Prophets in Peril

Today I’d like to turn back to the question of the prophets (introduced when we began this series) as the sources of truth. This is a subject that is quite familiar (even, I would say, dear) to Seventh Day Adventists. The question is: Do we have a prophet today? If not do we need one? How would we recognize a prophet if we were to see one? 

Jesus promised (Matthew 23, in the seventh “woe” to the Pharisees) that he would send “prophets and teachers and sages.” He said this when he accused the Pharisees of sharing in the murderous crimes of their forefathers. Murdering prophets seems to be as old as history itself. 

What, or who, is a prophet; and are there prophets today? If the purpose of a prophet were to reveal truth from God, why would we need them? After all, many of us believe that we have a complete revelation from God in the Bible. If prophets were going to be the foundation of just an early church, are we still doing building a foundation today? Can God give someone a message to deliver to somebody else in this time? Does God reveal truth to someone in a supernatural way in this time, that enables a person to deliver a message to others? 

Whatever the case, when a person claims to be speaking for God (which is the essence of prophecy) the key is to compare what they said with what the Bible says. If God were to speak through a person today, presumably it would be in agreement with what God has already said. God does not contradict himself. John instructs:

 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

Compare what is said to the message and the mission of Jesus. If it agrees, then pray for wisdom and for discernment in applying that message to our daily lives. 

Is a prophet defined by their calling, their audience, their message? Can you volunteer to be a prophet? Can you be a self-proclaimed prophet? Does a prophet need an audience? What does it mean to be a voice crying in the wilderness (a desolate place)? Would you expect the message of the prophet to be a general message, or a very specific message? What makes a prophet? Do we need a prophet today? 

We don’t talk much about prophets. They don’t seem to be in fashion, though the charismatic denominations speak about them frequently. Their prophets are often the superstars of that wing of Christianity. Although there is something quite powerful about someone who would stand up and say: “The Lord told me!” or “I have a message from the Lord!“ today, such an individual, claiming out of the blue to be a prophet speaking directly for God, is unlikely to attract much of an audience. 

So there’s no longer much call for prophets but they have not entirely disappeared. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) has what they consider to be a living prophet. The Seventh Day Adventist Church had a prophet—Ellen G. White—as recently as 1915, when she died. The Roman Catholic Pope is not a prophet per se but is an agent for change with assumed apostolic power to interpret Scriptures and make new doctrine. 

The feeling that change implies some imperfection in previous belief does not sit well either with the leadership or the laity of a church. They therefore resist change. But change occurs nonetheless. Animal sacrifice was once an important ritual in Hinduism, Judaism, and other religions. Even today, it is still part of the Muslim Eid ceremony. Catholic priests have changed—they have only been celibate since the 11th century. And visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were once part of Islamic art. Very recently, some Christian churches have begun to solemnize same-sex marriages. 

In 1889, Wilson Woodruff became the president and living prophet of the Mormon church. At that time, the church was struggling with the US government over the practice of polygamy. The government held the practice to be illegal and threatened to confiscate the church’s assets. The prophet Woodruff then announced that Jesus had told him in a vision that unless Mormons changed their practice of polygamy, the future of the church was in jeopardy. He did not renounce the practice but he did ban it, causing much social, personal, theological distress, and tremendous instability in the church, forcing deep reflection on the core principles of Mormonism. 

Something like this could happen to any church. Since Ellen White died, the Seventh Day Adventist church has been without a voice from God. But Adventists still turn to her writings as an authoritative source, even in things that pertain to our modern culture, of which she could have had no knowledge. This raises the question: How long can a church last without a prophet? How long can a prophet’s history be instrumental and authoritative in the church? In other words, how can long can the church exist without change? 

The story of John the Baptist may help us to understand the prophetic role: 

 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. And yet they had no child, because Elizabeth was infertile, and they were both advanced in years.  Now it happened that while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division, according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside at the hour of the incense offering. Now an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. Zechariah was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John. You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of fathers back to their children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:5-17) 

John adds to the story:

 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites to him from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” And he confessed and did not deny; and this is what he confessed: “I am not the Christ.” And so they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he *said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” He said, “I am the voice of one calling out in the wilderness, ‘Make the way of the Lord straight,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.” (John 1:19-23)

Notice several points: 

First, John is selected to be a prophet even before he is conceived. The birth itself is miraculous. His message and mission is preordained—a study of the prophets in the Old and New Testaments makes it clear that being a prophet is not a job you can volunteer for, it is not a self appointed position. It is a calling. Beware of the self-proclaiming prophet. 

