Regarding The Minister as Motivator

In the PC(USA), we often like to refer to ministers as "Teaching Elders." In fact, this is technically the preferred language according to our denomination's constitution, but don't expect Presbyterians to stop using the word "minister" anytime soon. The point here is that we see "teaching" as one of the primary roles that a minister is to play within the life of a church.
Read more »

Reaching Out to Ex-Evangelicals: A Response to Frank Schaeffer

Earlier this month, Frank Schaeffer posted an article commenting on his observations that there are a lot of people out there who, having grown up with evangelical backgrounds, now find themselves disenchanted with that tradition (especially its connection with right-wing politics), and who have left that tradition in search of some other way of living out their faith. Schaeffer further observes that, by and large, these ex-evangelicals are not coming to older mainline churches, despite the fact that (as he puts it) "in terms of world view the older denominations should be a good fit for the progressive former evangelicals." When he has asked if the mainline churches have made any attempts to reach them, the response is usually "no."
Read more »

Manifold Ministries, Ordained and Otherwise

This picture of my shelf at work, featuring the trolley from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, is one of my favorites, and I've used it both here on the blog and on my Twitter site for some time now. Over the years, I've devoted entries to a couple of the other items visible in this picture: the Transformers M&M's dispenser and the black-and-white Mickey Mouse Transformer. The other item in the picture that's of particular importance to me is the little piece of paper just to the right of the trolley. You can't really tell from the picture (even if you click on it to get a larger version), but that's a quote from The World According to Mister Rogers that I've always felt could have been written especially for me.
Read more »

On the Difficulties of Praising God, but not "Him"

For years now, I've kept an informal policy on this blog. When writing about God, I try to avoid using male-specific pronouns such as "he" or "his" in my work. I say that this policy is "informal" not just because I've not made explicit mention of it before now (to the best of my recollection), but because I expect that I slip up every now and again.

I doubt that I'm alone. Last month, when I commented on John Piper's "Masculine Christianity," I suggested that most people—even those who advocate for strict gender roles within Christianity—would not consciously argue for a male God. However, there is little point in denying that if one was asked to draw a picture of God, one would not only draw a male image, but probably one with a flowing white beard. I expect that this is nearly as true for those who are advocates of gender-neutral language as it is for those who see nothing wrong with the usage of "male" terms for God. Although I know that the image of a white-beared male God does not come from the Bible, it is deeply embedded in my understanding of the deity. And if I find it creeping into my consciousness from time to time, it is hardly a surprise that so many others simply take it for granted that God must be male (and certainly not female!), even when and if we know better.
Read more »

Montreat! Montreat! Montreat!

Although I've certainly shared videos, myself, I have to admit that I really wish that people didn't share videos on Facebook and elsewhere as much as they do. I would much rather everything shared was text. The reason for this is that I do much of my browsing during downtime at work, and I don't wish to disturb my co-workers with the sound (obviously, an audio-only piece can be even worse). Also, it's much easier to leave a page of text alone when a task comes in, and come back to it once I'm done, than it is with video.

All this means is that, when I started to see this video of "Stuff Presbyterian Seminarians Say" making the rounds on Facebook Monday morning, I waited until I was at home that evening to finally watch it. You can watch the video for yourself after the jump, or just go straight on to my comments.
Read more »

The End of my Ordination Process

What follows is a copy (slightly edited to remove other people's names and identifying characteristics) of the letter I sent earlier this week to the chair of my presbytery's Committee on Preparation for Ministry:
Read more »

Denominations, Division, and Doctrine

There's been a lot of talk recently around the PC(USA) circles that I frequent (and a few non-PC(USA) ones) about a letter that was written, co-signed by a number of PC(USA) pastors, suggesting that the church is "deathly ill" and calling for "something new" that looks, to me, a lot more like a Baptist-style congregational polity than the kind of "connective" denomination that the PC(USA) used to pride itself on being.
Read more »

Theological Competence Exam Question #3 - Art

We were given a choice to answer one of two different questions for the third and final part of the Theological Competence exam.  Although the question that asked us to respond theologically to issues that arise out of dealing with a loved one struggling with Alzheimers was important to me for personal reasons, I really didn't have to think too hard about deciding to respond to the question below.  There is a sense in which I feel like I've been answering this question for years.  It was this question, more than the other two, that left me with the conviction that this was the best chance of passing the exam I was ever likely to have.  I'm glad to see my feelings were rewarded!

SECTION III: APPLICATION TO MINISTRY

You are pastor of a church and post a sign-up sheet for a trip to a local art exhibit.  Members begin the following conversation with you.

Lois: Pastor, I am surprised that you would suggest this trip.  I thought that, given the Reformation, Presbyterians were against art.

Tim: My former church had an artist-in-residence who helped us understand God through the use of Scripture and painting.

Bruce: I think the arts are a bridge to help us understand our culture and bring the gospel to culture.

Abby: But some particular works of art today are just anti-Christian.

1. Write an essay articulating a Reformed understanding of the place of the arts in Christian life.  Base your discussion on your knowledge of Reformed theology, using at least one (1) of these resources: the Scriptures, classical theology, contemporary theology.
2. Building on your essay in Required Response 1, respond theologically to three (3) of the comments above.
   

This part of the exam was closed book.

---

1.        For the first several hundred years of the Church’s history, the vast majority people could not read.  Creating works of art such as statues, paintings, stained glass windows, and other items were often used as a tool with which to teach believers about the works of God when reading the Bible itself was simply not an option for most of them.
 
By the time of the Reformation, some Reformers, recognizing the commandment not to create idols, began to grow concerned about this practice.  The fear was that people would worship the works of art, rather than the God that the works of art were intended to point people to.  Indeed, as Moses was coming down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments, his brother Aaron told people that the golden calf he had created was the God who had just freed them from Egypt.  The story was essentially right, but the object was all wrong.  It wasn’t the calf that saved God’s people!  And the calf was in no way being used to point people to the God that actually did the action.  If such a grievous abuse of art could happen so quickly after people had seen the real works of the authentic God, surely the works of art created to tell the story of God through Jesus Christ held that same dangerous potential!

