theophiles.org - Ethics code chapter and verse for pastors

Ethics code chapter and verse for pastors

Written by holmegm

Thursday, 28 June 2012 14:55

From The Washington Times:

The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule apparently weren’t clear enough.
The National Association of Evangelicals, seeking to give more guidance to church and congregational leaders on how to conduct themselves, has issued what is believed to be the first “code of ethics” for pastors.

Comments

laika - But...

|2012-07-01 23:20:05

Quote:

"That type of specificity
just isn’t in the Bible.”

But mightn't a pastor with at least a passing overview of the Bible be expected to have a rough idea of ethical behavior?

PineHall - Accountability

|2012-07-04 12:05:39

laika wrote:

Quote:

"That type of specificity
just isn’t in the Bible.”

But mightn't a pastor with at least a passing overview of the Bible be expected to have a rough idea of ethical behavior?

I agree that they should have a fairly good idea of what is acceptable and not, but people can rationalize anything and everything. I think this document is trying to give this broad group of churches/pastors in the NAE a framework for accountability. Pastors usually don't have much in the way of accountability, especially those who are at a nondenominational church.

laika - re: Accountability

|2012-07-04 22:57:10

PineHall wrote:

I think this document is trying to give this broad group of churches/pastors in the NAE a framework for accountability. Pastors usually don't have much in the way of accountability, especially those who are at a nondenominational church.

Good point - there might be great variety among the churches of the NAE. What might be borderline acceptable in one church culture might be obviously out of bounds to another.

whitemice - Great Idea, Bad Implementation

|2012-07-09 06:33:40

If that photo/poster represents the code-of-conduct then (a) it is not a code of conduct and (b) it is worthless. Well, maybe not worthless - it does at least address favoritism.

I'm all for a code-of-conduct; as someone generally very disappointed with Protestant ministers. They desperately need a rigorous code of conduct, as used by numerous other professions.

How about a statue about receiving gifts? There is ZERO reason a pastor should accept gifts of significant monetary value from a member of their congregation.

How about doing business with [or favoring] a business owned by a member of the congregation? This reaches ridiculous levels in large churches. This applies to the church itself as well.

How about actually keeping posted pastoral office hours? Or at least demonstrating a real effort to do so.

If you want to claim the banner of being a "profession" or "professional" ... act like one. If you are the paid buddy / chum / good-old-boy of everyone in your congregation then OK, be that (openly).

A code-of-conduct is clear an precise. This is more of a vision-of-conduct.

Vision: Pursue integrity.
Conduct: Do not accept gifts or favors.

emperorbma

|2012-07-09 10:02:06

Somehow, these need to be qualified in my opinion.

whitemice wrote:

There is ZERO reason a pastor should accept gifts of significant monetary value from a member of their congregation...

Conduct: Do not accept gifts or favors.

Certainly, I agree that taking a bribe is clearly wrong. However, pastors have basic needs, too. We should be careful about defining what constitutes a "gift" or "favor."

The important thing to realize is that the pastoral office itself is funded by the charity of a congregation. If he receives no gifts whatsoever, he doesn't get to eat. Is it not fitting that we, as the congregation, provide a way for the pastor to make a reasonable living as compensation for his service to God and the Church?

Obviously, the congregation should also not give with the expectation of getting 'special' regards, either. (... and anyone who does thus should be made to realize that their expectation is foolish.)

whitemice wrote:

How about actually keeping posted pastoral office hours?

Again, it's hard to draw the dividing line here. What constitutes 'keeping office hours?' Does the pastor have to stay in his cubicle? Does it include visits to shut-ins and other services that the pastor might perform as part of his duties? Sure, but if he only visits the congregants he's "buddy-buddy" with, it's yet another wrong thing. However, if he is taking care of the flock and giving communion to the sick it is a perfectly valid aspect of pastoral duties the way I see it. Did not Jesus Himself leave the 99 to care for the lost one?