Second. Prophets are called to deliver a specific message for a specific place and for a specific time. It raises questions about the prophetic messages that we have in history, and how they are to be understood as applicable to all people in all places at all times. 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, prophets are primarily agents of change. Their message and mission is to enable change. It foretells change. Where a prophet speaks, change occurs, it spurs on change. This change is dangerous to the prophet. It makes them vulnerable even to murder. We have, you see, no established way to change. Indeed, we all resist change in daily life, in our routines, and especially in our religion. And when it comes to our truth about God, we resist change most stridently. 

Although God never changes (Malachi 3:6), we do. As we learn and grow, we’re bombarded with change. All cultures and all religions have elements predisposed to change as well as elements predisposed to remain the same—the status quo. A homegrown religion is more likely to resist than to promote change because of the effect change is known to have on culture. Thus, religion tends to stabilize culture. Without it, social and psychological chaos might overcome conservative defenses. 

At least three forces exert pressure to change: Intracultural, inter-cultural, and environmental. Intracultural forces include invention, which may be technological, or it might be ideological invention—new ways of doing things, new ideas, new thinking, new tools, new energy sources, new transportation methods, new communication methods. Even trivial things, such as fashion, change. These forces put pressure on religion as well. Or it may be the complement of invention—the loss of old ideas and old ways of doing things. For example, it took a little more than a century for most Westerners to lose the ability to milk a cow or to care for a horse. Evidence of cultural loss is all around us.

Seventh Day Adventists still engage in a process and a ritual called “foot-washing” and communion—the sharing of emblems of the body and the blood of Christ, but as a quarterly symbolic ritual, not as an everyday practice. The practice was used every day in the time of Jesus. He washed the feet of the disciples at the Last Supper with him before his death. It was a token of humility and is ritually memorialized by Adventists and even by the Pope today. But in the time of Jesus, it had real practical value in cooling and cleansing feet hot and dirty from tramping the dusty roads in sandals. It would typically be done by servants, which is why it is a display of humility. 

Today, foot-washing has no practical value. Clean feet clad in clean socks and in protective shoes don’t need it, and to bare someone’s feet today might be considered an invasion of privacy. It persists in Christianity only as a ritual symbol of humility. It’s one reason why so many people leave the service during the ordinance of humility. Other rituals such as the Islamic way of slaughtering animals might also claim to have been lost to historical value, being rooted in issues and practices of the past. 

The role of women has drastically changed too. In the West, the change was greatly accelerated by World War 2 and the employment of women in factories. Changes in the role of women have affected the role of men, and needed accommodations exert pressure that can result in conflict, as we’ve seen in the case of churches and church factions which seek to expand the role of women in the church. 

The second force of pressure to change is inter-cultural. Inter-cultural forces defuse culture across boundaries. Up to about 200 years ago there was not much diffusion, because people lived within their own small geographical district. The problem now is that things and ideas diffuse globally but the cultural context often stays local, so that the same thing and ideas might exist in a receiving culture but mean something entirely different. Acculturation is what happens when a Native American culture is overrun by the European culture in the New World. Trans-culturation occurs when an individual moves to and adopts another culture. 

Finally, environmental forces such as degradation in water supply and arable land and energy sources, and climate change and pandemics also put pressure on change and have historically been major influences in cultural modifications.

Do we need change today? Do we need prophets today? Or can the messages of the prophets of old—Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah—have relevance today? How about the “minor” prophets? There’s nothing minor about the prophets who raised their voice against oppression and poverty and injustice and immorality. And what about our own prophet Ellen G. White? Can we, in a modern time, in a technological era, apply words, advice, and solutions that are more than a century old? 

Is a prophet a prophet because of calling, or because of the message? Do we need a prophet today? How can change occur without the confirmation of a prophet? Can a committee at the central office of the church substitute for a prophet? Can it take the place of a prophet? 

