Skip to main content
Log in

Pastoral Care of Political Discourse: Shepherding Communication

  • Published:
Pastoral Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I argue that the tradition(s) of pastoral care contributes to our understanding of Christian discipleship vis-à-vis political discourse. In particular, I understand pastoral care, in part, as shepherding political discourse. To care for and about political discourse involves a radical openness to the Other, which is made possible by the virtues of hospitality, compassion, humility, and forgiveness. The primary pastoral aim in shepherding political discourse is not the realization of political power or the realization of Christian beliefs through rhetorical coercion, evangelical assimilation, or consensus. Positively, the aim of pastoral political discourse is to shepherd the communicative processes such that there is a possibility of real meetings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, K. (1993). A history of God. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S. (1987). The generalized other and the concrete other: The Kohlberg- Gilligan controversy and feminist theory. In S. Benhabib & D. Cornell (Eds.), Feminism as critique: Essays on politics and gender (pp. 77–95). Cambridge, MA: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. New York: Charles Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (2000). Dominus Iesus. Retrieved March 18, 2008 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

  • Corradi-Fuimara, G. (1990). The other side of language: A philosophy of listening. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, E. (1990). Good and evil: Interpreting a human condition. Minneapolis: Fortress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley, E. (1996). Divine empathy. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, M. (2006). The rise of Christian nationalism. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, A. (1999). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1982). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamington, M. (2004). Embodied care. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horsely, R. (2003). Jesus and empire: The kingdom of God and the new world disorder. Minneapolis: Fortress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, J. (1999). Hospitality. In D. Freedman (Ed.), The anchor Bible dictionary (pp. 299–301). New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooy, V. H. (1962). Hospitality. In G. Buttrick (Ed.), The interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible (p. 654). Nashville: Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lao-tsu, Tao Te Ching, 31. Retrieved June 19, 2007 http://www.starstuffs.com/taoteching/30-35.htm.

  • Little, P. (1988). Simone Weil: Waiting on truth. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J. F. (1999). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmurray, J. (1957). The self as agent. London: Humanities Press International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmurray, J. (1961). Person in relation. London: Humanities Press International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson-Pallmeyer, J. (2005). Saving Christianity from empire. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). The meaning of revelation. New York: Collier Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nodding, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen, H. (1976). Reaching out: The three movements of the spiritual life. London: Collins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattison, S. (1994). Pastoral care and liberation theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, F. (1999). Globalizing care. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the ethics of care. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2005). Religion, politics, and the Christian right. Minneapolis: Fortress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tronto, J. (1994). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutu, D. (1999). No future without forgiveness. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and embrace. Nashville: Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volf, M. (2006). The end of memory. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, J. (2005). God’s politics: Why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn’t get it. San Francisco: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan LaMothe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

LaMothe, R. Pastoral Care of Political Discourse: Shepherding Communication. Pastoral Psychol 56, 467–480 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0127-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0127-0

Keywords

Navigation