For this reason, many of the Reformed denominations prohibited the use of art in their worship spaces, and indeed in Christians’ lives.  The concern that the art would become an idol, an object of worship in its own right, was simply too great a risk.
 
In more recent times, Reformed believers sought to recapture some of what was positive about the use of art as a tool to help convey the story of God, while remaining mindful of the dangers of idolatry.  Remembering that Paul could point to the statues dedicated to “an unknown God” at the Acropolis (works that were by no means “Christian”), using them as a point of evangelism from which to tell them the truth about the authentic God, Reformed believers began to advocate for the use of art as an expression of how God has blessed the world once again.  Moreover, Christians could argue for the myriad of ways in which God has gifted people with talents and abilities specifically for the edification of the church, and recognize that artistic talent is indeed one of those talents which could be used, if used in response and recognition of God, pointing people toward God as being behind it all, and not confusing the work of art with the object of worship itself.  Thus, Reformed believers of today have become more comfortable (at least in comparison with times past) with the use of art in Christian life.

2.        Lois is right to recognize that Presbyterians have indeed been against art in certain times and for certain reasons.  There has been a real, historic concern that art could become an object of worship, and that this would be a clear violation of the commandment against idolatry.  We must always keep in mind that art is not to be worshiped, and should always point to some greater truth beyond the art itself.  However, God is (among a great many other things) a God from which all good and beautiful things come, and thus it is appropriate to enjoy art and remember that all good and beautiful things come from God.  To the extent that art does remind us of God, Presbyterians need not be against art.

Tim’s artist-in-residence stands in a strong tradition of artists from the centuries of the church’s history who have used sculpture and painting to teach truths about God.  Indeed, some of the things we can learn about God through art may not be as readily communicated through other means, especially to some people who may respond to artistic expression in a way that they do not necessarily respond, say, to the spoken word.  No one way of teaching will reach all people, and thus God gives us a variety of means by which to help understand God better.

Abby expresses a legitimate concern on a couple of levels.  At one level, art has indeed been misused and abused.  As already noted, art has been used for idolatrous purposes in the past, and can indeed be used in this way in the present.  Also, whatever the purpose behind a work of art, if a work of art is used by the viewer in an idolatrous way, that is indeed a problem.  Another level of concern is the fact that art is sometimes used by an artist who may not only be “anti-Christian,” but who may actively be trying to articulate an “anti-Christian” message through his or her work.  We need not be afraid of such messages.  Our God is more powerful than any “anti-Christian” message a hostile artist may be trying to communicate to us.  We remain clear on who we worship.  However, God can work through even these works of art if we have eyes to see God’s truth.  Just as Paul used the pagan works of the Acropolis to convey a prophetic message to his audience, perhaps God is trying to tell us something about how the world sees the church that we need to hear.  For example, perhaps the world sees the church as “hateful” because we have failed to communicate God’s love adequately to some group of people.  If this is the case, God can use this “anti-Christian” work of art to correct our own failings, so that we learn to reach out with God’s love in ways that better convey the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who do not yet know it.  God remains supreme, and as long as we remember that, we may look at art without fear of whether it might be “anti-Christian” in its origins.

Theological Competence Exam Question #2 - Sabbath

Although I did earn the "Satisfactory" grade on this response (the same as both of the other two questions I answered), one of the comments left for me on this response did have a bit of constructive criticism that I think is worth sharing.  That comment suggested that a stronger response would also have drawn from the life and actions of Jesus in regard to the Sabbath to demonstrate how (as the gospel says) "the Sabbath is made for people, not people for the Sabbath."

SECTION II: CONSTRUCTIVE STATEMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

As pastor, you are leading the worship committee of the session in a discussion of the concept of Sabbath.  You share the following section from the Heidelberg Catechism:

Q. 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment? A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and Christian education be maintained, and that I diligently attend church, especially on the Lord's day, to hear the Word of God, to participate in the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian service to those in need.  Second, that I cease from my evil works all the days of my life, allow the Lord to work in me through his Spirit, and thus being in this life the eternal Sabbath. (4.103)

Write an essay reflecting on the theological meaning of Sabbath for life today from a Reformed perspective.  Base your essay on your knowledge of Reformed theology, using at least one (1) of these resources: the Scriptures, classical theology, contemporary theology.

This part of the exam was closed book.

---

Even among Christians, we often struggle between the desire to go to Church on Sunday and the desire to do… well, pretty much anything else. This is nothing new. Even King James (the same King James who is known for the Bible translation which bears his name) produced a book on “sport” that made it clear he didn’t see any problem with non-religious activities on the Lord’s Day. While this may seem like nothing unusual to those in our congregations who anxiously await the end of the benediction so they can get home to watch the afternoon football game, this was actually pretty scandalous to church leaders of the time. Then, as now, we need to articulate a clear idea of what it is about the Sabbath (whether we celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday in recognition of the day on which Jesus Christ was raised from the dead or, as some would have it, on Saturday) that is special and worthy of being kept as sacred.

Obviously, God is worthy of worship at all times, not just on one day of the week. Speaking of the Sabbath as a particular day of worship and/or reverence may seem to dilute that, but it doesn’t need to. The commandment to keep one day holy, given in Exodus 20, was certainly not given to suggest that God’s people didn’t need to worship God on other days! It was given so that people would remember God in a special way. By remembering the Creation story of Genesis, whereby God rested on the seventh day, God’s people establish in their own weekly rhythms of life a constant reminder of who God is and what God has done. Even though God has power and resources that far exceed anything we humans possess or can even imagine, God rested. If God rested, so also we, beings that actually need rest once in a while, should also rest.

To make the Sabbath “holy” also means that it should be “set apart” in other ways. It is a day to gather together as God’s people. We can (and should!) worship God when on our own as individuals, but we are not called “the body of Christ” so that we can remain as individuals. We are called to gather together. In this way, we truly become a “body” of believers in which the individual members can strengthen and unify the whole in the love and worship of God. Being with other believers can help us to understand God more fully than we can understand God on our own. We learn from those who God has gifted with more knowledge than we have. We can get help and assistance from those who God has gifted with more resources than we have. And, if we have need of correction, we can get Christian discipline in those times in which we need it. John Calvin considered the health of the church to be at its strongest where the word was rightly preached, the sacraments rightly distributed, and where disciple was rightly exercised.

