I'm reading a book at the moment: the title and author don't matter. Let's call him "Mark". Mark complains that when he was first leading his new church fellowship, he was disarmed by the fact that no one addressed him as "Pastor Mark". That bothers me very much.
I can't begin to imagine why some men (generally men?!) would wish to stand on such titles. Perhaps it's just my upbringing, but it seems odd to me. Many of us hold that we have been created as "equals", and that we are all brothers in faith. The purpose of the label "Pastor" seems to be to separate; to distinguish; to place in a place of honour.
That seems very much at odds with the "one body many parts" picture, unless we also give special titles of honour to those who make the coffee, or sweep crap off the steps (yes; historically, the church of England does for the latter; he's called the Verger). It seems to imply that some kinds of service matter a whole lot more than others. In fact, it seems to put us back in to the situation many Reformed people would hate, of giving a special status to the Vicar, or Priest - and if we are not careful, denying the "priesthood of all believers".
It puts me in mind of Jesus' words (Matthew 23, TNIV):
5“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’ “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Messiah.
It's easy to diss the Catholics because they tend to call their priest "Father", and Jesus seems to suggest this is a bad idea. But doesn't the same apply to all titles of honour?
What is so bad about such titles? Well, besides seeming to imply that the body has some parts more important than others (which may, after all, be true), they seem to divide people into categories of those "allowed" to do theology, and those expected to take whatever they are given.
In that regard, I'm so grateful for my upbringing, wherein the truth about God "belonged" to everyone. Sure, there were elders, under whose authority members of the church placed themselves, but they exercised a lightness of touch which allowed for many voices, many perspectives. Sure, there are some who have a particular gift of teaching - but we don't expect gifts of prayer, or serving, or giving, or encouraging to be exercised exclusively by those who excel in those gifts, so why not also teaching and interpreting and prophesying? I don't want spiritual teaching to be dominated by one who does not have spiritual insight: but I'll value everyone's story of how God has spoken to them.
I'm not sorry to say that I don't recognise titles of honour or distinction among God's people. When I produce the church notice sheet/bulletin, no one gets a title; no one at all. Each of us has a name, and that suffices.
No comments:
Post a Comment