tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post835423479249399078..comments2023-07-22T07:29:41.851-07:00Comments on Mike Rayner sermons: Why I am no longer a Minister in Secular EmploymentMike Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05629632798185380611noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-10425570501515462392019-11-06T04:09:40.450-08:002019-11-06T04:09:40.450-08:00I've just come across this talk, as I write a ...I've just come across this talk, as I write a book proposal, based on my recent doctoral research: 'The priest in secular work: Participating in the missio Dei'. I wish I'd read this sooner, as much of what you say resonates for me, and for those involved in my research. I'd like to contact you directly to find out a bit more about your views. If you'd be interested, please email me at revd.jennygage(at)gmail.com.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17248685256245978759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-18105311153400502562012-01-30T11:04:47.157-08:002012-01-30T11:04:47.157-08:00Sorry Ron
Happy to keep going for a while. Have ...Sorry Ron<br /><br />Happy to keep going for a while. Have been busy doing other things. <br /><br />Re. ‘That you see it that way isn't the issue that determines whether you are in secular employment or not.’. No I agree. I also agree that my employer – the University of Oxford – might clearly be regarded as ‘secular’. However I am not entirely sure how ‘secular’ it is: its colleges still have chapels and chaplains and there’s a University Church, etc. etc. but really that’s beside the point. Surely the nature of one’s employment is not entirely determined by the nature of one’s employer? My boss – the head of my department - has on occasion asked me to say grace at departmental dinners. Here is clear instance of where in work time I performed a task which I regard as sacred at the request of my employer. I confess I also regularly pray at work, in work time, but generally not at the request of my employer. I regard praying as part of my work.<br /><br />I too am dismayed (to put it mildly) at the official Christian view (as you put it) of homosexuality and and gender. I agree that some Christians have gone wrong in their interpretation of the Bible and Christian tradition and in how their interpretation should affect their working practices. Your example of the psychotherapist is a good (if that is the right word) one here. But I would argue that the psychotherapist didn’t ‘go far enough’ rather than ‘too far’ in relating (real) Christian values to their employment.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629632798185380611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-68819612304634269932012-01-30T09:02:17.490-08:002012-01-30T09:02:17.490-08:00Not sure you want to continue on this subject, so ...Not sure you want to continue on this subject, so don't feel the need to respond. Just wanted to point out examples of when it can go too far:<br /><br />http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/liberal-anglicans-support-psychotherapy-to-cure-gay-people-of-their-illness/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-22997612793293396572012-01-19T05:34:58.807-08:002012-01-19T05:34:58.807-08:00Hi Mike,
OK to pretty much all of that. In partic...Hi Mike,<br /><br />OK to pretty much all of that. In particular, if the organisation, the employer, has a specific agenda, such as health promotion, then if the employees are aware of it then they signed up to it, and therefore no problem.<br /><br />I can't remember if I'd discussed the source of our principles with you before (maybe it was with Alan Crawley), but I don't see an issue with, say, humanist principles being based on Christian ones, since ours (UK) is culturally Christian historically and it would be surprising in those values hadn't endured. But then those Christian values that are humanistic are developments of pre-Christian humanism anyway, and looking back even further are likely to be based on evolutionary (Darwinian) adaptation and its evolving (non-Darwinian) development in early human, and pre-human, groups. It's easy to separate out what is basically humanistic and so secular, and what is Christian-non-humanist (e.g. homophobia in the church).<br /><br />So I can see how Christians, Muslims, atheist humanists, and people of other world views could work for you very comfortably. On that basis it sounds specifically like a secular organisation, which is at odds with the title of your post: "Why I am no longer a Minister in Secular Employment" - You are in secular employment, and you still consider yourself to be a minister? <br /><br />I can see how you may not like the terminology (MSE), but that's just about terminology, not the fact of the matter.<br /><br />"...for all Christians who see their secular employment as their primary Christian ministry"<br /><br />That you see it that way isn't the issue that determines whether you are in secular employment or not.<br /><br />"To me it is sacred. I have always thought of myself as having a vocation to the work I do."<br /><br />Again, no problem. That's your view of yourself. What's more important is how that plays out at work. If you were, for example, to insist, as boss, on starting the day with a group prayer, then that wouldn't be particularly secular.<br /><br />On the issue of 'offence'. I don't find Christianity especially offensive. There are specific Christian behaviours I find offending against basic humanist principles: Christian homophobia, sexism, ... (granted, not applying to all Christians, but still, part of the official view). In discussions I'm not even averse to offensiveness (by or towards me), since to a great extent it is often the over sensitivity of the offended that's the fault, and that in turn is due to their mistaken view as to the special nature and righteousness of their belief system. But in political life and in employment there is an offence against personal freedom of belief that an overt non-secular bias can commit. <br /><br />The point of secular society, and secular employment, is that personally you are free to believe what you want as long as that doesn't interfere with how people work, and doesn't interfere with their personal beliefs, and doesn't coerce them into behaviours which go against those beliefs. An ideal, obviously: the wearing of religious artifacts at work; performing religious practices in work's time; and so on, are practical issues that sometimes need resolving.<br /><br />"To this extent I am still a Minister Who is Employed by a Not-Overtly-Religious Organisation!"<br /><br />Perhaps this is where I'm misunderstanding you. So, is it a religious organisation that is simply not overt about it? Is it supposed to be religious? Or, is it a secular organisation that isn't overt about its religious nature because it isn't religious? Or, is it a secular organisation that's headed by a religious person who covertly instills his religious beliefs on it by covert means? :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-85437339739840398252012-01-17T12:41:27.087-08:002012-01-17T12:41:27.087-08:00Ron
