This question seems to be of great interest again lately, since the end of the Lakeland meetings. I think it is the result of people concluding that no one saw or knew the sin, or other issues that were rumbling below ground there. I would submit that is a flawed conclusion.

First of all, lets be clear.  Seeing sin is like dealing with demons.  It is all around us. Before we became strong believers we were taught the principal, “you get what you put your attention on”. If you put your attention on the demonic you will see demons everywhere.  If you put your attention on other people’s sin you will see it everywhere.  Truthfully a prophet will see sin even if it isn’t what they are looking for, because dealing with sin iis important and necessary.

Nevertheless, just because you see something doesn’t mean that you declare it publicly. Nowhere did God assign to his prophets the job of convicting people of their sin. This is the job of the Holy Spirit and it is not for anyone else to intervene, without direction from the Lord.  Even then, the Holy Spirit does not make public announcements about people’s sin.

There were some prophetic people who were detractors of Lakeland, and some who came alongside to try to support the leadership. Many people think this illustrates that some people saw the sin and some did not. I believe what this really illustrates is two different responses to the same revelation.

Someone said recently that a prophet minus love equals nothing which of course is true. (1 Corinthians 13:2) . Ask yourself, who demonstrated more love? Those who came along side their weakened brother to give aid (for which they have in fact taken quite a bit of criticism)? Or those who stood back and spoke critically of their weakened brother?

Assume God gives the prophet revelation of a man in adultery, and without any effort to minister to or help this man, the prophet tells everyone that the man is in adultery. Is the prophet right? Or good? Or commendable? Is the man in sin better for having been exposed? Does it draw the man in adultery closer to God to have been exposed by the man of God? I think not. Where is the love? That will tell you how valuable the event was.

Yes, some people like to demonstrate how revelatory they are. This is done for their own edification though, not for anyone else’s. 

So, I suppose we could say that it demonstrates self-love, but the scripture in 1 Corinthians is actually talking about our love for others.

On the other hand, if having revelation of sin the prophet goes to the sinner, prays for him, supports him, reminds him of God’s love for him, and God’s plan for his life, does that not demonstrate God’s love?  Nathan knew that David had sinned with Bathsheba, but he didn’t go the people and tell them about it.  He went to David, out of love, to help him.

This may not make the prophet more popular with people, because a lot of people want to see the demonstration of what the prophet knows, but I think it might well please God a great deal more.

So, the next time that you think a prophet didn’t see sin because they didn’t make a public pronouncement of it, please do reconsider.

On the flip side, do you think you might have more revelation from God, if you could be trusted to pray for the sinners, love the sinners, minister to the sinners, and keep it all between you and God?

You see, the important question isn’t “Why don’t prophets see sin? The important question, and I’m asking it truly in love, is why don’t we (individually) hear more from God?

(There are also other reasons why prophets don’t see things, and not all prophets see everything, but that is for another day.)