Does having an unpaid clergy imply fundamentalism?

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
Post Reply
Reuben
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:01 pm

Does having an unpaid clergy imply fundamentalism?

Post by Reuben »

I'm looking to support or refute the theory that churches with unpaid clergy must be fundamentalist or mostly fundamentalist, where for "fundamentalist" I'm using the broad definition "requiring members to hold certain fundamental beliefs in order to be in good standing." I regard Mormonism as mostly fundamentalist, though church policy allows units to be just plain fundamentalist when local leaders want them to be.

Here's one possible mechanism. Having unpaid clergy means that local clergy (e.g. Mormon bishops, Jehovah's Witnesses elders) also have full-time careers, so they have to delegate responsibilities to keep the organization running. Fulfilling the spiritual responsibilities causes congregation members to face frequent tests of belief. Examples are public prayers, lessons, talks, and spiritual aspects of ministry. Members either adjust their beliefs to pass the tests, or if they can't, remove their contrary beliefs from common discourse by drifting away or keeping quiet.

Another possible mechanism is that fulfilling any responsibility increases investment, which increases belief, which increases the expectation that others believe the same things. I think this mechanism is well-supported by psychology research, so I'm more interested in the other one.

In contrast, a paid clergy could allow much more space to hold contrary beliefs because the clergy does most of the spiritual work. It could also encourage much less personal investment.

I have the LDS church and the Jehovah's Witnesses as examples of unpaid clergy with fundamentalism. To falsify or refine, I need an example of unpaid clergy without fundamentalism. Quakers, maybe?
Learn to doubt the stories you tell about yourselves and your adversaries.
User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5337
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Does having an unpaid clergy imply fundamentalism?

Post by moksha »

Don't see why it needs an example. The method and amount of cleric remuneration is not part of the definition of fundamentalism and an example of either method would be idiosyncratic to that faith group. Besides, the LDS Church does have paid clergy at the top of its chain of command.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha
User avatar
mooseman
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:30 pm

Re: Does having an unpaid clergy imply fundamentalism?

Post by mooseman »

Unpaid without fundamentalism? Community of Christ
Paid with fundamentalism? Westborough baptist
It's frustrating to see the last resort in a discussion of facts be: I disregard those facts because of my faith. Why even talk about facts if the last resort is to put faith above all facts that are contrary to your faith?
User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 2480
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Does having an unpaid clergy imply fundamentalism?

Post by 2bizE »

I just sets the standard that everyone will commit untold hours with no expectation of payment. If the bishop isn’t paid, then why would anyone else?
~2bizE
User avatar
Emower
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:35 pm
Location: Carson City

Re: Does having an unpaid clergy imply fundamentalism?

Post by Emower »

Buuuuut, we do have paid clergy, they just dont do the brunt of the spiritual work. They dont even do the brunt of the administrative work, just the global administrative work. So I guess we are this weird hybrid.
Post Reply