1. Article was not a biography but a rumination over the values and impact of his show (with historical commentary).

2. "Former minister" refers to an occupation. It's accurate.

A couple thoughts...

> 1. Article was not a biography but a rumination over the values and impact of his show (with historical commentary).

The values of his show were part of an active ministry, not as a pastor for a local congregation but a different form of ministry. To talk about values and impact while not capturing where those intentionally came from is misleading at worst and at least a poor portrayal.

> 2. "Former minister" refers to an occupation. It's accurate.

This is trying to put the concept of minister into the job designations we typically have in the current work force structure we have today. It doesn't fit.

There are many ministers who have the job of Pastor of a church congregation. There are some who don't have have a job doing something that is part of their ministry.

He had an active ministry, with the Presbyterian church, to do this. If anything we get into semantic debates on roles rather than former vs active association.

Interesting. I think it's a rather small mistake, which does not invalidate the whole story, but I agree it does change the perspective somewhat.

Do you know how much he was involved in the church? Was he a member of a presbytery? Did he attend synods or general assemblies? (I might not be using the terms exactly correctly.)

I'm just curious, doesn't change things much either way. My grandfather was a Presbyterian minister and very much still considered himself active after retiring from being a pastor to a congregation – I think in large part because he attended a lot of the organizational meetings, mentored young pastors, etc.

Being involved in the church is lovely, but rather separate from bring a pastor. That's the point with Mr Rogers. He was an active pastor who ministered outside church.

Sure, agreed, I totally get that point. I was trying to figure out to what degree he was involved in the organization and to what degree they officially supported him, endorsed his ministry, etc.

Like I said, it wouldn't affect my high opinion of him, but it could affect my opinion of the church somewhat. I know the church honored him when he died, but I was curious if they considered his show a Presbyterian ministry – i.e., outside of a church does not mean outside of the church.

I think one could argue that he was a Pastor of children, with a remote congregation.

A televangelist, then.

I'd be okay with them all following his lead

on 2 I think you're slightly off though it may be coming down to semantics.

His ministry was in the media with a focus on children and families so it was in no way former. To my understanding that "charge" was given as part of ordination after he was into his professional career and throughout it he remained an ordained minister within the presbyterian church.

You don't become un-ordained, generally, unless you do something Extraordinarily Naughty.

"He ceased to serve in parish ministry" would be a better phrasing.

That’s the thing, he never was a parish minister

ah, true enough. "he was a minister who never lead a parish", then.

It's really not hard to reconcile the fact that someone is no longer performing the usual job duties of a minister with the fact that some of his personal values may have been shaped by his time at the Seminary and those values may have formed a part of his teachings to children on his show.

I wouldn't call that a hole in basic details unless you are thinking literally like a computer.