So as a lead-in to the chapter-by-chapter reviews I’m going to do on the two books I recommended this weekend, let me ask you to consider something: what do we mean when we call something “pastoral”?
For example, a lot of people are hot for teaching the word because they are “gifted by God” (a phrase which, let me say plainly, I love and hate). What’s the difference between someone who is a “gifted teacher” and someone who is a “pastoral teacher”?
Or what about discernment — a lot of people claim to have “discernment”, to which I say, “bully for you”. What’s the difference between having “discernment” and “a pastoral discernment”?
Now remember: these last two questions are examples of the primary question, which is, “what do we mean when we call something ‘pastoral’?”
This is one of those question which will either lead to a very vigorous 200-comment thread, or it will fizzle because the topic is extraordinarily-mundane. It is, however, at the core of the two books in question.
Let’s see what happens.
April 6th, 2010 | 9:48 am | #1
“what do we mean when we call something ‘pastoral’?”
Maybe something like, “Aware of and concerned with individuals, and the effect of your teaching & counsel on them”?
As an illustration, take a message on the problem of evil & suffering. You can discuss it in a dry, theoretical manner–as an academic exercise, to prove a point. But if you’re aware that your audience might include rape victims & people whose children just died, then you’re concerned to mourn with them & encourage them & help them toward faith in Christ. And you’re concerned to equip your whole flock to be able to encourage each other that way.
I’m not sure how to work that out into a systematic distinction, but it does reflect the way I use the term.
April 6th, 2010 | 9:49 am | #2
Sometimes I think you’re a really smart guy, Juggy.
April 6th, 2010 | 9:50 am | #3
When I run into the term “pastoral” it is usually being used to mean “nice” or a variation on that.
A person who preaches firmly and authoritatively is usually called “prophetic” in opposition to “pastoral”.
I’ve never quite understood that, but there you go.
I think when people say pastor, they mean the guy that visits you in the hospital. As compared to the preacher who (seemingly) cares more for truth than for people.
I think it’s a false distinction, based largely on personality types.
April 6th, 2010 | 10:01 am | #4
Frank,
Aw, shucks.
Daryl,
I think I’d say that happens when people think that “loving” can only ever mean “soft & nice”. So “pastoral” has to mean “always soft”.
That’s probably the center of “pastoral discernment”–knowing when to be gentle and when to be hard.
April 6th, 2010 | 10:12 am | #5
Who’s the guy in the kilt?
April 6th, 2010 | 10:41 am | #6
Clearly, this is a trick question.
“Pastor”=”Shepherd”,
therefore
“Pastoral”=”Shepherdal”.
QED
;-)
April 6th, 2010 | 11:55 am | #7
“what do we mean when we call something ‘pastoral’?”
Easy.
Adept in the administration of God’s Word and Sacraments.
April 6th, 2010 | 12:31 pm | #8
Pastoral in the Biblical sense is the spiritual gift used to tend and feed His flock, not his flock. IOW, the least of servants.
April 6th, 2010 | 1:34 pm | #9
Pastor Philip –
Interesting. So it’s somewhat incongruous, then, to speak of “pastoral counselling” or “pastoral discernment”? For example, can a book in some way be “pastoral”, or is it simply out of the scope of what it means to exercise the office of pastor to write a book — you could write a book, and it might be a good book, but it is probably not “pastoral”. yes?
April 6th, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #10
Jack –
I like that, but let me ask — is this guy ministering to people in general, or to specific people? Is he like a cop who’s on the beat for the general welfare of the community he will travel in, or is he there for the purpose of a more-defined demographic?
April 6th, 2010 | 1:44 pm | #11
What makes a something or a person pastoral?
Hmm…usually when I meet someone who’s truly interested in me, who truly cares about the Gospel, and who truly gets the human condition and my own struggles, that’s when I call them pastoral.
Often times, though this doesn’t make one pastoral, people that are softer-spoken in 1-on-1 settings and who listen and, again, who really really seem to care.
