As I said in my last post I had a question that came about from my morning going to church with SR. This question is for anyone to answer but I am really looking forward to the input from a few specific readers: FTN, Desmond, Christian Husband, and Digger. Just for the record I'm looking for anyone's input here, but these are the ones that I know of that regularly post on the topic of religion. And I know that they aren't shy about posting their opinions.
So here is the topic of the day: The churches mission and vision pt6. It has been an ongoing topic over the last few weeks. I attended part 4 & 6. He was talking about how the congregation is supposed to be the disciple's to the people in their lives, to get them to know the truth. He also said that it is every Christians duty to love God and put Him at the top of your priorities even above your spouse and children. I understand that from a Christians point of view. But then he said that if the congregation believed that he was not doing his job as being a disciple of the church that they should go ahead and find another pastor. A few minutes later he ended and we all went home.
After church we went back to the carnival and then went to do our payday shopping. On the way out of town I asked Summer what that was all about with him saying that they should find a new pastor. Apparently the Elders of the church (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong dear) aren't to fond of the pastor. I found this hard to believe because I really like the way he talks and preaches. So I asked her why that was. She said that it was due to his age. They think that he was/is to young to have the position of being pastor of the church. Apparently a prominent family in this small town stopped attending the church because they didn't like him for his age.
So the question is what does his age have to do with him holding this position? I've heard some of the people that I specifically mentioned views on having a female pastor in FTN's comment fest last month. So does this also apply to having a young pastor?
A little background that I do know: He is around 27 years old. Married to a smokin hot wife. Has 3 kids ranging in age from 6-3. Lost a son at a very early age. Is very passionate about his job and takes it very seriously. He is one of the people that takes the bible literally for what is said. There is no interpretation of the written words.
So what does his age have to do with whether or not he should be a pastor? If they thought that he was to young then why would they hire him in the first place? Does it say in the bible that you must be X years old to be in charge of a congregation?
In other news duck season opens day after tomorrow! I can't wait. I'm so excited for this years season to begin. I haven't been excited about an upcoming duck season in years. This is truly a new chapter in my life.
19 comments:
"So what does his age have to do with whether or not he should be a pastor?"
In a few words of reply, CH: absolutely nothing! Being older does NOT necessarily equate to being wiser or even, in some cases, more experienced. Often it does but there is no black and white rule that says it does. That family that dislike your young pastor remind me of modern day pharisees - all show, no real substance. Your pastor shouldn't cave in to people like them but just tough it out. He was hired because other people felt that he could do the job. He shouldn't now let them down by quitting. You tell him that for me!
"takes the bible literally"
EEEUW.
I just can't go there.
CH, I'm flattered (blushing). . .
The Bible gives a set of qualifications for being an elder - wisdom, faithfulness, godliness of character, etc. - that would include the idea of 'maturity'. Nobody wants an immature man leading their congregation, and I suppose that an older man is more likely to be 'mature' than a younger man is.
Having said that, though, I Timothy 4:12 says pretty explicitly, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." So, pretty straightforwardly, youth is not the key parameter, godly Christian character is.
As a Catholic, there is an odd thing that happens as you get older - more and more you run into priests who are younger than you - sometimes by quite a lot - and you're calling them 'Father'. We have friends whose son is a priest, and they call their own son 'Father Steve'. Kind of amusing. . .
CH, I'm flattered (blushing). . .
The Bible gives a set of qualifications for being an elder - wisdom, faithfulness, godliness of character, etc. - that would include the idea of 'maturity'. Nobody wants an immature man leading their congregation, and I suppose that an older man is more likely to be 'mature' than a younger man is.
Having said that, though, I Timothy 4:12 says pretty explicitly, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." So, pretty straightforwardly, youth is not the key parameter, godly Christian character is.
As a Catholic, there is an odd thing that happens as you get older - more and more you run into priests who are younger than you - sometimes by quite a lot - and you're calling them 'Father'. We have friends whose son is a priest, and they call their own son 'Father Steve'. Kind of amusing. . .
Alright, here goes. I will apologize in advance for the length this post will probably end up having.
The organization of the early church was really sort of ad hoc. I believe that God was leading the people, and what they developed was what he wanted, but it wasn't like it started out with this massive, set-up organization. The people took bits and pieces of what they knew from other such organizations and adapted it to their own situation.