The real world, unfortunately, is not as susceptible to making such simple statements as we'd like it to be. There are important qualifications which limit what these sorts of rules can or should imply. This is doubly unfortunate because, on the one hand, it is hard to legislate such a code. On the other, there are always those who abuse any code of conduct. That is why most simply leave it as a rule of conscience governed by the Spirit and Scripture.

The only consolation is that we have a Judge who knows how to rule with the proper balance of mercy and order, even though we don't.

whitemice

|2012-07-09 11:44:51

> Certainly, I agree that taking a bribe is clearly wrong.
> However, pastors have basic needs, too.

And they receive a salary and possibly other benefits.

> We should be careful about defining what constitutes a "gift" or "favor."

Other professions have no problem defining these things.

> The important thing to realize is that the pastoral office itself is
> funded by the charity of a congregation.

Incorrect. It is funded by a legal corporation that has the ability to
create contracts. How that organization receives its funding is irrelevant.
A pastor is an employee of an organization and should be treated as such.

> If he receives no gifts whatsoever, he doesn't get to eat.

This position makes the pastor a begger. It robs him and his family of
dignity. He has a contract and receives renumeration; that should be
sufficient for this needs - or - he needs to seek another position or
possibly career.

If the pastor needs to receive a steady stream of special purpose bail-outs
then (a) that is miserable for the pastor (b) inefficient for the church
and (c) wide open for unusual relationships.

> Is it not fitting that we, as the congregation, provide a way for the
> pastor to make a reasonable living as compensation for his service to
> God and the Church?

Yes, the salary and benefits he receives via his contract. Anything outside of that is 'unusual'.

> Obviously, the congregation should also not give with the expectation of
> getting 'special' regards, either. (... and anyone who does thus should
> be made to realize that their expectation is foolish.)

This denies basic human nature - nobody should be less clear on this than
clergy. Special treatment will raise at least the concern or appearance
of special relationship. As certainly as gravity turns the worlds.

>> whitemice wrote:
>> How about actually keeping posted pastoral office hours?
> Again, it's hard to draw the dividing line here. What constitutes
> keeping office hours?'

No, it is very simple to divide the line. Many other professions do this.
The pastor simply records what he did; essentially he keeps a time sheet.
Not hard at all. The pastor is an educated and respected adult employed to
serve an important role - this is clearly a reasonable expectation. The
time sheet shouldn't be public, but whatever board / group governs the
church should review it. That is basic accountability.

> Does it include visits to shut-ins and other services that the pastor
> might perform as part of his duties?

Of course it includes those.

> Sure, but if he only visits the congregants he's "buddy-buddy" with, it's
> yet another wrong thing.

Of course without real accounting and records it is impossible to prove or
disprove such an accusation.

> However, if he is taking care of the flock and giving communion to the
> sick it is a perfectly valid aspect of pastoral duties the way I see it.

It certainly is. That doesn't change the issue at all.

> Did not Jesus Himself leave the 99 to care for the lost one?

The pastor is not the son of God, he is an employee.

>The real world, unfortunately, is not as susceptible to making such
> simple statements as we'd like it to be. There are important
> qualifications which limit what these sorts of rules can or should imply.

Yes, clearly there should be more and clearer rules.

> This is doubly unfortunate because, on the one hand, it is hard to
> legislate such a code.

I disagree, it is not hard at all.

> On the other, there are always those who abuse any code of conduct.

Yes.

> That is why most simply leave it as a rule of conscience governed by the
> Spirit and Scripture.

No, that will fail, and demonstrably has failed. A church is an organization
and needs to be managed as one.

> The only consolation is that we have a Judge who knows how to rule with
> the proper balance of mercy and order, even though we don't.

I disagree. This is just a trope pastors hide behind to avoid any real
accountability. They are compensated, they are employees, and even vital
employees. They need to be managed as such. Such management is not
draconian or tyrannical, it defers to them the diginity of a professional
serving an important role.

emperorbma

|2012-07-10 02:23:21

I'm not sure I'm communicating myself very well here. I wasn't saying that such management was tyrannical, although I do find it a bit legal for my tastes. In fact, I am not saying that discipline shouldn't exist, either. Rather, I am simply not comfortable relying on using "business management" strategies for something that is ultimately governed by God Himself. God is just but God is also very lenient while faith remains.