The Sabbath is also to be observed by setting time aside for prayer and for reading God’s Word. This can (and should!) be done in church worship gatherings, but can and should also be done in one’s personal life. Again, this is something that can be done on other days of the week, as well. The Reformed tradition recognizes this, and even hints at an “eternal Sabbath” in the Heidelberg Catechism. But by encouraging these actions “especially” on the Sabbath, one establishes a liturgical pattern in one’s life that helps serve as a constant reminder of God’s faithfulness to us, and especially of the ultimate act of God’s faithfulness, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This thereby encourages behaviors that draw one’s self closer to God.

Up to now, I have focused on those actions that should be especially encouraged on the Sabbath, but what about behaviors that should be discouraged? Is it permissible to watch football after church? Perhaps. But it is nonetheless the case that we are to “cease” those actions which are evil or which keep us from God, and keeping the Sabbath can remind us of those behaviors which are simply not helpful. It is probably obvious that a person who steals on the Sabbath is failing to fully observe the Sabbath in his or her life, but there are actions which are less obvious, as well, and remembering Sabbath observance can be a way in which God opens our eyes to these behaviors and gives us strength to discontinue them. If watching football keeps us from this recognition of God, then it is probably a problem.

However, football need not necessarily be a problem. God works in all aspects of life, and our enjoyment of whatever good things God has created may serve as reminder of what God has done. Perhaps engagement in sports helps us to remain healthy and take care of the physical bodies God has given us. Perhaps that person holding the “John 3:16” banner reminds a viewer of the fact that Jesus died for them. Perhaps the testimony of a particular player (and there are a great many Christian sport players) helps someone understand God a little better. Whether or not a particular activity is in keeping with a Sabbath observance is ultimately left up to a matter of personal conscience. But that doesn’t mean it is to be determined entirely on one’s own. Again, this is one reason why God gives us the church. We are not to give up on meeting together, but by coming together, especially on a regular pattern of Sabbath observance, we are reminded again and of what God has done for us, and taught more and more of how God wants us to live.

Theological Competence Exam Question #1 - Peace

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned having passed my Theological Competence Exams. I have now gotten my actual graded exams back with comments from the readers, and thus I feel that they are safe to post in public.

Here is the question I was asked to answer, with my response in smaller print below:

SECTION I: CONFESSIONAL HERITAGE

Several people in the congregation you serve as pastor have recently asked about the passing of the peace during the worship service.  In response, you and the session decide that peace will be the subject of the next adult education series.

In preparation, you turn first to John 14:27 (New Revised Standard Version), in which Jesus says, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.  I do not give to you as the world gives.  Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid."

As you consider the many different types of peace, you turn to The Book of Confessions.

Write an essay in which you identify and discuss different aspects of a Christian understanding of peace from a Reformed perspective.  Use and discuss four (4) citations (e.g., 0.000) from The Book of Confessions.  Citations must come from four (4) different documents in The Book of Confessions.

(We were allowed to use a "clean, unmarked, printed copy of The Book of Confessions" for this question.  This was the only such "open book" question of the three I answered)

---

Jesus says, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you.  I do not give to you as the world gives.  Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.” (John 14:27)  Consequently, we talk about “peace” a lot within our churches.  But as with many terms that get a lot of use, it can actually be confusing what we mean when we use the term so much, and perhaps in different ways.  Here are some ways in the Reformed tradition has articulated the concept of “peace.”

One obvious way in which we talk about peace is the absence of armed conflict.  For example, when the Second Helvetic Confession discusses war, war is clearly seen as a last resort:

“And if it is necessary to preserve the safety of the people by war, let (the magistrate) wage war in the name of God; provided he has first sought peace by all means possible, and cannot save his people in any other way except by war.” (5.256)

While the Confession allows for the possibility of war under certain circumstances (specifically, “to preserve the safety of the people” in this instance), it emphasizes that peace (here being specifically opposed to the concept of war) should be sought “by all means possible.”  Too many people give lip service to this kind of teaching (almost no one comes right out and says they want war), yet fail to actively pursue all possible alternatives.  The Confession emphasizes how important it is to pursue peace so persistently by adding the next line, reminding the magistrate that war is permissible only when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

But peace is not simply the absence of armed conflict between nations.  Indeed, conflict need not even be between two people, let alone two nations.  An individual may struggle within him or herself, especially as there are unresolved matters of sin involved.  For this reason, the Westminster Larger Catechism links peace to prayer for forgiveness:

“In the fifth petition (which is, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”), acknowledging that we and all others are guilty both of original and actual sin… we pray for ourselves and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ apprehended and applied by faith… fill us with peace and joy.” (7.304)

But if God does grant us this peace, we are not intended to retain it only for ourselves.  We are called to work to spread that peace to others.  We cannot do this on our own, of course.  But God’s Spirit gives us this ability, as noted in this section of a Brief Statement of Faith:

“the Spirit gives us courage…
            to work with others for justice, freedom, and peace.” (10.4)

This work may take many forms, of course.  It need not be in the suppression of conflict as done by a policeman or a soldier.  Indeed, peace is often sought through social action.  By building homes for those who need them, we create an environment in which people are safe.  By advocating for economic equity, we help them to meet their need for food or clothing.  By passing laws protecting the unprotected, we enable people to be free to be who God created them to be.  The Spirit is not only a part of all of this, but indeed makes it possible.

Ultimately, all peace comes from God through Jesus Christ, as the Confession of 1967 makes clear:

“God’s reconciliation in Jesus Christ is the ground of the peace….  The church, in its own life, is called to practice the forgiveness of enemies and to commend to the nations as practical politics the search for cooperation and peace.” (9.45)

But even if God’s act of reconciliation in Jesus Christ is the “ground” of peace, the Confession likewise makes clear that we are not to sit idly by.  God calls us to participate in that peace.  We must practice the peace that God’s Spirit enables in us.

May the peace of Christ be with you all.

---

I'll follow up with the other two questions in the coming weeks.

Theological Competence Exam - Passed!

