« Jennifer Jones: My Letter to God | Main | »

Tuesday, June 26, 2007


Ricky Spank

yes... strange post..

Japanese Femdom Art

nice! i'm gonna make my own blog


This is interesting, thanks.


This is all the more reason to return the word "ministry" to the believers...as in "priesthood of the believers" and "equipping the saints for the work of ministry." The us/them dichotomy between clergy/laity is so counterproductive. Let the "clergy" be equippers, if they have to have a "professional" vocation.

I am grateful that Wikipedia seems to have its definition right.

at what point in the work of a teacher does the responsibility for the actions of the class shift from the corporate to the individual. if a large group is going a certain direction and participants are jumping ship, should that be an indication to the captain that the map needs to be looked at again OR are there ports o'call that must be made? I know there is a lot of grey space in the OR, but I never am completely on board with the direction any leader is going, yet I go along for the espirit de corps....does the minister SERVE a purpose as the progenitor of the needed direction groups "exist" for?

Jim Baxter, Santa Maria, CA

I think a priesthood wants the term 'ministry' restricted to the priesthood. They equate the term 'priesthood' to the word 'church.' Yea, all others, the people, are just 'helpers.' They would like a permanent moratorium on the term 'ministry' as applies to the layman.

When Jesus said, "It is finished," and died, the veil of the temple was rent from the top down. Thus, ended the need for a priest or -hood and began a permanent end to priests. Ministry was forever enlarged to mean every unique individual Believer and their personal gifts.

The Aesthetic Elevator

I have the same sentiments about the word "missions" or "missionary." What good is it to say, as some do, that everyone is a missionary, or that you're a missionary in your own backyard? I'm a stickler for clear communication, and believe (as someone working in the world of missions) we're not helping the cause of the Great Commission by not speaking in more intentional terms. Why not "I'm a mobilizer;" And "I'm a church-planter;" And "I'm a giver?" All are vital to taking the Name and Word of God to the unreached. God has gifted us each in unique ways, each part of the body has it's own name. Why do we seem to only refer to the body and not its different parts when it comes to missions?

lisa c

This is an interesting discussion. I think it does matter what it's called. For me it's not about what others think but it is about organizational values and theology. It goes back to categorizing the part of my life that is "christian ministry" from my life's work which hopefully is the same as the M word. This feels like more than semantics.


Sign me up too, my friend

Mary Hess

Ok, usually I just post links to your wonderful blog posts, but this one was too pertinent not to comment on here, too. You are precisely right in the main substance, and we struggle with this all the time where I teach (in a seminary). In the Lutheran context there is some theological "hook" to hang the concern on, because Luther was big on "vocation" meaning much more than the clergy and other such functions. But even though we've taken to talking about what a "centered life" is about, and how one lives one's vocation in the midst of it, we can never seem to get our students to "get it" -- and I think it's because we're still implicitly (even if not explicitly) teaching them the opposite.I've wondered what would happen if we simply disbanded seminaries all together...

Bruce Reyes-Chow

Thought provoking. I actually go the other way when folks ask what I do, as one of those magic wielding, voodoo-ologisist profession clergy types. I say that I am a Presbyterian pastor because it almost begs the next question. It also creates a HUGE disconnect because I don't LOOK like someone from whom those words would come.

Then again, high supreme potentate has a nice ring to it.


interesting, but i'm left wondering: why does anyone really care what it's being called? does it matter?

i know that sounds snarky (i only mean it to sound snarky a little bit..), but really. why should we expend the effort to worry about how what we do is perceived by others? what kind of validation are we looking for in that?

i wasn't there, so i might be missing the point.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003
My Photo

My Wonderful Wife's Blog