Thread: Lost faith, still getting paid Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028088
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
In the view from down the road thread:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I find myself reacting negatively to these stories of 'lost faith, but continued to get paid'. Did you pretend? Do you think anyone you ministered to detected you? Are there ethical issues in going through the motions and not believing in what you're doing? Wasn't there a cost to your person?
Which is an interesting point. I take the view that in any job - and some aspect of getting paid for doing things is a job - it is quite possible to lost faith in what you are doing, but still keep on doing it. I am not really sure why faith work as such should be fundamentally different. If you are still providing people with what they need for their faith, surely that is fine?
OTOH, of course, trying to help people develop their faith, their belief, when you have rejected it - and this might mean you have considered it complete rubbish - seems deceitful (it is sales work, not people work). Failing to tell people a truth you have discovered (that Christianity is wrong) when you have been telling them other truths that you have discovered (Christinity works) appears to be a problem.
So I am interested - and I think others will be - in anyones experiences of having lost their faith, while getting paid in some form for having faith.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I take the view that in any job - and some aspect of getting paid for doing things is a job - it is quite possible to lost faith in what you are doing, but still keep on doing it. I am not really sure why faith work as such should be fundamentally different.
You're not sure why losing your faith shouldn't affect faith work differently from other work? Isn't the clue in the word "faith"? It's not just losing your faith in what you're doing, it's losing your faith in the object of the word "faith" in "faith work" (viz. God). I can't see how not believing in God could possibly have no effect on one's work as a pastor. If it doesn't, then it seems to me one was never truly a pastor, but only going through the motions all along. (And small wonder one should lose one's faith if that's the case.) One's pastoral care then is merely mouthing platitudes and treating people's faith issues with a diagnostic flowchart. It's lacking empathy where empathy is a major (perhaps central) part of the job description. Indeed, you would be faking empathy because you know empathy is part of the job description.
Further both the parish/congo and (if applicable) higher-ups (I'm thinking primarily the bishops in churches that have them) expect that you are a Christian, and therefore you are intentionally deceiving them. Here's a chance for atheists to prove, as they have long averred, that they really are just as capable of acting ethically as believers. Because being in a perpetual state of lying to your employers and your customers is on anybody's reading (I should hope) unethical.
If one hasn't gone all the way to atheist, but has merely come to disbelieve in the theology of one's customers and employers (say, one is in a Trinitarian church and has become a Deist), one is still deceiving them if one does not disclose this fact.
In short, if someone in a pastoral or ministerial role has ceased to believe in the religion they professed to believe in when they were offered the job, they must inform their customers and employers of this fact and suffer the consequences, or they are a liar and a scoundrel. IMHO.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're not sure why losing your faith shouldn't affect faith work differently from other work? Isn't the clue in the word "faith"?
I suppose it depends on what you see your "faith" work as doing. A lot of it is about encouraging other peoples faith, helping and supporting other people in their struggles.
I can see that losing that faith probably means that you are working your way out of a faith role, but meantime, I don't see a problem with it. You can still support other peoples faith, still help others in their struggles, even when you are questioning your own. In fact, it might even be helpful if you understand a struggle with faith.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I think there is a difference between doubting, questioning etc, and having decided you do not believe in the central tenets of the faith community paying you to promulgate their beliefs.
Every faith community has a range of beliefs which fall within what they corporately believe, some wider and some narrower, but there are always edges.
If you don't believe in a deity, you don't believe in the existence of a human soul and you don't believe in the ultimate attainment of a transcendsnt state - be that heaven, nirvana or whatever - you should probably not be acting as, or accepting payment for acting as, a pastor/priest/rabbi/imam/guru of a faith community which does profess these things.
It is perfectly possible to be an ethical, compassionate athiest offering support and help to people. But you need not act as an ostensibly religious functionary to do that.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In short, if someone in a pastoral or ministerial role has ceased to believe in the religion they professed to believe in when they were offered the job, they must inform their customers and employers of this fact and suffer the consequences, or they are a liar and a scoundrel. IMHO.
That's where this all goes wrong. People are not customers.
