For You Old Timers: When was the First Time You Were Called, "Pastor?"
What you call someone or something defines him/her/it for you. Naming someone or something in a sense gives you control over it.
When the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob spoke to Moses from the burning bush calling Moses to lead the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, Moses wouldn't agree to do it until the One speaking told hold Moses His name. As soon as Moses had a name he had to some small degree demystified God He had a new path of access to God and a greater chance to achieve intimacy with Him because he could call on the NAME of God.
Having a name for someone changes your relationship with him or her. Having a label to put on someone defines your relationship with him or her.
What we call people defines the way we think about them and describes the way we relate to them. If I call the man who rasied me 'father' it defines him--and it defines me. If I call him 'dad' or 'daddy' I'm making different definitional statements than I make when I call him 'father.' When I was a child and my parents called me "William Addison Sloat, II" instead of Bill or Billie they were defining how they thought of me in the moment--and I knew I was in trouble. (That's right. Addison. And, the second.)
So, it is profoundly significant that it's only very recently that we've been calling the people who lead congregations 'pastor.'
Believe it or not, there was a time--and it was not long ago--that the people who were the credentialed leaders of Christian congregations in my church culture were not known as pastors.
In my current ministry setting I am commonly known as pb. They've never told me what that means but I'm guessing--perhaps hoping--that pb stands for Pastor Bill. But, here's the thing: This is the first time that I've been in congregational ministry that I've been known by the title, 'pastor.'
I began in 1976. At that time the word most commonly used to describe someone in my position was Reverend. But, I was never called 'Reverend Bill.' It was always Reverend SLOAT. I was also called a minister. When I attended Conference I was counted among the 'Ministerial Delegates' not the 'Pastoral Delegates.' More than any title though, I suppose, I was called a "Preacher." And, when I was referred to in terms of my relationship with the congregation I was serving, I was never called the 'pastor' of blankety blank Church of God. More often that not it was, "He's the preacher of (or at) _____________ Church of God."
I left congregational ministry in 1990 to return to school and I have absolutely no recollection that I was called a pastor even one time during the years before I went back to school. I spent some time on the staff at Winebrenner for a few years and then returned to congregational ministry in 1998 and, by that time, the common desription of the role I was taking on was "pastoral ministry" or "the pastorate." And, I even would say of myself (until about a year or so ago), "I'm the pastor of Faith Community Church of God."
To the best of my knowledge, that's when I began to be known as a pastor for the first time. That's how quickly the unchallengable hegemony of the pastoral culture was achieved.
I have some thoughts about that.
One is that the transition from the common use of the term preacher to that of pastor marks the last stage of transition from thinking of the person in that role as a prophetic figure to that of a nurturer. I think that by the time I started in ministry in 1976 the transition was well under way and the name change was the inevitable result of a culture shift in how we think of leadership in the church.
Another thought is that the era of pastoral leadership has been a disaster. The western church has not done well under pastoral leadership.
Another is that the future for the church under pastoral leadership is bleak.
Another is that the church currently needs serious repentance and I know of no time in biblical or church history that God's people have been 'pastored' into repentance.
My friends, this is a big deal.
So, you other old-timers, when was the first time you were called 'pastor?' You, uh, yung'nes: how many of you have only ever been called pastor in your leadership role?
posted by bill Sloat at 4:34 AM
19 Comments:
During the summer of 1997 I was serving at a small church which was without a full-time leader. The regional office actually withheld the title of pastor from me in all its correspondence because I was neither a seminary graduate nor was I ordained. The fact that I was carrying out the role and tasks associated with a pastor were apparently not enough to "earn" the title, only those with the appropriate credentials could be called pastor.
I haven't thought about that in years. I think this experience may further support Bill's post.
One of the over-reactions to Bill's post could be that someone thinks, "Fine, I'll just have people call me by my first name instead of 'pastor'." If this is anyone's real response, I think that it may miss his point.
