Anabaptists and the priesthood of all believers
Dave Black has published the second article in his series on the Anabaptists. It is titled “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 2)“. In this article, he discusses the Anabaptist understanding of the priesthood of all believers and compares this with a sacerdotal view of Christianity. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers does not negate the need for leadership, but it does change the method of leadership. He says:
We can go a step further. In 1 Thess. 5:14 Paul specifically requests the “brothers†– not the church leaders – to admonish those believers who were unruly. Why, if the believers were to defer to their leaders in the case of church discipline, did Paul command the church to expel the unrepentant sinner in 1 Cor. 5:4-5? We have no right to go beyond the clear pattern of the New Testament and insist upon a clergy-laity distinction. It is clear that the New Testament elder was not a proud, prestigious, and powerful ruler but rather a humble, gentle, and deeply spiritual brother (see Matt 23:8) who in the spirit of Jesus was called to serve rather than be served.
To the Anabaptists, then, a clerical ministry seemed out of step with both the spirit and the letter of the New Testament. As Heb. 13:7 shows, the authority of leaders was based not on their position or title but rather on their example (anastrophe) and faithfulness (pistis). The relationship of members to leaders was not one of duty but of love and respect.
We have to recognize that theologians themselves have done much to create this confusion. Jesus’ model of church leadership has nothing to do with status or office. This monumental misunderstanding of the New Testament seems to me to be one of the flagrant proofs that the Anabaptists’ return to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was both necessary and inevitable for a group so earnestly seeking the truth of the Word of God. I see this same spirit at work today when I see younger leaders eschewing grand titles such as “Reverend†or “Minister†or “Senior Pastor,†preferring instead to be called “Brother So-and-so†or simply by their first names. This kind of thinking is contrary to every manmade system or philosophy. A Christianity that seeks no power, no prestige, no position but instead prefers humiliation, service, even suffering? Unthinkable – except, perhaps, to an Anabaptist.
So, according to Dave, the type of Christian leadership supported by Scripture is different from the normal leadership patterns of this world. Instead of exercising authority, Christian leaders exercise service, humility, and suffering. As far as I can tell, this is the kind of people that Jesus told his disciples to follow. He said to follow those who were servants, not those who attempted to exercise authority.
Preach? Who? Me?
This morning, thanks to Theron at “Sharing in the Life“, I read a great quote by Roland Allen in Theron’s post called “Quote of the Day“. In The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, Allen writes:
What Christ asks of His disciples is not so much exposition of doctrine about Him as witness to His power. Now witness to His power can be given by the most illiterate if he has had experience of it. It does not require long training for a man to say: ‘Whereas I was blind now I see’…
I remember a missionary in India telling me that most of the converts in his district were brought in by extremely illiterate men. He said: ‘The villagers look at them and say, “We know what you were, we can see what you are; what has made the difference?” These men cannot preach sermons,’ he said, ‘but they know enough to answer, “Christ”, and the result is men are converted to Christ.’
Could it be that we have changed the meaning of the word “preach” to such an extent that it has now become the responsibility of educated men instead of transformed men? Could it be that when Paul told Timothy to “proclaim the word” he did not mean to study commentaries in order to present a 30-45 minute homily, but that through his life and his words he should proclaim Christ as his Lord? Could it be that the “illiterate men” in Roland Allen’s story know what it means to “proclaim Christ” and have taken responsibility for it, while we have relegated it to a professional service that is no longer the responsibility of every believer?
Anabaptists…
Today, Dave Black began a series on the Anbaptists called “What I Have Learned From the Anabaptists“. At one point, he says:
Like the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, who longed for a restoration both in the structures and the practices of the church and whose vision differed from the magisterial model, so I believe it is time for an alternative vision of church and society, one that is Christocentric and follows the pattern of Jesus by obedience to His teaching and His example. More than anything we need a return to the pure Word of God as the only guide to Christian conduct and thought. A classic case in point: today we find congregational participation in our gatherings squelched by an unbiblical emphasis on the “clergy” and a corresponding passivity among the “laypeople.” The motivation behind limiting congregational participation is undoubtedly noble (to ensure “quality,” to protect against heresies, to maintain order, etc.). Still, such motivations seem biblically unsustainable.
