Atheists in the Pulpit

[shnarkle]

There was a study done some years ago showing how many atheists were attending seminary and going on to pastor Christian churches. I can't find it anymore, but did locate one showing that 17% of pastors in Denmark, or Sweden were atheists. The thing I found intriguing wasn't just that they found the job spiritually or financially rewarding, but that so many of their congregation accepted them. This isn't the case everywhere. In some cases, a congregation can dwindle by two thirds as in a well known case up in Toronto Canada.

It seems to be catching on with the progressive Christians. I spent some time monitoring a progressive website after reading a few of Jack Spong's latest books. His writing would lead most conservative or fundamentalist Christians to believe he's an avowed atheist, and yet he's quite tame in comparison to most.

Thirty years ago I would have thought this to be one of the most ridiculous ideas imaginable, but today it not only doesn't surprise me, I applaud atheists and Christians alike for accepting people regardless of these arbitrary labels.

The New Testament seems to be full of examples of heretics, unbelievers, etc. who Jesus not only accepts, but spotlights them for their supreme faith, and love. Perhaps if Jesus were alive today, he would present the Parable of the Good atheist to convict and turn the stubborn-hearted from their ways.

If the message is essentially the same, I don't really see a problem. I also think that the atheist's ability to get beyond the superficial aspects of Christianity, i.e. the long dead doctrines that seem to only sap the life from a church, and get to the message puts them at a distinct advantage. Ultimately, it's just a pointless label.

What do you think?

Should atheists be allowed to pastor churches?

https://www.ifyc.org/content/why-atheist-going-seminary

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... rch-canada

https://owlcation.com/misc/Atheists-in- ... the-Clergy

https://progressingspirit.com/

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

Interesting... ties in with a post I wrote I another thread.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 597#971597

I personally don't see any problem as long as (as in the case of the Canadian Minister) they are up front about their beliefs or lack thereof.

One link you provided is speaking of clergy that have lost their faith and contemplating leaving their posts .... I can't see any problem with that either, if again they are honest with their congregation so they can make an informed decision as to whether they want to attend that church or not. In either case it reinforces the need to be vigilant as to who is teaching you and what they are saying. I personally wouldn't be surprised if there was a concerted movement to infiltrate the churches and religious movemments with certain ideologies but I am a hopeless conspiracy theorist ...


JW

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

I read the first link you have posted at the end of the OP. I found the following claim in that article:

There are atheists who identify with a personal Humanistic ethic; there are others who are frustrated that their disbelief in God pins them as “atheists,� when they prefer not to exist in a framework that assumes theism. There are atheists who are republican, democrat, libertarian, totalitarian, and every shade in between. There are feminist atheists, sexist atheists, and apathetic atheists. There are atheists who actively criticize religious people, and atheists who wish to engage with them. So on and so forth.

When it comes to presenting anything close to a united front, the atheist movement fails time and time again.

How utterly absurd is this? You can replace the term "atheists" in the above quote with "theists", and it wouldn't change a thing. Especially when it comes to political affiliations. What does the author of the above quote think? That all theists are republicans?

For some reason people aren't even thinking clearly when they make these kinds of accusations against atheists.

Moreover, theists disagree with each other quite passionately overall. Especially theists from disagreeing demoninations. What the author of the quote above was probably thinking of was small groups that come together pretending to agree on everything just to avoid provoking arguments. After all the author was referring to a Catholic setting. That's just one small group of theists. Other theists renounce Catholicism as the "Whore of Babylon".

So theists in generally basically hate each other.

I'm quite sure that there are groups of atheists who all hold similar values etc, when meeting in small groups.

Also, isn't it the ultimate pretense to mingle with "believers" of a specific God while you don't actually believe in their God? Sure, they will embrace you into their group with politeness, but in truth if you don't believe in what they believe then, just as the author claims, you're only in it for the social reasons, not for the reason that the group is supposed to be there in the first place.

As far as I can see this amounts to nothing other than being "hard-up" to find acceptable friends, so you end up hanging out with people who believe things you don't believe in just for the sake of having pretentiously polite company? That's a pretty sad state of affairs I think.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

Interesting... ties in with a post I wrote I another thread.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 597#971597

I personally don't see any problem as long as (as in the case of the Canadian Minister) they are up front about their beliefs or lack thereof.

One link you provided is speaking of clergy that have lost their faith and contemplating leaving their posts .... I can't see any problem with that either, if again they are honest with their congregation so they can make an informed decision as to whether they want to attend that church or not. In either case it reinforces the need to be vigilant as to who is teaching you and what they are saying. I personally wouldn't be surprised if there was a concerted movement to infiltrate the churches and religious movemments with certain ideologies but I am a hopeless conspiracy theorist ...


