Unbelieving pastors?

Unbelieving pastors?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A study by Tufts University has called attention to the presence of Protestant pastors who do not believe what they preach, something the authors describe as a nearly "invisible phenomenon" of "unbelieving clergy."

Ambiguity regarding who is a believer in Jesus and who is a nonbeliever, the report said, is a result of the pluralism that has been fostered by many religious leaders for at least a century.

"God is many different things to different people, and since we can't know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all," the authors wrote in summarizing the pluralistic view.

Rather than relying on statistical evidence to point to a conclusion, the study employs anecdotal stories of five ministers whose identities have been obscured. Even the authors admit they couldn't draw any reliable generalizations from such a small sample of clergy, but what they found, they said, does deserve a closer look.

One pastor, a Methodist, said he no longer believes that God exists, but his church members do not know that he is an atheist. Most of them, he said, don't even believe Jesus literally rose from the dead or literally was born of a virgin.

Another pastor, from the United Church of Christ, said he didn't even believe in the doctrinal content of the Christian faith at the beginning of his ministry, but he continues to preach as if he believes because it's the way of life he knows.

A Presbyterian pastor in the study said he remains in ministry largely for financial reasons and acknowledged that if he were to make known that he rejects most tenets of the Christian faith he would obliterate his "ability to earn a living this way."

A Church of Christ pastor explained how he continues to lead his church despite losing all theological confidence.

"Here's how I'm handling my job on Sunday mornings: I see it as play acting. I see myself as taking on the role of a believer in a worship service, and performing," the pastor said.

He describes himself as an atheistic agnostic and said he still needs the ministerial job and no longer believes hypocrisy is wrong.

A Southern Baptist pastor included in the study said he was attracted to Christianity as a religion of love and now has become an atheist. If someone would offer him $200,000, he said, he'd leave the ministry right away.

...."If they will not remove themselves from the ministry, they must be removed. If they lack the integrity to resign their pulpits, the churches must muster the integrity to eject them," Mohler wrote at albertmohler.com. "If they will not 'out' themselves, it is the duty of faithful Christians to 'out' them. The caterpillars are hard at work. Will it take a report from an atheist to awaken the church to the danger?..

more

http://www.bpnews.net/32843

 

Preachers Who Don't Believe - The Scandal of Apostate Pastors

Are there clergy who don't believe in God? That is the question posed by a new report that is certain to receive considerable attention - and rightly so. Few church members are likely to be disinterested in whether their pastor believes in God.

The study was conducted by the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, under the direction of Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola. Dennett, of course, is one of the primary figures in the "New Atheism" - the newly aggressive and influential atheist movement that has gained a considerable hearing among the intellectual elites and the media.....

Interestingly, Dennett also proposes a new interpretation of theological liberalism. Noting that many modern people claim to be Christians while holding to virtually no specific theological content, Dennett suggests that their mode of faith should not be described as "belief," but rather as "believing in belief."

Given Dennett's own atheistic agenda, we can rightly assume that he would be thrilled to see Christian ministers and believers abandon the faith. Indeed, the New Atheists have made this a stated aim. Thus, this new research report, "Preachers Who Are Not Believers," should be read within that framework. Nevertheless, it must be read. This report demands the attention of anyone concerned with the integrity of the Christian church and the Christian faith.

Dennett and LaScola undertook their project with the goal of looking for unbelieving pastors and ministers who continue to serve their churches in "secret disbelief." Their "small and self-selected" sample of ministers represents a microcosm of the theological collapse at the heart of many churches and denominations.

In their report, Dennett and LaScola present case studies of five unbelieving ministers, three from liberal denominations ("the liberals") and two from conservative denominations ("the literals").

Wes, a Methodist, lost his confidence in the Bible while attending a liberal Christian college and seminary..........

........Rick, a campus minister for the United Church of Christ, perhaps the most liberal Protestant denomination, was an agnostic in college and seems to have lost all belief by the time he graduated from seminary.............

........He doesn't like to call himself an atheist, but: "If not believing in a supernatural, theistic god is what distinguishes an atheist, then I am one too."

Darryl is a Presbyterian who sees himself as a "progressive-minded" pastor who wants to see his kind of non-doctrinal Christianity "given validity in some way." He acknowledges that he is more a pantheist than a theist, and thinks that many of the more educated members of his church hold to the same liberal beliefs as his own. And those beliefs (or unbeliefs) are stated clearly: "I reject the virgin birth. I reject substitutionary atonement. I reject the divinity of Jesus. I reject heaven and hell in the traditional sense, and I am not alone."

Amazingly, Darryl is candid about the fact that he remains in the ministry largely for financial reasons. It is how he provides for his family. If he openly espoused his beliefs, "I may be burning bridges in terms of my ability to earn a living this way."

