Why priests… again
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post called “Why Priests“. In that post, I included two reviews of a book by Hans Küng called Why Priests: A Proposal for a New Church Ministry.
Even though I couldn’t find the book in the school’s library, James at “Idle musings of a bookseller” was able to find the book. Here are excerpts that he’s posted over the last few days:
The Church and its credibility and effectiveness in society stand and fall according to whether it is the place where Jesus and the remembrance of him are to be found, whether it steps forward privately and publicly for the cause of Jesus Christ, whether is remains the advocate of Jesus Christ in the modern world and society despite failure in both word and deed.—Why Priests, page 18
“…a Church which bears the name of Jesus Christ, hears his word and is sustained by his Spirit can never be identified with a particular class, caste, clique or authority. Like Jesus himself, his Church too addresses itself to the whole people and particularly to the underprivileged. The Church, then, is the whole community of believers in Christ, in which all may regard themselves as people of God, body of Christ, structure of the Spirit. The decisive criterion of this community is not a privilege of birth, state, race, or office. What is decisive is not whether someone has an ‘office’ in the Church or what office he has, but whether and to what extent he is purely and simply a ‘believer’: that is, one who believes, obeys, serves, loves, hopes.”—Why Priests?, pages 27-28
“Unlike the pagan or Jewish cult, the Christian needs no priest as mediator at the innermost part of the temple, with God himself. Rather , he is granted an ultimate immediacy to God which no ecclesiastical authority can destroy or even take away from him. No one has the power to judge, control or command decisions which fall within this innermost realm. To be sure, the Christian faith does not fall directly from heaven; it is passed on in the Church. But ‘Church’ means the whole believing community which, through the proclamation of the gospel—often done more by the humbler folk than by the hierarchs and theologians, more by deeds than by words—awakens faith in Jesus Christ, invites commitment in his Spirit, makes the Church present in the world through the Christian witness of daily life and thus carries on the cause of Jess Christ. It is after all everyone, not just a chosen few, to whom the proclamation of the Christian message in all the different kinds of congregation is entrusted; an individual and social life according to the gospel is required of all, and to all are entrusted baptism on [sic] the name of Jesus, the memorial, thanksgiving and covenant meal and the word of forgiveness of sins; the ministry of daily life and responsibility for their fellow men, for the congregation and for the world is given over to everyone—in all these basic functions a community of liberty, equality, fraternity.â€â€”Why Priests, page 28
“Liberty is both a gift and a task for the Church. The Church may and should be a community of free people: as advocate of Jesus Christ it can never be an institution for domination or, still less, a Grand Inquisition. Its members are freed for freedom: liberated from slavery to the letter of the law, from the burden of guilt, from dread of death; liberated for life, for service, for love—people who are subject to God alone and therefore neither to anonymous powers not to other men. To be sure, faith in the crucified Christ cannot and is not meant to abolish law and power in society; the kingdom of complete freedom is yet to come. But this faith effectively subsumes law and power and completely relativizes them. Faith in the crucified Christ makes man become so free within the scheme of law that he is capable of renouncing a right for the sake of another person without recompense, and even of going two miles with someone who has made him go one. It lets him become so free in society’s power struggle that he is capable of using power to his own disadvantage for the sake of another person, and so to give not only his coat but also his cloak. The Christian message, for instance, the words of the Sermon on the Mount, supported by Jesus’ life and death, are not meant to set up any new law, to create any new juridical order. The are meant to free men from the law.â€â€”Why Priests, page 29
“On the basis of this freedom which it has received and made concrete, the Church may and should be a community of fundamentally equal people. To be sure, we do not mean by this an egalitarianism that would put the multiplicity of gifts and ministries all on the same level; we mean rather that all members, whatever their differences among themselves, have the same fundamental rights. As advocate of Jesus Christ, it can never be the Church of a class, race, caste or officials. It is through a free decision that individuals have joined the community of faith or remain in it. Those who are unequal should be brought together here in a solidarity of love: rich and poor, high and low, educated and uneducated, white and non-white, men and women.”—Why Priests, pages 30-31
“As advocate of Jesus Christ, the Church can never have a patriarchal authority structure as its government. Here only one is the holy Father, God himself; all members of the Church are his adult sons and daughters and they must not be reduced to the status of minors. In this society men may set up only truly fraternal and not paternalistic authority. Only one is lord and master, Jesus Christ himself; all members of the Church are brothers and sisters. In this community the supreme norm is therefore not the patriarch, but the will of God, which, according to the message of Jesus Christ, is directed to men’s welfare—indeed, the welfare of all men…No one in the Church has the right to substitute for this brotherhood a clerical system’s paternalism and cult of persons and thus continue strengthening the rule of men over men.”—Why Priests, pages 32-33.
