|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lost faith, still getting paid
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That's not what I had in mind, though. I really think belief has nothing to do with Christianity, and that nice, clear ideas about how things fit together and what everything means, what God wants, and how I am to live : these things are the enemy of faith. Faith is launching out, swimming above 30,000 fathoms. There must be no protection.
You appear to be saying that Christianity has no cognitive content, and that anybody who has "faith" can be described as a Christian. Which to my way of thinking is patent nonsense. Christianity is not just a content-free "faith-having." It is based on certain principles and beliefs, as are all religious traditions. At some point (and people will argue about what that point is), when you step beyond those central tenets, you are no longer a Christian.
OTOH perhaps you are saying that it's better to be a non-Christian with faith than a Christian without faith (however it is you're defining "faith"). That may well be so, but it's a different question as to whether or not somebody who has left Christianity (or never embraced it in the first place) should be play-acting as a leader in Christianity, outwith the knowledge of his/her congregation and (if applicable) overseers, and their approval thereof.
Patent nonsense? Thanks, Mousethief.
Christianity has no cognitive content? Not what I said, but what is the cognitive content of Christianity? You mention certain principles and beliefs? But what are they? You say people will disagree about the point at which someone steps beyond the central tenets. Doesn't this tell you something? If our central tenets, principles and beliefs, and cognitive content are impossible to agree on, maybe they don't exist? Maybe that is the wrong question to ask about Christianity?
I don't know what to make of the second part of your post. Do I detect a nervous seeking for boundaries? Is it important to be able to say who is and who is not a Christian? I note your accusation that some people, neither of us, of course, might be play acting. That's always an interesting thought. Who is authentic, who dissembling? And is the one with the mighty edifice of belief safely ticked off, assented to and memorised, in better shape than the one making it up a step at a time?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Patent nonsense? Thanks, Mousethief.
It would be amazing if nobody on the ship thought that anything anybody else on the ship posted was patent nonsense. It is indeed certainly not the case as can be easily discerned by a quick read of any contentious thread.
quote:
Christianity has no cognitive content? Not what I said, but what is the cognitive content of Christianity? You mention certain principles and beliefs? But what are they?
The Nicene/Constantinpolitan Creed.
quote:
You say people will disagree about the point at which someone steps beyond the central tenets. Doesn't this tell you something? If our central tenets, principles and beliefs, and cognitive content are impossible to agree on, maybe they don't exist?
No, it doesn't tell me that at all. It tells me some people are wrong but that wasn't the argument I wanted to get into on this particular thread, as it doesn't seem particularly relevant.
quote:
Maybe that is the wrong question to ask about Christianity?
It is certainly not the only question to ask about Christianity. But it's far from being a bad question to ask, let alone the wrong one.
quote:
I don't know what to make of the second part of your post. Do I detect a nervous seeking for boundaries?
No, and I'll thank you not to try to psychoanalyze me.
quote:
Is it important to be able to say who is and who is not a Christian?
No. It is important to be able to say what is and what isn't a Christian belief. Many people confuse the two.
quote:
I note your accusation that some people, neither of us, of course, might be play acting.
These people are the topic of this thread.
quote:
That's always an interesting thought. Who is authentic, who dissembling?
The one who believes in the tenets s/he says s/he believes is authentic; the one who is lying about that is dissembling. I should think this was obvious.
quote:
And is the one with the mighty edifice of belief safely ticked off
Where did "mighty edifice" come from? Certainly not from what I wrote. This kind of straw man greatly muddies the waters of debate. (Sorry to mix metaphors there.)
quote:
assented to and memorised, in better shape than the one making it up a step at a time?
Ah, that's the point I made in the second half of my post. It may be that somebody who believes what his/her congregation expect that they believe is not in good a shape as someone else. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are presenting themselves as something other than they are. Which is what this thread is about.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I find it hard to know how to respond to someone who tells me what I say is patent nonsense. It is true that we all think it from time to time, but it's something else to say it. It's usually the end of a conversation, but you seem to want to talk. I'm not convinced you will receive anything else I say in good faith, though.
There's a bigger issue, though. As is clear, I think faith is about learning and therefore about not knowing, about change and growth and therefore about being willing to question and let go of what we thought before. It's about living with uncertainty. And I think all of this is properly biblical and faithful to the God we meet in Christ.
But it is not only different from the more positivist, clear and certain approach you have, it also leaves me at a disadvantage. You say x,y and z and I say maybe and perhaps. I'm not sure how to engage with someone who knows exactly what they think. My position looks and feels weak. I don't have answers to the questions you ask, or equivalent convictions to respond to yours. I don't think the truth can be expressed in the definite way you do. I think it is part of the nature of God that God does not give Godself to human knowledge. (Sorry about the ugly phrase.)