In the past, I've mentioned my attempts to pass the ordination exams for the Presbyterian Church (USA).  Specifically, having passed the other four exams (Bible Content, Polity, Biblical Exegesis, and Worship & Sacraments) more than a decade ago, I struggled to pass the final remaining exam: Theological Competence, with five attempts (the most recent of which in 2001) that ended without success.

I am pleased to report that this is no longer my story.

Yesterday morning, I picked up a small envelope from the Office of Presbyterian Ministries on campus at Fuller.  Inside was the nearly blank sheet of paper you see above with four handwritten words on it: "Mark - Passed Theological Comp!"

After phoning my wife, I put a notice on Facebook to inform my friends, and thank you all for your words of support and congratulations.  My wife soon showed up at my office to put up some appropriate decorations in celebration of completing this more than decade-long journey.

What's next?  My Committee on Preparation for Ministry (CPM) will still require that I complete Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE, yeah I get them mixed up in my speech all the time, too...), which means that I'll need to sign up at a local hospital to work on weekends for about nine months or so.  I don't know when I'll be starting this next step toward ordination right now, but will do so soon.

For now, I'm just enjoying having completed this step....

Christus Victor and the Saga of Fifi

Just yesterday morning, I took the Theological Competence exam required for ordination in the PC(USA).  Long-time readers will know that this is one a battery of exams that are usually taken all at once, and that I have passed all the others quite a number of years ago.  My taking this one again now (after a break of nearly a decade) is a fairly significant milestone for me.  Unfortunately, I won't know whether I've actually passed the exam or not until late October.

In order to prepare for this exam, I spent the better part of my past week or so listening to lectures recorded when I audited Dr. John Thompson's Presbyterian Creeds course two years ago.  During one lecture on the atonement, he shared this story to illustrate the concept of the Christus Victor theory of the atonement.  I'm paraphrasing here on the basis of a verbal permission from Dr. Thompson to do so (given during the course, also recorded) provided I mention where I got it. (I wish I had the illustrations he had, but I'll try to make do with words)

The Saga of Fifi

You are the proud owner of a poodle named Fifi.  Fifi is a wonderful little dog, but not especially obedient.  When you take her with you on a fishing trip, she just won't follow your instructions.

"Sit, Fifi!  Stay put, Fifi!  Don't go near the side of the boat, Fifi!"

Needless to say, Fifi does wander too close to the side of the boat, and falls off.  But as Fifi does her pathetic effort at a dogpaddle, it gets worse!

A shark appears, and sees Fifi alone in the water, and goes after her.  Fifi is doomed!

Thankfully, all is not lost, for you remembered to bring lunch!  You have a nice, tasty, chicken in your boat, and you toss it overboard, assured that the shark will consider this fresh, juicy, meaty chicken a far more appetizing treat than scrawny little Fifi.  The shark takes the bait, releases Fifi, and goes after the chicken.  Fifi is saved!

But not only that, but this is no ordinary chicken.  This is really Super Chicken in disguise.  Super Chicken breaks the shark's jaw, and restores Fifi to perfect health as a bonus.  All is well with the world again.

Pulpit Dedicated at Fourth Presbyterian Church, Louisville, KY

This past Sunday, a new pulpit was dedicated in the sanctuary of Fourth Presbyterian Church in Louisville, KY (my home church while I was growing up).  It incorporates the seal of our denomination, the PC(USA).  For those unfamiliar with the symbolism behind the seal, I refer you to the official website.  Since one of the things symbolized in the seal is a pulpit, it only seems natural that this expression should be represented in literal fashion, as well as figurative.

This pulpit was constructed by my parents out of oak and padauk wood over the course of three months. Padauk is a dense red wood from Africa, used to offset the seal from the rest of the pulpit.  Here is a picture of my dad with the pulpit before it was varnished and glued together, but with all of the pieces finally ready.

And here's one more shot before varnishing, viewed from another angle.

The pulpit was dedicated to two long-time members of our congregation who have passed away in recent years: Mary Burks and Richard Harden.  Both of whom I knew well while growing up, and Mr. Harden was especially involved with our youth group, accompanying us on trips to Montreat for youth conferences and so forth.

Here is the full text of the dedication plaque:

Dedicated to the memories of Mary Burks and Richard Harden December 20, 2009.

John Calvin at 500

Friday is the 500th Anniversary of John Calvin's birth. Although I am a card-carrying Presbyterian, I'm not such a staunch Calvinist that I'm going to bump my weekly Transformers feature just to make sure that I recognize Calvin's birthday on July 10th, so I have two choices: 1) Do 2 features on Friday, or 2) recognize the birthday a couple of days early.

You can already tell which alternative I've chosen. :)

There is a sense in which Calvin is the guy that Presbyterians (indeed, anyone in the Reformed tradition, which encompasses a number of other Protestant denominations) view as the founder of their branch of theology. Even if Calvin didn't originate a particular doctrine himself (his work owes a great debt to Augustine, in particular), it is often Calvin's particular take on it (often encapsulated in the acronym, "TULIP", which stands for "Total Depravity," "Unconditional Election," "Limited Atonement," "Irresistible Grace," and "Perseverance of the Saints") that Presbyterians look to for authority.

At least, so it is often assumed, both by Presbyterians themselves as well as those outside of the Reformed tradition. In reality, it's generally not so clear-cut. Presbyterians, for example, often either don't know the tenets of "TULIP" (and I don't really blame them, as the acronym's letters each come from the adjective describing the doctrine, and opposed to the core word of the doctrine itself. Knowing "Total, Unconditional, Limited, Irresistible, and Perseverance" doesn't tell you as much as knowing what or who those adjectives refer to, even if you know those things, but don't know the adjectives.) or actively argue against some element of one of TULIP's "petals" (even a Presbyterian pastor might argue against how "limited" the atonement is, for example). Of course, the formulation "TULIP" itself was created in response to Arminian thought by some of Calvin's followers well after Calvin's death, but it nonetheless is considered to be a reliable short-form of Calvin's teachings. In any event, even fewer Presbyterians have an understanding of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, which detail his thoughts far more thoroughly, than they do of TULIP.

