Being a minister's wife

balletshoes

You know, having read this thread, to me the idea that a CofS minister's wife is expected to have the same belief as her husband, is expected to be massively involved in parish activities, is expected to play hostess with the mostest whenever and wherever, and can expect to be thoroughly judged and judged wanting by her husbands congregation if she doesn't do all these things, paints quite a scary and elitist (I'm not sure thats the word I'm searching for) picture.

I'm speaking as the daughter of a CofS church officer and member of the kirk session of umpteen years standing. Granted I'm not a church-goer, haven't been since I was a teenager, but I really wouldn't like to think that there are people that my mum would consider friends and colleagues at her church who would be so judgemental.

The OP, in my opinion, has shown that in what she is prepared to get involved in when her husband gets a parish, that she would be a real asset to any community. It would seem a shame that parish members wouldn't be able to accept all those attributes because she is an "unbeliever".

Torry_Quine

churchrat wrote: »

I have no idea if Jesus existed or not. if he did then I do not think he was the son of god. But the message the man preached--love one another--is a good rule to live by. It is such a shame that it has been distorted over the years by men intent on their own agenda.



EDIT--- just wanted to add--thankyou for this discussion. At times it is so easy just to sink back into what is already accepted and not actually think about the lives we lead.

I see what you mean about submission. That isn't how it works in my church where all roles of leadership are open to men and women. Women often speak, teach and pray.

Lets not use the word sin but instead say we all do things wrong does that feel more like something you would be comfortable with?

Don't worry you haven't given the impression that he leads a free for all.

There are only 10 commandments and many of the rules which came from them were because they were so scared of even coming close to breaking them they added on extra layers to prevent this.

I follow those things which were taught by Jesus and yes that is hard but is worth it.

Nicki wrote: »

Sounds like you have just as big a problem with Christians, as you consider TQ to have with non-Christian spouses of ministers. Which perhaps illustrates very neatly why in a lot of cases it would not work for a Christian minister to have a non believing spouse. I cannot imagine it makes for a very happy relationship where one spouse clearly despises and ridicules a large proportion of the other spouse's client base :cool:

Whether or not you like TQ's views or the way she expresses them, they will be views held by a great number, maybe even a majority of practising Christians, with the result that a ministers spouse surely needs to find a way of accommodating those views if they truly wish to support their spouse's work.

That's a good point as to why a relationship with a non-believing spouse could be difficult if you were a church leader.

Nicki wrote: »

Your last posts to and about TQ have been to an impartial observer full of contempt and ridicule. TQ has not expressed any views which you would not hear in any church in England or Scotland, in fact in some churches her views would be the only ones you would hear.

I very much doubt that all of your husband's congregation observes all 160 commandments you keep banging on about, but that they do try to observe the 10 commandments handed down to Moses. Does your hostile last post on that subject only apply to TQ, or is that how you feel about your OH's congregation too? If so, how is that not holding them up to ridicule and private contempt?

Thanks again. It is hard to see what is so dreadful about thinking the spouse of a church leader should share their faith.

Torry_Quine

poet123 wrote: »

You can't convince anyone to believe, to have faith, they either have it or they don't. It seems to nod to a very old fashioned attitude that a man and his wife have to have the same beliefs. It may be the ideal on a personal level, but certainly not a need from logical or religious perspective.

I totally agree that you can't convince someone to believe. We're not just talking though about all couples, (although we are told not to marry unbelievers), but church leaders.



I agree with this. In fact I think it is very un Christian to judge others or attempt to preclude them from answering a calling because their spouse is a non believer.

I agree with Coolcait here, in fact I am appalled.

ETA Having read all the posts and particularly the one which seemed to cause offence to TQ.

My take on that comment was that it was intended to convey hypocrisy as in "whitewashed tombs" not anything more devious. I agree that those who do not practice what they preach in terms of tolerance and acceptance do evidence that bible reference.

I certainly don't mean to judge anyone and am sorry if that came over.:o

The Catholic church doesn't even have married men or women in charge but are you really saying if they did it wouldn't concern you that the spouse wasn't a Christian.

I certainly don't that I can be accused of not practicing what I preach but even if I did that quote is far beyond that and yes it did offend me.

balletshoes wrote: »

You know, having read this thread, to me the idea that a CofS minister's wife is expected to have the same belief as her husband, is expected to be massively involved in parish activities, is expected to play hostess with the mostest whenever and wherever, and can expect to be thoroughly judged and judged wanting by her husbands congregation if she doesn't do all these things, paints quite a scary and elitist (I'm not sure thats the word I'm searching for) picture.

I'm speaking as the daughter of a CofS church officer and member of the kirk session of umpteen years standing. Granted I'm not a church-goer, haven't been since I was a teenager, but I really wouldn't like to think that there are people that my mum would consider friends and colleagues at her church who would be so judgemental.

The OP, in my opinion, has shown that in what she is prepared to get involved in when her husband gets a parish, that she would be a real asset to any community. It would seem a shame that parish members wouldn't be able to accept all those attributes because she is an "unbeliever".

I too hope that people weren't judgemental about your mother. She was a church-goer so presumably a Christian and he wasn't a church leader although that's not to undermine the hugely important role of a church officer.

I do agree that the spouse shouldn't have to undertake any roles unless they want to but the reality can be very different.