So I'm not sure what to make of someone who tells me that I am plain wrong about God.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think you are, to an extent, missing the point - the issue is not so much about what and how you believe as whether that is consistent with what whichever church you happen to be part of professes corporately. And how far away from that corporate belief, for how long, can you be whilst authentically claiming to lead, spiritually guide, counsel and advise those who belong to that denomination.
If I presented myself as a Roman Catholic priest I would be lying, I am female, not ordained and don't share their beliefs about large parts of their tradition. It doesn't mean I don't have an authentic faith, just that I am not a Roman Catholic.
I may not know exactly what the elders leading my meeting worship believe - but know they are not necessarily Christian. This presents no contradiction, within my specific tradition. I happen to be a Christian, if I attend worship in a mainstream Christian church, I do so with the expectation that those leading worship have not decided they don't believe in the nicene creed. I believe that that expecatation is reasonable, and true of the vast majority of congregants.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Perhaps, hatless, if you think Christianity has no cognitive content, and I do, we've just reached an impasse. We may have to agree to disagree on that.
But you still aren't answering the point about somebody presenting themself to their congregation as believing something they do not. That's what this thread is about. I kept trying to come back to this, and you keep not addressing it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
I should like to link back to one of the first threads on this board, where so many posters said that, when they came out as losing their faith, their erstwhile Christian "friends" dumped them.
So I should like to ask all of you here who are so adamant that a minister who loses his faith should give up his job, his house, everything. You who are exhibiting no understanding, no pity.
Once the minister has done want you want and resigned, do you believe the congregation should treat him as a human being and seek out opportunities for ongoing contact with your ex-minister? Or should he be treated as an apostate, a threat to your congregation, someone to be dumped?
Would you, personally, be amongst the dumpers?
Your posts tell me that you would be. Prove me wrong!
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
But there is variation in the beliefs of members and clergy of all denominations, even between the Pope and his cardinals. Creeds have to be interpreted, and it's incredibly hard to be precise about what they mean and whether this or that opinion passes the test.
And in any case, belief is trivial. Opinions about what is the case is mere conjecture. What counts is faith, which is our attitude to reality - what is the case. That's why creeds are largely not a set of propositions, but a celebration of the meaning of the Christian story.
If the story of Jesus leaves you cold, then you don't belong in a church, let alone in its ordained ministry, but what you believe about miracles, the authorship of scripture, the virginity of Mary, the date of Jesus' birth and so on are of no determinative significance.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And in any case, belief is trivial.
You're not getting this. YOU believe belief is trivial. I, and many many others, do not.
It does nothing in a discussion between us to flatly state, "Belief is trivial," as if that settled anything. As I said, we need to agree to disagree on this, because you aren't going to persuade me of anything by simply stating flatly something I think is patently false.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Your posts tell me that you would be. Prove me wrong!
And how, exactly, can we do that? Even if we say, "I wouldn't dump him" does that prove anything?
I have many friends, and two children, who have abandoned their faith, and they are still my friends and still my beloved children. Does that prove anything? No. Not to someone who is inclined to judge me as being a heartless bitch from my hardly un-understandable notion that somebody who is leading a faith community ought to share their faith.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Your posts tell me that you would be. Prove me wrong!
How?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Well let's see. In the thread you started you referred to someone who had lost their faith and asked you to stop contact.
Your choice of understanding was either "was she an asshole?" or, "is this typical of you atheist deconverts", i.e. are you all assholes? You never seemed to want to reflect on the examples in front of your eyes that Christians are likely to dump their friends. I.e. wouldn't she want to cut her losses before the inevitable happened.
Also your contributions over time on anything to do with atheism and loss of faith reveal a deep antipathy to "apostates". Perhaps you need to prove a bit harder.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Your posts tell me that you would be. Prove me wrong!
How?
Is it that difficult? Give it a go. Think "Jesus Christ". It might be a start.
BTW would you like to address the bulk of my post?
[ 11. January 2015, 00:22: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The vast majority of people I know are atheists, finding out someone I know irl is a Christian is something of a novelty.
I stay in touch with people I have a relationship with, their faith doesn't determine that. Whether I stayed in touch with someone who left my meeting for worship would depend on whether I actually knew them personally.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Once the minister has done want you want and resigned, do you believe the congregation should treat him as a human being and seek out opportunities for ongoing contact with your ex-minister?
Well, of course he's a human being. He doesn't stop being my brother, formed in God's image, just because he stopped believing in God.