Adam ministers in the Church of Christ, a conservative denomination. After years in the ministry, he began to lose all theological confidence. After reading a series of books, he became convinced that the atheists have better arguments than believers. He has moved fully into an atheist mode, yet he continues to lead his church in worship. How? "Here's how I'm handling my job on Sunday mornings: I see it as play acting. I see myself as taking on the role of a believer in a worship service, and performing."........

.......John is identified as a Southern Baptist minister who has primarily served as a worship leader......

.....He is clearly not being honest with his church members. He rejects all belief in God and all Christian truth claims out of hand. He is a determined atheist. Once again, this unbelieving minister admits that he stays in the ministry because of finances....

.....Early in their report, Dennett and LaScola point to a problem of definition. Many churches and denominations have adopted such fluid and doctrineless identities that determining who is a believer and who is an unbeliever has become difficult. Their statement deserves a close reading:

The ambiguity about who is a believer and who is an unbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can't know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don't know what they are being asked.

In other words, some theologians and denominations have embraced a theology so fluid and indeterminate that even an atheist cannot tell the believers and unbelievers apart.

"Preachers Who Are Not Believers" is a stunning and revealing report that lays bare a level of heresy, apostasy, and hypocrisy that staggers the mind.

more

http://www.christianpost.com/news/preachers-who-don-t-believe-the-scandal-of-apostate-pastors-44391/

 

This next one really blew me away and shows why we’re having the problems in our churches that we’re having:

Priests Who Teach the Difference

“Moreover, they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.” (Ezekiel 44:23)

In Ezekiel 41-43 God provides the specifications for what will be the construction of the perfect Temple which all the former earthly iterations were only a veiled copy. All the previous ones were desecrated or misused in some way, but the final one will not give rise to those imperfections brought about by human frailty and failure to keep the whole of God’s Word concerning service to the One True God. In the latter half of Ezekiel 44 is described what will be the equally perfect service of the Levitical priests who serve directly in God’s very sanctuary before His very presence. But in addition there are some requirements pertaining to their responsibilities to the people as well. I cannot help but wonder that if every member of the New Testament church is now designated a priest (1 Pe. 2:5) if this might also be alluding to something we are supposed to do. I would argue in earnest that in fact this is something once common in the church which has all but disappeared today: teaching “the difference between the holy and the profane” and “the clean and unclean”.

One of the advantages of no longer teaching how to distinguish between “the holy and the profane” or “the clean and the unclean” is never having to justify why something biblically “profane” or “unclean” has been allowed to enter and take root in one’s church. Such distinctions require putting something under the scrutiny of God’s Word and closely examining the kind of spiritual fruit produced. This is why there is so often a strong connection between the dilution or even disappearance of the Bible from the pulpit and the rest of a church’s activities embracing worldly approaches in place of biblical ones. If the Word is not taught, it is far less likely anyone will be equipped to contrast the “profane” or “unclean” practices which has been allowed entrance and even incorporation into what is called “church”.

This most commonly comes up when something is challenged as being “worldly” and the response provided, “What is wrong with making church relevant to the modern day?” There is a lack of knowledge of the definition of the biblical standard much less how to apply it, replaced by the new standard of how well something emulates and stimulates as close as possible the implementation of its earthly counterpart. So the lyrics are no longer important, only that the sound is polished and professional; the message from the pulpit cannot make anyone uncomfortable and must always be “positive” and “uplifting”; it is not possible to hold anyone accountable for sin because that is considered unloving and judgmental, even though by biblical standards it is so judged in the most extreme terms. Since there is no difference designated within the church proper “between the holy and the profane” or “the clean and the unclean”, why are we surprised when so-called believers cannot and do not make any such distinction in the course of everyday life?

And so goes all the polls and research confirming that there is no longer a statistical difference between “church-goers” and “non-church-goers” for any moral or spiritual issue that can be named. The divorce rate and attitude about divorce? No difference. The stance on homosexuality, sex, and even adultery? No difference. Abortion, euthanasia, or almost any health-related issue? Statistically the same. The majority claiming the label “Christian” are incapable of making the distinction between “the holy and the profane” as well as “the clean and the unclean” within the walls of the church, so why are we surprised they are equally incapable of effecting such differences when they leave for life outside in the real world?

But this leads to a situation in our church meetings which God takes to a whole other level. It begins by not being able to discern such differences but gives way to incorporating them in church activities to the point where things are not just “wrong”, but have the devastating opposite effect of the intended goal of worship.

