A burst of media attention has been focused on atheists of an unexpected stripe — clergy members. Could non-believing clergy change how we see religion?
What happens when a clergy person — a minister, a priest, a rabbi, an imam — realizes he doesn’t believe in God?
And what happens when he says it out loud? What happens when they find each other; when they support each other in coping with their crises, when they help each other with resources and job counseling and other practical assistance? What happens when they encourage each other to come out?
Could this affect more than just these clergy people and their followers? Could it change how society as a whole thinks and feels about religion?
That’s what the Clergy Project is finding out. In recent months and years, atheists have been all over the news. But over the last few weeks, a burst of media attention has been focused on atheists of an unexpected stripe — clergy members. And in particular, attention is going to the Clergy Project — an online meeting place and support group that exists specifically for these unexpected additions to the ranks of the godless.
The project was inspired by the 2010 pilot study by Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola, “Preachers Who Are Not Believers” (PDF), which exposed and explored the surprisingly common phenomenon of non-believing clergy. The need to give these people support — and if possible, an exit strategy — was immediately recognized in the atheist community, and starter funding for the Clergy Project was quickly provided by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Founded in March of 2011 with 52 members, the Clergy Project currently has over 270 members — and since recent news stories about it began appearing, in outlets from MSNBC to NPR to the Religious News Service to CNN, applications to join have been going up at an even more dramatic rate.
The cascade of news stories began when Methodist minister Teresa MacBain came to the American Atheists convention following last March’s Reason Rally — and made a dramatic unscheduled appearance at the podium, to announce that she was an atheist. “Being in a group of people with whom I could share openly without fear of persecution gave me the courage to come out,” she told me. “The opportunity to stand before the crowd, come out as an atheist and share about the Clergy Project was too good to pass up. I was at the end of my rope and I knew it. It was now or never for me. As I walked up on that stage, I felt fear like no other.”
Thus begins my latest piece for AlterNet, “Major Threat to Religion? Clergy People Coming Out as Atheists.” To read more about the lives and stories and crises of clergy people who lose their faith — and to find out why the Clergy Project could be a game-changer in how we see religion — read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!
23 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Zengaze
June 11, 2012 at 4:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think the clergy project could be totally ground shaking. Followers automatically endow their clergy with a “set apart” or “closer to god” mantle, it’s inherent in the hierarchy system.
I personally think that the number of clergy who are atheists or are in denial about their atheism is greater than anyone imagines, I’m basing this purely on the assumption that if you spend any amount of time genuinely trying to understand the bible and Christianity, you cannot avoid the conclusion that it’s bullshit. But I fully understand why they would stay in the closet.
Alverant
June 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What’s more frightening is the threats of violence they receive. I guess it’s seen as a betrayal and since clergy has long claimed to be morally superior it makes their fall in the eyes of the flock harder. I feel sorry for them, to lose your only source of income for being honest. How do you deal with that? How do you get a future job with all the anti-Atheist bigotry out there? If they ask why you left your old job, you can’t say “I realized that I was living a lie.” without putting yourself at risk.
Paul Crowley
June 11, 2012 at 5:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As I was saying on Twitter: presumably when they were believers, they had the sort of sophisticated, nuanced understanding of theology necessary for the proper approach to the subject. But now they’ve lost their faith, I assume they like the rest of us are left only with the comically simplistic misunderstandings of the acolytes of the high priest Richard Dawkins. I wonder how that happens?
Steerpike
June 11, 2012 at 5:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…acolytes of the high priest Richard Dawkins…
Just can’t help trying to fit non-believers into the rigid, heirarchical sheep-following-the-unquestioned-leader framework your belief system insists is the only valid way to view the world, can you? News flash, Winky: Atheists aren’t “acolytes”; Dawkins is no “priest” (high or otherwise); and atheism is not a religion.
Physicalist
June 11, 2012 at 5:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Um, Steerpike? I think your irony meter might need calibrating.
Clyde Baxter
June 11, 2012 at 6:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Or, perhaps, Paul Crowley might consider calibrating his understanding of acolytes and priests.
Greta Christina
June 11, 2012 at 7:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Um… Paul Crowley is a regular and friendly commenter here. I’m pretty sure he was being sarcastic/ ironic.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
June 11, 2012 at 8:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He *blatantly* was. WTF, guys?
'Tis Himself
June 11, 2012 at 8:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You forgot “the peace of Darwin be upon him.”
Trevor Clements
June 11, 2012 at 11:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s a really interesting article Greta. I really like your writing. I’ve been following this Clergy Project and find if very interesting and am glad you chimed in on your blog. I’ve written a bit about it as well on my own blog, although mostly it just mentions a few of my thoughts and mentions other articles I read or things I watched.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
June 12, 2012 at 12:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It seems to me that positions as counselors (with proper training), speakers, and advocates within the Atheist movement would be the logical thing for these people.