What would I like to see happen? I have nailed my colours pretty firmly to the mast and said that a priest who has lost faith should be removed from his post. I think it would be a good thing if his denomination found work for him for a few months while he made new plans - no, this isn't what you'd expect from a normal employer, but the church isn't a normal employer, and the priesthood isn't a normal job. It's not appropriate that he function as a priest, but presumably he can do the filing or make the tea or something. I suspect that doesn't happen, though.
Should his ex-congregation try to maintain ongoing contact with him? As a corporate body, that sounds rather awkward - they're hardly going to invite him back to preach one Sunday.
Speaking purely personally, my current priest is a friend as well as a priest, and I would still expect to enjoy the occasional dinner were he to lose his faith - I don't see a reason for our personal relationship to change. I just wouldn't see him on Sundays much. My previous priest was someone I had no particular personal relationship with, so in his case, I'd expect to say hello if I ran into him in the supermarket, but little else.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
You never seemed to want to reflect on the examples in front of your eyes that Christians are likely to dump their friends.
I have no problem reflecting on that. I most expressly told Potoroo on some thread or other that I do not do that, and look askance on people who do. She seemed satisfied. Some people never are.
quote:
I.e. wouldn't she want to cut her losses before the inevitable happened.
I don't recall anybody mentioning this. The consensus of the atheists on the thread seemed to be that she was being an asshole, but I suppose this is possible. What's your point then? Serves me right?
quote:
Also your contributions over time on anything to do with atheism and loss of faith reveal a deep antipathy to "apostates". Perhaps you need to prove a bit harder.
You mean on this thread? No, my antipathy is to people presenting themselves falsely. If you find in that a deep antipathy to "apostates" you need to try a bit harder to see what I'm saying. And look at the other threads where I have talked about apostates. Since you seem incapable of doing that, I will do it for you. Consider it a free blessing from a Christian.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I have often told atheist friends I'd pray for them. Not for them to return to the fold, however. But for their lumbago, their job situation, whatever. I told them this makes me feel better. This is in addition to offering to do whatever is within my power to help them.
It's never been rebuffed.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is when someone says "I realised today that I am gay" or "I have left the church", or anything else that is seen as a positive by the poster (or commenter) to then respond with "I will pray for you" is abusive and hurtful.
I agree that it would be perceived as such, and should not be presented that way. If someone said, "I realized today that I am gay," my response would be (and has been), "well, I love you no matter what, and now as always before if there's something i can do to help you, please let me know."
For the latter, "I am an atheist now," the response is similar: "Well, I love you no matter what. If you have examined all the evidence and come to that conclusion, then that's where you are, and I will accept and love you just as I always have. I can't tell anyone to do any differently, because that's how I came to be where I am. That kind of examination may lead people in different directions, and if you're okay with that, then so am I."
Then I try to be the best friend/father/cousin/uncle/whatever to them as I can. And if anything about them needs to change, then it's out of my hands, other than to support them with love. If God exists and wants more than that, She's going to have to do it some other way because that's all I can give.
Now if you could see to stop misrepresenting me, I would greatly appreciate it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In fact, look for your name in Hell.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Your posts tell me that you would be. Prove me wrong!
How?
Is it that difficult? Give it a go. Think "Jesus Christ". It might be a start.
BTW would you like to address the bulk of my post?
Nothing I say here is going to prove you right or wrong. I can claim all sorts of things about myself, and you have no way of verifying them.
But as to the rest of your post: when I quit Christianity, my Christian friends dropped me, and when I came back to it, I lost a couple of non-Christian friends. I didn't do the dumping in either case. Also, as I don't make being a Christian a requirement for friendship, I'd have no reason to drop a friend if he or she lost faith or abandoned Christianity.
But that is not proof of anything.
I will add that the charges of not showing any understanding or pity are way off-base. Several of us who are saying that a faithless person cannot and should serve as a minister or priest have said that we do think the church should make some provision for such a person, not simply boot them out on their ass.
Many of the threads on this board are all about the hurt feelings of people who have lost their faith and/or left the church, but my experience is of the long and painful aftermath in a church where the priest who lost his faith didn't leave, which is exactly what this thread is about. It took the better part of two decades before the church had really worked through the accumulated ugliness and bad feeling that worked its way into the systemic functioning of the church during his tenure. I was senior warden for two of those years. It was awful. So my sympathy for someone who would contemplate creating such a situation is only going to go so far.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I should like to link back to one of the first threads on this board, where so many posters said that, when they came out as losing their faith, their erstwhile Christian "friends" dumped them.
It's commonly reported that when a person leaves a church to move to a different church, rarely are any former church friendships maintained. It's not about "Christian vs atheist"; the friendship was just a single shared interest in that one church. When that single interest is no longer shared, the relationship has no ongoing glue.
