Inherited Spiritual Platforms

[HappyHope]

In the last 3 years, my husband and I have come across 3 situations where fathers passed down their spiritual platforms to their sons. We have seen this in 2 churches near us and our Christian college, Liberty University. I’m not saying it is automatically a bad thing. But it can be painfully problematic like in the case of Jerry Falwell Jr.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Inherited spiritual positions seem tricky. On one hand the inheritor grew up in the church. He knows the practices, the culture, and the lingo. On the other hand, a minister’s heart can’t be passed down so easily.

I know there are good examples. Franklin Graham’s work with Samaritan’s Purse is very commendable. He inherited that position and seems great. What I’m curious about is if the good examples outweigh the bad cases or vice versa?

I know the ancient church struggled with this to the point where early church leaders like priests were no longer allowed to marry. It was in part to stop men from handing down their church leader positions to their family.

Is the old problem resurfacing? Or is it not really a problem but more like a few isolated incidents ministers should be aware of?

 

[com7fy8]

My opinion is that because Jesus says many will do things the wrong way, then you can expect to see things done the wrong way.

And ones wrong can use good things. So, you do not want to throw out what is good, because of how people have used a good thing badly.

For example, in the United States the medical profession has become functional to kill unborn patients, even though doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath. But this does not mean we need to consider throwing out all medical practice.

And certain sons could be, really, agnostics, but they can function in their fathers' cultural setting since they grew up in it, and tone their voices, and on they go. But God can use their situation . . . to use them somehow, plus have them where mature Christians can minister to them so they might be saved.

So, no you don't throw out a good basket because there are bad apples using it.

Our Apostle Paul says we need family men to pastor > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. I understand that qualified these men have had the companionship and help of their wives to bring up their children well. So, this can mean the children have been able to feed on and grow up to follow the example of their parents. They have lived in the home, in the most secret and intimate quarters of their Christian pastoral parents, so they can see how to function in a good marriage and how to bring up children . . . while becoming qualified to pastor.

But we see how a lot of people go through a seminary which is not the upbringing a person can get in a Christian home. And some number of seminary people do not know how to function in marriage, yet they are ordained to pastor a church.

Paul and Silvanus and Timothy say they related with the Thessalonians "as a nursing mother cherishes her own children" > 1 Thessalonians 2:7. Who learns this in a seminary????

You need home-grown example-fed pastors, then, I would say. And you can trim them, later, in a seminary

But the best teaching comes with demonstration. So, in teaching children and pastoral candidates how to love, how to relate in marriage, how to care for people in our Father's family caring and sharing way > I think the best possible way of this is to have children in the home of a couple who are growing and maturing with one another on their way to meeting the qualifications Paul gives in 1 Timothy 3:1-10. And then the children see such qualified people becoming ordained, after being prepared in the seminary of teaching with demonstration in their home.

But there are fathers who have not grown in Jesus and this their example to their children. We have men who are type-A make-it-happen people who can make major church things happen . . . outwardly and with controlling. Their sons are more at risk of being undercover agnostics and atheists. This would be a way not to use.