Observer: Do ministers who no longer believe, or no longer believe what they used to believe, have an obligation to come clean to their congregations?

Vosper: No. The United Church of Canada has an obligation to support clergy who no longer believe so that they have safe passage. In my case it was a process, and I was with a congregation that had already done a lot of exploration. But for someone just to do it with no protection, no support . . .

 

 

 

I think the beliefs of a minister should be private and personal.

 

In most UCC congregations, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs. The minister shouldn't appear to favour one particular belief system. I think the minister should cater to the spiritual or psychological needs of the entire congregation without bias.

 

The church, in turn, should cater to the spiritual or psychological needs of its clergy without bias. The church ministers to its clergy, the clergy to their congregations.

Arm,

 

How can the minister's beliefs be private? If they are preaching about faith and meaning from the pulpit week after week, they must be drawing on their own faith, parroting the church line, or making stuff up as they go along. I would prefer the first. Likewise, how do you know that your minister is walking the walk (living the faith) if you don't know what they really believe walking the walk entails?

 

As for how their beliefs affect their ability to minister, while it is their responsibility to minister to all without bias (and that's even truer in UU'ism given our principles), keeping those beliefs private simply hides them so you don't know if bias is coming into play. It can very well still be there. You can minister to all while still being open about your own faith and, I would argue, will be a minister if you're not struggling to hide your own faith.

 

An example: When we had a UU Christian in our pulpit for a couple years as an interim minister, she never hid her faith, though she played up the "UU" part more so than the "Christian" part in order to build bridges to the humanists and others who might have been expected to object to it.

 

Does this mean the minister has to stand up and recite their beliefs in front of everyone? No.

 

But they should be open about their beliefs in preaching and teaching and should answer questions of faith honestly.

 

Now parisioners' beliefs, OTOH, can be as private as the parishioner wants them to be. They are not called upon to preach and live them openly, to teach them to others, only to believe and live them in their private lives (save for eccentric types like me who insist on doing pulpit supply).

 

No argument, of course, that the church must support its clergy and that that support should be based on the minister's needs, not their beliefs. But, that support includes helping clergy with dealing with their changes of faith and how to bring that out in their ministry, not helping them keep it under wraps until it becomes a problem.

 

Mendalla

 

 

Hi Mendalla     your quote     How can the minister's beliefs be private? If they are preaching about faith and meaning from the pulpit week after week, they must be drawing on their own faith, parroting the church line, or making stuff up as they go along. I would prefer the first. Likewise, how do you know that your minister is walking the walk (living the faith) if you don't know what they really believe walking the walk entails?

 

Great Statement -----People are NOT Stupid they can tell when a Minister is sincere in what they preach ---if you don't believe what you're preaching it will eventually show in your speech and actions ----You may fool some but not all -----as far as walking the walk it depends on the individual and how hard they work at becoming a mature Christian ----Most people stay Carnal as to become the Spiritual Man you need to not just have the Holy Spirit but you must change your way of thinking from this world's way to God's way in my religion ----You can't preach on inner peace when you don't have it yourself ----This world's inner peace is different than God's inner peace ----John 14 v 27 tells you that ---   

 

Carnal Christian is a man or woman that has the Holy Spirit but still thinks like this world ---and lives his life like this world ----he has not changed his thinking --to God's way of thinking or living -----Many many Ministers are Carnal  in their pulpit -----The Bible is very clear on this-- Romans 12 V 2----

 

Peace

Hi Mendalla:

 

Both my UCC ministers did not want to come out with their definition of God when I gave them mine, although I encouraged them to do so. I think they had a progressive definiton of God, but did not want to come out with it for fear of alienating the more conservative members of our congregation or giving the impression of favouring one faction over the other. All one of them said was: "Not everyone defines God the way you do."

 

In a congregation or denomination that ranges from very traditional to very progressive and anything in between, maybe the minister cannot or should not be seen to favour one faction over the other. The UU, or the evangelical denominations, both of which are not fractured by factionalism, may be different in that regard.

 

But, trying to please everyone may please no one in the end. I have conducted eleven UCC lay services so far, but never held back with what I believe. And, to my knowledge, no one held this against me, although our congregation was more conservative than progressive and my views are very progressive. But I am not a minister of the church, and am not under any obligation to please anyone or everyone.

I think a minister should preach in a way that expresses their beliefs about God. It should be clear what they understand as metaphor, and don't- and where they are applying their own metaphor. Because they are "teaching" the congregation and have an influence on them.

Of course that's wrong. There are likely thousands of ministers in pulpits today who do not believe. The Clergy Project has attracted over 500 of them, and that's just going to be the tip of the iceberg. If your only vocational training is to be a minister, then to come clean about your atheism is more often than not, going to mean you lose your job. It's amazing what people can keep hidden when their paycheque depends on it.

 

And if you know the material like the back of your hand, of course you can fool an entire congregation for years. You wouldn't have a clue if your minister was actually an atheist. If I suddenly became a believer, I could still argue the position of atheism.

 

I think chansen is right.

 

I am sure many ministers are atheists or agnostics, but they can't come right out with it or they would not be in "essential agreement" with their church or their parishoners, and risk losing their congregations or positions.

 

What is to blame for this sad state of affairs is not so much the "heretical" ministers but the rigid doctrinism of their Church.

 

In my opinion, doctrinal spirituality is divisive because doctrines are divisive. The more rigid they are, the more divisive. There is such a thing as "soft doctrine," which is somewhat flexible, but it is still doctrine.