Ministers and congregation share a journey. One may help the other when the going get tough.
I have received better ministry from a doubting priest than from a know-it-all-evangelical.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ministers and congregation share a journey.
If the minister is an atheist and the congregants are not, then by definition they do NOT share the journey of faith in God.
If you were ministered to by a doubting priest, you only know that because the priest told you. My comments were about somebody pretending to believe what they do not. Oranges and apples, my friend.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Twice I checked out of preschool teaching because I knew I coudn't handle being around kids. It's the kind of job you can't be halfassed about, and boy, am I judgemental about people who clearly don't loke being around kids but stay in childcare jobs anyway.
But is it right that I am judgemental!?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ministers and congregation share a journey.
If the minister is an atheist and the congregants are not, then by definition they do NOT share the journey of faith in God.
If you were ministered to by a doubting priest, you only know that because the priest told you. My comments were about somebody pretending to believe what they do not. Oranges and apples, my friend.
Not the case at all.
What if a minister and many in the congregation belong to Sea of Faith?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
That would be fine if it falls within the interpretations of the church employing them. Not so much for an RC minister.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
In his book on atheism the French atheist philosopher Andre Compte-Sponville advises that a priest who loses his faith should continue in his work as a priest.
His reasoning seems mostly about the importance of tradition, faithfulness to a set of Greco-Judeo-Christian values that he esteems to be worth preserving. For him, unlike the Anglo-Saxon New Atheists, religious faith isn't primarily a source of evil, oppression or error, but a valuable heritage that feeds some people directly, and others indirectly, by giving them a context, a history....
His examples of how to live this as a religious leader are primarily Jewish, interestingly. He seems rather impressed that some rabbis see their religious duties as somewhat independent of God's existence or otherwise. He doesn't use any examples from Christianity.
This sort of approach is harder to justify from the perspective of a sola fidelis religion, but in reality almost all churches end up giving a high priority to tradition and social interaction, so I can imagine that some mainstream church ministers might eventually find these things more meaningful than faith. Some of their church members might agree. In some circles ministers are not necessarily expected to be very spiritual people in any case.
As for evangelical contexts, they're quite ambiguous, aren't they? Evangelical churches often become less evangelical over time. The prominence of strong biblical preaching can slide into an expectation of virtuosic wordplay. Pentecostal pastors even suffer from the stereotype of being clever tricksters! With Pentecostalism the focus can often be on the spiritual high rather than on assent to particular doctrines, so it's not implausible that a pastor outed as an atheist might still be seen as a conduit for God's power.....
Basically, it's the dishonesty that's the problem with non-believing ministers, IMO. But I feel that the whole clergy/laity divide leads to misplaced expectations and duplicity. The system we have makes such problems inevitable.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
There was a long-term rector at my parish, before I got there, who lost his faith. Parishioners from that time say it was quite apparent, and that for the last ten years he just preached social justice. He did serious damage to the parish from which it took years to recover. The lack of trust in leadership was horrible, not to mention all the division that grew up as people took sides over whether they supported the rector or not.
When someone in church leadership is struggling with doubt, yes, sharing that is part of Christians' journey together. But if someone no longer believes in the central tenets of the faith, it is deeply dishonest and wrong to continue in a position of leadership in a church.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Are our beliefs chosen or discovered? It feels to me that they are discovered and explored, and that I need freedom and confidence to continue to do that as a central part of my ministry. If I had to look over my shoulder and reassure others that, of course, I still believed firmly in the central tenets (whatever they might be) of Christinaity, it would rob me of an essential honesty and integrity.
I can see that you might, over the years, end up in a place far from where you began, and that there might be a time for parting company, but I don't think you can live week by week scared of crossing some line, but or worried that entertaining certain thoughts will make you a liar and a con merchant.
