Poor God. He has a terrible time trying to make himself understood. His troubles are compounded when he uses the crazy English language. When he says, “My son will rise” he means Jesus. But some could have interpreted it to mean, “My sun will rise”, and they began looking at the eastern horizon!
The Bible is often referred to as the “voice of God” in the “words of men”. God’s expression is limited by human comprehension, hence subject to misinterpretation. His language of love is reduced to cold print. When the teachers of religion propound that message, it gets further compounded.
As I’ve said already, this is aggravated in the English language. Here is another example. The preacher says, “You must be a prophet”. The congregation, seeing the luxurious lifestyle of the preacher interprets it as “You must be a profit”; something oft propounded by tele-evangelists and advocates of the prosperity gospel. Does this metaphor sound bizarre? Is the church in India a truly prophetic, or profitable venture?
Fr Josef Neuner SJ, in his book “The Prophetic Role of the Laity” describes a prophet as one having the following attributes: 1. He speaks in the name of the living God 2. The message is addressed to actual situations (specific and existentialist) 3. He is confronted by the powers of evil 4. His only weapon is the word of God 5. He does not live for himself; God has taken possession of his life.
To what degree can we Christians say that we are fulfilling our prophetic role? Does our message come from God, or our own pet theories? Is our message situational and contextualised, or vague and idealistic? Do we experience opposition from evil or well entrenched forces; or are we well accepted, invited to grace occasions, and offered the high seat at the table/ dais? Is our faith our strength, or do we rely on institutional, financial and political power? Finally, are our lives consumed by God, or are we living a consumeristic life? Should we proclaim, “The prophet is dead. Long live the profit”?
The profit’s philosophy of life is to live and let live. Don’t interfere, maintain the status quo, don’t rock the boat, keep your house clean and throw the garbage on the road for somebody else to collect. Have faith in your own resources, climb the ladder using others as rungs, avoid situations of responsibility and pass the buck.
Should we blame God for not having spelt prophet correctly, or are we ourselves to blame, for turning a deaf ear to his word? Do we think that the biblical concept of prophet is obsolete?
For that we need to go back in time to understand the prophetic office. In the Old Testament the three pillars of the chosen people were the Priest, King and Prophet. This troika finds repeated mention in the New Testament, and also in Vatican II teachings. We have already seen Fr Neuner’s definition of Prophet. He describes the King as entrusted with political guidance, and the Priest as responsible for instruction and worship. I would recapitulate these three roles in the following simple terms: the Priest makes the rules, the King actually rules, and the Prophet interprets the rules in specific circumstances.
These three functions are also the foundation of modern democracy. The Legislature that legislates or makes the rules, is like the Priest. The Executive that has the power, resources and governance in its hands, is like the King. The Judiciary that interprets the law in a given situation, is like the Prophet. For a healthy society it is important to have all three functions separated and clearly defined, with no encroachment on each other’s domain. What happened during the Emergency, when two wings of Govt were subjugated to the executive? It was a ruthless and insensitive dictatorship, in which the poor suffered the most. India is yet to emerge from its shadow.
A fourth pillar has emerged in modern society, appropriately called the Fourth Estate – the Press. When the Judiciary or Legislature is suppressed, the Press assumes the prophetic office of being conscience keeper to the nation, and a barometer of its health. When this also fails, then the fifth sinister option emerges. In World War II they were referred to as the Fifth Columnists – the undercover operatives, who conveyed their messages though advertisements in the fifth column of newspapers. In peacetime such operatives are either terrorists or extremists, who see violence as the only solution to perceived injustice. They will stop at nothing. As sociologists teach us, violence is the option of those who have nothing to lose.
What of the church in India? Who exercises the legislative/ teaching/ priestly office? Quite rightly the hierarchy. Who governs the church, its institutions, finance, aid agencies, and even what has to be announced from the pulpit? The clergy and the hierarchy. Who adjudicates on what is right and wrong, even in peoples’ bedrooms? The hierarchy. Who controls the Catholic press, and determines what should or shouldn’t be printed? To a large extent the clergy and hierarchy again. What is this if not a totalitarian regime?
Herein lies the danger. There are those who will say that the church, being a divine institution, cannot be compared to a democracy, or based on democratic principles. Rev D.S. Amalorpavadas, that great champion of the laity, had a counter point, that the church is more than a democracy, it is a community. And a community cannot function as an autocracy. Should we be prepared for the fifth columnist, who is bent on grabbing power by any means available? Do we want a repeat of the French Revolution?
However, Catholics have for centuries been docile, and our Indian psyche is one of tolerance, so we react somewhat differently. We become indifferent, complacent, or abandon ship – an exodus. Grandiose, but empty churches in Europe, bear mute testimony to this. The number of sheep stolen by smaller sects, with more personalised religion, from the monolithic Catholic Church, is increasing.
How do we remedy this? By restoring parity and clarity in the social structuring of the church, with each being true to their particular office or vocation. Let the clergy/ hierarchy put their heart and soul into their actual role of instruction and worship. The laity must assume control of the temporal affairs of the church, and be the spokesperson and torchbearer of the community in public life. We don’t want clergymen being appointed to political office, including various Minority Commissions. Lay organisations must build on their own strengths and resources. Funding agencies should be removed from the domain of the hierarchy. The Religious Orders and Congregations also need to emerge from the shadow of the hierarchy, to exercise their prophetic office, at the service of the word and the world. The Catholic press, in like manner, must be given far greater autonomy, and the laity need to evolve their own media strength.
When the scale is tipped in favour of one side there are only two ways of restoring parity; either decrease one scale, or increase the other. Power is never surrendered gracefully, and I don’t see a violent upsurge in the church. So the only option open is to strengthen the role of the laity in the church. It’s a long haul, but there is little choice.
Perhaps this piece will be a small step in that direction and will inspire or strengthen somebody to hear God’s invitation to the prophetic office; to be a voice in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Lord. The words of this once popular hymn are apt for the prophet.
It takes courage to answer a call
It takes courage to give your all.
It takes courage to say
What you know will not pay;
To be standing alone
One who no one will own.
It takes courage to be true.
Spellings may differ, but this, I believe, is how God spells Prophet.
No comments:
Post a Comment