I agree with Bill that titles are important. I think that the title helps reinforce the role of the person in relation to the organization. This is part of the reason why I am not a big "first name" guy when it comes to church/leader relationships (this is also why my students call me "Dr." in my classroom - first names invite a different relationship than some sort of title.)
One of the myths of postmodernity is that all hierarchy has broken down. This is not the case at all. The traditional hierarchy has been called into question, but that is not the same as saying that all hierarchy has now vanished.
I'll openly admit that I am not offering a title in place of pastor, but dismissing all titles may not lead to the desired conclusion either.
Even though I am only 39, which is a kid in these parts, I was mostly raised by my grandparents.
I called lawyers counselor, judges were your honor, PhD's were Doctor, Policemen were Officer.
I remember when I was in the A of G in HS, our pastor every so often would, from the pulpit and in newsletters, remind people that he was not to be called Ken or Pastor Ken. Pastor or Pastor Dignan was what he would respond to. It was, however, permissible to refer to the associate pastors as Pastor Jeff or Pastor Kerry.
I do not have Pastor on my card. I am honestly not sure where I sit in the APEST role. In press releases and when other clergy in my town refer to me I am the Reverend Patrick Green for that is how the other Ministers in town are referred to (it is a very old town and we are the only church in town with less than 100 years of history). Every time I see it I chuckle a little, but I am also honored that is the way the others see me.
Some of the kids in our community who have prior church experience call me Pastor Pat and I allow it because that is how they know religious leaders in their context and to "correct" them would be to diminish them in some way from my perspective.
I am still trying to figure out who I am as the leader of this community. Pastor is not who I am in this community, even if it is, I would not use the term because from most of the people I speak to who are either outside of the church or have left the church, they see pastors not as religious figures, but as corporate heads of 501 C3's. In some ways, we have allowed the title to be co opted with our prior evangelical love of all things corporate to appeal to Boomers.
For me, titles showed a general respect we had in a more civilized time when please and thank you was used more than now and whatever.
In the meantime, while I choose not to have a title at this time (mostly because Shepard or Teacher would sound weird to some, and I kinda like Minister, cuz that is what I tend to do by way of ministering to hearts), I respect those that do have titles and address them as such and I respect those who assign a title to me from the context they come from. Way I look at it, some people in the Gospels called Jesus Rabbi, and he neither admonished them or insisted on it.
All that said, I like Bill's perspective on it and I wonder if the reason for the difference in our perspectives is generational or sociological due to our differing environments and experiences.
I said some of this before, so forgive me if I repeat myself...
In my context (the only one I can speak for), my people perceive the title of pastor as a synonym for "primary leader". This represents a change in the word's meaning, rather than their seeing me primarily as "nurturer" over against the prophetic or any other role. It may be this way because we do not have a lot of people with evangelical histories in our church. Our people are less tuned into the nuances of what various biblical titles might imply, and therefore unlikely to attach specific expectations based on a title.
I would not argue that changing the meaning of the word is optimum, but it is just what developed in my slice of suburban culture. I have chosen not to correct it, but rather to simply teach about and incorporate the mixture of APEST giftings into our leadership team.
As for the first name question, I had not really thought about it. I am "Pastor Fran" to most people in our church, and I do not think this has translated to a lower level of respect either for me or my role. In fact, I think it has contributed positively to the sense of the priesthood of all believers in our church-- people perceive that Fran is different, but also the same, one of us. And I would even go so far as to say that it has made people feel like the leadership here is accessible, versus the robed and pedestaled pastors they saw from afar growing up.
I have resisted becoming Pastor Brian for about 15 years, but honestly my resistance has just caused confusion rather than help people understand. So now, I am Pastor Brian to most in the church. Some just call me Brian. One lady often calls me Preacher. It is a very respectful title the way she says it.
When titles bother me is at the elementary school where the teachers are Mrs. Lastname and the supervisors are Mrs. Firstname. It really strikes me about what is being communicated by the difference.
