A Question of Character
A Question of Character
February 13, 2012
One of the great lacunae in many of the current debates surrounding ministry in the contemporary world is the issue of character. In the world of confessional Presbyterianism, our focus is generally on elaborate theological integrity and intellectual accomplishments, reflecting the ideal of an educated ministry. We tend on the whole to take character on trust, based on a few written references provided at time of licensure and ordination. My observations of the YRR world is that intellectual accomplishments are less significant (read: adherence to three or more of the five points of Calvinism is sufficient to qualify) compared to numbers of converts or what one might call 'contextual skills' which I find difficult to describe without sounding as if I am being pejorative. Yet in both cases, character is arguably a much neglected category.
It was very different for earlier generations. In the early nineteenth century, Princeton Theological Seminary professor, Samuel Miller, wrote a book entitled Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits: Addressed to a Student in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N.J. The book is a fascinating, and frequently hilarious, description of behaviour which Miller found to be appropriate in a minister. Some of the prohibitions now sound simply quaint: ministers should not, for example, spit on floors. Still unacceptable today, one hopes, but not a major problem in the ministerial circles I mix in. Nor should they engage in 'loud or boisterous laughter' (according to Miller, 'a mark of ill-breeding'), cough into a handkerchief and inspect the residue, or pare their nails in company.
It is easy to laugh at these (though not, I hope, boisterously - see above). Yet part of our amusement at such probably says something unflattering about our present age. In our world, where the distinction between the various spheres of life, from the very public to the very private, is being slowly abolished, the whole question of character, of which social mores are one important aspect, has been transformed. Whether it is the trickle-down effect of Nietzsche and Freud, some crude notion that 'authenticity' means that we should behave in any way we want in any context, or the impact of the demolition of the private-public distinction through the rise of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, reality TV and easy access to pornography, manners (and thereby traditional notions of character) have gone. Even in the church, it is hard to imagine anyone producing the modern day equivalent of Miller's book, not because some of his applications are no longer relevant but because the whole notion of lecturing someone about their manners and character seems somewhat distasteful today, smacking of legalism or elitism or Pharisaism.
The understanding that different behaviour might be appropriate in different contexts, that in my public actions I might have a social responsibility which rightly places external constraints upon me, is crucial to character and yet appears to be increasingly lacking in the church. It is why we now have explicit sex guidance from pastors, not simply in the privacy of a counseling session but in the widest and most indiscriminate of public arenas (how long, one wonders, before a home-made pastoral sex tape is leaked to the web?). It is why discussions of ministry are often preoccupied with sociology and culture (frequently just sophisticated-sounding codewords for the aesthetics of the wider world) rather than the things Paul lists as prerequisites for eldership in the Pastorals. Spitting on floors and guffaws of laughter are the least of our worries today. It is why the major concerns expressed over things like the Elephant Room focused on one man and his views of the Trinity, and the question of the overall criteria as to who is appropriate in terms of their character to headline at the big tent events was carefully avoided by many. We seem to have lost sight of the character issues which are so vital when we give platforms and positions to those who by virtue of those platforms and positions then become models for ministry.
For Paul, while knowledge of sound doctrine was non-negotiable, so were questions of character: behaviour in private, behaviour in the household, behaviour in the church, and behaviour in wider society. Character was vital.
For this reason, Ref 21 is launching a series of posts on Paul's qualifications for eldership and ministry. We start it, however, with a quotation from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, a passage that repays careful study:
Interpreter: Then said Interpreter, Come in; I will show thee that which will be profitable to thee. So he commanded his man to light the candle, and bid Christian follow him; so he had him into a private room, and bid his man open a door; the which when he had done, Christian saw the picture a very grave person hang up against the wall; and this was the fashion of it: It had eyes lifted up to heaven, the best of books in his hand, the law of truth was written upon its lips, the world was behind its back; it stood as if it pleaded with men, and a crown of gold did hang over its head.
Christian: Then said Christian, What means this?
Interpreter: The man whose picture this is, is one of a thousand: he can beget children, 1 Cor. 4:15, travail in birth with children, Gal. 4:19, and nurse them himself when they are born. And whereas thou seest him with his eyes lift up to heaven, the best of books in his hand, and the law of truth writ on his lips: it is to show thee, that his work is to know, and unfold dark things to sinners; even as also thou seest him stand as if he pleaded with men. And whereas thou seest the world as cast behind him, and that a crown hangs over his head; that is to show thee, that slighting and despising the things that are present, for the love that he hath to his Master's service, he is sure in the world that comes next, to have glory for his reward. Now, said the Interpreter, I have showed thee this picture first, because the man whose picture this is, is the only man whom the Lord of the place whither thou art going hath authorized to be thy guide in all difficult places thou mayest meet with in the way: wherefore take good heed to what I have showed thee, and bear well in thy mind what thou hast seen, lest in thy journey thou meet with some that pretend to lead thee right, but their way goes down to death.
