![](3D"ser-0712-09.wec_files/image003.gif")
<=
span
style=3D'mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Acknowledging Prophets
Mark 6: 14-29
Psalm 24
In the
Presbyterian tradition, ordination to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament is=
an
ordination to specific functions within the Church, sometimes categorized u=
nder
the biblical roles of “prophet, priest and king.” The
“king” part is primarily associated with administration: the
exercise of authority and responsibility for decision- making concerning bo=
th
long-term goals and the day-to-day operation of a parish. That role may be
exercised in a more literal sense by those denominations that have bishops =
but
for Presbyterians, authority and responsibility are shared with lay leaders
elected by a congregation.
The
“priest” part has to do most visibly with a pastor’s
responsibilities for leading worship, doing liturgy, celebrating the
sacraments, preaching the Word, presiding at weddings and funerals and
participating in civic functions in official capacities representing the
Church. Through the influence of Lew Briner, one of the co-pastors with who=
m I
served during the first thirteen years of my ministry here, I became accust=
omed
to wearing the easily identifiable clerical collar when performing priestly
duties; probably the majority of Presbyterian pastors do not. I might add t=
hat
I find the collar useful when visiting folks in jail to make sure I’m=
the
one they let back out!
It=
217;s
the “prophet” part of a pastor’s calling that is often the
most controversial. If you’ve read any of the biblical prophets --- l=
ike
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Micah --- you quickly see why. The prophets were th=
ose
called by God to let people know that they’d strayed from the path God
intended his children to follow. Like a college student with whom I recently
talked, who had way too much fun his first semester away from home and then=
got
jolted with the reality of poor grades, incomplete courses and disappointed
parents who won’t pay for courses having to be re-taken, those who st=
ray
from God’s path in ‘big-time’ ways --- whether individual=
s or
nations --- sometimes need to be dramatically confronted with words that are
not minced. Prophets are known for doing that . . . and as we heard in last
week’s Gospel lesson, prophets also aren’t very popular with th=
ose
being called to account.
It=
217;s
aptly said that the biblical prophets carried on ‘a lover’s qua=
rrel
with the world’ on God’s behalf. Much of what scripture tells us
displeased God was the manner in which the rich and powerful systematically
abused the poor and powerless among God’s children. Therefore, the di=
vine
judgment voiced by prophets was often aimed at governing authorities, both
religious and civic.
Those=
who
attempt to rationalize the immorality of abusive social and economic systems
that benefit themselves while exploiting others usually do a lot of squirmi=
ng
when prophets are inspired to take notice. They prefer to avoid having their
life-styles or policy choices scrutinized from a religious/moral perspective
because they know they won’t meet the standards of justice.
And t=
hen
there are folks --- perhaps like those we hear about who commit crimes of
random violence against defenseless people --- who appear to have no sense =
of
right and wrong to guide their behavior. During his years on ‘the
bench,’ I know it was defendants who seemed lacking of any moral
sensibility that were most disturbing to the late and Honorable Donald Jame=
s,
whose life we celebrated here just a few weeks ago.
The n=
ews
regularly reminds us that there are also prominent people in high places --=
in
government, industry, finance, even the church --- who also don’t see=
m to
know right from wrong. And from their positions of power and influence, the=
y do
much more harm to the human community and inflict much more pain upon others
than any deranged individual with a loaded gun can ever do! To those whose moral sensitivity is
either absent or damaged --- or conveniently discarded --- the prophets who
protest their injustices may stir no guilt in them to temper their behavior,
but they often expose to public light what they’ve been doing and mak=
e it
difficult for them to continue doing it.&n=
bsp;
Since=
my
preaching through the years has sometimes had a prophetic edge to it, IR=
17;m
always bemused by comments I’ve received to the effect that religion
shouldn’t be mixed with politics, or that preachers should ‘sti=
ck
to the bible,’ as if the biblical text was intended to be understood =
only
historically, having implications only for the world in which it was writte=
n.
Surely, one does not need a theological education to read and realize how m=
uch
of the text of both Hebrew and Christian scriptures have to do with the int=
erplay
of faith and morality with the social norms and the political and economic
systems of their day. It makes me wonder to what bible folks are referring =
when
they opine that “sticking” to it avoids having to deal with its
implications for the social and political realities of our day --- the ways=
in
which budget priorities and environmental policy, discrimination and
unemployment, healthcare and =
the
waging of war impacts the earth God gave us to care for, and affects the li=
ves
of those in whom, the prophets tell us, God has a special interest: the wid=
ows
and orphans who represent the most vulnerable among us.
I men=
tion all
this as a prelude to our Gospel lesson for today: the gory tale of a
prophet’s head being chopped off and served on a plate to a bunch of
drunks at a weak-kneed king’s birthday party. The story has all the
ingredients of legend: an adulterous king; an abuse of power; a jealous and
scheming woman; a bacchanalian revelry; a beautiful dancing girl as temptre=
ss;
a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ moral choice to=
be
made; the grisly death of an innocent man; and a haunting by the spirit of =
the
unjustly killed.
