An atheist pastor

For discussion of philosophy, religion, spirituality, or any topic that posters wish to approach from a spiritual or religious perspective.
User avatar
Nin
Ni Dieu, ni maître
Posts: 1832
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:19 pm
Location: Somewhere only we go

An atheist pastor

Post by Nin »

The other day in my local newspapaer was a very interesting article about a Dutch pastor who claims himself to be atheist. Not only did I find the ideas very intersting, as I also claim myself atheist, but also some of the concepts really touched a cord within me, namely the idea that God does not exist but that God happens - for instance if you love someone.

Unfortunately, the article was in French. I looked up what I found in English and decided to copy two articles here:
Does Your Pastor Believe in God?

A news report from the Netherlands points to a form of theological insanity that is spreading far beyond the Dutch. Ecumenical News International reports that church authorities in the Netherlands have decided not to take action against a Dutch pastor who openly declares himself to be an atheist.

The pastor, Klaas Hendrikse, serves a congregation of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. In 2007 he published a book described as a “manifesto of an atheist pastor.” In the book Hendrikse argues for the non-existence of God, but he insists that he does believe in God as a concept.

As Ecumenical News International reports:

In his book, Hendrikse recounts how his conviction that God does not exist has become stronger over the years.

“The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God. I am an atheist believer,” Hendrikse writes in the book. “God is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, ‘I will not abandon you’, and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] God.”

While this kind of theological language may be shocking, it is not all that uncommon. For years, many theologians have been moving away from realist conceptions of theology to various forms of non-realism. In classical terms, anti-realist theologians can actually be atheists, for they do not believe that God actually or necessarily exists. They do, however, find “God” to be a useful concept.

Janet Martin Soskice defines theological realists as “those who, while aware of the inability of any theological formulation to catch the divine realities, none the less accept that there are divine realities that theologians, however ham-fistedly, are trying to catch.”

That definition is incredible helpful, for it serves to remind us that there are, on the other hand, some theologians who believe that there is no divine reality at all. Evidently, there are some pastors who also believe that there is no God, but there is a concept of God that we can use.

Most Christians would be shocked and scandalized to know that a pastor would be an atheist — and intend to remain as pastor. But in the doctrinally disarmed world of many denominations, the service of an atheist as pastor is not only conceivable but actual. In one sense, Klass Hendrikse is merely more open about his atheism than many others. Indeed, many liberal Protestants believe that God is, in the end, an intellectual concept that may add meaning to life — not a living self-existent deity who rules over all.

In Klass Hendrikse’s case, his congregation belongs to two denominational groups. Neither denominational body was willing to bring Pastor Hendrikse to a church trial or disciplinary process.

In announcing the decision not to discipline Hendrikse, the church told the congregation by letter that a disciplinary process would amount to “a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity.”

Such is the world of liberal Protestantism. The service of a preacher who does not even believe in God is preferable to “a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity.” Of course, the lack of clarity is the church’s own fault. It is not as if the issues are not sufficiently clear. A denomination that will not require its pastors to believe that God exists is a denomination that has reached the very bottom of the well in terms of theological insanity. According to the news report, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands claims that its own laws prevent the denomination from taking any action against a serving pastor.

The theological self-destruction of the church never starts with a pastor who doesn’t even believe in the existence of God. It begins with denials of one doctrine here, another there. Before long, the unwillingness of the church to call its churches and ministers to account leads to further theological concessions. The cowardice of church bureaucrats opens the door to any and all theological aberrations. The next thing you know, there is an atheist in the pulpit.

A church afraid of “a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity” is itself the guilty party in that lack of clarity. The church bears the responsibility to make the issues clear and to defend the faith — otherwise it isn’t a church at all.

The Dutch have become famous worldwide for their liberal approach to assisted suicide and euthanasia. In this case we see something new — the suicide of a church.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3532
and
A long, drawn-out conflict within the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PCN) has come to an end. An atheist vicar is allowed to carry on preaching after all.

Yes, indeed, a vicar who does not believe in God. And what's more: the church, which has millions of followers in the Netherlands, has agreed to hold a debate on who or what God actually is, writes Maurice Laparlière.

I grew up in the same area where the vicar in question, Klaas Hendrikse, preaches. I attended a similar church. To me, God was a man with a long beard sitting on a throne. He saw everything and even knew what I was thinking. Jesus was his son and my good friend. I could tell him everything. Every week in church, I heard complicated stories and long sermons. God and Jesus were both pretty cool, but you had to watch out: at the end of my life they would decide whether I had led a good life. Apparently a lot has changed in 25 years.

