|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lost faith, still getting paid
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
I don't see it as lying but as doing the job. In the same way that a significant number of CofE priests continue doing their jobs when they don't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. Is that lying, too, if they neglect to inform their congregations?
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That depends whether it falls within the range of belief that church corporately accepts as valid. The Roman Catholic church asserts, with the claim of infallibility, that Mary was a virgin, so I would think that believing she wasn't - if you are an RC priest - is a problem.
Re your earlier example of a non-theist priest, if you don't tell your bishop (or equivalent) or your congregants because you can basically guarantee they would suggest you resign and/or reject your ministry - you need to think seriously about whether you are offering ministry under false pretences.
Alot of people don't believe in homeopathy, but they expect someone prescribing homeopathic medicines to do so. And the people going to the homeopath for treatment do believe, and they expect the homeopath to believe. If the practitioner doesn't believe, and think they are just offering a placebo, then they are obtaing money by deception.
If you offer to intercede to a God you don't believe is there, what exactly are you doing ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
...
Re your earlier example of a non-theist priest, if you don't tell your bishop (or equivalent) or your congregants because you can basically guarantee they would suggest you resign and/or reject your ministry - you need to think seriously about whether you are offering ministry under false pretences.
....
If you offer to intercede to a God you don't believe is there, what exactly are you doing ?
Not all bishops would take that line - they may well have the same opinions!
I'm on the side of the 'liars' and 'hypocrites' who are struggling with these issues and their consciences in the real world.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I'm on the side of the 'liars' and 'hypocrites' who are struggling with these issues and their consciences in the real world.
Me too.
They have given their life to what they believed to be right.
I think they should be afforded a great deal of charity. I am sure that, if they possibly could, they would earn their living in another way. But, if that is not possible, they should not be hounded out.
I was a teacher for many years. I didn't believe in the structures and systems I had to work within (lots of nonsense and tosh) - I was still a good teacher. Just because things change doesn't mean you can't still be good at your job/role. The characteristics which made them a good priest/vicar/minister/whatever will not have disappeared.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I don't see it as lying but as doing the job. In the same way that a significant number of CofE priests continue doing their jobs when they don't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. Is that lying, too, if they neglect to inform their congregations?
Yes, absolutely. It's shameful, and it's extremely unhealthy for their congregations.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
So that's a quarter of Anglican priests at the last count. Or perhaps they have told their congregations? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
That depends whether it falls within the range of belief that church corporately accepts as valid. The Roman Catholic church asserts, with the claim of infallibility, that Mary was a virgin, so I would think that believing she wasn't - if you are an RC priest - is a problem.
My acquaintance with some RC priests tells me that it is less forceful than this, but it would be good to have an RC opinion. The understanding I have is that priests may dissent personally about quite a number of things but shall not do so in any official capacity. The picture of the Curia is more like a debating society than an obedient army.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think [the clergy]should be afforded a great deal of charity. I am sure that, if they possibly could, they would earn their living in another way. But, if that is not possible, they should not be hounded out.
[...]
Just because things change doesn't mean you can't still be good at your job/role. The characteristics which made them a good priest/vicar/minister/whatever will not have disappeared.
I don't mean to be harsh, but this implies that the ordained ministry is, at heart, a job creation scheme. I find the clergy/laity divide somewhat troubling for reasons such as this.
Yes, we live in the real world, and I'm aware that the clergy aren't always on a shared spiritual journey with their congregations. This has been one of the increasing problems of modernity. But it's a situation which at a certain point undermines the unity and hence the effectiveness of the church.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Yes - I know.
Maybe start giving clergy a living wage and stop tying the home to the job? That would be a start.
But if losing faith = losing everything else too, that's very cruel imo, they didn't do it deliberately!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is not fair, but, shit does happen In all walks of life. Analogous might be the need to maintain fitness to practice for medical staff, it may not be your fault if sonething undermines your fitness to practice - but that doesn't mean you should continue to do so.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe start giving clergy a living wage and stop tying the home to the job? That would be a start.
But if losing faith = losing everything else too, that's very cruel imo, they didn't do it deliberately!