Doubt is always close. It keeps faith fresh. And it is usually fundamental. Doubting some trivial point isn't really doubt at all. It is doubting that God is love, doubting that there can be forgiveness, doubting that anything is worth it, that matters. Someone who daredn't ask these questions for fear of the not-what-you're-paid-for brigade would be a poor minister for anyone who living with them, and I don't think you can be a person of faith for long without asking them.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
As I said above, there is a difference between doubt & questioning and having decided you no longer believe.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
With Pentecostalism the focus can often be on the spiritual high rather than on assent to particular doctrines, so it's not implausible that a pastor outed as an atheist might still be seen as a conduit for God's power.....
Fascinating idea! And plausible, given that I seem to recall stories of people continuing to support pastors or evangelists who have been definitively exposed as charlatans.
Posted by Margaret (# 283) on
:
Until fairly recently I went to a church where the vicar seemed to have lost any real interest in Christianity - he took services as advertised, preached rather perfunctorily on the readings of the day, avoided pastoral work as much as possible, didn't respond when asked for spiritual support (as I once rather unwisely did) and generally didn't behave as if he thought the Gospel mattered much. I can't make a window into his soul and he may have a private faith, but if so it's one he seems unable to share with others. And like Ruth W's rector, he's damaged the church; a lot of people have left.
But what do you do if you're a priest or minister or pastor who just doesn't believe it any more? A friend of a friend is a former Anglican priest who found he couldn't honestly continue in his ministry; he resigned, trained as a teacher, and is now a happy Zen Buddhist. It couldn't have been easy, but his wife had a well-paid job and could support the family while he retrained. But our former vicar is single so has no one to support him if he wants to train for something else, and would have a tough time going back to his former profession, which he's been out of for twenty years at least. He's trapped; he's doing the church no good, he's almost certainly doing himself no good, but what can he do?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Klaas Hendrickse is a minister in the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, despite appearing to be an 'atheist'. But he's been honest about himself. And there's obviously a constituency for what he has to offer. In most other cases there's little honesty, or else there's simply a mismatch between what the minister wants to express and what his particular congregation expects.
The link implies that the mainstream churches are willing to pay the salaries of theologians whose beliefs may be pretty well atheistic, so why shouldn't they tolerate and pay their clergy similarly? The two jobs are different, of course, but theologians do train the clergy. The tension highlights the problem of modern mainstream Christianity, which is that the system nurtures theological radicalism from the intellectuals at the top while banking on the allegiance of a more conservative (in some ways) and less informed lay constituency at the bottom.
(On the Ship, though, the problem is often the other way round; clergy who are too evangelical for their congregations....)
[fixed link --AR]
[ 05. January 2015, 14:02: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
Until fairly recently I went to a church where the vicar seemed to have lost any real interest in Christianity - he took services as advertised, preached rather perfunctorily on the readings of the day, avoided pastoral work as much as possible, didn't respond when asked for spiritual support (as I once rather unwisely did) and generally didn't behave as if he thought the Gospel mattered much. I can't make a window into his soul and he may have a private faith, but if so it's one he seems unable to share with others. And like Ruth W's rector, he's damaged the church; a lot of people have left.
But what do you do if you're a priest or minister or pastor who just doesn't believe it any more? A friend of a friend is a former Anglican priest who found he couldn't honestly continue in his ministry; he resigned, trained as a teacher, and is now a happy Zen Buddhist. It couldn't have been easy, but his wife had a well-paid job and could support the family while he retrained. But our former vicar is single so has no one to support him if he wants to train for something else, and would have a tough time going back to his former profession, which he's been out of for twenty years at least. He's trapped; he's doing the church no good, he's almost certainly doing himself no good, but what can he do?
Resign, retrain, other people have to change career for reasons beyond their control too.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
The link is broken.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The link implies that the mainstream churches are willing to pay the salaries of theologians whose beliefs may be pretty well atheistic, so why shouldn't they tolerate and pay their clergy similarly? The two jobs are different, of course, but theologians do train the clergy.
I think you over-state theologians' influence.
The theologians give some of the classes the clergy are required to take in seminary. Many other things go into training clergy, and many other things have an effect on the faith of clergy members.
The two jobs are different, and I would argue those differences are enough to warrant treating atheist theologians and atheist clergy differently. Theologians are paid to think about theology. Clerics have the cure of souls, in my church at any rate. I don't want a priest who doesn't believe in what he or she is supposed to be doing.