Throne
Vicar Klaas Hendrikse doesn't believe in the man with a beard on a throne in heaven. I spoke to him and asked him whether they might be any chance of God manifesting himself right there where we stood, out on the street. His response: "Well, for that we wouldn't even have had to go outside. Something could even happen between you and me, to which we would later link the name 'God'. Our hearts could open up to one another. What I believe to be God is a human experience."

Klaas Hendrikse is certainly not the first person in the Netherlands to say that God lives on earth, amongst the people and not in heaven. That God is a mixture of wonder, inspiration, a helping hand, a sick person who accepts he will not be cured or a man that asks his wife at the breakfast table how she is.

Spinoza
Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza had a similar message back in the 17th century, which made him famous. But Spinoza and his followers were not men of the cloth like Klaas Hendrikse - who's also referred to sometimes as a vegetarian butcher.

It is remarkable that Mr Hendrikse has finally been given the green light to stay on as vicar. He is, after all, an atheist. He's also become something of a phenomenon since his book Believing in a God That Doesn't Exist, was published. Busloads of believers and non-believers have travelled to hear his sermons in the city of Middelburg, capital of the coastal province of Zeeland.

Devil
Of course, not everyone is keen on the vicar. Strong criticism has mainly come from the conservative part of the church. Some orthodox believers say the devil has got into him. Others say they are deeply hurt by this 'attack on their belief'.

Mr Hendrikse says he doesn't want to take God away from anyone, and that his true message is often lost in all the fuss. He says, don't pray to be cured from an incurable disease, but pray to have the strength to see life positively.

The Protestant Church in the Netherlands is losing members. Mr Hendrikse thinks that every week about 1,000 people decide to leave the church. He says church leaders are completely ignoring this signal: "You can't keep telling the same stories your whole life, because everyone changes. No adult believes in the same way as he did when he was a toddler, or teenager."

Higher goal
The church leadership has not only decided that Mr Hendrikse may carry on preaching for two more years until he reaches retirement. It has also decided to hold a debate on the exact role of God in everyday life later this year. Something that has never been done before. As a result Mr Hendrikse says his highest goal has been attained.

Research by Amsterdam's VU University shows that one in six vicars in the Netherlands no longer believe in God in the traditional way. Up and down the country pews are emptying, meanwhile buses keep on pulling up outside Klaas Hendrikse's church.
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
I would be interested in your reactions and also in your thought about the reaction of the church - is it right to let a self-affirmed atheist be a pastor?
And I just wanted to show you the personnality, I really was intrigued.
"nolite te bastardes carborundorum".
User avatar
Lalaith
Lali Beag Bídeach
Posts: 15714
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Rivendell

Post by Lalaith »

It is intriguing, and I want to give it some thought before posting anything. My initial reaction is that this feels quite wrong to me, but I'd like to be able to articulate why exactly. That will take some thought and time--which I don't have at the moment.
Image
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

Heh. I've been labelling myself as an atheist (or before that, agnostic) for well over a decade now but for the last 4-5 years the self-applied label has quietly come to mean a very similar idea as this. :)
I suspect it will be the future of religion.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
nerdanel
This is Rome
Posts: 5963
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon

Post by nerdanel »

Indeed, many liberal Protestants believe that God is, in the end, an intellectual concept that may add meaning to life — not a living self-existent deity who rules over all.
I would love for this to be the future of religion in the world. I will say that I've seen some openness to this idea among Reform Jewry, and have been advised by at least one rabbi that I would be eligible for conversion based on this worldview coupled with an adoption of Jewish ethics and conformance to Jewish traditions and practices. As a self-described "agnostic, non-Jewish synagogue attendee," I am heartened to hear of a self-described "atheist believer," and am pleased and unsurprised that this story originates in the Netherlands.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh

When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

I don't have any problem with this fellow believing, and preaching, whatever he chooses. I think however that if I were a parishioner of what purports to be a Dutch Reformed church, I would be rather upset at the chap drawing a salary for what he is not.
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

My initial thought was simply that this pastor is misusing the word 'atheist'. I thought, if you believe in a concept you can label 'God,' whether or not it conforms to traditional ideas of who or what God is, then the term 'atheist' doesn't apply. If you use the word 'divine' to describe a condition or situation, then clearly you believe in some form of God.