Same thing if you leave a model railroad club or hiking or skiing club: if the friendships were focused on club activities, there's no friendship glue after there is no longer a common interest.
So yes I expect most who leave Christianity don't hear from their former friends because they no longer have anything to talk about. It feels like rejection if we were under the illusion (taught by too many churches) that the cheerful greetings Sunday morning expressed deep personal interest in us, when in fact there was never any deep inter-personal connection.
My atheist friends are more open about having one or two, rarely three real friends. They don't refer to everyone they meet as friends, nor attend clubs that pretend the members all love each other. But yes, the transition to the more honest world outside church can be a shock.
Would a congregation continue to seek out the advice and company of a clergy person who quit Christianity? If their only topic had been church matters, the shared reason to spend time together is gone. But if they went hiking together and often argued about sports and politics and traded concerns on helping the kids with homework (all from a faith-irrelevant view), that friendship that would probably continue even if one or the other left Christianity.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
It's commonly reported that when a person leaves a church to move to a different church, rarely are any former church friendships maintained. It's not about "Christian vs atheist"; the friendship was just a single shared interest in that one church. When that single interest is no longer shared, the relationship has no ongoing glue.
It's exactly the same when you change jobs. I think there's a term, something like "job friend" that refers to people you enjoy spending time with at work, maybe go out to lunch with all the time, but when you get a different job, the relationship ends.
On the other hand, if you are friends with the person outside of the church context -- frequent visitors in each other's homes, do things together other than worship and drink coffee in the fellowship hall, and THAT person dumps you when you apostatize, then you have indeed a legitimate reason to think they have rejected you because of your apostasy. And that sucks, and has to hurt. Being rejected by a friend -- and not just a during-church friend, but a "RL" friend -- is a horrible pain. As I have discovered many times, alas.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Sometimes, too, the break can happen when a friend makes some kind of life change--moving, marriage, becoming a parent. Even with a good friendship. Sometimes, the person who's changing copes by letting go of people.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's exactly the same when you change jobs. I think there's a term, something like "job friend" that refers to people you enjoy spending time with at work, maybe go out to lunch with all the time, but when you get a different job, the relationship ends.
An interesting and relevant comparison, however there are some important differences - at least in my experience.
Firstly, I lose touch with my work colleagues often because I am now spending my time in a different place - no longer at the same pub or sandwich place, and it may prove very difficult to get there. The physical differences play an important part, in a way that they are less liable to when you leave a church (which is probably more local).
Secondly, I have kept in touch with ex-work colleagues for some time. OK, it eventually dropped, because of time, but it is not a necessity to lose touch. If the friendships are genuine - and within a church they really should be - then they can continue. Obviously not all, but some.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Potoroo
Shipmate
# 13466
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I most expressly told Potoroo on some thread or other that I do not do that, and look askance on people who do. She seemed satisfied.
Yes, I am satisfied that this is true. And I can confirm that my lack of religion is not something that has ever bothered mousethief.
--------------------
Gilbert's Potoroo is Australia's most endangered animal.
Posts: 2778 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I should like to ask all of you here who are so adamant that a minister who loses his faith should give up his job, his house, everything. You who are exhibiting no understanding, no pity.
I suppose you could say that the congregation deserve some pity too: is it the congregation's fault that the minister has lost his faith but still wants to 'minister' to them because he can't get other work or housing of a similar quality? The congregation might well feel a bit used in this case.
This discussion is a bit hypothetical, though, because each situation will be different in any number of ways. At the end of the day, disgruntled worshippers are always free to walk away from their church if they don't agree with their minister. It happens all the time.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
At the end of the day, disgruntled worshippers are always free to walk away from their church if they don't agree with their minister. It happens all the time.
Members are free to leave 'at the drop of a hat'. Ministers are not, usually. That's the point for me.
If ministers are under an obligation to keep their faith ( ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) members are also under an obligation to show some love and tolerance.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If the friendships are genuine - and within a church they really should be
Where does this piece of prime nonsense come from? I don't choose the people I work with, and I don't choose the people I worship with.
The people I work with are collaborators in a shared effort. I am friendly towards them, and we help each other out to achieve our common goals. A few of them are actual friends who I would keep in touch with if I moved, but most aren't.
Similarly, the people I worship with form my Christian community. We help each other out, encourage each other in faith and worship and so on. I am friendly towards them, but only a small number are actual friends that I would keep in touch with separately.
This doesn't mean that I'm not genuine towards those in my church, or those I work with. It just means that, outside our shared Christian goals and outlook, there are lots of people at Church I don't have much in common with. Similarly, mousethief's "work friends" are people whose company I enjoy at work, but I don't have enough in common with for us to be unqualified friends.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And in any case, belief is trivial.