I'm sure it is very difficult to find that you can no longer do your job, but that happens to all kinds of people in all kinds of jobs. The church would do well to make some provision for such people, but they shouldn't be allowed to remain in jobs they really can't do anymore.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Just a couple of cautionary notes on this thread. First, it would be an idiot of a minister who decided to give up pay, home, and probably more than a few friends, until they were sure they had lost their faith rather than, as it were, mislaid it. (Scene - minister wakes up in comfy bed in nice vicarage: "I've lost my faith! I resign!" Cut to the next morning, minister wakes up in cardboard box under a railway bridge: "Oh darn, there it is!")
Secondly, if you're in a congregation and your minister seems thoroughly cheesed off, it might not be God they're cheesed off with - it might be you. Just sayin', as they say.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think we should distinguish between a) a minister who openly takes a liberal questioning view of the world and whose ministry and preaching is based on that - his/her flock know what they are getting and they are consistent and b) a minister who apparently takes a clear stand on various fundamental beliefs who does not in fact believe them and ministers to his/her flock on the basis of these beliefs that they do not in fact share.
a) is OK, b) isnt. b) might arise gradually over time, and we should cut slack to ministers who find themselves there while they sort out what they really believe, but b) isn't sustainable as a long-term game plan.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The link is broken.
Now fixed.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just a couple of cautionary notes on this thread. First, it would be an idiot of a minister who decided to give up pay, home, and probably more than a few friends, until they were sure they had lost their faith rather than, as it were, mislaid it. (Scene - minister wakes up in comfy bed in nice vicarage: "I've lost my faith! I resign!" Cut to the next morning, minister wakes up in cardboard box under a railway bridge: "Oh darn, there it is!")
Secondly, if you're in a congregation and your minister seems thoroughly cheesed off, it might not be God they're cheesed off with - it might be you. Just sayin', as they say.
Is being a minister/pastor/priest only a profession/job/employment or something else? People talk about it being a calling, and imply it is something more.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I'll say a little more to see if we can draw out the issues.
I worked as a civil servant until the gov't restructured, did not apply for a new job but was simply transferred over to a new agency in a different level of gov't. I found I could not support the mission of the new agency, told the administration and left 6 months later. Philosophically, I couldn't abide the direction. Thus I "lost faith" in the organization.
On the personal level, we had preschool children, my wife had left her job to get another degree, and we'd bought a house. I spent more 6 months working for the employer, giving this much notice (~10 years on the job), which was more than the statutory 2 weeks and also the 4 weeks of my specific terms of employment; the thought was to leave with a little bit of savings and to never close a door with an employer negatively. My wife and I decided that I had to do this because my soul wasn't in it, and she liked me better when I was doing something I believed in.
Is this really different than leaving a paid church ministry? The risk, the personal costs etc? Is there something more?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is this really different than leaving a paid church ministry? The risk, the personal costs etc? Is there something more?
Perhaps. As you describe it, you were perfectly qualified and capable of performing the job for the new agency, but you didn't like the agency's goals, so you quit. This is a decision that you made for your own ethical or mental health reasons, but there is no question that you wouldn't have been able to carry on doing an acceptable job had you chosen to, even though you wouldn't have enjoyed it much.
Surely part of a priest's job is to uphold his congregation and community in prayer? I don't see how a priest who has lost his faith can do that, so from that point of view he can't carry out his job functions acceptably.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think we should distinguish between a) a minister who openly takes a liberal questioning view of the world and whose ministry and preaching is based on that - his/her flock know what they are getting and they are consistent and b) a minister who apparently takes a clear stand on various fundamental beliefs who does not in fact believe them and ministers to his/her flock on the basis of these beliefs that they do not in fact share.
There's a lot of variation in real life. Some congregations expect their preacher to endorse specific doctrines the preacher in fact disagrees with, belief in God is not at issue but belief in some specific doctrines. We all change as we grow, should clergy impose their current beliefs sets on all church members? I don't know.
