Interesting topic.
I had a conversation with my priest the Sunday after Easter, where we were discussing "my" issues that will never be aired in a public forum (over the idea of which bishop might be good to invite to speak at a conference I'm going to in August). I commented that the priests and bishops who seem most likely to openly speak out on "my" issues are those who are either non-parochial or retired. She agreed (probably implying a way to be left off the hook) and differentiated between the need for being pastoral vs. the need to prophetic. (The need not to create a divisive environment.)
Unfortunately, even though we agreed, it didn't make me feel any better about the Catch 22 that I'm stuck in there. If I had read this back then, I could have accused the Church of being a "not-for-prophet institution". Great description! I think it's worth a book.
No congregation, and certainly no religious institution, really wants or welcomes any kind of prophet in their midst. (I could rattle on, but won't.) But the bottom line for me is that since no one welcomes any type of truth that causes discomfort or implies any expectations from the hearers, or "makes ancient good uncouth", nothing much will ever change in a meaningful way. And it's too bad that I feel that way about the only institution that ostensibly represents God.
S...
[appropriate hymn]
"My own hunches and experiences point to an institution that is largely disconnected from the issues, needs and hurts of the world. I have felt that the church has been distressingly silent in terms of offering prophetic commentary and moral insight for the largest problems we face. In matters of public policy and personal transformation most churches are irrelevant."
-- (the Rev.) Peter Sawtell, from "The Irrelevant Church" (9/6/02)
on behalf of those
who have no voice,
it is time to listen.
But when the name of God is used
to benefit the interests
of those who are speaking,
it is time to be very careful."
-- Jim Wallis, Who Speaks for God?
No comments:
Post a Comment