Saturday, July 08, 2006

Let's Play: Who Said That?

"A prophet is meant to be a nuisance, asking such questions precisely when we think we have so ordered our Church, community, society or relationships as not to exclude."

Find the answer here.

4 comments:

Renee in Ohio said...

That would be Rowan. I didn't click the link--I Googled. :-)

Okay, who said this?

That's part of our culture out here--the great wide spaces around us, the beauty of the physical environment in which we live, I think invites people to see the holy in their surroundings. And the gifts of the faith community have to do with seeing the holy in other human beings, and I think that's the part that people might miss if they're worshiping in the cathedral of the forest.

Click here for the answer.

Anonymous said...

Who also said --

"The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right."

I don't know how to do the link -- but it so recent you will no doubt remember it.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Susan for drawing that whole piece to our attention. It is well worthwhile reading. For those interested the link is here:

http://www.thepastoralreview.org/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?priestsppl-00034

Some of the other quotes that resonated with me were:

There is an asceticism about the prophetic task. Living prophetically takes it for granted that at some level you have learned discrimination. That is to say, that you have learnt not to believe everything you are told, not to love everything you see but to look and listen with a wholeness of imagination, a wholeness of the heart, so that you may find or see yourself 'redescribed by God'.

and

Racism and international debt - we understand a bit about these and they are probably areas where all liberal, well-meaning Christians can find common ground. But the ethics of abortion, the ethics of sexism are two areas where people do not habitually get together, yet both raise precisely the question of whose voice is being occluded and who is being unilaterally defined by someone else. The defence of the unborn is so often seen as a right-wing concern and the defence of women's liberties as a left-wing one to the extent that commitment to one generally seems to rule out commitment to the other. A properly prophetic voice would challenge such a schism of concern in the strongest terms.

and

We should all like very much, in every moral debate we can think of, to come to a conclusion that will not cost anyone anything: and this, of course, has now been enshrined as political wisdom. But think of two issues - the debate about abortion and the debate about Northern Ireland. Both are regularly, conducted in ways which slither away from the inevitable reality of cost, from the pain that is diffused over the whole situation. The prophet may very well be called upon to say something clear, but woe betide the prophet if he or she attempts to speak of the unavoidable cost for all in such a situation.

and

It's very seductive to suppose that the 'prophetic' voice or the 'prophetic' calling is a way in which the rather prosaic modern Christian, especially the modern Christian with some degree of access to the public ear, may somehow take on the mantle of high drama. This is a seduction that needs a lot of vigilance to avoid.

There is so much more there though than just these short quotes so it would be worth reading it for yourself

inked said...

Prophets are "forth-tellers" not future tellers. What they tell forth is nuisance to those who wish to live their lives apart from God's revealed Word. Elijah and Elisha continually recalled Israel and those without to YHWH, not syncretism to the ascendant culture. In fact, they insisted that cultural and political affiliation with false gods always led away from YHWH. History honors their observations in the decorations of their tombs, but scarcely heeds their call to obedience. This indeed is what ECUSA's failure to be specifically Christian has wrought, we have syncretized with cultural gods of current concepts of justice and rights while ignoring our responsibility to be formed by Christ. And this culpability has extended its dysfunction into the Anglican Communion. ECUSA ignored the intervention, mild as it was in the Windsor Report, and now finds itself under the natural, created consequence - judgment. So will CoE in regards to female bishops and the Greek and Roman Tradition. It is good to recall that there are two categories of prophet: false versus true. Choose "your" prophet and takes your chances! Step right up, folks!

Is it all a crap shoot? In all the metaphorical and literal implications of that phrase? Or is there a way that leads to life with God rather than merely seeming right to man or woman or homosexual or transgendered or bisexuals? Is there a discoverable absolute to which obedience is due despite our "personal" stances? The CHURCH says it is Jesus Christ and the moral law and the natural law satisfied by grace and the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension. I take the prophets with the 4000+ year track record, myself.