My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://knealesm.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.

Friday 22 October 2010

Using the term 'pastor' as a title

For centuries, it has been the practice of the Catholic Church to set clergy apart from lay members by conferring on them the title 'Father' to accompany their role as priest. Typically, lay members would refer to their priest as 'Father Bloggs'. Similarly, the Anglican Church gives the title 'Reverend' to those in authority such that lay members typically refer to 'Reverend Bloggs', although in some Anglican churches it is not unheard of for lay members to refer to their minister as 'Reverend Joe'. This conferring of title also appears to have crept into the non-conformist tradition too. Given the lack of formal exams which one must pass in order to go into most non-conformist ministries, there is no official title to be conferred on those who become leaders within such traditions (although the Presbyterian Church is a notable exception and many Methodists become 'Reverend' as well). Despite this, it is now commonplace for pastors within non-conformist churches to use the very role of pastor as a title e.g. 'Pastor Bloggs' or, for those who prefer informality but are evidently keen to set themselves apart, 'Pastor Joe'.

I should make clear at this point that I have no theological objection to churches having a pastor as part of a team of elders and that this is no more right or wrong than having a team elders without appointing someone to the role of pastor. Moreover, the views put forward on the use of 'pastor' as a title equally apply to the use of 'elder' in the same way (although churches trying to encourage members to refer to the leadership as 'Elder X' and 'Elder Y' do not seem to be widespread). I am not for one minute suggesting that we should not have these offices or that we should use some other term to refer to those who occupy them. However, the question remains as to whether such roles should be used as titles.

There is an important distinction to be made between a job and a title. 'Pastor' and 'elder' are simply jobs that exist within the church just as 'teacher' and 'head of department' are jobs that exist in schools. We would think it utterly bizarre for someone to refer to themselves as 'Teacher Bloggs' or 'Data Analyst Joe' as though these things represent some sort of title and yet we routinely find pastors referring to themselves in such a manner. Ultimately, this represents somebody conferring on themselves a title which they believe carries authority and status but which, in reality, is nothing other than a job akin to any other. If nothing else, it is cringeworthy - the ecclesiastical equivalent of a child in the playground insisting his self-appointed title of 'gang leader' makes him more credible to those both inside and outside his group of friends.

If this were just something to wince at with embarrassment it would not be such an issue. However, the problem is more serious in reality. It is symptomatic of a pride which wants recognition and status. In contrast to both the Anglican and Catholic churches, the non-conformist tradition placed great emphasis on the enabling of the Holy Spirit to help all who read the Bible understand its meaning. It is partially on this basis that formal exams were not always necessary to enter non-conformist ministries. Moreover, such a view often meant that those who were lay members of the church, who had a recognised ability to teach, could take on the role of pastor in a way that meant they were not elevated above the congregation. Someone who was formerly a member was seen as simply taking on a new role/job in the church without being placed on a pedestal. However, insistence on the use of 'pastor' as a title undoes this. Automatically it sets one apart from the congregation at large and seeks to use the term as indicative of status and importance  - things totally at odds with the biblical model of church leadership.

The inference that the term 'pastor' carries with it status and importance leads to another problem. As soon as we begin ascribing greater value to the role of pastor than to other roles in the church we begin to foster resentment amongst the membership. More than this, it encourages younger members to shun particular roles because they are seen as of little value whilst doggedly pursuing teaching roles, regardless of whether they are gifted or not, because they believe this will bring them a degree of credibility within the church. If we look at the words of Jesus this is entirely backward. He says: 'If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all (Mark 9:35, ESV)'. When we take away the idea of pastor being a title and recognise it simply as a job like any other in the church we can avoid such thinking (or at least do something to minimise it). All roles within the church are valuable but if we give people titles rather than roles we strongly suggest otherwise.

Further to this, the Bible is clear on the roles laid out for men and women within the home and within the church. This division of roles does not ascribe higher value to the role played by one gender - both are equally vital and valuable (1) - but the Bible is unequivocal about the role of women teaching in the church (2). If teaching, as should be the case, were not tied up with status there is no reason why this ought to be an issue. However, when we use the term 'pastor' as a title and we only give credibility to those who teach from the pulpit it is natural that those who are prohibited from this role because of their gender, not through lack of ability, would feel frustrated and annoyed. Nevertheless, it should be clear that all roles within the church are valuable and the role of pastor is not intrinsically of more worth than any other - it is simply a role. Indeed, I am yet to come across anyone who has kicked up a fuss because they were prohibited from cleaning the toilets because it was not their role within an organisation. However, if huge levels of respect and credibility were heaped upon those who cleaned the toilets, and a title was bestowed upon those who did it to highlight who fulfilled that most respectable of roles, you can fairly guarantee that those not allowed to do it would be up in arms. The issue is then not about being prohibited from a particular role but being held back from those roles that bring the greatest respect. If we view the role of pastor in its proper place this should never become a problem. Using the role as a title, however, can only make this issue worse and resentment grow.

There are some very good reasons to have a pastor. It can be of great benefit to the church to have someone fulfilling this role. Nevertheless, we should view it in its proper place. It is not a role which should see a man elevated above the congregation nor should it be viewed of more intrinsic value than other vital roles in the church. When we begin to set the pastor on a pedestal we downgrade other roles in the church, we can discourage members who work hard in other roles by suggesting the part they play is less valuable and we can encourage people to shun 'lesser' jobs and to pursue the role of pastor less out of a calling and ability and more out of a desire to appear credible and of greatest value in the church. By all means lets employ pastors but lets not make the mistake of conferring it on people as a title. Subtle though the difference may be lets recognise the term 'pastor' as a job and less like a title to be coveted or, worse still, trumpeted.

