Here is a counter example to the Greg Scalise comment. I am currently in seminary for the PCA. I am taking classes remotely (so I can keep my job and community), getting the cost nearly covered through various denominational scholarships, and participating in a coordinated cohort of seminarians in my area which meets monthly to connect and discuss practical skills with active pastors. There is also job board on the seminary's website with tons of open positions. It sounds like the PCUSA might offer more than that, but the disparity isn't nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.
"It may be religious, but it’s not exactly traditional."
Paul Vanderklay coined the term: Metagelical. It's essentially how in America specifically, Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox, approach religion in Evangelical ways.
"I hope Redeemed Zoomer will be able to popularize this path for more pastors."
My question--and it's completely sincere; I don't think I already know the answer--is this: do these newly minted conservative pastors in mainline denominations have free reign to preach conservative theology? Can they freely mix with co-belligerents in politics-adjacent places without punishment? Can they organize conservative lay leaders to agitate for the hierarchy to promote more conservatives to their ranks? i.e., can they do everything left-wing pastors have been free to do for the last 7 decades without getting blackballed?
Without addressing this question, the enthusiasm for the mainline smacks of an off-putting careerism.
The problems with how business is run in America are worthy of an article in themselves if not a book.
To one point though the short version is are you paying someone enough to “build a life”. Which is to say afford a family, afford a decent home for same (doesn’t have to be ownership, although that would be preferable), eventually afford to not die at your desk. People aren’t avoiding corporate to “follow their bliss”, they’ve seen the writing on the wall that most, most not all, corporate jobs are basically only good as second incomes on top of another larger income.
Until those conditions are met corporations complain about employees not being invested while willing to try literally any other solution including mass immigration than paying them more. This is why we’re vulnerable to the “new” socialism. People who aren’t invested are being promised that they will be, same as in South Vietnam when the rice farmers were promised real ownership and not being under the thumb of the rice buyers.
Now socialism will immediately make things worse, it cannot work since it relies on force more than cooperation for all economic facets of life. But, it’s an attractive fantasy when you’re already not making a life and see no prospect of doing so.
Re: when you understand how to break the rules, then you can find a very easy way to become rich.
This has been true since the paint was still wet on the ziggurat of Ur. I'm a fan of "the Gilded Age" and I watched the first episode of "The House of Guinness" last night. Fictions of course-- but the era portrayed was a time of rich people behaving badly, and of rules being only for the Little People (Hmm, I recall a rather infamous rich lady saying something like that a few decades ago too, though she did find out otherwise). Meanwhile any attempt to reform this situation is shouted down as "bleeding-heart liberalism" or "punishing the Job Makers".
One thing I will cautiously agree with: Outside a few male-dominated industries workplaces have become overly feminized and behavior that is normal for men is treated as pathological by HR departments. No, I am not talking about sexual harassment which is never acceptable-- but I am talking about the more open and vigorous ways men handle disagreement instead of beating around bushes in a complex gavotte like courtiers in old Heian Japan.
Thing is not really. For every 100 guys who break the rules maybe one to ten are ok long term. Read Wiseguys by Pileggi, untold multitudes of guys breaking the rules to “get over”, most fail and everybody suffers.
Of course it depends on what you mean by rules, largely don’t steal. Many of those “rich people behaving badly” were providing actual services that worked and that people needed. The steel functioned as steel, the oil functioned as oil, back far enough Astors’ furs were from the claimed animal and not just repackaged sewer rat.
Here is a counter example to the Greg Scalise comment. I am currently in seminary for the PCA. I am taking classes remotely (so I can keep my job and community), getting the cost nearly covered through various denominational scholarships, and participating in a coordinated cohort of seminarians in my area which meets monthly to connect and discuss practical skills with active pastors. There is also job board on the seminary's website with tons of open positions. It sounds like the PCUSA might offer more than that, but the disparity isn't nearly as bad as some are making it out to be.
"It may be religious, but it’s not exactly traditional."
Paul Vanderklay coined the term: Metagelical. It's essentially how in America specifically, Catholics and even Eastern Orthodox, approach religion in Evangelical ways.
"I hope Redeemed Zoomer will be able to popularize this path for more pastors."
My question--and it's completely sincere; I don't think I already know the answer--is this: do these newly minted conservative pastors in mainline denominations have free reign to preach conservative theology? Can they freely mix with co-belligerents in politics-adjacent places without punishment? Can they organize conservative lay leaders to agitate for the hierarchy to promote more conservatives to their ranks? i.e., can they do everything left-wing pastors have been free to do for the last 7 decades without getting blackballed?
Without addressing this question, the enthusiasm for the mainline smacks of an off-putting careerism.
They certainly have freedom in the American Baptist Church or any congregationalist one.
The problems with how business is run in America are worthy of an article in themselves if not a book.
To one point though the short version is are you paying someone enough to “build a life”. Which is to say afford a family, afford a decent home for same (doesn’t have to be ownership, although that would be preferable), eventually afford to not die at your desk. People aren’t avoiding corporate to “follow their bliss”, they’ve seen the writing on the wall that most, most not all, corporate jobs are basically only good as second incomes on top of another larger income.
Until those conditions are met corporations complain about employees not being invested while willing to try literally any other solution including mass immigration than paying them more. This is why we’re vulnerable to the “new” socialism. People who aren’t invested are being promised that they will be, same as in South Vietnam when the rice farmers were promised real ownership and not being under the thumb of the rice buyers.
Now socialism will immediately make things worse, it cannot work since it relies on force more than cooperation for all economic facets of life. But, it’s an attractive fantasy when you’re already not making a life and see no prospect of doing so.
Eisenhower was called a Nazi while he was SCAFE. It’s in his letters.
There was never a time when the left thought we were “OK”, at the time, only in retrospect.
Re: when you understand how to break the rules, then you can find a very easy way to become rich.
This has been true since the paint was still wet on the ziggurat of Ur. I'm a fan of "the Gilded Age" and I watched the first episode of "The House of Guinness" last night. Fictions of course-- but the era portrayed was a time of rich people behaving badly, and of rules being only for the Little People (Hmm, I recall a rather infamous rich lady saying something like that a few decades ago too, though she did find out otherwise). Meanwhile any attempt to reform this situation is shouted down as "bleeding-heart liberalism" or "punishing the Job Makers".
One thing I will cautiously agree with: Outside a few male-dominated industries workplaces have become overly feminized and behavior that is normal for men is treated as pathological by HR departments. No, I am not talking about sexual harassment which is never acceptable-- but I am talking about the more open and vigorous ways men handle disagreement instead of beating around bushes in a complex gavotte like courtiers in old Heian Japan.
Thing is not really. For every 100 guys who break the rules maybe one to ten are ok long term. Read Wiseguys by Pileggi, untold multitudes of guys breaking the rules to “get over”, most fail and everybody suffers.
Of course it depends on what you mean by rules, largely don’t steal. Many of those “rich people behaving badly” were providing actual services that worked and that people needed. The steel functioned as steel, the oil functioned as oil, back far enough Astors’ furs were from the claimed animal and not just repackaged sewer rat.