Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Say what you believe
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?
That preeminent American spirit, Ralph Waldo Emerson, began his life as a preacher. Indeed, in an image I have always relished, he wrote his sermons in the notebook that his father used, after tearing out his father's more pious writings. (Paper was scarce, and Emerson was an independent mind from the start.)
When Emerson discovered that he no longer believed in the divinity of Jesus, he resigned, with the sad acquiescence of his congregation. For he could no longer administer the Eucharist: To observe the Lord's Supper would be "to produce confusion in our views of relation of the soul to God." For Emerson this was sufficient. The congregation required someone who could administer the sacrament, and he could not. "It is my desire, in the office of a Christian minister, to do nothing which I cannot do with my whole heart."
Is there more to be said? If one discovers that belief has changed, it is a simple obligation to explain that to the congregation. A person of conscience and probity will take the repercussions. The congregation may continue to treasure the Rabbi or Minister; they may not. In any case a compact must be reached. To do otherwise is a fraudulent imposition. Such a position may defensible in marketing (you can sell a soap you think second rate, though it may cause you a twinge of discomfort) but in a clergyperson whose currency is conviction, to pretend is unworthy. Say what you believe. Surely the congregation deserves no less? As the Talmud teaches "The seal of God is truth."
By
David Wolpe
|
March 16, 2010; 12:05 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: I'll be writing in the sand if anyone needs me |
Next: Many kinds of faith, many kinds of doubt
Posted by: Secular | March 17, 2010 8:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Rabbi Wolpe (to his credit) is a leader in a branch of Judaism that holds that the Tanakh doesn't have to be factually true to hold moral value. For instance, there doesn't have to be an Exodus to believe God opposes slavery.
Many Christian denominations, though, rise and fall on acceptance of faith as fact. Those are the ones that will hopefully decline as education spreads.
Posted by: WmarkW | March 17, 2010 7:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Rabbi Wolpe (to his credit) is a leader in a branch of Judaism that holds that the Tanakh doesn't have to be factually true to hold moral value. For instance, there doesn't have to be an Exodus to believe God opposes slavery. - WMARKW
This is utter non-sense. If he claims that Exodus does not have to be true to believe that god opposes slavery, then it is probably true . Because for sure Exodus as written does not betray anywhere god's opposition to slavery. No where in the Exodus does it say that hebrews were the only slaves in the Pharaoh's hold. But Exodus clearly states that god through Moses, & Aaron asks for the release of the hebrews only. The logical conclusion from this is god hates it when his people are enslaved and that he is the god of his own chosen people and does not care about other people. To conclude anything beyond this would be latter day expansion of the conclusions. That's exactly what the hebrews had understood from the scripture, back then. The corollary to the above conclusions is, actually more profound than the conclusions, these scriptures were written by hebrew tribesmen as means of uniting all the fellow tribes people under one flag. These are nothing but political polemics to unite the hebrews. They have found that claiming that they are the chosen people by a god and purporting god's intentions was a good way to get adherence from all the people. These are not meant as universal documents at all. A scripture of a god for all people would not be these scriptures at all. A scripture in which a god would annihilate the first born of an entire nation, without a second thought and who needed assistance from his chosen by marking the houses could not possibly be an universal god, nor an omnipotent god. He is just a in-group morality-autocratic tribal leader. Coming back to god's opposition cannot be construed from Exodus, in-fact the very opposite is to be construed.