Prophetic?
Defenses of recently-released You Tube snippets of sermons by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. tend to emphasize such words are just part of the prophetic tradition.
Speaking as one who has also at times engaged in prophetic preaching, I have one huge problem with this characterization of Wright's words. To be prophetic, preaching must, above all else, be true.
My first reaction on seeing the clips was that Wright was not speaking Biblical truth, but merely repeating the worst available slanders about those he opposes.
Did some verse of Scripture or a visiting angel reveal to him that the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people? Or did that bit of nasty gossip just fit in so well with his low opinion of white folks that he had to include it?
If the latter, he is in deep spiritual weeds. Anyone claiming to be a prophet of God had best speak only God's actual words. Anyone who "helps" God by filling in the gaps with extra material risks a seriously-strong reaction from One who needs no such help.
And why should God be angry about such "help?" Because it undercuts the legitimate prophetic message. Once you know a "prophet" is faking part of a message, why believe any of the rest?
If Obama ends up losing this year's election, the cause may not be white racism, but rather a false prophet. Why? Because even those who love Obama's message of transcending racism and other social divisions have to ask how far his words of love and healing can be trusted when his chosen church of twenty years preaches an exactly opposite message of hatred and division.
As I've said before, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for all his human faults, and some political views with which I disagree, was a true prophet. Jeremiah Wright, on the other hand, is more like the 400 prophets of Baal in the time of King Ahab (1 Ki. 18), preaching what their audience wants to hear.
The Augean Stables (hat tip to Instapundit for the link) makes an excellent related point:
"The prophets are ferocious in their criticism of their own people; they have relatively little to say about the real oppressive forces in the world of their day in the 8-7th centuries BCE. When the people of Israel get smashed by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, the prophets don’t go into a rant about how evil these vicious imperialists are; they invoke them as God’s agents in punishing Israel for their sins. When, under more normative conditions, when they chastise rulers and aristocracy for their treatment of the poor, they do so again with vigorous, even violent rhetoric, but they do so in the hopes of changing their people. The prophets, however rough they may be, love the people they chastise, and rebuke them for the sake of their transformation.
Historically, this 'prophetic turn' represents something exceptional among ancient peoples, and one of the reasons that the Jews have survived these defeats, while the other nations, once conquered, decimated, sent into exile, tended to disappear. For these rebukes of the prophets aimed at reminding the elites that they had obligations to the poor; that the people of Israel constituted the unit, and that rulers ruled “for the people.” As a result, Jewish communities in the ancient and medieval world had an exceptionally high degree of internal cohesion that permitted them to survive under the most adverse conditions. Among elites in various civilizations — rulers, aristocrats, wealthy — Israelite and Jewish elites have the most highly developed sense of obligation to their commoners. Most nations, once conquered, saw their elites abandon them and join the lower echelons of the imperial administration that now held power. As Abraham Heschel pointed out, the prophets were among the few who denounced “the idolatry of power” with such fervor.
But the core reason for their success comes from the profound attachment that the prophets felt for their people. There is no trace of hatred in their clean anger, no desire to see failure and punishment, no joy in the downfall of the sinners. Indeed, their commitment to the very people they rebuked, in some cases, so savagely, meant that, often enough, those rebuked took them seriously. The very fact that these prophetic denunciations became canonized as sacred scripture — that we hear the shepherd Amos’ version of the tale, not that of the royal priest Amatzia — tells us that not only the prophets, but the leaders of the people shared these values and accepted the prophetic rebukes."
Prophecy is simultaneously the least popular and among the most important of the spiritual gifts. Job opportunities in my church often list the spiritual gifts desired in applicants, yet I often joke it will be a cold day down under before such an ad asks for the gift of prophecy. Valuable though accountability can be, it is rarely welcomed by recipients. King David, for instance, accepted the message of the prophet Nathan about Bathsheba (II Sa. 12.) But Nathan's only reward from David was being allowed to return home alive. Many true prophets (including MLK) weren't so lucky.
The reason a true prophet speaks truth to power is because God wills it. As a shepherd from Tekoa put it "The Lord GOD has spoken. Who can but prophesy?" (Amos 3:8b, RSV) Fame and fortune are usually for the false prophets of this world, not the true prophets of the next.
It is indeed time for a prophetic word about race in America, but I don't expect to hear it from the likes of Pastor Wright. Perhaps MLK is the only true voice in our generation. If so, thank God his words remain readily available here.
Leave a comment