pastor elder teacher -wife ?

[Full O Beans]

by that reasoning would they have not been called to be pastors well before they married ?..if they were already pastors before they married then they are not included in this scenario im asking about .

God puts people together because He has a specific plan for them. So, yes, they were called most likely from the moment they received Jesus Christ, and God's plan for each of them would have been from before they were born...just like for you and me.

 

[Brighten04]

I haven't seen this but I believe you when you say this is happening in some churches.

I don't believe that women are "called" to be pastors. I believe that some feel that they should usurp the role and often do. Bill mentioned men not filling their vocations (not those exact words) but that is what is partially at fault here.

Wives are their husbands help-meets, they don't have their husbands' vocations. It could be that they want to be noticed. It could be that they want to show that they can do anything that a man could do. It could be that they have control issues. I don't know. It's not what I see in the bible when we talk about pastors and elders. Women have other vocations that help out the church and need to realize that even the lowliest of vocations are blessed in the eyes of God.

Priscilla and Aquilla had a church in their house. They ministered together, That is scripture, You can see that in the Bible.

 

[Lamb]

Priscilla wasn't a pastor. She was good with theology and corrected people who were wrong.

 

[Brighten04]

Priscilla wasn't a pastor. She was good with theology and corrected people who were wrong.

She had a church in her house Lam. She co-pastored with Aquilla.

 

[Lamb]

Having a church in your home does not make one a pastor.

 

[Brighten04]

Having a church in your home does not make one a pastor.

Well, what do you call them? I think the flock meeting there looked to them as their pastors. Lam, the first century church met at homes. They did not have church buildings like we do today.

 

[Josiah]

All this is news to me....

Sure.... in a general sense... spouses are to be help-mates. My wife is an elementary school teacher. I support her, affirm her, and help where I can (which is RARELY in the classroom due to my work) - for example, correcting papers. And my wife supports, affirms and encourages me in my work in scientific research. I think it's suppose to be that way. But I'm NOT ergo a School Teacher. I have no professional training or credentials for that, and no school has hired me. And she is NOT a scientists (in fact, she's never had one college level course in my field). She has no Ph.D. and no credentials in this area and no lab or school or institution has hired her. We have DIFFERENT vocations.... but we affirm and support each other in these.


I think... maybe..... PART of the problem is that for the past 1600 years AT LEAST, pastor has been a formal office in the church. With very specific training (years of theology, years of exegesis, years of church history, etc.).... specific Call.... specific assignment..... But in the last couple of centuries, especially in America and Australia.... all this has at times entirely fallen apart. A pastor is anyone who does ministry of any kind. It just means almost nothing. When I was in high school, I did my studies through a mega "Evangelical" church (it technically was Baptist but it kept that a big secret). They had a "Lead Pastor" (who actually was seminary trained) and a BUNCH of other "pastors". Mostly "youth pastors" but they had them for children's ministry, women's ministry, outreach ministry, for the school ministry - a bunch of them. NONE of them had ANY seminary training, and some I don't think had any formal training at all. Maybe a course or two on the internet. One had some kind of diploma from some "Bible college" (whatever THAT is). I'm not sure any of these were actually ordained.... or actually had any credentials or authorization or approval from anything or anyone. I think it was a TITLE the church could give them in lieu of salary (or maybe in lieu of much salary). I had one I knew pretty well (the one who worked with the school).... frankly (to be blunt) most of the posters here at CH seem to me better educated, more informed about matters of Christianity than he did (although he was very outgoing, fun and liked). TECHNICALLY I really can't say this is wrong.... but I wonder if this is just a radical "dumbing down" of the office, the vocation. And it concerns me because it seems to me people listen to these "pastors" as if they knew anything.... their title gives them some authorization that they didn't earn.... I wonder if we have some "blind leading the blind" as a result of this? Now, at least at that "Evangelical" church, RARELY did any of those non-pastor "Pastors" do any preaching. But they did do most of the teaching. And even as a high schooler (!), I knew the school pastor was.... well..... often seriously lacking. Some of the other KIDS did, too. As much as he was liked.




.

 

[Brighten04]

All this is news to me....

Sure.... in a general sense... spouses are to be help-mates. My wife is an elementary school teacher. I support her, affirm her, and help where I can (which is RARELY in the classroom due to my work) - for example, correcting papers. And my wife supports, affirms and encourages me in my work in scientific research. I think it's suppose to be that way. But I'm NOT ergo a School Teacher. I have no professional training or credentials for that, and no school has hired me. And she is NOT a scientists (in fact, she's never had one college level course in my field). She has no Ph.D. and no credentials in this area and no lab or school or institution has hired her. We have DIFFERENT vocations.... but we affirm and support each other in these.


