James Kushiner has posted on Touchstone’s Mere Comments about the anniversary of his brother’s pastorate at the same church for many years. What I found particularly interesting in his post are his comments on pastors in mainline Protestant churches that are reclaiming the title of Father.
I have often wondered why more Lutherans do not try to reclaim this title. It seems to me that the meaning and import of the title Pastor, at least the metaphor behind it, has been lost on us. Now that doesn’t mean it can’t be taught, but I wonder if the meaning and import of the title Father, and the metaphor behind it, would be of more use in our day and in our churches.
It seems that the agricultural-livestock metaphor of pastor does not resonate with us as much as that of father. It just seems to me that everyone knows what a father is, and if someone has had a bad experience with fathers, he or she at least knows or has an idea of what a father should be. A father is loving. He is caring. He doesn’t punish but disciplines his children. His singular thought is what is best for his children, be that chastisement or a strong hug. A father hands down and passes on the wisdom he has learned not only from experience but also from his own father. A father listens first and acts second. But he does act. A father is visible, he is among his children, and yet he does not overcrowd them.
Do you see what I mean? Do you see how this title might serve the people of the church better than our current abstracted notion of pastor, which has lost the meaning of the metaphor behind it. So I ask you: What would we gain if we were to take up this title again? What would we lose?
Sphere: Related Content
6600 N. Clinton Street
{ 5 } Comments
I personally would have no problem with Lutheran clerics being refered to with the title “father”. We have held on firmly to our doctrine and confession of the Christian faith since the Reformation, but it seems like over the past several centuries, Lutherans have been willing to give up bits and pieces of the Church’s historic and catholic practices. I see no reason why every Lutheran church should not have a crucifix, kneelers, and weekly Holy Communion (which would not be wrong to call ‘Mass’). So what if the Reformed and other neo-Protestants think these things are too Romish–when we try to appease the desires and concerns of the heterodox churches, we begin to lose both our biblical doctrine and practice.
I emphasize in catechism, especially the fourth article, that Pastors are acting in the stead of their fathers in teaching children the faith.
I find Father, a wonderful name for those holding the office of the holy ministry. You mention that there are those who have poor experiences with fathers - which may unfortunantly negatively affect one’s understanding of the office. I think this is a real problem, something to carefully consider. I was part of a group in Milwaukee that was involved with a study - finding that 87% of children that year for African American mothers between the ages of 16-24 had been born out of wedlock. Given it is a highly trouble city, this reveals a sad picture of thousands of children with absentee, abusive, crime plagued fathers. “Father,” a wonderful name - dear and sweet to Christians, would be a cultural roadblock.
On the otherside, it may be an extremely poor practice of the church to modify or limit our names, terms - the very words that God has graciously given us based upon the brokenness of the world around us. Retaining biblical language, such as usage of the name “Father” for teachers and pastors is probably in the best interest of the church and community.
At our house, we refer to the pastors we know as Father. As a result, our children clearly understand that when they play church, our son is always the pastor (just as when they play house, our daughter always feeds the baby). This alone makes it worthwhile in my mind!
Rebekah’s last blog post..Lundi Gras and a Goy Shabbat
HI Rebekah,
You make a good point. By using the term ‘father,’ we do reinforce our understanding of who, by biblical and historical standards, may serve as pastors in the church to our children. What’s more, it serves as a reminder for fathers of what their role is in the home.
We, as Lutherans, have been reticent and negligent to teach about these divine things. We have allowed the differences and distinctions between biblical manhood and womanhood, masculinity and femininity to remain murky–indefinable and indistinguishable. I wonder what is at the heart of this reticence and negligence? And not just that, but what a proper teaching of this would yield in the church for years to come?
Maybe we should all learn to dance again? Not that pornographic undulation that passes for dancing in most places, but real dance, like the Walz, the Rumba, the Tango, the Foxtrot, et al. Maybe if we could reclaim the roles of man and woman in ballroom dance, along with reclaiming masculine and feminine specific titles, we could reclaim and rejoice in the distinctiveness of man and woman in all their splendor as God created them?
Post a Comment