In her new book, Prophecy without Contempt, Cathleen Kaveny has produced an audacious study of the historical development of the prophetic in the American public sphere. The work is rigorous scholarship, yet a wide audience will find it both accessible and worthwhile. Kaveny's command of Puritan life, politics, and theology is the most important of the book's strengths. By situating the “American Jeremiad” as not only beginning with the Puritans, but as always connecting back to that era, Kaveny makes a powerful case for the importance of early American thought for those who are seeking to understand present political theological debates in America.

Kaveny defines the prophetic voice as a part of public discourse, yet as something distinct from “moral persuasion.” The Jeremiad, she argues then, does exist in view of the people and their leaders, but it does not seek to change sensibilities or judgments through reason. Instead, the American prophet (just like the ancient Hebrew prophets) seeks to point toward a standard of objective justice that is currently being ignored or rejected by the society. Kaveny concludes that in order for this form of discourse to be continually effective, today's prophets must stick to specific issues where there is broad consensus of underlying principles and must exercise an “irony” of “humility” that will dispose their listeners to hear their message, rather than to dismiss the prophet as a moralistic lunatic.

Kaveny is to be commended for articulating her vision for the prophetic in today's environment clearly, yet it is here that the book's chief weakness begins. Specifically, her argument that the prophetic must come from broad agreement is problematic. She points toward Puritan sermons as her primary evidence that the American prophet was taken more seriously when the issues being addressed were those where agreement already existed. The first problem is that though she convincingly demonstrates the Puritans as the original source of America's prophetic tradition, she does not adequately account for the differences between Puritan America and today's America.

The obvious critique is that Puritan society was not as diverse racially, religiously, or socially as today's America. She does address this by pointing toward scholarship that argues for a more nuanced understanding of Puritan diversity than we have previously collectively held. This point is well taken; the Puritans likely were less homogenous than the way they usually appear in the American imagination. Still, their society was significantly less diverse and notably smaller than today's American political community. A deeper critique of Kaveny's use of the Puritan Jeremiad as being an exemplar for the future is that in Puritan society religious leaders wielded great formal and informal powers. A sermon by Jonathan Edwards to the community about their collective sin, for example, may have used prophetic elements, but was not a traditional full instance of the prophetic voice, since the speaker was in power and was not criticizing the political structure for its injustice. For this reason, it is not so clear that the Puritan Jeremiad was often successful due to widely shared beliefs about core issues. Rather, this seems like more of a case of powerful leaders reminding a people about their shared convictions in a way that supported the governing structures of the day. Prophecy most often, though, challenges the political or religious authorities of the time. Amos is likely the best example of this among the ancient Hebrew prophets and Kaveny's example of a great American prophet, Martin Luther King Jr., stood against the commonly held convictions of the society around him.

A further critique of the work is that Kaveny argues that the Jeremiad cannot effectively be used to critique systemic injustices, but rather should be concentrated on a specific issue. Connecting this point to the argument about the need for consensus, Kaveny fears that a prophetic voice that tries to take on an entire system will be too unwieldy to be successful. There are two essential problems with this position. The first is that American prophets who have been successful have attacked the fundamentals of an entire system of injustice: King's work on the Jim Crow South, abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass critiquing the fundamentals of American democracy, and Helen Prejean, a nun who has been active in helping turn contemporary public opinion against the death penalty. To raise a moral concern about a specific issue may take something of the prophetic in its tactic, but rhetorically assaulting an entire system as fundamentally unjust is itself the very basis of the prophetic action.

In conclusion, Kaveny's Prophecy without Contempt is a well-written, accessible, and important work for those hoping to understand the history of the prophetic in America. It will be useful to students of early American political thought, American political theology, and those interested in the rhetorical development of the intersection of religion and politics in America. The places it is lacking, though noteworthy, should not dissuade someone from reading the book and taking its contributions seriously.