Have you left “vocational ministry”?
A few days ago, I published a post called “The non-vocational option.” In that post, I explained that a few years ago, when I felt God leading me to more consistent service to his people, I was given two options: vocational pastor or vocational missionary.
So, back in 2002, my family moved to North Carolina so that I could attend seminary and get a job with a church as a vocational pastor. During my time in seminary – primarily through studying Scripture – I decided that the New Testament presents another option: the non-vocational option.
In response to that post, a reader named Scott left the following comment:
I think it would be helpful for some to share stories of people who made the transition from vocation to non-vocation and how they did it. Perhaps you could share stories of how you’ve helped in this regard and have others write up their stories of how they did it.
I believe this would be very helpful to many out there. It would also make for fascinating reading.
Now, I have never been a “vocational minister.” I have never been paid by a church. Although that was the direction that I was heading in 2002, God changed my plans over the next few years.
However, like Scott, I think it would be extremely helpful to hear the stories of people who have left “vocational ministry.” I know that some quit to find a “secular job” for many different reasons. Others are forced out, being fired by their church for different reasons and decide to never return.
The only person who I know (personally) who has “left the ministry” is Eric from “A Pilgrim’s Progress.” You can read his story on a page of his blog called “Why I resigned.”
I would love to hear your story too. Why did you leave “vocational ministry”? How did you support yourself and your family immediately after the job change? How do you support your family now? How do you serve your brothers and sisters in Christ now? What advice do you have for people who are considering leaving “vocational ministry”?
You can either leave a comment here, or send me an email at alan [at] alanknox [dot] net. I will not publish your story without your consent.
Consensus among the church… just wishful thinking?
- Introduction
- Episcopal
- Presbyterian
- Congregational
- Scriptural Evidence
- The Problem
- Moving Forward
- From Experience
A couple of year ago, I wrote a series on the topic of Church Polity. You can see the links to the posts in that series above.
In almost every instance, the question of polity arises in the context of making decisions as a church. Occasionally, the concept of polity is also seen as overlapping the issue of authority among the church. In that series, I first stepped through the definitions, scriptural evidences, and scriptural problems with the concepts of Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational polities (governments).
I suggested that when turning to Scripture to support any of these polities, there are problems:
So far, in order to support any type of church polity, we must ignore the fact that there is no direct evidence, ignore passages that indicate indirectly other forms of church polity, and ignore the fact that polity is not important in any of the writings of the New Testament.
But, there is one more thing that we must ignore exegetically. We must ignore what Scripture says about all believers; things like the fact that all believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit or all believers have the mind of Christ. We must ignore the fact that believers are to submit to one another. (I would assume this includes leaders? Even bishops? Even the presbyters?) We must ignore that believers are to consider others (and the opinions and desires of others) as more important than themselves. (I would assume this would include the majority versus the minority.)
Then, I suggested that there is another way forward, a way that does not include episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational polity: consensus. I admitted that seeking consensus among a group of believers can be impractical and often time consuming. But, still, I believe that consensus – the entire church working together to come to a decision – best describes what we read about the church in Scripture.
Recently, I noticed that the series above gets quite a few hits (through various search engines). People reach that series by searching for “episcopal church polity,” or “presbyterian church polity,” or “congregational church polity.” Sometimes, combined search strings such as “episcopal presbyterian congregational” hit that series.
But, you know what I haven’t noticed? Very few people are searching for information about consensus. I thought there may be a few reasons for this:
1) People are using a different term other than “consensus.”
2) People interested in consensus are not searching for information.
3) People don’t think consensus is a viable option.
(Perhaps there are other reasons as well…)
But, I wonder, what do you think about consensus? Is it possible that a group of Christians can come together and make decisions by consensus? Or, is this just wishful thinking… idealism… too impractical?
What about Paul’s authority?
In doing research for my previous series on the terms that Paul used to refer to other Christians (and whether or not those terms indicate a superior/subordinate relationship), I ran across a passage in 2 Corinthians in which Paul mentions his authority. I’ve come across this passage before, but I had not stopped to consider it in detail.
The statement itself is fairly short: “For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.” (2 Corinthians 13:10 ESV)
What is this “authority” that Paul is talking about? Apparently, he does believe that he has authority, and that this authority was given to him by the Lord for Paul to use to build up other brothers and sisters in Christ.
