This is the 3rd in a series of posts from 5-6 years ago on my personal blog. The previous two are also posted here, as my last two blog entries.
Page 1: Even if they don't happen to be pedophiles, do we REALLY need 'em?
When i'm analyzing a problem, i usually note that there are many individual aspects of the matter that must be considered before reaching a final conclusion. If these aspects interact or could offset each other, it is sometimes difficult to know how important any particular one of them is in the final analysis.
Sometimes, as the analysis gets further along, i recognize that one or more of the aspects push toward the same conclusion no matter where its value lies. I think of that in math terms, and refer to it as "that variable drops out of the equation".
In this matter, the "value" of having priests is questionable to me for more than just the reasons i established in the last posting. For reasons i will now submit, i believe that they safely drop out of any equation that seeks to solve the metaphysical aspects of our existence.
In the previous posting, i stated my reasons for believing that any established priesthood, or any similar herarchy within a religion, would be prone to abusing the associated authority and influence of their office. For that reason alone, i think that people should be slow to accept a prominent place for priests and their ilk within their religious life.
But my opinion on their usefulness goes beyond just stating concerns about abuse of their position. Overall, i think that the very existence of such roles stands directly in the way of the only real model i can accept for a person's spiritual growth, i.e. a direct, personal experience of their spirituality. For this reason, even if we could be assured that they would never abuse their position, i think that priests and their kind are just plain superfluous.
Page 2: The range of roles for priests
I'll start with a reminder that i'm using the term 'priest' generically here. I mean it to include any 'religious authority or leader', from Catholic priests and rabbis all the way to voodoo shamans and new age consciousness trainers. In more general terms, it includes anyone whose primary role in life... and more to the real point: whose primary source of income... is centered on interacting in the spiritual side of the lives of other people.
What may surprise you in the context of this post is that i see myself as a priest. With all the negative things i've had to say about that role that may seem strange, but it's easily explained. I do see a value in people who spend their time and energy studying spiritual matters, i just believe that their role should be much more narrowly defined than is generally the case... and that people should be much slower to accept something "just because the priest said it was so".
The Catholic church claims that their priests are intermediaries between the flock and God. Only the priest can administer sacraments, including standing in for the role of God when someone wishes to make a confession of their sins. The priest also serves as a spiritual counselor to his flock, and many are expected to serve as a counselor for more mundane matters. At the other end of their responsibilities, many Catholic priests also serve as the primary managers of Catholic operated schools and charities, or serve directly in some charitable or educational organization. Many of the christian churches that are most similar to the RC follow the same model, with varying degrees of responsibilities assigned to their clergy.
Other Christian religions limit the intermediary role of their 'priests'. They make no claim that the pastor directly represents God, but look that much more to him to help ensure the spiritual orthodoxy of the flock. The pastor may sponsor Bible study courses, youth camps, etc. and he can be counted on to remind you each week that you are nothing without God.
When you get out of the Christian religions you can still find the full range of roles being played by the priest analogs. When an imam tells someone that he is assured a place in heaven (complete with his allotment of multiple virgins) i'd say that he is assuming to speak for Allah, though he would probably not agree with that assessment. The horoscope reader who tells someone to end (or begin) a relationship based on a reading of the person's chart is doing so based on a similar claim of a connection to a higher understanding.
To summarize, the role of priest is multi-faceted. I see value in some of the facets, but i think the rest of them are facetious (hey, i like that pun!).
Page 3: Now pinch-hitting for God: Father Murphy
So let's look at each of the possible roles for a priest individually. First, the one i totally reject, i.e. the notion that a priest serves as an intermediary between us of God.
Did you ever play "telephone". Most people did so at least once when they were a child. It's the game where everyone sits in a circle, and someone whispers a message to the person next to them. This person is supposed to whisper the same message to the next person, and so on, until the message works its way back to the originator. If your experience was like that of most people, the message seldom - if ever - made its was around the entire group without some modifications, and sometimes it was so changed as to be unrecognizable by the time it returned to its source.
The obvious lesson there is that intermediaries are more likely to screw up a message than to convey it correctly, especially if it is complicated. We learn this lesson as children... why do we forget it when we walk into churches as adults?
I think that if God has something to say to you, that God would be perfectly capable of conveying it to you directly. Alternately, if you have something to say to God, why would you need to do so through a messenger? When Jesus was instructing his disciples on the correct way to pray, i believe he told them to simply go into a closet and speak to God... and he even provided a script for the discussion. Implicit in that advice was that the person would be alone in that closet. Certainly if JC intended for people to speak to God through someone else, wouldn't he have mentioned it at that point?
Of course, just because Jesus said something i don't expect that to influence everyone. Certainly few people who call themselves Christians heed that instruction, preferring to pray as loudly as possible in front of as many people as possible as often as possible. If JC's advice isn't good enough for his own followers, i agree that no one else should be expected to heed it. But IMO, it's still good, sound advice.
