Authority : A Minister's Teaching vs. A Father's

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grant

Puritan Board Graduate
I hope this post finds you well on this Lord's Day. I had a question I have often pondered when it comes to interpreting text.

Scenario:
A Minister preaches a particular interpretation of a passage of scripture during a sermon. During this particular sermon the Pastor makes a conclusion that the Father of a family disagrees with entirely. Ex. (not for debate in this thread): Did Samson sleep with the prostitute he stayed with?

Is the father rightly able to privately teach his family an alternate view that would imply that he believes the Pastor is wrong on a particular point? There are likely two ditches one can fall in with these type of matters. I am just looking for help finding balance.:detective:
 
Last edited:
I hope this post finds you well on this Lord's Day. I had a question I have often pondered when it comes to interpreting text. This thought I am trying to seek wisdom on could have millions of scenarios. Considering this I will try to post as simple of a scenario as possible:

Scenario:
A Minister preaches a particular interpretation of a passage of scripture during a sermon. During this particular sermon the Pastor makes a conclusion that the Father of a family (all members) disagrees with entirely. Ex. (not for debate in this thread): Did Samson sleep with the prostitute he stayed with?

Is the father rightly able to privately teach is family an alternate view that would imply that he believes the Pastor is wrong on a particular point?:detective:
I'm sure it depends on the church though most churches allow members with varying convictions on certain things, I don't see why not. The bar for membership is much lower than the bar to be an officer. It becomes an issue of respect rather obedience."I respectfully disagree" is a far cry from "what a moron!"
 
Is the father rightly able to privately teach is family an alternate view that would imply that he believes the Pastor is wrong on a particular point?

Of course, he can and probably should. However, the motivation of the father is important. Is this a one-off disagreement or one of many departures? Has the father diligently studied the matter and is not responding in a knee-jerk manner? Is the focus of the disagreement on the teaching or the pastor?
 
I think the father should say to the son the minister is incorrect. That said, how well taught is the father? Is he mature and sufficiently well versed in scripture and orthodox belief? The father should also have spoken with the minister just to make sure he heard correctly and understood what the preacher was actually saying and should look at the scriptures together. Maybe it turns out the minister is correct in what he says and the father wrong.
 
Do any solid commentaries support the father's conclusions?
This is intended to be more hypothetical. For me personally, if an interpretation is “new” (not supported by any solid commentators) then I hold it very suspect.
 
Last edited:
I have disagreed with my own pastor a couple of times, and even just this Lord's Day on a very minor issue. As my wife and I discussed the sermon we found ourselves disagreeing on a point of application. There's no need to be disrespectful about it, of course, and in this case I don't think it necessary to bring it up with the pastor at all.

While I am careful not to encourage private interpretation - interpretation of Scripture is in the hands of the church - still we are not Papists who officially bar private thoughts. I think there is great wisdom in reading men like Calvin and Henry while at the same listening to your pastor. Remember that all you read or hear ought to be judged according to the Scriptures. I am certain your pastor would agree.
 
I hope this post finds you well on this Lord's Day. I had a question I have often pondered when it comes to interpreting text.

Scenario:
A Minister preaches a particular interpretation of a passage of scripture during a sermon. During this particular sermon the Pastor makes a conclusion that the Father of a family disagrees with entirely. Ex. (not for debate in this thread): Did Samson sleep with the prostitute he stayed with?

Is the father rightly able to privately teach his family an alternate view that would imply that he believes the Pastor is wrong on a particular point? There are likely two ditches one can fall in with these type of matters. I am just looking for help finding balance.:detective:
Let me answer your question by asking you this: say a church has two pastors. Pastor A is out of town, and doesn't hear Pastor B's sermon in which he says that Samson didn't sleep with the prostitute. The next week, Pastor B is out of town, and Pastor A takes the same text, unwittingly taking the opposite view from his revered colleague. Who should the congregation agree with? What should they tell their families? Are they allowed to teach their children that one of them is wrong?
 
Let me answer your question by asking you this: say a church has two pastors. Pastor A is out of town, and doesn't hear Pastor B's sermon in which he says that Samson didn't sleep with the prostitute. The next week, Pastor B is out of town, and Pastor A takes the same text, unwittingly taking the opposite view from his revered colleague. Who should the congregation agree with? What should they tell their families? Are they allowed to teach their children that one of them is wrong?
Are you answering my question with my question?:cool:
 
Are you answering my question with my question?:cool:
Lol my point is that, in the scenario that I posited, it would be absurd for someone to feel obliged to acquiesce to the ministers' teachings, because the ministers don't agree among themselves. Ergo, it's okay to disagree with your pastor sometimes, and to clarify those things to your family.
 