But, the question is, why does Paul have this authority? Is it special to Paul as an individual? Is it special to Paul as an apostle?
To begin with, notice that there is a particular reason that is causing Paul to use this authority. What is “this reason” that Paul plans to come and be severe in his authority? Well, apparently, there is some sin among the brothers and sisters in Corinth. Paul began talking about this sin earlier in chapter 13, and it is this sin (“this reason”) that is causing him to plan to use authority.
But, it is not only the existence of sin among the Corinthians that is causing him to plan to use authority. The main problem is that the Corinthians have not dealt with this sin on their own.
That’s right, the only reason that Paul is planning to “use authority” in this situation is that the Corinthians have not used the same authority themselves. In fact, Paul is almost incredulous that the Corinthians have not realized that they have the authority to deal with this sin because Jesus Christ dwells in them in power – just as he dwells in Paul in power.
Paul’s desire is that when he comes to Corinth for the third time, he finds that the Corinthians have found that Jesus Christ truly does dwell among them and that they have dealt with the issues of sin among them in the same authority that Paul himself would use otherwise.
So, the authority is not something that Paul has because he is Paul, and it’s not an authority that Paul has because he is an apostle. The authority is something Paul has because Jesus Christ dwells in him through the Holy Spirit.
But, guess what?!? All followers of Jesus Christ have the same authority because Jesus Christ also dwells in them through the Holy Spirit.
The Corinthians are not speaking and living according to the authority because they are not living in the power of Jesus Christ who dwells in them. But, the same authority that Paul plans to use is available to the Corinthians – and, in fact, to all believers.
What kind of authority does Paul plan to use (if necessary) when he comes to Corinth again? The same authority that every believer has – the authority of Jesus Christ who dwells in those who follow him.
When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
In this short series, I’m looking at the ways that Paul referred to people who traveled with him and people he worked with in various cities in order to answer these questions: How did Paul think those who traveled with him and worked with him? Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates (i.e., a hierarchy)? Did he think of them all as equals?
A few days ago, I introduced the series by asking, “What did Paul think of his subordinates?” Next, I defined some of the terms that I will use: superior, subordinate, and hierarchy. Then, I covered the terms that Paul used most often to refer to other believers: brother/sister and fellow-worker/soldier/servant. Next, I listed all the passages in which Paul used father/child (or mother/child) language and summarized how Paul used father/child language according to those passages. Finally, I asked if Paul used the term “apostle” to denote a superior/subordinate hierarchy.
In this post, I want to examine a passage in which Paul does employ language indicating a relationship of superiors to subordinates (i.e., a hierarchy).
As I mentioned in a previous post, Paul often uses “co-” language to refer to people he worked with: co-workers, co-servants, etc. But, in his second letter to the Corinthians believers (sent after his second visit and before his third visit to Corinth), he used different language to refer to others.
Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:5 ESV)
I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. (2 Corinthians 12:11 ESV)
The two words translated “super-apostles” in both of those passages is a combination of the word for “apostle” along with a superlative indicating “very chief,” “most eminent,” “most prominent,” etc. Thus, in a hierarchy, Paul is placing these “super-apostles” at the top of the pyramid (at least among apostles).
However, we also know that Paul says that he is being “foolish” using this kind of language to refer to these people, whom he also refers to as false apostles.
Throughout the two chapters (2 Corinthians 11-12), Paul points out several problems associated with these “super-apostles.” Some of those problems relate to the fact that these people DID attempt to place themselves over the Corinthians and others in a superior to subordinate (hierarchical) relationship.
Notice, though, that while Paul says that he is not inferior to these so-called “super-apostles,” he also does not place himself above anyone else. In fact, he says, “I am nothing.” (2 Corinthians 12:11 ESV) Instead of placing himself above the Corinthians or anyone else, Paul continually points to his own weaknesses, lack of abilities, and “foolishness.” He refuses to elevate himself above anyone else, though he also says that he is not inferior (even to these super-apostles).
So, when Paul DOES use the language of superior to subordinate, the calls it “foolishness.” Even when he compares himself to the false apostles and says he is “better,” Paul admits that he is “talking like a madman” (2 Corinthians 11:23 ESV). Paul does not have a positive view of the kind of language that indicates a superior to subordinate relationship (i.e., a hierarchy).
