This is a guest post by Richard A. Brown, a member of the Community of Christ.
A people with a prophet or a prophetic people?
That question’s been kicking around in the Community of Christ (known before 2001 as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or simply the RLDS Church) for decades. President W. Grant McMurray included these words in his inspired counsel in 2004:
Grant McMurray, former Prophet-President of Community of Christ
“Listen carefully to your own journey as a people, for it is a sacred journey and it has taught you many things you must know for the journey yet to come. Listen to its teachings and discover anew its principles. Do not yearn for times that are past, but recognize that you have been given a foundation of faithful service, even as you build a foundation for what is yet to be. As a prophetic people you are called, under the direction of the spiritual authorities and with the common consent of the people, to discern the divine will for your own time and in the places where you serve. You live in a world with new challenges, and that world will require new forms of ministry.” –CofC Doctrine and Covenants 162:2
Stephen M. Veazey, Prophet-President of Community of Christ
In his first message of counsel to the church, current President Stephen M. Veazey offered this counsel to the 2007 World Conference:
“God is calling for a prophetic community to emerge, drawn from the nations of the world, that is characterized by uncommon devotion to the compassion and peace of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Through divine grace and wisdom, this faith community has been given abundant gifts, resources, and opportunities to equip it to become such a people. Chief among these is the power of community in Christ expressed locally in distinctive fashions while upholding a unity of vision, foundational beliefs, and mission throughout the world.” –Doctrine and Covenants 163:11a
There are two parts to this concept, two halves that together complete wholeness, as well as the starting point for change. First is common consent through prophetic discernment by the whole body. This requires intense listening to one another as a way to listen to the Spirit. In 2012/2013 national church conferences in Canada, Australia, Great Britain, and the USA used deliberate methods seeking common consent to deal with questions related to ordination and marriage for members in same-gender relationships. Those were breakthrough experiences for the church and ultimately pointed to major changes in sacramental practices.
The other component calls for prophetic action on social-justice issues. This latter area provides the focus for my book, Speak to the Bones: How to Be a Prophetic People in a Time of Exile (Isaac’s Press, 2017). I use the examples of ancient Hebrew prophets to identify the principles and practices to speak a “word of God” in our 21st-century societies and then act on it.
This involves speaking truth to power and identifying injustice, idolatry, and inequality. Just as the post-exilic prophets in ancient times also saw themselves as bearers of God’s hope for downtrodden and marginalized people, that, too, is often required of a modern-day prophetic people.
As Western Christianity moves away from its centuries-old understandings of Christendom (various forms of church and state), it has opportunity to rediscover its roots as the “Way of Jesus.” That will require examining itself as institution, religious movement, and faith community. Included in that is a rediscovery of its prophetic function to exist alongside its pastoral and priestly ones. The task facing Christianity, both locally and as a worldwide body, is outlined by noted author Brian D. McLaren in his book, The Great Spiritual Migration:
“Each generation faces some great work, some heroic challenge that summons its children to courage and creativity. The great work of this generation will be to respond to the quadruple threat inherited from previous generations: an ecological crisis that, left unchecked, will lead to catastrophic environmental collapse; an economic crisis of obscenely increasing inequality that exploits or excludes the world’s poor while dehumanizing the rich as well; a sociopolitical crisis of racial, ethnic, class, religious, and political conflict that could lead to catastrophic war; and a spiritual and religious crisis in which the religious institutions that should be helping us deal with the first three crises either waste our time or make matters worse.”
To face one of these crises would be difficult enough; to face all four simultaneously will require all hands on deck–including the best potential contributions of each of the world’s religious communities. To save the world from this quadruple threat is the great work for which all people of faith and goodwill, including Christians, must be mobilized (p. 166).
Obviously, this is not an undertaking exclusively for Community of Christ, or any other single denomination or religion, for that matter. Yet to even phrase the task in this way indicates how far the Community of Christ has come.
No doubt there are many sane, sober, and rational voices within the church that would counsel caution right now, considering the precarious financial situation the leadership has identified for the membership. (Full disclosure here: I am a retired church employee myself; my own job was eliminated eight years ago during one in a series of staff downsizings.)
There is wisdom in such counsel, of course. There is wisdom also in these words attributed to Jesus: “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 16:25 NRSV). Can we take these words as including “the church”? If so, how do we bridge the gap?
To accept the challenge of truly being a prophetic community is risky business, indeed. Would it be best to wait until the church’s financial spreadsheets offer a more favorable report? Naturally, some would jump in at this point to argue we should have been more frugal in the past. That discussion may not be helpful in moving forward. In any event, I don’t have answers for all the questions and issues raised in this regard. This would appear to be an ideal scenario for prophetic discernment, however.
What I do know is I wrote Speak to the Bones in response to what I felt was the urging of the Spirit. I care deeply about my faith community and what is happening in my larger community, nation, and the world. The example of prophets such as Nathan, Elijah, Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, and others gives me hope that we 21st-century folk can, when necessary, speak truth to power and challenge inequality, injustice, and idolatry. Those terms are as relevant today as they were more than 2,500 years ago.
