the ministry hopes to impact beyond its immediate circle, it must develop reproducible methods for helping people distinguish between competing spiritual authorities.

The meeting suggests several elements for such a system:

• Clear Standards: Establishing the Bible as the ultimate authority provides an objective reference point for evaluating all other claims.
• Historical Examples: Stories like Taylor Helzer’s provide powerful warnings about the dangers of misplaced spiritual trust.
• Practical Tests: Teaching people to evaluate spiritual fruit provides tools for ongoing discernment.
• Community Support: Creating environments where truth-seeking is encouraged and deception is lovingly confronted helps individuals avoid isolated spiritual decisions.

The Personal Revelation Dilemma

Perhaps the most complex issue raised in the meeting concerns the proper role of personal revelation in Christian life. All participants acknowledge that God continues to communicate with believers, but they disagree about how such communication should be understood and applied.

Susan’s model suggests that personal revelation serves primarily to illuminate biblical truth and guide individual application of scriptural principles. This approach maintains the authority of Scripture while acknowledging the reality of continuing divine guidance.

Leonard’s approach treats personal revelation (whether his own or Denver Snuffer’s) as potentially adding new doctrinal content that may not be found in Scripture. This creates obvious problems for community coherence and doctrinal stability.

The resolution appears to lie in distinguishing between revelatory illumination (helping understand existing truth) and revelatory innovation (claiming to receive new truth). The former strengthens biblical authority while the latter competes with it.

Toward a Biblical Epistemology

The meeting ultimately points toward a biblical approach to truth determination that combines several elements:

• Scriptural Foundation: The Bible serves as the ultimate standard by which all other truth claims are evaluated.
• Spiritual Illumination: The Holy Spirit helps believers understand and apply biblical truth to their specific circumstances.
• Community Discernment: Mature believers help one another avoid deception through loving accountability and shared wisdom.
• Practical Verification: Truth claims are tested by their actual results in the lives of those who embrace them.
• Historical Continuity: New teachings are evaluated based on their consistency with the faith once delivered to the saints.

Conclusion: The Narrow Path of Truth

Renaissance Ministries Meeting #27 illustrates both the necessity and the difficulty of determining truth in a spiritually chaotic age. The participants’ diverse backgrounds and perspectives provide a microcosm of the challenges any group faces when attempting to establish coherent spiritual standards.

The meeting’s most significant insight may be its recognition that truth determination is not a one-time event but an ongoing process that requires constant vigilance, humble dependence on divine guidance, and a commitment to objective standards. The “smart sheep” paradigm captures this balance perfectly—followers must be both submissive and discerning, trusting yet cautious, open to genuine spiritual communication while guarded against clever deception.

Leonard’s situation demonstrates that sincerity alone is insufficient for reliable truth determination. His genuine desire to follow Christ is evident, but his divided loyalties prevent him from experiencing the clarity that comes from a unified commitment to biblical authority. The group’s loving persistence with Leonard models the patience required for effective ministry, while Dr. Abshier’s gentle but firm challenges illustrate the necessity of maintaining doctrinal boundaries.

The ultimate test of Renaissance Ministries’ approach will be its ability to produce mature believers who can navigate spiritual complexity without falling into either gullible acceptance of every spiritual claim or cynical rejection of all supernatural guidance. The biblical standard provides the fixed reference point necessary for such navigation, while community discernment offers protection against both individual error and collective deception.

As the meeting concludes, the participants have not resolved all questions about truth determination, but they have established a framework for ongoing evaluation. This may be the best any spiritual community can achieve—not perfect knowledge, but a reliable process for pursuing truth together under divine guidance.