But even if Calvin's teachings are not universally agreed to (and I myself am pretty conflicted on that count), there is a sense in which he left a legacy to which not only Presbyterians are indebted, but indeed the United States and other western democracies in the secular world, as well. For one thing, our representative form of government--in particular, the system of checks and balances inherent therein--is an outgrowth of Calvin's teachings on human fallibility. Of course, Calvin's insistence upon reason and academic study is of great importance to those of us who also try to find an intersection between matters of faith and secular understanding. Montreat Conference Center is hosting a conference, starting today, celebrating Calvin's 500th birthday, specifically calling it "an opportunity to rediscover Calvin’s significant and sometimes misunderstood legacy." One of the professors I work for, Dr. John L. Thompson, will be giving a lecture as part of the conference tomorrow: "Psalms of Cursing and Lament as a Prism for Calvin's Use of Scripture." It's his first trip to Montreat. Wish I could join him.

UPDATE: July 15, 2009. This week's episode of The God Complex featured a discussion of John Calvin's legacy. They were nice enough to give me a shout-out at the end as "Intern of the Week," which means nothing more than that I gave them a theme concept for how they would read the names of the people involved in putting the show together at the end of the podcast. I'd invite you to have a listen, particularly for those credits at the end. Can you guess what theme I gave them? I'll bet you can! ;)

Should Denominational Pastors Always Come From Denominational Seminaries?

I've mentioned the Tribal Church blog before. Author Carol Howard Merritt is a fellow Presbyterian, serving a church in the Washington, DC area (and also, as of this past Monday, co-host of the new podcast, The God Complex). Although we differ in our opinions in a few respects, I find that most of what she writes is written with a great deal of care for how God's people are taken care of, especially by the institutional church. Even when I disagree with her assertions, I almost always find her writings thought-provoking. To judge from the number of comments some of her posts receive, I gather that I'm not the only one who thinks so.

A number of her posts over the past few months have generated discussion about whether or not the PC(USA) handles the process of ordination of its would-be pastors in the most appropriate way. Since I'm involved in this process, myself, and my wife is pursuing ordination within the Episcopal church (having recently been named a postulant), I obviously look at such discussions with a great deal of interest. Some (not, to the best of my recollection, CHM herself) have suggested that whatever is done in regard to such requirements as (for example) ordination exams, the PC(USA) should restrict ordination to only those who have attended PC(USA) seminaries. Naturally, as a graduate of an institution that is not explicitly PC(USA) affiliated (but which does graduate a large number of students who seek and achieve PC(USA) ordination), I tend to disagree with such a proposed solution (For the sake of expediency, I'll just talk about the PC(USA) here, but most of this seems to hold true when my wife and I converse about and to members of the Episcopal Church, as well. My expectation is that the same might be said of many denominations.).

That particular blog entry linked in the previous paragraph was written more than half a year ago, but some of that discussion has stayed with me for a while. I don't want to dismiss out-of-hand the idea that a denomination should require that its pastors attend one of their denominational institutions. Other denominations do, in fact, have such requirements. I certainly don't want to oppose such a solution only out of self-interest, if in fact it would be helpful for the denomination as it seeks to do God's will in regard to its pastoral leadership. But I still feel that barring non-PC(USA)-seminary graduates from PC(USA) ordination would be the wrong thing to do.

While reading Fuller Voices recently, I was reading the inaugural speech of Edward John Carnell, Fuller's second President, given in 1955. Although the world he was speaking to was radically different in many ways, I still can't help but think that his argument in regard to requiring that pastors graduate from denominational institutions would still apply today:

Those who resort to ecclesiastical legislation to solve the problem of ministerial training do not always appreciate the new difficulties they create. Once it is supposed that fitness for ministry can be decided by so mechanical a manner as the school where the candidate has taken his training, it is all the more likely that the Christian church will ultimately be controlled by clerics who, in fact, are more concerned with their ecclesiastical security than they are with preservation and propagation of the eternal gospel. Fitness for ordination should be decided by an organic approach to the candidate: call to the ministry, religious experience, purity of life, orthodoxy of theology, assent to denominational distinctives, attitude toward fellow ministers, and the total set of gifts and talents brought to the office. Unless both the theological seminary and the Christian church learn to hold the unity of their distinctives within the plurality of wider Christian efforts everywhere, church leadership will pass into the hands of professional holy men. The voice of the prophet will be heard no more; the reformer will be driven from the city; and the madness of daring individuality will be scorned.

When I was reading this, I found it especially ironic to reflect that a lot of the people who I was disagreeing with at Tribal Church were, themselves, arguing for theological diversity. This seems to be opposed, apparently, to what they think Fuller teaches. I find myself having to defend Fuller in many such instances where I am in conversation with my fellow PC(USA) members who happen to know Fuller only by reputation. I generally try to point out that, although Fuller (as an institution, or as represented by any one of its constituents) may have particular stances with which they may personally disagree, the school is not monolithic, and is in fact far more diverse than it is often given credit for. It is, very intentionally, multi-denominational (in fact, we prefer that label to "non-denominational"). Moreover, our core beliefs are very much in conformity with the core beliefs of the PC(USA) (and, so far as I can tell, the Episcopal Church, as well). So long as I can retain whatever denominational distinctives the PC(USA) requires (as demonstrated by ordination exams, and whatever other tasks I am required to complete before ordination), having graduated from such a diverse institution adds something that will help make me a unique and (I hope) valuable voice in denominational discussions. It doesn't detract from my PC(USA)-ness.

Although I certainly understand some of the suspicion that Fuller graduates may be more conservative on certain issues than PC(USA)-seminary graduates, on the whole, I would nonetheless ask that non-PC(USA)-seminary graduates not be barred from the possibility of PC(USA) ordination. I'm not saying this out of some feeling that "I'm right (about some theological disagreement or another) and they need to listen to me," however important it may be that such voices need not to be cut off from the conversation. I say this because I know that students do not always reflect all the attributes of the institution (especially those attributes that are unpopular). Give us a chance! You may be surprised at how much we agree with each other! And, for those areas where we still disagree... well, can we at least learn from each other?