My faith community, which began as a peculiar American movement during the Second Great Awakening, continues to cherish and uphold a vision of Christ’s peaceable reign. Different groups within that religious movement have taken divergent paths. God hasn’t given up on us—any of us—so far. Neither should we.
Do you think it is possible, or even a good idea, for an entire faith community to be prophetic? What would that even look like in your own, local context?
Well Moses thought it was a good idea! And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!
“That world will require new forms of ministry.” That’s something I wish would come out of Mormon leaders’ mouths. Does anyone else think it’s contradictory to talk about the importance of “continuing revelation” while really not changing much (see esp. the missionary program)? Just wondering.
On to the question, I’m not sure what it would look like to have a “prophetic community,” but I do believe that the LDS Church is doing almost nothing about the wealth gap, the environment, etc., and it’s retrenching in terms of a good deal of sociopolitical stuff. And in that sense, while I believe there is a difference between a church guided by revelation and a church that isn’t, I’m not sure that distinction even matters if all we do is sit around talking about home teaching and avoiding porn while Rome burns. So I guess, in my mind, a prophetic community would ideally be more responsive to the pressing problems you mention above than the LDS Church currently is. My .02.
Reading this was as a cool drink on a hot day.
I see things differently than Brother Sky. Rome’s going to burn. Or not. The individual has very little control over that. He can decide to stay away from porn. I don’t think the primary role of churches is to throw themselves into sociopolitical, ecological, or the like crises. I think the role of churches is to bring people to Christ, to help transform the individuals. Once pointed to Christ, these people can then act according to their consciences and progress towards understanding as they do. As none are going to be able to claim they completely understand the mind of Christ, they may not always agree with each other. Should they argue politics at church? Or should they segregate themselves into churches of the likeminded? Yes, I very much like the idea of a prophetic people, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost can come to a spirit of unity on all matters, but we’re a long way from that. Reasonable people can disagree. Reasonable and inspired people can disagree.
I resist the idea that it’s a good idea to turn our churches into political organs. What if Peter told Jesus that the believers ought to gather together in opposition to slavery. Slavery is one of the most evil things I can think of. Why is there no record of the early Christians denouncing it? Why, if Jesus truly was as good as we all believe, did he not actively denounce the practice? Why would an apostle counsel servants to obey their masters? It’s because turning the early Christian movement from focussing on transforming the individual to transforming society would actually work against Christ’s purposes. It would have been just more political turmoil, most likely brutally crushed by the Romans. I don’t think the natural result of becoming a prophetic people is to become a political force.
I’m well aware that the LDS Church has taken political stances against gay marriage and in defense of immigrants, for example, but most reading here would say the first was a mistake and that the second is more about charity and helping the less fortunate than about specific policies.
I think churches are most powerful when they transform individuals who then transform society.
The CofC (RLDS) has always differentiated itself from the LDS and other smaller groups of the Mormon movement. What was proposed as a way to grow the church was a de-emphasis on “traditional” beliefs/concepts. “Do not yearn for times that are past” is an example.
The attempts by the leaders to be inoffensive and sensitive did not include those members who felt that fundamental beliefs were more than just tradition. One RLDS dissident. said that a person can proclaim from the pulpit their disbelief in the Book of Mormon but not their disbelief in Ordination of Women. I’ve heard many who stated “I didn’t leave the church, it left me.”
But guess what those old-fashioned, right-wing conservative fundamentalists were doing? PAYING TITHES. The call to support social causes doesn’t resonate as well as the call to build the Temple, for example.
The CofC has had 40+ years of change/modernization; yet its world membership is still stuck at approximately 250,000.
I think that churches should be judged by how they improve the lives of their members and provide opportunities for the members to serve the surrounding community and the world. Focusing too much on growth can lead to spending too much time, energy, and money trying to grow the church. The seventh day adventists are growing faster than all of the Mormon restoration churches, but that doesn’t mean that the seventh day Adventist church is more true.
I visited the local CoC congregation once and I enjoyed the experience. The congregation was co-pastored by a husband and wife. They seemed to be focused on helping their congregation grow spiritually and didn’t seem to see themselves as authorities over the congregation. I haven’t been back, but I was impressed by what I saw.
This talk about becoming a prophetic community seems to be a different way of talking about building Zion in the world. Working towards a world where people are of one heart, one mind, and with no poor among them isn’t really a new idea in the mormon movement. The LDS church has more often focused on building a Zion community in a central gathering place, but the CoC’s focus on a more inclusive Zion is appealing to me.
I appreciate Andy’s comments here. The easiest way to judge a religious institution is by counting the “butts in the pews and the bucks in the offering plates.” Qualitative measures are much tougher.