That leaves us on the horns of a dilemma. We want a prophet’s confirmation about change (think in terms like the role of women in the church) but we don’t really believe someone if they stand up and say: “I’m the prophet that’s telling you now what you should do. I have a message from God. It’s about what you should do with women in the church.” 

How do we get along in a church community without a prophet? Who can confirm the right road to travel? What are your thoughts about the need for a prophet today in modern times?

Donald: David is a futurist, which would suggest that he could contribute to this conversation in terms of the whole idea of religion and the role of technology and the ability to connect with other people instantly. What is the impact on religion? What are we seeing unfold? Can we manage it? Or is it just going to be?

David: I think it is certainly possible to foresee, to some extent, what’s coming. That’s what I try to do as a futurist. But I make absolutely no claim to be speaking for God. I do not know what’s in God’s mind, except to the extent of having the Holy Spirit inside me (as it is inside everybody) gives me some idea of what God wants in my life. To me, the God of the future is absolutely unchanged from the God of Jesus Christ. S/he/it is not one iota different (except perhaps in terms of gender!) So we don’t need a prophet to tell us what God will be like in the future. 

What we might need, though, is a futurist who can tell us how we will react to all the inter- and intracultural and environmental changes which are without question changing people’s views of the world and of God. We know that religion is a pretty big thing in human civilization. It has been the cause of great wonder and joy, but also of terrible depredations, violence, and mayhem. That is why it is important to try to predict the future: To try to prevent the harms that could come. 

As a spiritual person, as a believer in God, I think it can’t hurt to keep reminding people that despite all these changes around us there is a God who never changes: The God of Jesus, the God who gave us the Golden Rule. That will never change. It doesn’t matter how many environmental and cultural changes there are. So I’m a futurist, but I am not a prophet.

Donald: Incremental change can catch us unawares and behooves us to think about things we may need to be aware of in order to not lose sight of the God that never changes. 

Jay: I think one of the driving factors behind the desire for a prophet is really our need for clarification. I don’t think, in a religious or spiritual sense, that prophets are desirable because they can predict the future. What I think we really seek from a prophet is clarification. There’s no doubt that my Adventist slant on this topic is shining through. But for us, Ellen White isn’t somebody who gave new insight, but someone who clarifies things that already are. God is God and God doesn’t change. So it’s really not about something new; it’s about refining, or more clearly defining something that is. 

So we want clarification, but we don’t want change. This is where the real dilemma lies, because change (unfortunately for the human being) is interpreted as “What I did before the change wasn’t good, and I would only change if it was going to give me something better, something “more good,” something having more goodness. That is an impetus we use for change. 

The problem is that in a spiritual sense, for you to be in a state which is here and admit that there’s a better, “gooder” spiritual state here too, is pretty hard, because you’re saying: “I was wrong here. Now that I change, I’m right here.” The reason that human beings change is because they were doing something wrong and need to change so they can do something right. That is where the prophet becomes a dilemma for religion, because when the prophet speaks of change, the institution or the individual human being will now view what they’ve done for their lifetimes as wrong. What does that now mean for those individuals who lived in a place prior to change? 

I feel that for prophets to be meaningful, you have to be able to look at change, or you have to be look at clarification, very differently. You can’t look at change as a sense of “I was wrong; now. I’m right.” I think that when you look at the truth of a prophet, or the reason for a prophet, you ask “Can I progress from here to here?” That doesn’t mean that when I was here, I was bad. I was wrong. I was evil. I was misled. It’s more of a progression, rather than a clearly defined goal. “That was right, and this is wrong.”

Carolyn: I have for quite a few years used as a devotional the Sarah Young books. I know a lot of people who use her books in this way. I was just informed this week by one of the pastors that she is “channeling”—taking texts from the Bible and putting them in her own words for her daily devotion. I found her very inspirational and very on target. She spoke to me, and she has spoken to many people I know. 

A man named Warren Smith wrote that Sarah Young’s first book, Jesus Calling, was essentially plagiarized. But to me, Sarah Young had a very spiritual message. I don’t say that she was a prophet, but she had a very close walk with God, who informed her or impressed her to write her little sermonettes. 