This probably isn’t helpful at all in constructing a definition…….
April 6th, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #12
Specific people? What, so if he runs into someone outside his flock, he’s just going to say, “Sorry, not my concern”?
</GettingItOutOfTheWay>
April 6th, 2010 | 1:50 pm | #13
This is pastoral: http://goo.gl/M4UO
April 6th, 2010 | 1:54 pm | #14
Frank, I would say that these guys would be ministering to their brothers and sisters.
My question: who are their brothers and sisters?
April 6th, 2010 | 2:15 pm | #15
Love checking in with the Evangel Gang between running my kids Hither and Yon – but rarely comment b/c you all seem steeped in academia – and I’m just usually steeped in dirty dishes; but I’m going to give this one a shot:
(for which, I haul out my Strong’s) and discover that “pastor” doesn’t even show up – but pastors does – as in Eph 4:11, and it’s the Greek word (wait for it…) meaning shepherd! Wow. Such a surprise.
What caught my attention, however, was the word “pasture” that comes immediately after pastors in my concordance. And the first three references for this lovely word are found in Genesis – (another knock me over revelatory discovery). But I found the language to be soothing and lyrical. Just listen: “Water the sheep and go pasture them…”; “…pasture and keep your flock…”; and “…went to pasture their father’s flock…”
So I looked up this lovely, lyrical word, that shows up as a verb in it’s first three references, and low and behold, in looking further at it’s meaning, this Hebrew word (raah) is also used to mean “devour” and “consume.”
And therein, far too often, I think, lies the problem. People who are drawn to “pastor” the flock of God can too often, if not walking the balance between truth and love, end up consuming and devouring the sheep – and I don’t just mean those who may err on the “truthiness” side of the scale. I’ve seen every bit this devouring tendency by those who are trying so dang hard to be “nice and soft” (as others on this thread have called it) that they end up cooing over wolves and lions who infiltrate the flock instead of looking out for the safety, health and well-being of the sheep (not necessarily referencing wolves and lions as people here, more as faulty teaching, etc.)
God send us those who will do the hard job of walking in both truth and love – and will be open to having moments when they may fail – pointed out to them in love.
God send us those who will always remember it’s Your flock – and that they are to be about the business of grazing and watering. Not devouring, but tending.
Then, watch out. We’ll have a revolution on our hands.
(back to the dishes, lads.)
April 6th, 2010 | 4:50 pm | #16
Pastoral – better with the sheep, living the word but not so hot preaching it
contrasted to Preacher – better with the preaching the word, but you know, just never gets around to showing up at hospital.
as always, a continuum
And it really has nothing to do with “hard” or “soft”. The best pastors and preachers know that both are called for, at the right time and the right season
April 6th, 2010 | 9:06 pm | #17
The meaning of the root word (“shepherd”) stands out to me as well. I don’t think “pastoral” works well as an adjective. A pastor is a person, and one who stands in a particular relationship to others. In particular, the pastor is responsible for the care of his flock: guiding, healing, rescuing, and leading them.
The ratio of pastor:flock is thus naturally one:many. That’s something I think is important to remember in this culture in which everyone is encouraged to be a leader. It’s good to remember that we’re not all pastors, nor should we all be, nor (in my conservative view) can we all be.
That said, the word “ministry” is much broader and perhaps is the word we should use in some of the contexts where we use “pastoral”. Every member of the flock can be (and ideally should be) involved in some degree of ministry… each one with his or her gifts. We can even have multiple ministry leaders, within the flock, but ultimately there is a pastor to the whole flock.
Thus, “pastoral” describes not the work, but the person who does it. So, for example, I would not consider any of what I do at my church to be “pastoral”: my teaching, reading, and serving at the altar are all aspects of being in lay ministry. My priests’ work is pastoral work — both those aspects of their work that overlap with mine (teaching) and those that are unique to them.