Campus Ministry While at Montreat College

Some time ago, I was informed by PC(USA) Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow about a Presbyterian "Bloggers Unite" event on Campus Ministry, scheduled for April 1st. I didn't think ahead properly to realize that April 1st is April Fool's Day, the day when anyone with any sense knows better than to believe anything one reads on the Internet. I can only give you my assurances that I'm going to play this straight, and not pull any tricks or deceit when talking about my experience at Montreat College.

Before I get to that, though, I really should provide a link to this site, which provides links to a great many ministry opportunities for PC(USA) college students. I was in college when the Internet wasn't remotely this readily available. AOL was still the portal of choice, and the World Wide Web was still in figurative diapers. I would have loved to have had access to this kind of information back then.

What I did have were the student organizations on campus, especially the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) and the Student Christian Association (SCA). Having pretty much never considered myself an "athlete," I probably wouldn't have gotten attached to the FCA on my own, but one of my friends/roommates was the person almost always called upon to play worship music at campus events, and the FCA folks were never too particular about whether or not the people who came to their worship events happened to be "athletes," so I was usually around on Monday nights when they met for praise and worship. Likewise, the SCA often met for worship on either Wednesday or Sunday nights (my memory's not clear on that one. Perhaps it was different in different years?), and I was usually there.

Both groups' worship times tended to combine a time of singing with a speaker. In the case of FCA, the message was usually focused on dealing with the complexities of life (especially in a college context) in a way that honors God. In SCA, as often as not the speaker would give his/her "testimony." Non-evangelicals may need to have that term unpacked more than others, but in the evangelical context, "testimony" almost always refers to a personal story of what kind of a life a person lived before he/she "knew" Christ, and how God through Christ changed all that for the better. I'm a bit more critical of such "testimonies" now, partly because there's a danger of actually highlighting the sins committed in a person's pre-Christian life, and I don't think that's healthy. I'm also a little sour on "testimonies" because I frankly came to see them as growing more than a little stale each and every week for months on end.

Both groups engaged in various ministry opportunities, as well, although I confess that I'm not particularly qualified to write about what the FCA did. In the case of SCA, one mainstay of the four years I was there was the weekly collection of an offering to be given to the well-being of a child in a third-world country. There are lots of these organizations around, of course, and my current church does something similar in our Sunday School program. Other projects were done on a more occasional basis: some folks would work on Habitat for Humanity houses, others would serve in soup kitchens, and so on. On one occasion, I joined a group that traveled up to Pittsburgh for three days to attend the annual Jubilee Conference, which I'm happy to see still happens every year. Jubilee inspires Christians to be a part of changing the world through volunteerism and civic involvement, seeking ways to change structures toward greater justice in the name of Christ.

A common theme that I heard throughout the years of my college experience, and which I expect is almost cliché elsewhere, as well, was that a person shouldn't wait until after one is "established" to become involved in volunteerism and ministry. In fact, despite the pressures of classwork, I would argue that I had more time for those kinds of activities then than I do now. Maybe I just had more energy then, I don't know. But I'm glad I took part in the activities that I did, and found that they influenced my attitudes (hopefully for the better!) on a great many matters of Christian life as I left college and entered seminary. I definitely recommend taking advantage of whatever opportunities are available in your own context.

The Exile of the Westminster Larger Catechism

I've mentioned before that I'm auditing a course on Presbyterian Creeds. A few weeks ago, we discussed the Westminster Standards (that is to say, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and the Westminster Larger Catechism). These were written by the Westminster Assembly in England around the period of 1641 (depending on how one counts the beginning of the effort) through 1647 in an attempt to reform the Church of England. That attempt actually failed, but the Standards nonetheless have had a profound impact on Presbyterianism. In fact, for quite some time, the Westminster Standards were the creeds of the Presbyterian church.

Non-Presbyterians may not be aware that the current PC(USA) is the result of a long history of both divisions and reunifications of Presbyterian churches over a long time frame (and, of course, there are other Presbyterian denominations even today). In 1958, two Presbyterian denominations became what was then called the UPCUSA. A short time after this unification occurred, the leaders of the UPCUSA authorized a new approach to what eventually became our current "Book of Confessions," adding the ecumenical creeds (The Apostles' Creed and The Nicene Creed) and several others. However, the Westminster Larger Catechism, which had been one of the defining creeds of Presbyterianism for over 300 years by that time, was consciously excluded at the time on several grounds.

One of these grounds was that of excessive "proof-texting." I hope to come back to this issue in another post, but for now it is worthwhile to note that, when the Westminster Standards were created, the Westminster Assembly included no Scripture references whatsoever! They had purposely avoided adding such references, perhaps out of fear of precisely such an accusation. It was an act of Parliament that said, in essence, "we don't see enough Scripture here! Go back and add Scripture references!" So the Westminster Assembly went back and added Scripture references to provide context for what was already being claimed as Christian doctrine in the Standards, including the Larger Catechism. They did this reluctantly, and it therefore seems a bit unfair to use the complaint of "proof-texting" here.

A perhaps more serious concern was that the Larger Catechism seemed "legalistic." On the surface of things, this perhaps makes sense. Take, for example, this passage regarding the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal":

Q. 141. What are the duties required in the Eighth Commandment?
A. The duties required in the Eighth Commandment are: truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to everyone his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections, concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose of those things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and a diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits, and suretyship, or other like engagements; and an endeavor by all just and lawful means to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.

Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the Eighth Commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the Eighth Commandment besides the neglect of duties required, are: theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depopulations; engrossing commodities to enhance the price, unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness, inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming, and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate; and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.

That's quite a lot of text for such a short commandment! As to the charge of "legalism," I've often been told that one of the problems with the Pharisees of Jesus' time was how much the expanded upon the law, adding layers and layers of interpretation on top of it. On the surface of things, it would certainly seem that something similar has been done here.

But there's at least one major difference. If you'll look closely at the items listed here, you won't find much that actually deals with personal piety. There's nothing here to make a person feel unduly proud of one's self, as if to say "look at me. I don't only follow the commandment, but all the extra layers of it proscribed by the leaders of the church!" This seems to be the problem with the Pharisaic additions. The quotes from the Larger Catechism instead deal with protecting the rights and property of one's neighbor. Christians are to look out for the well-being of the other. Contrast this with Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Or perhaps this bit from Mark 7:9-13:

You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.