The accusations against her came as a shock to me. I have three of her books. I’ve used them for 10 years and I’ve always felt inspired after I read them—comforted and inspired. And I enjoy them. 

David: It seems to me that you’re describing not a prophet but an interpreter. That’s what she’s doing and apparently doing very well. There is a place for such people. In a sense they really are speaking for God, in taking words from the Bible and putting them into different words that clearly help people. I think that’s a wonderful thing. 

But as for prophecy: I don’t know the dictionary definition but I imagine it mentions prediction of future events. Sarah Young seems not to be doing that—she’s simply giving an interpretation of God and God bless her for doing that in a way that people find enlightening and uplifting.

Jay: I think Carolyn has really hit on the crux of the issue. 

Carolyn: She is dead now, but thousands of people have read her books. We’re supposed to test the spirits if we hear a false prophet.

Jay: The crux of our discussion is about views of the truth. Sarah Young had a view of the truth, putting the Bible into her own words to express what the verses meant to her. But there may be religious institutional disagreement or suspicion of their interpretation of what they’ve felt as they’ve read the Bible. It’s when we get into these areas, when we start tying prophets, or interpretation, to religious institutions, that the ability to change becomes so difficult.

For the individual to read the devotional books you’re talking about and be inspired by them is beautiful. It’s a matter of whether the institution can or will endorse, or put its stamp of approval, on that. It brings conflict. People have felt so blessed every time they read these devotionals, feeling peace, love, grace and so on, yet the institution to which they belong won’t put a stamp of approval on them. 

This is where dissonance arises: We don’t want to be wrong, and we really want the institution that we belong to to be right, so when that institution says something we disagree with we are shocked, because disagreeing with our institution is of concern to the soul.

Carolyn: In Christianity Today, a critic wrote that Jesus Calling was a dangerous book and listed all the bad things they thought about Sarah Young. We are told that all the way through our life, we must test the spirit. If we see a prophet—minor or whatever—we need to know how to assess the spirit.

Reinhard: The prophets are very effective. If we read the Bible, from the Old Testament, they said a lot of things God asked them to say to the people to get their them to act in the right way. Nothing has changed. God doesn’t change The message from the prophets is always about the moral law. External pressures such as cultural change does not change the moral law. 

I think God’s purpose for us is revealed in the Bible’s words about the fulfillment of the prophecy, especially for the remnant church and remnant people—the chosen people of Israel. After 70 years of captivity, Nehemiah and Ezra become the government and the priest respectively. From then until Jesus time was almost 500 years, and then the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy that Israel would gather again together took about 2,000 years with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. The New Testament hardly mentions this prophecy. The message is totally different—it was to spread the gospel until the end of the earth. And then the time will come. 

I think the key thing we learn from the Bible, especially from the Old Testament, is the moral law that God does not change. That’s what we need to keep. The moral law is valid all the way to the end. To me, that’s the lesson we need to learn. The Bible is more than enough. We don’t need prophets. But people like Mrs. White are like a lesser light to the bigger light of the Bible. Her writing is mainly about Revelation. She explained more details about it—she shed more light on it—that benefits us to know. 

Mrs. White’s contributions about Revelation and Daniel are beneficial for Christians, certainly for Seventh Day Adventists. The Old Testament had only Daniel talking about the future—saying that knowledge will increase, things like that—while Revelation tells us what’s coming at the end. Maybe she and people like Billy Graham are messengers of God—not to prophecy but to strengthen the message. The Bible is very clear about the end. Jesus said to watch out, because at the end, some people will claim to be him, so we have to have the knowledge to discern and to keep the moral law.

Don: I think fundamental to the discussion is the question: Can prophets in history, including our own prophet who died in 1915, inform us today about the way that the religious body should go forward? Is that something that’s even reasonable to expect, especially given the changes that have occurred and the intracultural, inter-cultural, and environmental forces still at work? The pandemic is changing our world such that it will never be the same again. Beliefs, relationships, and all sorts of aspects of life are being influenced by these forces. Do we need a prophet today who can clearly help us to distinguish what’s right and what’s wrong, what’s good and what’s bad?

David: You don’t need a prophet to assess the impacts of change from pandemics, etc. You need a strategic planner, not someone channeling God; somebody who can interpret the signs and predict the future of the institution.