 

Experiential spirituality, when divorced from doctrine, is powerfully unitive. The spiritual experience is almost always an experience of universal unity.

 

If Christian spirituality is to survive, then it needs to be much less doctrinal and much more experiential. The traditional stories and metaphors are fine as long as they are regarded as metaphors for cosmic unity and the unitive experience. 

 

 

I don't get this answer. Why is the United Church obligated to support clergy who no longer believe?  Safe passage for what?

 

 

 

The irony is that they're still spreading God's word. Pretty sad when someone gets so locked into a job that it makes you cringe inside everytime you have to go into work.

 

Ministry isn't the most well paying job, unless you're a TV evangelist, so why not take the education that's been acquired and change direction? Is it possibly because they also may enjoy some sort of benefit other than having a pension?

Would you like fries with that?

 

Sure. Because, that's easy. Except, it isn't. And, it's scary. And, there may be family and social ramifications as well.

 

Of course it's scary but it must be just as scary to lock yourself into a job doing something for the rest of your life that is unfulfilling and a constant lie. It's possible to reeducate oneself online while keeping your current job with the eventual goal to get out. Saying your "stuck" is a cop out.

Hi All,

 

 

 

Really?  No.  Clergy should never demonstrate, explain or otherwise take responsibility for their beliefs?  Clergy should never consider their beliefs part of any pastoral relationship?  Clergy should consider their beliefs private.

 

Wow.

 

 

The United Church of Canada has a duty of care.  The United Church of Canada cannot just dismiss clergy on the spot and leave them to fend for themselves (and it doesn't).

 

Duty of care is not without its limits.  The United Church of Canada is under no obligation to provide a pastorate to clergy who no longer share in the mission and ministry of The United Church of Canada.  The United Church of Canada has a responsibility to provide adequate compensation if a ministry position is being terminated, it can be generous or it can be a bare minimum by law.  The United Church of Canada is under absolutely no obligation to employ and continue to employ those who do not meet the requirements it has set for Clergy.

 

And what are we supposed to provide safe passage to?  

 

If I find myself without a pastoral relationship it will not be out of the blue.  I will be given at minimum three months notice.  It might be difficult to find another pastoral relationship in that time.  And that is me moving from one church in one denomination to another.

 

The United Church of Canada is under no obligation to support me financially beyond those three months.  That is what EI is for and why I contribute to it.

 

I'm somewhat incredulous that the Reverend Vosper believes clergy have no obligation to be open about what it is they believe and yet she at the same time believes that The United Church of Canada is obligated to help clergy who keep their beliefs a private matter find safe passage to something that does not exist.

 

Wow.

 

 

This is bizarre.

 

The Reverend Vosper thinks that clergy are under no obligation to be open about their beliefs and the United Church should continue to support them and allow them to transform congregations into something very different from The United Church of Canada.

 

If I am a security guard at a bank and I take money from the bank my termination is immediate.  In the Reverend Vosper's world I shouldn't have my employment terminated I should continue to recieve my salary and benefits until I have completely cleaned out the bank.

 

I really hope that I'm missing something.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Tell that to a 55-year-old looking to change careers. And people work at unfulfilling jobs all around you. You could say the same of the WalMart greeter, the fry cook, the maid, the janitor, or any number of perceived low-level jobs with low levels of reported job satisfaction.

 

The popularity of The Clergy Project shows how necessary it is. There are atheists in pulpits, and the first people know of their lack of belief, is when they come forward.

 

And, perhaps, some still like their jobs, and they just don't believe. You don't have to be an anti-theist like me. You may simply not believe, and wish God were real, and preach to that. You may love all the stories, and the interactions with parishoners, and want to stay.

 

If I suddenly didn't believe in physics, I could still design a building using the techniques I've learned. I may not believe the final result, but I could get you there.

 

I'm a 58 year old, in the process of searching for a third career. It's possible.

Sure, it's possible. But tell me it's not daunting. And tell me if you had a steady job, you'd give it up for the unknown.

 

I plan. :)

There's no EI if one quits or gets fired. Only laid off.

There's no EI if one quits or gets fired. Only laid off.

Hi Arminius --I could almost laugh at what you said here. It is the churchs fault for having Christain  Ministers teach about Christ and GOD.  Rather than how wonderful the universe is.  That you get the spirit by thinking about how great we are. Sorry not the Christain Belief. The Spirit comes from GOD through Jesus The christ.  I understand you are very spirit based Arinius. May I warn you please be carful as you know there is more than one kind of spirit in this world. --airclean33

Exactly. I'm partial to rum.

 

 

Hi chansen:

 

I think airclean33 means Satan, the anti-God god. You, chansen, also stand under his evil influence. One has to believe in Satan as the anti-God or anti-Christ, and in Christ as one's all-sufficient saviour, in order not to fall under the influence of Satan.

 

Seriously, man, Rum is a devilish spirit. I prefer Spanish brandy. The Inquisitors drank it, so it must be the right spirit.

 

 

 

Lol! This is the funniest thing you've ever written! Dipping' into that Inquisitor's brandy today, are ya? ;)

Sambuca is the only wear, Hey, a new thread!

"My favorite intoxicant."

(After 50 entries, call the police....)

 

 

 

 

I don't think you can beat whiskey for releasing the demons. It hasn't happened to me too often when I drink it but I have seen it happen to others. This is why I stick with beer and wine. Some people can be really nasty drunks when they have had too much whiskey.