Introduction
Max Weber has made important developments in sociological theories, particularly in the sociology of religion. He looked at religion as a very important institution in the society just like family, economy or political systems (Johnstone, 2007). He is a proponent of various theories; however, his perspectives on religion have elicited debate and mixed reactions over the years. All in all whether his sentiments stand the test of time or not, he must be applauded for his attempts to come up with the meaning of a prophet or a priest.
Definition of “prophet” and “priest”
Weber was not a positivist and therefore, he believed in “vest hen”. As a result of “vest hen”, he looked at the society as always seeking solutions from a higher supernatural power. Therefore, charisma and power formed important basis for his perspectives. Weber made a clear distinction between a priest and a prophet showing one as being contrary to the other. He defines a priest a part of a well organized, central unit of religious officials. Unlike a priest, a prophet was defined as the bearer of an innovative, transformed or customized religious canon or divine law, instead of a perpetuator of conventional tenets. Such a person can bring about drastic revolution and changes in a society (Johnstone, 2007).
Therefore, from that definition, Weber expressed a prophet as a charismatic leader or a person with charismatic authority who had a lot of power and charisma over the society. He can therefore influence the dynamism of the social systems including religion and politics. On the other hand, a priest is looked at as one with hierarchical or traditional power just there to meet certain tenets. Therefore a priest is less likely to initiate revolutions since he lacks charisma (Williams, 2004).
Application in modern society and discussion
Weber also asserted that priesthood in religion is basically formed by the elite and hierocracy from the beginning. On the contrary, a prophet emanates from a preacher belonging to the middle or lower social class (Johnstone, 2007). He points out that, in case of corruption and oppression in the priesthood, the prophet comes out to condemn and initiate an attempt to change the priesthood and the people as well. He expertly used illustrations from various religions like Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu and ancient Chinese religion to show the influence of a prophet in a society (Johnstone, 2007).
I agree with Weber’s sentiments on the role of a priest because for a truly religious society, they walk in the footsteps of the priest. When the priesthood is corrupt or oppressive, it roots a precedent for sacrilege and corrupt leadership. Therefore, it is under these circumstances where prophets are borne. They respond to a professed extraordinary revelation and share it with the society, often in homily form (Bodemann, 1993, p.230).
Therefore, a prophet is a competent cleric, initially conveying repentance message, and subsequently social reform. This may be true in the modern society especially in Christian circles leading to birth of various churches and faith; however, I think this is more practical in the political scenes. Weber has allied the prophet too much to religion and confined his emergence therein. However, this applicability in the contemporary world leans more on the political world than in religion. His association with social class and charismatic authority is agreeable, but it is more politically inclined than religion.
However, I do not totally agree to his classifications of prophets especially in the Christian society. For instance, his classification of Amos as a prophet and Ezekiel not being a prophet but a priest is not convincing (Williams, 2004). His insights should have been deeper in this aspect instead of applying historical facts. I disagree with the criteria that he used to classify prophets into religious strata. Unlike his argument, I believe that a prophet can arise out of any social system and thus, a priest is more likely to be bred in religious circles which do not always apply for prophets. All the same his work is commendable.
Reference list
Bodemann, M. (1993). Priests, Prophets, Jews and Germans: the political basis of Max Weber’s conception of ethno-national solidarities. European journal of sociology, 34: 224-247. Web.
Johnstone, R. (2007). Religion in Society: Sociology of Religion, 8th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Web.
Williams, D. (2004). Max Weber. Traditional Litigation, Legal Rational, And Charismatic Authority. Web.