Re your first comment. All I said was that ...Ron <br /><br />Re your first comment. All I said was that ‘Prostitution at least seems to be ruled out by most people’ as a suitable profession for an ordained priest in the Church of England. I didn’t say that I thought it was! In a related sort of way I think smoking (a lot) is incompatible with being a public health researcher and that being overweight is not (at least in my case).<br /><br />Re your second comment and your contention that ‘that the public expression of [my] personal religious beliefs to the extent that this post seems to describe, might be offensive too’. I guess they might: you will have to ask my work colleagues. I think you probably over estimate the extent to which people are ‘offended’ by expressions of religious belief. Oh come off it: is anyone bar Richard Dawkins ‘appalled personally by the notion of Jesus being divine’? Oh yes Paul suggests they might be (I Corinthians 1: 23). <br /><br />Re your third comment and your questions in the paragraph ‘So, as Director of your group you hold significant power over others that you direct or manage. Have you considered what their take is on your ministry? Are they aware of it? How explicit is it? What if they personally don't like it, but as you're the boss they are stuck with it? When does one man's mission become another's oppression?’ Of course I realise that my role as ‘boss’ makes it less rather than more likely that those I ‘boss’ will challenge my beliefs. (They all, I think, know I am a Christian priest and I am sure that most of them, if they read this post, wouldn’t find it particularly surprising.) They may (but I hope they wouldn’t and quite frankly it seems to me unlikely that they would) say that I show favouritism to the Christians amongst them. Again you’ll have to ask them to be certain.<br /><br />But your questions remind me that we do – when we are interviewing people for positions within my research group - ask candidates questions to see what their values are. As a research group one of our aims is to carry out research which has an impact on public health policy and practice (see our website). I.e. we aim to do research that would help improve public health and not just describe the health of the public and how it might be improved. If people do not subscribe to the belief that research is not merely about description but should be done with a view to impact (in our case on mortality and morbidity from cardioavascular disease) then they are unlikely to get the job.<br /><br />I think it is fairly obvious that the values of the boss of an organisation have a big effect on how that organisation operates. Now you may argue that my belief that public health researchers should not just aim to reveal truths but to improve health is ‘just being nice’ and/or could be derived from any old ‘metaphysical beliefs’ but I do not think so. I think it comes from a Christian ethical system which places more value on love than truth for the sake of it. <br /><br />I am sure we would discuss this over lunch, if you worked for me, I would not insist that you agree with me about the origins of the aims of the research group but I would insist that your work contributed to the aims. I do not just want just highly skilled researchers in my research group but those who subscribe to my values. Is this really oppressive?<br /><br />Oh and I am rather hoping that some of my work colleagues might be wondering ‘who this jumped up preacher thinks he is’ but I fear that they won’t be.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629632798185380611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-25978791018636226542012-01-16T07:36:51.562-08:002012-01-16T07:36:51.562-08:00...
"Of course preaching the gospel doesn......<br /><br />"Of course preaching the gospel doesn't need words as St Francis reminds us."<br /><br />I found this interesting. It may be true you don't need words - if one 'acts like a priest' - that is, it's quite possible, through body language, and simply non-explicit verbal language, to make it very clear what one's 'mission' is. So in this sense St Francis is pulling a fast one. If one really does behave without preaching then one is indistinguishable from any other 'humanist' of any religion or none - that's just being nice, and is nothing to do with one's metaphysical beliefs.<br /><br />"I find it interesting – but perhaps not surprising – that this ministry through food (sermons, contemplative bread making sessions) takes place not at my workplace (the University) but in churches or church halls but it clearly has a connection with my paid work."<br /><br />Not only interesting, but essential, if you are to avoid breaking the respectfulness towards others that don't see things your way. If I worked with you I could choose not to take up your notice board offers to attend such out-of-work events, just as I'd not attend a knitting club (and I choose the latter specifically so I could say there's nothing wrong with knitting clubs, they're just not for me, and the same applies to your events).<br /><br />But I'd be pretty annoyed if I had to put up with incessant preaching, no matter how well disguised it was, with or without words, while trying to play my part in the job by virtue of the skills I bring to it, not by virtue of my metaphysical beliefs. Well, I make that point as a general one, but as you've probably figured from our discussions elsewhere it wouldn't play out like that. I'd be far more likely to argue the toss with you on the metaphysics and neither of us would get done the work we are actually paid to do. But one way or another you wouldn't get away with imposing your belief in your own calling (your belief in your belief) without some resistance. At the very least I'd expect to be allowed to bring my specifically atheistic opinions to the table.