What Is in a Name?

Names are very important. It is interesting in Genesis 2:19-23, God give the man the opportunity to name all the creatures of the earth. The, in the account, the female was created and the man called this creature “woman.” This new creature was the only one with which the man made a personal identification. I can imagine the man pointing to the different creatures and saying in a rote pattern: that’s a horse, that’s a cow, that’s a Northern pike, that’s a sloth, that’s a……. But with the creation of this last creature, I can imagine the man jumping up and down with excitement, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” (NRSV) This last creature was one with which the Man directly identified.

Maybe I have related this previously, but when my wife and I were expecting our children she wanted names which were not frequently used in her kindergarten classes. I wanted names which had a deeper meaning to them. We wore out more than one baby names book. So for our first born, a boy, we settled on Quinn (Irish, wisdom or the wise) and Amiel (Hebrew, the people of God). Our second born, a girl, we chose Chaya (Hebrew, life) and Elizabeth (Hebrew, the gift or promise of God). Not names frequently found in clsssrooms and names with a deeper meaning.

In Scripture there are several instances of people being given a different name to indicate a change in who/what they are. Abram become Abraham. Sari becomes Sarah. Jacob become Israel. Saul becomes Paul. Simon become Peter. What we call something speaks to its purpose or essence.

I have been fascinated with the changing names for various things or functions in the PC(USA) Book of Order. At one time the four decision making bodies were known a judicatories or courts. Their purpose was to make wise decisions for the life of the church and to render discipline as appropriate (really meaning to settle differences in behavior and theology.) Then, with the 1983 reunion and the cultural distancing from “discipline,” the name of these bodies was changed to “governing bodies.”  Again, in the first decade of the Twenty-first Century, the cultural enmity toward centralized, impositional, governance the name was changed to councils. The effort was to reframe the work of these bodies to be more for discernment than disciplining or governing. The idea is what we call it creates its purpose.

Another example of our renaming has had to do with those who are charged to provide theological leadership within congregations. From Scotland the name was Minister of the Word. As we began to experience liturgical renewal and the sacraments were lifted up, the name was expanded to be Minister of Word and Sacrament. There was a move to reclaim some of the other designations for this functional role, among which was bishop which had been used in pre-reunion days. Again in the early decade of this Century, the ecclesiastical name was changed to teaching elder. Some would say the name is a rather limiting name for the role, and one nobody outside of the officialdom of the PC(USA) understands what it means.

A third instance of changing names in the Book of Order and life of the church has been for some serving in non-ordained specialize service in the church. One of the oldest, I remember, was commissioned church worker. People with that designation may, or may not, have received some special preparation to serve as Christian educators or who had been given permission to lead worship in congregations without an ordained minister. In the later years of the 20^th Century that designation disappeared and a new name and function was given. In order to provide worship leadership for far-flung or language specific congregations the title of certified lay preacher was bestowed upon some. Within a couple of years that name was changed to Commissioned Lay Pastor, and a host of possible additional functions were added. In the early years of the 21^st Century the name was changed to Ruling Elders Commissioned to particular pastoral service. The keep it short they are known as Commissioned Ruling Elders.

The changing of names has become a difficult hurdle for some in the church. It could be likened to changing from the American System of measurement to the metric systems of measurement. It can be very mind twisting. How can we be clear about naming roles and functions without having to have people learn a new language? How do we remain identified excitedly identified with a particular thing if we are always changing its name? Follow this line, the General Assembly Council and the General Assembly Mission Board became the General Assembly Mission Council and then became the General Assembly Mission Agency. Now, there is discussion of combining the General Assembly Mission Agency and the Office of the General Assembly into something which is yet to be named.

I guess we adapt the old rule that “form follows function,” and roll with “name follows function and cultural sensitivities.” Even the Bard deals with the difficulty of what one is named and places it upon the lips of Juliet,

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part

Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is no part of thee

Take all myself. (Romeo and Juliet)

The Hispanic question is at the root of it all ¿Cómo te llamas?.  How are you called?

https://www.wayostccs.com/getting-started-1.html

A Reflection and A Projection

The recent edition of “The Alban Weekly” (https://alban.org/archive/alternative-pastoral-models/) deals with the issue of congregations not being able to afford full-time pastoral leadership. One of the models offered as an alternative is bi-vocational pastors. This model is nothing new, even though it is now being touted as the wave of the future. I remember when I was in elementary school (a long, long time ago) the local Baptist minister drove a school bus in addition to serving the congregation.

