Pastors, Church Workers, and Trends (CC) Part Rant/Part Questions

[bolt.]

I've never heard of this and it most certainly would NOT fly at my church at all.

 

We have one pastor, one youth pastor, one counseling pastor and a board of elders. There are Sunday School directors/superintendents, but they are not, nor ever will be, called pastors.

I'm totally confused by this!

 

You are saying that whether or not a person gets the title "pastor" in your Church depends entirely on the *age* of the people they are ministering to??? Really?

 

People under 13 do not recieve the ministry of a pastor (What? They don't need it?) but when they join the youth group, *suddenly* they are worthy of having a pastor? That seems pretty arbitrary to me.

[milovany]

The "people who have diligently studied" etc seem to have finally realized that or Churches have frequently been used the word "Pastor" wrongly.

 

 

I think a better method (instead of studying more/harder at this place in time 2000 years removed) is to go back and see how the Apostles that Christ himself trained used the words practically speaking. Since they went around ordaining bishops in all the places they visited, and these bishops/elders were the leaders of the local congregations, this is obviously what Christ meant (that there would be local leaders).

 

So not just anyone was a pastor/elder -- just the ones the Apostles and bishops ordained. The words of the New Testament, which came later, have to be interpreted through this lens.

Edited September 24, 2012 by milovaný

[QueenCat]

I'm totally confused by this!

 

You are saying that whether or not a person gets the title "pastor" in your Church depends entirely on the *age* of the people they are ministering to??? Really?

 

People under 13 do not recieve the ministry of a pastor (What? They don't need it?) but when they join the youth group, *suddenly* they are worthy of having a pastor? That seems pretty arbitrary to me.

 

In our last church, the youth pastor was an ordained (seminary) minister, so he was called pastor. The children's director was not ordained, so no, not called pastor. Current church, neither are ordained, so neither called pastor. It's not about age, it's about qualifications/education.

[bolt.]

I think a better method (instead of studying more/harder at this place in time 2000 years removed) is to go back and see how the Apostles that Christ himself trained used the words practically speaking. Since they went around ordaining bishops in all the places they visited, and these bishops/elders were the leaders of the local congregations, this is obviously what Christ meant (that there would be local leaders).

 

So not just anyone was a pastor/elder -- just the ones the Apostles and bishops ordained.

That's an interesting interpretation of the various texts, but I don't think it is as solid as you seem to think it is.

 

> It is *not* known that any or all of the apostles 'ordained' any 'bishops' at all.

 

[What is known is merely that Paul (only) directed Titus (only) that he should 'appoint' (not 'ordain') elders (not bishops/overseers -or- pastors) in the places he (Titus) visited -- and not nessisarily all of the places he visited, perhaps just for the occasions relevant to that letter.]

 

People have *extrapolated* from what is known something of an *assumption* that this was a universal practice... but there is no NT indication as to whether or not anyone at all (other than Titus) was doing this... nor indeed that Titus did it... only that he was instructed to do it.

 

It's fair to extrapolate and form theories like this, but we must never confuse the content of our theories with the foundational truth revealed by Scripture itself.

 

> It is *not* known that bishops/overseers and elders were the same thing.

 

[What is known is that Paul wrote to *Timothy* some qualifications for bishops/overseers that were remarkably similar to the qualifications he wrote to *Titus* for elders. However, when writing to *Timothy* Paul mentions elders in quite a different way, as distinct from bishops/overseers.]

 

Again the *extrapolation* that bishops and elders were the same is within reason, but it is not a known fact. It is a theory.

 

> It is *not* known whether or not all bishops or all elders held a leadership role, whether in local congregations, or on a wider or narrower scope.

 

[Very little is known about this, and most of it has to do with the various definitions of contentous Greek words.]

 

> It is *not* known that pastors and elders were the same, or even similar.

 

[What is known is that the places in the NT that mention elders or bishops do not mention pastors *at all* and vice-versa.]

 

> It is *not* known that any person, apostle or not, ever appointed or ordained a pastor.

 

[What is known is that as Eph 4:11 says, "Christ himself appointed some to be... pastors."]

 

...

 

So, while your conclusions and theories are certianly reasonable, they can not *at all* approach the level of being called, "Obviously what Christ meant."

[bolt.]

In our last church, the youth pastor was an ordained (seminary) minister, so he was called pastor. The children's director was not ordained, so no, not called pastor. Current church, neither are ordained, so neither called pastor. It's not about age, it's about qualifications/education.

