epronovost
Well-Known Member
Which ones?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What would the world look like without clergy?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
Which ones?
In order to answer that question, we first need to define what we mean by clergy. What makes someone clergy?
Does being clergy require special, extensive training? In other words, is it akin to training to be a career professional or expert in a particular field? If so, I think the question becomes similar to asking what the human world would look like without doctors. After all, we can investigate the truth for ourselves on medical matters, so what do we need doctors for? Who needs well-trained experts, right? Everybody can just figure this stuff out for themselves!
This is just one example. I could go on from there, but I think the point is made from this one. I think we can generally agree that being clergy requires at least some sort of special skill set, whether or not that is formally trained (though it usually is). You could then think about what those skills are (e.g., leadership ability), and what a human organization looks like in the absence of those skills. We could also think about the services clergy provide for the community (e.g., officiating weddings), and who would then provide them in their absence.
The long and the short of it is that clergy fill needed roles in society. Those roles need to be filled somehow, by someone. If not by people called "clergy" then in some other way.
Does being clergy require special, extensive training? In other words, is it akin to training to be a career professional or expert in a particular field? If so, I think the question becomes similar to asking what the human world would look like without doctors. After all, we can investigate the truth for ourselves on medical matters, so what do we need doctors for? Who needs well-trained experts, right? Everybody can just figure this stuff out for themselves!
This is just one example. I could go on from there, but I think the point is made from this one. I think we can generally agree that being clergy requires at least some sort of special skill set, whether or not that is formally trained (though it usually is). You could then think about what those skills are (e.g., leadership ability), and what a human organization looks like in the absence of those skills. We could also think about the services clergy provide for the community (e.g., officiating weddings), and who would then provide them in their absence.
The long and the short of it is that clergy fill needed roles in society. Those roles need to be filled somehow, by someone. If not by people called "clergy" then in some other way.
Most of contemporary Paganism. We've often been described as traditions where everyone is functionally their own priest/priestess. That comes with its problems as well as its assets.
Yes the phasing triggered warning bells that i would not have expected when replying to you
I am not making any such suggestion that clergy commit more child abuse. I am suggesting that without clergy and the opportunities afforded them there would be no clergy instigated child abuse.
Whether another walk of life makes sexual predation surface is unknown.
To be honest, I don't see any essential difference between a minor prophet and a high-ranking cleric like the Pope in Catholicism?
If one believes in the concept of prophethood, then you are effectively giving approval to the idea that certain individuals can act as intermediaries of divinely inspired guidance and grace to other people. Whomsoever an individual believer accords this status is rather beside the point.
The papacy (in tandem with the the lower-ranking orders of clerics comprising the episcopacy (bishops) and local priesthood at diocesan level), is basically - as well as being pastoral, sacramental and liturgical - a prophetic office for Catholics akin to the Shi'ite Imamate, inasmuch as the Pontiff is deemed to posses magisterial teaching authority and infallibility as the Successor of St. Peter (which the other bishops of the world also share in collectively through Synods).
The Imamate in Shia Islam effectively a high priesthood descended from Ali, which is comparable to the apostolic succession of bishops in clerical forms of Christianity, whereas Sunni Islam is explicitly anti-clerical like Calvinist Protestantism (i.e. Sunnism has lay Caliphs and Imams / ulema, basically scholar-jurists not unlike a pastor in Evangelical churches).
Has the absence of clerics made Sunnism a more progressive denomination of the Islamic faith than Nizari Shi'ism, with its living Imam the Aga Khan and Da‘wa (clerical missionaries) ?
One could argue its quite the opposite. Shi'ite mullahs and ayatollahs exercise the right of ijtihad
Why terrorists are targeting Pakistan’s Ismaili community
Ismailis are seen as a reformist sect and more liberal in their interpretations of the Quran than other strains of Islam. In some ways, they are: the 48th Ismaili imam, Aga Khan III, made it optional for women to cover their hair in public. The vast majority of Ismaili women do not wear a hijab.
Some attribute these liberalisms to a philosophical commitment to modernity and pluralism. Ismailis have a religious mandate to pursue knowledge and fulfill traditions of tolerance by actively working toward harmonious, pluralistic societies. This requires ever-evolving interpretations of Quranic doctrine.
Essentially, it’s an obligation to adapt to the times—an idea that stands in stark contrast to fundamentalist politics of all sorts
Some attribute these liberalisms to a philosophical commitment to modernity and pluralism. Ismailis have a religious mandate to pursue knowledge and fulfill traditions of tolerance by actively working toward harmonious, pluralistic societies. This requires ever-evolving interpretations of Quranic doctrine.