I don't think giving them more money would help - that would make them even less willing to move on if they found themselves at odds with the basic teachings of their churches! (In any case, few denominations could afford to pay them more.)
The system we have makes it seem 'cruel' to deprive a minister of his livelihood and his lifestyle 'just because' he no longer shares the beliefs of his denomination or congregation. But to me, that highlights a failure in the system; it's not an excuse for saying that what a minister believes is more or less irrelevant.
If only at a functional level, it does matter what minister believes. To put it bluntly, let us look at the state of churchgoing in our nation as a whole: it's collapsed over the past 50+ years. But how can our ministers evangelise, or encourage anyone else to evangelise, if they barely have faith themselves?
For those who see their role as basically pastoral, comforting old ladies at the twilight of their lives, maybe nothing matters more than kindness and the ability to administer familiar rituals convincingly. But it's hard to see how this perspective alone will ensure the survival of the church in the long run.
[ 08. January 2015, 22:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I think faith is about being committed to the journey, rather than signing up to a set of approved beliefs. The journey is unpredictable and may take you (probably should take you) away from your old faith and to a new one, perhaps many times. That can feel like pleasant growth, but it can also feel like the dark night of the soul, an Easter experience where hope is only found after despair.
Of course, you can get to a point where for you the journey is over and faith no longer an option, but that point does not share the co-ordinates of the point where orthodox belief (undefinable) stops.
We have to encourage each other to embark on the adventure of faith. Ministers therefore need some security from inquisition about their belief levels, as well as a safe and humane route out when it comes to that.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think faith is about being committed to the journey, rather than signing up to a set of approved beliefs.
I can see what you're getting at, and of course no two people are in exactly the same place spiritually. It does make one wonder, though, why so much money and effort are put into training the clergy in theology. I suppose their doubt needs a structure to measure itself against!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
But theology isn't some big body of knowledge, it's the skill of reflecting in a certain way, of interpreting and re-imagining the stories and images of faith. It equips you for the journey.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I assume that non-believing clergy minister to largely moribund congregations with no mission or evangelism going on. How on earth do you inspire people to take a deep breath and make a leap of faith if you, yourself, think that it is so much nonsense.
I have every sympathy with people who conclude that the Church is a waste of space and I can respect people who conclude that they cannot, in conscience, believe in God or Jesus.
But non-believing clergy are drawing a stipend, drawn in part from the mites of widows, to do a job which they can either not do properly or can only do by putting on a performance of trenchant insincerity. Of course, clergy may have doubts and dark nights of the soul and whatnot. I've been there myself. But a clergy person who concludes that there is no God and continues in post anyway is morally akin to a UKIP MEP, drawing a salary from the European Parliament with no intention of properly representing the people who voted for him. Neil Hamilton, ora pro nobis!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
You need a live faith to minister, but not necessarily belief. It's about letting God in, and the cracks are useful for that. Remember the whisky priest. Plenty of power and glory in his ministry, although he couldn't see it, and nor could the conventional.
Settled belief is often an obstacle to faith, a defence against thought and the risk of trust.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is not fair, but, shit does happen In all walks of life. Analogous might be the need to maintain fitness to practice for medical staff, it may not be your fault if sonething undermines your fitness to practice - but that doesn't mean you should continue to do so.
Exactly that happened to my niece - she was a paramedic for 10 years, then her bad back caused her to have to leave.
But her home was not tied to her job. That's what I'm getting at - the two should be separated so that clergy can afford to buy their own homes.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
It's a tangent, but why do you think it is that clergy homes are part of the package? At one time many jobs had houses as part of the remuneration: police, park keepers, head teachers, caretakers, farm workers, some factory workers, shop keepers, pub landlords, station masters. In most cases the arrangement has proved very unpopular. You wouldn't get a modern copper to live in a police house today.
Partly I think it persists because it's cost effective for the church. But it also, I think, offers the church another level of control over their minister (very scary people, ministers). As this thread demonstrates, there are some quite open, liberal and relaxed people who nonetheless have very prescriptive ideas about what is and isn't acceptable for their minister.
If your minister is living in the house you provide, she or he is considerably more under your thumb.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Continuing the tangent if I may....