Well, that is a more reasonable distinction than merely the age of the people recieving the ministry, but it is still a enculturated use of the terminology that is completely distinct from the NT use of its own terminology. (The NT couldn't conceivably define 'a pastor' in terms of his/her level of formal education or a denomiational approval process, since those things weren't invented yet.)

 

I'm not entirely against us using these terms in a way that suits our culture. On the contrary, I see great freedom on many issues like this! It's fine to have handy terms and clear distinctions about what *we* mean by them. I just have the kind of personality that would like us all to be honest that we have appropreated these words and are using them in our own ways.

[beaners]

That is what our (PCUSA) church does. The bulletin lists "Ministers: All members of the church" and then our Pastors. I don't follow these thigns too closely, but I recall some talk of the General Assembly changing the Pastor title to 'Teaching Elder'. I must say that the pastors at my church fit that title very well, they know as well as anyone else that they're not really in charge of anything. :)

 

Huh. The church I went to as a child was a joint Methodist and Presbyterian church, and always included the bit about all the people being ministers. Now I know where that came from!

[milovany]

I'm not going solely on the text of the New Testament. The early church didn't since they didn't have those writings put together in a canon of Scripture yet. They lived, developed the church by the power of the Holy Spirit, thrived, were martyred, etc. all before there was a Bible. There are other writings of the time that also spoke about these things, and of course it was known what the apostles did and didn't do. These things were also written down (as Jesus said they would be). It's not as difficult as you seem to be making it. ;)

Edited September 24, 2012 by milovaný

[bolt.]

It's certainly not as clear-cut as you are making it... and while I would definitely be interested in alternative written sources on the way the Apostles did things that pre-date the books of the Bible (could you be specific?) None the less, I wouldn't consider their information as equivalent-to-Scripture. To do so would dishonour Scripture and discredit the process of the accumulation and approval of the cannon.

 

I'm not sure what you are refering to by saying that Jesus 'said' there would be written records of the Apostles activities (other than the books of the Bible)... I'm interested in these things, and I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.

[Susan in TN]

Our church is moving toward a plurality of elders and ordaining lay elders. I think it is a GOOD thing. I can't picture any of them co-opting the term "pastor", but by Bible definition a pastor and a lay elder can all work together.

 

The idea of one or two men having all the burden, responsibility and authority in the church doesn't seem Biblical to me. (Authority, used loosely, our church is congregational in government style). There should never be any ambiguity about whether a particular elder or pastor is the Senior Pastor or Family Pastor (by definition seminary educated men) or merely a lay elder, I wouldn't think. And the position of ordained elder will be a matter of church election/affirmation and taken as seriously as that of a deacon or pastor.

 

I see your point here. The elders and deacons in our church/denomination go through extensive Biblical/theological training before being ordained. However, that's different from a Sunday School teacher or nursery worker. I'm an assistant in a Sunday School class and I think it would be ridiculous to call me a pastor. I completely trust our Elders who take on a great deal of the shepherding of our congregation. But then, I also know the kind of training, support, and accountability that is required of them (particularly since dh has gone through the process.)

 

The whole "trend" sounds like they are trying to give "authority" to folks who feel they need a title and prestige without doing the work that goes before it.

[Kathryn]

It's certainly not as clear-cut as you are making it... and while I would definitely be interested in alternative written sources on the way the Apostles did things that pre-date the books of the Bible (could you be specific?) None the less, I wouldn't consider their information as equivalent-to-Scripture. To do so would dishonour Scripture and discredit the process of the accumulation and approval of the cannon.

 

I'm not sure what you are refering to by saying that Jesus 'said' there would be written records of the Apostles activities (other than the books of the Bible)... I'm interested in these things, and I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.

 

You obviously come from a tradition at odds with Orthodoxy. I don't think arguing your point is going to get very far with those who put trust in traditions passed down from times before the Bible was canonized. This is a point you're going to have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, you'll just be talking in circles.

[QueenCat]

Well, that is a more reasonable distinction than merely the age of the people recieving the ministry, but it is still a enculturated use of the terminology that is completely distinct from the NT use of its own terminology. (The NT couldn't conceivably define 'a pastor' in terms of his/her level of formal education or a denomiational approval process, since those things weren't invented yet.)

 

There were priests and scribes, the educated in Jesus' time. They may not have called it "formal education" but there were those that were more educated than the masses.

