When Prophesy Is Seen as Treason

By Brian H.O.A. McHugh

Harry Cook recently published what I thought to be a fine sermon on Dr. Jeremiah Wright and the whirlwind that has gathered around his words during the past several weeks. Cook made the point that Dr. Wright is a prophet, in the ancient tradition of the Judeo-Christian faith. In what I thought to be a felicitous phrase, Cook described prophecy as "the announcement of what is happening now." And he described the prophetic tradition as "speaking truth to power."

I don't think we know what the "regular folk" thought of the Israelite as part of their culture. But we certainly know what "power" thought of them. Prophets challenged the "spin" that power put on "what was happening." Power does not usually like that - though there are biblical instances in which power listened to a prophet and repented: Nineveh to Jonah, and David to Nathan. In general, however, power dropped prophets down wells. Modern-day prophets, like Martin Luther King, have been shot dead.

Cook seemed to indicate that prophets were an accepted part of the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, meaning that even "power" expected prophets to be part of the given of culture. I'm not really sure about that. I don't really get the sense that people or power understood them to be an accepted or valued part of their cultural or political or religious milieu. The only historical instance I can think of where power actually supported direct criticism was the tradition of the medieval Fool - and even that was chancy!

Personally, I think prophets are by nature a thorn in the side of any culture. They are sometimes tolerated, but not accepted. Prophets exist, in my view, because the spirit of divine justice and compassion is an integral part of human character, often deeply buried. Speaking truth to power is a deeply necessary thing. It is a charism, i.e., a calling given to few. Clergy, by vocation I believe, share in the prophetic character. Paying clergy as employees has the potential of taming their essential usefulness to the community. It's hard to be prophetic, in the "in your face" Hebrew tradition, to your parishioners or to the culture they represent if your livelihood depends entirely on the target of your criticism.

Cook seems to think people in America should understand that Dr. Wright is a prophet, and therefore understand where he is "coming from" in his comments about America, racism, politics, etc. Even, that Dr. Wright should be valued for his role. Yet even Jesus said that a prophet is not without honour except in his own country and among his own people.

Dr. Wright has at least two strikes against him. First: prophets are unwelcome thorns in the side of any culture. Second: many Americans, even church-going Christians, now confuse the gospel with American culture. To many, they are one in the same. There is a sense that, popularly understood, God and Jesus would certainly approve of anything that America would think or do, culturally, politically and religiously. Many want God to "bless America." The Christian understanding, however, is that God desires to bless all people. (Which is why the bumper sticker on my car says, "God Bless Everyone - No Exceptions."

In the context of worldwide terrorism coming from many extreme political and religious sides (including Christian), any criticism may be seen as treason and unpatriotic. Dr. Wright doesn't have a chance in this context. It is hard enough for a prophet to be heard at all. It is well nigh impossible in our heightened state of fear.

* * * * *

Pastors and Politics

By Harry T. Cook

Throughout l'affaire de Jeremiah Wright we've heard again and again the word "pastor." One reader asked, "What the hell do pastors have to do with politics?" He answered his own question in the next line of his e-mail: "They shouldn't have a damned thing to do with it." - the "it" being politics.

My reader was, of course, referring to the sound and fury that built up around the relationship between Sen. Barack Obama and the now retired pastor of the church of which the Obamas were members for 20 years, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Presumably the Obamas have now resigned their membership, even though Dr. Wright is no longer damning anything from the pulpit there.

In a nation with its constitutional roots being in the separation of church and state the furor has been puzzling. We never held the fomentings of the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons against Ronald Reagan or either of the Bushes.

So what is it about "pastors" that has so dominated this discussion?

Pastor L. herdsman from pascere, to feed.

In common usage, the word "pastor" refers to him or her who leads a Christian congregation. Although I have found that a lot of church-type people are passive-aggressive, most pastors don't work like herdsmen. The more they push and prod, the more the "sheep" push back. They push back because they are not sheep. They are human beings, if not consistently thinking, at least opining freely.

As a clergy colleague of mine has observed, it is a lot easier to pull a chain up a hill than to try to push it up. So pastors lead and encourage.

Thus over time, as has been my experience, a pastor in a long-term relationship with a congregation comes to see that what he or she dishes out (see pascere above)

becomes over time the desired or at least the tolerated fare.

Members of the congregation I serve have suffered my hesitant agnosticism and secular humanist approach to the Bible and church tradition for 20 years. Certainly there have been defections during this time, but those who have remained and those who have visited and come to stay are, as you might say, "with the program." They have allowed me to become their pastor.

Not only do they listen to what I have to say and generally, though not in every case, agree with it, I see them acting on what they hear. For me organized religion exists primarily to mobilize people and resources to fulfill the mission described in Matthew 25:

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.

That's pretty much the focus of our congregation. I also urge my congregants to think of human need on the wholesale, systemic level as well - as in mobilizing political support for governments that have a similar focus.

In that sense, I lead and feed. I do not herd.

As near as I can tell, that is the path that Jeremiah Wright followed in his 36 years as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago. Clearly his preaching and his pastoral leadership touched Sen. Obama and his wife. How could they not have?

But the Obamas are not responsible, not for one minute, for anything Dr. Wright may have said from the pulpit anymore than members of my congregation are responsible for I have said and may say.

As the greatest pastor of them all said, By their fruits they shall be known.

All a person has to do today to take the measure of Jeremiah Wright and the congregation he served for three and a half decades is go see the place and take account of its myriad ministries to the needs of its people and the residents of its neighborhood. Members of that congregation both past and present will be judged by what they have done - or not done, because the other part of the Matthew passage reads:

For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, I was naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© Copyright 2008, Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.