The main organization the church was modeled on was the Jewish synagogue. Any town with more than 4 or 5 Jewish families had to have a synagogue. The synagogue was "ruled" by a council of elders -- presbuteros in the Greek. There was a set number of these based on the size of the city, etc.
The concept of "elder" was a very old one for the Jews, going all the way back to the Exodus, when the Hebrews were very much a tribal sort of people. Like most tribal groups the community leaders were the tribal elders -- the clan patriarchs. Even after the establishment of both the Levitical priesthood and the Davidic kingdom, the elders were still important. The priests took care of religious matters, the king was the war-leader and over-all national leader, but the elders were still the civic leaders of individual communities. When the Jews were in Assyrian and Babylonian captivity, it was only natural for this group of people to be the ones who would organize the community in the synagogues to keep handing down the culture and religion.
So, the elders had a continuing role, but as the society changed the concept changed a bit. The elders changed from the clan patriarchs in the tribal setting to anyone who fullfilled the same sort of community leadership role. The name "elder" was carried over, but it no longer simply meant "old man". In a tribal setting, it was the old men that people looked to for leadership. Later on, this was the people who were specially educated and brought up to do this sort of job. By the time of Christ the Jewish "elders" were not necessarily old at all! Which isn't to say that an elder who also had the advantage of years of experience wasn't especially respected, but age no longer had much to do with it.
This was the setting the church was founded in, and the early church adopted much of the synagogue organization, although with their own unique twists. There were two non-Apostolic leadership "offices" in the early church.
First, there were the overseer-teachers. This group was referred to as "presbuteros" (elders) to Jewish Christians to call to mind the syangogue leaders, and epikipos (overseers -- current translations often render this word as "bishop") to the Greek Christians -- a word which mean "civic leader" in their society. This group was intrusted with general oversight, defending doctrinal orthodoxy, and the public ministry of teaching.
The second group were the "deacons," a word that in Greek meant a waiter of tables. In Greek and Jewish societies, manual service was looked down on. A REAL man would never stoop so low. He would lead. Only the very wretched and people with no self-respect would ever serve someone else. Christ turned that around when He said He came to serve and not to be served. When he said that if you want to be righteous and be like Him, you should serve others. In one passage, He even claims this very insulting title of "deacon" for Himself. Following in His footsteps, those who were gifted to serve took this title for themselves as a badge of honor. The deacons were mainly charged with the distribution of funds and food to help the poor, and with doing and other such practical works of service.
This was the local church organization. Leaders that teach and leaders that serve, with the teachers in the more general and supreme role of overseer of it all. Leadership by teachers. Exactly the example of Christ, the ultimate leader of the church who spent His time on earth teaching; and the example of the apostles who spent all their time spreading the word. This same sort of role was passed on, at the local level, to the elders. Because their leadership was mostly focused on teaching and doctrine, they were also called the "shepards" of the people -- a title that is often rendered as "pastor" from the Greek.
All these titles we hear in the Christian world today -- elder, preacher, bishop, pastor -- all referred to this same group of overseer-teachers. And, again, age had nothing to do with it. Ability did, in part, but character had far more to do with it. In both Titus and I Timothy the Apostle Paul gives the qualifications for this office and they aren't oriented around talents and ability but moral character. The idea is to get the right kind of person in office, and God will help with the rest. The only ability sort of qualification is the ability to teach.
Most churches don't follow this original pattern of organization anymore for many reasons. Few of them are GOOD reasons, in my opinion, but its the way it is. One of the least-optimum sort of organizations we have today -- as seen in both my church and the one you describe in your post -- is were the general oversight and teaching offices have been seperated. We have "elders" who lead but don't teach and "preachers" or "pastors" who do all the teaching but have no authority. The original model of having those that teach hold the power of leadership was there for a purpose. One of which is, it means the leadership has a bigger role than just paying the electric bill and keeping the lights on at the church building. It also means that a teacher who is doing the real job of public ministry and sheparding the faith can't be "fired" by a group of leaders who mainly just sit around behind the scenes and play with the budget.
Experience in life can be a great quality for a pastor. Education can be a powerful asset. A home life with wife and kids gives perspective and experience that can be priceless to someone in such a position. These things are all true. But none of these are required. Acknowledging the advantages of life-experience doesn't bar young people from the ministry. The power of a theological education doesn't bar someone without it (as long as they know the faith enough to teach it and to hold to the truth without compromise). The value of family experience doesn't bar single people from it. People are people. You have to look at every individual on a case-by-case basis.