[Parrothead]

You obviously come from a tradition at odds with Orthodoxy. I don't think arguing your point is going to get very far with those who put trust in traditions passed down from times before the Bible was canonized. This is a point you're going to have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, you'll just be talking in circles.

Shhhhhh....

 

This is getting interesting. :D They haven't gotten to the talking in circles part yet.

[JenniferB]

Shhhhhh....

 

This is getting interesting. :D They haven't gotten to the talking in circles part yet.

 

:iagree:

[bolt.]

You obviously come from a tradition at odds with Orthodoxy. I don't think arguing your point is going to get very far with those who put trust in traditions passed down from times before the Bible was canonized. This is a point you're going to have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, you'll just be talking in circles.

It's certian that by exploring information from sources other than the Bible, people will come to conclusions that differ from those we can come to through Scriptural revelation alone. There is no need to state the obvious that different sources yeild different conclusions.

 

I don't know that I "come" from a "tradition" at all, much less that such a "tradition" would be considered "at odds" with "Orthodoxy" (as in 'Eastern Orthodoxy' = the tradition... or as in 'orthodoxy' = the characteristic of not being heretical).

 

My varous ideas may require logical argument, but I don't feel the need to prove they are is in keeping with a variety of extra Biblical documents -- that is not the argument I am making, and I am content with the idea that I haven't gone far enough to make it. It is enough for me that it is in keeping with the Bible. Other information might be worth considering if you could please tell me *what it is* you think I would benefit from reading and considering.

 

I don't just agree to disagree: I fully and wholeheartedly agree with you that you are free to enjoy the counsel of the documents you find trustworthy in addition to the Bible. You will find no argument here.

 

---

 

There were priests and scribes, the educated in Jesus' time. They may not have called it "formal education" but there were those that were more educated than the masses.

Fair enough, but no NT passage ever ties the idea of formal education to its use of the word 'pastor'.

 

It is the definition and scope of application of the word 'pastor' that we are (still) trying to discuss, isn't it? I think I may have gotten us all tangled up in bunny trails.

[ereks mom]

Our church is moving toward a plurality of elders and ordaining lay elders. I think it is a GOOD thing. I can't picture any of them co-opting the term "pastor", but by Bible definition a pastor and a lay elder can all work together.

 

The idea of one or two men having all the burden, responsibility and authority in the church doesn't seem Biblical to me. (Authority, used loosely, our church is congregational in government style). There should never be any ambiguity about whether a particular elder or pastor is the Senior Pastor or Family Pastor (by definition seminary educated men) or merely a lay elder, I wouldn't think. And the position of ordained elder will be a matter of church election/affirmation and taken as seriously as that of a deacon or pastor.

 

:iagree: Dh is our church's (seminary-trained) pastor, and he teaches that every man is to act as the "pastor" of his family, Sunday School teachers act as the "pastors" of their classes, and so on. The word "pastor" simply means "shepherd", and that term can be applied to anyone who guides and teaches others. Of course, implied in this is the expectation that these "pastors" have a responsibility to pray and study their Bibles so that they can properly teach their charges. This is precisely what dh means when he refers to them as "pastors"; he wants each one to realize that holding a position as leader of a family, class, or other group is a very serious responsibility. People's eternal lives are at stake.

 

I would assume that the senior pastor of the OP's church is trying to get the people to see that they have a duty to minister to others and not just expect him to do it all. I would have no problem with that as long as there's nothing deceitful happening on the part of the people who are claiming the title of pastor.

Edited September 24, 2012 by ereks mom
clarification

[Joanne]

Originally Posted by SnowWhite

Our church is moving toward a plurality of elders and ordaining lay elders. I think it is a GOOD thing. I can't picture any of them co-opting the term "pastor", but by Bible definition a pastor and a lay elder can all work together.

 

The idea of one or two men having all the burden, responsibility and authority in the church doesn't seem Biblical to me. (Authority, used loosely, our church is congregational in government style). There should never be any ambiguity about whether a particular elder or pastor is the Senior Pastor or Family Pastor (by definition seminary educated men) or merely a lay elder, I wouldn't think. And the position of ordained elder will be a matter of church election/affirmation and taken as seriously as that of a deacon or pastor.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm not a believer anymore, but the "one another" structure and elements in the NT are a compelling picture of societal function.

[bolt.]

I find it hard to believe that every person born male who happens to have a family would be pastorally gifted (as-per the Biblical usage)... but I can see the point of ministering to one another from a variety of gifts, especially in the family context.