You're not getting this. YOU believe belief is trivial. I, and many many others, do not.
It does nothing in a discussion between us to flatly state, "Belief is trivial," as if that settled anything. As I said, we need to agree to disagree on this, because you aren't going to persuade me of anything by simply stating flatly something I think is patently false.
I did explain it, though. That was the rest of the paragraph. Not just a flat statement.
But you're probably right that we need to disagree. I don't think you're getting it, you don't think I am ..
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
It's commonly reported that when a person leaves a church to move to a different church, rarely are any former church friendships maintained. It's not about "Christian vs atheist"; the friendship was just a single shared interest in that one church.
Just to add: there is an understanding in some denominations, mostly adhered to in my experience, that when a minister leaves a congregation he/she should not remain in contact with the church. Of course, some friendships may continue, but the bulk of the contacts will disappear. There is good reason for this policy. I have known a case where it was not followed and it made things difficult. In my own case, I retired and a few years later gave-up on GOD, and the policy of cutting-off links with my old church, which I was happily committed to, left me feeling rather alone (partly this was my fault).
But this doesn't apply to congregational members.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If the friendships are genuine - and within a church they really should be
Where does this piece of prime nonsense come from? I don't choose the people I work with, and I don't choose the people I worship with.
Not all of them, obviously. I would have thought those with whom I have a shared interest and explore this within the church context, like, for example, the music group, might be considered real friends. I might not choose them, but I find common purpose with them.
In work, I will try not to antagonise anyone, because it is politically damaging to do so. I might not like them, but I will be courteous. At church, this is not always so - I will have those I find more common cause with, and those I don't. I would hope those I find agreement with, I might have actual friends among.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
At the end of the day, disgruntled worshippers are always free to walk away from their church if they don't agree with their minister. It happens all the time.
Members are free to leave 'at the drop of a hat'. Ministers are not, usually. That's the point for me.
If ministers are under an obligation to keep their faith ( ) members are also under an obligation to show some love and tolerance.
No one's under any obligation to do anything! However, you've presented a good argument for abolishing the paid ministry. Christianity is in such a fragile state in the modern Western world that it seems a bit unwise to end up in a situation where, to the untrained eye, your livelihood depends on your maintaining a particular world view. The tentmaker model of ministry has a lot to recommend it; if you lose your religion you don't need religious people to continue paying you, because they weren't paying you in the first place!
However, as I said, each situation is different. Most paid clergy now enter the profession after having done something else, so they don't have to feel trapped in the ministry if they lose their faith. I get the impression that considerable numbers of the clergy do leave the profession for one reason or another, so it is doable.
Moreover, I'm a Methodist, and Methodist clergy and their families frequently have to change churches and districts every 5 years. Their life isn't built around staying in one clergy house, bonding with one community, or sending their children to one school.
OTOH, historical mainstream churches like the Methodists do tend to be fairly tolerant. And the CofE openly encompasses ministers with widely differing beliefs, so it can't be the norm for their clergy to be driven out of the ministry for mere theological differences. If their life is made intolerable in one congregation (for whatever reason) I presume they can find work elsewhere in the church, since some parts of the CofE are short of clergy.
Finally, it occurs to me that in a congregation where many members may be unemployed, or in low-paid, insecure jobs, and where they may live in unappealing rented housing, the argument that their de-converted minister's secure life should be maintained out of love and tolerance might not wash very well! But maybe that combination of circumstances is quite rare.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
No one's under any obligation to do anything!
I disagree. A number of people here seem to be saying that ministers are under some sort of obligation to keep the faith if they want to keep their job.
As for the laity, The Bible teaches that love between believers is obligatory, or so it seems to me.
However, you've presented a good argument for abolishing the paid ministry.
I have? I could do far better than that! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Firstly, I lose touch with my work colleagues often because I am now spending my time in a different place - no longer at the same pub or sandwich place, and it may prove very difficult to get there. The physical differences play an important part, in a way that they are less liable to when you leave a church (which is probably more local).
I don't understand this at all. If I leave a church, I'm no longer in weekly contact with the people at church, just as when I leave a job I'm no longer in daily contact with the people at work. It's the exact same thing. If anything I'd have more reason to keep up with the people from work because I saw them 5 times as much.
quote:
Secondly, I have kept in touch with ex-work colleagues for some time. OK, it eventually dropped, because of time, but it is not a necessity to lose touch.
I have not said it was a necessity. I am describing a thing that happens in life, all the time. It's not a necessity. It's a pattern. A very common, one might almost say universal pattern. One must be very intentional to maintain friendships that are context-derived.
quote:
If the friendships are genuine - and within a church they really should be - then they can continue. Obviously not all, but some.
