Editor’s Note: John Lombard clears up some mistaken ideas about The Clergy Project – a private online community for religious leaders who do not hold supernatural beliefs. John, a regular contributor to this blog, is one of many “Voices from The Clergy Project” that can be heard publicly here.

========================

By John Lombard The Clergy Project (TCP) is, by necessity, a closed community. To become a member, there is a thorough vetting process, including personal interviews, to determine that you really are who you say you are. This protects the confidentiality of discussions within TCP, which can be very personal. The secretive nature of our group frequently leads to accusations from outsiders about the motivations and purpose of our group. For example, this article says,

“The Clergy Project is a magnet for charlatans and cowards who, by their own admission, openly lie to their congregations, hide behind beliefs they do not hold, make common cause with atheists, and still retain their positions and salaries.”

Another article, highlighted by Linda a few weeks ago, says,

“It’s a good life, being a lying, two-faced phony preacher. You can be treated like a cult hero by Christian bashers; their very own boy. At the same time, you get to be a pretend man or woman of God with all the kudos that go with that.”

I’ve read and heard many other variations on this theme. That TCP actively seeks to lure Christian leaders out of their beliefs. That TCP’s goal is to undermine churches by having atheist leaders among them. That TCP is an anti-religious effort aimed at the destruction of the church. I’d like to address such claims. First, I acknowledge that there are some individual TCP members who might support destroying religion, subverting Christian leadership, etc. There are also some Christians who claim that all homosexuals should be killed, or that all atheists should leave the U.S. Just because there are individuals with such ideas, doesn’t mean that they represent an entire organization. In the case of TCP, members with such negative views are a tiny minority, and their views should not be taken as representing the values or purpose of the organization. TCP seeks to deconvert religious leaders Absolutely not. While there are organizations for those who are struggling with their religious beliefs, but haven’t yet abandoned those beliefs, TCP is not one of them. Before being allowed in, you must state explicitly and convincingly that you have entirely rejected your religious beliefs; that you do not belief in God. This is for obvious reasons: we don’t want members who ultimately decide against rejecting their beliefs to have access to private information about our members. It should also be mentioned that TCP is for all formerly religious leaders. We have ex-Christians, ex-Jews, ex-Buddhists, ex-Muslims and others. Unlike many Christian organizations that actively seek to attack and de-convert people of other religions (e.g., Jews For Jesus.), TCP does not undermine religious belief. Instead, it provides solace for people whose beliefs have already changed. TCP seeks to undermine religious beliefs by placing atheists in the pulpit Absolutely not. While it is true that some of our members use their positions in active ministry to preach more liberal ideas that contradict fundamentalist beliefs and values, quite a few of our members still preach the messages their churches expected them to preach. This causes them considerable stress and guilt, because they feel that they are preaching a lie, but must do so in order to keep their positions. However, it is important to note that TCP is not established to provide support to those who want to stay in the ministry; it is established primarily to help them get out, and to provide support after they leave. [Update] Please see Drew Bekius’ comment below for clarification. TCP provides emotional support to all members, whether they intend to leave or intend to stay in the clergy. TCP provides financial support in the form of outplacement assistance for clergy who want to leave. For most people in positions of religious leadership, publicly admitting their atheism would have disastrous consequences. Not just loss of income, but condemnation from their leaders, loss of pensions and in some cases, loss of their homes and hatred and threats from those they used to lead. Pastors could be ostracized, losing almost their entire community and support network. That is what religious organizations offer to those among their leadership who dare to admit they no longer believe. All that stuff about loving one another? Forget it. While some religious communities have shown kindness to their leaders who have admitted nonbelief, the experience of many TCP members who’ve left the ministry has been an incredibly traumatic one that destroys lives and relationships. TCP, by contrast, offers them support, encouragement and respect. We offer them resources to help them find jobs when they leave ministry. We offer a community that offers emotional and psychological support. Which of these two methods do you think is going to be more effective in getting these atheist leaders out of the pulpit?!? It’s not TCP that’s keeping them there. It is the religious institutions themselves, by creating an atmosphere in which leaders feel certain that honestly announcing their nonbelief will have disastrous consequences to their lives and livelihoods. Secret atheists are our heroes Absolutely not. The stories we tell publicly are overwhelmingly about people who got out of the ministry. Stories about clergy still inside usually highlight their suffering and their desire to leave. We admire people who’ve not only escaped, but who have gone on to build successful post-religious lives and careers. They serve as examples and encouragement to people still inside. Atheist leaders stay in the ministry because it’s comfortable There are a very few people like that, although in those situations they are generally working in churches whose congregations have beliefs similar to their own. But most TCP members who are still in the ministry don’t talk about how comfortable it is. They talk about it as a living hell:

Having to pretend beliefs that they think are lies; Feelings of guilt, fear, loneliness and of being trapped.

For most of them, TCP provides the only refuge where they can talk honestly about their feelings and gain the support and encouragement that they can’t get from their religious communities. TCP’s purpose is to humiliate religion This accusation is probably closest to the truth, although not entirely accurate. One thing that all TCP members share is the belief that religious beliefs are false; that there is no god. And yes, the revelation that there are religious leaders who have rejected their beliefs could be used as an argument against those beliefs. But this is a minor issue. TCP’s primary goal is to do what religious organizations have done so poorly — provide a safe, viable means of leaving the ministry after abandoning faith. TCP also informs other religious leaders who no longer believe that they are not alone; that changing to non-belief is far more common than they thought. A great irony is that regarding nonbelief, we have the same goal as religious organizations: To get those who have abandoned their religious beliefs out of the ministry. We are actually united in this goal — the only difference is how we seek to accomplish it. Religious organizations, for the most part, offer threats, condemnation, loss of income, loss of home, loss of community and hatred. TCP offers community, support and encouragement to leave. Which of those two strategies is more likely to bear fruit? **Editor’s Question** Realistically, what can religious communities do to make it easier for non-believing clergy to leave quickly? Bio: John Lombard is a Humanist and ex-missionary who grew up in Ontario and has been living and working in China for more than 20 years. He currently works as a cross-cultural consultant to help foreign companies seeking to do business in China. He also has a blog, Wrest in Peace, which was featured earlier on Rational Doubt. >>>photo credits: “Bryce Vickmark / vickmark.com” © Bryce Vickmark. All rights reserved. www.vickmark.com 617.448.6758