 

A lot of this is just sematics.

[JenniferB]

You obviously come from a tradition at odds with Orthodoxy. I don't think arguing your point is going to get very far with those who put trust in traditions passed down from times before the Bible was canonized. This is a point you're going to have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, you'll just be talking in circles.

 

It's not necessarily traditions Milovany was referring to, though we Orthodox do value tradition. She was referring to history.

[milovany]

You obviously come from a tradition at odds with Orthodoxy. I don't think arguing your point is going to get very far with those who put trust in traditions passed down from times before the Bible was canonized. This is a point you're going to have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, you'll just be talking in circles.

 

Shhhhhh....

 

This is getting interesting. :D They haven't gotten to the talking in circles part yet.

 

I would say that there's probably not a lot of good that can come out of me trying to defend 2000 years of Christianity in my unimaginative and unskilled words. But thankfully, I don't have to defend the ancient faith, it does that quite well on its own. ;)

 

It's certainly not as clear-cut as you are making it... and while I would definitely be interested in alternative written sources on the way the Apostles did things that pre-date the books of the Bible (could you be specific?) None the less, I wouldn't consider their information as equivalent-to-Scripture. To do so would dishonour Scripture and discredit the process of the accumulation and approval of the cannon.

 

The Didache, the letters of Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp are some examples. In these texts, some written by disciples of the Holy Apostles while the apostles were still alive, there is much mentioned about the church and it's hierarchical leadership (the apostles being bishops, them ordaining other bishops, bishops ordaining elders/priests and deacons, etc.). I don't necessarily pit one type of writing against the other; it can be "both." Since the very same Holy Spirit that led the Apostles to begin establishing the church a certain way (which is spoken of in Scripture) also later led early church fathers to put together the canon of Scripture a certain way, these things work together to give us a picture of the early church and what Christ's intentions were/are for the church, don't they? They can't be in conflict.

 

I'm not sure what you are refering to by saying that Jesus 'said' there would be written records of the Apostles activities (other than the books of the Bible)... I'm interested in these things, and I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.

Forgive me, it was the Apostle John who said this: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

It's one example given, and it's just common sense, that not everything that happened and not everything Christ taught was written in words. If the written words were the be-all/end-all, it seems likely Christ would have written some down. He taught orally. And the apostles taught in writing and orally as well.

 

Anyway, as mentioned above, we're likely coming from two different traditions and may not agree on definitions and interpretations to begin with. I was just commenting with my understanding of the situation, being a member of this original/ancient church. I don't proclaim that my understanding is flawless; I'm still a work in progress. As are we all, Lord have mercy.

Edited September 24, 2012 by milovaný

[milovany]

It's certian that by exploring information from sources other than the Bible, people will come to conclusions that differ from those we can come to through Scriptural revelation alone.

 

Except that this happens all the time with Scripture, too. It's fallacious to speak as if there's a clear meaning of Scripture that all will see when they read the text. Someone has to tell us what the Scriptures mean/meant when written. For me, that someone is the ancient/original church, the Eastern Orthodox church. For others, it's their own church or their own study of Scripture.

 

Fascinating conversation!! Thanks for your friendly tone and I hope mine is coming across the same way.

Edited September 24, 2012 by milovaný

[milovany]

It's not necessarily traditions Milovany was referring to, though we Orthodox do value tradition. She was referring to history.

 

 

Yes, this. We know that the Apostle Mark went to Egypt eventually. We know the St. Joseph of Arimethea was eventually in Britain. History tells us so, even if this is not written of in the books that became Scripture. There is reliable information out there. And the writings of the time show a hierarchal leadership, not one in which "everyone is/can be a pastor."

[mommaduck]

There are many people and events that we know to exist from history and the study thereof, that are not in Scripture. The absence of something from Scripture does not negate it's existence. The fact that there are extra biblical sources that may prove or disprove events does no insult to Scripture.

[JenniferB]

Other information might be worth considering if you could please tell me *what it is* you think I would benefit from reading and considering.

 

Here is a little quote/blurb from Cannon VI of the First Council of Nicaea. From what I understand in my limited (less than a year) experience as an Orthodox Christian, I believe that what is described here as to how bishops are to be chosen and established is still in practice today in the Eastern Orthodox Church, "And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop."