JW

I put those other links in to show that there aren't just atheists who want to remain pastors, but also pastors who have fallen away from the faith and are now atheists. Richard Dawkins even has some sort of program to help pastors transition from believers to non believers.

Seminaries and schools of theology are now teaching more on the origins and development of the gospels which was within the synagogues for quite some time. They are being viewed as more of a liturgical narrative than a historical one. Numerous pastors of multiple denominations are latching on to these themes without pointing out this fact. However, there are some who are pointing out this fact with mixed results. Atheist or progressive pastors seem to be at the forefront of this movement.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

I read the first link you have posted at the end of the OP. I found the following claim in that article:

There are atheists who identify with a personal Humanistic ethic; there are others who are frustrated that their disbelief in God pins them as “atheists,� when they prefer not to exist in a framework that assumes theism. There are atheists who are republican, democrat, libertarian, totalitarian, and every shade in between. There are feminist atheists, sexist atheists, and apathetic atheists. There are atheists who actively criticize religious people, and atheists who wish to engage with them. So on and so forth.

When it comes to presenting anything close to a united front, the atheist movement fails time and time again.

How utterly absurd is this? You can replace the term "atheists" in the above quote with "theists", and it wouldn't change a thing.

Good points, but I think he also makes a good point in noting that when it comes to engaging in community it's "easier" within a theistic community. He has his reasons, but I also would note that there are numerous religious organizations that are actively engaged in the community at large. They're handing out food, providing shelter, clothes, money for rent, school supplies, etc. They go into jails, prisons, hospitals to visit and offer counseling. His point seems to be that they're better at it, and atheists might want to take a look at that model themselves. What I find noteworthy is that they're accepted even though they're not "believers". He's undoubtedly not attempting to persuade or convert his theistic brethren so they really have no reason to cast him out for wanting to engage in their community. A healthy church is one that is actively engaged in the community which includes atheists.

So theists in generally basically hate each other.

Could be, but they seem to be able to overlook their differences in order to attain their aims and goals. Christian doctrine basically admits this as a human condition which needs to be addressed. Why else would they be told to "love one another" if this was already the case? Where do we find atheists organizing under any similar principle? Is there some ecumenical movement among atheists to look for common ground with any of these numerous theistic communities?

I'm quite sure that there are groups of atheists who all hold similar values etc, when meeting in small groups.

That's not the point. His point is that these churches are more effective as a force for positive change and community than atheists organizations.

Also, isn't it the ultimate pretense to mingle with "believers" of a specific God while you don't actually believe in their God?

Not when you're open about your position. Ecumenical movements have been around for quite some time as well.

Sure, they will embrace you into their group with politeness, but in truth if you don't believe in what they believe then, just as the author claims, you're only in it for the social reasons, not for the reason that the group is supposed to be there in the first place.

The problem with this analysis is that many people who are believers are in it for social reasons. They call it "fellowship". Many churches actively seek out shut ins, the destitute, etc. to provide a means to connect with the community at large. They are actively providing people with a means to feel like their part of a community, not just a community of believers.

I know what you're saying though because I have spent countless hours in the company of different church denominations who are well aware of my beliefs. While I can sympathize with your position, the fact remains that it is minor in comparison to the fellowship they offer regardless of one's beliefs.

As far as I can see this amounts to nothing other than being "hard-up" to find acceptable friends, so you end up hanging out with people who believe things you don't believe in just for the sake of having pretentiously polite company? That's a pretty sad state of affairs I think.

Not nearly as sad as remaining hard up for polite company. Some people need to be around polite company in order to learn that it's okay to be polite. People today don't seem to see any value in polite society anymore. For some unknown reason they think that being rude or snotty is preferable to being polite. We've lost something that is probably not going to be recovered until after society completely crumbles.

[marco]

Thirty years ago I would have thought this to be one of the most ridiculous ideas imaginable, but today it not only doesn't surprise me, I applaud atheists and Christians alike for accepting people regardless of these arbitrary labels.

The New Testament seems to be full of examples of heretics, unbelievers, etc. who Jesus not only accepts, but spotlights them for their supreme faith, and love. Perhaps if Jesus were alive today, he would present the Parable of the Good atheist to convict and turn the stubborn-hearted from their ways.

If the message is essentially the same, I don't really see a problem. I also think that the atheist's ability to get beyond the superficial aspects of Christianity, i.e. the long dead doctrines that seem to only sap the life from a church, and get to the message puts them at a distinct advantage. Ultimately, it's just a pointless label.

