God, Family, Church

In this month's the Briefing, Simon Flinders has written a little article called 'The pastor and the evangelical priority list'. His basic argument is that the sayings like "a pastor's first congregation should be his family" are, in his opinion, incorrect. He is humble and gentle, and it is ably written. But I think his logic is flawed, and his argument ultimately wrong.

Firstly, a particularly questionable quote:

Is it really practical for a pastor of a congregation of God's people to place consistently the needs of his family above the needs of his church? [He answers no].  

Notice any problems with this Q&A? If you can't provide the needs of your family because of other commitments, then there are some serious problems here. But I don't think he means needs. He can't. I mean, he's not going to withhold food from his family for the sake of his church. I think he means desires, or even ideals, but not needs - please God that he doesn't mean needs. I feel for his family if he does.

Now he makes the good(-sounding) point, that the Bible doesn't provide straight-forward, easy answers to questions like this. That appeals to people, we like ambiguity, and we like to think things are more complex rather than less. But I don't see any genuine, satisfying justification for this in his argument, but rather he says he himself finds it tricky to navigate this issue.

Further, he argues that the Bible emphasises both as priorities (church and family), but never explicitly emphasises the needs of one over the needs of the other. I'll return to this in a second, but first a little aside.

He has a comparatively lengthy section on particular scenarios, including this one: The pastor comes home, the baby needs feeding, the kids need bathing, and then the phone rings. Someone in the parish is very ill and in hospital. What does the pastor do?

Now this is tricky, but it's irrelevant. Flinders argues that if he stays home he is prioritising his family, and if he goes he is prioritising his parish. Well, not really. Not wholistically.

Firstly there are other issues. Leaving your wife at home to do the bathing and feeding can be a godliness issue for her. As a couple you have decided it's ok to go on this occasion because that is the role you guys have chosen.

Secondly, this isn't about needs, it's about desires, and ideals. Perhaps your wife (and you) would desire to be at home, but this is maybe not the wisest choice. Perhaps it is ideal that you'd be at home rather than go out that night, and perhaps not. Your family life is tied to your godliness and your servant-heartedness, and your church life is too. So your family life and your church commitments are linked. Doing one option over another does not reveal your priorities in such a straight-forward way. This is a major problem with the article.

Ok, back to the Bible:

The relationship between husband and wife is a covenantal one. You made a solemn oath on your wedding day to treat your wife in particular as Christ has treated you, in a special, one-to-one way that demands your commitment to her physical and spiritual needs, and particularly you promise to present her pure and blameless on the last day, in so much as it is up to you.

A pastor has made no such covenant with their 'flock'. They are exhorted to protect them from ferocious wolves, and to treat them as family in a way, but the covenant (if there is one at all) in this case is nowhere near so binding as that. Similarly with the church. Flinders argues that the Bible never emphasises your blood-family over your church family. Yes it does! Your blood family is talked about often. Your church family is too, but not in the same way. Treat one another with purity, be concerned with one another's godliness, but with your family the rules are much more strict, and the relationships are expected to be much more intimate, of course.

Finally, I would think one can argue from the trinity of the necessarily stronger covenant between God and Jesus than God and us, and it has to do with different uses of the word family. But that would take a lot of words and people would disagree with me, so maybe not for today.

Flinders makes some excellent points, but I think his arguments are fatally flawed. I agree that it must be hard for a pastor to juggle his roles. I agree that it must be hard for missionaries to send their kids to boarding school (and would argue that if they are 'conflicted' as he says, then perhaps they shouldn't - but this is another matter again). But I cannot agree that the relationship between a pastor and his church is biblically on the same level as a man and his wife, and kids. The Bible never gives you such an out with your family.

As a final thought, consider this: If your wife became terminally ill and required full time care, would there be any question as to you leaving your job to care for her? A pastor is no different. Even if that church would fall apart, there would be no question.

Woops - and one more final thought! - The covenant you make with your wife is a binding one. A pastor may only be a pastor if, within the appropriate fulfillment of his promises to his wife, he has the time and energy to fulfil more roles to his congregation. It is the same for any new role. I cannot do ministry at my church at the expense of my relationship with my wife, because on my wedding day I made promises to my wife, and I must keep them. Just because I'm a physicist I don't think the rules are different. A pastor cannot neglect his wife for the benefit of his church, and so there's only one more option - if need be, he must neglect his ministry for the benefit of his wife.

I will write a letter to the Briefing. I'll try to be kind and thoughtful, which is not my strong-point when writing.

Does anyone have any comments that might help me think about this - or themselves?
Cheerios