I don't think anyone is asserting that God needs the help of these priests to accomplish whatever he/she has set out to do. Surely the omnipowerful creator of the entire freakin' universe can send his own instant messages to people if theres' something that needs saying, wouldn't you think? So, unless you buy into the idea that God just likes some people better than others, why would you accept the premise that any individual is better suited to communicate with God than you are? More to the point, why would you want anyone else between you and God? If i'm trying to establish a relationship with someone, i talk to them... i don't go to someone else to do it for me.
Page 4: abra cadabra - that wine is now God's blood! For my next trick...
Each week, millions of the faithful all over the globe ritualistically kill and eat their God in a bizarre rite of pious cannibalism. This practice is made possible by the magic power invested in their priests, who are capable of transforming mere mundane matter into the very essence of the body of Christ because their hands have been specially annointed by some kinds of oils while a Bishop repeated special incantations over them.
Sounds kind of silly when expressed that way, doesn't it? It certainly does to me, but i assert that it's also an accurate description of the beliefs and events which occur in RC churches and those other churches which are mostly closely aligned with their practices, though those who practice them may wish to spin this all a bit differently.
The parts of the Bible that defined the role of the priestly caste among the Hebrews gave them lots of special status, power, and authority. Sacrifices had to go through them, and only they were permitted to enter the holy places where the ark of the covenant was stored. While this does establish a separate set of rules for one group of people over others, i don't think it's a coincidence that the very same scriptures that assign them this special status were... drum roll please... written by the very same group of people who were getting this enormous break.
If you ever see me step down from a mountain and claim that God has told me that i no longer have to tend flocks, etc., and that you must all now give me 1/10 of all you have and i'll pass some of that along to God for you, i surely hope you'll view my pronouncements with a bit more skepticism than that of the other tribes of Israel when they received this bit of self-serving doctrine from their priestly class.
The Christian Bible supports the role of priests and bishops in the church, but that's more a case of the fact that it was bishops who got to decide what would become "the word of God", not because it was the only possible message on that topic circulating in the early church.
There were plenty of books that didn't make the cut when the early Catholic church was settling on its doctrine. Ever read the Gospel of Thomas? If i were a priest and wanted people to think they needed me between them and God, i'd have voted against that particular scripture as well, but it wouldn't be God's or your needs that i was voting for there.
Let's move away from catholicism a bit, because they don't have a monopoly on the belief that their priests are magicians. Ever see a faith healer in operation? It can be a good, entertaining show if properly executed, but i missed the scientific studies that document its efficacy. If that type of miracle were really available to people of faith, then why are so many good, decent people mourning the loss of their loved ones every day? Miracles may well happen, but in spite of what some hustlers can fool the gullible into believing, they aren't available on demand just because somebody has mastered the art of repeating the name of Jesus as often and as loudly as possible. If they were, the hospitals wouldn't be so full today, would they?
So, i reject the notion that any one group of people have some special status or connection with God simply because some church (or they themself) declares it so. And i most surely reject the idea that a miracle happens each week in every church around the nation, just because some unconvicted-child-molester mumbles something in Latin over some stale bread.
Page 5: If magician is out, how about spiritual guide?
This one is trickier for me. In my own experience i have met people who were more spiritually mature than i, and my interactions with them were very beneficial to my own spiritual growth. From that knowledge, i must accept the idea that this is one role that a priest can serve properly, but it requires a lot of things to be a certain way for me to see it as a proper role for any specific person.
First, the priest must be financially independent of the person seeking their counsel. IMO, if my livelihood depends on you believing a specific thing, it will take a lot of ethical strength on my part to ensure that i don't guide you in that direction during our discussions. Better to avoid that problem entirely, which is only possible if the person from whom i am seeking spiritual guidance has exactly zero financial interest in my conclusions on the matter.
Second, the priest must be someone who is generally well adjusted psychologically and emotionally. That eliminates anyone who is on a crusade of ANY type, or who nurtures any form of bigotry or intolerance. It also eliminates anyone who can't maintain a stable, healthy sexual relationship with a partner (of whichever sex to which he/she is attracted - and for that matter MULTIPLE partners if that's where they are all happy), or who can't maintain normal human friendships with a reasonable sized group of people, including at least 25% of them who do not agree with his overall viewpoints but with whom he/she interacts often. This harkens back to my comment in another post that if you want useful advice on how to be happy, you can only get it from someone who is happy. Similarly, what good is spiritual advice from someone whose soul is a festering cesspool?