And never forget that the most important qualifications for ministry are moral, not any of these other things. Is the guy faithful to his wife? The whole "for better, for worse, in sickness and in health, 'till death do us part" thing. A one-woman man. Does he have control over his temper? Is he kind and gentle, even in the face of personal attack? Is he gracious? Does he have a problem with alcohol? Does he have control over his appetites -- sexual and all other? Is he hospitable? Is there evidence in his private, home, and work life to show that he is of good character, or is there anything that might be troubling? Are his children well-behaved and respectful? The standard Paul gives is that, in all these things, the overseer must be "above reproach." No possibility of accusing him of anything. No potential for scandal. Nothing to give anyone reason to say "I don't have to listen to you because I know you do..."
This is what matters, not age. Also, a better organizational structure, more in line with the first-century examples would help allieviate the potential for this sort of problem.
To the one who said, Euww I can't go there! Let me just say this, I've prayed every time he would start in on me, over every little thing. For me I feel pretty blessed that he's coming along, I've got to remember not to push him, and to ask if he want's to go.
oh and another thing just keep short and sweet and not too much where CH can't understand what your talking about. That way it's less trouble for me, in finding the right person to actually explain what everyone is talking about.
Thank you, CH for attending last weeks service with me. I felt really happy.
S.R.
Thanks dear for making me sound like a moron that can't understand long comments. AND for saying that it is to much trouble for you to try and help explain things to me yourself. Real big boost in moral for me dear.
I did enjoy going with you. I guess this is something that we both need to work on together. as long as it's not to much trouble that is.
CH
rob If I ever talk to him I will be sure to tell him that. That was my whole thinking in this. What does age have to do with experience?
Desmond That would be kind of strange calling your son "Father".
No nobody would want an imature person leading their congregation. In my eyes though he is good at what he does. If I didn't like the way he tought I wouldn't go back with Summer. He's a big part of the reason that I do go back with Summer. So maybe in a way he is doing his job and the people need to know that.
XH No need to apologize for the long comment. I was rather expecting one from you based on your responses to FTN's post. Thats why I asked for your input. Without going into another lengthy one myself I'll address the last part when you were talking about the pastor of Summer's church.
As I have not been attending on a regular basis, only attending about 6 times in the past 8 months, to the best of my knowledge he is a moral upstanding citizen. That is one of the things that I like about him. He does use his home life in examples. Last week he told of how he was not a good desciple because he got cought up with activities with his young son and little league. He got to busy and they ended up not using the time they normally set aside for familt worship. Maybe that's not a good example but to me it let me know that he is still human. He was genuinly sorry about missing that time.
He is very dedicated to his work. That much I can gather from what I have seen of him. He truly cares about the people at the church.
The only question I have about your comment is when you said "are his children well behaved and respectful?" So IF I were to have a totally different belief system and I were a pastor would it be cause to not have me as a pastor due to the problems I am having with my youngest son becasue he is NOT well behaved? Just another question that was brought on.
Thank you for stopping by! I appreciate it. Don't be a stranger.
CH
Thanks for the welcome. I HAVE lurked at your blog before, just never commented. Thanks for inviting me over. I think SR was just being careful and caring about you. I understand what she meant, and hope I didn't throw too much out at once. I just thought that, to really answer the question, you really need to know what "elder" and "pastor" mean and why they don't necessarily have anything to do with age.
OK, all the "questions" I put about this pastor are just restatements of the qualifications Paul lists in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. One of those in I Timothy is: "He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)" - I Tim 3:4,5. In Titus he phrases it like this, "An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient." - Titus 1:6
The Catholic title of "Father" for presbyters is actually a pretty accurage desciption of their job and responsibilities. They are to be the pater familias of the local church. Like a father they should teach, they should be able to correct wrong behavior, they should organize and manage. Which is why Paul says to look at their children. If they are a good father to their children then they would be a good father to the church. But most importantly, know that all of those qualifications are about reputation. No man is without sin, so no man can be truly "blameless." The question is, is there anything in his public behavior and reputation to give cause for scandal?