He later describes why these motivations are “biblically unsustainable”. Read the remainder of the article. And, then, ask yourself, “Do I understand the church and the church meeting through studying Scripture, through tradition that I’ve been taught, through business models, or another method?”
Who are your heroes?
Travis, at “He Must Increase“, just returned from Ecuador. In a post called “New Heroes“, he describes how the “leaders” of the churches there were functioning. This is what he says:
Jose, Geovanny, Marcos, Marlene, Pedro, Roberto, Fabiola, and Patricia. These are the names of some of my new heroes in the faith that I have met this past week in Ecuador. These men and women are everyday people…painters, taxi cab drivers, a mechanics, and house wives. They are all actively doing the things of Jesus. They have been a part of planting well over 100 churches, but they aren’t counting. They face constant danger from the world and criticism from the “traditional” church, yet they endure and press on focusing on the harvest. They live a lifestyle of proclaiming the gospel, yet they demonstrate the gospel with love. They disciple/teach new believers, yet they don’t lord over. They baptize. They equip. They get very little applause and praise. No one is writing dissertations on their ministries. They aren’t getting paid money for their Kingdom work. They are my new heroes in the faith. I was honored to sit at their feet for 8 days and learn. I pray that some of their life will rub off on me.
Did you catch that last sentence? “I pray that some of their life will rub off on me.” The mark of a leader is not found in the way that they exert authority. The mark of a leader is found the way that others desire to follow their example.
Could you follow the example of these believers? (HT: Guy Muse)
Ruling or Leading?
Back in March, I began studying “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority” in the context of the church. I’ve posted a few blogs as I’ve continued this study. This is another post in this extended series.
In the last post of this series, called “Exercising Authority…“, I examined several Greek terms that mean “exercise authority”, or “rule over”, or “be the master of” – in other words, terms that mean “to tell someone else what to do”. These terms are not used in a positive sense in the New Testament. This was my conclusion in that post:
So far, in these passages, there is no indication that one person should exercise authority over another person in a spiritual sense. In fact, it seems like just the opposite is indicated. But, if the apostles were not to exercise authority, and Paul did not exercise authority, and Peter told elders not to exercise authority, then I’m not sure where the command for leaders to exercise authority over other people is coming from. However, I’m still searching Scripture. It is possible that I’ve missed something, or that there are other passages of Scripture where leaders are instructed to exercise authority.
In this post, I want to examine two more Greek verbs that are occasionally translated “rule” in various translations. The verbs are:
Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) – (translated “rule/lead” in 1 Tim 5:17; Rom 12:8) According to the standard Greek lexicon (BDAG) this verb can mean 1) to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head of, or 2) to have an interest in, show concern for, care for, give aid.
ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) – (translated “ruler/leader” in Luke 22:26; Heb 13:7, 17, 24) Again, according to BDAG, this verb can mean 1) to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide, or 2) to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard.
Most importantly, in some cases, ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) is used in a sense to mean the opposite of a servant: “But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (Luke 22:26 ESV). From the context of Luke 22:26, it is clear that Jesus is telling his followers to be “leaders” who act as “servants”. Thus, the extreme range of ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) that means the opposite of “servant” cannot be in view here. Would Paul or the author of Hebrews or another believer promote a type of leadership that was condemned by Jesus?
Thus, in English, the word “rule” carries the connotation of making a decision for someone else, exercising authority over someone else, displaying dominance through the exercise of power. Meanwhile, the word “lead” can have similar connotations, but it can also carry a different meaning: “travel in front of”, “go in advance of others”, “guide”.