“Although various functions are mentioned in the New Testament, the problem of a Church office is never explicitly dealt with. Church ‘office’ is not a biblical concept. It came later after reflection and is not without its own difficulties. Evidently the secular words for ‘office’ were deliberately and consistently avoided in the New Testament in connection with Church functions. They express a relation of domination…
“Of course there is authority in the Church. But authority is only legitimate when it is based on service and not on power, prior rights and privileges from which the obligation of service is then considered to flow. We would therefore do better, if we want to speak in a precise theological fashion, to speak about Church ministry rather than about Church office. To be sure, it is not the word that counts but the way it is understood; talk about Church ‘ministry’ can also be misused to hide the realities if the exercise of domination in the Church is not abandoned at the same time…
“Power can be used well or badly. Even in the Church power cannot simply be abolished. But it can be used, when effectively channeled, to carry out functions that serve the common welfare. The unavoidable use of power is one thing; the use of it by individuals or groups to dominate is quite another. In the latter case it is a matter of retaining a privileged position or increasing one’s own power. Power can be used responsibly in the Church only in terms of service and is to be evaluated according to its quality as service; such power which comes from service is genuine (and primarily inner) authority. The opposition is therefore not between power and service but between the use of power to dominate and its use to serve.”—Why Priests, pages 39-40
What do you think?
When teaching is part of the problem
Matthew at “Mt. Tirzah Baptist Church” has written a great article called “Laziness due to Ecclesiology“. His article is a follow-up on my article called “When mutuality is uncomfortable“.
Matthew says that teaching may be part of the problem, and he gives two different aspects to this: 1) when we study Scripture only to teach, and 2) when we exalt teaching as a special activity. Here are some of his comments:
What I’ve seen is that I study the Word of God much more intensely when I have teaching responsibilities than when I do not. This should not be the case. Should I not study just as intensely because the Word of God is always active and living? It is unfortunately a great source of laziness for myself and others when they do not have a teaching responsibility. Why are we not as eager to pick up the Word when we don’t have a teaching engagement?
However, there seems to be a deeper problem than what we first observe. I think the real problem is that we have exalted “teaching†to only that activity that takes place from the pulpit and to only that activity engaged in by a man filling the office of pastor. The problem is that all people in the church are called to teach each other.
Please read the rest of Matthew’s post. Hopefully, we can help one another think about teaching and what role teaching should play in our lives and the church meeting.
Why priests?
Yesterday, Dave Black (Monday, April 20, 2009 at 8:55 a.m.) mentioned a book by Hans Küng called Why Priests: A Proposal for a New Church Ministry. This is what Dr. Black said about Küng’s book:
He attempted to detail the catastrophic emergency (as he called it) in Christendom. The root, he said, was a polarity between the office of pastors/priests (who form the “above”) and the members of the congregation (who form the “below”). He pointed to the rediscovery and use of the total membership of a congregation as a necessary remedy. His call for a return to the New Testament concept of the church, not as a highly organized and professionalized institution but as a ministry of all believers serving Christ in every walk of life, fell largely on deaf ears.
This description piqued my interested, so I checked our library for the book. Nope, the SEBTS library doesn’t have it. So, I searched online. And, I found the following snippet from a review:
Why have priests? Kung answers: no particular reason. The idea of “priesthood,” as that term is commonly understood, has no special theological meaning, or even special validity, in an authentic Christian church. There is no basis in the New Testament, or in real tradition, for a sacralized class of ministers whose “mission” is to “govern” the faithful. There is, however, such a basis for a priesthood common to all Christians and for leadership by individual Christians in faith and love. In other words, the notion of a restrictive priesthood, limited to certain individuals appointed from above and set apart by ordination, is theological nonsense and an accident of history. Kung argues this thesis as well as he did his recent work on papal infallibility, and its importance is perhaps more immediate than that of the latter. Rome will wrong its hands in horror, but Kung’s large and growing following among the new generation of Catholics will love every line of it.
Don’t miss the importance of what Küng is saying, both for Catholics and Protestants – all Christians in fact. In the New Testament, there is “no basis” for a special class of ministers. I agree completely. And, as Dr. Black pointed out, this work, as well as many others who make the same claim, has largely fallen on deaf ears. The church does not want to hear it.
Why? Because, for the most part, believers do not want to act as priests and ministers themselves. We are too comfortable allowing others to be our priests and ministers.
Prayer and the ministry of the word
Most of us are familiar with this passage from Acts 6:
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:1-4 ESV)
Now, I often see where verse (devoting oneself to prayer and to the ministry of the word) applied to elders. In fact, I read a blog post this week in which the author applied this verse to himself as the senior pastor of a church.
