I humbly submit that Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright is wrong. Not about Mr. Obama, or the media, or the November election. He may indeed be wrong about such matters, but that's not my matter of concern here. As a person who has spent a lot of time in the pews and pulpits of African American churches, the issue I raise is not about politics. It's about prophecy.
Rev. Wright has repeatedly claimed that his recent screeds are prophetic utterances; that he stands in a tradition of prophetic critique that extends from the prophets of the Bible and the African American preaching tradition that is the legacy of those prophets.
But his arrogation of that legacy begs the question, the question on the minds of (at least) many faithful African American Christians struggling to make sense of the nonsense that constitutes much of the controversy swirling around Rev. Wright and Mr. Obama: What, after all, is truly "prophetic"? How do we discern the difference between sincere prophetic utterance and self-promoting pontification?
Let's read the signs. First, prophets are generally media-shy, seldom calling press conferences to announce their prophetic vocation. The Gospel of Mark says that Jesus avoided the big cities altogether, preferring town hall meetings and impromptu mass gatherings that he himself did not convene. When it came to outing themselves, as it were, the biblical prophets were down-right dissimulating. Amos, that hillbilly from southern Palestine who famously declared, "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness as an ever-flowing stream," said of himself, "I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet." When a delegation of religious leaders from Jerusalem confronted John the Baptist with the question, "Are you the prophet?" he emphatically replied, "No." The biblical prophets tended to be straight shooters about everything but their own vocation.
Second, the hard words that they pronounced to their own people were at least as hard on them. For them, prophetic pronouncement was not a media op. Jeremiah (the biblical Jeremiah, that is), has been called "the Weeping Prophet" because all the while he was telling his country that it was going to hell he was very, very unhappy about it. The Book of Lamentations, traditionally attributed to him, is an extended blues riff on God's destruction of Jerusalem. It's clearly the work of someone who was clinically depressed. The prophets did their duty to speak truth to power. But whereas the threats of their rhetoric were from God, the tears were their own.
Finally, prophets knew that their vocation was, by its very nature, an unpopular one. They were rejected and reviled when they weren't ignored. Jeremiah wrote a book of warnings that he sent special delivery to the king of Judah who, outraged, tore it apart and threw it into the fire page by page. God warned the prophet Ezekiel, at the very beginning of his career, that he was being divinely commissioned to speak to a people who would not listen to him. The congregation of Jesus' inaugural sermon in Nazareth was so incensed with his prophetic critique that they tried to throw him off a cliff. He escaped, and quickly left town. Sometimes the prophets even welcomed disagreement that wasn't so disagreeable as a sincere form of engagement. The Spirit spoke through the prophet Isaiah pleading with the opponents of his message, "Come, let us reason together." Prophets were neither surprised nor offended when people rejected their hard words. They expected to be rejected, and their expectation, like their words, seldom went unfulfilled.
The prophets of old didn't announce their prophetic prerogatives at press conferences and press clubs. They fled the limelight, even as they plied their divinely ordained trade in the public square. Indeed their message didn't include their own claims to prophetic status, about which they were sometimes self-effacing. The pain of their denunciations was pain they felt even as they inflicted it. Their only gain was the health and healing of their hearers. And they suffered rejection not as an affront, but as an occupational hazard.
This is what the prophets of the Bible did. So the question is, is this what Rev. Wright is doing? If not, then Rev. Wright is wrong to wrap his recent media attention in the mantle of the prophetic tradition. And if he, for whatever reason, has confused his own resentment as righteous indignation and his own urgency as opportunism, it behooves African American Christians -- and others -- not to make the same mistake.
--Allen Dwight Callahan is director of the Instituto Martin Luther King Jr. in Salvador, Brazil and the author, most recently, of THE TALKING BOOK: AFRICAN AMERICANS AND THE BIBLE (Yale University Press).
Thanks for the clarification
I would agree that prophets were generally run out of town. They also represented the Word of God for that people at that time. In no way has Dr. Wright shown the love of Christ or attempted to heal and deliver the people God has placed him with. Rather he is a firestarter that appears to be promoting himself on the back of Obama. Remember them both before the Lord in prayer.
This is the clearest definition of a biblical prophet I have ever read. I was particularly moved by the reference to "The Weeping Prophet." From this point forward, I will look with extreme caution upon any "prophet" who preaches gloom and doom through eyes not made blurry by tears!
Rodney Wilson
Massachusetts
As one who regards Barack Obama as a leader endowed with the intelligence, integrity, and courage needed to open wide a rare window of opportunity for the United States to reestablish moral credibility both with its own citizens and the world community as an agent of justice and peace, I celebrate the clear explanation of the Jeremiah Wright episode by Allen Callahan, a scholar of international repute whose credentials both in the church and the academy are beyond question. Senator Obama has had a curve ball thrown at him that is distracting, at least, and undermining, at worst. He has a more important task ahead of him than deflecting the darts of self-appointed prophets (the biblical Jeremiah had a similar obstacle named Hannaniah). Deep gratitude is owned to Professor Callahan for lifting up a carefully crafted shield against such unhelpful distractions!
