B. H. Manners

I thought about going into the ministry at one time and memorized many,many verses of the Bible as well as a whole gospel and around ten epistles.

One thing that turned me off was the fact that I came to understand that preaching as a profession is pretty much a racket. One preacher or group of preachers goes after another one in the name of defending the faith, deliberately taking an opponents words out of context or outright lying about the man. This would occur in sermons, church periodical disciplinary "write-ups", lectureships, ect. Those preachers had to know what they were doing and were just liars. they got lots of money publishing debates, books, and lecture notes as well as preaching to congregations during their "gospel meetings". I found that many had absolutely no idea how to identify with others and generally showed contempt for their congregants behind their backs. I know of cases where the leaders of one congregation would lie about another congregations opinion on some matter only to find the offended congregation clarifying their position and having the other congregation's leaders still lying about the second congregation.


Also, growing up in my little church I was taught that a person was expected to do the right thing regardless of whether something bad would happen to them or not. You own a business and unethical competitors were ruining you? You either just had to sell out or go out, you cannot be unethical to stay operative. I was firmly taught that sometimes and oftentimes you get hurt doing what was right. I came to find out that many of the CoC members did a lot of things they shouldn't and when those wronged cried out for help and mercy to the church, the preachers,elders,and deacons just ignored them or blamed them for what happened. Really, the elders and preachers were just afraid of whoever was doing wrong, especially if they were in business or a position of influence. Also, many elders and deacons were businessmen or local leaders themselves in different capacities and serving as an elder or deacon was just something they could put on their resume.



Have studied a lot of the stuff in our library and Sec Web, I can understand why a preacher could look someone being ripped off by another church member and tell them it was their fault or try to force a false reconciliation between the two persons. He knows his faith isn't worth losing his job over and the elders didn't think withdrawing fellowship from an unrepentant person who had hurt others was worth the lawsuit the church might face. The elders and preachers are for the most part fully aware that there are large variant texts of the Bible---showing that the Bible has indeed been changed by man and written by man for man over time. they are also aware of the materials found on sites like talk.origins and just don't care. they rationalize their deceit with "If god doesn't exist it doesn't matter whether I pimp these people or not". Yes, it does matter---if you don't want to be decieved,pimped, and lied to yourself you need to stop such to others.


If anyone is interested in some cases of what I talked about in print check out Carl Ketcherside and his "Mission Messenger" online. Just type him and his magazine into your search engine and it will come up.

diana

I wouldn't go so far as to say they're conmen or even suffer from cognitive dissonance, John. I've seen the same phenomenon in martial artists who own their own dojos--they shut out, minimize, discount or mock all objections to how and what they teach. Why? Because acknowledging that what they teach doesn't work in reality threatens their livelihood. More, it threatens their pride. It means they've invested years of their lives perfecting something worthless.

But with preachers, I think there's something more. Many--most?--of them spend their lives reading the bible from the slant they were taught is "correct," and they read commentaries that agree with that slant and quote them in their sermons, and any commentary they happen to read that obviously comes from another slant is quickly discounted as "false" or "mistaken."

They aren't actually spending all that time looking deeping into what they believe, from what I've seen. They're spending that time polishing the handful of "I'm right" stones they have, and avoiding even contemplating anything that contradicts that.

I think my father is at this moment and possibly for the first time in his life actually not seeing his religion through the eyes he was given as a child, thanks to the fact that he has decided to explain to me why he believes in God. He'll be 60 next month, and has preached all my life. He knows the bible very well--but I doubt he's ever really read it. I mean, not with the same eyes I have, let alone questioned any bit of it. I think this is very normal behavior for many "men of the cloth."

Competing philosophies are rarely confronted. They're usually simply ignored (oh...and grossly misrepresented, the better to jeer at them). In such an atmosphere, I don't think actual cognitive dissonance even has a chance.

d

joedad

Saturday Night Fever comes to mind. But it's been a long time.

As a former catholic is was obvious that one's social standing in the group was greatly affected by having one's son or daughter enter a "Holy Life." I think too many people probably succumbed for this reason, and later discovered and regretted the error.

During my parents' generation, girls were taken to the convent after eighth grade. I don't know whether boys were permitted to complete high school or not. But in both cases this is too young to know what one is getting into, and any decision to do so is probably more for recognition than genuine interest. Discovering decades later that you've rather been duped would be devastating.

Echo

I don't know too much about the Lutheran Church, but if there is a creed or statement of faith that Lutherans are expected to profess, then I would expect a member of the Lutheran clergy to be able to honestly profess that creed; and were I Lutheran, I would probably not consider the loose metaphorical interpretations (a la Bishop Spong) to be adequate.

It's rare that I come to the defense of Christians, but in this case, I have to say that if a member of the clergy cannot profess the creed of his church and do so with intellectual honesty, then he should relinquish his clerical position. I'm sure he could still be an effective spiritual guide to others in a lay capacity.