Here’s my answer to Jeff’s question: If not hiring your kid to succeed you means you or your kid seriously messed up somewhere, then hiring them and then kicking them to the curb a few years later also means you or your kid seriously messed up somewhere.

Jamie Bakker’s ministry and attitude seems to have had a somewhat salutary effect on Jim Bakker. Bob Schuller fils’s ministry and attitude seems to have had the opposite effect on Bob Schuller pere. Just one guy’s opinion.

It’s all about the power and the glory, but whose?

Too late, Geoff. Focus on the Family already beat you to it.

Question, IMonk. How does this differ from the Salafi movement within Islam, trying to return everything to the plain ol’ Koran and its plain ol’ Shari’a?

Hereditary aristocracy, authority and power inherited from father to son. Except this Aristocracy is within the churches.

I understand that was one practical reason why my Church (Catholic) enforced celibacy in the Middle Ages. No married clergy, no legitimate heirs to inherit Church offices and positions by Right of Birth, no hereditary aristocracy forming within the Church.

I believe this also applies to pastors. The call to preach is *not* passed down to family members. God calls each person individually.

But what about priests in OT times? What about Levites? Weren’t those “family” callings? Am I missing something?

I recently listened to Matt Haggee, John Haggee’s son. …

If John H. really and his church really believe that Jesus could come at any moment, why are they even thinking about what son Matt might be doing in a few years in the first place?

And, K.W.,

Not hiring your kid to succeed you means you or your kid seriously messed up somewhere.

Say what??????

I thought this was the impetus for celibate clergy in the early centuries. If a married priest has a son, and the priest’s job is full time, what trade has the son learned other than to run the parish?

Your statement that “agreement is closer as we look at the center (ecumenical creeds), and less as we move out to the edges (denominational confessions)” is actually quite helpful to me personally this morning in a way I didn’t foresee. I grew up as a Methodist but left them 40 years ago (or maybe they left me), and yesterday afternoon I attended my second-oldest grandson’s baptism and confirmation in the Methodist church, and his parents (who were raised Pentecostal and Southern Baptist, respectively) were received as new members also. Although the whole program seemed somewhat dry and lifeless to my way of thinking (a little too methodical, maybe?) and the method of baptism used included no mention of being buried with Him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life, inwardly I did react positively to the parts of the Apostle’s Creed the confirmands gave as answers to the questions Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

Reading your statement this morning was as oil poured on some needless concerns. I believe God has everything under control.

I think we look at the consensus, realizing that there’s no perfect consensus. Agreement is closer as we look at the center (ecumenical creeds), and less as we more out to the edges (denominational confessions.)

That’s the way it works. That nameless blog has their own version of the RCC method, but even they would admit they have no flawless interpretations.