Essentially, it’s an obligation to adapt to the times—an idea that stands in stark contrast to fundamentalist politics of all sorts
With reference to Christianity, I could cite the fact that the explicitly non-clerical Southern Baptist Convention has an infamous recent history of rejecting science and being generally anti-intellectualist in orientation, not to mention fundamentalist in general (with a history of racism as well):
Southern Baptist Convention > Resolution On Scientific Creationism
WHEREAS, The theory of evolution has never been proven to be a scientific fact, and
WHEREAS, Public school students are now being indoctrinated in evolution-science, and
WHEREAS, Creation-science can be presented solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or concepts, and
WHEREAS, Public school students are now being indoctrinated in evolution-science, and
WHEREAS, Creation-science can be presented solely in terms of scientific evidence without any religious doctrines or concepts, and
Removing the Stain of Racism from the Southern Baptist Convention - Themelios
Compare their attitude to that of Episcopalianism, a clerical branch of Protestantism:
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia
Anglicans (including the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Church of England and others) believe that the Bible "contains all things necessary to salvation," while believing that "science and Christian theology can complement one another in the quest for truth and understanding." Specifically on the subject of creation/evolution, some Anglicans view "Big Bang cosmology" as being "in tune with both the concepts of creation out of nothing and continuous creation." Their position is clearly set out in the Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science.[19] In an interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams expressed his thought that "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."[20] His view is that creationism should not be taught in schools.
If Islam and Christianity are anything to go by, it must be said that lack of clergy is not synonymous with a given denomination being any less fundamentalist than those which have a clergy. Indeed, the evidence would seem to lend credence to the reverse conclusion the anti-clerical sects - such as Wahhabi Sunnis in Islam and Southern Baptist Evangelicals in Christianity - are more fanatical than clerical versions of the same religions (i.e. Nizari Ismails, Catholics and Anglicans).
For this reason, I am personally unconvinced by the thesis outlined in the OP that religion is improved by the abolition of clericalism. The empirical evidence for it is wanting, given that Southern Baptists and Wahhabis are much less tolerant / open to peaceful dialogue and critical-thinking than many of their clerical sister denominations.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Actually, what makes the child abuse so terrible within the clergy is the fact that it hid the problem from the public and protected the abuser. It also created an institutional culture and practice that made abuse easier to be commited and less likely to be reported. I would also like to add that clergy members, being seen as a moral authority, are going to suffer from more scrutiny on their personnal behavior.
I replied, then deleted my reply because I first want to see how you are defining clergy.
No argument from me on this. I agree.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Clergy are why many religions are worse than they are. Consider Islam, would it be as bad as it is without the imams? No, not hardly, in fact the average Muslim would probably have to read and interpret the Quran themselves, and decide what to reject. What about Christianity or Buddhism? While the priests help motivate and organize the religion, they also result in dogma creep which slows things down.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The costume industry could possibly go bankrupt.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Clergy in that context would be a priesthood of some sort. People who are believed and entrusted to be leaders of a religious faith, the guardian of its teachings with a cetain moral authority over other believers.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You misunderstand the office of clergy. Clergy have, indeed been given special powers by the religious texts in the way of having been granted authority. They hold the keys to the kingdom. Whatever they bind or loose is bound or loose. It is their specific job to formulate, judge, and teach doctrine.
The Faith taught by the Prophets or that taught by the clergy?
Jesus taught to love and yet leaders sent Christians to wars to kill then how is Jesus responsible as He only taught love and forgiveness?
By clergy I mean self appointed primarily as opposed to scriptures authorising a person.
I think ‘seek and Ye shall find’ is the correct attitude but it must be using our own minds as we were given them for a reason. To question and never to just accept blindly the views of anyone. Blind imitation has been the cause of many wars where the followers blindly agree to carry out killings and wars called for by their leader without first questioning what the Holy Books say which are always opposed to hatred and violence.
What about all the wars and murders leaders have commanded their followers to commit? In the Quran it is forbidden to attack first but Muslim leaders have broken this law over the centuries and told their followers to commit mass murder of innocent people.
Had the followers studied the Quran for themselves many would have seen clearly that their leaders were disobeying the laws of the Quran and refused to take part in such atrocities. But as they never questioned their leaders nor checked what the Holy Texts said many innocent people have been slaughtered including Hindus.
These things happen when the clergy replace the Holy Book and the followers replace the authority of the Holy Book with leaders who have no real God given authority.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
Both.
At least he’s providing a few laughs and not starting a war or plotting a terrorist attack.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
but how do you knoooooooooooow?
and yes the end is near
this planet can support only 9billion copies of this learning device
THEN you will need two things
water and lead
water to drink
and lead
to hold unto water long enough to drink it
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
"Clergy" are necessary in all religions because they are better trained at brainwashing people than the "built in brainwashing" of all religions dogma is.
They are also well trained to explain away all of the errors, gibberish, and insanity found in all religions.
But most importantly, having no clergy would make it harder for pedophiles to get jobs.
Ancient Soul
The Spiritual Universe
Don't be too sure about that, he just went in here:
http://geekadelphia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/church-tank.jpg