The question is not the genuinity. It's the contextuality. If the friendship is entirely within the walls of the church, then when you leave those walls, you leave the context of the friendship, however genuine it might be. If I never have you over to my home, ever, why would I all of a sudden start just because I leave your church (or vice versa)? I can't see that making any sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
If ministers are under an obligation to keep their faith ( ) members are also under an obligation to show some love and tolerance.
True. But tolerance of what? At some point, the minister's lack of faith becomes intolerable.
quote:
Just to add: there is an understanding in some denominations, mostly adhered to in my experience, that when a minister leaves a congregation he/she should not remain in contact with the church. Of course, some friendships may continue, but the bulk of the contacts will disappear. There is good reason for this policy.
Is this a policy? I would have said it's just a dynamic about how human relationships work. Relationships that are dependent upon a certain commonality, will fall away when the commonality no longer exists. That isn't anybody's policy; it's just life.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
A number of people here seem to be saying that ministers are under some sort of obligation to keep the faith if they want to keep their job.
As for the laity, The Bible teaches that love between believers is obligatory, or so it seems to me.
Well, I think there has to be some sort of unity between minister and members. Otherwise, I don't know how there can be a successfully functioning church. Regarding love, sometimes it's easier to love a family member if they're not living in the same house as you. That's real life.
A congregation might not see their minister's journey into non-belief as a detriment to church health or unity. If so, that's great for all concerned. But I can't see how any minister could reasonably take this indifference or tolerance for granted, except in the most liberal of congregations.
Maybe a shrewd and virtuosic preacher could manage to convince his congregation in his sermons and other meetings, but I think most ministers find it hard to convey serious theological matters to their congregations at the best of times. If they haven't managed to guide a congregation towards extensive theological tolerance over the course of a career they're not going to do so after having lost their belief in God....
However, it would be interesting to hear some positive examples of how this kind of situation has worked in real life. There's the Klass Hendrikse case mentioned above. The USA must provide some interesting examples.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can think of plenty of instances where a 'tent-maker' ministry applies - and not just within small, independent churches and congregations. It's the default position for many Orthodox priests in the UK, for instance - many of him have other jobs.
There are also non-stipendiary ministers of various kinds in various denominations.
If an unpaid ministry approach is necessitated by economic circumstances in particular areas - then yes, it's an option worth considering in those instances.
The CofE, though, for various reasons, is committed to the idea of a paid clergy person in every parish or community ... which may not be sustainable longer term of course.
At which point, it may well be reviewed.
I'm not sure a 'blanket' ruling can be applied on any of this - but I agree that there is scope for experimentation with different models.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this a policy? I would have said it's just a dynamic about how human relationships work. Relationships that are dependent upon a certain commonality, will fall away when the commonality no longer exists. That isn't anybody's policy; it's just life.
My understanding is that it is a policy in Methodism, and I thought it is the same in the CofE. I think it might be the same in the URC, but I am not sure.
I should have said that it is for a period - 2 years I think is what is advised. And maybe it is not a written-down policy but I have heard it so many times that it seems to be a 'policy'.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually first came across this policy in the Episcopalian Church of Scotland and there it was one year. This was back in the 1980s. So it is not just English non-conformists.
AFAIK the URC discourages ministers from retiring and becoming members of any of the congregations they have served.
However, there are solid pastoral reasons for this. The congregation needs time to mourn the end of a pastoral ministry before it can move on. If the previous minister is still too close there is a tendency for this to prolong the time of mourning.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It's also so that people can't go to the old Minister and tell them how awful they think the new one is, and they don't like all the changes s/he's bringing in, and things were much better in the old days ... and asking said retired minister to interfere (which they won't).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
It's commonly reported that when a person leaves a church to move to a different church, rarely are any former church friendships maintained. It's not about "Christian vs atheist"; the friendship was just a single shared interest in that one church. When that single interest is no longer shared, the relationship has no ongoing glue.
That's a good argument for encouraging church community life that isn't just about meeting in the church building for an hour every Sunday morning.
I've noticed in one place close by me, that from time to time congregation members leave the congregation, but still attend the bowls club, or the drama group, or the BB, or the flea-market based at and run largely by other church members. So although they're no longer fellow worshippers they still maintain those specific friendships and have peripheral contact with the former community.
I don't think this particular congregation is any less judgemental or open-hearted than any other. But the dynamics of having shared more than a pew for sixty minutes out of every week, could be said to have helped build up a real fellowship and genuine interest in others.
I'm also aware that many people who attend church together are also neighbours - have been for decades - and have been friends, initiated through church contact for a long, long time. Which also seems to ensure that a friendship continues, even when congregational membership breaks off.
