Being a minister's wife

coolcait

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I have rarely been as angry and upset on MSE as when I read that. I had to resist the instinct to reply immediately out of anger. I really don't understand how you could say such a hurtful thing.

Why did I say it?

Because that was my genuine reaction and belief. Just as you - and others - have posted your genuine reactions and beliefs, even though they may be hurtful.

I've deleted other parts of you post where you say that you couldn't do something which the OP has done. At what point does that kind of comment stop being 'this is just my personal opinion' and start being a veiled criticism of the OP? Or of her husband?

My understanding of the message given by Jesus of Nazareth (called 'the christ') is that he preached, and practised inclusion. I've given examples in my previous post.

That's the message which has been passed to us by the four evangelists.

Paul was not one of them.

Matthew (one of the four evangelists) recorded Jesus' words to and about the Pharisees. The most famous phrase in Matthew 23 is the one I already referred to.

Matthew 23 opens with these phrases:

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, therefore, do whatever they teach and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach"

I didn't see Christ's message of tolerance, love, and inclusion in your posts. I didn't see you practise what Christ taught/what you teach.

However, you were not the only one in that category. I apologise for not naming the others, but my memory failed me than, and now.

P.S. pinkclouds' posts were similar to yours, and you can take my replies as being directed to him/her too.

coolcait

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

Rejecting a man with a calling - for loving someone not just like them, with all what they perceive as sin - much as their Messiah apparently had loved all, irrespective of whether they believed or not - sounds a petty, spiteful act devoid of any of their Saviour's teachings, and one which actually directly contradicts many statements in the New Testament.

Thank you!

That paragraph expresses what I was thinking and feeling when I posted. And you expressed it far better than I did!

Nicki

I must admit to being profoundly shocked by coolcait's statements too. Whether she agrees or disagrees with Torry Quine and pinkcloud's beliefs, I think it is perfectly clear to anyone reading the thread that both these posters have genuinely held religious beliefs which they are discussing honestly and respectfully to the OP. I suspect both these posters are quite happy to be challenged on their beliefs and to explain why they hold them and to discuss the matter in a sensible and civilised way. To suggest that they are both inherently evil and instruments of Satan, disguised as church goers to undermine the true believers is :eek: :eek: :eek: Or does coolcait think the term "whited sepulchre" is a mild term of abuse to throw around lightly in this context? In which case, she might like to clarify and amend her posts to something much less deeply offensive and upsetting.

System

Anyone read the Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis?

System

Forgive me Father as i have sinned.:D

System

Hallelujah!

heretolearn_2

What an interesting thread.

I was surprised to find that CofE or CofS minister's spouses are not necessarily expected to share their faith. My only contact with churches is with new pentacostal ones and the Mr Pastor + Mrs Pastor are always a sort of joint ministerial team. The Mr is in charge (that whole submission thing) but the Mrs is also totally involved, runs groups, takes prayer meetings, preaches and teaches. While I knew that this didn't quite happen like that in the mainstream churches I'm surprised that a total lack of faith/involvement is acceptable to some parishes, if not to all.

I too find it hard to see how someone SO religious as to be a minister could be with an unbeliever. And visa-versa. That's different to being with someone of a different faith, which is basically having the same general idea just supporting a different team. But no faith at all? That means you are really opposite in your views. I can totally understand where Torry etc are coming in form in not being able to accept this.

And I'm saying this as a lifelong atheist who's partner is a committed Christian! We have 'agreed to disagree' but I don't see how we would be able to continue if he suddenly got the calling. I would not be happy living with someone who earned his living feeding what I consider to be codswallop to other people. What he believes himself is one thing, but to influence others in it is going too far for me. Likewise, I doubt he would feel able to continue with me knowing that I could not support what he did. IT's all very well to concentrate on the pastoral side of things. I have no problems with the very good work that most churches and ministers do and I can see a role for them that IS missing in a secular society. But being a minister goes far beyond that and in this discussion the spiritual side of their work is not being mentioned much.

As an atheist I pretty much push that side of my OH's Christianity to the back of my mind and concentrate on the social/community aspects. As a ministers wife I could no longer do that. I would have to fully and straightforwardly accept that the right thing to do with babies is to baptise them to clean them of sin. That you shouldn't be homosexual (yes, hate the sin not the sinner, but to Christians it is still a sin and you shouldn't do it). That a lot of people are going to hell. etc etc. Otherwise how could i truly support my OH in doing these things. It's no longer theoretical - his private belief - it is how he interacts with everything and everyone all the time and the influence he has on the world. I would not feel happy benefiting from money from the church or living in a home provided by it - it's all been conned out of other people as far as I'm concerned.