Now, obviously there are a great many reasons why a person's kids might be disrespectful, nonbelievers, and disobedient. The quality of the parenting is just one possible reason. BUT, if a person has disobedient kids for whatever reason it might give people a reason to question the father's ability to parent. Not meeting these qualifications doesn't necessarily mean one has done anything wrong, just that there might be the appearance of something wrong, and reputation is important.
I'm trying to balance tact with teaching what the verse actually says. Only you and your youngest (and God) really know what is going on. There is all possibility that what is going on is not your fault. But, if someone were looking for a reason to question your authority -- especially as you assert the role of "father" over them -- could they use the behavior of your child to do it? Could it undermine the message? Not because there was any actual impropriety, but because of the appearance of the possibility of impropriety. The ideal person for this job is the guy that everyone in the community knows and respects as a good man, so that even when they disagree with what he teaches they have to give it some respect simply because of the source. The message is the important thing. What lends power to the message is to be encouraged. Whatever will detract from the message is to be taken away. It's a hard set of standards. A very high bar to reach. But isn't that what we should want in this role?
CH - (I promise to keep this short and use little words. :)
I'm certainly not a church goer myself now, but I come from that background and in a previous life I did do some leading of youth groups and whatnot. I've heard this speech before from pastors and typically it isn't a "quitter" speech, it is actually the opposite. Most times, someone among the elders has said something behind the scenes, and this is the Pastors way of establishing his authority among the congregation. If a whole bunch of people now go to the elders and say, "Gosh, I hope Pastor don't quit none." then they'll get the message.
Oh hell, have Summer explain it to you. Hi Summer! :) And you know, I'm just pulling your leg.
Just for reference, CH, I used to be sort of 'lay pastoral leader' in our Christian community - I led a small men's group, for twice/monthly sharing and accountability. When we started having trouble with a couple of our kids, I offered to step down from the position, for essentially the 'scandal' reasons XH described (and also because I was embarrassed and traumatized on my own behalf).
My 'resignation' was declined a couple times, because they felt like I was being faithful and capable in the job, and the problems with our kids weren't indicative of a problem in my character (I hope that that's true).
But, as things progressed, it became more a matter of my energy was better spent dealing with the situation in my own family than in helping other guys deal with their families. As the situation with my kids progressed, I suppose the 'scandal' became more of a live issue, but also, I just needed to be free of the 'outside' responsibility so I could deal more directly with my own family, so I did end up stepping down from leadership. And I do think it has been helpful for me to have done so. . .
Since you've got plenty of long answers already, I'll give you a short one.
There's nothing at all wrong with a 27 year old pastor.
In fact, many of the younger pastors I've met have been tremendous speakers and really "on fire" about their Christianity. Many churches consist of an older audience -- you can look around and see more grey hairs. So some of them harumph about having a younger, edgier pastor.
I say it's good to have some edginess in the modern church, it sure could use it.
SR--
I'm not sure what you mean by your response to my comment. My comment was on reading the Bible literally. Anyone trying to read a translation from Hebrew or Greek as the case may be, with over 2000 years of custom and usage elapsing in the meantime, is making a big mistake in my opinion. While the Bible hasn't changed, we have, and trying to read literally leads to people getting it flat wrong.
I'm a great believer in going to church. I question my own faith constantly and one thing I know is that my only chance of getting it right is to keep going back. I cringe at the thought of someone claiming to be a "Dad" and not instilling the church and its values in his children. CH, you're unofficially on my shit list for that...
XH i see what you meant in your first comment a little better now. Whether ot not he actually is living up to those standards on the outside I have no clue. I do know that he is someone that I feel I could look up to even though he is younger than me.
Art Thank you so much for using small words and keeping things short. I don't know how I would have been able to understand if you didn't. :D
That may very well be what he was trying to do. for some reason SR didn't explain that to me though.
Desmond The way you put your personal experience in therereally drove it in there what XH was explaining. It was right of the other men in the group to "deny" your resignation because of their faith in you. At the same time you did the right thing by doing what was right for your family.
FTN Maybe that's what it is that I liki about him. That he is "on fire" over his Christianity.
Your right. There are a lot of grey hairs in the church. Oh wait a sec....I'm one of them. :-)
LBP I think that SR miss interpereted your first comment. I believe what she thought you were saying was EEUWW to the bible in general. Not to taking it literally as you explained in your second comment. The reason I put that in there originally was because of some of the comments FTN got on his post. They said that the only way to take the bible was literally. There is no room for interperetation.