To whom should this verse apply? If you choose to answer, please give the reasoning behind your answer, preferably from Scripture.
What does a non-bishop oversee?
I wrote a post about two years ago called “What does a non-bishop oversee?” I was surprised to find the verb “to oversee” (which, I thought, was used only for elders / pastors / bishops / overseers) applied to all believers in Hebrews 12:15. Last week, I had another discussion about this same verb and verse with a friend of mine. So, I thought this would be a good opportunity to re-run this post.
——————————————————————-
What does a non-bishop oversee?
A few weeks ago, I posted a blog called “What does a bishop oversee?” In this post, I suggested that the επίσκοπος (episkopos) / επισκοπÎω (episkopeo) word group, when used in Scripture for Christian leaders, should be translated “looking after people” or “being concerned about people” as opposed to “overseeing an organization”. I followed this blog with an example (a negative example, from my point of view) in a post called “The Church or the Organization?” I was surprised at the response to this blog post (three times the page views and comments of the next most viewed/commented post). I did not originally intend to discuss the church / organization dichotomy. Instead, I was heading in another direction, which began in a post called “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority…” I will continue in the original direction in this post, which is looking at Christian leaders and their function and operation among the church.
In this post, I would like to continue to examine the επίσκοπος (episkopos) / επισκοπÎω (episkopeo) word group. Specifically, what does this word group mean for those who are not elders/bishops? Or, does it apply to non-elders/non-bishops at all?
Apparently, the author of Hebrews believes that this function does apply to all believers. For example, consider this passage:
Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it [from επισκοπÎω] that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. (Hebrews 12:14-16 ESV)
If you need to check the context, read from Hebrews 12:1. It is clear from this context that all believers are in view, and all believers should be “looking carefully” (as the NKJV translates the participle επισκοπÎω in 12:15).
Commenting on the word επισκοπÎω in 12:15, William Lane says in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The call to vigilance expressed in επισκοπουντες [that is, the participle of επισκοπÎω] refers not to some official expression of ministry but rather to the engagement of the community as a whole in the extension of mutual care (cf. 3:12-13; 4:1; 10:24-25). Christian vigilance is the proper response to a peril that poses an imminent threat to the entire community… In view of this very real danger, the members of the house church are urged to vigilant concern for one another. [451-52]
Thus, Lane understands the verb επισκοπÎω to mean “to show vigilant concern”. This is very similar to the definitions that I suggested in my previous post (“What does a bishop oversee?“): “to look after” or “be concerned about”. In this case, it is clear that the object of concern is not an organization, but the people (that is, the church) themselves. Believers are to show concern for other believers so that they do not fail to obtain the grace of God, so that no root of bitterness springs up, and so that they are not sexually immoral or unholy.
If all believers are “to show vigilant concern” for other people, could it not also be that bishops and elders are “to show vigilant concern” for other people (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-2)? Once again, I suggest that this is quite different than “overseeing an organization”; yet, this is the way the verb επισκοπÎω is often presented when it comes to Christian leaders. Perhaps, elders are supposed “to show vigilant concern” for other people not because they are elders, but because they are believers. In fact, they should be more likely “to show vigilant concern” for others because they are supposed to be good examples of what it means to follow Christ and obey Him.
The important thing to realize in Hebrews 12:14-15 is that it is our responsibility to be concerned about one another. This is not only the responsibility of Christian leaders. However, we all realize that there are occasionally hindrances and obstacles that prevent us from showing proper concern for our brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes, those hindrances and obstacles are in our lives; sometimes, they are in the lives of others.
What are some of the hindrances or obstacles to showing vigilant concern for other believers? How can we overcome some of these hindrances and obstacles?
Recognizing servants
I thought this short post by Matthew McDill (primarily quoting F.F. Bruce) called “Ministry is not a Career Choice” was very appropriate to our discussions on this blog this week:
“The policy of Paul and his colleagues seems to have been to wait until qualities of spiritual leadership displayed themselves in certain members of a church and then to urge the others to acknowledge and respect those as leaders. One of the most obvious qualities of leadership was a readiness to serve the church and care for its needs. Such leaders did not do the appropriate work because they had been appointed as leaders; they were recognized as leaders because they were seen to be doing the work.” F. F. Bruce, Commentary on 1 Thessalonians
The New Testament does not present ministry as a career choice.
By the way, remember that the word “ministry” simply means “service”.
(p.s. Congratulations to Matthew for completing his Ph.D. dissertation!)