So I struggle with the idea. OP, that does not make it wrong, but it does mean that I have a lot more sympathy with Torry etc's views even though I am coming at it from a different angle. I think her views are more representative than many of you are imagining. This is not really a 'job' in any way related to other types of work. It is a spiritual calling and lifestyle. I don't think atheists can just pretend that side isn't important and treat churches like some sort of local community centre.

Torry_Quine

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

Because the poster that made that link is referring to the outward image of respectability and virtue that some people can project, whilst their soul is eaten up with prejudice and hatred towards people who are not fully paid up (and probably tithing) Christians.

Whether it's due to an aversion to all non Christians or whether a sneaky touch of anti Semitism is rearing its ugly head, is neither here nor there. It's all pretty distasteful for a mere person to appoint themselves as judge of how good a Christian minister is and instantly finding them lacking in ability or faith or calling due to their marriage. Surely, in Christianity, there can be only one judge of how good a Christian is?




I wonder whether some of the posters on this thread would have told the Samaritans to bog off and not darken their day because they weren't just like them (whether the male one or the female one) - or cursed the villagers for not believing - or stopped the other guy casting out demons.


Rejecting a man with a calling - for loving someone not just like them, with all what they perceive as sin - much as their Messiah apparently had loved all, irrespective of whether they believed or not - sounds a petty, spiteful act devoid of any of their Saviour's teachings, and one which actually directly contradicts many statements in the New Testament.

I have explained my feelings on this and the OP herself had no problem with my comments and even thanked me for them!


But that's how I interpreted the reasoning behind their reference to the whitewashed tombs full of rotten bones, looking all respectable to the outside world, but underneath, still containing all that is reviled.

All of us have things which are hidden from others me included. However that quote is far more than that.



But that's just my interpretation of what the poster was thinking when they made that connection.

coolcait wrote: »

Why did I say it?

Because that was my genuine reaction and belief. Just as you - and others - have posted your genuine reactions and beliefs, even though they may be hurtful.

I've deleted other parts of you post where you say that you couldn't do something which the OP has done. At what point does that kind of comment stop being 'this is just my personal opinion' and start being a veiled criticism of the OP? Or of her husband?

As you say I said I couldn't do it. I have never veiled my criticism and the OP herself accepted my comments.

My understanding of the message given by Jesus of Nazareth (called 'the christ') is that he preached, and practised inclusion. I've given examples in my previous post.

That's the message which has been passed to us by the four evangelists.

Paul was not one of them.

Matthew (one of the four evangelists) recorded Jesus' words to and about the Pharisees. The most famous phrase in Matthew 23 is the one I already referred to.

Matthew 23 opens with these phrases:

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, therefore, do whatever they teach and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach"

I didn't see Christ's message of tolerance, love, and inclusion in your posts. I didn't see you practise what Christ taught/what you teach.

However, you were not the only one in that category. I apologise for not naming the others, but my memory failed me than, and now.

P.S. pinkclouds' posts were similar to yours, and you can take my replies as being directed to him/her too.

It doesn't make it any better that you felt able to insult others as well as me.

Nicki wrote: »

I must admit to being profoundly shocked by coolcait's statements too. Whether she agrees or disagrees with Torry Quine and pinkcloud's beliefs, I think it is perfectly clear to anyone reading the thread that both these posters have genuinely held religious beliefs which they are discussing honestly and respectfully to the OP. I suspect both these posters are quite happy to be challenged on their beliefs and to explain why they hold them and to discuss the matter in a sensible and civilised way. To suggest that they are both inherently evil and instruments of Satan, disguised as church goers to undermine the true believers is :eek: :eek: :eek: Or does coolcait think the term "whited sepulchre" is a mild term of abuse to throw around lightly in this context? In which case, she might like to clarify and amend her posts to something much less deeply offensive and upsetting.

Thanks for that. I don't think it's clear to many how dreadful that phrase is. It's really beyond anything I thought to ever read here.

I am always open to debate my beliefs and be challenged.

Savvy_Sue

heretolearn wrote: »

I would have to fully and straightforwardly accept that the right thing to do with babies is to baptise them to clean them of sin.

Not necessarily: there are plenty of Christians who think that you can no more baptise a baby than you can a lump of coal, but that's probably a different discussion ...

Savvy_Sue

Judi, it sounds as if you're missing something. Have a look and see what you make of St Pixels.