For over twenty years I advocated that prior to presenting a person for ordination as a teaching elder (PCUSA speak for minister) they must be able to demonstrate a second set of skills by which they could earn a living. I could see (serving a presbytery of mainly smaller, rural, aging congregations) that fewer and fewer would be able to afford a full-time pastor. The two general presbyters before me, going back into the 1970s, were already dealing with that. They developed and maintained a larger parish program with a single minister serving as many as six to ten congregations. The minister would itinerate among them on a revolving schedule and usually leading worship in two congregations each week. The congregations paid into the pool for compensation and the presbytery allocated mission funds from the larger congregation to provide a full-time compensation and benefits. For several years this model seemed to work as a means of keeping smaller membership congregations having weekly worship.

A few things eventually led to the end of that model in the presbytery. One was the reluctance of ministers to move into the area and to serve multiple congregations. Another was the growing reluctance of some of the congregations to share pastoral leadership. A third was a decreasing mission income to the presbytery and a greater inability of the participating congregations to contribute to the compensation pool. And I admit, my bias that just keeping the doors open on Sundays was not a particularly faithful model of stewardship.

As our larger parish model was phasing out, the denomination developed a ministry model called commissioned lay preachers. Initially this model was for congregations which were far flung from another with which to share a pastor, with insufficient financial resources, and for language specific congregations. The concept was that a congregation would identify a person in the congregation to serve the worship and pastoral needs of the congregation. Within a short period of time the name was change to commissioned lay pastor (CLP) and some specific educational grounding in worship, theology and polity was required, which was the responsibility of the presbytery to provide. Not too long after that the name was again changed to “ruling elder commissioned to particular pastoral service.” Usually, they were called commissioned ruling elders (CREs).

During this developmental process presbyteries began to determine that the CLPs and then the CREs should not/shall not serve their own congregation. Additionally, presbyteries began a general use of this model as a standard model to provide worship and limited pastoral care for smaller membership congregations. Many congregations seemed to feel entitled to have their own CRE rather than sharing a full-time teaching elder. CREs were not required to receive the full compensation and benefits which were required for installed ministers, or which some presbyteries required for those serving in what are now called “temporary pastoral positions.” By some they were referred it as the “cheaper preacher” model. It was more affordable for the congregations.

There were several consequences arising from this model. One consequence was that some CREs began to expect to be treated with the same status as those ordained as teaching elders. Some even began to wear the preaching robes, which had previously been an indicator of advanced theological education. In a few situations some even began to be referred to as “pastor.” As time passed some of the “sending congregations,” those from which the CREs came, began to want to hold on to their own cadre of leaders instead of sending them off to serve another congregation. Also, some of the CREs missed out on worship and participation in their “home” congregation. In our general area, we saw fewer and fewer people entering the educational process to serve as CREs. We had a consortium of presbyteries and a seminary working together to provide both face to face and virtual preparation courses. Just recently, the seminary has decided it would no longer provide the administrative and virtual support for the program due to decreased enrollment.

Another factor is the denomination, in an effort to give more desecration/power to the presbyteries, eliminated the specific requirements of educational areas for the preparation of CREs. Now each presbytery may decide what, if any, additional areas of preparation will be required. In the early CLP years, the presbytery I served made the decision that a person only needed a high school education to serve as a CLP and then CRE. My former partner in presbytery leadership rightly stated, “The CLPs/CREs are natural speakers of the indigenous theology found in the congregations.” I question if that is enough. A congregation’s theology and practice will only grow to the extent of the one(s)

teaching and preaching in the congregation.

I suggest we move to the hub and satellite model? The teaching elders of the congregations which are still able to afford an installed minister would serve as the hub for support, encouragement, teaching and oversight of the smaller congregations being served by a CRE from within that congregation? The teaching elder of the hub congregation would provide developmental support to the CREs in some core subject areas. In many ways this would reflect what Calvin did in Geneva. It is much the model which is in use in other parts of the world. I am specifically acquainted with Rwanda. The “evangelists” serving the outlying congregations gather regularly with the ordained minister for education, strategy and fellowship. Of course, the congregations with teaching elders and the teaching elders would need to see this as part of their mission.

wayostccs.com