April 6th, 2010 | 10:17 pm | #18
David –
the right man shows up at the hospital with the hope of the Gospel, and then shows up at the pulpit with truth of the Gospel — if those things can be distinguished meaningfully.
My hard protestantism aside, think of it this way: the most serious Catholic priest shows up at the bed of the dying with the chrism, an ear for confession, the eucharist, and the final prayer. If his Catholcism is right, has he done the dying some kind of disservice by showing up with the sacraments through which Grace is delivered?
Only if his Catholicism is -false- has he made a grave pastoral error. Only if these things are not the means of grace has he failed to serve the dying with God’s intention and love.
Apply that as you will.
April 6th, 2010 | 10:20 pm | #19
Holly said:
A good answer. My only question is this: leading them where?
April 7th, 2010 | 10:09 am | #20
I am late to this discussion… I have always defined that word by measuring how much one is concerned for the quality of faith in others. To be pastoral is to have an awareness and concern for the faith of others and is given joy when it flourishes.
April 7th, 2010 | 1:29 pm | #21
Frank:
My only question is this: leading them where?
Sorry to jump in, but presumably Ms. Ordway (and most other Christians) would answer: “leading them to the Gospel.”
e.g. Martin Luther (speaking on preaching and preachers): “This is the very thing the Lord wants us to preach, that it be first and foremost a question of our acknowledging that we are sinners, and after that to plead for mercy. For the cornerstone of this building, of how to become a Christian, must in every case be to confess our sins, for otherwise you can neither rejoice in your forgiveness nor be comforted. This is the sum of the gospel, specifically these two things: that all the world is under sin, and that through Christ alone a man is justified and saved.” (Easter Tuesday Sermon, 1533)
April 7th, 2010 | 2:09 pm | #22
Frank said….the right man shows up at the hospital with the hope of the Gospel, and then shows up at the pulpit with truth of the Gospel — if those things can be distinguished meaningfully.
a couple of observations….
I think Pastors are called to both, it’s just that it has been my observation that Pastors usually do one better than the other
I think that the Gospel sometimes calls not for words but for actions, and those actions can include listening, laughter, silence, hugs and tears
I also think not every pastoral event needs a solution or a correct theological point – sometimes its just a plate of fried chicken.
As to the catholicism example – I will leave that to someone else. Not sure I understand the point, so rather than misconstruing, I will pass on providing an answer.
April 7th, 2010 | 2:18 pm | #23
Frank,
“Interesting. So it’s somewhat incongruous, then, to speak of “pastoral counselling” or “pastoral discernment”? For example, can a book in some way be “pastoral”, or is it simply out of the scope of what it means to exercise the office of pastor to write a book — you could write a book, and it might be a good book, but it is probably not “pastoral”. yes?”
Well, sure. A good book could, or could not be pastoral. It is pastoral in that it applies the Gospel. Likewise with counseling. If a counselor were to say something like, “Joe, you’ve done an injustice, and you just have to live with the fact that, that’s part of you.” That would be unpastoral. But, if he were to say, “Joe, you have sinned, but there is forgiveness for you in the death of Christ. He offers it to you in the Eucharist. Go and sin no more.” That would be pastoral.
April 7th, 2010 | 3:38 pm | #24
Adam O:
You are my new favorite contributor at Evangel, I swear.
April 7th, 2010 | 7:28 pm | #25
you swear?
April 8th, 2010 | 10:24 pm | #26
Frank: Leading them where? Leading them to Christ.
I don’t understand what you mean with the Catholicism example.
Adam wrote: To be pastoral is to have an awareness and concern for the faith of others and is given joy when it flourishes.
That is certainly a good thing, but I have reservations about using the word “pastoral” for it. If this is the meaning of pastoral, then every Christian should be pastoral. (Leaving apart the fact that the word doesn’t work that way; it describes actions, not states of being.) And if that’s the case, then we’ve just diluted the meaning of the word.
