Thank's for sharing your own experience, Narkissos. In a way, the churches are tacitly altering their paradigm by providing the kind of theological education that they do, while formally continuing to recite the old creeds. And for many years the liberal pastor found him/herself in a position of having to appear to be more conservative than he/she really was in order to satisfy the parishioners, but now I believe the gap between the two is closing. Also, it is not a matter of providing some influence to enable the seminarian to be a fundamentalist despite the deconstructive influences. Yet, there must be some faith dimension remaining for a person to pursue a ministerial career (whether that "faith" is in an anthropomorphic God or not). It would appear that those who complete the process and yet still "believe" are doing so for subjective reasons - that there is nothing in the liberal seminary which corresponds to the evangelical or even JW apologetics which convinces the individual that faith is intellectually respectible. I suspect also that there are some whose "faith" survives the seminary because they go into denial about what they have learned, only to have a crisis of faith emerge later during their ministerial career. So the modern liberal seminary is supplying people with the tools of the Enlightenment, and then leaving them to their own personal resources to maintain the motivation necessary to pursue their calling.
Seminary education
by Justin 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
for many years the liberal pastor found him/herself in a position of having to appear to be more conservative than he/she really was in order to satisfy the parishioners, but now I believe the gap between the two is closing.
I'm not so sure about that; but I guess many pastors are responsible for the "fundamentalism" of their parishioners, by not sharing what they have learnt (out of "pastoral concern," fear of "stumbling people," so many nice names for hypocrisy). This shows when the media happen to shortcut the magisterium: for instance, a few years ago there was an excellent documentary series on French TV about the Gospels, interviewing the best NT scholars available. A lot of churchgoers turned to their pastors about it, only to find out that they were perfectly aware of the issues. So the question arose, why didn't they tell (and accompany troubling knowledge with spiritual guidance to deal with it)? I think many people could have heard a lot more and built a less fundamentalistic faith over the decades, but many pastors just chose the easy way of blind and deaf repetition.
there is nothing in the liberal seminary which corresponds to the evangelical or even JW apologetics which convinces the individual that faith is intellectually respectible.
I am not sure about that either. Theologians like Paul Tillich have spent their whole career on this very issue, and they are studied in the seminaries. Only, here again, their work rarely reaches the average parishioner.
-
Deputy Dog
Justin
Have you read about Lee Stobel's meeting with Charles Templeton, while researching "The Case For Christ"? It's very interesting.
D Dog
-
Justin
Well, it looks like this subject is winding down.
Deputy Dog, I understand that Templeton, in that interview, seemed to finally express some remorse over a lost faith but couldn't quite verbalize it. If you have a point you wish to emphasize, why not let us know what it is?
Narkissos, Tillich was very philosophical and perhaps would not be intelligible to those not trained in philosophy. I believe he introduced the term "Ground of Being" as a designation for the divine. This is perhaps helpful to get away from an anthropomorphic view of God. Some will hold that there is a metaphysical Ground of Being which in some sense is like the traditional Deity, whereas others will see this as an abstraction for being or existence in itself. I don't think such an approach will produce the certitude of the fundamentalist or JW who can say, "I know what I believe, and I know why." But then, perhaps as fundamentalism is left behind, this very certitude needs to be abandoned and such abandonment goes with the territory. I see you are disappointed with some liberal clergy because they are not honest with their people. This is a fascinating area for discussion, but is one that is seldom discussed in this forum as most JWs either opt for another form of certitude or else abandon religion altogether.
-
DanTheMan
perhaps as fundamentalism is left behind
The eulogy seems premature. Here in the midwest, subjective, irrational, "WE BELIEVE IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS" religion is the order of the day, and it becomes more popular with every passing year.
I don't think the preachers in these churches have seminary educations though. It's like JWism on a mass scale.
-
Narkissos
Justin,
I feel there is a direct correlation between what you believe (fides quae creditur) and how you believe (fides qua creditur). You cannot believe in the Johannine "Father," for instance, the same way you would believe in a Baal-like Yhwh. The difference in the object of belief calls for a difference in the style if not nature of subjective belief.
Thinking that you can keep both kinds of "faith" unchanged and just modify the accompanying apologetics to suit the epistemological trends of the day is very shortsighted imo.
An interesting yet difficult attempt of dealing together with the issues of fundamental, dogmatic and apologetic theology in a modern intellectual environment is that of Eberhard Jüngel (God as Mystery of the World). You might enjoy it -- although, as DanTheMan notes, this is not exactly what popular theology is made of.
About the latter... perhaps it's in the very nature of theology as reflection or nachdenken to come after, not before religious experience. A deep thinker might not be especially good at founding a religion, but he might be helpful to sort things downstream.
-
peacefulpete
Having asked a handful of ministers these very questions I got an education, many are atheist ministers. To them the job has elements they enjoy such as social interaction and community. For one young Catholic priest the "job payed better than social work" and the mythology has power. I strangely find that response more agreeable than those that claim and really believe they received a "calling".
-
Shining One
Billygoat,
>We aren't fundies and we DO believe. There are greys in between the black and white.
He is talking about being consistent, which is exactly what liberal Christians are NOT. Seminaries that teach unbiblical, inconsistent ideas, which are the result of unbelievers masquerading as Christians, result in false teachers. False teaching itself leads to liberal 'christians' who often have no idea what scripture teaches.
First of all, there is nothing wrong with being a 'fundie'. The term is a slur and slander of Christians. The word 'Christian' was originally a slur on those who worshipped Jesus as God. In case you hadn't noticed, the Bible is a black/white, good vs evil book. Christ tells us to be 'salt' and 'light', for to be less is to be lukewarm. Mixing worldliness with Chrisitianity leads directly to leavening of the teachings.
Liberals will often compromise principles in order to be 'inoffensive' to those who are perishing. You see it all the time with the lack of preaching about the gospel (which is an offense) in the various liberal denominations. Christianity is not a hodgepodge of feel good ideas and new age abberations.
Rex -
Deputy Dog
Justin
It just seems that at some level he was still at war inside, possibly angry about something or someone. I know of cases where people renounced their faith, when they were simply angry with God. When deep down they still believe.
D Dog
-
zagor
My question is, What are they told which would still enable them to have any faith?
Basically they are taught how to live without work, it is still far easier to preach than to do physical labour.