The church’s love-hate relationship with its prophets exceeds that of ancient Israel’s. When leading thinkers publish a new book, we plunk down the $29.95 cover price and line up to add their signatures to the title page. We quote their best lines. We emulate their speaking style. We follow their advice. But if they betray us — that is, if they dare preach ideas contrary to our own — we kill them. Or, at least, we dismiss them.
When 45 pastors published a letter and white paper to the church, they waxed prophetic (see Pages 10-13). They bemoaned the church’s failure to be missional. They cast vision for better nurturing of future leaders. They prompted us to create new models of fellowship. Amen to the prophets.
However, when the letter was posted online, the pres-outlook.org Web site lit up with responses. Some readers applauded the pastors’ insights. Some questioned their credibility — especially since the initial group of 45 was all male, mostly white and consisted only of ministers, most of whom serve large churches.
As ones who emulate Jesus’ tendency to align himself with underdogs and the marginalized (see P. 17), we also echo his cry of “Woe” on those who sit in the place of honor at feasts and in sanctuaries and receive salutations in the marketplaces — a professional trap for tall-steeple pastors.
However, sometimes prophetic words come from ones you’d least expect. One case in point: a lowly shepherd. Another case in point: an exalted king. Uh, the lead Psalmist penned God’s words from both vocation locations.
Today’s prophets come from every vocation location in the church.
One problem with prophets is that they’re usually better diagnosticians than healers. They name the disease, but they can’t always prescribe the cure.
Then again, whenever today’s prophets’ words don’t quite hit the bulls-eye, others stand ready to amend their diagnosis and/or prescription.
In the present instance, some critics have counter-prophesied. Sheldon Sorge of Pittsburgh Presbytery, for example, affirms the pastors’ desire for the church to survive, but adds: “Toward that end, Scripture calls us to strengthen, rather than to abandon our life together.”
To the white paper authors’ proposal to stay together but operate in different spheres of fellowship, Kyle Walker of Bryan, Texas, counters: “To divorce and live in the same house doesn’t make fidelity to our covenant community any more real or divorce any less a sin.”
Linda Jo Peters of Terre Haute, Ind., doesn’t mince her words. “The white paper talks about ‘like-minded’ as if that was the purpose of discipleship. ‘Christ-minded’ would be more appropriate.”
Wilson Gunn of National-Capital Presbytery questions the need for a new structure. “It would just replace a former (now done) monopolistic frame with another run by temporarily like-minded people. The service received, after ten years of chaos, would pretty much be the same. So why invite ten years of chaos for so little (if any) benefit?”
Marcia Mount Stoop of Chapel Hill, N.C., also affirms the pastors’ intentions but questions their strategies. “The challenge for some of us in the church these days is to resist the temptation lots of white people have to try and fix all the problems. Jesus didn’t tell us to fix anything — he said to follow him and to be sure to love one another along the way.”
Mark Englund-Krieger, from the Presbytery of Carlisle, questions the diagnosis in light of the resurrection. “Why is it their thoughtful, and in some ways prophetic, open letter requires such a dire and deathly tone? … If these good pastors would like to preach at the funeral service of our Presbyterian Church, I wish they could do so with a bit more graciousness and hope.”
Prophets meet counter-prophets. Good for the church. Good for the prophets, too. It sure beats meeting the sword.
—JHH