But then looking up atheist, it does refer to a being. So I guess you're an atheist if you don't believe in a divine being, even if you do recognize some kind of divine essence. This definitely alters my perception of the word, and now I think I'll have to ask for clarification in discussions involving spirituality. I thought when someone said they were an atheist, that meant they did not recognize a spiritual dimension at all.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Wrong within normal parameters
Posts: 6804
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
Location: The other side of Michigan

Post by Dave_LF »

Why the word games? If it's love or wonder you're talking about, just call it love or wonder. Throwing the word "god" around just muddies the water, especially if it's got a big "G".
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

I thought when someone said they were an atheist, that meant they did not recognize a spiritual dimension at all.
Nope. Atheists come in a wide variety of belief systems. :)
(Something I wish that people who "preach" atheism (like Richard Dawkins) would remember sometimes.)


Dave - word games are fun! :D
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

Indeed, many liberal Protestants believe that God is, in the end, an intellectual concept that may add meaning to life — not a living self-existent deity who rules over all.

I'm not sure what is meant by 'intellectual concept' here. Something like, cooperation? Cooperation can't be said to exist as a thing, but rather describes a kind of interaction or dynamic. If this is what is meant -- rather than that there is a self-existent divine something, then I don't see the sense in calling it G_d. I think in that case, as Dave says, it probably already has a name.





edit spelling
Last edited by Cerin on Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Wrong within normal parameters
Posts: 6804
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
Location: The other side of Michigan

Post by Dave_LF »

yovargas wrote:Nope. Atheists come in a wide variety of belief systems. :)
(Something I wish that people who "preach" atheism (like Richard Dawkins) would remember sometimes.)
Strictly speaking, what Dawkins "preaches" is Secular Humanism, though he and others do sometimes use the term imprecisely.
Dave - word games are fun! :D
Sure, but these are words people have been known to kill each other over. :) I think in this realm at least it would be best to say exactly what one means.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

I agree with Cerin and Dave. I can see why this person's views are appealing to nonbelievers. But they are not appealing to me, a believer, for exactly the same reason. It's like admiring someone as a chef because his food looks and smells so good, but never actually eating any; all you get is the look and aroma, and then you leave the table. So have you had dinner? Did the chef cook for you?

I'm just saying that, to a believer, what is missing from this is the most important part.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

reconsidered
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
nerdanel
This is Rome
Posts: 5963
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon

Post by nerdanel »

Primula Baggins wrote:It's like admiring someone as a chef because his food looks and smells so good, but never actually eating any; all you get is the look and aroma, and then you leave the table. So have you had dinner? Did the chef cook for you?
Since I'm able to speak from my personal experience on this: I'd analogize it more to vegetarianism at a gourmet restaurant - wanting to participate in a meal prepared by an excellent chef, but opting out of what others might consider to be the main course (or redefining what the main course is - a vegetarian might have as the main entree a larger portion of what others consider to be "side dishes"). A vegetarian might do so because her worldview makes others' main dish unpalatable or off-limits to her. But there's really no reason she should sit out the entire meal, as long as she's comfortable with sharing the company of others who have reached different conclusions about their main dish -- and the others are prepared to accept that not everyone at the dinner party has the same view of meat.

For a believer, what is missing from the agnostic's or atheist's experience of religion may be the most important part, just as an omnivore may believe that the vegetarian missed the most important course of the dinner. But both the vegetarian and the omnivore have had dinner.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh

When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

I was thinking, as I attempted to articulate in my deleted post, that it has more to do with one's awareness of who prepared the meal.

edit

It would seem that for some, there is no chef. The food just is.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
WampusCat
Creature of the night
Posts: 8464
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:36 pm
Location: Where least expected

Post by WampusCat »

To me, personally, there is a big difference between believing that God is a mystery that we cannot fully comprehend -- meaning that all dogmas ultimately fall short of defining who or what God is -- and stating that there is no God.

I see religion/spirituality as the intentional pursuit of deeper relationship between self, God and others. Taking the possibility of relationship with God out of the equation makes it something else entirely. But then again, many "religious" people do that anyway, using the outward appearance of piety to fuel their own power plays.

I see a compassionate act and think "There is a glimpse of God in this." I don't say "This, and this alone, is God. It doesn't point to something transcendent, it IS something transcendent." Is this just quibbling over words? Possibly. I'll think some more on this.