Servants vs. Rulers
Thanks to Lionel for pointing me to a book by Lawrence O. Richards and Clyde Hoeldtke called A Theology of Church Leadership (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980). I haven’t read the entire book yet, I thought the section on leadership by service went well with my post from yesterday called “It shall not be so among you” concerning Matthew 20:25-28:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28 ESV)
This is how the authors contrast leadership by rule vs. leadership by service using the passage above:
This passage attacks many of our ingrained presumptions about leadership and help us define how a servant leads. In the paragraphs below are a few of the contrasts that are explicit or implied in the illustration Jesus uses…
Relationship with the led
The passage states it clearly: the ruler is “over” those he leads. But the servant is “among.” We cannot be servant-leaders if our position or role or our own attitude tends to lift us above others and makes a distinction between us and the rest of the people of God.Command
Rulers “lord it over” and “exercise authority” over the led. Here is a command-type of authority, which tells others what to do and demands conformity of behavior. But we cannot even imagine that a servant entering a household where he is assigned would issue commands! To attempt to use such a command authority calls forth one of God’s most powerful rebukes: “not so with you.”Mode
Command authority tells others what to do. The leadership mode involves issuing orders, passing on decisions the leader has made. Servants have one role in the household – to serve. Rather than tell, the servant shows. Example, not command, is the primary mode through which the servant leads.Effect
The command authority of the secular ruler does lead to behavioral change. There are all sorts of sanctions that secular leaders – be they in the military, in government, or in business – rely on to obtain the behavior they require. But servants must rely on an inner response in those they influence. Without the power to coerce behavior, servants must seek the free choice of the ones being led. The one style achieves behavioral conformity; the other style achieves heart commitment.Power
The secular leadership style has a wider range of coercive means to enforce response. In business, raises or denial of raises and many other symbols of approval and disapproval are used to coerce behavior. But in the church of Christ no such means of coercion are available. All such methods are decisively rejected! (106-107)
I think it is possible, effective, beneficial, and healthy to lead without ruling – that is, to lead through serving. But, it is also much more difficult.
It shall not be so among you
These sentences, spoken by Jesus, seem so simple to understand:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” (Matthew 20:25-27 ESV)
So, why is this instruction by Jesus usually the first one to be set aside by the church?
Pastoring…
Last week, I read John’s blog post at “Jesus the radical pastor” called “Why I Love Being Gifted as a Pastor“. John begins his post like this:
I sat next to an old man today as he rested on a special hospital chair that tilts to a bed for him to have cataract surgery. He needed a ride to the outpatient client and surely a ride home. I wanted to be his chauffeur. He is my friend, Ray. He is 3 weeks from being 85 years old. He was being sedated, but he was still aware. I was quiet.
“Are you still there?†Ray asked suddenly and quietly.
“Yes, I am still here,†I said. There was a pause.
“I love you,†he said.
You should read the rest of the post.
This is pastoring… Thank you, John, for the example and the exhortation to spend my time loving people.
How should we study the church?
Last weekend, during our seminar, I made the statement that we should study the church by beginning with Scripture, not by beginning with our current beliefs and practices. This is still an important distinction for me, just as it was three years ago when I started this blog. Here are two posts that I wrote during my first month of blogging that deal with this issue.
———————————————————-
How should we study the church?
This is one definition of ecclesology: the branch of theology concerned with the nature and the constitution and the functions of a church.
How should someone begin studying the nature, constitution, and functions of a church? I have found two distinct paths toward developing a biblical ecclesiology.
The first path begins with the contemporary church along with its nature and practices. The theologian then uses Scripture to justify the various roles, functions, and practices of the contemporary church. This method allows various theologians to justify different and divergent practices.
The second path begins with Scripture. The theologian examines the nature and practices of the NT church as recorded in the Bible. These “descriptions” are then used as “prescriptions” for comparisons to the contemporary church.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul encourages the church in Corinth to compare their practices to the practices of other churches (1 Cor 7:17; 11:16; 14:33-34; 16:1). We should compare our practices to those of the NT churches as well. We should not begin with our practices, then justify them with Scripture. We must begin with Scripture when we are developing our ecclesiology.
———————————————————-
Called into full-time ministry…
Yesterday, in discussing ecclesiology, I made the following statement:
We should not begin with our practices, then justify them with Scripture. We must begin with Scripture when we are developing our ecclesiology.
Today, someone mentioned being “called into full-time ministry.” From the context, I know that he did not mean that God has called him to serve others (minister) full-time, just as God has called all believers to serve and not to be served. Instead, he meant that God had called him to find a vocational position in a local church (probably other than his own local church) in order to earn a living. This is a normal understanding of what it means to be a preacher / pastor / minister – at least among the people that I know.
Did this understanding come from Scripture? Will reading Scripture lead someone to understand that God specially calls some people to stop working a “secular” job in order to be part of a paid staff at a local church? Does Scripture describe the pastor as someone hired from outside the body?
If this idea does not come from Scripture, then from where does it come? And, more importantly, why is this the “normal” practice in our churches today?