One book in my library insists many who preach the "rapture" don't believe in it; I have chatted with clergy who pray for healing but don't believe God heals as opposed to just "gives comfort." "[Shrug], they wanted healing prayer so I added one."
If the congregation wants non-central ideas like these, some clergy give it so they can keep their jobs without a big fuss what they see as side issues and be able to teach on what they see as the important central truths.
Perhaps to some, the existence of God is a side issue. Maybe they think humans need ritual and church provides it (what one "we can't know if God exists or not" TEC clergyperson told me).
One friend told me he became clergy because he wanted to help people and social work paid less and provided less job security. He does believe in God. If his motivation is not to convey God awareness but to help people in social work ways, would he think he should leave if he lost his faith?
Is it a job or a calling? Sometimes one sometimes the other. Just because it's a calling to Mrs A doesn't mean Mr B agrees. And I expect sometimes a calling can morph into just a job, and a job can become a calling like an arranged marriage can become a deep love relationship.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is this really different than leaving a paid church ministry? The risk, the personal costs etc? Is there something more?
Perhaps. As you describe it, you were perfectly qualified and capable of performing the job for the new agency, but you didn't like the agency's goals, so you quit. This is a decision that you made for your own ethical or mental health reasons, but there is no question that you wouldn't have been able to carry on doing an acceptable job had you chosen to, even though you wouldn't have enjoyed it much.
Surely part of a priest's job is to uphold his congregation and community in prayer? I don't see how a priest who has lost his faith can do that, so from that point of view he can't carry out his job functions acceptably.
Yes, this is what I wondered. But people are also saying that there are shades of grey and doubt between the belief and non-belief, thus they can do the priest job if not fully shaded into the darkness. I wonder if the full darkness is avoided or denied whilst the secondary reasons are present: financial, family, status etc.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
What about a minister who experiences a crisis in life? The death of a child, depression or something equally difficult might provoke a deep and painful reexamination of faith. It would be strange if it didn't. A wise church might want a minister to continue to preach and pastor through that process, believing that they would gain in power, empathy and insight because of it.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
If after that period of reexamination of faith the minister finds that he or she cannot honestly preach the gospel, what would you have that minister do?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
How would you know when the period was over? I wouldn't expect a snap decision, but I would expect the minister to feel they had moved too far to remain in post. And although house and stipend might persuade ministers to stay too long (when your home comes and goes with your employment you are quite trapped), my suspicion is that ministers are mor likely to go too soon. It must feel very hard leading a congregation through Easter if you own outlook on life is bleak and without hope. It wouldn't, I think, be intellectual problems with the quality of the evidence for an empty tomb or the nature of the risen Christ, but the emotional sense of being trapped in Holy Saturday that would be the decider.
But most of us have those moments, and they can easily last a year or two. I'd be much more concerned about the ministry of someone who was a stranger to doubt. And most of all concerned about a church that eyed its ministers suspiciously for any cracks in their faith.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think that the comments at the end of p.163 and the first half of p.164 of Martyn Percy's "Why liberal churches are growing" is relevant here and shows the difference between a questioning faith and a sceptical one.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Questions like 'what if?' and 'why not?' can be the basis of faith and hope. I think too many people are alarmed by what they or others don't believe, and they fail to notice the powerful faith that not only remains, but is all the stronger for being freed by questioning from so many untenable accretions.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Surely part of a priest's job is to uphold his congregation and community in prayer? I don't see how a priest who has lost his faith can do that, so from that point of view he can't carry out his job functions acceptably.
Depends what you mean by prayer.
I know a priest who no longer believes in a personal God but whop says the daily office and prays for the whole parish on a monthly rota basis.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I know a priest who no longer believes in a personal God but whop says the daily office and prays for the whole parish on a monthly rota basis. [/QB]
Who does that Priest pray to? With what hope of a response?
Sounds like he or she needs to get a reality check and resign if in a parish post. Failure to do so is at best hypocrisy and at worst deluding others. If in a teaching position then ditto.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Not at all being flippant....but what is the time span for Not Believing?
One hour?
A day?
One week?
A month?
Or two?
A year?
