Before we pursue this line of thought any further, we need to mention briefly a third interpretational model for explaining the relation between the permanent order of ecclesial life on the one hand and new irruptions of the Spirit on the other. Building on Luther's interpretation of Scripture in terms of the dialectic of Law and Gospel, there are those who place particular stress on the dialectic between the cultic-sacerdotal aspect on the one hand and the prophetic aspect of salvation history on the other. On this reading, the movements would be ranged on the side of prophecy.

This interpretation too, like the others we have considered so far, is not entirely erroneous. But it is extremely imprecise and hence unusable in this form. The problem thus raised is too complex to be dealt with in detail here. First of all, it would have to be pointed out that the Law itself has a character of promise. Only because it has this character could it be fulfilled by Christ and, in its fulfilment, at the same time «abolished». Second, the biblical prophets never meant to annul the Torah, but, on the contrary, to defend it against abuses by vindicating its true meaning.

Third, it is important to stress that the prophetic mission was always entrusted to individuals, and never became fixed in a particular «class». Insofar as prophecy claimed to be a class  (as was sometimes the case),  it was criticised by the biblical prophets just as sharply as the «class» of priests of the Old Covenant [4].

Any attempt to divide the Church into two wings, into a «left» and «right», into the prophetic class of the religious orders or the movements on the one hand, and the hierarchy on the other, can find no justification in Scripture. On the contrary: such a dualism is entirely alien to Scripture. The Church is built not dialectically, but organically. What only remains true is that there are various functions in the Church, and that God continually inspires prophetic men and women —whether they be laypeople or religious, bishops or priests— who would not derive the necessary strength in the normal course of the «institution» to make this charismatic appeal to the Church.

It is quite clear, I think, that the nature and tasks of the movements cannot be interpreted from this perspective. They themselves certainly don't understand themselves in this way. The result of the foregoing reflections is thus unsatisfactory for the elucidation of our question, yet it is important. It suggests that no solution to our problem is to be found if we choose a dialectic of principles as our starting point. Instead of trying to resolve the question in terms of such a dialectic of principles, we should, in my view, opt for an historical approach, as befits the historical nature of the faith and of the Church.