“I read in the bible that Saul had an armor-bearer, but he was a king. I don’t see anything in the bible about pastors having the same. Why do they insist on it?”
Someone else answered, “Ego.”
The two participants were probably talking about experiences in a Black church, given that they were both black.
Do you guys know what they were talking about? Are there denominations where someone serves as something called an “armor bearer”? What is the function of that office?
Some pastors have bodyguards. Christians have a tendency to attach biblical terms to jobs that would have clearer names in secular society. This article may help you. It’s got a fair amount of Christian jargon in it, but I think it clarifies things somewhat.
There may also be a reference to the “whole armor of God” as mentioned in Ephesians 6. This is a metaphorical passage that refers to Christian behavior and faith as being similar to combat equipment - the idea is that with such “armor”, one can face Satan and other opponents of Christianity. It doesn’t refer to actually wearing physical armor or carrying real weapons. Given that context, an “armor-bearer” could be virtually any type of church assistant position.
Here is a sitethat describes the concept. The tldr is that it is anyone who helps out the preacher, some churches have a formal office that is like the preacher’s personal assistant and some churches have a security role for that office. It is generally associated with black churches. In white churches the same function would be done by church administrator, church secretary, or other staff.
That’s a good point. For those not familiar, the New Testament (as mentioned in the cited article) defines two formal church “offices”, namely elders and deacons. In some traditions, including Roman Catholicism, the office of “elder” has been split into bishops and priests, with priests sort of holding an assistant version of the office of elder.
There is nothing in the NT (that I can see) that says that those two offices are the only kinds of positions allowed in a Christian church. What the controversy is getting at, I believe, is whether an Armor Bearer should be recognized as a primary, fundamental church office, or whether it is more similar to roles like Webmaster, Church Bus Driver, Potluck Coordinator, Nursery Worker, or Church Attorney that are defined and filled based on specific church needs. The controversy isn’t so much about whether “Armor Bearers” should be stripped of their duties and sent home but whether they should have a fancy, high sounding title that they can flaunt around and use to sound important and whatnot.
Churches differ on how often the “fundamental” offices should be handed out. The LDS church has a very liberal policy of ordaining nearly every man as a Elder (women are ineligible), which theoretically gives them a great deal of power and authority (that they are expected to not actually use unless specifically asked by the “real” leadership, who are more important and beefier “Elders”), while many other churches reserve the offices for a select few and many, if not most, of the people actually working for the church do not actually hold an ancient “office”.
Interesting example: The Russian Orthodox Church (and most likely others as well) has an office of Reader that is considered to be a clergy position - holders undergo formal ordination, wear robes, etc., but the position is what it sounds like - these are people who can be called by the priest to read from the Bible during services. As far as I can tell, the position was once given out more or less automatically to men who could pass a basic literacy test, since reading was such an uncommon skill and being able to have a record of which 2% of your congregation actually knew their ABC’s was very helpful in planning services. Nowadays, it’s a bit harder and requires formal preparation - more than just being able to See Spot Run. The fact that the office is so old gives it a bit of flair and makes it seem highfalutin’ in a way.
Interesting; Catholic churches have a position of “lector” that does the same thing as a “reader”, but it’s pretty much open to anyone who wants to do it (you’re expected to go through about a day’s worth of training, and you’ll be assigned for various services by an administrator of some sort, but it’s not like an ordination). And the trend has been in the opposite direction from the Russian Orthodoxes: Before Vatican 2, the readings were almost always done by a priest or deacon, but now it’s actively encouraged to use laymembers in this way.
More specifically, the office of elder, (prebyteros/[symbol]presbuteros[/symbol]) became the office of priest while the office of overseer, (episkopos/'[symbol]episkopos[/symbol]) became the office of bishop. This, for example, is the origin of the name Episcopal, (bishop led), Church.
ETA: While the Greek presbyteros wandered through Latin to become “priest” as used by Catholics and the Anglican communion, the Greek word presbyteros, retained its original meaning of “elder” as adopted by several Protestant denominations.
There used to be a whole series of steps or orders leading to the priesthood. The minor orders were Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, and the major orders were Subdeacon, Deacon, Priest. At different times, the minor orders were actual offices, (although they did not require an ordination by a bishop), and at other times they were simple offices performed by different persons under varying rules. Acolytes moved out to the laity a long time ago, (eventually becoming altar boys). This was the reason during the 1970s why there was a resistance to allowing girls to become servers at mass, because the role was associated with the minor order among the steps the the priesthood. Following the Second Vatican Council, laypersons were encouraged to become Lectors while Pope Paul VI effectively abandoned any reference to minor orders, (calling them ministries), around 1972. (It still took a few years for some of the national churches to break down and allow women/girls to serve at mass.)
That’s how it is in many US parishes, but in other countries there isn’t a position of lector but a function: the people who will read one or more parts are chosen among those available to read, which generally means those present in the church a few minutes before Mass begins.
The “resistance to allow girls to become servers at Mass” again varies by location. You guys had your first altar girl in the 1970s in the diocese of Chicago: in Spain, Italy, France, Portugal and our colonies we’d had them for centuries.
How is this sort of thing handled in multilingual areas or areas with widespread illiteracy, especially areas not in the US? For example, would a congregation in India have a record that so-and-so can read Telugu and English while another person can read Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi? That way, if the priest is going to do a service in Telugu, he knows who to look for in the congregation or even who to pick up the phone and call.