 

This website, CCEL, has more books than you could ever read on the early church. Here is a link to the Seven Ecumenical Councils Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF. I haven't read enough to comment in detail, so I will just comment on the little understanding I have and apply some simple logic to my thinking. I do hope to read more on the subject in the future, but it's too much reading for me at this stage in my life. From what I understand the books of the Bible were chosen/established as Scripture in one or more of these councils. Every Christian I have ever known IRL from all veins of Christianity believe the Bible to be Holy Scripture given to us by God to guide us in our quest to know Him, and that the Holy Spirit guided this process. So my simple logic is this: if the Holy Spirit was present in those council meetings to guide the Church leaders to know which books were to be established as Scripture and which books were to be established as "other writings," then the Holy Spirit was present in those council meetings when it was time to discuss and decide upon how Church leadership was to be structured. It seems logical to me that other decisions made in those meetings were just as Holy Spirit guided as the decisions to establish the Holy Scriptures.

Edited September 24, 2012 by JenniferB

[8circles]

Shhhhhh....

 

This is getting interesting. :D They haven't gotten to the talking in circles part yet.

 

Are you wanting this to become an argument or some sort of "show" where you can laugh or poke fun at one side or the other? I really can't imagine what else you could mean.

[justamouse]

oh fer cryin out loud.

 

Must people's motives always be judged and found wanting?

 

It COULD be that Milovany is actually really well read on this stuff and that it's almost like a little history lesson. Some of us actually enjoy that. Or, it could be that we actually enjoy thinking about these things.

[8circles]

oh fer cryin out loud.

 

Must people's motives always be judged and found wanting?

 

It COULD be that Milovany is actually really well read on this stuff and that it's almost like a little history lesson. Some of us actually enjoy that. Or, it could be that we actually enjoy thinking about these things.

 

How have I criticized Milovany? I thought her posts were very informative of her opinion.

 

I think what I'm criticizing is people enjoying watch others talk in circles. Its mean.

Edited September 24, 2012 by momoflaw

[justamouse]

How have I criticized Milovany? I thought her posts were very informative of her opinion.

 

I think what I'm criticizing is people enjoying watch others talk in circles. Its mean.

 

You are accusing Chucki/mommaduck of NOT listening, of not learning, of not enjoying it.

 

It's only mean if you assume that they meant it in a mean way. It could be read completely differently than the way you did.

 

and, if you were that concerned about being mean, you'd rethink your signature line, where you're mocking the EO women on this board.

Edited September 24, 2012 by justamouse

[8circles]

You are accusing Chucki/mommaduck of NOT listening, of not learning, of not enjoying it. I have no idea how I've accused anyone of anything except enjoying watching people talk in circles. I've been around long enough to see how that plays out & it isn't pretty.

 

It's only mean if you assume that they meant it in a mean way. It could be read completely differently than the way you did.

 

and, if you were that concerned about being mean, you'd rethink your signature line, where you're mocking the EO women on this board.

 

I'm not mocking anyone in my siggy. I'm talking about people who have claimed that they don't worry about what's on other's plates who do, based on what they've said to me both here & through PM's. If certain EO women haven't done that, I wouldn't be referring to them. If certain others have, then it isn't mean to point it out.

 

As I said in my first post, I don't know how else to take the comment about waiting for the talking in circles. If you (general) think watching people talk in circles is good entertainment, I have a problem with that. If something else was meant by looking forward to the interesting talking in circles, I'm open to hearing it.

[Kathryn]

It's not necessarily traditions Milovany was referring to, though we Orthodox do value tradition. She was referring to history.

 

Sorry! I actually was thinking of the history as part of "tradition," in the way that it's passed down and transmitted by the church. It made sense in my head as I was falling asleep at nap time but didn't come out as clearly as I thought it. But, you're right, I should have spelled it out (or not posted as I fell asleep...).

[Parrothead]

Are you wanting this to become an argument or some sort of "show" where you can laugh or poke fun at one side or the other?

Nope.

 

(Really, you ought to know me better than that by now.)

[Parrothead]

How have I criticized Milovany? I thought her posts were very informative of her opinion.

 

I think what I'm criticizing is people enjoying watch others talk in circles. Its mean.

No one is talking in circles. I'm not being mean.

[Parrothead]

I would say that there's probably not a lot of good that can come out of me trying to defend 2000 years of Christianity in my unimaginative and unskilled words. But thankfully, I don't have to defend the ancient faith, it does that quite well on its own. ;)

Yes, it does. And so do you. I'm learning something here.

[Parrothead]

 

Fascinating conversation!!

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

Nope.

 

(Really, you ought to know me better than that by now.)

hmm, just noticed her signature after it was pointed out.