So, if I’m correct in the way that I’ve translated all of these passages (throughout this short series), then Paul never refers to other Christians in language that indicates a superior/subordinate (hierarchical) relationship. At least, he never uses this kind of language in a positive manner.
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
In this short series, I’m looking at the ways that Paul referred to people who traveled with him and people he worked with in various cities in order to answer these questions: How did Paul think those who traveled with him and worked with him? Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates (i.e., a hierarchy)? Did he think of them all as equals?
A few days ago, I introduced the series by asking, “What did Paul think of his subordinates?” Next, I defined some of the terms that I will use: superior, subordinate, and hierarchy. Then, I covered the terms that Paul used most often to refer to other believers: brother/sister and fellow-worker/soldier/servant. Next, I listed all the passages in which Paul used father/child (or mother/child) language and summarized how Paul used father/child language according to those passages.
In this post, I’m examining another term that Paul uses that is occasionally used as an example of a hierarchy with some being superior while others are subordinates. That term is “apostle.”
We know that Paul often refers to himself as an apostle, and he also refers to others as apostles: Apollos (and others in 1 Corinthians 4:9, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and 1 Corinthians 15:7,9), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), Silas (and perhaps others in 1 Thessalonians 2:6), and perhaps Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). Does Paul use the term “apostle” to indicate that these people are superior to others in some type of hierarchy?
No. In fact, if we read what Paul says about apostles, he says just the opposite. He does not place apostles above other Christians. Instead, he places apostles below others as their servants. (See especially 1 Corinthians 4:1,9.)
But, wait! Doesn’t Paul say that apostles are “first” among gifts given by God? Yes, Paul wrote the following to the Corinthians:
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:28 ESV)
So, doesn’t this indicate that apostles are first in the sense of superior to other believers in a hierarchy? No. Whatever Paul intended to communicate with that ordered list of spiritual gifted persons (and there are a few suggested interpretations), he could not have meant an order of importance or superiority.
How do we know that Paul could not have meant this? Because just before that previous statement, Paul had written this:
On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Corinthians 12:22-25 ESV)
Based on that passage, regardless of what Paul means when he wrote, “God has appointed in the church first apostles,” he did not mean that God gave them authority over others or made them superior to others.
As with other types of spiritual gifts (prophecy, teaching, pastoring, evangelizing, serving, encouraging, working miracles, healing, etc.), God gives those gifted as apostles to the church as servants, not as authority figures.
So, Paul did not refer to some as apostles in order to show that they were superior while others were subordinate in some type of hierarchy.
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
In this short series, I’m looking at the ways that Paul referred to people who traveled with him and people he worked with in various cities in order to answer these questions: How did Paul think those who traveled with him and worked with him? Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates (i.e., a hierarchy)? Did he think of them all as equals?
A few days ago, I introduced the series by asking, “What did Paul think of his subordinates?” Next, I defined some of the terms that I will use: superior, subordinate, and hierarchy. Then, I covered the terms that Paul used most often to refer to other believers: brother/sister and fellow-worker/soldier/servant and listed all the passages in which Paul used father/child (or mother/child) language.
In this post, I return to those passages in which Paul used father/child (or mother/child) language to determine if he used that language in a sense that denotes a superior/subordinate (hierarchy) relationship.
In most of the passages, Paul simply calls someone his “child” or calls himself a “father” without explaining what he means by using that language. However, a few passages help us understand what Paul means when he uses that father/child language.
To begin with, Paul uses this language in many different contexts. He uses this language in reference to a specific individual such as Timothy, Titus, or Onesimus. However, he also uses father/child language when referring to a large number of people, such as the believers in Corinth or Thessaloniki. This is interesting because Paul spent a lot of time with the Corinthians, but, according to Luke (Acts 17:1-10), he spent only a few weeks with the Thessalonians. Even though he only spent a few weeks with them, he still referred to their relationship like that of a father to a child (1 Thessalonians 2:11-12). (By the way, he also used mother/child language to describe his relationship with the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 2:7-8.)
The passage in 1 Thessalonians is interesting for another reason as well. In that passage, he does not only refer to himself as the “father” in the relationship, but instead he also includes all of those who were traveling with him. We don’t know everyone that Paul included in the “we” as fathers in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, but it seems that at least Silas is included in that number (according to Luke in Acts 17:10).