In the
translation read today, the dancing girl is identified as Herodias, but oth=
er
ancient manuscripts refer to her as the daughter of Herodias --- which, in
fact, she was. It’s from the Jewish historian Josephus, in his
independent account of this event, that she was given the name
“Salome.” As with the growth of other legends surrounding John =
the
Baptizer --- including many stories of where and how his severed head found=
its
final resting place --- the performance of “Salome” became know=
n as
“the dance of the seven veils,” and variations of the story have
appeared in opera and film.
Behin=
d the
story of the dance and the execution are the moral lapses of people in high
places who don’t like attention drawn to such things. When it comes to
divorce, indiscretions in sexual relationships and abuse of power, the Hero=
ds
have nothing on our current crop of political leaders. As the writer of
Ecclesiastes cynically observed: There is nothing new under the sun! From a=
mong
the Herods, it was Antipas who in this drama had offended those over whom he
ruled. He had divorced his first wife, Phasaelis, and used the charm of his
power and influence to take the wife of his brother Herod Philip. Marriage =
to a
brother’s wife was clearly forbidden by Jewish law so long as that
brother was alive. In an occupied land where the legitimacy of Herodian rul=
e on
behalf of the Roman Empire was already questionable, a king whose marriage =
is
seen as an offense to God would have difficulty maintaining the respect of =
the
people, and so the less said about it, the better, as far as Herod was
concerned.
We kn=
ow all
too well how power corrupts those who wield it and how a huge sense of
self-importance skews the perspective of those who have it. Corporate
CEO’s, political ‘big-shots,’ professional sports figures=
and
stars of the entertainment world all provide ready examples of those who
sometimes think and act as if they are beyond the constraints of ordinary
mortals; they consider themselves to be above the law, and believe they can=
get
away with doing anything they please. Prophets, however, sometimes get insp=
ired
to show up and confront those who make such presumptions. John the Baptizer=
was
one so inspired.
Josep=
hus
claims that John had attracted the attention of Herod Antipas as a potential
fomenter of unrest. After all, big crowds were attracted to his charismatic
preaching, and the possibility of his using that charisma to stir social un=
rest
was troubling to a government that tolerated no opposition. We have many
examples these days of similar fears and subsequent suppressions --- in Chi=
na,
Iran, Myanmar to name a few from this past week’s news.
Beyon=
d the king’s
fear of political upheaval, however, were the Baptizer’s repeated
references to Herod Antipas and his second wife as prime examples in his
preaching about sin and the need for repentance. The royal couple must have
bristled at hearing some of the words John used to label their behavior. Wh=
ile
the King wanted John in prison and out of circulation for political reasons,
Herodias wanted his head --- literally! Today’s story tells of the
treachery by which she got it!
A kin=
g under
the influence of a drug-abused brain foolishly makes an expansive promise t=
hat
gets pressed literally and perversely in a way he never intended. But his
testosterone-poisoned ego overpowers whatever ethical sensibility he may ha=
ve
had, and to save face with his equally inebriated guests, he honors a reque=
st
that he knows in his heart is wrong, and that consequently leaves him with a
tinge of guilt. The specter of Jesus’ prophetic words and deeds will
later haunt him with the sense that the man he had beheaded was returned fr=
om
the dead.
While=
a
part-time youth pastor in the Presbyterian Church of Stamford, Connecticut
during my divinity school years, I once held in my hands a check signed by a
Presbyterian Elder by the name of Robert McNamara. It had been written to c=
over
the cost for his nephew’s participation in a confirmation class retre=
at I
was leading. It was October of 1967 and the Vietnam conflict --- on top of =
the
Civil Rights Movement --- was in the process of tearing apart the fabric of
American society and laying the foundation for the social/political culture
wars that will not be laid to rest until those of us who have fought them a=
re
laid to rest.
Robert
McNamara, whose death this week prompted many reflective essays, was the Do=
nald
Rumsfeld of the Vietnam War. He had headed General Motors in its glory days
before joining that team of advisors to President John F. Kennedy that were
later labeled “the best and the brightest.” McNamara was the
quintessential “bean counter” which, in Vietnam, led to “=
body
counts” and numbers of bombing sorties and tonnage of munitions dropp=
ed:
a quantitative analysis by which the war could be won by simply upping the
numbers . . . of troops, bombs and dead enemy bodies. It took him a while to
realize it wasn’t working, but he served a President who refused to h=
ear
that.