 

Yes, she should know most of us by now, but, oh well, whatever. I can't think of any EO people on here that would fall under her comments and if it was myself, then she's welcome to just simply say so...yes, even in public, but she had better be able to give me details, because atm I wouldn't have a clue as to what conversation/s she may be referring to. But then, I have too much going on in my real life to keep up with and remember every. single. conversation I may have had with another person online. I just know that with most people, I agree with them on some things and disagree with them on others. Also, I've been on this board longer than I've been EO and many of us have grown in faith as well as have had our ups and downs. We're just not as perfect as some, I guess *shrug*

[TravelingChris]

Well I am no EO and did look at the signature and have no idea what it is about. Never remember any Orthodox discussion about food or maybe it is metaphorical but that makes me even less likely to get it since I don't remember all conversations here.

[mommaduck]

Well I am no EO and did look at the signature and have no idea what it is about. Never remember any Orthodox discussion about food or maybe it is metaphorical but that makes me even less likely to get it since I don't remember all conversations here.

Now that I think about it...momoflaw and I did have some kind of conversation about judging others. I don't remember the details...personally, do not care about the details anymore. If her signature was supposed to catch my attention before now, it was indeed a fail. Now that it's been brought to my attention, it's nothing more than an eyeroll.

 

The EO have a phrase, a reminder, "keep your eyes on your own plate" when it comes to variances to practices within the Church, etc. I wear a headcovering to services. I'm not supposed to worry about if Sue or Jane wear a covering to services, what kind they wear, or how often they wear them. That is between them and their priest. I'm also not supposed to determine that a person is "going to hell"...that is between them and God. Inside, outside the church, debating what is or isn't heresy, etc...allowed, as it's subject matter, not personal. There are subjects that we are permitted to discuss or disagree on in a discussion...however, I may have been accused of "judging" by participating in a conversation. That becomes a *shrug* to me, because then none of us would ever be able to have a conversation. If someone has an issue with me though, they are welcome to just say so and even to place me on ignore. I don't do passive aggressive and I certainly don't concern myself with people that attempt passive aggressive behaviour.

Edited September 24, 2012 by mommaduck

[JenniferB]

Sorry! I actually was thinking of the history as part of "tradition," in the way that it's passed down and transmitted by the church. It made sense in my head as I was falling asleep at nap time but didn't come out as clearly as I thought it. But, you're right, I should have spelled it out (or not posted as I fell asleep...).

 

:lol: I need a nap right about now, so please forgive me that I don't quite understand what you are saying above. Are you saying that Milovany has a certain version of history which is interpreted through her church, or do you view history in a more black and white way?

[Little Nyssa]

Getting my post in before the thread is locked-- I appreciate Milovany's explaining posts, thanks Mila for taking the time!

 

Although I do use the saying "keep your eyes on your own plate!" I intend it mostly as an instruction for myself, and I didn't take momoflaw's signature as insulting at all.

 

We EO do have a theology of the "royal priesthood of the laity" which is about the same as the priesthood of all believers, but it's not the same as ordained ministry.

[Kathryn]

:lol: I need a nap right about now, so please forgive me that I don't quite understand what you are saying above. Are you saying that Milovany has a certain version of history which is interpreted through her church, or do you view history in a more black and white way?

 

Sorry again! I'll try to start all over (without going back and rereading, so I don't remember who said what anymore). Two different viewpoints. One side obviously puts trust entirely in the Bible and looks no further for evidence of how the church should look. The other side, while of course looking to the Bible, also looks to the writings and teachings passed down by early leaders, including the very ones who were involved in the canonization of the Bible. While I enjoy reading the discussion of viewpoints and hope it continues, there's no point in arguing which is correct when they come from such different starting points. Someone who comes from a tradition that says the Bible is the *only* source one needs to consult (so, does not look at history/tradition at all as it is not part of Scripture) is never going to agree with someone from a tradition where history/tradition (in other words, what has been handed down over almost two thousand years) carries weight as well.

 

Does that make any more sense, or have I made it worse?

[QueenCat]

Sorry again! I'll try to start all over (without going back and rereading, so I don't remember who said what anymore). Two different viewpoints. One side obviously puts trust entirely in the Bible and looks no further for evidence of how the church should look. The other side, while of course looking to the Bible, also looks to the writings and teachings passed down by early leaders, including the very ones who were involved in the canonization of the Bible. While I enjoy reading the discussion of viewpoints and hope it continues, there's no point in arguing which is correct when they come from such different starting points. Someone who comes from a tradition that says the Bible is the *only* source one needs to consult (so, does not look at history/tradition at all as it is not part of Scripture) is never going to agree with someone from a tradition where history/tradition (in other words, what has been handed down over almost two thousand years) carries weight as well.