It was very different for earlier generations. In the early nineteenth century, Princeton Theological Seminary professor, Samuel Miller, wrote a book entitled Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits: Addressed to a Student in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N.J. The book is a fascinating, and frequently hilarious, description of behaviour which Miller found to be appropriate in a minister. Some of the prohibitions now sound simply quaint: ministers should not, for example, spit on floors. Still unacceptable today, one hopes, but not a major problem in the ministerial circles I mix in. Nor should they engage in 'loud or boisterous laughter' (according to Miller, 'a mark of ill-breeding'), cough into a handkerchief and inspect the residue, or pare their nails in company.
It is easy to laugh at these (though not, I hope, boisterously - see above). Yet part of our amusement at such probably says something unflattering about our present age. In our world, where the distinction between the various spheres of life, from the very public to the very private, is being slowly abolished, the whole question of character, of which social mores are one important aspect, has been transformed. Whether it is the trickle-down effect of Nietzsche and Freud, some crude notion that 'authenticity' means that we should behave in any way we want in any context, or the impact of the demolition of the private-public distinction through the rise of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, reality TV and easy access to pornography, manners (and thereby traditional notions of character) have gone. Even in the church, it is hard to imagine anyone producing the modern day equivalent of Miller's book, not because some of his applications are no longer relevant but because the whole notion of lecturing someone about their manners and character seems somewhat distasteful today, smacking of legalism or elitism or Pharisaism.
The understanding that different behaviour might be appropriate in different contexts, that in my public actions I might have a social responsibility which rightly places external constraints upon me, is crucial to character and yet appears to be increasingly lacking in the church. It is why we now have explicit sex guidance from pastors, not simply in the privacy of a counseling session but in the widest and most indiscriminate of public arenas (how long, one wonders, before a home-made pastoral sex tape is leaked to the web?). It is why discussions of ministry are often preoccupied with sociology and culture (frequently just sophisticated-sounding codewords for the aesthetics of the wider world) rather than the things Paul lists as prerequisites for eldership in the Pastorals. Spitting on floors and guffaws of laughter are the least of our worries today. It is why the major concerns expressed over things like the Elephant Room focused on one man and his views of the Trinity, and the question of the overall criteria as to who is appropriate in terms of their character to headline at the big tent events was carefully avoided by many. We seem to have lost sight of the character issues which are so vital when we give platforms and positions to those who by virtue of those platforms and positions then become models for ministry.
For Paul, while knowledge of sound doctrine was non-negotiable, so were questions of character: behaviour in private, behaviour in the household, behaviour in the church, and behaviour in wider society. Character was vital.
For this reason, Ref 21 is launching a series of posts on Paul's qualifications for eldership and ministry. We start it, however, with a quotation from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, a passage that repays careful study:
Interpreter: Then said Interpreter, Come in; I will show thee that which will be profitable to thee. So he commanded his man to light the candle, and bid Christian follow him; so he had him into a private room, and bid his man open a door; the which when he had done, Christian saw the picture a very grave person hang up against the wall; and this was the fashion of it: It had eyes lifted up to heaven, the best of books in his hand, the law of truth was written upon its lips, the world was behind its back; it stood as if it pleaded with men, and a crown of gold did hang over its head.
Christian: Then said Christian, What means this?
Interpreter: The man whose picture this is, is one of a thousand: he can beget children, 1 Cor. 4:15, travail in birth with children, Gal. 4:19, and nurse them himself when they are born. And whereas thou seest him with his eyes lift up to heaven, the best of books in his hand, and the law of truth writ on his lips: it is to show thee, that his work is to know, and unfold dark things to sinners; even as also thou seest him stand as if he pleaded with men. And whereas thou seest the world as cast behind him, and that a crown hangs over his head; that is to show thee, that slighting and despising the things that are present, for the love that he hath to his Master's service, he is sure in the world that comes next, to have glory for his reward. Now, said the Interpreter, I have showed thee this picture first, because the man whose picture this is, is the only man whom the Lord of the place whither thou art going hath authorized to be thy guide in all difficult places thou mayest meet with in the way: wherefore take good heed to what I have showed thee, and bear well in thy mind what thou hast seen, lest in thy journey thou meet with some that pretend to lead thee right, but their way goes down to death.