Notes
1. I happen to take a complementarian view of the roles of men and women. For reasons of space this is perhaps another post for another day.
2. See 1 Tim. 2:12

Tuesday 5 October 2010

How many times should we meet on a Sunday?

The format of two services on a Sunday no longer seems to be standard. In general, there appears to exist three broad approaches to Sunday meetings: One meeting only (usually Sunday morning); Two meetings - one morning, one evening; or, multiple meetings spread throughout the day. All these approaches have merit yet each has its drawbacks. Whilst this issue is unlikely to ever become a hotbed of theological controversy it seems worthwhile exploring questions relating to how many times we ought to meet on Sunday and whether the number really matters.


It is hard to make a biblical case for a specific number of meetings. Some use Psalm 92:1-2, John 20:1, 19 and Acts 28:23 to infer that meeting twice on Sunday is part of a scriptural pattern. However, these verses can readily, faithfully and more naturally be interpreted without reference to church meetings. The most we can infer from such verses regarding corporate worship is that it is acceptable to worship corporately both in the morning and in the evening - something on which there is very little, if any, disagreement. Similarly, there is no scriptural command for us to meet only once on a Sunday and there is certainly no proscription of more than one service. As such, we cannot use scripture as a means of insisting upon a certain number of meetings and must conclude that we are under no scriptural obligation to meet together a set number of times. Ultimately, we cannot claim that one particular format is 'acceptable' while all others are 'unbiblical'.


There are two main arguments in favour of holding only one Sunday service. The first states that many, for whatever reason, choose not to attend the Sunday evening service and to therefore go through the rigmarole of preparing sermons which nobody will hear seems like a waste of time. Whilst we may have some sympathy with this predicament, the argument appears to strike at an entirely different issue. Rather than making an effective case for one service it acts as an entirely negative reason for not bothering with a second or, at best, a positive argument for tackling apathy within the membership. In reality, this concern relates to teaching, namely why one service is perhaps not the preferable pattern (which indeed must be the view of the church if they intend to run two services and fail to do so only because of the lack of an evening congregation). This argument therefore does not support holding only one Sunday service but rather makes a case for tackling apathy within the membership. Rather than dealing with this issue, however, this reasoning is employed to simply forgo an evening service.


The second argument in favour of one Sunday service is far less compelling and revolves around the question 'why should I have to go to two services on a Sunday?'. The operative words in the question are 'have to'. In reality, nobody has to go to any service (1). However, Christians should want to meet with God's people and, more than this, should want to spend time worshipping God. If we have chosen to run only one service on a 'why should I have to go to two services?' basis we need to seriously consider our teaching on this matter. Those who view church services in this way say, as much to God as the rest of the membership, 'wasn't the hour I gave you this morning enough?'. This is no basis upon which to have a relationship with God or with our fellow believers. To run only one service on these grounds is to lend credence to this faulty thinking when, in reality, our teaching should be warning strongly against it.


At the other end of the spectrum are those who choose to have many meetings throughout the day. Such an approach is not guilty of failing to give due time to the worship of God and usually works best when such meetings are a direct result of each individual believer's love of coming together to meet with other of God's people. Nevertheless, if there is any danger in this approach it is in overlooking the principle of rest inherent in the fourth commandment. Of course, meeting to worship God with the people of God is vitally important, however, we can be so overtaken with meetings that we are afforded no opportunity to rest. Jesus states 'the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27, ESV)'. When we insist on attendance at endless meetings on a Sunday we remove the principle of rest from the fourth commandment and we begin to turn Jesus' statement on its head. Whilst we should love worshipping God and meeting with his people this should not completely subsume the command to rest. Many meetings on a Sunday is a perfectly valid and worthwhile use of time, however, we must guard against meetings eclipsing all else and giving no room for rest.


Although there is no scriptural mandate for a particular number of meetings on a Sunday, two meetings seems to strike a healthy balance between giving God due prominence in the day, meeting with his people and fulfilling the command to rest. John Benton, in an article for Evangelicals Now and reproduced by Day One ('Why Two Sunday Services?', http://www.lordsday.co.uk/why_two_sunday_services.htm), offers seven reasons for holding two Sunday services. I think a number of his reasons are faulty (2), however, I find three of his arguments particularly compelling, namely points 1, 6 and 7. Irrespective of where we disagree, I believe his points 1, 6 and 7 make a forcible argument on their own for maintaining two Sunday services. By holding two services we help those who work necessarily during one or other meeting to still be able to meet with God's people and we increase our opportunity to invite those from outside into the church. More than this, by holding two services we increase our opportunities to encourage one another without making this an overbearing burden of endless meetings affording us no opportunity to rest. In these ways we strike a balance between worshipping God, encouraging one another and truly having a day of rest.


Therefore, we have no scriptural obligation to a set number of Sunday services. The bible is not proscriptive in this matter and it is not for us to look at the practices of different churches and sneer that they have either too many or too few services. In reality, all considerations relating to how many Sunday services we should have revolve around practical matters and the balance between rest and spiritual benefit. On this basis, and this basis alone, I would argue that two Sunday services strikes this balance most aptly.


Notes
1. Specifically referring to one's salvation and leaving aside any argument from Heb 10:25
2. Points 2-5 (inclusive) do not stand up to scrutiny. Points 2 & 3, as outlined earlier, are not the biblical mandates Benton seeks to suggest they represent. Points 4 & 5 are somewhat irrelevant as to whether it is right for Christians to hold two services or not (point 4 in no way constitutes a point of authority and point 5 is debatable as to whether two services in any way rebukes secularism - I would argue it very much does not).