Replacing Israel and Using Titles
At church today our pastor (Dr. Wesley Wachob) made a couple of points I’d like to repeat here. They may sound disconnected, but they both derived from the scripture lesson, Matthew 23:1-12.
The common theme was “remember” as he tied us as a congregation into the history of the people of God. This was tied into All Saints Sunday.
First, he reminded us, quite corectly, that many of the teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees were quite similar, which explains how frequently Jesus engaged them in debate. In this passage Jesus connects positively with the message. The people of God are connected back in time. He noted that those who claim that the church has replaced the Jewish people commit a grave error (his term). We are not a replacement, but are blessed by being grafted into that line. Jesus is pointing to the connection here.
Second, he discussed titles. He said some people read this passage as commanding that we eliminate all titkes in the church. That might not be such a bad idea. But he said it goes deeper, It speaks to our attitude.
I have been in churches that claimed to be totally led by the Spirit, and to ignore human hierarchy, but at the same time have as rigid a structure in reality as you could imagine. On the other hand I have seen churches with a full list of titled offices where people exhibited humility and servant leadership all the way.
I think we would do well to do away with titles, but I agree that the reality is more important than the label.
Henry, how do you feel about clergy regalia? I began wearing the whole load, robe, stole, large gold cross and an occasional collar. I now am down to a single item, the stole. In the summer I get away with no clergy items. This stems from my concern that clergy are too often promoted over the layperson in importance and esteem. I’ve come to believe that a congregation is egalitarian in all respects and should function from the gifts of all the people with no sense of greater or lesser. Clergy regalia works against this, IMHO.
As for the remaining stole, I appreciate its liturgical significance, yet very few in my denomination (DOC) understand the symbols of liturgy. So I am conflicted wearing it, but it’s my one concession to the office. I’m likely to discard it all together now that I’m retired.
I struggle a bit with that question, though as non-clergy, it doesn’t come up for me. I’m as likely as not to speak wearing jeans and a t-shirt. One friend of mine who is a pastor, however, says that the robe is really not to elevate the clergyperson wearing it, but rather to efface that person and emphasize the office. To me, however, it often tends to make the service a bit more of a spectator sport.
I think if I were planning worship services, I would tend very much toward eliminating the platform/congregation distinction. I read 1 Corinthians 14 as describing a very participatory program when the saints gather. The problem Paul addresses is folks going overboard with disorderly participation. We don’t have much of that problem in church these days. There is great order because there is little participation.
I wasn’t acquainted with Disciples history and theology until Bob Cornwall submitted a book and became one of my authors. But I’ve been very attracted to many points, one of which is what seems to me to be a downplaying of clergy laity distinctions in areas where other churches emphasize it, such as the Eucharist.