Secular pastors

Yes - those are what CofE stands for I guess. But I was thinking about a secular approach to pastoral care and the celebration of the seasons, family events and community gatherings. I am sure that my local vicar would be hugely sympathetic to the idea - and what Christian would not, I ask myself, since concern for others is apparently central to the doctrine?

It's ok Mishap, I was being cheeky. I was raise C of E here in Australia and went to a church school, so of course by the time i was 18 or so I was agnostic and sometime in my 20's I decided atheism was the path for me. Here in Australia registered marriage celebrants also do naming ceremonies, funerals, renewal of vows etc. Seems a sensible approach to me.

That sounds good PoppaRob - but I would also like to see them being lodged in their communities with a similar supportive role to vicars.

They would just be social workers, wouldn't they? Or the CAB?

You say they would be "pastors". Don't pastors care for people's souls? According to the non-Christian way of thinking, surely people don't have souls.

Aren't family doctors supposed to fulfill this role?

Social workers are now financial gatekeepers for the LA - not what I have in mind at all!

Family doctors have 7 minutes for each patient and do virtually no home visiting now - that is covered by out-of-hours deputising services - again not quite what I have in mind!

The word pastor comes from Latin and means shepherd - a good description I think for someone who would have responsibilities to care for the local people in many different ways. A shepherd cares for his/her flock - the fact that Christianity has used this term doesn't detract from its real meaning.

L A > Mishap what do you mean ?

Local Authority Nonu

Thanks !

It sounds like a good idea but being somewhat religious myself, I feel priests, rabbis, ministers (insert equivalent from religion of your choice) offer some kind of authority because of their position. The shepherd is in charge of his flock and has accepted responsibility for them. (His flock being anyone who puts themselves under his/her care). Someone acting as a pastor on his/her own authority is either potentially very dangerous if they try to make a career of it or is,er, just a friend if they look after you.

Social workers are supposed to do this kind of job, but when it becomes a career all kinds of influences come into play. The secular pastors would need to be financed somehow. How?

I don't think people would accept it. Sounds like busy-bodying to me. I think it would do to a lot of people.

I guess to some people visits from the vicar when one is sick feel a bit like busybodying - so no change there really. But most of us accept the visit in the spirit of kindness in which it is meant, even though we might be happier to do without the religious strings attached.

I would presume that visits from a secular pastor would be viewed in the same light - might indeed feel more comfortable to some people.

Indeed there would need to be practical financial arrangements and an acceptance by the community to support this role because it was of value. In the same way that churchgoers support their vicars through collections and fundraising.

Truly Elegran, social workers do not do this job - they really are simply local authority minions. They used to represent the caring face of the state, but no longer. They are simply making sure that local authorities stay within the law and within budget.

I guess it would be like Homestart, but for the whole population rather than only parents and children.

Maybe..........

Hmm - I can foresee massive resistance....it would only work in small, friendly communities.

I love your idea, Mishap. I am quite sure many people continue to go to church for the social/caring aspect, long after losing any belief in a mythical, supernatural, all-knowing figure.

I think the humanists would be a good organisation to work on such an idea, and clearly under-used churches would be an ideal location. I love church architecture, stained glass windows and the lovely atmosphere.

Christmas and Easter festivities, plus hatches matches and dispatches could be performed there. After all, the Christmas date was chosen because it was the same time as pagan yuletide or midwinter festivals, Easter is springtime and a celebration of nature's re-birth, and a harvest festival is another pagan rite made religious to keep it in the church. I see no conflict with religion anywhere.

Pastors could be trained in aspects of different religious beliefs, as well as social work so that they understood the people they ministered. Many atheists come from a religious background and this continues to have bearing on them, either negatively or positively, so a secular pastor would have to be educated in these matters.

I think you have grasped the nub of my idea Joan - that is exactly what I have in mind.

I too love church architecture - they are places with beauty and a certain gravitas which is needed for ceremonies that are important to us - I cannot bear the tacky nature of so many registry offices.

No. You cannot take over Christian churches for secular activities.

There are still enough Christians around to NOT LET THAT HAPPEN.

The very idea is a daft one.

And Joan the atmosphere in churches is there because of the use the building has been put to, often over centuries.

I still think a Homestart for all might be a good idea. Perhaps you could call it Lifestart. Or Life-sort-out-because you've buggered it up again.

Our vicar (female) has always been very happy for secular occasions to take place in the church - she's very broad-minded!! The narrow-minded Christianity of former years is thankfully diminishing and most of the Christians of my acquaintance would be entirely happy about the idea. Their concern is just for people and their happiness; and the health and well-being of their wider community (religious or not).

Indeed, the atmosphere in churches is about the people who built it/have shared life events there etc. - agnostics can respect and value that too. I know that I do. I live next to my local church - just across the field - and I go there most days when I am out on my walk to enjoy the peace and cool and the atmosphere. And I support it financially and sell photos of the church that I have taken to go into the church coffers.

I hate strident religion and strident atheism - thankfully both communities here are open-minded and kind.

I still don't understand how you could celebrate Easter, Christmas, Harvest etc. in a Christian church if you are taking the festivals back to the pagan versions of same. Churches have been dedicated to God.

I can see that some churches, or a room behind the church, could be used for some kind of secular counselling service. I don't think that would be objectionable. But wouldn't the very interior of a church be abhorrent to a non-religious, or even anti-religion, person? (Thinking Crosses, Virgin Mary and Child statues, etc)

Beautifully said Mishap

Agree with JO 4 going to have one right now

Ex-churches get un-dedicated, if that is a real word (de-consecrated? that's it) and are turned into warehouses, private homes, discos, whatever.

But a deconsecrated church would no longer have the financial input from the congregation or diocese, so would need a lot of income to maintain.

A working church is probably not the place to celebrate using rival rituals, but a generalised Winter Jolly would not offend, surely.

Ah Jing but which god? Many are built on the sites of pagan worship![wooden spoon] emoticon