So maybe it's about what else the church - as a community - does when it finishes its hymn-sacrament-sermon sandwich on a Sunday that makes the difference for those who move on, but may still find it good to retain those genuine friendships.
The lost faith of a church leader is a tricky question. The leader who knows absolutely that they are an atheist after many years of faithful belief and service is, in one sense, very fortunate, in that it would be clear to him/her that his path lies elsewhere. But the deeply agnostic leader who has been moving for years towards atheism, whilst still exercising faithful ministry, is another case altogether, I think.
A kind of baffled 'how did I get here' and 'is this is where I am for always' thing.
Rather like the 32 stone person who looks back at the time they could effortlessly maintain their size 12 figure, and wonders what went wrong. And even then, is it still too late? Who's to say.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I just thought I'd post this article about 'atheist priests'.
The article implies that there's a considerable demand for atheistic churchiness but I'm not sure that this is the case to any large extent in the UK, outside of London and a small number of other sophisticated towns. If there were, then atheist priests would be doing more to meet that demand. However, my local Methodist circuit has successfully provided a forum for non-orthodox believers to discuss what they (don't) believe. I don't know if this has ever included discussions about Christian atheism.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Thanks for the article. I found it helpful.
I would find it interesting on this thread to hear more first-hand experiences, rather than statements about what other people should do. The linked article is one such example. RuthW has talked about her own church's experience, although without details. Mark Wuntoo has talked here and elsewhere about his own journey.
What other experiences do posters here have, whether good or bad, either of your own loss of faith in a paid church position, or knowing someone in a paid church position with a loss of faith?
[ 11. January 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I can't think of anyone I know who has lost faith. I've known people who, through depression or bereavement have come to find ministry a burden. I've known people who lost faith in the church, or felt so rejected and unsupported that they had to leave.
I'm a Baptist, and most of our churches contain people with a more or less conservative theology. More liberal ministers sometimes feel they have to express themselves with care to avoid triggering a 'you're not a proper Christian' reaction. That can make things heavy going, a bit like being a politician, I suppose. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it. But though it might make someone long for a less conservative church, I don't think it amounts to a ministry ending crisis.
I think a loss of faith crisis will probably be complex, and feel like a falling out of love with Christianity. Beliefs, that is, conjectures about unknowns, come and go with changing evidence. It's your personal attitude that is decisive; do you care any more about the Gospel? In my experience, even those who leave continue to have that sort of a Christian hope.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Potoroo
Shipmate
# 13466
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I would find it interesting on this thread to hear more first-hand experiences...
Me, too.
--------------------
Gilbert's Potoroo is Australia's most endangered animal.
Posts: 2778 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm a Baptist, and most of our churches contain people with a more or less conservative theology. More liberal ministers sometimes feel they have to express themselves with care to avoid triggering a 'you're not a proper Christian' reaction. That can make things heavy going, a bit like being a politician, I suppose.
I hope this isn't too much of a tangent, but do such clergy ever leave to find positions in more liberal denominations? Or is it just easier to remain in the Baptist Church, which is, after all, in a healthier state than some of the more liberal alternatives?
BTW, I agree with statements made above that more first hand experiences of the situation in the OP would be good. But this is an issue that also deserves comment from ordinary laypeople who are trying to cling to faith, and to the life of the church. After all, any atheist (or very liberal) clergy who remain in post will be teaching and preaching among the likes of us first and foremost, not to the people who've left!
(Of course, the clergy also play an important role in their local communities, especially in the CofE.)
[ 12. January 2015, 00:49: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think a loss of faith crisis will probably be complex, and feel like a falling out of love with Christianity.
I think it was Spong who used the phrase 'believers in exile'
How can we sing the Lord's song \\ in the foreigner's land?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm a Baptist, ...More liberal ministers sometimes feel they have to express themselves with care to avoid triggering a 'you're not a proper Christian' reaction.
do such clergy ever leave to find positions in more liberal denominations?
In my ignorance, I assume it's difficult to change denominations as clergy. Baptist to CofE for example, the Baptist ordination would not transfer, right? No "apostolic succession" in the Baptist ordination. Would it require 8 years of discernment and seminary to make the switch? CofE to Baptist might be easier?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think a loss of faith crisis will probably be complex, and feel like a falling out of love with Christianity.
I use to hang out at "lost my faith" websites out of curiosity. If I remember correctly, some people said it felt like waking up, some just gradually drifted into disinterest, many expressed relief and joy. Lots of complaint and resentment about remembered abuse by churches (time/money/personhood abuse).
So, like falling out of love? I suppose so, in all the ways that happens, from waking into realization "this relationship is destructive to me" to gradual disinterest to sense of relief and joyful freedom in walking away.
