I struggled off and on like that for 31 years of active ministry, realizing how little I and my parishes resembled what I thought Jesus wants of his church. The disconnects and my reaction to them led me to alcoholism and drug addiction, and finally out of parish ministry. Since then I've been involved in the "secular" world, in jobs, and now in retirement in our local jail as an instructor and counselor in addiction and recovery. I am able to help other guys like me who have been taken over by substances, and doing that feeds my soul. I find Jesus and serve him there. I'm also active in our local parish, and that is beginning to have some meaning for me. But it sure is different from living "in" the church all the time. Bob Hargreaves, sabbathrest@juno.com

There are different degrees of losing your faith. You might find it hard to assent to a particular tenet of the Apostle's Creed, or to the resurrection of Christ, or to the entire existence of God.

If it's a loss of faith of a lesser degree, it's the kind of thing that can be addressed by the larger church. For example, if a clergy member isn't sure whether Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or rather became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, by all means, sit them down with a theologian and have them talk it out.

But when Christianity itself is on the line, I don't think that the larger church should really be interfering at that point. The clergyperson probably needs a break from the institution in order to get a perspective on what he or she really believes.

The one thing, however, that irks me is when the clergyperson feigns belief, or tries to convince themselves of something because his parishioners are looking for it it. I'll respect it when a pastor says, "I doubt." But with all due respect to Mr. Prowse -- I'm sure his struggle was a difficult one -- to me it's pretty much the worst lack of integrity to believe, or claim to believe, something, because not doing so would seem like performing some kind of disservice to the people you minister to. Faith needs company, but Christ was never an actor.

Erik Campano

It seems like this is the two-edged sword that clergy faces. On the one hand, the trust we place in clergy, and the love that we have for clergy, slides folks into a place where expectations, real or perceived, are impossibly high. On the other hand, it's this very same paradigm that is one of the best parts of being called to the ministry for many.

Of course, struggles with doubt and faith aren't unique to clergy. I wonder: If clergy were more open about these struggles would we, as laity, potentially learn from this situation, and perhaps vice versa? I hope so--our clergy face ample challenges in the best of times.

Eric Bonetti

Some doubt the reality of God. *

I doubt the disinterestedness of Sam Harris, to someone who says "After I read your book, The End of Faith, I could no longer suppress my unbelief."

I don't believe in Sam Harris.

JC Fisher

* That certainly includes me, from time to time.

Plenty of us in the pews have carried on past the loss of our beliefs. More than a few of us, I promise you, are Episcopalian AND atheist. A mere 20 years ago the Episcopal Church seemed comfortable with members who read Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung as explanations of God as mythic archetype, who wanted sermons that acknowledged faith and the expanding knowledge of the universe beyond our planet, who wanted to think and worship. There was an opening for real thought and discussion. But that seems oddly unwelcome to many, now. (Someone utters the dread word of 'Spong" and all conversation is over and done.) Is there no room for those of us who find the work of the church to be important, for psychological and cultural reasons, for spiritual reasons, even though there is likely no personal god "out there" floating around in the heavens? Can we still be Christians even if we don't think that a certain Jesus came from a virgin birth, climbed out of the grave and floated off into the sky?

The real threat to religion is demanding that it be taken literally. We live in an age when even children are comfortable with the ideas of modern physics (the multiverse, relativity, the creation of the earth by the accumulation of dust from the solar cloud, etc.) modern biology (no special creation of humans, but a long and slow process of evolutionary development) and psychology and neurology (our thoughts are not from a soul or ghost in the machine, but the result of neural processes). This knowledge is too widespread in society now to go back. There will be no return to an earlier version of faith. Not one that is incompatible with the world as we know it. The cognitive dissonance is too great, and people will follow the system that gives them real control over their environment and world: science.

But religion CAN survive (and even thrive!) if it can revision itself as the conveyor of the sacred and the meaningful, of the mythic and the cultural expression of purpose and beauty and value and everything that matters.

Many of the laity are already doing this. Unfortunately the lack of welcome that they receive is all the encouragement that they need to leave. That has to stop, for both sides of the pulpit. If clergy could be free to express their questions and explore their doubts (without fear that they will be convicted in the online court of Standfirm and reported to a spineless and trouble-aversive bishop) then perhaps the incorporation of the truths of modern science with the ancient mythic narratives can be done without clergy or laypeople having to quit.

But this is up to the true believers. Can you stop insisting on the subscription to traditional theism and creeds? Will you allow the church to survive in a new age and within the context of a new and firmly established worldview, or will you nail the colors to the mast as the whole thing sinks beneath the waves of the past?

Dennis Roberts

Dennis,

John calls anyone who denies that Jesus Christ came to earth in human flesh and was sent by God in the Incarnation an "antichrist" (1Jn 2). Additionally, real Christians believe that Jesus physically resurrected from the dead on the third day (1Co 15). I am disturbed that all of say the Nicene Creed every Sunday, but many of us reject it in our thoughts and actions.

As far as irrelevance goes, the real Church is the one that believes that Christ Jesus is the unique Son of God and that only those who believe in him are saved (Jn 3). Whether the Church has 1,000 people across the whole world or 1,000,000, it doesn't matter. What matters is that what God says about himself is true and it is our place to accept it or to get out of the way. Real Christianity is not a consensus about religion, but faithful adherence to the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. Anything is else is "antichrist" IAW First John.

James Pirrung

Dennis:

"people will follow the system that gives them real control over their environment and world: science"
in my reading of Genesis, this is indeed the illusion which created the human condition in the first place! Religion, in my humble opinion, is what reminds us that we are ultimately not in control; it gives us a framework for living in a world that is provided as a loving gift - that is a completely different paradigm than what you present.

How can church be a "conveyor of the sacred and the meaningful, of the mythic and the cultural expression of purpose and beauty and value and everything that matters" if a culture in possession of world-controlling science is the ultimate arbiter of meaning? Is it not great hubris to think that we can (or should even aspire to)controlling our environment?

Michael Carroccino