Most people in my church call me by my first name (few of them can probably even pronounce my last name). I generally introduce myself that way, and hardly ever use the word "Pastor" unless it is at the hospital or something to let someone know I do have an official capacity (or on the rare occasion I try to flex some authoritative muscle). When I sign something for the church I will sometimes sign it "Dan" and sometimes "Pastor Dan," depending on how official the thing is. It really makes no difference to me if I am called either though. And I don't know of anyone that calls me Pastor Horwedel, or Reverend anything.
This has really had me thinking though; and I've always wondered if it was better or worse to use just my first name, and not the title, but also...
(1) In regard to "Pastor" in the sense of "Dr." or "Professor", etc... Is that the same thing? For instance, I know there is the whole respect issue. But I think for some people there is LESS respect if we place a title before our name... it makes it more formal; and more formal means less relational; and less relational means less respect. For some people the highest form of respect is to consider someone your friend.
I know this is not the case in every situation - such as with teachers and doctors - but in certain expressions of church it is. Plus, to be honest, I just registered for a seminar, and the seminar leader goes by "Rev. Dr. So-and-so." I have to say, I just rolled my eyes. Under my breath I have called him many things - but not Rev. Dr. (yes, I know it's not nice, but...).
(2) On a different note... do you think Pastor means the same thing to others that it might mean to those of us who are pastors? I tend to think many people who refer to me as "Pastor" don't really think of me as a "shepherd." I think it just means I am one of the leaders at the church - and it's not necessarily associated with Shepherd any more than Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist or Teacher. In fact, if I were known by one of those leadership designations, I think that would raise more eyebrows than "pastor." Ask some former charismatics about "Apostle" and that will likely stir some lively conversation.
Maybe I'm totally missing the point, but I guess I'm wondering if Pastor really makes people think what we think it means, or if the meaning of it has perhaps changed. Just wondering. I definitely think this is an important issue though. Thanks for bringing it up, Bill.
Good comments one and all. Interesting.
The conversation took a different turn than I expected.
Dan,
I don't think that 'pastor' has the same technical meaning it may have to those of us who post on this blog but I do think it has meaning. People chose that term over preacher or Rev. or minister or other possible descriptions.
There is also the point that they chose that term because they were taught it.
One consequence of the George Weaver revolution at Winebrenner is that our seminary changed in two ways in the late 70s.
First, we often think of that as the time when the seminary began to embrace evangelical theology and that is true.
But, a second change took place at that time.
That was also the time that it very intentionally began to train people for 'pastoral ministry.' Trust me, Winebrenner was more about training theologians and scholars in the era before Weaver.
In the CGGC, we use the term pastor to a large extent because George Weaver and his staff taught students preparing for the ministry that they were being trained to be pastors. Our congregations learned that language from the people sent by the seminary to the churches.
Anyway...
...I do think that the term pastor has some pretty significant meaning.
When I began, it was a common thing for people of the congregation to say, "We want a preacher who will step on our toes." They wanted a bold prophetic person committed to proclaiming truth.
It seems to me that today it's much more common to hear people say, "We want a pastor who will love and and take care of us."
That, at least, is what I heard over and over again when I was a memeber of the Renewal Commission here in the East.
Bill,
I always appreciate the cggc history lesson. It makes perfect sense. I was not thinking about it from that perspective, or even from a typical church person perspective. I guess I tend to think of things more from the 'person-on-the-street' angle.
So, do you think it would be better to have more specific titles? I guess I had kind of forgotten that I am known as "Preacher Dan" by a group of aging punk rock fanatics. I tried to move away from that designation a little because - to me - that was a bit limiting... I am more than "just" a preacher. In that respect I tend to think of "pastor" as more of a generic sort of term. Does that make sense?
I certainly understand what you're saying about "a pastor who will love us and take care of us" though. I guess maybe I am guilty of not even thinking about that. Perhaps I've brainwashed myself.