So, while both “rule” and “lead” are possible glosses for the two Greek verbs, and since the idea of “ruling” or “exercising authority” is always cast in a negative in the context of the relationship between one believer and another believer, it would seem that “lead” in the since of “walking ahead of” or “guiding” would be a better English translation. This would also explain Peter’s insistence that elders “shepherd” by being “examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3).
There are a few other passages that can help us understand how the New Testament authors used this verbs in the context of the church. For example, in 1 Timothy 3:5, the Greek verb Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) is paralleled with another verb, επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai):
“For if someone does not know how to manage (Ï€Ïοίστημι) his own household, how will he care for (επιμελέομαι) God’s church?” (ESV) In this verse, Paul uses the verb Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) to describe someone’s relationship to their family, while he uses the verb επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai) to describe that person’s relationship to the church. While Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) can carry a range of meanings from “rule” to “lead” (as has already been described), the verb επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai) does not have the same range of meanings. In this case, it seems that Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) is used with the secondary meaning of “care for” not “rule”.
Thus, when the New Testament is looked at as a whole, and when relationships between believers are examined, it seems that believers are never instructed to “rule” one another, but that one believer may be called on to “lead” another believer or a group of believers. The concept of a Christian “ruler” who makes decisions for other believers, or who directs the lives of other believers, or who tells other believers what to do is not found in the pages of the New Testament. Instead, the New Testament authors call mature believers to lead by being examples to and serving other believers. Followers of Jesus Christ have only one ruler. He is the living, breathing, ready, able, wise, knowing, powerful, present, and authoritative chief shepherd. And, no one can serve two masters.
Two conversations worth reading…
Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, posted a great blog called “Real and Present“. In this post, he discusses the presence of God with individual believers and as believers gather together. We use different terms and different methods to focus on the really, real presence of God. Consider this paragraph:
The only God I know of in the Gospel is a God who is real, a God who is present, a God who promises to be with his people corporately and individually, and a God who has given us multiple ways to focus on the particulars of his presence and the particular kinds of reality that involves.
I agree with him here. God is real and God is present. This is the God of Scripture – the God of the Gospel. This is the God who has called us into his family. He has promised to be with us – never forsaking us. Now, do we live as if God is present with us, or do we live as deists – God is far away? Do we live as if God is present with all believers just as He is present with us? Would our attitudes towards and discussions with other believers change if we spoke as if God was present with them just as he is present with us?
Also, robbymac writes about a fictional conversation about leadership in a post called “Through the Looking-Glass“. In this conversation, he has an Elder believer discussing leadership with a Younger believer. The Younger gives his definitions of strong/weak leadership and mature/immature leadership. The Elder responds:
The gaze of the Elder turned to look in the eyes of the Younger. “Well,” he began, “I just can’t help but notice that the characteristics of what you label ‘immature’ most closely matches what you also described as ‘strong’.”
“And I wonder, is it possible that a truly strong leader might actually reflect your idea of ‘mature’, coupled with your version of ‘weak’?”
The noise of the busy cafe seemed to recede into the far distance. For several moments, nothing was said.
Then the Elder continued, “What if a truly strong leader is one who is un-threatened enough to actually, honestly listen to the input of those around them, precisely because (a) they are secure in their identity in Christ, and (b) they know they need the voices of others to adequately hear what God is saying to the whole group? What if the ‘weak’ leader is really the one who insists on his or her own personal vision, and is too threatened to consider the voices of anyone else?”
“Maybe it takes more cajones to NOT insist on the leader’s ‘vision’, or ‘strategy’, and to trust that the Spirit speaks through the Body, hmm?”, he asked, gesturing with open hands.