You see where this ends up?
Lots (most) people in ministry have an OhMyGoodGrief moment.
If every one of those people phoned their bishop when this hit them......
[ 06. January 2015, 17:27: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Then their bishop would need to do pastoral care, be with them in their doubt and questioning and help them discern if their faith was simply changing or actually disappearing.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I know a priest who no longer believes in a personal God but whop says the daily office and prays for the whole parish on a monthly rota basis.
Who does that Priest pray to? With what hope of a response? [/QB]
Not everyone prays 'to' somebody not expects 'a response'.
Lots of Christians intercede in a non-specific way - I certainly don't tell God what to do with my prayers or expect an outcome.
[ 06. January 2015, 18:16: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
How can you be an Anglican or Roman Catholic priest if you don't believe in a personal God ? Isn't that fairly core to the theological posititions of those churches ?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How can you be an Anglican or Roman Catholic priest if you don't believe in a personal God ?
You cannot.
quote:
Isn't that fairly core to the theological positions of those churches ?
Yes. Yes, it is.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
I have not entered this discussion because I have no experience of ‘atheist’ ministry and have no wish to condemn or be judgemental of others.
From my present position I see no real problem. The gods of all people in the church come from their creative imaginations (that’s not a put-down). Whether these gods have been learned via preaching and teaching or whether they are more carefully thought-through personal gods makes no difference.
Thus: a minister could be non-theist, recognising no god for him/herself yet acknowledging the gods of his/her church attendees. The task of ministers is, amongst other things, to get alongside those for whom they have some ‘responsibility’ or care. Leaving aside the legitimate discussion on the nature of prayer, it seems to me perfectly possible for a minister to pray with others, on their behalf to their gods. It seems perfectly legitimate to conduct worship (which, after all, is really entertainment ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) on their behalf, reinterpreting the concept of god in a way that is acceptable to everyone.
Given the horrible alternatives suggested by some here, it is a much more kind way of dealing with the real issues of salary, partner, home etc etc.
As it happens, I am much more concerned about the charlatans who prey on members of their churches by promising miracles.
(Thinks: it really does make a tremendous difference when one becomes non-theist )
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
Meant to say ...
Leo: ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I like your grounded style.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Would said priest tell the congregants he was minstering to that he did not have a belief in a personal God, and thought that it was a creative social construction - that he was happy to engage with ?
And more specifically, if he were in the Anglican or Roman Catholic communion - is that consistent with the understandings of those churches ?
(It would be a perfectly reasonable position to take within the UK Quaker tradition, including for those in a position of spiritual leadership such as the elders, but I am unclear how fits with more traditional churches.)
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Would said priest tell the congregants he was minstering to that he did not have a belief in a personal God, and thought that it was a creative social construction - that he was happy to engage with ?
Why would he/she need to state that? If the minister is being true to him/herself there doesn't seem to be an issue to me. Everybody should be happy.
quote:
And more specifically, if he were in the Anglican or Roman Catholic communion - is that consistent with the understandings of those churches ?
I haven't a clue, never having been in those traditions but ISTM such traditions are 'a broad church' accomodating all sorts of different people (as they like to remind us).
As I stated, I would be much more worried about real imposters, as I know are many on The Ship.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How can you be an Anglican or Roman Catholic priest if you don't believe in a personal God ?
You cannot.
Interesting, showing my ignorance I guess, I would think these are exactly the denominations that explicitly teach that an ordained person who loses faith can continue to be an active priest.
If ordination causes ontological change that is permanent (isn't that what RCC and Anglican teach? But I learned it on the Ship and maybe I learned wrong), then that ontological reality is unaffected by change in belief. The Eucharist in the hands of someone validly ordained and ontologically changed who later lost his faith would still be entirely valid.
Isn't it the churches that don't believe in ontological change that would say a person who loses faith cannot continue in the clergy role?
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
I think we used to call this 'Once saved, always saved' - sort of opposite of the 'falling away doctrine'. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
That's the fundies for you.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Please unpack "personal".
I suspect there are a number of different meanings going on in this thread.