 

Does that make any more sense, or have I made it worse?

 

You may perfect sense.

[JenniferB]

Sorry again! I'll try to start all over (without going back and rereading, so I don't remember who said what anymore). Two different viewpoints. One side obviously puts trust entirely in the Bible and looks no further for evidence of how the church should look. The other side, while of course looking to the Bible, also looks to the writings and teachings passed down by early leaders, including the very ones who were involved in the canonization of the Bible. While I enjoy reading the discussion of viewpoints and hope it continues, there's no point in arguing which is correct when they come from such different starting points. Someone who comes from a tradition that says the Bible is the *only* source one needs to consult (so, does not look at history/tradition at all as it is not part of Scripture) is never going to agree with someone from a tradition where history/tradition (in other words, what has been handed down over almost two thousand years) carries weight as well.

 

Does that make any more sense, or have I made it worse?

 

I think I understand what you are saying and it seems that I would have to disagree. I believe people of different traditions can argue/discuss/converse about history without their traditions getting in the way. Milovany may have a different Christian tradition than bolt and different ways of interpreting the Bible, but they may be able to come to agreement on what the history books say. It seems worthy of discussion and may not end in talking in circles. We can expect the best of everyone here.

 

bolt said, "I would definitely be interested in alternative written sources on the way the Apostles did things that pre-date the books of the Bible (could you be specific?)."

 

I'm on the hunt for something that would satisfy this request. I'm thinking the Didache (AD 50) or Josephus (AD 75)?

[OrganicAnn]

Totally different take. Hasn't there been some recent lawsuits regarding this. If someone is a "pastor" they are exempt from Equal Opportunity laws and so can be fired for any reason even one that people would consider discriminatory for example like age or pregnancy. Second there are some states where "pastors" are exempt from certain local income tax, so maybe by calling everyone 'pastors' they are trying to avoid taxes.

 

I don't know if that is case in any of these situation.

[jewellsmommy]

Pretty common in Southern Baptist churches. My dad, who had absolutely no formal training, became an ordained minister/pastor in the SBC. Most SB pastors I knew had no sort of training when they became ordained. They may have taken a seminary extension class here and there, but no real, formal training. I left the SBC.

 

Now we attend an LCMS church. It takes forever for someone to become a pastor. I like it that way.

 

 

We are an SBC church and have a very experience. We do not use the term 'pastor' except for the paid man with a doctorate. That is our Pastor. We have a minister of music and the rest are directors. My Pastor has corrected people who mistakenly referred to our children's director as children's pastor.

[Bluegoat]

I haven't read all the replies yet.

 

I don't think the term "pastor" has any specific theological meaning, so I can't get too excited about it being changed. The same thing happened with the title "minister" which used to be pretty much reserved for official clergy members and is no used for all kinds of things.

 

The education aspect doesn't bother me either as I have heard of many churches, especially the non-denoms, that don't have any requirements for ordained leadership to have special education. And some have requirements but the education given is really pretty poor.

 

I tend to think it comes from an impulse to avoid having "special" people picked out from the congregation. In the same way that some don't want to say there is such a thing as a priest with a special ministry, and so they drop the whole idea of ordained priesthood, they find themselves uncomfortable with having "ministers" or "pastors" and so try to democratize the terms. It won't likely work though, there is probably always going to be a requirement for people with authority or parish leaders approved or appointed by a higher authority of some kind.

[Kathryn]

I think I understand what you are saying and it seems that I would have to disagree. I believe people of different traditions can argue/discuss/converse about history without their traditions getting in the way. Milovany may have a different Christian tradition than bolt and different ways of interpreting the Bible, but they may be able to come to agreement on what the history books say. It seems worthy of discussion and may not end in talking in circles. We can expect the best of everyone here.

 

bolt said, "I would definitely be interested in alternative written sources on the way the Apostles did things that pre-date the books of the Bible (could you be specific?)."

 

I'm on the hunt for something that would satisfy this request. I'm thinking the Didache (AD 50) or Josephus (AD 75)?