Lots and lots of anger at the past relationship, similar to after a messy divorce, but that had more to do with church than specifically God. Like - "where a God when this really bad thing happened to me" would be coupled with greater anger at the people who added to the pain instead of helping.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In my ignorance, I assume it's difficult to change denominations as clergy. Baptist to CofE for example, the Baptist ordination would not transfer, right? No "apostolic succession" in the Baptist ordination. Would it require 8 years of discernment and seminary to make the switch? CofE to Baptist might be easier?
Perhaps not as long as that. I knew one Baptist who did a year at Mirfield and was then re-ordained in the CofE. And I know another Minister who started out Baptist, became URC, and is now Anglican. So it can be done: but it's neither simple nor automatic.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm a Baptist, and most of our churches contain people with a more or less conservative theology. More liberal ministers sometimes feel they have to express themselves with care to avoid triggering a 'you're not a proper Christian' reaction. That can make things heavy going, a bit like being a politician, I suppose. It's not just what you say, it's how you say it. But though it might make someone long for a less conservative church, I don't think it amounts to a ministry ending crisis.
Yes. And, of course, there have been many times over the last 50 years where some members of the Baptist "hierarchy" and "academy" have been more liberal than the denomination as a whole, which has caused problems. But it is important that such folk remain within the denomination, to give it a breadth which it would otherwise lose.
IMO the more liberal congregations know who they are (although I suspect that most are still more conservative than some in the URC or Methodists).
Strangely enough, when I have spoken at other Baptist churches in our town and brought a more liberal view to bear than the one they would normally expect to hear, I have always found that people have welcomed it more than I had anticipated.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Belle Ringer:
quote:
So, like falling out of love? I suppose so, in all the ways that happens, from waking into realization "this relationship is destructive to me" to gradual disinterest to sense of relief and joyful freedom in walking away.
Lots and lots of anger at the past relationship, similar to after a messy divorce, but that had more to do with church than specifically God. Like - "where a God when this really bad thing happened to me" would be coupled with greater anger at the people who added to the pain instead of helping.
I was very young when converted to Christianity – it was to a ‘Personal Saviour’ so, by definition almost, it was emotional. I suppose I felt glad to be ‘saved’, even ‘for eternity’. I can’t really say I felt the overwhelming joy that some converts testify to. I can’t say I grieved for what I left behind - I wasn’t a terrible sinner at eight years old! However, I can say that love for Jesus and God came gradually, until it could be said to be ‘real’.
It was very different when I converted to non-theism. Once I started asking questions the answers came rapidly. I felt tremendous relief from a sort of shackling and a joy of freedom quickly arrived. I didn’t feel anger at the church – well maybe some but it wasn’t a major reaction because I had virtually given-up on church some years before. Whilst still in the church I felt some frustration with God – because my understanding of the Bible had taught me that miracles happen, that God will defend the poor / needy / oppressed by direct action. Once I had made the decision, I didn’t feel anger at GOD – I had arrived at a belief that there is no GOD so how could I be angry at him/her/it?
So, summing-up, I think my second conversion to non-theism was much more like the conversion to Jesus that many testify of. More like ‘falling in love’ than ‘falling out of love’.
As Potoroo helpfully said somewhere, we all are different because we have different types of personalities.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Falling out of love could well be a good analogy - some people who fall out of love decide to split up, others decide that their decision was for life, so they will doggedly continue with the marriage, whatever it holds, despite no longer being in love. Ministers who continue to minister, and congregation members who continue to attend church, may well choose to be in this latter category.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There have been many times over the last 50 years where some members of the Baptist "hierarchy" and "academy" have been more liberal than the denomination as a whole, which has caused problems. But it is important that such folk remain within the denomination, to give it a breadth which it would otherwise lose.
IMO the more liberal congregations know who they are (although I suspect that most are still more conservative than some in the URC or Methodists).
Strangely enough, when I have spoken at other Baptist churches in our town and brought a more liberal view to bear than the one they would normally expect to hear, I have always found that people have welcomed it more than I had anticipated.
I agree that it's not the job of a minister simply to give the congregation what they want (although I think this is a temptation for all clergy, not simply those working with evangelical congregations). But surely it makes sense for more liberal ministers, Baptist or otherwise, to find posts with more liberal congregations, rather than getting jobs with more conservative ones and then having to censor themselves or be 'political', as hatless puts it.
As I've implied before, ISTM that the clergy/laity divide emphasises the differences in theological awareness and approach between the two groups. I think the gap is likely to increase, although the challenge of atheist clergy hoping to keep their jobs may partly solve itself in the UK as fewer and fewer churches will be able to afford full-time clergy anyway.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
