Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Pastors must relate to their congregations honestly
Q:What should pastors do if they no longer hold the defining beliefs of their denomination? Do clergy have a moral obligation not to challenge the sincere faith of their parishioners? If this requires them to dissemble from the pulpit, doesn't this create systematic hypocrisy at the center of religion? What would you want your pastor to do with his or her personal doubts or loss of faith?
Pastors and other religious leaders charged with the care and spiritual nurture of a congregation have no greater responsibility than relating to their congregations honestly. When honesty is the norm, seldom will the congregation be caught off guard or surprised by its religious leader's doctrinal beliefs or ethical principles. That being said, however, the situation is neither as simple nor as easy as it seems.
In today's world of schisms in all major religions, though a religious tradition does not change, the leaders of the institutions in that religious tradition change. Such was my experience as a pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention founded on the "historic Baptist tradition." In a pre-announced political movement aimed at taking over the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, fundamentalist Baptists successfully ousted cooperative leaders in the convention committed to the priesthood of every believer, the autonomy of each local congregation, church-state separation and a congregational polity. New leaders were elected and unprecedented emphasis was placed on creedal orthodoxy, biblical literalism, pastoral authority and a form of religious freedom that permitted entanglement between institutions of religion and government. My personal conviction was shared by many long-time members of that Convention: "I have not moved away from the convention, the convention has moved away from me." Indeed, my Baptist identity would have been compromised by remaining a part of that movement.
At no time during that transitional period did I not speak to the congregations I served openly and honestly about what was happening and how it was affecting me. Currently, I do sermon feedback sessions that allow members of the congregation to question what I have said from the pulpit. Regularly, I challenge members of the congregation to evaluate what I have said and to form their own biblically-based conclusions about it.
Differences of opinion do not destroy a congregation; they may even strengthen it. However, a lack of communication between people with different opinions can be seriously destructive. Dishonesty can be damaging beyond measure. Nowhere should efforts at communication be stronger than between a religious leader and those whom the leader serves. Out of such interaction comes mutual respect and spiritual growth for all involved.
Finally, if careful communication ultimately reveals that a religious leader no longer represents or advocates the theological and moral views of a particular congregation, the leader has a responsibility to resign. Such action preserves the integrity of both the leader and the congregation and represents a commitment to authenticity that is absolutely essential to spirituality.
By
Welton Gaddy
|
March 16, 2010; 10:58 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Pulpit disbelief is nothing new |
Next: I'll be writing in the sand if anyone needs me
Posted by: YEAL9 | March 16, 2010 5:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
So Rev. Gaddy have you shared the following with your congregation?
(as noted previously by many bloggers)
1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a
mythical character as was mythical Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.
Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA4044822.
2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).
Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".
3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
Or are you afraid to risk that $208,598/yr salary you make at The Interfaith Alliance Foundation?
Ref: guidestar.org