In fact, I don't really disagree that a Church can be seen as as an organization like you propose, either. What I'm taking issue with is that the approach seemed to be too "human-centered" for me. In order to reconcile with a proper Biblical perspective, we need to place God's rule at the center of everything and to properly reckon all mankind as sinners. Given these truths, then, the Holy Spirit must be given supreme governance for all considerations of this kind.

Furthermore, while you are correct that a pastor isn't the Son of God, a pastor is a called and ordained representative who acts in His stead and by His authority to administer the Word and Sacraments according to Jesus's command. If we are to view this properly in terms of an organizational model, then the pastor has as his primary duty to properly represent the Lord and His teachings faithfully and as free from error as humanly possible. Secondarily, a pastor is hired by a congregation who has evaluated him to be a faithful representative, but it is clear that the congregation is not his real boss but merely those whom He has appointed for this pastor to serve. So, if a pastor is failing to keep sound doctrine, then I can easily I agree that a pastor should immediately be brought to account. However, if a pastor makes a mistake, he should be treated with mercy. Nonetheless, if a pastor becomes an unrepentant scoundrel, then he should be treated with the same concerns as all who are not keeping sound doctrine because unrepentant sin is faithlessness. [Note: I assume a congregational polity. An episcopal polity would have the pastor answer to their bishop or the Pope, neither of which I subscribe to]

The ultimate concern I would have here is that we need to remember that God owns the Church. Everyone, including the board and the congregation themselves are under His governance. Yes, a congregation can (and should) elect to dispense with a scoundrel, but it must always be done with a prayerful vigilence against their own sins. Businesses are a human thing and modern businesses are just as susceptible to such failure as anything else we humans do. Furthermore, any set of human laws or rules we establish will necessarily be incomplete and flawed. [Fact: it's demonstrable mathematically] This is why I believe that it is necessary to insist that "the Spirit and conscience" should be given sovereign governance in such matters.

whitemice wrote:

This position makes the pastor a begger. It robs him and his family of
dignity. He has a contract and receives renumeration; that should be
sufficient for this needs - or - he needs to seek another position or
possibly career.

While I have no intent to rob of dignity, remember that my perspective works in theological terms. We are all beggars before God. Yes, we have been blessed by God with dignity despite our beggarly state, but we must remember it is to Him we owe all honor and glory...

whitemice wrote:

Yes, clearly there should be more and clearer rules.

For what it's worth, I am of the perspective that too many "rules" is a bad thing. For one, laws do not make people good. In fact, they usually do the opposite... they tend to show us our sins and failures. This assessment is clearly owing to my Lutheran theology, and the only other uses of the law therein acknowledged are to curb evils and show people how they should live under grace. However, no law "makes someone good" because doing that relies on God's grace alone. Nonetheless, for the three uses it is given, God's Law is clearly the highest good.

However, (with regards to human rules) I also tend to prefer rules which don't make vain assertions against natural principles. Furthermore, most rules do exactly this. Indeed, there is also my continuing and ever-growing disappointment at how our governments abuse laws. (*cough*RIAA/MPAA*cough* *COUGH*NDAA*COUGH* *hack*Obamacare*hack*) Of course, this reticence also clearly owes more to my libertarian philosophy. (What with its principles of self-ownership [understood by myself to be "self-stewardship" rather than absolute ownership], voluntaryism and all that ilk)

At any rate, things such as this are why I tend to abhor an excess of rules as a matter of principle while not denying or eschewing them entirely...

Only registered users can write comments!

Last Updated on Thursday, 28 June 2012 14:58

Our valuable member holmegm has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Russian army introduces the flying Orthodox church... (04 April 2013)
Faith - and a side of fries (31 March 2013)
Resigning From the AARP (22 February 2013)
On Metrorail, pastor tries to raise Christmas spir... (27 December 2012)
Tulsi Gabbard, First Hindu Elected To Congress, Wi... (20 November 2012)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online