 

That's okay, I'm okay with disagreeing or even being proven wrong :001_smile:. Where my post came from, is that though bolt did say, "I would definitely be interested in alternative written sources on the way the Apostles did things that pre-date the books of the Bible (could you be specific?)," right after that I felt that she made it clear that it was just a matter of curiosity and that since any such information was extra-Biblical, it wouldn't sway her opinion: "None the less, I wouldn't consider their information as equivalent-to-Scripture. To do so would dishonour Scripture and discredit the process of the accumulation and approval of the cannon." And I certainly think we can all discuss/converse about it no matter our backgrounds. It just seemed to me at the time as though bolt was vigorously defending her view as THE view as she felt it was backed by scripture and I was only trying to point out that others don't use only the Bible in their faith so arguing only from the Bible didn't make sense in such a case.

[Laurie4b]

It is entirely up to individual denominations who they ordain as clergy. A person can be a member of the clergy and be a minister, not a pastor, but what that distinction is is up to that denomination.

 

So, as to whether they are dishonest in some way--no, absolutely not, unless they belong to a denomination who defines it one way and they are doing it another way. One has to understand what is meant by pastor in any given denomination. Not all church bodies or denominations require seminary training before ordination. Some prefer to ordain people who have been members of their churches for long enough that they've had time to clearly see their strengths, weaknesses, and gifts.

[8circles]

 

Although I do use the saying "keep your eyes on your own plate!" I intend it mostly as an instruction for myself, and I didn't take momoflaw's signature as insulting at all.

 

Thank you. Im not intending to insult anyone. Nor am I being passive-aggressive. Although it was initially done as a reaction, it says more about me than anything else. Isn't that what siggies are for?

[JenniferB]

That's okay, I'm okay with disagreeing or even being proven wrong :001_smile:. Where my post came from, is that though bolt did say, "I would definitely be interested in alternative written sources on the way the Apostles did things that pre-date the books of the Bible (could you be specific?)," right after that I felt that she made it clear that it was just a matter of curiosity and that since any such information was extra-Biblical, it wouldn't sway her opinion: "None the less, I wouldn't consider their information as equivalent-to-Scripture. To do so would dishonour Scripture and discredit the process of the accumulation and approval of the cannon." And I certainly think we can all discuss/converse about it no matter our backgrounds. It just seemed to me at the time as though bolt was vigorously defending her view as THE view as she felt it was backed by scripture and I was only trying to point out that others don't use only the Bible in their faith so arguing only from the Bible didn't make sense in such a case.

 

Okay, I can see that. :D I still want to find if there are early historical references to bishops in the early Church though. I'm curious and nerdy like that. :tongue_smilie:

Edited September 25, 2012 by JenniferB

[bolt.]

Learning what extra-Biblical sources discribe could be interesting, I find there to be a distinct difference between what is descriptive (what the apostles and their successors did for Church organization) and what is prescriptive (things that we have been directly instructed to do or not do).

 

I consider most of the hints of Church organization in the Bible to be primarliy descriptive -- and I would consider other detailed discriptions to be entirely discriptive.

 

In my opinion, What is prescriptive on this topic is in the Bible alone, and there is little of it. For the most part, there is freedom for the Church to organize itself (under the Spirit) in a wide variety of ways, according to flexible factors including what 'works for' a culture according to its preferences... And I see discriptive hints of more than one organizational structure among the NT Churches (at least three) so I'm just not that rigid about such things.

[milovany]

Learning what extra-Biblical sources discribe could be interesting, I find there to be a distinct difference between what is descriptive (what the apostles and their successors did for Church organization) and what is prescriptive (things that we have been directly instructed to do or not do).

 

I consider most of the hints of Church organization in the Bible to be primarliy descriptive -- and I would consider other detailed discriptions to be entirely discriptive.

 

In my opinion, What is prescriptive on this topic is in the Bible alone, and there is little of it. For the most part, there is freedom for the Church to organize itself (under the Spirit) in a wide variety of ways, according to flexible factors including what 'works for' a culture according to its preferences... And I see discriptive hints of more than one organizational structure among the NT Churches (at least three) so I'm just not that rigid about such things.

 

This is asked honestly, although it may sound incredulous: Do you believe there were different types of churches in the New Testament times, akin to our denominational differences in this day? You don't think the church was ever the one, united, all-in-one-accord organism that Christ spoke of in John 14? (I do admittedly belong to a tradition that believes in the visible as well as the invisible church, so a general "as long as everyone had faith in Christ, they are the church" doesn't exist in this tradition.)