I think... maybe..... PART of the problem is that for the past 1600 years AT LEAST, pastor has been a formal office in the church. With very specific training (years of theology, years of exegesis, years of church history, etc.).... specific Call.... specific assignment..... But in the last couple of centuries, especially in America and Australia.... all this has at times entirely fallen apart. A pastor is anyone who does ministry of any kind. It just means almost nothing. When I was in high school, I did my studies through a mega "Evangelical" church (it technically was Baptist but it kept that a big secret). They had a "Lead Pastor" (who actually was seminary trained) and a BUNCH of other "pastors". Mostly "youth pastors" but they had them for children's ministry, women's ministry, outreach ministry, for the school ministry - a bunch of them. NONE of them had ANY seminary training, and some I don't think had any formal training at all. Maybe a course or two on the internet. One had some kind of diploma from some "Bible college" (whatever THAT is). I'm not sure any of these were actually ordained.... or actually had any credentials or authorization or approval from anything or anyone. I think it was a TITLE the church could give them in lieu of salary (or maybe in lieu of much salary). I had one I knew pretty well (the one who worked with the school).... frankly (to be blunt) most of the posters here at CH seem to me better educated, more informed about matters of Christianity than he did (although he was very outgoing, fun and liked). TECHNICALLY I really can't say this is wrong.... but I wonder if this is just a radical "dumbing down" of the office, the vocation. And it concerns me because it seems to me people listen to these "pastors" as if they knew anything.... their title gives them some authorization that they didn't earn.... I wonder if we have some "blind leading the blind" as a result of this? Now, at least at that "Evangelical" church, RARELY did any of those non-pastor "Pastors" do any preaching. But they did do most of the teaching. And even as a high schooler (!), I knew the school pastor was.... well..... often seriously lacking. Some of the other KIDS did, too. As much as he was liked.




.

I can agree that what you are saying is correct in that a lot of pastors are not degreed or have a lot of theological training. Some barely have a Bible college certificate. The large churches have numerous pastors and they report to the senior pastor. Senior pastors have the right to ordain pastors, and there is no requirement for college degrees to be a pastor to my knowledge. My former pastor(dead some 20 plus years) had only a twelve month certificate from a local seminary.But, he built the church I attend now from the ground up, and he led it effectively. And he was in demand all over the state. Our church isn't a big church, but it is a good place to learn.

 

[tango]

All this is news to me....

Sure.... in a general sense... spouses are to be help-mates. My wife is an elementary school teacher. I support her, affirm her, and help where I can (which is RARELY in the classroom due to my work) - for example, correcting papers. And my wife supports, affirms and encourages me in my work in scientific research. I think it's suppose to be that way. But I'm NOT ergo a School Teacher. I have no professional training or credentials for that, and no school has hired me. And she is NOT a scientists (in fact, she's never had one college level course in my field). She has no Ph.D. and no credentials in this area and no lab or school or institution has hired her. We have DIFFERENT vocations.... but we affirm and support each other in these.


I think... maybe..... PART of the problem is that for the past 1600 years AT LEAST, pastor has been a formal office in the church. With very specific training (years of theology, years of exegesis, years of church history, etc.).... specific Call.... specific assignment..... But in the last couple of centuries, especially in America and Australia.... all this has at times entirely fallen apart. A pastor is anyone who does ministry of any kind. It just means almost nothing. When I was in high school, I did my studies through a mega "Evangelical" church (it technically was Baptist but it kept that a big secret). They had a "Lead Pastor" (who actually was seminary trained) and a BUNCH of other "pastors". Mostly "youth pastors" but they had them for children's ministry, women's ministry, outreach ministry, for the school ministry - a bunch of them. NONE of them had ANY seminary training, and some I don't think had any formal training at all. Maybe a course or two on the internet. One had some kind of diploma from some "Bible college" (whatever THAT is). I'm not sure any of these were actually ordained.... or actually had any credentials or authorization or approval from anything or anyone. I think it was a TITLE the church could give them in lieu of salary (or maybe in lieu of much salary). I had one I knew pretty well (the one who worked with the school).... frankly (to be blunt) most of the posters here at CH seem to me better educated, more informed about matters of Christianity than he did (although he was very outgoing, fun and liked). TECHNICALLY I really can't say this is wrong.... but I wonder if this is just a radical "dumbing down" of the office, the vocation. And it concerns me because it seems to me people listen to these "pastors" as if they knew anything.... their title gives them some authorization that they didn't earn.... I wonder if we have some "blind leading the blind" as a result of this? Now, at least at that "Evangelical" church, RARELY did any of those non-pastor "Pastors" do any preaching. But they did do most of the teaching. And even as a high schooler (!), I knew the school pastor was.... well..... often seriously lacking. Some of the other KIDS did, too. As much as he was liked.

.

I think the training thing and the use of the title can be confusing, as you describe.