As Am=
erican
involvement deepened in Vietnam; as increasing numbers of drafted military
personnel were coming home in body bags; and as increasing numbers of Ameri=
cans
began to oppose the war, rallied as they had been in the civil rights strug=
gle,
by voices from the faith community; McNamara became haunted by the specter =
that
the war in Vietnam had become a tragic mistake. Perhaps the prophets who sa=
id
so from the start were right, as McNamara later confessed in a book that
properly provoked much anger, particularly from the families of the dead and
maimed whose lives and futures had been destroyed, pro patria gloria, they =
had
been told. McNamara’s subsequent move to head the World Bank was
interpreted by some as an act of penance, a desire to do something good to
atone for the evil in which he had played so prominent a part. Only God kno=
ws
for sure.
Of th=
e many
prophets who confronted Robert McNamara and the Presidents he served, sever=
al
who were firmly planted in the biblical tradition stand out. We still have =
much
to learn from them because their message speaks to our time, as well, and s=
till
challenges the priorities we, as a people, continue to choose.
Marti=
n Luther
King, of course, was one of them. He had become the widely recognized voice=
of
conscience within the civil rights movement by the late 1960’s,
confronting our society with the hypocrisy of discrimination in light of our
founding document’s claim that “all men are created equal.̶=
1;
Sadly, that struggle is still not over, as we have witnessed locally with t=
he
fuss about an anti-discrimination City Council ordinance recently passed.
It wa=
s,
however, in a memorable speech at the Riverside Church in New York, that the
great civil rights leader finally confronted our government with the many w=
ays
in which the war in Southeast Asia, on moral and religious grounds, unethic=
al
and unsupportable. Robert McNamara, along with President Johnson and other =
war
supporters envied Herodias in that moment, I’m sure. They did everyth=
ing
they could to undermine King’s credibility and cover their culpabilit=
y,
attempting --- at least figuratively ---&n=
bsp;
to chop off the head of the eloquent prophet whose ‘second
sightedness’ led him to connect the dots, as it were, to see the raci=
st
foundations and implications of the war.
Willi=
am
Sloane Coffin, the outspoken Chaplain of Yale University and friend of Dr. =
King
through his participation in the “Freedom Rides” that had
challenged segregation on inter-state transportation, was another prominent
voice within the faith community that held the prophetic mirror of God̵=
7;s
priorities in front of McNamara and others who were responsible for spending
huge amounts of our national treasure, not least of which was our young peo=
ple,
conducting an unjust and unwinnable war.
A pro=
minent
political science professor spoke one night in New Haven to share his insig=
hts
about current events to a packed auditorium. His opening words are crystal
clear in my memory, and it seems to me they describe the reality that is pr=
esent
whenever the church in any generation responds faithfully to its prophetic
calling. With an obvious reference to Yale’s chaplain, he said,
“It’s good to be in a place where the voice of conscience is st=
ill
louder than the sound of cannon.”
We ne=
ed to study
the biblical prophets of old who confronted kings who were foolishly prepar=
ing
for war; confronted the rich who used their wealth selfishly and ignored th=
eir
responsibilities to those less fortunate; confronted the politically well
–connected who used their connections with unjust consequences for th=
ose
who have little influence; and confronted religious leaders who were more
interested in power than in devotion and service. But studying them is safe:
the people and the issues involved seem far from our every-day life.
We al=
so need
to reflect upon more recent prophets, although that is always more difficul=
t.
They may proclaim a message no different than that of the biblical prophets,
but the people and issues confronted by more contemporary prophets may be t=
oo
close for our comfort. Perhaps we supported the cause being questioned --- =
or
have good friends that do. Perhaps we voted for the person whose policies or
shenanigans are at issue and that makes us feel confronted, as well. But wh=
en
all is said and done, the present is where we live, and if we believe in a =
God
that is still speaking in our midst, then it is within the cacophony of
competing voices in our world that we must listen for the prophetic ones
speaking the Word of God to us and to our time.
John =
the
Baptizer was not the first prophet to lose his life speaking God’s tr=
uth
to the powers of this world. Nor was he --- or will he be --- the last.
But l=
et us
also be comforted in remembering that it is not only words of judgment that
prophets speak. They also proclaim the vision of who God wills us to become=
and
what the future will look like when our misguided priorities become transfo=
rmed
by God’s Spirit.
Marti=
n Luther
King expressed it as a future in which the children of all races will live =
and
work and dream together to shape a world of peace and justice.
Willi=
am
Sloane Coffin reminded folks that we don’t have the burden of creating
the brotherhood of man --- or the sisterhood of women. God has already done
that; we need only to recognize it and live accordingly.
And t=
he
vision given to Isaiah was that In days to come the mountain of the
Lord’s house shall be established as the highest of mountains . . . a=
nd
all nations shall stream to it. Many peoples shall come and say,” let=
us
go up to the mountain of the Lord . . . that he may teach us his ways and t=
hat
we may walk in his paths. . . . He shall judge between the nations, and sha=
ll
arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, a=
nd
their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nat=
ion,
neither shall they learn war any more.”