Rev. Wright is more profiteer than prophet.
Mr. Callahan:
I appreciate your knowledge of the bible and agreed wth a lot that you wrote. Truly, the mark of a person of faith is his or her humility. But, you are essentially saying that Wright said he was a prophet therefore he cannot be one. This is off the mark slightly.
In ancient times they did not have churches like we do now and biblical prophets weren't called upon to formally preach every week--leaving a record of every word. Indeed, what exactly the priests said at synogogues in ancient Israel aside from the typical words said in relation to sacrifice is unclear. We have, for instance, Solomon's incredibly beautiful words (a sermon really) as he commemorated the Temple in Jerusalem. Yet, he was a great sinner both before and after this high point. Church is meant to re-charge our batteries and motivate us. The gospel is to be lived and preached, usually in small numbers, by individuals outside of church.
None of us is going to be on a direct clear wavelength with God all of the time. This depends upon the Holy Spirit, which goes where it wants to go. Your criticisms of Wright are too harsh, I believe.
They didn't have press conferences or "the press" per se in ancient Israel. Although humble, prophets did in fact seek the spotlight UNDER the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Going to public places and marketplaces was the equivalent of going to the media. Jesus did travel to the capital, Jerusalem, many times, to confront power. Of course, He didn't have to; the Spirit led "multitudes" and the leadership to Him. He also said he was the Son of God, though usually by implication.
You misrepresent the quote from the prophet Amos. He spoke in the past tense; saying that he WAS not a prophet: "But the Lord took me from tending the flock and said to me, 'Go, prophesy...'" ( Amos 7:15). When John the Baptist denied being "THE prophet" he meant the "Messiah" or the "Christ."
Yes, the prophet speaks for God and indicts society for their lack of obedience to His word, and also bears a broken heart for this rejection, like the Lord. He expects a similar rejection because for this the Lord has prepared him--this doesn't mean it hurts any less.
Unlike these greatest of prophets that you mention the overwhelming vast majority of even the most devout Christian believers will not feel the maximum power of the Holy Spirit all the time. We must take the Counsel and Comfort of the last clear instruction and move forward with that and our knowledge of scripture and His ways "alone."
Who's to say that the Lord has not given Rev. Wright prophetic words in the past. Because we as a body of Christ rarely expect or truly pray for these gifts our vision is limited. Practically, every human being has gotten a message from God in some form or fashion.
If Wright was not acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the last week, given what he has been through (rejection by Obama and unfair public humiliation), can you truly blame him for selfishly being human? Or, perhaps you are a prophet.
Mr. Callahan, I like and agree with some of your theories, however, it seems your commentary regarding Rev. Wright is a bit judgemental. I also like Carl's reply to your written piece.
Correct me if I am wrong; your biography says you work for some sort of Martin Luther King Jr. organization, or something to this extent? Why did'nt you mention anything about him and/or any other contemporary prophets, i.e. MLK Jr., Cesar Chavez, Oscar Romero, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, etc.
Martin L. King Jr. was constantly in the public eye, in front of the media, etc. Oscar Romero of El Salvador in Latin America was also one of the greatest prophets of the 20th Century. He used the small, limited media sources within the Catholic Church to deliver effective, powerful, and courageous prophetic sermons on a weekly basis.
Peace
Mr. Callahan:
I sincerely appreciate your perspective of Rev. Wright and your understanding (both scholarly and subjectively) of the prophetic tradition of the African American church. There are portions of your text that I agree with and appreciate the tone in which it was written. You've conveyed a gentle spirit in your critique of Reverend Wright and contrast the biblical prophet's deameanor against that of Reverend Wright. To be perfectly honest, I have mixed emotions about these series of events, and would have perferred this scenario to have never played out like this in the public square. I do however take exception with your criteria for today's prophet. I agree with Carl Rollins in his assessment of your text and would like to add that the message Dr. Wright delivered in Detroit (NAACP) was intellectual, provoking, factual (to my knowledge) and stirring. His point of different is not deficient is the prophetic message to America. That message, not its delivery, the message, was speaking truth, calling upon nation to end its prejudice and its loathing of others who will not fit into pre-manufactured boxes. Mr. Obama cannot claim to be the convener of the masses and exclude the voice of Reverend Wright whose significant insight, experience and prophetic voice is a part of our collective self. The media circus, is just that, we cannot confuse the times in which we live and the opportunities to be YOU TUBED, BLOGGED, DOWNLOADED, and MP3 along with the manipulation of those devices with the MESSAGE that spoke to the heart of a nation who rejected it!
I believe Dr. Wright like most of us has a prophetic voice, its the other voices that ignore, diminish and disregard the MESSAGE while killing the messenger. In this regard, I would conclude that he is a prophet.