![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Pastoral and the Prophetic
Mar. 15th, 2007 09:49 pmI've been thinking about the tensions that can arise between the pastoral and the prophetic. The pastoral focusses on caring for people in the world as it is, while the prophetic speaks about how the world is not how it should be. Last night, the issue that brought this up was war. Pacifism is prophetic -- war should not be. Army chaplains are pastoral -- war exists and armies exists and people are in them and have spiritual needs. Some Christians emphasise the prophetic and speak out for peace and campaign against nuclear weapons -- such as those protesting at Faslane at the moment. Others, happier with the idea of a Just War, emphasise the pastoral and work within the system as it is. It seems to me that we need both, but too often one side or the other thinks the other is letting the side down.
I think there is an element of this split in the discussions about sexuality. To the liberals, care for people is most important. There are people who feel attracted to their own gender and why should they be penalised for something they cannot help. If a loving committed relationship with someone helps them live out their faith what's the problem? To the conservative, the prophetic is important. Christianity has a distinctive sexual ethics -- it's not just about sleeping with whoever you happen to be attracted to today -- and any change to the traditional teaching is a threat to that. Neither seems to listen to the other.
How do you promote the ideal (a lifelong committed relationship) while acknowledging that people are fallible and don't live up to that? Too often, it seems to me the church has become the `pure club' and those who don't make the grade are kept out. But that's how the pharisees worked while Jesus was alongside the tax-collectors and sinners.
TBH, I think the church needs to stop focussing on the negative (no sex before marriage etc) and focus on the positive -- the value and the joy of a committed relationship, which is about more than sex.
I think there is an element of this split in the discussions about sexuality. To the liberals, care for people is most important. There are people who feel attracted to their own gender and why should they be penalised for something they cannot help. If a loving committed relationship with someone helps them live out their faith what's the problem? To the conservative, the prophetic is important. Christianity has a distinctive sexual ethics -- it's not just about sleeping with whoever you happen to be attracted to today -- and any change to the traditional teaching is a threat to that. Neither seems to listen to the other.
How do you promote the ideal (a lifelong committed relationship) while acknowledging that people are fallible and don't live up to that? Too often, it seems to me the church has become the `pure club' and those who don't make the grade are kept out. But that's how the pharisees worked while Jesus was alongside the tax-collectors and sinners.
TBH, I think the church needs to stop focussing on the negative (no sex before marriage etc) and focus on the positive -- the value and the joy of a committed relationship, which is about more than sex.