As a teenager, I saw the power wielded by a member of our church, a local businessman, who bought cars for our minister. No doubt our minister felt obligated but church members never dare speak against that businessman. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is not fair, but, shit does happen In all walks of life. Analogous might be the need to maintain fitness to practice for medical staff, it may not be your fault if sonething undermines your fitness to practice - but that doesn't mean you should continue to do so.
Exactly that happened to my niece - she was a paramedic for 10 years, then her bad back caused her to have to leave.
But her home was not tied to her job. That's what I'm getting at - the two should be separated so that clergy can afford to buy their own homes.
It's a nice thought, and it is periodically debated within my church. But it has some impracticalities. My denomination believes very much in the idea of call to a congregation. It also believes in a parish ministry, where the minister living in the parish is an important part of the church presence there. It is much harder to minister to a community that you are not really part of.
Problem is, parishes vary hugely in socio-economic terms, from city centre ones where £500,000 would not be enough to buy you a family home, to sink estates or remote islands where you could buy one easily, but never be able to sell it again. And how would a minister ever be able to make the transition between the two?
That's before you get to the issue of buying and selling houses in a depressed market. I know that this is a problem faced by most people when they move, and can see the argument that ministers are not a special case. But there is no doubt that it would much reduce the ability of a minister to go anywhere they are called. I suspect that the majority would just stay where they were, regardless of whether that was the right thing for everyone involved. Why go to the sheer expense of moving, even to a comparable property - especially when they are not moving for any sort of promotion or wage increase?
Clergy in my denomination are comparatively well-paid, and most will invest in a property at some point, usually with a view to retirement. This gives some security if things go wrong. However, many going into ministry are already in their 50s, and are in no position to take on a mortgage. I would hate there to be a situation where a poorer person simply could not afford to become a minister: where you have to be effectively of a home-owning class before you could consider ministry.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Many people do jobs that mean they rent their housing and don't expect to buy.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
True. But I'm not sure that the solution to the insecurity of ministers and priests living in tied housing, is to make their current housing situation even more insecure.
As a minister, my current housing situation is very very secure. If I so choose, I can stay here till I retire. I cannot be forced out unless I commit some disciplinary offence. If that happens, or if I lose my faith, then I will have to find another job and then I can move into rental accommodation. If I were living in rental accommodation anyway, what's the difference?
Btw, I've just had a look at rental properties in my parish. Currently there is one. A very suitable one, as it happens. But one only. And if the owner decides not to rent after 6 months ...
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
One reason that clergy are in tied houses is that they can move to any parish without having to worry about being able to afford housing. When you consider there are parishes where the maximum house price in under 100K, and others where the minimum is near 1M.
Rental is a possibility in some places, but if you have to rent within a parish, and a property of an appropriate size, that can be a tricky task too. People in London (in particular) can spend months finding somewhere moderate. Do we want vicars spending a year after they have accepted a post trying to find somewhere to live?
But it is also a problem with all tied housing. The cost of leaving your job is significantly higher - whether it is as a vicar or a caretaker.
The problem is that clergy are paid less because their housing is part of the deal. It would be better if they were paid some 10K more a year, to use as a property investment so they could buy somewhere - and the fact that they get a house to live in taken out of the equation.
So I can accept clergy (in particular) staying in a role that they no longer believe in, because the decision to leave that and do something else is a HUGE one. Especially as the "something else" might not pay very well.
FWIW, I can understand someone staying in a role for a long time as they can while they work out another plan. And of course, they don't tell their congregation, because nobody tells their current employers when they are looking at moving on to another role.
I also think that most clergy lie to their congregations. They do their job, which is to manage the church system, to encourage faith, to provide spiritual leadership to the people. But - by the nature of the role - they have to present a more consistent reality to others than the one that they (or anyone) can maintain.
Seeing behind the curtain of church leadership is sometimes disconcerting. And some are different, but many do their job irrespective of personal issues. As we all do.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
There is a fair amount of special pleading going on here. The point of priesthood, if you believe in it, is that it is not an ordinary job. It is not about the acquisition of material wealth, including houses. What you are claiming is that a priest should have the freedom to be wealthy, and have the security that goes with that.