The Pharisees were good about adding layers to the law, but failed when it came to looking out for the well-being of the other.

Back to the Catechism, and whether or not it's "legalistic," one also notes elements like Question 172, whereby doubters may still be admitted to the Lord's Table (this from a tradition that takes the Biblical injunction to examine one's self before partaking of the sacrament quite seriously), and other places in the Catechism that seem quite grace-filled. If the Catechism is indeed a bit wordy, it's definitely in the spirit of helping Christians learn to live with each other. While I would certainly agree that to elevate the letter of the law over grace would be to misuse the law, and would therefore be "legalism," I'm just not seeing such a focus on "the letter, but not the spirit" of the law in the Larger Catechism.

So, honestly, I think that the move to "exile" the Larger Catechism from the canon of Presbyterian Confessions was a mistake. Thankfully, this "exile" did not last very long. When the UPCUSA and the PCUS (which retained the Catechism all along) united to form the current PC(USA) in 1983, the Catechism was reinstated, and most Presbyterians don't even know that it was ever missing.

Of course, most Presbyterians probably have no idea what's in the Book of Confessions to begin with, but that's a discussion for another time.

Choosing Bible Translations

Scot McKnight has a piece today on choosing the "best" translation of the Bible. Like other pieces I've read/studied over the years, McKnight starts out by asking the question, "What is my purpose in reading the Bible?" This may seem like an obvious question, but give it some thought. Are you reading to study specific passages? Are you reading for comprehension of the Bible's "big concepts"? Are you looking for a translation appropriate to use in the pulpit or some other public speaking venue? Different translations may well be better for some of these tasks than others. I'm glad to see that, rather than just leave us with that question, McKnight actually does give something of a list, suggesting possible translations for different goals. It's worth a read.

This discussion got me thinking about the various translations I've used over the years. The first translation with which I have any solid memory is the "Good News" translation, sometimes referred to as "Today's English Version." This was the Bible that was always in the pews of the church in which I grew up, and almost anyone who has used this version remembers it for the quaint little line drawings used as illustrations throughout. This version is definitely a product of its time (the 1960s and '70s), and I don't know how common it is these days (although I know it's still published). Although the publishers insist that it is a translation, rather than merely a paraphrase, it's a fairly loose translation, and I really don't recommend it for serious study anymore, although I expect it's probably fine for readability if you're just looking to understand what the Bible's about in a "broad strokes" sense. I notice that McKnight doesn't mention this version himself, although it does get a brief "shout out" in the comments.

When I was in college, the NIV was the translation that was "in vogue," perhaps because of its strong evangelical ties. I still consider it a good translation, although I agree with the sentiment behind the comment of one of my Bible professors of the time, who would often refer to it as the "Nearly Inerrant Version." Not because he actually thought it was, but rather because it was so uncritically accepted by so many. It's still a very good translation (he thought so, too), but it must be remembered that it's not perfect. No translation is.

The PC(USA) uses the NRSV in many of its churches and conference settings, and it is a rather good translation. One of the benefits to it is that it is one of the first translations to seriously consider the question of whether gender-exclusive language accurately conveys the sense of the original text to the modern reader. Of course, the fact that it does try to render certain terms in gender-neutral terms has caused this translation to come under attack from some, such as Wayne Grudem, who consider such rendering an unfaithful translation philosophy. His basic argument, as I recall it, is that it is inappropriate to add a layer of the translator's own interpretation to the text. Put another way, even if a gender-specific term may have been intended to refer to both men and women in the original text, it is inappropriate to "remove" that gender-specificity by translating it with a gender-neutral term in English when a more "precise" gender-specific term in English exists. Defenders of gender-neutral translations (such as myself) do so on the basis that, if readers see a gender-specific term in our time and culture, they are less likely to understand that the term was intended to include both men and women in the original time and culture, and it is important that such barriers to comprehending what the Bible is trying to convey should be removed when such can be done faithfully.

In my lectionary reflections (both here in the past and, now, over at the Presbyterian Bloggers site), I tend to use the TNIV. The TNIV is also a "gender-neutral" translation, but I think it is a bit more restrained than the NRSV on this matter, while also making a few other interpretive decisions that other translations may not, in the effort to maintain readability for the modern reader. On the whole, I consider it a more "literal" translation than the NRSV, while still being free to translate whole phrases (rather than word-for-word) to convey concepts more clearly to the reader. Besides the "gender-neutral" controversy, faithful Christians do still have differing opinions on whether these decisions are the right ones, but all that means is that it is still good to have multiple translations available if one wants to seriously study the Scripture.

Prayer Request for Christians in Iraq

I don't often talk about the persecution of Christians in other parts of the world. Truth be told, I've come to treat those who talk about this reality (and it is a reality) with more than a little skepticism. I think part of the reason for this is that usually the topic seems to be brought up by people who want to argue that they are being oppressed for their faith, as well--despite living in the undeniably more Christian-friendly environment of the United States. However much non-believers may mistrust or ridicule us in this country, most Christians here have had nothing like the persecution such as is described below.

But the arguably mixed motives of my fellow American Christians is no excuse to ignore the suffering that Christians elsewhere must endure, so I'm copying these letters written by the General Assembly leaders of the PC(USA), the denomination I call "home." You can find out a bit more about the situation by reading this article from the Presbyterian News Service.
----
LETTER TO IRAQI PRIME MINISTER NURI AL-MALIKI
from Linda, Gradye and Bruce
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki:

We write to you today out of a grave sense of concern for the Christian community of Mosul. As any other minority in Iraq, they should be defended against the recent terrorist acts, which seem intended to eliminate the Christian presence in the region.

News reports, and the personal accounts of members of the Iraqi Presbyterian church, have drawn particular attention to the escalating violence against Christians in that region, as over two dozen Christians have been killed (others have been wounded), and more than 1,000 Christian families have fled the city.

We are grateful for your intervention which sent additional police to Mosul, ordered an investigation into the attacks on Christians, and pledged to take all steps to protect the Christians of that area. Early reports indicate that your steps have diminished the violence.