Through much of its history the RLDS Church (now CofC) promoted “gathering to Zion.” It’s why my own family moved in 1955 to Jackson County, Missouri, from London, Ontario (I was only four years old so didn’t get a vote on that one). But from the 1960s on, that ideal has given way first to more localized Zions and much more recently to the idea of prophetic communities. There’s also been a shift from stressing doctrines/beliefs to promoting enduring principles–a topic for another time, perhaps.
Wheat & Tares 
Well Moses thought it was a good idea!
And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!
“That world will require new forms of ministry.” That’s something I wish would come out of Mormon leaders’ mouths. Does anyone else think it’s contradictory to talk about the importance of “continuing revelation” while really not changing much (see esp. the missionary program)? Just wondering.
On to the question, I’m not sure what it would look like to have a “prophetic community,” but I do believe that the LDS Church is doing almost nothing about the wealth gap, the environment, etc., and it’s retrenching in terms of a good deal of sociopolitical stuff. And in that sense, while I believe there is a difference between a church guided by revelation and a church that isn’t, I’m not sure that distinction even matters if all we do is sit around talking about home teaching and avoiding porn while Rome burns. So I guess, in my mind, a prophetic community would ideally be more responsive to the pressing problems you mention above than the LDS Church currently is. My .02.
Reading this was as a cool drink on a hot day.
I see things differently than Brother Sky. Rome’s going to burn. Or not. The individual has very little control over that. He can decide to stay away from porn. I don’t think the primary role of churches is to throw themselves into sociopolitical, ecological, or the like crises. I think the role of churches is to bring people to Christ, to help transform the individuals. Once pointed to Christ, these people can then act according to their consciences and progress towards understanding as they do. As none are going to be able to claim they completely understand the mind of Christ, they may not always agree with each other. Should they argue politics at church? Or should they segregate themselves into churches of the likeminded? Yes, I very much like the idea of a prophetic people, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost can come to a spirit of unity on all matters, but we’re a long way from that. Reasonable people can disagree. Reasonable and inspired people can disagree.
I resist the idea that it’s a good idea to turn our churches into political organs. What if Peter told Jesus that the believers ought to gather together in opposition to slavery. Slavery is one of the most evil things I can think of. Why is there no record of the early Christians denouncing it? Why, if Jesus truly was as good as we all believe, did he not actively denounce the practice? Why would an apostle counsel servants to obey their masters? It’s because turning the early Christian movement from focussing on transforming the individual to transforming society would actually work against Christ’s purposes. It would have been just more political turmoil, most likely brutally crushed by the Romans. I don’t think the natural result of becoming a prophetic people is to become a political force.
I’m well aware that the LDS Church has taken political stances against gay marriage and in defense of immigrants, for example, but most reading here would say the first was a mistake and that the second is more about charity and helping the less fortunate than about specific policies.
I think churches are most powerful when they transform individuals who then transform society.
The CofC (RLDS) has always differentiated itself from the LDS and other smaller groups of the Mormon movement. What was proposed as a way to grow the church was a de-emphasis on “traditional” beliefs/concepts. “Do not yearn for times that are past” is an example.
The attempts by the leaders to be inoffensive and sensitive did not include those members who felt that fundamental beliefs were more than just tradition. One RLDS dissident. said that a person can proclaim from the pulpit their disbelief in the Book of Mormon but not their disbelief in Ordination of Women. I’ve heard many who stated “I didn’t leave the church, it left me.”
But guess what those old-fashioned, right-wing conservative fundamentalists were doing? PAYING TITHES. The call to support social causes doesn’t resonate as well as the call to build the Temple, for example.
The CofC has had 40+ years of change/modernization; yet its world membership is still stuck at approximately 250,000.
I think that churches should be judged by how they improve the lives of their members and provide opportunities for the members to serve the surrounding community and the world. Focusing too much on growth can lead to spending too much time, energy, and money trying to grow the church. The seventh day adventists are growing faster than all of the Mormon restoration churches, but that doesn’t mean that the seventh day Adventist church is more true.
I visited the local CoC congregation once and I enjoyed the experience. The congregation was co-pastored by a husband and wife. They seemed to be focused on helping their congregation grow spiritually and didn’t seem to see themselves as authorities over the congregation. I haven’t been back, but I was impressed by what I saw.
This talk about becoming a prophetic community seems to be a different way of talking about building Zion in the world. Working towards a world where people are of one heart, one mind, and with no poor among them isn’t really a new idea in the mormon movement. The LDS church has more often focused on building a Zion community in a central gathering place, but the CoC’s focus on a more inclusive Zion is appealing to me.
I appreciate Andy’s comments here. The easiest way to judge a religious institution is by counting the “butts in the pews and the bucks in the offering plates.” Qualitative measures are much tougher.
Through much of its history the RLDS Church (now CofC) promoted “gathering to Zion.” It’s why my own family moved in 1955 to Jackson County, Missouri, from London, Ontario (I was only four years old so didn’t get a vote on that one). But from the 1960s on, that ideal has given way first to more localized Zions and much more recently to the idea of prophetic communities. There’s also been a shift from stressing doctrines/beliefs to promoting enduring principles–a topic for another time, perhaps.