Priest not required to believe in God

Remove all ads!

In Denmark there was recently - or is still going on - a discussion whether a priest must actually believe in God to be a priest.

Calling all danes!
Please fill us in on this debate!

 

It's true and it caused a lot of debate. Really good in my opinion, because, it's not only a question of faith. It's a question about if the church in denmark should have connection with the government/state (which it currently has).
In my opinion I think not, but I doubt the church will survive without funding from the state. So on a traditional side of thinking, I don't mind. Since I'm no man of faith, it doesn't bother me that much.

The priest in question is what you would call a cultural christian. He believes in the message of the bible, but not its origin.
Of course you cannot be a priest without the "proper" faith and he was expelled from the church. He published a book called "En sten i skoen", directly translated it means "A rock in the shoe". I assume it would mean that which bothers you all the time. I haven't read it however, so I can't tell what precisely it says.

 

So is the question not actually if he believes in God (which one way or another I assume he does), rather how he believes in God?

If it truly is a question of believing in the main man so to speak, he should be looking another career.

 

He was taken back in as a priest recently, even though his opinion is the same. I've just been away for a week so I do not know the current stand.

Personally, I celebrate the concept, cause I prefer kindness and helfpfullness without also choosing to be gifted with eternal life in heaven, although it is a personal preference only. And the concept of us beeing equal to all animals with mortality really suits me. And third, if it came to happen that there is indeed more to this world than science can explain, then I prefer to stay open minded to any deity and what consequences that might have, and not just hold steady on what we generally see today. Geographical belief going from generation to generation.

[ August 11, 2003, 14:42: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

he was? didn't know. I haven't been following up on it. Though if he has, yes indeed I think it's fine as well.
For the people of faith it may seem a "defeat", however for the people who cherish the message of god I find it excellent.

 

The discussion, as I understood it, was not about how a Priest can believe in God, but that a Priest should actually be able to quite simply not believe in God.

In Sweden church and state were separated some years ago and the church is doing ok AFAIK. I don't think the Danish church would do worse. The church will still have revenues from many things like marriages, burials etc. (I don't actually know where they get money )

IMO there is a great difference between "cultural Christians" and "Christians".

There is no way the church can give way and say that it's ok to be a priest and not believe in God. If the church wishes to become an institution to care for our Christian culture and not require the actual worship of God, then it can no longer be a called a church.

That's my 2 cents as a non-religious "Cultural Christian".

 

128 danish priests have filed in a complaint that the Bishop has allowed him to preach again. That is the latest news. So yes he is still a priest even when he does not want to say that he believes in god

 

Well, as an atheist, I'm very pleased to see that our evil plan to destroy the church is finally coming to fruition. BWaHaHaHA!!

But seriously, unless I completely misunderstand the purpose of organised religion (which is entirely possible), aren't some of the main functions of a church preaching faith in god and spreading god's words? How the heck can a priest do this and have any credibility if he doesn't believe in god to begin with? Sure, spread the message (ie cultural christian), but don't call yourself a priest.

 

As a scholar of the bible lore, I would very much tend to believe what he says. Maybe even more so for being honest, I agree however, he is no priest. I'm quite happy he has a job and that he can spread an important message, even if it does intervene with the holy faith of others.

The divine is, as it seems to me, slowly being assimilated by the cultural and the danish church is now having large debates whether or not to allow homosexual marriages. Since in the word of god, a marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman.

The problem lies with the believers. I can easily understand how they wont tolerate the presence of a non-believing priest. But I see it as something more, it's a matter of principle. Which is more important, to follow gods law or his message?

 

God's Law is the result of God's Intention. So yes, the "message" is the most important IMHO, but I can understand if a religious person thinks the "word" is the most important.

But what happens if you don't believe in God in the first place? How can there there be a message from God if you don't believe in him? If you don't believe in God what you are left with is a set of ethical rules or guidelines invented by mere humans.

 

Well it would be anyway, since the bible already is more a journal than the actual word (unlike the koran). Believing something out of tradition can uphold some part of faith in itself I guess.
Believing in someone who believed in god would be somewhat holy too I think. After all from what we read in the bible they were convinced god existed, and thus if by divine inspiration (or lunacy) they managed to produce a lovely message, go for it!

There's a lovely old saying "don't fix what ain't broken", and if the guidelines works in his morale and ethical point of view, well why put too much weight in who made them.

I'm rather interested to see the future progression in the church, if it's being divided into a sort of caste system with a faithful part and a cultural part.