I think part of the problem is that we can provide spiritual support and encouragement to people without formal qualifications, we can study the Bible and gain a great understanding of it without formal qualifications, and we can spend a lot of years earning formal qualifications while ultimately being little more than a sausage from the sausage machine, with our own thoughts drummed out of us so that we can pass the required exams.

Someone might be called "minister" without being an ordained minister. If the minister is the person who leads the church then in theory they could be anybody that the church regards as suitable to lead them. If they are ordained then their credentials have as much value as people place upon the body that ordained them. In the same way I'm sure you know the two ways to get a PhD are to either follow some years of study and research, or find a less reputable establishment and write them a check. Both result in the letters PhD after your name but anyone "in the know" would recognise the doctorate that was simply exchanged for cash to have limited practical value. If nothing else I could buy myself a PhD in physics and possibly convince a layman that I had actually earned it, but if I came across someone such as yourself I suspect it wouldn't take you long to realise I don't actually know a whole lot about physics at that level.

My concern isn't so much who gets to be called "pastor" in many ways, it's when people start to regard their pastor as infallible. If people regard "Pastor Joe Blow said this, therefore it must be true" without thinking for themselves then they are vulnerable to false teachings, whether presented intentionally or not. If Pastor Joe Blow is a wolf he could guide the unthinking into all sorts of dark alleys; if he is merely misguided he could do much the same even if he's stuck there as well.

There's also the question of just what role we expect the pastor to perform. In some respects it's much like a spiritual version of nursing, and if I'm treated by a nurse I'd rather have someone who cares enough to clean me up and look after me regardless of qualifications, than someone who has all the pieces of paper but regards wiping my mouth if I've been sick and can't wipe it myself to be beneath her.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ordination is a Church matter and no 'senior pastor' acting on his own has any right to ordain on behalf of the Church.

 

[Brighten04]

Ordination is a Church matter and no 'senior pastor' acting on his own has any right to ordain on behalf of the Church.

We know you only recognize the RCC as church. But it is the Holy Ghost who gives the gifts, not the pope.

 

[tango]

Ordination is a Church matter and no 'senior pastor' acting on his own has any right to ordain on behalf of the Church.

I suppose it would depend on the church in question. Whoever is the head of a given church would arguably have the right to recognise whoever they wanted as a minister of that church and ordain them as such. Whether such ordination would entitle the ordained to use the title of "Reverend" or similar is another matter. I honestly have no idea how titles like Reverend are awarded.

 

[tango]

We know you only recognize the RCC as church. But it is the Holy Ghost who gives the gifts, not the pope.

My former church was a Baptist church and no senior pastor ordained anyone until they had gone through the full process. That involved a number of stages to test the calling, then some time (I think three years) at Bible College with assorted academic and practical tests, then finally an ordination ceremony during which the process was completed.

The pastor of my church certainly had no authority to just ordain the man who would become the associate pastor, the process had to be followed. As I mentioned in a previous post I can see merits in the formal education process, as well as merits in recognising a genuine call from God. Both need a few checks and balances in place to test callings.

 

[Alithis]

I think the "motive is everything" is the key here.

It's easy to fall back on "it's in the Bible" or "it's not in the Bible" in ways that make the Biblical content irrelevant. If we reject everything that doesn't have a Biblical precedent then we can't be here, on the basis God couldn't possibly have created the heavens and the earth because he had never done anything like that before. If we accept a Biblical precedent as a mandate we end up in equally silly places because we take an example and make it universal. If I read the first chapter of Ezekiel and claim to have had a similar vision it doesn't make me a prophet, I should still be tested to make sure I fulfil the characteristics of a prophet (like my prophecies coming to pass, to name an obvious example).

Where the pastor's wife is concerned I don't see any obvious reason why the pastor's wife shouldn't be involved in ministry in some way. If anything I'd be surprised if she wasn't involved in some form of ministry, even if it is the sort of thing that might be regarded as low-key stuff. At my last church the pastor's wife would often lead an aspect of the service, she often hosted prayer meetings and did a lot of women's ministry which ranged from prayer meetings for women to garden parties that were little more than a chance for a bunch of ladies to get together for some fellowship. If the pastor's wife is called to ministry in her own right, before or after marriage, we would need to test the calling as it stood and not take into account her husband's role.

