Three summers ago, in a burst of irritation at a few of my colleagues in the Presbytery of Denver, I wrote a Viewpoint article in Presbyweb titled, “Speaking Prophetically.” (If you’re not a subscriber to Presbyweb, you can also find the piece here.) At the time, I had had it up to my (receding) hairline with liberals claiming the “prophetic” mantle for what was, essentially, leftist boilerplate with a garnish of Christianese, and I felt the need to fire back. I wasn’t exactly stunned to find that no one changed their ways in response to my objection, but at least it made me feel better.Still, people haven’t changed their ways, and it does continue to irritate. The whole flap over the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., though, takes the whole thing to a new and truly egregious level. More than a few writers have attempted to defend and excuse the Rev. Dr. Wright by calling him “prophetic,” and situating him in a supposed prophetic tradition in line with the likes of Frederick Douglass and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Diana Butler Bass, in her post on Jim Wallis’ “God’s Politics” group blog, is typical:
Throughout the entire corpus, black Christian leaders leveled a devastating critique against their white brothers and sisters—accusing white Christians of maintaining “ease in Zion” while allowing black people to suffer injustice and oppression. . . .As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright’s “radical” sermons today, I do not hear the words of a “dangerous” preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant—I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.
There are two problems with that—what we might call the historical and the theological problem. The historical problem is that the equation Jeremiah Wright = Frederick Douglass presumes another equation: 2008 America = 1858 America. It presumes that our country hasn’t changed at all in 150 years. And that just isn’t true. We are, no question, still an imperfect country—but on matters of skin color, however far we have yet to go, we’ve come a long way.The theological problem here is what concerns me more, however, because Dr. Bass’ idea of the gospel is really screwy at this point. When the Rev. Dr. Wright declaims, “God damn America! That’s in the Bible!” he’s right as Dr. Bass is right to point us to the fact, as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus also notes, that “Biblical prophets called down the judgment of God on their people,” and often in harsher terms than those used at Trinity UCC. But there is a profound, a deep and profound, difference between what he was saying and authentic biblical prophetic language. As Fr. Neuhaus continues,
They invoked such judgment in order to call the people to repentance. They spoke so harshly because they had such a high and loving estimate of a divine election betrayed. The Reverend Wright—in starkest contrast to, for instance, Martin Luther King Jr., whose death we mark next week—was not calling for America to live up to its high promise. He was pronouncing God’s judgment on a nation whose original and actual sins of racism are beyond compassion, repentance, or forgiveness. He apparently relishes the prospect of America’s damnation.
That is the key point that every other commentator I’ve seen has missed; that’s the point at which the Rev. Dr. Wright’s message unequivocally ceases to be gospel, indeed ceases to be in any real sense Christian, and becomes something else altogether—something very, very ugly. There was a discussion on The Thinklings a while back about the imprecatory psalms, where David and the other psalmists similarly aim harsh, violent language at their enemies; these are psalms not often read in most churches. As one of the commenters pointed out, however (probably Alan), there’s an interesting feature to most of these psalms: when David prays that God would destroy his enemies, he prays that God would do so either by slaughtering them or by bringing them to repentance. It’s that either/or that brings this sort of bitter prayer within the compass of a Jewish/Christian understanding of God. Without it, it’s nothing more than a pagan cry for vengeance.In light of that, I pray that someone who has pull with the Rev. Dr. Wright—perhaps Sen. Obama, who I can’t help thinking should have done this years ago—will draw him aside and call his attention to a couple passages from the Book he was supposed to be preaching from all these years:You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.—Matthew 5:38-48 (ESV)Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities,
against the cosmic powers over this present darkness,
against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.—Ephesians 6:10-12 (ESV)
I don’t know that I’d put Rev. Wright in the same class of prophet as either Frederick Douglass or Dr. King. In that I absolutely agree with you.
I would also point out that not all
prophets like to speak words that might bring repentence though. Or even want God to allow that repentence and salvation, no matter what the desire of God, and those needing that salvation are.
When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it. But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. And he prayed to the Lord and said, “O Lord, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.”
But God said to Jonah, “Do you do well to be angry for the plant?” And he said, “Yes, I do well to be angry, angry enough to die.” And the Lord said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”
Jonah 3:10-4:3,9-11[ESV]
And for that, God rebukes Jonah and tries to bring Jonah to repentance. The thing is, though, whatever Jonah’s own attitude, the words he spoke were given to him by God, who gave him those words to proclaim in Nineveh in order that Nineveh might be brought to repentance. They were not born out of Jonah’s desire that Nineveh be destroyed.
Absolutely true. I didn’t make my point as clear as I should have. Jonah did eventually go to Nineveh, and did speak the word of the Lord, and they did repent, in a big way.
There is no supportable way to paint the Rev. Wright as a biblical directly inspired prophet to a nation like Jonah was.
You would know far more about this then I, but it seems to me that every preacher of the gospel, if he or she is following the calling, seeks to bring to their congregation the words that God would have them bring.
The more I read, and listen to what is said about Rev. Wright, the more I am led to think that he took serious deviations from that calling, with his messages and statements that were frankly anti-America, anti-white, etc.
It would be, in analogy, as if Jonah had walked the streets of Nineveh, and said some of what the Lord had told him to say, and mixed in his own hatred of the Assyrians, clouding God’s divine message.
No matter what effect this has on the Obama presidential campaign, in the long run, Rev. Wright, in my opinion, needs to take a long and hard look at what he is saying from the pulpit, and what effect that is having on the cause of Christ.
That, or maybe he should schedule an appointment with a storm and a big fish. Rumor has it that the combination does wonders for refocussing one’s ministry.
I agree with you; though I think perhaps a better analogy would be if Jonah had preached the same message in Jerusalem instead of Nineveh. In any case, well put–thanks.