Scot McKnight talks about pastor’s pages on church websites today. He has some interesting thoughts. And I’m almost sure I agree.
Here is a snippet from Scot:
What annoyed me about these sites was the utter absence of a sense of the sacred in pastoring, of the overwhelming sense of God’s call upon a life that reaches so deep that everything becomes holy, of the profound respect and privilege of the call to lead God’s people, and of the total lack of order. The sense we hear today of being real and authentic doesn’t mean we devalue the pastoral calling of its sanctity. I couldn’t and wouldn’t call any of these folks “Reverend.” If I were a visitor, I’d go somewhere else.
Many in the comment sections make some good points on both sides like. Here are a few:
I see this as partly an over-reaction to the centuries of a strong clergy/laity divide. Even the designs of churches encouraged that separation (altars for example). Today the push is to break down those barriers, and the internet makes that even easier with the ability to immediately become “approachable”.
I’d agree with your observation that as a person with calling to lead we should convey a sense of sacredness… on the other hand, shouldn’t all of us as priests of new testament should show “overwhelming sense of God’s call upon a life”, and not just pastor? Maybe, if our informality could do that (ie show God’s glory), then it is ok to be informal all the time.. [and how to put that in real life?]
…this lack of taking seriously one’s call and role in the Christian community has bugged me for a while. And unfortunately I see it often go beyond just pastor web pages. As one called to ministry, I take it personally.
I fear there is an even more sinister motive at work here… the need to be ‘hip’ and accepted.
I have seen a few pastors who try way too hard to prove they’re ‘cool’ to their congregation… which ironically, is often seen as desperate for attention, and kinda ‘uncool.’
…as a pastor’s kid as well as someone who has served as a church staffer, I intensely dislike the notion of elevating the pastor (and staff/leaders) as someone “above” or “more called” than the rest of the congregation. I am also against the idea that the pastorate is any more “sacred” than other callings and vocations. That idea flies in the face of the “priesthood of all believers.”
McKnight responded in the comment section:
Belief in the priesthood of all believers, however, does not mean that all callings are the same; it does not eliminate the pastor and the prophet and the apostle.
Nor is the priesthood of all believers a radical call to religious individualism so that everyone does what he or she wants; it is a calling to be priests with God for one another. Thus, priesthood refers to service before God for others. We all have that calling.
You can read the entire post here: Pastor Pages on Church Websites
Last night I was re-listening to an interview of John Piper by Mark Dever/9 Marks and I was struck by something that I think Scot may be on to. Dever ask Piper how he teaches his people to do the things that God asks of us without adding works to our justification.
The three things that Piper does is: teaching/preaching the dynamics of “becoming what you are” – it is a natural outworking of “seeing” the glory of God; praying the Holy Spirit “down” on his people; and modeling.
On modeling, Piper says something so profound that has stuck with me for months now. He says:
We must live before them in such a spiritual and obedient and radical way…that they can smell the aroma of Christ…I consider it my job to walk close enough to Jesus so that I go in to elder meetings and staff meetings and TBI meetings, so in communion with Christ that there is an aroma of: “He is not mainly an administrator, he is not mainly a savvy [minister]…he is mainly a man of God, he mainly thinks of God, he mainly talks to God, he mainly relates everything to God, he’s mainly leaning on God, he’s mainly in the word of God.”
That’s the flavor every pastor should want to communicate. He should want to be known as a man of God. Not anything else first…
That is why I think agree with McKnight…
What do you think? What about issues of contextualization?