Dan,
Really interesting post. I appreciate what you're saying. I'm thinking specifically about your comment "...it makes it more formal; and more formal means less relational; and less relational means less respect."
I've almost spent as many years now as "Dr." as I did as "Pastor" so my view may be slightly off target for the life of the church. You are right that the life of the academic community is very different from the life of the church.
My question - Does "less relational" always mean less respect? Is it possible that sometimes we are misleading when we indicate a closeness with someone (in this case by avoiding a title and/or going by a first name) and really have no intention on ever maintaining a close relationship?
I completely agree that the title helps define the relationship. I guess the key is to figure out what type of relationship we are interested in having.
One other thing - for me, the title of "Dr." isn't an issue of respect; it's an issue of relationship.
I've seen too many professors become angry over students who don't call them "Dr." - if anyone's self-identity is tied to a title, get over it.
I work in a department where I'm the only faculty that doesn't go by a first name. The relationship is different (and sometimes, in my opinion, inappropriate) for some of the others. The title, or lack thereof, is often a symptom of how we think about those we serve (in a church or academic institution).
Brent,
Good point about the type of relationship. I wonder if some of it - at least from a church perspective - depends on the size of the church community. For instance, the nature of relationships is going to be different for a church leader in a community of 50 people than in a community of 500. I am certainly speaking from a smaller perspective than a larger. I think we also have to factor in the kind of people we're dealing with (white collar/blue collar), etc. So, no, less relational doesn't always mean less respect. I was merely trying to point out that it does in some contexts. Thanks for pointing that out.
I am also curious, and wondered if you could clarify what you mean by: "The title, or lack thereof, is often a symptom of how we think about those we serve (in a church or academic institution)." I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. I mean, I tend to think of myself as equal with everyone else in my church - I'm just one of them - though I have a specific function. So I don't feel the need to be known by my function, but more by my name (just like everyone else). Whereas a teacher would need to be distinguished by their function. Is that what you mean? Just asking.
Dan,
My favorite title for you is Lieutenant but that's a whole other issue.:) I have to try that title thing you mention though. I'll categorize everyone in my church according to gifts and then call them by that. Evangelist Earl, Prophet Pete, etc. Shoot I might use one of those other gift lists and have Martyr Mary. Sunday is going to be fun.
On a serious note, I think we are called a lot of things, including some titles we don't want to know about. But there is also the issue of what came first. Did the title define the relationship or did the relationship define the title? It seems Jesus had a lot of titles and it would be interesting to study exactly how they developed. One of the most interesting discourses on this is John 13:13. Not sure what kind of argument that gives one way or the other but I thought it a bit ironic considering this is a discussion on a CGGC blog and the context in which it occurs.
Tom Datema
Bill,
Here we go. The old trouble maker (moi) is back. I know that when I go up against you it is like putting the minnow up against the whale (in regards to our education and expertise; not our relative sizes or masses). However, this post really got me going.
To answer your question, when I was very young, the Pastor was called "Reverend" and referred to as a "minister." You are correct.
However, I see this change of referring to US (whatever in the dickens you want to call us) as "Pastors" as a change for the good. In Acts 20, Paul said to a group of elders/overseers, "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be SHEPERDS of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood (caps emphasis mine).
Now Bill, I have always believed that I am first and foremost a "Teaching Elder" in the Church of God. That's what my Ordination Bible says on the inside cover under the picture of Old Johnny Boy (Winebrenner, that is). And I must tell you that I would LOVE to be called "Elder George" or "Elder Jensen" but unfortunately, the Mormons have hijacked the term "Elder" from us. If I went by the term "Elder," some would think I was hooked up with the LDS or even worse, a Mormon splinter group (for kicks, rent a copy of the show, "Big Love").