Reinhard: The Bible talks about pestilence and war happening at the end of times. I think that’s really what’s happening at this time. God reminds just to stay on course, to live closer to God. As a result of the pandemic, a lot of people who did not believe in God are now seeking God. We should stay on track, not go astray, keep God as our source of life, our source of help. The messages we read in Scripture, especially the Bible, and also receive through the Holy Spirit, will always strengthen us. Just remain close to God.

Pastor Giddi: Amos tells us:

Certainly the Lord God does nothing
Unless He reveals His secret plan 
To His servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7) 

Therefore, there is a need for the prophetic gift in the church that we are part of, and in Christianity. Peter cites the prophet Joel:

‘AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,’ God says, ‘THAT I WILL POUR OUT MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS WILL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN WILL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN WILL HAVE DREAMS… (Acts 2:17)

This is specifically about the end times. So there is a need for the prophetic gift and God promises that there will be a gift of prophecy. The apostle Paul also writes in Thessalonians that there will be prophecies at the end time. But surely and certainly, any new prophet will not invalidate the previous prophets or the previous revelations that God has given.

The Mormon founder Joseph Smith invalidated the Bible and said his teachings were revelations given to him by God and superseded the Bible. A true prophet would not say that. Jeremiah would not say that he was right and Isaiah was wrong. He would not invalidate previous revelations that God has given. 

Jesus said that in the last days there will be false prophets. If there are not to be any prophets, Jesus would have said “Don’t believe any future prophets.” But he only said there will be false prophets. It’s one of the signs of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Surely, there will be prophets. And whoever comes and says “We have studied the test of the truth of it” must confess that Jesus has come in the flesh, they must agree in accordance with the law and the testimony. 

Of course, the true Church of God will keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. What is the testimony of Jesus Christ? Revelation 19:10 tells us it is the spirit of prophecy. So I believe God has assigned the prophetic ministry, and the church needs it until Jesus comes for the second time.

C-J: I think that the intention and purpose of a prophet is to shake and release, which goes back to what Jason said; that the shaking is to release the bonds—the things that bind us, and to release the consciousness and the spirit. But I think you have to be shaken, you have to be awakened to understand that a new work is being done. It doesn’t take away from what has been done. It’s an amplification for that time and space in history. 

I don’t believe these are the end times, I don’t believe the end time as humans have interpreted it, that it has a beginning and an end. I think it is a way of older, unhealthy thinking. Christians embrace the idea of the tribulation and revelation and a new Heaven and Earth. But I think it’s more about God’s always transforming who we are inside. 

But it has to be shaken. It has to break the bonds of how we think and release our spirit to receive revelation.

Donald: The difference between a prophet and a preacher is that the prophet talks of radical new interpretations of a chosen religion or dogma. It’s like coming up to an intersection and making a sharp right or sharp left, not a gradual turn, and not moving forward. 

At the turn of the century, a group of people came out of other churches and created a movement. Mrs. White was part of it. I don’t know what changed her from being a person in a movement to a prophet. Did she even refer to herself as a prophet?

Don: I think she called herself a messenger.

Donald: A prophet may form a church—the Mormons had a specific person that formed a new denomination and took hold and made a sharp turn. It seems to me that Mrs. White was part of a movement that did not make a sudden turn–it debated long and hard, as Adventism was formed. It wasn’t a sharp turn, it was a new interpretation of where people were. 

I always go back to the challenge, though, that once you form it, shape it, and fix it, and then declare it as Truth, it becomes complicated, because it doesn’t sound like it’s a new revelation. I don’t know. Are we willing to adapt again? Or are we fixed now and don’t want to be wrong? 

Jay: Historical context is critical. It would be hard for any established religion today to endorse a prophet. As Donald says, prophecy usually takes place at a crossroads offering a choice of a sharp turn left or right or continuing straight ahead. Religious entities seem very hesitant to turn because they believe that any deviation invalidates everything from the past. 