By the way, this is not a theological point, but a literary one… I feel it’s worth the effort to keep our language expressive and nuanced, which means that we should avoid trying to stretch a particular word to cover too much meaning, thereby rendering it less meaningful. (I think it was CS Lewis who discusses how that has happened to the word “gentleman”)
April 9th, 2010 | 9:12 am | #27
david — using a font which is all digbats, I swear.
April 9th, 2010 | 9:20 am | #28
Holly –
For the Catholic, those things which I said the Priest would administer are leading to Christ. They are “sacraments” in the most serious sense of the word — they are the way the church dispenses grace.
For the Protestant, while in some sense we believe in the administrations of the sacraments, we would not count any of those things as sacraments, and see the priest’s work as useless at best.
My point being that whether something is “pastoral” depends on our necessary definition of how people are lead to Christ.
Does that help?
April 9th, 2010 | 10:11 am | #29
Adam O,
Using Paul as an example of a “pastoral” character in the Bible (since he was the first church-planting Bible geek and Jesus freak, and I love reading him), I see examples of exactly the sentiment you mention in his opening prayers in Ephesians 1:17-19, Philippians 1:9-11 and Colossians 1:9-12. Moreover, I see as an undercurrent in all of Paul’s letters a deep concern not primarily for the church’s physical earthly condition, but the depth and maturity of their faith.
Forgive the internet slang, but +1 to Adam’s comment.
April 9th, 2010 | 1:20 pm | #30
Not concerned with the church’s physical earthly condition?
What was the Apostles first corporate decision?
April 9th, 2010 | 2:23 pm | #31
You dropped a word, “primarily.” Sort of has an effect on the meaning of the sentence.
If you’re referring to events after the ascension of Christ, then replacing Judas. Acts 1. What’s your point? I don’t see how this changes one of the foundational concerns I see present in -all- of Paul’s letters to the various congregations.
April 9th, 2010 | 10:47 pm | #32
Frank wrote:
For the Catholic, those things which I said the Priest would administer are leading to Christ. They are “sacraments” in the most serious sense of the word — they are the way the church dispenses grace.
For the Protestant, while in some sense we believe in the administrations of the sacraments, we would not count any of those things as sacraments, and see the priest’s work as useless at best.
My point being that whether something is “pastoral” depends on our necessary definition of how people are lead to Christ.
Does that help?
———————
It does, in the sense that I see what you mean; however, I disagree. I think you are setting up a false dichotomy here.
(I would note, first of all, that the church does not dispense grace. God gives the gift of grace; Catholics believe that He has promised to do so through the sacraments, so that we can be confident that we are receiving His grace, rather than relying on our feelings, for example.)
But let’s say for the sake of argument that in fact the Eucharist is just symbolic, and holy unction is nothing in particular. I hope you don’t believe that a priest would just show up, hand over the Eucharist, and leave. I suppose I can’t speak for Roman Catholics, but I know that in my own church, a Eucharistic visit would always include prayer; holy unction always includes prayer in the Triune Name; a visit to the sick would almost certainly involve the laying on of hands and prayer for healing (I say “almost” because the priest won’t lay on hands if it would make someone uncomfortable.)
The way the priest would phrase things might not quite fit evangelical protestant lingo, but you don’t have to use the phrase “accept Jesus into your heart” to talk seriously with someone about Christ being our Savior and our only path to salvation. Our lay ministers talk about the gospel — just the other day I was privileged to hear one of our “shepherds” talk about how she had helped lead a homebound 80-year-old to accept Christ — so I certainly would imagine that our priests do the same.
And if a priest is praying with someone in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, sharing the good news of Christ, and encouraging that person to put his or her whole trust in Jesus (which I have heard, personally, on many occasions of pastoral counseling for my own needs), then I don’t see how you could see that as other than pastoral — no matter what your view of the sacraments.
In other words, you don’t have to be a Protestant to lead people to Christ. If a catholic priest is doing the work God gave him to do, then he is doing pastoral work by any of the definitions given in this thread (plus administering the sacraments).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact