"The Reverend ..."

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
A seminary professor once suggested the phrase 'Professional Theologian in Residence' which might be accurate, but seems rather high-falutin'. I tend to use the word 'pastor', even though it does connote a leader of sheeple to some. But it will do until a better word comes along.
 
For me the word pastor is illuminated by Psalm 23. This rooted in my preference of metaphor over fact.
 
I think I prefer to use titles very little, except as descriptive. If I mention the Rev Susan in the context of a discussion, it clarifies which Susan amongst mutual friends/neighbours I'm referring to. I'm a bit uncomfortable with Pastor, for two reasons, the first being lingering evangelical memories (grew up a Lutheran), and secondly, that the "Professional Theologian in Residence" may have/need talents in a variety of areas, from administrative, to theological/language, to sermon delivery, to pastoral, to a more counselling role, to a cheerleader, to a guide with some level of objectivity, and not all of these talents exist in equally large part in every PTiR. I have known ministers who were more social justice focused than pastoral, a few who really excelled at liturgy/drama, some great "preachers", etc. Pastor implies just one part of the array of skills that can make up a great minister, one who is very different from another great one.

One of my favourite ministers of all time combined a gentle and very pastoral demeanor, with a great love of the arts, and a huge interest in original languages.
 
The interesting thing is that I don't think I would ever think of Grandad as anything other than "Reverend" or even "Reverend Doctor". He just had the demeanour that I would associate with that title. But I also think that had I gone down that road (it was suggested, though never by family members), I would probably be more comfortable as a "Pastor" or something like that and probably that as little as possible. I am a little too laidback and disinclined to stand on ceremony.

Redbaron said:
A seminary professor once suggested the phrase 'Professional Theologian in Residence' which might be accurate
Click to expand...

Except it kind of suggests someone focussed entirely on theology, which is not, and should not, be the case. I would suggest that is one aspect of professional ministry, and an important one, but hardly the whole story. It misses altogether the elements of leader, counsellor, communicator, and so on.
 
I accept whatever title individuals want to use. Most people just call me Jim. Our musician calls me Rev Jim. I prefer pastor over minister as putting function over position. I use Rev. in some public settings to assure strangers I am qualified for the work I do. Some people, especially those with a Catholic background use Father when speaking to me.
 
I find it interesting to hear how people introduce themselves - eg at a city wide pot luck dinner a while back - all UC people - some of the ministers simply stated their name & church, and others included Reverend when stating their name. I know that I bristle a bit at hierarchical structures and designations - my sense is that sometimes in this kind of situation is use of the title sets the individual apart, perhaps imparting their sense of power.

I wonder if others notice a difference between those who are diaconal and those who are ordained? In my own experience it seems the diaconally trained ministers tend to have a great sense of flattened community/collegial decision making, whereas some (certainly not all) ordained folk are much more 'professional minister' status conscious.
 
I think that “ minister” expresses the most meaning for me- doesn’t it mean “ someone (who is elected by others ) who serves the community.”?
During Quaker worship we consider the spoken contributions of the members of the group as “ ministries”.
 
Mrs.Anteater said:
I think that “ minister” expresses the most meaning for me- doesn’t it mean “ someone (who is elected by others ) who serves the community.”?
During Quaker worship we consider the spoken contributions of the members of the group as “ ministries”.
Click to expand...

But minister doesn't really work as an honorific for clergy. Calling someone "Minister Smith" or whatever tends to make people think they are in politics due to how things have been done historically.
 
And in a wider sense, all the members of a given congregation are called to be 'ministers' in one way or another. The word 'ministry' means, IIRC, 'service.' To call the pastor the 'Minister' implies that the pastor does everything, pretty much alone. That's not an image that most congregations, with any perspective, would want to project.
 
Carolla said:
I find it interesting to hear how people introduce themselves - eg at a city wide pot luck dinner a while back - all UC people - some of the ministers simply stated their name & church, and others included Reverend when stating their name. I know that I bristle a bit at hierarchical structures and designations - my sense is that sometimes in this kind of situation is use of the title sets the individual apart, perhaps imparting their sense of power.

I wonder if others notice a difference between those who are diaconal and those who are ordained? In my own experience it seems the diaconally trained ministers tend to have a great sense of flattened community/collegial decision making, whereas some (certainly not all) ordained folk are much more 'professional minister' status conscious.
Click to expand...

Both ordained and diaconal ministers are "set apart." That's part of the United Church understanding of the existence of an ordered ministry. The problem of hierarchy comes when some start to see "set apart" as "set above" and thus in charge, rather than seeing all, a la Paul, as equally important parts of "the body" who need to function together.

My experience of diaconal ministers is that they buy into the hierarchical perception, so that many choose to "reach up" so that their positions look more like ordained positions and less like lay positions. I certainly don't get the sense from them of "flattened community/collegial decision making" (although that's a widespread myth - and I use the word "myth" as my own perception) - at least, no more so than many ordained. In fact, I think there was a certain "rebellion" among ordained people in the 70's and 80's (rejection of things like vestment and, collars is an example of this) who wanted to be just like everyone else and almost set aside the whole concept of being "set apart." Even in the early 90's when I was at Emmanuel College I had fellow students who swore that they would never use the honorific "Reverend." Many of those who said that (probably the vast majority) ended up using it. I also think that it was at least as much the laity as the ordered folk who promoted the idea of hierarchy and saw the "minister" as somehow higher up. Thus, as I mentioned in the list I gave that was referred to above, I've had many lay people call me "the boss" - and they weren't entirely joking. There's a sense I think among many lay people that the minister functions as a sort of CEO of the congregation.
 
Redbaron said:
And in a wider sense, all the members of a given congregation are called to be 'ministers' in one way or another. The word 'ministry' means, IIRC, 'service.' To call the pastor the 'Minister' implies that the pastor does everything, pretty much alone. That's not an image that most congregations, with any perspective, would want to project.
Click to expand...
But would ‘t that apply to pastoral care as well?
 
What's the difference between ordained and diaconal ministers in terms of training?
 
Initially, ordained ministers had to have another university degree before taking 3 to 4 years to earn their master of divinity degree plus be approved to be a candidate for ministry and approved for ordination. The training for diaconal ministers changed several times over the years so I do not know what the current requirements are. Their training used to be less rigorous in terms of academics and more rigorous in terms of application. There are many seminaries approved for providing MDiv degrees. All the training in Canada for United Church, and, I believe, Anglican Church candidates for diaconal training was, and maybe still is, the Centre for Christian Studies.

There were, and probably still are, ordained ministers who seemed to be ministry as much for status and power as for service, and many of them treated diaconal ministers badly. One result is that many diaconal ministers often seem to resent ordained ministers and/or are very defensive about being treated equally with ordained ministers.

The training in many centres for ordained ministry often has as much practical application preparation as is required for diaconal ministry. The focus for ordained ministry includes theology and history for preaching (and teaching), organizational structure and polity for administration and leadership, pastoral care training, and worship training for worship planning and leadership. They are ordained to Word, Sacrament, and Pastoral Care. Diaconal ministers are commissioned to Education, Service, and Pastoral Care, but many or most end up doing preaching and administration as well. An alternate route for ordained ministers who are over 40 years of age includes two years of university training plus 3 years of seminary for a Bachelor of Theology degree. And there are other options as well combining service with courses over extended periods of time using distance education.
 
ChemGal said:
What's the difference between ordained and diaconal ministers in terms of training?
Click to expand...
The required degree for an ordained minister is a Master of Divinity; for a diaconal minister I believe it's a Master of Religious Education. (M.Div. vs. M.R.E.) The M.Div. is focussed more on theological/biblical studies, the M.R.E. I believe is more practical, hands on. It's kind of like the difference between a Ph.D. (academic) and a D.Min. (practical.) I do know both ordained and diaconal people who have both an M.Div. and an M.R.E. I think the denomination requirements around internships, etc. are the same. I know some things have changed in the candidacy process in the last few years so if someone has more up to date information please feel free to correct me.
 
Thanks for the clarifications.
jimkenney12 said:
The training in many centres for ordained ministry often has as much practical application preparation as is required for diaconal ministry. The focus for ordained ministry includes theology and history for preaching (and teaching), organizational structure and polity for administration and leadership, pastoral care training, and worship training for worship planning and leadership. They are ordained to Word, Sacrament, and Pastoral Care. Diaconal ministers are commissioned to Education, Service, and Pastoral Care, but many or most end up doing preaching and administration as well.
Click to expand...
It struck me as I read the last sentence in that quote, that it is often seen that way. Diaconal ministers are commissioned for x but often do some of y. What is missing in that sentence, I think, is that ordained ministers are ordained for y, but, often do some of x. (ie, many or most end up doing education, service)


Thoughts?
 
The difference, which i don't think has been mentioned here, was that historically many ordained ministers were men, and many diaconal were female.
So, on top of the differences in what their scope of practice is, what their education / handson training is, is the difference of gender, and all the historical baggage that carries.
 
I was a teacher before going interesting ministry so the education part is a natural for me. I volunteered for many organizations, so the service part was also a natural.
 
Maybe I am being sensitive, in part do to my gender, and inpart due to my having risen through the ranks, but, what i read was the calling out of diaconal for stepping into ordained territory, but, not the calling out of ordained stepping into diaconal territory.

In other words, although what people are called to is called out as separate, that it is only necessary to mention that some "women" do "men's work".

Jim, I am sure that is not how you see it, but, i wonder what biases are still out there, oh so many years later.

(There are so many layers to this type of conversation, and I feel that I have likely taken the thread off topic).

I do wonder if the titles we assign, and who claims them also is gender related at times, in addition to age (aversion to old concept of minister/reverend) as @revsdd mentioned occured in the 70's and 90's
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top