That a priest should not need to claim housing benefit, working tax credit, lIve in rental accomodation etc.
Now whilst I would like that to be true for everyone, it is not. And I am unclear why it should be inherently true for clergy.
Tying housing gives a false impression of what churches can afford to pay their clergy, and fucks them over if they need to leave the job for any reason - let alone losing their belief.
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
There is another reality to consider when it comes to clergy and at least much of southern England. Would the church really want its clergy commuting? How would that work? Where would they be based while working? Would that be the straw that broke the connection between clergy and parish?
[ 10. January 2015, 11:56: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
It is all very complicated, different for each denomination, and where we've ended up is in large part accidental. Churches are incredibly fond of keeping things the same.
One observation I'd like to add is that when I moved out of the tied manse into a house that my wife and I were buying (a minister's family has non ministers in it as well), I felt much more part of the community. I had a stake in the town for the first time. I had to do the same calculations about income, interest rates, repairs that everyone else does. In a manse you're a house guest of the church. In your own house you have neighbours to whom you are just the family at No. 7.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Settled belief is often an obstacle to faith, a defence against thought and the risk of trust.
Interesting claim. Would you care to make an argument in its defense?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
God is not a thing in the world about which we can learn information. God is not a thing, and cannot be approached as an object. God is free and unpredictable and can only be encountered as an other, a subject - one who approaches us. (I have problems with the term 'personal God' which has been used on this thread, because I don't think God is a person, but I do think that God is personal, entirely and essentially personal.)
Encountering God is typically about those moments when our understanding is confounded and enlarged. The Bible is full of surprise. The prophets tell the people that God is not at all what they thought, and cares about things they had thought irrelevant: is not this the sacrifice I desire?
Jesus astounds people. It's his chief characteristic. He blows our minds. The Gospel is, for each person and community where they are, that blowing of their mind that will lead them to become more alive, and in healthier relationships. The preaching of Jesus and the Church is to lead people to that revolution that makes us look at our neighbours in a new way, perceive our own freedom, and encounter grace.
God is there in the moment of change, at the lakeside, up the sycamore tree, on the dozy flat roof. That is God, present in the moment of change. God's very being is in the dynamic of change and life, risk and faithfulness - Trinitarian theology.
It doesn't fit well in an institution. That's the Church's problem. If only we could manage semper reformandum, always being in change/growth/reform, but we need buildings and minute secretaries and the rest. God in Christ is always offering new wine, and we struggle to contain it.
Beliefs are opinions about what is the case. They treat the stuff of faith in a quasi legal or scientific way. What actually was the condition of Mary's hymen? Settled beliefs build a world of certainty that insulates you from the offence of grace and the unsettling presence of God.
It's interesting that it comes up here on a thread about ministers' pay, because it's precisely about the institution rubbing against the lived faith.
That's not exactly an argument, but perhaps it explains a bit more what I had in mind.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
Hatless, that's a wonderful post! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I imagine that by paying and usually housing their clergy the mainstream denominations are making the congregations beholden to the clergy as well as the other way round; after all, in most mainstream churches access to ordained clergy is generally deemed to be essential, even if interregnums or shared arrangements are necessary. And in order to get someone the congregations or the denominational leadership know they'll have to offer the expected levels of remuneration.
In situations where there is a considerable shortage of clergy, what ministers believe (or where they are on the journey, if you like) may be seen as less important than getting a qualified, ordained, likeable person into a post.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Settled belief is often an obstacle to faith, a defence against thought and the risk of trust.
Much the same way that the fixed definition of what constitutes a sonnet is an obstacle to writing good poetry in that form.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Settled belief is often an obstacle to faith, a defence against thought and the risk of trust.
Much the same way that the fixed definition of what constitutes a sonnet is an obstacle to writing good poetry in that form.
You're right that a poet who didn't press against convention would be a dull read, but rigid forms can provoke ingenuity and power. It's being in the bottle that makes the genie so strong, as someone said.
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.
--------------------
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:
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.
[ 10. January 2015, 18:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
