ChrisJuloya
Puritan Board Freshman
I had a discussion with a friend where we talked about the two-office and three office view. He said that he has no problem with the three-office view and agrees that it is practically helpful. But his question is, why are elders not called 'pastors' where they are in fact to 'pastor'. He shared a comment to a post on purely presbyterian about the difference between elders and pastors where the comment says,
"I am less concerned about the preaching/teaching and ruling distinctions, and more concerned that calling teaching elders “pastors” appropriates all of the scriptural shepherding metaphor to teaching elders alone.
If you ask folks in your congregations, 'Who is your pastor?' will they identify their closest ruling elder? Or will they identify the teaching elder who preaches most Sundays? And yet, I don’t see how Scripture makes a distinction between ruling and teaching elders in their obligations to shepherd. Truly, both are pastors. But because our colloquial language supports teaching elders as “pastors,” people gravitate to them for their shepherding needs. Speaking with a ruling elder seems sub-par; they must speak with the “pastor.” Etc.
If we were to rectify this, we would either identify all elders as pastors (teaching and ruling pastors?), or else identify all men as elders – and abandon the word “pastor” altogether. Given the prominence of the shepherding metaphor in Scripture, in both OT and NT, I think it would be preferable to keep the word “pastor,” but only use it with parity – if the preacher is going to refer to “Pastor Jim,” another teaching elder, he should also refer to “Pastor Bob,” a ruling elder.
My concern is not at the level of recognition. My concern is who the congregation expects to shepherd them (in all the varied ways that word implies), and what ruling elders expect from themselves."
This is a good comment and I would like to know your thoughts and how you would answer the question.
Thanks!
"I am less concerned about the preaching/teaching and ruling distinctions, and more concerned that calling teaching elders “pastors” appropriates all of the scriptural shepherding metaphor to teaching elders alone.
If you ask folks in your congregations, 'Who is your pastor?' will they identify their closest ruling elder? Or will they identify the teaching elder who preaches most Sundays? And yet, I don’t see how Scripture makes a distinction between ruling and teaching elders in their obligations to shepherd. Truly, both are pastors. But because our colloquial language supports teaching elders as “pastors,” people gravitate to them for their shepherding needs. Speaking with a ruling elder seems sub-par; they must speak with the “pastor.” Etc.
If we were to rectify this, we would either identify all elders as pastors (teaching and ruling pastors?), or else identify all men as elders – and abandon the word “pastor” altogether. Given the prominence of the shepherding metaphor in Scripture, in both OT and NT, I think it would be preferable to keep the word “pastor,” but only use it with parity – if the preacher is going to refer to “Pastor Jim,” another teaching elder, he should also refer to “Pastor Bob,” a ruling elder.
My concern is not at the level of recognition. My concern is who the congregation expects to shepherd them (in all the varied ways that word implies), and what ruling elders expect from themselves."
This is a good comment and I would like to know your thoughts and how you would answer the question.
Thanks!