How old is the son? How mature is he? At some point we teach our children how to be good Bereans. We also teach them to respect the office. We can do both.

There is no need to point out every point of disagreement on trivial matters.
 
Is the father rightly able to privately teach his family an alternate view that would imply that he believes the Pastor is wrong on a particular point?
I know from time to time, folks within my own congregation will disagree with my interpretation of a text. This does not bother me in the least. Usually, such disagreements relate to more obscure and difficult passages of Scripture which have historically proved thorny for the best and most pious interpreters. Disagreeing on a more substantive or even fundamental interpretation is a different matter. But I do not think that is in view here.

The more important issue is how one disagrees. A father should labor to model and inculcate upon his children a very high esteem for Christ's ministers. Whatever objection he may take to his pastor's teaching and preaching ought to be governed by and consistent with that aim.
 
It is the father's duty to see that his children go to church in the first place, and to discern which to church's ministry to sit under. It is also his responsibility to remove himself and his children from a church that is not solid according to his understanding.
Religious instruction begins with the father: "My Son, hear my commandments..." the father must shape the child's theology far more than the minister does, since the father must instruct the child seven days a week while the minister only one. The husband must also be able to instruct his wife at home "...let her ask her husband..."
Therefore we fathers have the great and terrible responsibility of knowing theology, of being able to explain it, and of being able to discern bad from good. That doesn't mean we all ought to be able to preach or qualify as elders, but the greatest weight of family instruction rests with the father, not the minister.
 
It is the father's duty to see that his children go to church in the first place, and to discern which to church's ministry to sit under. It is also his responsibility to remove himself and his children from a church that is not solid according to his understanding.
Religious instruction begins with the father: "My Son, hear my commandments..." the father must shape the child's theology far more than the minister does, since the father must instruct the child seven days a week while the minister only one. The husband must also be able to instruct his wife at home "...let her ask her husband..."
Therefore we fathers have the great and terrible responsibility of knowing theology, of being able to explain it, and of being able to discern bad from good. That doesn't mean we all ought to be able to preach or qualify as elders, but the greatest weight of family instruction rests with the father, not the minister.
Ben,

This really hits the nail on the head. Father’s who faithfully carry out daily family worship often need to be as equipped as a layman can be to help with questions their family might have relating to faith & practice.
 
Is a father ever obligated to conform his practice to the ministers teaching, though he disagree? ex. Shopping on Sunday, Jesus images, or Descending Dove Image use (assuming the Pastor holds the confessional view and the father does not)?
I would say that if a church holds to a confession of faith like the WCF or 1689 and the church takes that seriously, then a requirement for outward (at least) conformity to that standard would rightly be part of church membership. It wouldn't be a father's submission to the minister's teaching, per se, but to God and to the church.
 
Matthew Henry Commentary on Hebrews 13:17:

1.) The duty-to obey them, and submit themselves to them. It is not an implicit obedience, or absolute submission, that is here required, but only so far as is agreeable to the mind and will of God revealed in his word; and yet it is truly obedience and submission, and that not only to God, but to the authority of the ministerial office, which is of God as certainly, in all things belonging to that office, as the authority of parents or of civil magistrates in the things within their sphere. Christians must submit to be instructed by their ministers, and not think themselves too wise, too good, or too great, to learn from them; and, when they find that ministerial instructions are agreeable to the written word, they must obey them. (2.) The motives to this duty. [1.] They have the rule over the people; their office, though not magisterial, yet is truly authoritative. They have no authority to lord it over the people, but to lead them in the ways of God, by informing and instructing them, explaining the word of God to them, and applying it to their several cases. They are not to make laws of their own, but to interpret the laws of God; nor is their interpretation to be immediately received without examination, but the people must search the scriptures, and so far as the instructions of their minister are according to that rule they ought to receive them, not as the word of men, but, as they are indeed, the word of God, that works effectually in those that believe. [
 
@Grant Jones, last year, I preached a sermon to a congregation I don't ordinarily attend. After the service, the pastor and I were talking about the sermon, and it came out that he had preached the same text there before, and had a different take on it. But he said that it was alright, that there was nothing wrong with my sermon (though he may have disagreed with certain parts), and that he had preached it so long ago that the congregation probably didn't even remember!

There is room for charitable disagreement within the bounds of orthodoxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top