When you’re talking about the formation of our church specifically, you’re not talking about 100-plus years of established understanding, established tradition, established practice. They were figuring it out on the fly—figuring out what the health message is, what justification by faith is, and they’re debating it vigorously. And Ellen White is shining light on the issues. It’s almost inconceivable for Adventists today to think that you would debate justification, yet the early church did debate it—vigorously—and split over it. They had many, many debates in which the Church in its formation stages split over the issues. People left the church as the health message came to light, as justification by faith came to light, as the investigative judgment came to light, as “Do we take our message to minorities?” came to light. 

These were divisive instances in our church’s history where in its early formation, Ellen White shined light or “chimed in” on the issues; and when she did—if we look at our history—we see that not everybody was on board. Those instances caused division in our church. They caused church leaders to leave. They were hotly debated topics that to us today are totally non-controversial. 

But having established an interpretation, established an understanding, and established (even though we don’t say it, I think we often believe it) a complete truth, having a prophet is a very troubling thing, because a prophet is is going to shed a light in these moments, and as a church that is going to be hotly debated and it’s going to be fractional. But we don’t think of prophets like that. We think of them as if they were already established as prophets and the institution had swung right over to them and stayed on the correct path. But that’s not what history shows.

Don: We talked last week about horizontal and vertical transmission of information. This is yet another issue I think we need to think about in terms of the prophetic paradigm. We don’t value much vertical information in this time. We’re much more in tune with horizontal information. Adaure has pointed out that we don’t look for authority particularly; that one of the great issues of our time is whether you get your information horizontally from social media and contacts or whether you get it from “authorities.” 

Adaure: In my limited experience growing up in Malawai it appeared that everyone was looking for their own personal prophet, their own “god.” Spirits exist and there’s a lot of animism there. Everyone wants their own personal prophet making personal predictions to guide their everyday life. But if everyone had their own personal prophet, why would they need the Holy Spirit at all? In cultures where spirits exist, prophecy exists also, and so whether it’s from God or not, it’s held to be probably true, whatever they’re predicting. In Malawi, there’s a new church popping up behind some new prophet every week.

Bryan: The word “prophet” to me carries a lot of baggage. Coming from a denomination that has one, as all major denominations typically do, you’ve been indoctrinated and ingrained in what they say is fact and we can look for enlightenment and so on and so forth. We’re very comfortable with horizontal information. Prophets of 100 years ago have been vetted, so to speak, through the denomination that you chose to belong to. We don’t want to take the risk of vetting a new one. We’ve been warned about false prophets and what to use and what not to use in vetting them, and horizontal information makes it very comfortable. 

We can look for new information, or maybe new ways to use that information, but it’s not a quantum leap from something we’re comfortable with to something that we’re not comfortable with. So skepticism about new prophets is so high (even in denominations) that if new prophets arise in the last days, there had better be a whole lot of Holy Spirit outpouring. If I had been alive in Jesus’ time, I hope I would have had a Holy Spirit outpouring to accept him then, and if this happens in the future, I hope I’ll be in the same place.

Don: We will explore this subject for the next few weeks—that is, our need for prophets, the likelihood that you would recognize one if s/he hit you in the face, and the huge skepticism that comes with them. And yet, as Donald pointed out about the crossroads, without a prophet, how are we ever going to change? Because nobody is going to give credence to careful study and the proclamation of new enlightenment. It’s a call for falsifying the prophet.

Donald: I think, however, we need to include within this conversation what Carolyn has brought forward because I’m not sure that Sarah Young would have identified herself as a prophet. I think she was studying the Bible and producing a meditation for healthy Christian growth. The fact that the criticism was published in Christianity Today, which tends to be neutral, is alarming. Such instances are quite disruptive and can influence your understanding of your faith and spirituality. 

Don: One thing you can say about a prophet: They’re disruptive. 

Donald: Absolutely. And I don’t think Carolyn described somebody who was trying to be disruptive. 

Jay: Prophets are typically viewed as disruptive. If you look at the prophets of history, even people that we highly regard as prophets in the Bible (especially in the Bible) the established church—the church that believes it alone has the truth—is not very welcoming to them. This has been so throughout history. That is a perspective I believe we should all keep in mind as we continue to discuss and think about what prophets are.

Don: Murdering prophets is an occupational hazard.

Jay: Paul was really good and everybody loved Elijah and Elijah. That’s another important perspective to bear in mind, when we start to persecute people

.* * *