One is I think based on an acceptance of the classical doctrine of the Trinity.
Another is I think based on the idea that God responds to us as individuals.
Now I can see someone saying: "I do not believe in a personal God" meaning the second while fully accepting the first. Indeed the acceptance of the first could be argued for not accepting God as personal in the second sense.
Jengie
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
When I said this
From my present position I see no real problem. The gods of all people in the church come from their creative imaginations (that’s not a put-down). Whether these gods have been learned via preaching and teaching or whether they are more carefully thought-through personal gods makes no difference
I simply meant that all people's gods are their personal gods. I wasn't meaning 'Personal Saviour'. For me, of course, GOD doesn't respond.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Would said priest tell the congregants he was minstering to that he did not have a belief in a personal God, and thought that it was a creative social construction - that he was happy to engage with ?
Why would he/she need to state that? If the minister is being true to him/herself there doesn't seem to be an issue to me. Everybody should be happy.
[...]
As I stated, I would be much more worried about real imposters, as I know are many on The Ship.
A cynic might say the only difference between the two is simply one of class and good taste! An intellectual clergyman employed by an established denomination versus a rough charismatic pastor who runs an independent church; either might be an atheist who just wants to make a living the only way he knows how; either has the choice of hiding his non-belief or openly leading his congregation into some kind of heresy.
The independent pastor might be stealing too much of the collection for himself, but then again, the mainstream clergyman is probably thinking of his pension. Both of them could end up spreading disillusionment and damaging people's faith, even though the independent charismatic preacher seems to do so with more melodrama.
I think the solution, if we really must have paid clergy, is for congregations not to expect too much of them in any case.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
The Eucharist in the hands of someone validly ordained and ontologically changed who later lost his faith would still be entirely valid.
Sure, and a priest engaging in an adulterous affair with his parishioners still validly confects the sacraments, and they are just as efficacious for his flock. The priest himself eats death and condemnation, but he still conducts valid marriages and pronounces valid absolution in the name of the church.
But that doesn't mean that keeping such a person in place is acceptable.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Why would he/she need to state that? If the minister is being true to him/herself there doesn't seem to be an issue to me. Everybody should be happy.
A person who is a Roman Catholic or Anglican priest, and misleads his congregation in the way that you suggest here is a liar.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If ordination causes ontological change that is permanent (isn't that what RCC and Anglican teach? But I learned it on the Ship and maybe I learned wrong), then that ontological reality is unaffected by change in belief.
The Orthodox do not teach this, by the way. A priest can cease to be a priest in the EOC in a way that it cannot happen in the RCC. (I don't know about Anglicans, sorry.)
But as LC points out, just because the efficacy of the sacraments doesn't depend on the worthiness of the president doesn't mean that just anybody can preside, or will be allowed to.
In the Orthodox Church, a priest cannot do the magic with the bread and the wine without a cloth called an antimenson, which belongs to the bishop and is vouchsafed to the priest as a seal of his permission, from that specific bishop, to celebrate the Eucharist. Without it, he cannot, and the bishop can call for its return at his discretion*.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
From my present position I see no real problem.
You don't see a problem with lying and pretending to be something one is not? That's rather disturbing.
______
*although a bishop who abused that power could conceivably get de-bishoped by the other bishops in the synod.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Why would he/she need to state that?
Honesty.
quote:
If the minister is being true to him/herself there doesn't seem to be an issue to me.
Okay, honesty with everyone else, then.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
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 ?
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
So that's a quarter of Anglican priests at the last count. Or perhaps they have told their congregations? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
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!
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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!
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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!
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
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.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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)
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
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 Ł500,000 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.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Many people do jobs that mean they rent their housing and don't expect to buy.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
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.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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 ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on
:
Hatless, that's a wonderful post!
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
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!
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Your posts tell me that you would be. Prove me wrong!
How?
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
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.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
In fact, look for your name in Hell.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
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.
Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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 ..
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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'.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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).
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
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 ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
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.
Posted by Potoroo (# 13466) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I would find it interesting on this thread to hear more first-hand experiences...
Me, too.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
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?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0