Edit to fix typo.
Last edited by WampusCat on Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

Please understand that I am talking here about how I see this as a believer, not how everyone else ought to see it. But to me the difference between an organization that provides uplifting discourse on spiritual matters and valuable community and many other wonderful things, and one that provides all that but also the (quite literal) meal that is at the heart of my own church's belief and practice, is not a difference in degree but a difference in kind.

It's not the difference between vegetarian and nonvegetarian food; it's the difference between food and no food. There is no benefit from a church without God that can't be gotten from a lot of other (perfectly good, I'm not denigrating them) human organizations.

I am not not not trampling on anyone else's beliefs, views, or choices here. I'm just explaining my own.

(ETA: I'm using my own church as an example of a place that serves "food," not saying that Christian churches that serve communion are the only places food is available for those who want it.)
Last edited by Primula Baggins on Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

Speaking as someone pretty firmly in the secular humanist camp, I find myself wondering if the pastor can really provide what the congregation needs from a pastor in regards to comfort, guidance and inspiration. That's really the job description in denominations where the role of the person up front is not intercessory.
User avatar
River
bioalchemist
Posts: 13431
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:08 am
Location: the dry land

Post by River »

nerdanel wrote:
Primula Baggins wrote:It's like admiring someone as a chef because his food looks and smells so good, but never actually eating any; all you get is the look and aroma, and then you leave the table. So have you had dinner? Did the chef cook for you?
Since I'm able to speak from my personal experience on this: I'd analogize it more to vegetarianism at a gourmet restaurant - wanting to participate in a meal prepared by an excellent chef, but opting out of what others might consider to be the main course (or redefining what the main course is - a vegetarian might have as the main entree a larger portion of what others consider to be "side dishes"). A vegetarian might do so because her worldview makes others' main dish unpalatable or off-limits to her. But there's really no reason she should sit out the entire meal, as long as she's comfortable with sharing the company of others who have reached different conclusions about their main dish -- and the others are prepared to accept that not everyone at the dinner party has the same view of meat.

For a believer, what is missing from the agnostic's or atheist's experience of religion may be the most important part, just as an omnivore may believe that the vegetarian missed the most important course of the dinner. But both the vegetarian and the omnivore have had dinner.
There's a fault in this analogy that I'm only going to point out because it seems relevant to the topic at hand (and because I've been vegetarian for 15 of my 29 years): where was it ever written that a main course must have meat? Even within standard western culinary traditions you'll find dishes that count as main courses but contain no flesh and in some parts of the world whole chunks of the population eat no flesh. Further, I've been to fine gourmet restaurants with fine prix fixe menus that catered towards vegetarians. This notion that meat makes a main course and anyone saying otherwise is redefining "main course" or otherwise being weird is a purely cultural construct.

But I'm not sure the same can be said for a god within the context of Christianity (one could, however, argue that religion itself is a cultural construct but that's a whole other discussion). I'd always thought that belief in a god that exists as an actual being was a central tenet to Christianity and my feelings somewhat echo Dave_LF's. This pastor's choosing loaded terms people have killed over. I sort of wish he would just make up his mind and stop trying to have it both ways - either he's on my side of the line (I don't believe in anything resembling the Christian conception of god so I no longer qualify as Christian) or he's on, say, Prim's. But ideas and thoughts progress and perhaps this is a halbringer of another Reformation...though if that is true I hope it's much less bloody. But since the Americas are all taken up perhaps dissidents can be shipped off to settle the Moon or something. ;)
Last edited by River on Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When you can do nothing what can you do?
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

WampusCat wrote:To me, personally, there is a big difference between believing that God is a mystery that we cannot fully comprehend -- meaning that all dogmas ultimately fall short of defining who or what God is -- and stating that there is no God.
This at least is clarified for me now. If someone says they are an atheist, I will take it to mean that they don't believe in a divine being.

I see a compassion act and think "There is a glimpse of God in this." I don't say "This, and this alone, is God. It doesn't point to something transcendent, it IS something transcendent."
That was helpful. That does seem to be what the articles were saying -- that the act or situation perceived as 'G_d' is itself the thing being called 'G_d'. Now I wonder, going back to that previous quote, if it is the dynamic that is called 'G_d' that may improve life, or the recognition of it, or the recognition of it as 'G_d'?
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

Prim wrote:There is no benefit from a church without God that can't be gotten from a lot of other (perfectly good, I'm not denigrating them) human organizations.

If I understand correctly, they are not saying the church is without G_d, but that G_d is something other than what was traditionally recognized.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
Post Reply