I agree that leaders who trust the Spirit to speak through the body – and I would add to work through the body – are demonstrating true traits of strength, maturity, and wisdom. Meanwhile, those who feel that they must push a vision or an agenda themselves demonstrate a lack of relying on the Spirit and immaturity. Where do we find characteristics of good leaders? Do we look for them in the business world or in Scripture? Do we look for people with A-type personalities, or people who are Spirit-led and humble? Do real leaders make things happen, or wait for God to make things happen?
Creating Church Organization…
Several months ago, in a post called “The Church or the Organization?“, I wrote about an example from a book in which I believe the organization was given precedence over the church (“church” = “people”). This post was in the context of the role of the pastor. I suggested that, according to Scripture, the pastor should care for people, not tend an organization. In my final paragraph, I said:
Our desire should be to grow the people (edify the body), not to grow the organization – and this includes those “stubborn” people that God has placed in our path. In fact, our purpose should be the growth of the whole body, not just 2/3 of the body. When people begin to be sacrificed in order to further the “organizational mission”, then the organization has the wrong mission. And, when pastors/elders/bishops begin focusing on the organization instead of the people, then they are not acting as the pastors/elders/bishops that Scripture describes.
Since I wrote that, I feel even more strongly that every believer should focus on people and not organizations and structures, especially those believers within the body of Christ who serve as examples for others (i.e. pastors/elders/bishops and other leaders). Unfortunately, it is not only “established churches” that fall prey to focusing on the organization instead of focusing on people.
I recently ran across a “church planting” web site that include some interesting information concerning a “model” church plant. Three families were planning to move from one major metropolitan area to another major metropolitan area in order to start a church. The men of the family already had their titles. The group already had a vision statement and a business plan. They had completed their demographics studies and a colorful brochure. In fact, they only needed one thing: money.
You see, that small group was ready to move to another city to start a church, as long as they could come up with enough money to fund their efforts. And how much money were they looking for? (I promise, I am not making this up…) They wanted over $700,000 for two years, with almost $500,000 of that going toward salaries.
These believers were not evangelizing in the new city… yet. They were not discipling anyone in the target city… yet. They had not baptized one person in this new location… yet. But, they had big plans with a big budget.
I know what you’re thinking… this is an extreme case. And, you’re right. It is wrong of them to build an organization before there is even a church to organize. Most would probably agree with me on this (although, I’m sure some would disagree, since this was offered as an example of how to start churches). But, are we any better when we push our smaller budgets and programs and buildings and titles, without evangelizing and making disciples? Are we any better when we do all we can to attract people to our service (and our offering) instead of sending more people out into the world where people are hurting and lost and needy?
I think I am going to continue to focus on people, and I think I am going to continue to point others toward building up people. God loves people. And, we demonstrate our love for God the same way he demonstrated his love for us: by giving ourselves to people, not by growing (or starting) our organizations.
Jesus is the Great Shepherd (Senior Pastor)
I was tagged by Bryan at “Charis Shalom” to post five things I dig about Jesus. I enjoyed thinking through my five things so much that I decided to blog about each one. The second thing that I “dig” about Jesus is that he is the Great Shepherd – or, as I like to translate it, the Senior Pastor.
Jesus called himself the “good shepherd” (John 10:11, 14). The author of Hebrews called Jesus the “great shepherd of the sheep” (Heb 13:20). Peter called Jesus the “shepherd and overseer (pastor and bishop) of your souls” (1 Pet 2:25) and “the chief shepherd (senior pastor)”. (1 Pet 5:4) What does it mean for Jesus to be our shepherd?
In John 10:11-13, the good shepherd is the one who lays down his life for his flock. While this points to Jesus’ death, it points to much, much more. Notice that in the picture of the “hireling”, the hireling runs away when the wolf attacks the sheep. But, the good shepherd does not run away. Instead, he gives his life in order to protect the sheep. This is the picture of Jesus’ death that we need to keep in mind. Jesus, the good shepherd, died protecting his sheep – that’s us. There was real danger in our lives, but the good shepherd died protecting us and destroying the threat.