Clyde Baxter
June 12, 2012 at 1:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“He *blatantly* was.”
Maybe he *blatantly* was, if you know him. I don’t. I’m new here.
“WTF, guys?”
Yes, WTF, guys? I saw my name in the comment window so I decided to comment. My next comment was going to be this:
Paul Crowley, do you really wonder how that happens?
For many pastors, it actually begins during seminary when they have certain questions but are discouraged by teachers and other students from pursuing answers. Instead, they are instilled with what you term a “sophisticated, nuanced understanding of theology.” For a while after seminary, the pastors’ questions will be staunched, yet their own intelligence, their own perspicacity and their own sense of honesty will conspire against them. The more they understand the world, the more pressing their questions become; questions that begin bleeding through the armor drip by drip and eventually become a hemorrhage of the realization that it’s all bullshit.
So, as you can see, it really is quiet simple. In the great majority of cases, no Dawkins is needed to gear up the wheels.
Oh well, I guess I’ve missed out on the in-crowd and have relegated myself to the WTF-crowd. So don’t bother, I’ll let myself out.
Paul Crowley
June 12, 2012 at 3:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m a great believer in being a communications consequentialist, so if I was misunderstood then my bad! I thought “like the rest of us” would be enough to make it clear.
What I was getting at is another response to the old “courtier’s reply”. It sure seems like all of these people would have been credited with a “nuanced, sophisticated” understanding of theology when they were clergy, so one wonders how they came to have a “simplistic” understanding as soon as they started to say “you know, none of this is true”.
jennyxyzzy
June 12, 2012 at 6:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, I’m new here too, but I definately got that it was irony, unless you think that people actually *do* lose their nuanced understanding of theology when they become atheists…
That said, Azkyroth was perhaps being a little hard – this is the land of Poe after all where it is pretty easy to imagine any ridiculous statement about atheists to have been uttered by a true-believer that means it… Such is the power of the Poe.
Jim Christensen
June 12, 2012 at 8:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think the greater danger is that people who no longer believe choose to STAY in the church and damage it from within.
I know for a fact this going on is a Kansas City location, and a major church here was rocked by a scandal in which two pastors had an affair…and one of them has now come out as no longer being a believer.
There have always been “conversions” of this kind, but its time for them to come out.
So I support this project.
LykeX
June 12, 2012 at 8:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You misread some sarcasm. It happens. It’s not the end of the world, nor is the fact that others corrected you on it.
Nobody’s calling for you to be banned or anything. The “WTF” was, as far as I can tell, an expression of surprise and disagreement, nothing more. Just accept the correction and move on.
KG
June 12, 2012 at 9:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I guess there are similar secular dilemmas: the representative or employee of a political party or pressure group who comes to think that organisation is mistaken or even malevolent; the therapist who loses confidence in their therapeutic approach; even the scientist who decides the research programme they are working in is fundamentally mistaken or even unscientific. A comparison might be interesting.
Madmanintheattic
June 12, 2012 at 1:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am with Steerpike and Clyde Baxter and the others who are perplexed by the comments of Paul Crowley. I got sarcasm and delittlement of the current discussion from him. Plus the credibility of anyone who uses pompous, pretentious lengthy, non-referent delights like ‘communications consequentialist’ to describe themselves automatically goes in the bin by default in my mind.
Otherwise, I have heard of this project befuore and have heard interviews with some of the people involved and I support it fully. I also bow in obiesience to High Priest Dawkins and worship at the alter of the All Pointless. Halleluja!
Greta Christina
June 12, 2012 at 1:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m going to remind everyone here about my comment policy. And I’m going to point out one of its most important components:
“Cut each other slack. Don’t leap immediately to the worst possible interpretation of what somebody is saying, and don’t treat each other like enemies.”
Misunderstandings in communication happen — especially on the Internet, where facial expression and body language can’t be perceived. In particular, sarcasm and irony can often get missed. Accept it, forgive each other, and move on.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
June 12, 2012 at 2:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
His name rings zero bells for me. I think the main tip was packing disparate, stupid cliches of the other side much more densely than would be expected by someone who was sincerely speaking their This-Space-Reserved-For-Mind, which suggests an attempt to “check off” as many as possible for maximum ironic effect.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
June 12, 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
(Also wrapping it up much faster than people who say such things unironically tend to, and repeating himself less.)
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
June 12, 2012 at 9:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
.
This comment suggests either a very, very low threshold for “pompous” and “pretentious” or some unfortunate insecurities. Either way, it’s kind of beside the point.
Paul Crowley
June 13, 2012 at 5:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If three people misread what I wrote then I miswrote, so sorry about that. I really recommend the article I linked to about “communications consequentialist”, I like the way Jesse Galef thinks about these things!