Speak Fair, Bold Agabus – Part II
Where do Prophets and Prophecy Fit within the Church Mission?
By NeoDromos
This topic is stated as a question because I do not naively envision that I am going to resolve the issue in this short opinion piece. But on the other hand, I can frame the question and offer my interpretation of some of the critical scriptures. Where do prophets and prophecy fit within the church mission? To clarify this concern, it is useful to examine a particular problem that pivots on this question. Certain men in apocalyptic Millerite denominations have claimed to be prophets. It is almost always the case that these men occupy the highest seat in a rigorously hierarchical and authoritarian church government. They are not only the claimant to the office of prophet; they are also the head of the organization. Because of this, they are not typically subject to review or critical evaluation. This is because the leader’s performance in the role of prophet is shielded from criticism by the leader’s position of power at the top of the hierarchy. I will term this marriage of autocracy with prophecy the Elitist-Prophet Model. (It is possible that an autocratic leader who functions as a prophet might permit his prophecies to be reviewed but I do not know of this empirical condition.) This effectively places the role of prophet, that is to be subject to review, beyond the reach of evaluation by the congregants in an autocratic setting. This is not how it was in the First Century church. In this article, I will make a case against the Elitist-Prophet Model.
As a clarification, it is a known fact to most but it is worth emphasizing that prophecy is not synonymous with foretelling the future. Prophecy has to do with the receiving and communication of special messaging from God. This messaging may or may not be predictive. The statements of dogma in the Bible on prophecy apply to both the general case of inspired messaging and also its specific subset of predictive prophecy.
The Egalitarian Gift
“Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy…” (I Cor 14:37)
“Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues but even more to prophesy.” (1 Cor 14:5)
“For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.” (1 Cor 14:31)
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (I Cor 14:37)
The scriptures above are definitive and prescriptive for the gift of prophecy in the First Century church. The theme that runs through the first three scriptures above is that the gift of prophecy can be given by God to any member and practiced by any member. It is not solely owned by or conferred upon the denominational leader. The fourth verse above is Paul’s word to those who prophesy that they are credentialed, in part, by their agreement with his stated policies in the first three verses. This represents a firm renunciation of the Elitist-Prophet Model where the prophet has to be the leader. It does not rule out the situation where the leader just may be the one who receives the gift of prophecy, but if the gift of prophecy is active in a church, it makes it atypical that only the leader would be endowed with that gift. Among apocalyptic Millerites we do seem to have the Elitist-Prophet Model where the leader is always the prophet owing to the autocratic nature of church governance. This autocratic mode is at odds with the normative egalitarian condition that Paul has described in the verses from 1 Corinthians 14 above.
Agabus was a prophet yet seemed to occupy no position of authority in the church. The four daughters of Philip also seemed to occupy no position of authority in the church. This is an apophatic argument, based on something that is not stated, but it forms a consistent theme. Paul, in contrast, as a leader did not refer to himself as a prophet yet he brought to the church many messages from God. These data points support the idea that the office of leader and office of prophet were likely disjointed. One might summarize by stating that prophets were typically non-leader church servants who exercised a gift that was granted “so that all may learn and all be encouraged.” And the fact that the gift of prophecy centers on learning and encouragement implies that the gift more often results in inspired speaking in public worship rather than august and frequently grim pronouncements foretelling the future.
Warning against False Prophets – the Mandate to Evaluate
In keeping with the egalitarian nature of prophecy, there was the necessity for governance and quality assurance to be exercised on prophets and prophecies. If someone is going to stand up and assert “Thus saith the Lord,” either implicitly or explicitly, in regard to what they are about to say, you are going to want to know something about the origin and background of this claim. In fact, evaluating the integrity prophets was a part of the charter of the church. Jesus stated:
“…False prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.”
And the writer of 1 John stated:
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
The forewarning of Jesus and the instructions of the writer of 1 John charter the plenary church, not just its leaders, to exercise the judicious evaluation of those who claim to be prophets and their prophecies. Paul states in 1 Cor 14, “And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern.” Prophecy was not a pre-emptive proclamation, but was received into an evaluative context. It was not unilateral but consensual. This means that the prophet might not have understood the full meaning of the message that he transmitted. The hearers of the prophecy might clarify or augment its meaning. The prophet is not so much the owner of the message as he/she is the conduit for its transmission. But in the Elitist-Prophet Model, the prophet is the owner of the prophecy and the value of the unbiased and independent discernment of the church is discarded. The dual role of prophet and autocratic leader renders the prophecy inviolable because of organizational governance. This makes prophecy pontifical rather than consensual in the church. This was not the intent in Pauline theology.
Early Church Praxis
The New Testament mentions false apostles once but false prophets several times. Paul did not use the term false prophet but he did encounter one named Elymus Bar-Jesus (Acts 13). His interaction with Elymus is a fair statement of Paul’s attitude towards false prophets. This exemplifies how a church leader might respond to a false prophet but what of ordinary congregants? After all, the theme of Paul’s writing is that the gift of prophecy is egalitarian both in its inspired declaration and its hearing with discernment. The Biblical charter to identify false prophets is not just for leaders but for the church generally. We may find some historical description of church practice in the Didache.
There are a number of prominent scriptures in the Old Testament dealing with false prophets and what their disposition should be. In the New Testament, there are similar scriptures. For what the church did as a practice we may look to the Didache. The Didache is a First Century church document written in koine Greek that deals with Christian praxis. It contains a section on prophets, both true and false. Some of it is common sense and some of it is a little obscure. The important point is that the section of the Didache on prophets is consistent with the idea that the church had the responsibility to evaluate prophets to determine whether they were true or false. An example statement: “But not everyone who speaks in a spirit is a prophet, except he have the behaviour of the Lord. From his behaviour, then, the false prophet and the true prophet shall be known.” This means that the congregants must take into consideration the prophets personal history when evaluating what he/she says.
Conclusion
Does the church have the right to enjoin Agabus that he must “speak fair?” Under the New Testament dogma on prophecy the answer is “yes.” Under the Elitist-Prophet model, the answer is “no.” And in this there lies a danger to the church. A prophet that is not appropriately credentialed may lead congregants into error. Congregants who do not pursue the charter that Jesus and the writer of 1 John asserted concerning false prophets, may become complicit. Everybody loses. And the Great Disappointment of 1844 is perpetuated.
