A few thoughts on your thoughts.

“prophecy has typically been understood by charismatics as an individualized gift of the Spirit rather than as an attribute of the church as a corporate entity”

It’s fairly clear to me from the way Paul describes the prophetic gift that it was indeed an individualised gift of the Spirit - as brought back into public prominence by the charismatic movement (late 1950’s - early 1980’s) as well as the Pentecostal movement (1904 to the present day). Eg 1 Corinthians 11:4-5; 14:4, 22, 24-25, 29, 31-32.

On the other hand, it was an emphasis of (parts of) the early charismatic movement that the church as a whole was a prophetic ‘sign’ - both to the world, and less fortunately, to other churches not perceived as part of this particular movement (or movement within a movement).

By all means move us beyond limited interpretations, but let’s not give the impression that by putting ‘modern’ in front of an interpretation, it is consigned to the rubbish bin. ‘Modern’ in this case is ‘biblical’. The church is always ‘prophetic’ in the sense that it is intended to offer to the world an alternative source of authority and alternative lifestyle that are at once a challenge and an invitation.

“the suffocating embrace of modern evangelicalism”

I’m sorry for Dwight Friesen of Mars Hill Graduate School, and of the sensitivities of his students to the word ‘biblical’. However, this is a poor way of framing an argument - by setting up a bogey-man (the extracted phrase above) to frighten us into a supposedly more liberated way of viewing things. The antidote to incorrect use is never abuse (as evidenced in this kind of language), but correct use - and this applies to evangelical interpretations of the scriptures as any other.

Now let’s look at things in rather more detail.

Peter’s quotation of Joel in Acts 2 emphasizes that the outpouring of the Spirit was on ‘all flesh’, not simply Israel - as was proved by subsequent mini-pentecosts, eg Acts 10:44-47. He does not quote the bulk of the context of Joel - to which Andrew ascribes more importance than the emphasized content of what Peter quotes. However, Peter does refer to “the day of the Lord - - - the great and manifest day” - Acts 2:20, and various signs which will accompany that day - verses 19-20 (usually understood as metaphorical - not literal as Andrew suggests). In a limited sense, this ‘day’ received a fulfilment with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. But nobody would take that event as the fulfilment of all which ‘the day of the Lord’ in its Old Testament sense, would entail. The exercise of gifts of the Spirit, such as prophecy, tongues-speaking/interpretation, and the impartation of dreams and visions, still occurs because we still live in an interim time between the gift of the Spirit and the ultimate Day of the Lord. The gifts of the Spirit did not cease once 1st/2nd century events had transpired.

As for the Spirit being ‘the Spirit of prophecy’, Andrew should read Max Turner’s ‘Power from on High’ and ‘The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts - Then and Now’ - a magnum opus in two parts in which he demonstrates that the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ was the Spirit which came at Pentecost - but reversing the implications of the logic in his argument.

“The early prophetic community was oriented towards Israel.”

Only in Andrew’s logic. Most readers of the New Testament would say that the early prophetic community was oriented towards the entire world - with a worldwide message to accompany it which was not very difficult to understand. Hence the movement of the church from its very earliest days beyond the boundaries of Israel to the rest of the Roman Empire (eg Antioch, and probably the founding of the church at Rome itself). Here, the prophetic witness of an allegiance to a higher authority than Caesar was the consequence of its message - sin and death overcome - not the primary focus.

As regards the ‘third’ eschatological horizon - the promise to Abraham always indicated realities which stretched beyond the borders of Israel - as most of the texts which are cited to demonstrate the opposite show - eg Genesis 13:15-16; 17:6; 28:3; 35:11. These were not promises of blessing to a people living within the borders of Israel, but promises of blessing which were too big to be defined as belonging to such a small political nation in itself. The promises described in advance a worldwide orientation and progression which Israel tragically misunderstood and interpreted in terms of a nationalistic vision modelled on the practices of the nations through which she herself had so grievously suffered.

Brueggemann’s four observations on the role and function of individual OT prophets may serve as a template for the activity of the church as a prophetic community to the world - but what is the content of this activity? Whatever you like, it seems. This is where the reinterpretation of the church’s mission falls desperately short - and where the insights not simply of evangelical theology, but orthodox and catholic tradition through the centuries, based of course on the NT texts themselves, are so incisively penetrating.

What is missing from the entire argument as presented so far? A three letter word - which is apparently so unmentionable, it doesn’t even get remotely hinted at as playing any part at all in the Christian message and mission. Yet this is why many of us got baptised - to identify by faith with the Christ who brought us out of one narrative to bring us into another. Sin was the common thread and tragic flaw of the former narrative. Freedom is intended to be the thread of the new narrative - woven with all the rich array of descriptive terms with which it is described. The broader horizon of freedom is in the witness of the Spirit to and demonstrations of the new creation - there we can agree in something.

(Did I say I was going to keep my mouth shut?)