The Christian community in Mosul is one of the oldest in the world. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has a long history of engagement with Iraqi Christians, dating back to the early 1800’s, with a special emphasis on education, health care, and social service to all Iraqis as well as on church development. But both before and since our connections with our sisters and brothers there, Christians have been an integral part of the history and culture of your country.

Our church’s General Assembly, this past June, adopted a call of concern for all the people of Iraq, urging our members to:

“Pray for, call for, and work for a just and peaceful future for the nation and people of Iraq which includes the establishing of a just, stable, and democratic government and the timely departure of U.S. military forces and their contractors as soon as it is possible to leave the nation in an appropriately stable, just, and self-sustaining form."

We are grateful for your efforts to establish a just and peaceful future for the nation and people of Iraq. As you continue these efforts, we ask that you ensure the security of Christians within your nation. The situation in Mosul is very desperate. Along with the rest of the world we are watching and praying that you will move to restore order.
Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the 218th General Assembly
Linda Valentine, Executive Director, General Assembly Council
Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk, Office of the General Assembly

---

STATEMENT FROM ON VIOLENCE AGAINST CHRISTIANS IN MOSUL
from Linda, Gradye and Bruce
We are profoundly alarmed by the reports coming out of Iraq of the increasing, targeted acts of terror and violence against Christians in Mosul.
We lament the violence and destruction that have been happening in Iraq since the beginning of the war. This latest news of what appears to be religious cleansing adds yet another layer of concern.
The roots of Christianity in Mosul are deep, going back to ancient times. An Iraq without a Christian presence is contrary to what has historically made the Iraqi society a model of harmonious inter-religious relations, and portends a future marked by intolerance and fanaticism.
Word that the government of Iraq has increased its security forces in Mosul to help stem this most recent violence is encouraging. We have sent a letter to the Iraqi leadership, calling on them to continue efforts to protect all Iraqi citizens – Christians and Muslims – from acts of terror and violence that are aimed toward the systematic destabilization of the country.
We call on Presbyterian leaders and leaders of other religious communities to work together as people of faith to continue to teach, encourage and practice tolerance toward people of faith traditions other than their own.
We also continue our call to the United States government to take responsibility for supporting the Iraqi government as it establishes a just, stable, and democratic government.
Our concern for the safety and well-being of Christians stretches beyond Iraq to India, China, and other parts of the world where violence and an attitude of religious intolerance are present.
Wherever such an attitude is present – regardless of the religious affiliation or motives of those who hold it – humanity is diminished and the reality of God’s peaceable realm is pushed farther away.
Please join us in continued prayers for peace and the safety of all people – and especially for Christian brothers and sisters who are living under the threat and reality of violence.
Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the 218th General Assembly
Linda Valentine, Executive Director, General Assembly Council
Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk, Office of the General Assembly

Why Pastors Are Still Necessary

One of the blogs I've added to my regular reading in recent times is Tribal Church. Carol Howard Merritt has had some interesting insights into the goings-on in the PC(USA), and I've been especially interested in some of her comments on the ordination process, including the exams that one must pass in order to achieve ordination in our denomination. As I've previously shared, I've had my own struggles in this regard, although I've been taking the first few steps toward possibly having another go at these exams in the hopefully not-too-distant future.

On this Labor Day, perhaps it's appropriate to consider the question of whether pastoral ministry, as an occupation, is even an important one for the church to have (and pay for!). There have been more than a few well-meaning Christians who--noting that congregations often use the paid staff as the "ministry-giving" arm of the congregation, thereby alleviating the need of non-paid members of the congregation to do any such work themselves--argue that churches might well be better off if they did away with paid pastors, and instead made it clear by a "flat hierarchy" that the work of God is the work of all members of the congregation. (Another common way of referring to this problem in our churches is "the 20-80 problem." 20% of the people in a church do 80% of the work. I won't argue here that those numbers are scientific, but I doubt they're too far off.)

In yesterday's post on this subject, Carol notes that seminarians often find themselves with not-insubstantial debt by the end of their education, and even if they find a job, struggle to earn enough to pay these debts off, especially when taxes are considered (which are more complicated for ordained clergy than for most people because the IRS makes clergy report their income as though they are self-employed). In the comments this thread, a few people have brought up the Presbyterian-affirmed concept of "the priesthood of all believers." Here is my response, originally posted in the comments section to that thread, but revised here.

There are some interesting comments here re: whether or not we should have ordained leadership. For what it’s worth, I know some seminary professors (at least one who’s been worshiping in a PC(USA) congregation for a few years now, at least) who would argue that more and more churches will move to a “flatter” hierarchy in the coming years. Less “official” (read: “ordained”) leadership, and more work shared by all.
This isn’t entirely a bad thing. As has already been said, too many laypersons have allowed the minister to be the “person who does all the work” in our churches. This hasn’t always been intentional, but it’s certainly a widespread problem. If something needs doing, ask the pastor....
But I do think that to argue for doing without ordained leaders on the basis of “the priesthood of all believers” stems at least in part from a misunderstanding of that particular doctrine, and more specifically on the role of the priest in the first place. A priest is not the same thing as a minister or a pastor (i.e., just a different name for the same position, as used by another denomination). The role of priest specifically has to do with having access to God, most often through the use of sacrifice (including, in the church era, the Lord’s Supper). The priest provides the laity with access to God through these rites.
Presbyterians affirm that ALL Christians have equal access to God. We don’t need a specific go-between (the priest) to provide this access for us. Thus, we believe in “the priesthood of all believers.” However, this in no way diminishes the need for solid teaching and administrative leadership. These roles are provided by pastors and ministers (and elders, certainly), and if the church does away with these roles, they must (obviously) find some other way of meeting those needs.
My concern is that, if churches decide to stop hiring (and therefore stop treating as a paid vocation) pastors and ministers, fewer people will go through the time and expense of a seminary education. This, in turn, would mean that fewer people are trained for the teaching and administrative leadership that congregations will continue to need.
I mean, sure, no one SHOULD be going into this vocation for the money, but if one cannot expect to earn a decent livelihood (not to mention pay for the expense of the education in the first place) in a paid church leadership position, WHY would one go through all that time and cost?