I particularly do not like the term "Reverend" since the KJV of Psalm 111 states in reference to God, "He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and REVEREND is his name." (Again, caps mine). Sorry, but I don't want to even give a hint of having credentials like that!!!!
Furthermore, if I go by the terms we see in the APEST, I do have a streak of prophet in me, but should people call me "Prophet George?" That makes me sound like some kind of a NUT CASE (quit smirking those of you who already believe I am). Furthermore, if I go by the term "Apostle," unchurched people are going to wonder, "What in the heck is an apostle?" or they may think that I think I am a nut-case reincarnation of Peter, John, or one of the good old boys in the NT. The term "Teacher" may make some think I am a public school teacher. I suppose Evangelist may be a good term, but that doesn't fit me since my gifted area is more in the prophetic/sheperding area of the APEST.
So, I think the term "Pastor" is the best general term for all of us, and based on the Acts 20 passage I listed above, it seems like a good term to me. I in no way want to diminish the APEST. I just think in our current context in 2010, "Pastor" is the best one-size-fits-all glove for all of us.
So, with much fear and trembling, I respectfully must go 180 degrees against your thesis. As such, I'm sure I'll get pounded to death by all ye faithful bloggers. My big mouth seems to set off long posts on these blogs. Oh well. Have fun firing back, guys. Blessings.
-George Jensen
Enola, PA
Dan,
You sort of answered your own question when you asked "what do you mean by: 'The title, or lack thereof, is often a symptom of how we think about those we serve (in a church or academic institution).' You offered that you view yourself just like everyone else, therefore you go by your first name, just like everyone else. That is what I was suggesting - that our titles often reveal something about the way we view the relationship.
Your post makes me wonder if pastors should be viewed "equally" with everyone else. I am not suggesting that pastors are better, they're just different within the life of a church. Perhaps what Bill is pointing out is that we should also be reconsidering not only the function of the pastor but also how the pastor is viewed in the local church.
There was never a question that Jeremiah was different from the rest of the people. Jesus, while he connected with everyone, never tried to be "just a regular guy".
I talked with the pastor of our church today about possibly teaching a class for our school next fall. Since I was talking to him as a potential colleague, I called him by his first name; during that specific conversation he wasn't functioning as my pastor. On Sunday, if I have a chance to talk to him, I'll call him "Pastor" since that is his role and function at our church.
Serving as a pastor is what he does; I am not convinced that is who is as a person.
I think our titles both define our relationship AND our relationship can define the title (to follow-up Tom's question).
Thanks for making me think through this more...
I was talking to the Mrs about this thread and she simple said that no title will matter if it is not lived. Sadly, there are many "leaders" with vacuous and meaningless titles.
As one of the older bloggers here I thought it somewhat amusing that Pastor Dignan wanted his last name used but the young guys could be called by their first name. I am known here as Pastor Lew.
I admit to being uncomfortable with pastor as a title. I often sign letters as Lew Button, pastor. However, pastor is what the leader of the church is called. It is a term of respect and certainly does not define my role as a "nuturer" over against "prophet". And it is the term most often used in our area as designation of our role. (even some doctors call me pastor)
I do not use the term Rev. but I am sometimes referred to as Rev. in community events etc.
What is interesting is that,in my role as a chaplain at a VA Hospital, I am to be called Chaplain as the official designation and to introduce myself as Chaplain. I am uncomfortable with that but it is not my decision it is the policy of the Federal Gov't.
I could be called Doctor but that is way out of line here and most people don't know I am a Doctor--only the funeral director uses that title of me. I guess it will look good on my headstone.
George,
Good post. Thought provoking. And, as I said off the blog, responding to it will probably cause me some trouble in the CGGC but I’m getting too close to the end of my line to care about what anyone thinks but the Lord. I’ll take my chances with Him.
You say:
“In Acts 20, Paul said to a group of elders/overseers, "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be SHEPERDS of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood (caps emphasis mine).”