“You shall say to the rebellious ones, to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Enough of all your abominations, O house of Israel, when you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to profane it, even My house, when you offered My food, the fat and the blood; for they made My covenant void—this in addition to all your abominations. (Ezekiel 44:6-7)

God calls it “your abominations”. When people can no longer tell the difference it is not long until they adopt things which by God’s standards are unquestionably “profane” and/or “unclean”. First the standard is dropped of maintaining that everything must be biblically “holy” or “clean” and the doorway is therefore flung open to allowing entrance and permanent residence of things out-and-out “profane” or “unclean”. (This is really at the heart of the discussion when something is designated as being “Emergent”, “Ecumenical”, or “Purpose Driven”.) And I cannot help but notice that in this particular instance God associates the problem not just with the abominations themselves, but through whom they were allowed entrance, people “uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh” — people who were not and are not His people in any way, shape, or form by biblical standards. This is what happens when we bring people in who are made members but are not actually saved.

I do not know the exact date or time it happened, but over the course of the past 30 or so years a complete reversal has occurred. Instead of church being a place of fellowship and discipleship, and the onus of reaching the unsaved remained upon each believer as they worked and lived in the everyday world, everything was redirected to bringing everyone to a single place for some kind of “one stop religious shop”. Instead of taking the Gospel out to the unsaved where they lived, church has been turned inside out so that it is supposed to be something that lures everyone in. Once upon a time an unsaved visitor to your church would be immersed in what it means when Christians worship and fellowship together in the Word and might actually be convicted that there was something in their own life not measuring up to what they witnessed in this gathering; today they are more likely not to be threatened with nor see any difference at all. What kind of evangelism is that?

“When the prince enters, he shall go in by way of the porch of the gate and go out by the same way. But when the people of the land come before the LORD at the appointed feasts, he who enters by way of the north gate to worship shall go out by way of the south gate. And he who enters by way of the south gate shall go out by way of the north gate. No one shall return by way of the gate by which he entered but shall go straight out. When they go in, the prince shall go in among them; and when they go out, he shall go out.” (Ezekiel 46:8-10)

In this description of God’s vision for a perfect implementation of worship, no one leaves His presence to go back out into the world by the same way they initially entered. It is alluding to God’s desire that His people do not come together simply as an insulation against the world, acting one way when in the world and another when gathered together in His presence, but are supposed to return not just changed but refusing to go back to the practices they came from. Biblical gatherings are supposed to be a source of strength for going out into the world and living according to God’s Word and ways and to instill in the participants the desire not to return to the same condition they came from. They are supposed to return to the world different, not the same as when they started out.

This theme of not returning to the old life, of not going back the way you came, is repeated in Scripture such as when God commanded the prophet sent to the northern kingdom of Israel not to “return by the way which you came”. (1 Ki. 13:9). The ultimate example is Egypt as the symbol of the old life to which no one should desire to return. Jesus repeatedly preached to those who came into personal contact with Him not to sin any more, to live a life changed from the heart and proven in the respective changes to one’s behavior.

This is why some of us today are so passionate in our reactions to church growth approaches, especially when making such “seeker sensitive”. It not only promotes activities completely opposite to the biblical standard, but give way to practices which are completely antithetical to God’s Word and ways. Such proponents commonly assert that to merely say one believes in Christ without actually leaving the desires and ways of the old life to exclusively pursue His is enough. Since they no longer make the distinction within their church between the earthly and the biblical, why should they make those distinctions when it comes to what one does when they leave such weekly meetings to return to the world? If there is no difference at church, why should there be any difference anywhere else?

If you are one of the few remaining Bible-believing, Christ-consumed believers in this present age, you have probably struggled at one time or another with the question of why so many people claim the label “Christian” but the polls clearly show this cannot possibly be the case. If the majority of those raising their hands were truly putting their faith and God’s Word into practice, most social problems would disappear overnight. There would be no “issue” over abortion, or access to pornography, or social injustice, or any number of moral dilemmas because that majority would be schooled in the difference between “the holy and the profane” and “the clean and the unclean” and demand such a standard be maintained in and out of the church.

I know that many Bible-believing Christians clearly see what is going on behind the major issues of our day in a general, prophetic sense, but for some reason do not grasp that the grass roots problem is not as much about the ignorance and evil we can always expect from the world, but that the church is no longer itself aware of the difference. We will never be able to successfully engage the world effectively until we face the fact that much of what is going on under the umbrella “church” is in fact biblically defined “abomination”. The sooner that the church returns to adhering to the standard of differentiating between “holy and profane” and “clean and unclean”, the sooner all those other issues will be materially impacted. I think we are going to have to become the priests who teach the difference.

posted with permission

http://moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.php/discernment/church-issues/priests-who-teach-the-difference