In Hebrews 13:20, the great shepherd is the one who died but was raised from the dead in completion of his work on earth. This is then tied back to our perfection. (Heb 13:21) Because God was able to raise our great shepherd from the dead thus perfecting his work on earth, God is also able to perfect us in good works. The resurrection is not simply an historic event (though it is an historic event). The resurrection is a present reality in the lives of believers. The resurrected great shepherd leads us toward perfection through his Spirit.
In 1 Peter 2:25, the shepherd and overseer of our souls is the one who gathered us to himself. He sought out each lost sheep until he was able to carry that sheep back into his fold. He continues to care for those sheep teaching them how they might “die to sin and live to righteousness”. (1 Pet 2:24) This is a shepherd and overseer who is active and powerful and able and personal and working and caring and energetic and listening and forceful and loving. We all strayed from God, but our shepherd and overseer has returned us to our fold and keeps us there in his care.
In 1 Peter 5:4, the chief shepherd (senior pastor) is the one who is physically returning to his sheep. Currently, he shepherds us through his Spirit; then he will shepherd us in our physical resurrection reality. He is also the model for other believers, teaching us how to live a life surrendered to the will of God as an example to others. His return is our hope in times of discouragement and our joy in times of trial.
This is our Great Shepherd! He is the one shepherd over his one flock (John 10:16; cf. Ecc 12:11; Ezek 34:23; 37:24; ) – the head of the church. He is real, living, present, and able to lead his sheep.
Jesus is the Great High Priest
I was tagged by Bryan at “Charis Shalom” to post five things I dig about Jesus. Besides the fact that I have never used the word “dig” in this context, I enjoyed thinking through this meme (it was groovy). In fact, I’ve decided to blog about each of my five things. The first thing that I dig is that Jesus is the Great High Priest.
I’ve grown to love the book of Hebrews. I love the way the author of Hebrews shows that the way of Jesus is far superior to the way of the law and ritual. In fact, Hebrews argues that Jesus is not only superior, but that the “former things” were mere shadows of the real things, which were initiated by Jesus himself.
One of the comparisons made by the author of Hebrews is between Jesus as High Priest and the priestly system that began with Aaron. The priest was responsible for offering bulls or goats as sacrifices, which were actually ineffective at removing sins. (Heb 9:13; 10:4) The priest was appointed to act as a mediator between God and man, but he had to offer sacrifices for himself and for his sins first, then he could enter the holy place in the tabernacle or temple. (Heb 5:1-3; 9:1-4) These ritualistic sacrifices had to be carried out continuously. (Heb 7:27) But, if these rituals were ineffective, then why did God command that they be carried out? Because they were a shadow (an imitation) of what was to come through Jesus Christ! (Heb 8:5; 10:1)
Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, has now come. He has offered the perfect sacrifice (himself) once for all. (Heb 9:11-14) He does not need to offer this sacrifice continuously, because his death is sufficient. (Heb 7:27; 9:27-28) Now, Christ has entered into the very holy place – that is, into the presence of God himself. (Heb 9:24)
But, beyond what Christ did for us, Jesus as our Great High Priest continues to work on our behalf. Our Great High Priest does not die as other priests, but he lives forever! First, he mediates between us and God. (Heb 9:15; 12:22-24) Jesus intercedes on our behalf. (Heb 7:25) Finally, Jesus prepares the way for us to enter into the presence of God with him. (Heb 10:19-22)
Also, Jesus is not a high priest who is cold and distant. He is a high priest who came to us, who identifies with us, who suffered and was tempted as we are, and who is compassionate and sympathetic toward us! (Heb 4:15) This is the Great High Priest who ushers us into God’s presence, presenting our petitions when words fail us, mediating when we fail, lifting us when we fall, carrying us when we are too weak. This is the Great High Priest who will reign forever!