Let me be clear. I understand that the role of the shepherd is one that the Lord created for the church. Ephesians 4:11 makes it plain to me that He will continue to gift the church with shepherds until he returns. I love shepherds. Some of my best friends are called and gifted to be shepherds.
I also understand that doing the work of a shepherd is work that everyone called to leadership in the Body must do from time to time. When Paul said to Timothy, “do the work of an evangelist,” (2 Tim 4:5) he was telling Timothy, who was not an evangelist, to do the work for which others were gifted. I am able to believe that such is case for all leaders and for all the callings. The passage to which you refer is one of the most important for us today to consider in understanding what the New Testament teaches about leadership.
To be continued.
Now, here’s where I put my foot in it. You say:
“Now Bill, I have always believed that I am first and foremost a "Teaching Elder" in the Church of God. That's what my Ordination Bible says on the inside cover under the picture of Old Johnny Boy (Winebrenner, that is).”
(Here we go!)
Please tell me biblically what a ‘teaching elder’ is. I know this is a concept that has deep roots in the Church of God but I can’t see it in the New Testament.
Correct me or enlighten me if you can. I will gladly accept correction here but it seems to me that the text in the New Testament from which we can justify categories of elders is 1 Peter 5:1a, “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder…”
Peter was not an elder in the sense that the people to whom he was writing were elders. They were serving in leadership in local congregations and Peter was an apostle. Clearly the term elder is used very imprecisely in the New Testament compared to the way we use it. Often it was used interchangeably with the term ‘overseer.’ And, here Peter uses it as a broad term to describe anyone in leadership in the Body of Christ. But, I don’t see Peter describing himself as a ‘teaching elder’ in a way that approximates the Church of God use of the term. Undoubtedly, there are different types of elders but is the teaching/ruling elder a biblical concept? I don’t think so. I think the APEST/local elder concept is profoundly biblical. But, the idea that the credentialed clergy person/elected by the congregation elder concept is entirely foreign the Scripture. It is manmade. It’s is the result of the Protestantization of Medieval Christendom Catholicism but it has no roots in Scripture.
to be continued--again.
You ask: “Furthermore, if I go by the terms we see in the APEST, I do have a streak of prophet in me, but should people call me "Prophet George?"”
This issue of identifying one’s calling is one that we certainly are very touch about, eh?
There’s been a fascinating discussion of the value of titles on this thread but I’m not sure I see many titles being used in the New Testament. I guess you can call ‘Lord’ a title given to Jesus, though I’m not sure we should understand it as a title as much as an identification of ourselves as His disciples.
Paul referred to himself as an apostle, not because it was his title but because it was his calling. When an Old Testament prophet proclaimed, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ he was not doing so claiming the title prophet. He was doing it because he believed himself to BE a prophet.
Should people call you ‘Prophet George?’ What they call you is up to them. If you believe you are called to be a prophet, should you call yourself a prophet? If you were biblical about it, I believe you should. If that is the basis of your understanding to leadership in the Body, I think you should make that claim for yourself and allow others in the Body to affirm your assertion or to resist it. Here at Faith the congregation knows that I am not a pastor by the Lord’s calling. They call me pb but joke about what the p stands for.
I am convinced that we should intentionally seek the creation of a leadership community in which apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherd and teachers are all empowered to live within their callings, that people who believe they have those callings should claim them in the body and that we should eschew the notion of titles and talk only about how we believe the Lord has gifted us and called us. Then each of us should allow the body to judge, just a Paul did when we was regularly arguing that his claim to be called to be an apostle was genuine.
You say, “So, I think the term "Pastor" is the best general term for all of us, and based on the Acts 20 passage I listed above, it seems like a good term to me. I in no way want to diminish the APEST.”
Again, I don’t think that there were ‘terms’ used in the New Testament. If there was one it was elder but, based on our hierarchical Christendom notions of titles and authorities, the term elder was used in a very imprecise way
Post a Comment
<< Home