<br /><br />So, as Director of your group you hold significant power over others that you direct or manage. Have you considered what their take is on your ministry? Are they aware of it? How explicit is it? What if they personally don't like it, but as you're the boss they are stuck with it? When does one man's mission become another's oppression.<br /><br />I'm not disputing the well meaning of your intentions, and I'm not suggesting you have anything but the best at heart for your colleagues and your employer. But, is it as simple as that? Is well-meaning good enough? Are you missing the point of secularism?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-84261187440073516682012-01-16T07:36:19.810-08:002012-01-16T07:36:19.810-08:00...But I think you have to acknowledge that you ar......But I think you have to acknowledge that you are talking about a very personal perspective. And it could be considered somewhat selfish in a way, if you are in any way pushing this personal vision on any one else in the same employment.<br /><br />I think that a part-time prostitute would receive censure from unapproving people - I dare say the more religious they the more they would censure it - if they were to attempt to make clients of their day-job colleagues in a bank. And if the rapist made his interest known it might well make many of his colleagues very uncomfortable. These cases seem obvious.<br /><br />What seems less obvious to you, perhaps because of the pre-supposed benign nature of Christianity, is that the public expression of your personal religious beliefs to the extent that this post seems to describe, might be offensive too. There are not only people who don't give one jot for Jesus and who consider Christianity to be one more delusional enterprises sustained by the momentum of the Middle Ages, but also others who also share belief in some un-evidenced deity but are just as appalled personally by the notion of Jesus being divine.<br /><br />This is the heart of secularism. It's not a specific claim to the right to denigrate or denounce your beliefs (that's already enshrined in the principle of free expression), and certainly not a demand to suppress anyone's particular beliefs. It's about not having to have it pushed in your face while you are coming together with people of potentially quite different personal beliefs and interests in order to earn a living. <br /><br />In politics it's a grave matter of personal freedom, so that any dominant belief system cannot dominate the freedoms of others. In the work place its more about having respect for others who may have no interest in or may actually detest what your personal beliefs stand for. Bear in mind that there may be even be Christians in the same workplace who don't see your ministry as in any way legitimate, and might ask who this jumped up preacher thinks he is.<br /><br />...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-31384887503126561262012-01-16T07:34:50.549-08:002012-01-16T07:34:50.549-08:00Hi Mike,
This is an interesting post.
I can unde...Hi Mike,<br /><br />This is an interesting post.<br /><br />I can understand how each of us brings to any human activity, in this context our job, something of the whole of what we are. Or, from another perspective, we bring to it bits of the various parts of what we are. In this post you are expressing how you bring, as you see it, one particular bit of you, which happens to be a very big bit - a fair proportion of what you are. <br /><br />Picking up on a later point to raise, I don't see how it would not be possible that a Christian could, if that's how they viewed themselves, bring much of their 'ministry' to their role as a prostitute - a role that might benefit significantly from some of those most wholesome human characteristics that many Christians deem their sole prerogative. And yes, maybe a hangman could do that too.<br /><br />But then I see also that a predatory rapist would also bring something of who they were to their work as an office clerk, as they contemplate the suitability of candidates, while restricting the application of that essence of themselves while in the workplace for the sake of self-preservation. <br /><br />So, I don't see this angle as particularly controversial...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-53913757571799608602012-01-12T09:48:01.712-08:002012-01-12T09:48:01.712-08:00Interesting question about my 'primary' mi...Interesting question about my 'primary' ministry. Yes what is a 'primary ministry' for goodness sake? I only used the word 'primary' because it appears on the CHRISM website.<br /><br />On reflection I am not at also that what one is passionate about is a very good indicator of what is primary or important in the context of ministry. But it is some sort of indicator surely? I used the word passionate deliberately because of 'The Passion'. I think there is a difference between talents/gifts and passions. I think we often focus too much on our talents and not enough on our passions. <br /><br />Re ‘The Passion’ of Christ and whether it was active or passive. It’s worth reading Vanstone’s book for his take on this. I find him convincing. Basically I think that Jesus did all his wresting with himself prior to (e.g. during the Temptations in the Wilderness) and at Gethsemane rather than after he had been arrested.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629632798185380611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8341898922395366744.post-53064108119485161602012-01-12T03:33:19.133-08:002012-01-12T03:33:19.133-08:00Mike, Thanks for posting your sermon on twitter. I...Mike, Thanks for posting your sermon on twitter. I really enjoyed reading it. I too am a Christian (married to an Anglican priest) who works in nutrition (less so in food) and have long believed in the ministry of all believers and the concept of whole life ministry so I really resonated with your sermon. I have two comments/questions: 1) Is it right to describe the things you are most passionate about (food and art) as your primary ministry? I might suggest that your primary ministry may be in something you do just as regularly as food and art but that you don't recognise - yet God does. Secondly I wonder if it is worth asking the question if Jesus's ministry post Gethsemane was actually passive. I just wonder if it was actually active as he wrestled (as a man)with doing his life's calling to be crucified? Sorry, I'm no theologian so I may be wrong about this - it's just a suggestion. Best wishes and thanks for sharing this. PamelaPamela Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14798569021014093916noreply@blogger.com