I'm glad I'm unofficialy on your shit list and not officialy on. I'm raising my boys like my parents raised me. They are free to choose whichever religion they want to choose. It is their choice as to if and when they go to church on Sundays. I don't think that they should be forced into going. That was the biggets turn off for me as a kid and part of the reason I am not into it now. My grandma forced my sister and I to go to the Catholic church with her every week. My family was living with her for a few years and she said if we live with her my sister and I WILL go to church. No exceptions.
CH
Mr. H I don't know if that is allowed or not.
This is what I do know though: SR didn't see that part of my post. Somehow she missed it. So now I have a dilema. I'm in the dog house.
Plus the fact that I'm going straight to hell in the express lane for saying sh'e smokin hot. She's the pastors wife for crying out loud. How bad am I?
CH
Hey, you might be married, but your eyes aren't broken! There is a marked difference between that noticing someone (even the Pastor's wife) is smokin' hot and lusting after her to the point of committing adultry in your heart.
Anyway, I agree with what FTN was saying, but with one caveat -- or, I guess, a word of caution. Many younger pastors certainly ARE "tremendous speakers and really "on fire" about their Christianity," but many of them also have a theology about an inch deep. Paul didn't say that a Pastor has to be old, but he DOES say that they should not be recent converts. They have to have been in it (and I mean, really in it as an adult, not the "I grew up in it because my parents drug me to church" thing) for long enough to have matured. That doesn't necessarily take age. Again, the example of Timothy shows us that. But we should always remember what Paul does NOT say are qualifications for Pastor -- and being a tremendous speaker is one of these.
Example: I know a guy that is a campus minister around here at a nearby university. He was converted his senior year of high school because he started dating the right girl. Before that he had lived a completely non-religious sort of life. Anyway, the guy has charisma like no one I've ever seen in my life. He could read the phone book and people would show up and listen with rapt attention. He had been a Christian for maybe two years when someone asked him (along with me) to teach the college-age Sunday school class.
The guy could take even the most obscure and boring passage and make it exciting and relevant. I was in awe. I was supposed to be team-teaching with him, but I knew that I could never keep up. I simply couldn't add anything to the feel of the class. BUT, he had only been a Christian for a few years. He had studied about as much as you would expect someone in their late teens, early 20s to have studied in the Bible in a two year period. He was on fire. He was dynamic. He was charismatic. He also had a few problems with his theology. Rather troubling problems. My role in the class became simply reigning him in, and keeping the class on a more orthodox course.
Since then he went on to get his BS and MS in theology and is now the campus minister. He's studied, but more importantly, he's been a Christian now for a decade. He's grown up. He's settled down, doctrinally. He's still dyanamic. He's still on fire. But now he has a much more firm and solid grasp of the Truth, and isn't likely to be blown about into heresy through simple spiritual immaturity.
A pastor that is 27 has probably been studying and living this stuff for about a decade. He's no longer a recent convert. He should be just fine. But Paul's qualifications are, in essence, judging his moral character and therefore his spiritual maturity. Young and dynamic and talented and "on fire" are good, but those aren't what Paul calls for. He calls for maturity and stability. When you can pair up the former with the latter then you have the best of both worlds. But if you can only have one, take the mature Christian over the dynamic speaker.
The problem with your theory CH is that they'll choose no church that way about 98percent of the time.
Would you let your kids choose not to have their shots? Not go to the dentist? Not clean their room?
Of course not. Don't let them choose no church either.
XH Nope. Not lusting after her at all. SR is the only person that I lust after. :D
Your example makes perfect sense. but again those are things that I don't truly know about him. I don't know how long he has felt this way at all. I can see how it would matter. Who knows maybe it'll be me in the future.
lbp actually my boys choose to go to church with SR 99.9% of the time. If they are left to make it there choice they will see it as a place they want to be. If I force them into going then they will see it as a punishment. That's what happened to me. It was not a place I went to because I enjoyed being there. The only rtime they don't go to church is if I am taking one of them hunting. In fact my oldest son didn't want to go with me this past trip and the last deer trip because he wanted to go to church instead.
CH
Good for them, I'm glad to hear it, but what kind of message are they getting from you on this?
I'm not sure what kind of church you go to but can't you find something there worth digging into? No men's group or ? We have church fishing tournaments and church hunting trips and church camping trips etc. Nothing like that?
Post a Comment