Savvy_Sue

balletshoes wrote: »

I'm speaking as the daughter of a CofS church officer and member of the kirk session of umpteen years standing. Granted I'm not a church-goer, haven't been since I was a teenager, but I really wouldn't like to think that there are people that my mum would consider friends and colleagues at her church who would be so judgemental.

I know that we caused a few raised eyebrows in our previous church when we started the process of moving away in order for DH to work for a Christian organisation, because none of our boys had made a public commitment of faith, whereas many of their contemporaries had.

They still haven't, which saddens me, but if you put the eldest in a room of atheists, he'll defend the Christian position, so I know there's 'stuff' going on. And DH in particular was a reluctant convert: he believes, because he can find no rational alternative, despite trying for years when he was younger.

coolcait

Nicki wrote: »

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:

That's a wildly exaggerated interpretation of the content of Matthew 23 in its entirety. Applying it to two words quoted from that Chapter is really over the top. It's the same kind of exaggerated (and wrong) interpretation that you have given to the OP's posts later in the thread.

I do not believe that your interpretation of the phrase bears any resemblance to the Biblical definition. Therefore, I utterly refute your allegation that it suggests someone is inherently evil or an instrument of Satan.

Or does coolcait think the term "whited sepulchre" is a mild term of abuse to throw around lightly in this context?

I used it in its Biblical context, as previously stated. The Biblical context is clear. If a poster states that they follow the teachings of Christ, but express views which are contrary to Christ's message of inclusiveness, that may make people think of Matthew 23, and its most famous and most quoted phrase.

In which case, she might like to clarify and amend her posts to something much less deeply offensive and upsetting.

To further clarify, Matthew 23 is about hypocrisy. Some translations of the Bible give a chapter heading of 'A Warning against Hypocrisy'.

The Chapter contains a section which is sometimes called 'The Seven Woes'. The phrase 'whited sepulchres' is found in the sixth of the 'woes'.

Six out of the seven 'woes' contain the phrase "Woe to you,... you hypocrites!" As in verses 27 and 28 "Woe to you, ... you hypocrites! You are like whited sepulchres... In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness"

Yes, there is that reference to 'wickedness', but it takes a huge leap of interpretation to ignore the repeated references to 'hypocrisy' and come up with the version you gave us!

Matthew 23 shows us an angry Jesus. The reasons for his anger are very clearly stated, and really ought to give many 'Christian' leaders pause for thought.

Verse 15 is very far from being an unequival endorsement of evangelism and proselytising. Verses 16 - 19 always make me think of Billy Graham for some reason... Verse 23 could also have been quoted on this thread "you have neglected the most inmportant pasts of the law - justice, mercy and faithfulness".

verses 25 and 26 make the same point as verses 27 and 28 - but have not been hijacked in the same way as the phrase "whited sepulchre".

Therefore, I am quite content for people to replace the phrase "whited sepulchre" with the phrase "cup and dish", if they are disturbed by the former. They both make the same point about hypocrisy - which is the basis of Matthew 23.

poet123

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I certainly don't mean to judge anyone and am sorry if that came over.:o

The Catholic church doesn't even have married men or women in charge but are you really saying if they did it wouldn't concern you that the spouse wasn't a Christian.

No, it wouldn't concern me in the slightest. I would be concerned ( to put it mildly) if my Priest did not believe, but why would his wife's beliefs have anything to do with that?

Does the fact that my Doctor's wife believes in homeopathy impact his ability to prescribe conventional drugs? Does the fact that my bank manager's wife has credit card debt impact his ability to advise on investment? I listen to the professional not his dependents.

It may or may not be an issue between them as a couple, but would not affect me.

balletshoes

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I too hope that people weren't judgemental about your mother. She was a church-goer so presumably a Christian and he wasn't a church leader although that's not to undermine the hugely important role of a church officer.

I do agree that the spouse shouldn't have to undertake any roles unless they want to but the reality can be very different.

sorry TQ, didn't mean to confuse, the church officer and member of the kirk session is the same person, my mum. My Dad joined the church when they got married but didn't attend or worship more than a couple of times a year there.

By my previous post I meant the folk my mum is friends and colleagues with in the church, including those on the session etc - maybe I'm kidding myself and they would all expect the minister's wife to be a believer and undertake all those roles I mentioned before, and would judge her husband if she didn't?

System

Out of respect for the OP, i bow out of this thread.

balletshoes

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I know that we caused a few raised eyebrows in our previous church when we started the process of moving away in order for DH to work for a Christian organisation, because none of our boys had made a public commitment of faith, whereas many of their contemporaries had.

but on the flip side - I joined the church at 15 I think, my public commitment of faith. The reason? Because my mum wanted me to. It had nothing to do with how I felt about religion or the church. I did it all parrot-fashion, as I did every Sunday at Sunday school etc. Because it was expected of me. Nothing touched me, I don't have the same faith that my mum does, even though I was as immersed in it through my childhood as she was in hers.

Torry_Quine

balletshoes wrote: »

sorry TQ, didn't mean to confuse, the church officer and member of the kirk session is the same person, my mum. My Dad joined the church when they got married but didn't attend or worship more than a couple of times a year there.

By my previous post I meant the folk my mum is friends and colleagues with in the church, including those on the session etc - maybe I'm kidding myself and they would all expect the minister's wife to be a believer and undertake all those roles I mentioned before, and would judge her husband if she didn't?

I did realise that the church officer and member of the session were the same person but wrongly that it was your father. However my point about being judged still stands, your father was a church member so must have been a Christian.