New Warhorn Media post by Lucas Weeks:
Agreed - and what is sauce for the geese is sauce for the gander.
Perhaps because I grew up as a pastor’s son, a question which has exercised me for many years is, “who pastors the pastors?” The point is that if the shepherds are not being pastored in the way you describe, it will have messy consequences for the sheep. Now, your (Reformed) polity may make a better job of this than some I’ve been in, but the lack of pastoring for the pastors, may then explain why many pastors are so unwilling to be involved in “helping us heal”, and why too many of the sheep do not then trust the shepherds.
In Presbyterian polity, other pastors and elders. The plurality of the eldership is foundational, and the reason I had great hope and joy in writing “Elders Reformed.”
Listened to this podcast earlier today, then read this from Elizabeth Elliot’s book “A Chance to Die” about Amy Carmichael:
I’ll admit I had to look up “perspicacity.” The requirement jived nicely with your podcast.
Just wanted to say that I read ‘Elders Reformed’ a couple weeks ago and found it very encouraging. It was winsome (especially towards brothers who have legitimate ecclesiological differences), it was convicting, and it spurred me on to love Christ’s church more faithfully.
There are a couple of pitfalls in pastoral books that can make reading them discouraging rather than helpful: 1) the treatise is such a clarion call to pastoral faithfulness that one wonders how much the author has actually wrestled with human weakness in his own life and ministry, or at the very least, how realistic such an approach is for mere mortals, and 2) the author is so ordinary and approachable that the book becomes a sycophantic exercise in describing how broken we all are as pastors and isn’t it great that Jesus is gracious cause we’re all so terrible, and the necessary calls to pastoral repentance and faith somehow get missed.
‘Elders Reformed’ avoids both these pitfalls. I appreciated the authors’ honesty about their own pastoral failures, and this humility gave their (needed) calls to repentance and faith that much more weight. These are not pastors writing from above the fray; they write both with the experience of past battles and from within the conflict still. Yet rather than their experience hardening them, it has produced in them the fruit of tenderness and fatherly affection, two characteristics I badly need. I also enjoyed the practical wit and wisdom scattered throughout the book (i.e. Tim’s comment about the importance of only ‘a word’ in ‘a word to the wise’). Good reminders!
Applying the principles found in this book will certainly help make sure the pastors and elders are cared for within a local congregation. More importantly, it will also make sure the pastors and elders are caring well for those under their charge and for whom they will give account.
I know I’m a big dummy. Thats ok with me. And I assume my question comes from being a big dummy. But I cannot figure out the little symbol for the podcast. The orange circle with the white lines in it. Does it mean something or just a fun little symbol, because everything has to have a little icon? I’ve spent way too much time wondering about this over the past several weeks. If anyone can help me out, I’ll be a slightly less big dummy.
Hey Nathan, you want the circle mauve? Joke. I have no idea what or why it is, but I trust Lucas implicitly, explicitly, and duplicitly. You can ask him, but if I were guessing, likely it means nothing.
BTW, nice comment, Aaron. Very kind. You mind if I use it somewhere else? Love,
Not at all.
Nailed me. Always been a mauve guy.
I think it’s supposed to represent a brain… or something. I took the logo that the guys already had and ran with it.
Duplicity had me laughing. I had never thought to trust someone duplicitously.
Thanks @ldweeks (and Max) for doing the work of taking the opposing side to sharpen Tim’s argument. The couple of times that I’ve attempted to do this kind of work I wanted to keep reminding everyone that “This isn’t really me! I’m just making this argument!” but it’s a needless distraction. You were just steady and stuck to your bad argument so that Tim had something to push against. Very helpful. Thanks again.