My personal view (which is an opinion rather than anything specifically backed by Scripture) is that if a church has a senior pastor and a bunch of pastors, co-pastors, associate pastors, youth pastors and so on then it's too big. If a church is so large that the people notionally at the top can conceivably have no idea who is worshiping at the church, who is regular, who hasn't been seen for a while, then the pastors at the top are more like executives than pastors. I'd rather see a church where the pastor knows that Mrs Jones hasn't been seen for a couple of weeks and check she's OK. Sometimes it's nice to be able to be fairly anonymous when visiting a church, simply because if I decide the church isn't for me I'd rather be able to slip out quietly than have dozens of people welcoming me and asking if I'll be back next week when the answer is a resounding no. But if someone can attend a church for any length of time and still be essentially anonymous that doesn't seem like a good thing. (I have one specific example in mind here, which I won't name to avoid identifying anyone, but the church in question had over 3000 members and when the person I know who attended had some specific needs it was like they ceased to exist)

In some ways it seems unfortunate that the minister's wife comes under a huge amount of scrutiny despite not being called to anything in her own right. But in that regard it's something she has to accept as part of the "job description" - if she marries a minister she knows what she's getting and if her husband is called to ministry after the marriage she would be a part of testing the calling and would presumably either be in a place to reject it, or at least make it clear whether she was willing to support her husband in his calling. But in that regard it's no different to being the wife of any other high profile figure - we might expect all sorts of questions to be asked if the pastor's wife were behaving in a clearly un-Christlike manner but is it really any different to the expected result if the wife of the chairman of Coca-Cola were to be seen sipping a Pepsi?

On the subject of being a pastor I honestly think anyone who wants to be a pastor probably wouldn't make a good pastor. The only exception is if someone wants to follow God wherever the path takes them, and that path takes them to the ministry. If there's any fleshly reason someone might want to be a pastor it should probably be removed, to make sure people are doing the job as a calling rather than a vocation. To be clear, I believe that if a church wants a full-time pastor they should pay them enough to live reasonably, but not necessarily enough to live in luxury. If someone can make more as a pastor than they could in a secular job the chances are the ministerial pay is too high.

Motive ..yes indeedy,
Umm but the god cant created the world because he hasnt done it before... Just a tad extreme lol.
God can do anything .he is the beggining of everything of life .

 

[Alithis]

I haven't seen this but I believe you when you say this is happening in some churches.

I don't believe that women are "called" to be pastors. I believe that some feel that they should usurp the role and often do. Bill mentioned men not filling their vocations (not those exact words) but that is what is partially at fault here.

Wives are their husbands help-meets, they don't have their husbands' vocations. It could be that they want to be noticed. It could be that they want to show that they can do anything that a man could do. It could be that they have control issues. I don't know. It's not what I see in the bible when we talk about pastors and elders. Women have other vocations that help out the church and need to realize that even the lowliest of vocations are blessed in the eyes of God.

This voiced it better than i did ..by far.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We know you only recognize the RCC as church. But it is the Holy Ghost who gives the gifts, not the pope.

It's surprising that you "know" what is not true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I suppose it would depend on the church in question. Whoever is the head of a given church would arguably have the right to recognise whoever they wanted as a minister of that church and ordain them as such. Whether such ordination would entitle the ordained to use the title of "Reverend" or similar is another matter. I honestly have no idea how titles like Reverend are awarded.

When one joins a denomination or a church no ordination takes place.

 

[Alithis]

ordination is interesting .

it seems to have a biblical meaning and a non biblical meaning ;

the biblical meaning is the simpler of the two ..it basicly means "to set in place " .. to choose and set a person over a certain task
simply a process of delegation .

as far as the running of a congregation goes ,meeting and distributing to needs and preaching the word and ministering healing and all the work of the gospel (which including eating among many other things ) we see this process of ordination(setting people in place of certain tasks /ie delegating - start up in acts

"At the time, the number of the disciples was greatly increasing. A complaint arose from the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews because the Grecian widows were being neglected in the daily ministry. The twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, 'It's not appropriate for us to forsake the word of God and serve tables. Therefore brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom. Then we can appoint those men over this business, and we apostles will continue to devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.' " (Acts 6:1-4). -here we see the beginning of the practice of ordination (in regard to the church of the lord Jesus .His body of which he alone is head ). I note also that it was not even the apostles who chose who was ordained to these tasks .. saying .."select for YOURSELVES " 7 men .... "

methinks -since a congregation is but a part of the whole body of christ - which is made up of all those individuals in whom the Holy Spirit dwells ["those who have not the spirit of Christ are not Christ's)..one is set aside to be a part of the body by rebirth in to christ by the power of the holy Spiirt ,being made a son of god ..in christ ( for as many as did recive him to them gave he POWER to become the sons of God ) and as such need not be ordained into the body of Christ but ARE the body of Christ - His church . the process of ordination is simply the delegation of certain tasks within the body to "chosen " individuals . nothing more .

 

[tango]

When one joins a denomination or a church no ordination takes place.

I'm not talking about joining a church, I'm talking about the overall leader of a church having a theoretical right to determine who is calleda minister of the church.

 

[psalms 91]

I'm not talking about joining a church, I'm talking about the overall leader of a church having a theoretical right to determine who is calleda minister of the church.

Depending on how the church is set up the minister may veryu well have that right