Third, the priest must be someone who has a natural inclination to study and contemplate these matters and who has spent time studying the history, doctrines and practices of her/his own religion as well as as many different beliefs as he/she can discover. A spiritual counselor is least effective when he/she has a pre-programmed agenda for what you will hear instead of listening to what your issues are and taking each of them on their own. Toi be most effective, he/she should draw no conclusions during your discussion, but should instead challenge what you say only to the level that allows you to think the subject through for yourself.
Bring all three of thse things together, and you've got someone i would recognize as having value as a spiriual guide. In my life i have considered very few clergy worthy of the role, but there have been a few. But more often, the best spiritual guides i have encountered tend to be people who make their living some other way but who care deeply about these matters. And, in turn, THIS is the role i see for MYSELF as a 'priest'. YMMV.
Page 6: Stop thinking for yourself, we already know what the Bible says.
I have to go off on a tangent here, because this is one of my hot-buttons ... and i just pressed it myself!
Fundamentalist churches love to sponsor Bible-study courses, and Bible-summer-camps, Wednesday night Bible-reading groups, et cetera ad nauseum. They probably have Bible-cruises on the Carnivale cruise lines by now, and sponsor Bible-tupperware parties just to be sure they work that book into every aspect of the lives of their flock. These courses purport to help you 'study' your bible, but what they really are boils down to a very successful campaign of brain washing of the flock into one big homogenous group of sheep who will properly parrot the interpretation of the Bible that is already agreed upon by their specific religion.
All such courses sponsored by "Bible-believing churches" that i have attended or looked into seem more to me to be focused on ensuring that the members of the flock learn the 'correct' interpretation of scripture - absolutely within the bounds defined by the parent religion - than with studying what the book actually says. Where a passage isn't convenient to their beliefs, they'll claim that the original Aramaic/Greek says something else, or find some other way to recast it to their biases. But just try to apply the same approach someplace else, and you'll be told that the book is sacred and every word is literally correct as written. Hmmmmm......
Of course, all of these Bible-based products are available for a donation... a word which implies and optional exchange of coin in other circumstances but not here. They're generally even happy to tell you the exact amount of the 'voluntary' donation that you ae expected to give them for each "study aid". Some of these organizatiosn do make their materiasl available at no charge, but that is the exception, not the rule. Try walking out of a Focus on the Family seminar sometime with a big stack of their materials in hand and offering them a $1 donation for it. Good luck with that!
Although they are generally quick to claim that their members can be visited by the Holy Spirit, the leaders of these religions don't trust the holiness of that spirit sufficiently to alow their members to interpret anything at all for themselves. Apparently this spirit they are so fond of talking about is ok for getting folks to roll around in the aisles of their churches and babble incoherently, but they must think it isn't very reliable when it comes to bringing any spiritual enlightenment to anyone. I suppose i must admit i do agree with them on that point.
Remember the three criteria i established as necessary for someone to be a valid spiritual guide?
Ooooooops, they strike out on all three of them.
Page 7: Mundane roles for priests
The last roles that are served by priests are things that don't have a religious aspect. Things like managing the financial affairs of the church, teaching secular subjects in schools, performing marriage or personal counseling, working at charitable organizations, etc.
These are secular roles that have accrued to some priestly folks, and i have no comment on them because they aren't related to the spiritual aspects of life. Any particular individual who has received the approriate training and licensing can serve as a counselor. If someone who is a priest of some type takes the same training as someone else, i have no valid reason to reject their qualifications for the role... unless...
... unless they allow their religious beliefs to overrule the secular aspects of their position. I was pretty disgusted with the CHRISTIAN 'doctor' who examined Terry Schiavo for a few seconds by video phone and made the startling diagnosis that all the other doctors who had previously examined her in person for 15 years were incorrect.
That his cursory exam resulted in the exact conclusion that his fellow Christians wanted isn't a big surprise. Working backwards from their conclusions and accepting only that information which supports them is pretty much a requirement for membership in some Christian churches, but it should result in having one's license revoked when applied to matters of medicine. Fortunately for this bozo, the current administration tends to overlook incompetence (and/or stupidity) when it plays to their goals.
Page 8: Conclusion
So, i have now made my case for what is and isn't a suitable role for a priest. I see no reason for anyone to be required to look to anyone else if they wish to explore their spiritual growth, but i simultaneously believe that there are times when it is good to have somebody wise to speak to.
However, in that regard i'll also state that wisdom exists in many unexpected places. I learned many valuable spiritual lessons studying the sacred scriptures of the world's recognized religions. I have also gained insights from studying great literature. But, i have also found profound insights in some Heinlein sci-fi books, in a silly story by Piers Anthony, in watching Bruce Banner come to terms with his raging Hulk, in conversations with people both wise and foolish, and in 1000 other places.
Parts of the truth are everywhere. Those who look in only one place will never find all of it. Those who allow someone else to tell them where they must look, and where they are not permitted to look, have no chance to find any of it.
Thanks for reading... i know this one was LONG :-)