What a refreshingly different difference! It is not too difficult to preach Christ's message wearing atheistic clothes. There is obviously the charge of hypocrisy, but that's maybe unfair. I have listened to wonderful professors working lovingly through Ovid's many mythical tales, handling them with the reverence given to Paul, while of course accepting they are all fictions.

We can digest the parables and recite the Sermon on the Mount and indeed extract honey from the lion's mouth. The simple currency of human interchange is there in the New Testament, in particular where the luminous figure of the Nazarene (as Einstein put it) speaks. Atheists see this without the rainbow tint of believing in dead men talking.

One of the best speakers I have heard was a visiting priest and it came as no surprise to learn, later, he was an atheist. God does indeed work in wondrous ways!

[shnarkle]

The simple currency of human interchange is there in the New Testament, in particular where the luminous figure of the Nazarene (as Einstein put it) speaks. Atheists see this without the rainbow tint of believing in dead men talking.

I can't help but hear Christ saying the same thing when he points out that he didn't come to condemn, but his words will condemn. Yes, we don't believe that dead men talk, but we hear their words which invigorate, and live in, with, and through us.

They have the power to bring us back to life.

[marco]

I can't help but hear Christ saying the same thing when he points out that he didn't come to condemn, but his words will condemn. Yes, we don't believe that dead men talk, but we hear their words which invigorate, and live in, with, and through us.

They have the power to bring us back to life.

Dead men instructing us is a good way of finding truth without miracle. However, I can't help thinking that when water stays water, lepers continue to ring their bells and the grave retains its captives much is removed from the glamour of the Lord. He makes thought-provoking speeches, but so did Churchill and the aphorisms of Wilde have that extra bit of humour and punch to them.

He's good but he's not God, as the atheist might say.

[shnarkle]

Dead men instructing us is a good way of finding truth without miracle.

Yep, and far too many people seek miracles never finding the truth which is the only thing that will set them free.

However, I can't help thinking that when water stays water, lepers continue to ring their bells and the grave retains its captives much is removed from the glamour of the Lord.

And well it should. The Lord isn't glamorous to begin with. Christianity has assumed the role of cosmetologist and public relations media moguls for Christ which draws all attention away from his words, to distract us with his hyped personality.

He makes thought-provoking speeches, but so did Churchill and the aphorisms of Wilde have that extra bit of humour and punch to them.

Chesterton and others have noted a lack of mirth in the gospel narratives, but a closer examination reveals their sense of humor. Granted it's not slapstick, but then anyone can do that, right?

He's good but he's not God, as the atheist might say.

I think this is not only something atheists might say, but an insight that traditional theists are missing, which is the apophatic aspect of God. Jesus would add that he's not even good as well.

[For_The_Kingdom]

There was a study done some years ago showing how many atheists were attending seminary and going on to pastor Christian churches. I can't find it anymore, but did locate one showing that 17% of pastors in Denmark, or Sweden were atheists. The thing I found intriguing wasn't just that they found the job spiritually or financially rewarding, but that so many of their congregation accepted them. This isn't the case everywhere. In some cases, a congregation can dwindle by two thirds as in a well known case up in Toronto Canada.

It seems to be catching on with the progressive Christians. I spent some time monitoring a progressive website after reading a few of Jack Spong's latest books. His writing would lead most conservative or fundamentalist Christians to believe he's an avowed atheist, and yet he's quite tame in comparison to most.

Thirty years ago I would have thought this to be one of the most ridiculous ideas imaginable, but today it not only doesn't surprise me, I applaud atheists and Christians alike for accepting people regardless of these arbitrary labels.

The New Testament seems to be full of examples of heretics, unbelievers, etc. who Jesus not only accepts, but spotlights them for their supreme faith, and love. Perhaps if Jesus were alive today, he would present the Parable of the Good atheist to convict and turn the stubborn-hearted from their ways.

If the message is essentially the same, I don't really see a problem. I also think that the atheist's ability to get beyond the superficial aspects of Christianity, i.e. the long dead doctrines that seem to only sap the life from a church, and get to the message puts them at a distinct advantage. Ultimately, it's just a pointless label.

What do you think?

Should atheists be allowed to pastor churches?

https://www.ifyc.org/content/why-atheist-going-seminary

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... rch-canada

https://owlcation.com/misc/Atheists-in- ... the-Clergy

https://progressingspirit.com/

It amazes me how these so called "atheists" and unbelievers just keep insisting on concerning themselves with things related to religion, and in this case, churches.

Same thing on this forum...these so called "atheists" are arguing for/against the Trinity doctrine, even more so than believers are.

It blows my mind...like, why do you care?