What does it mean for Jesus to be my Great High Priest? When someone tells me, “You can’t do that,” I just smile inside and remember the Great High Priest. When someone whispers, “God will not like you if you do that,” I nod and recognize that Jesus is mediating for me. When someone points out my sin and reminds me that I’m a loser, I remember that Jesus cleansed me of my sin and won on my behalf. When God seems distant because I have wandered far away from him, I remember that Jesus prepared a new and living way into the very presence of God, and He has given me permission to enter.
And, when I remember that I can’t do enough, and I can’t think enough, and I can’t say enough, and I can’t love enough, and I can’t serve enough… the Great High Priest reminds me that he did it all – once for all – and there’s nothing left for me to do, except to enter his rest – to abide with him.
This is the Great High Priest – the better priest who offered the better sacrifice in the better sanctuary to establish a better covenant over a better house. The shadows are no longer necessary because the light of the Son – our Great High Priest – has come and has conquered and is here.
Exercising authority…
Three months ago, in a post called “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority…” I discussed several questions that I had concerning leadership among believers in the church. I said then that I planned to continue studying various passages of Scripture that deal with leadership and authority. I’ve blogged about some of this study in “What does a non-bishop oversee?” and “1 Corinthians 14 and Leadership“. In this post, I want to continue discussing issues related to leadership.
There are several Greek verbs used to refer to the act of exercising authority:
εξουσιάζω (exousiazo) – “have power over”
κατεξουσιάζω (katexousiazo) – “exercise authority over”
κυÏιεύω (kurieuo) – “be lord or master over”
κατακυÏιεύω (katakurieuo) – “become master; gain dominion over”
These verbs each have one of two noun roots: κύÏιος (kurios – “lord or master”) and εξουσία (exousia – “authority or right”).
It is interesting to see how these verbs are used in context in Scripture. For example, consider these passages from the gospels:
[After the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus asking if her sons could sit on his right hand and left hand in his kingdom] But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over [κατακυÏιεύω (katakurieuo)] them, and their great ones exercise authority over [κατεξουσιάζω (katexousiazo)] 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; c.f. Mark 10:42-45)
[Immediately following the cup of the last supper:] A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he [Jesus] said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over [κυÏιεύω (kurieuo)] them, and those in authority over [εξουσιάζω (exousiazo)] them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. (Luke 22:24-26 ESV)
In each of these passages, Jesus tells his followers that “exercising authority” will not be part of their relationship with one another. Instead, Jesus replaces “exercising authority” with serving. Peter follows up on this teaching by telling elders that they should not attempt to care for (“shepherd”) God’s people by “domineering over” [κατακυÏιεύω (katakurieuo)] the people, instead they should live as an example for the people. (1 Peter 5:3) Similarly, in spite of his teaching and admonishment and exhortation, Paul says that he did not exercise authority over the faith of the believers in Corinth. (2 Cor. 1:24)
So, who or what does “rule over” or “domineer”? A man possessed by a demon exercised authority over (“subdued”) some Jewish exorcists. (Acts 19:16) Death does not exercise authority over Christ. (Rom. 6:9) Sin does not exercise authority over Christ’s people. (Rom. 6:14) The law exercises authority over living people. (Rom. 7:1) Christ exercises authority over the living and the dead. (Rom. 14:9) Paul will not be brought under the authority of any “thing”. (1 Cor. 6:12) The husband exercises authority over the wife’s body, and the wife exercises authority over the husband’s body. (1 Cor. 7:4) Jesus is Lord of all that exercise authority. (1 Tim. 6:15)
So far, in these passages, there is no indication that one person should exercise authority over another person in a spiritual sense. In fact, it seems like just the opposite is indicated. But, if the apostles were not to exercise authority, and Paul did not exercise authority, and Peter told elders not to exercise authority, then I’m not sure where the command for leaders to exercise authority over other people is coming from. However, I’m still searching Scripture. It is possible that I’ve missed something, or that there are other passages of Scripture where leaders are instructed to exercise authority.