Finally, in the 1 Thessalonians passage, we read exactly what Paul considered to be their work as “fathers”:
For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. (1 Thessalonians 2:11-12 ESV)
So, according to Paul, a “father” is one who exhorts, encourages, and charges his “children” to walk with God. This is not relationship of superior to subordinate (perhaps like a father to an infant child or toddler) but more of a relationship of the more mature toward the less mature… like a father to an adult child who is seeking wisdom and advice from one who has more experience.
Another passage when seems to point in this same position is found in Paul’s first letter to his “child” Timothy:
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity. (1 Timothy 5:1-2 ESV)
In this passage, Paul is encouraging Timothy to treat all older men as “fathers” (and older women as “mothers”). So, the “father/child” language does not seem to represent a special type of relationship to Paul, but a general relationship between any more mature (or older) believer to a less mature (or younger) believer and vice versa. So, it refers to respect that is owed to someone who is older or more mature, it does not refer to a hierarchy of relationships / functions / positions.
Like I said earlier, Paul does not explain what he means by the father/child language in every passage in which he uses it. However, I think that every passage fits within the patterns that we find in the few passages in which Paul does explain what he means by the father/child language.
What do you think? This is obviously a brief examination of the father/child language. What have I missed?
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
In this short series, I’m looking at the ways that Paul referred to people who traveled with him and people he worked with in various cities in order to answer these questions: How did Paul think those who traveled with him and worked with him? Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates? Did he think of them all as equals?
A couple of days ago, I introduced the series by asking, “What did Paul think of his subordinates?” Then, in yesterday’s post, I defined some of the terms that I will use: superior, subordinate, and hierarchy.
In this post, I start the study by looking at a few terms that Paul uses most often to refer to other followers of Jesus Christ – both those who travel along with him and those with whom he works in the cities where he visits.
(By the way, this series is not intended to prove or disprove the existence of positions of authority among the church, although it would be part of a complete study of the subject. If you’d like to read a fuller treatment of the subject of positions of authority among the church see this series: “Authority among the church.”)
It should come as no surprise that Paul uses brother/sister terminology most often when referring to other Christians. We know that he refers to the recipients of his letters as brothers and sisters, but he also often refers to individuals as brother and sister as well.
Here are a few examples:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe… (Romans 16:1 ESV)
Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brothers… (1 Corinthians 16:12 ESV)
Tychicus the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. (Ephesians 6:21 ESV)
Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers. (2 Timothry 4:21 ESV)
A related term that Paul also uses often in Romans 16 is one that is usually translated “kinsman” or “relative.” As with brother/sister, this term brings out the familial relationship between those who are in Christ. Here are a couple of examples in which Paul refers to people as his “kinsmen/relatives”:
Greet my kinsman Herodion… (Romans 16:11 ESV)
…so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen, [greet you]. (Romans 16:21 ESV)
Besides the “brother/sister” and “relative” references mentioned above, there is another group of terms that Paul often uses to refer to other believers. In these cases, Paul combines a noun or descriptor with the Greek term that means “together with.” You usually see this references translated as “fellow” or “co-” depending on the term used (and the translation).
Here are a few different examples:
Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Philippians 4:3 ESV)
I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier… (Philippians 2:25 ESV)
…just as you learned it from Epaphras our beloved fellow servant. (Colossians 1:7 ESV)
To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier… (Philemon 1:1-2 ESV)
As you can see from the last example, Paul often combines several of the different terms together. For an amazing look at the way that Paul refers to other Christians, read through the entirety of Romans 16.
The language that Paul uses in the examples above (and in many other passages in which he uses similar terms) is the language of equality, not the language of superiors and subordinates.
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
Paul’s thoughts on superiors and subordinates: defining the terms
In yesterday’s post, “What did Paul think about his subordinates?,” I explained that in the next few post I intend to examine what Paul thought about the people who traveled with him and the people he worked with in various cities. Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates? Did he think of them all as equals?
Before I get into the evidence from Scripture, I think it’s important that I define the terms that I’m using in this series.
Superior
A person higher than another person in rank, status, authority, or quality
Subordinate
A person lower in rank, status, authority, or quality in comparison to another person
And, since this word will probably pop up from time to time, I will include it as well:
Hierarchy
A ranking of different people based on status, authority, or quality
In reality, in the way that I’m using these terms, the three go together. A hierarchy requires superiors and subordinates. The presence of superiors or subordinates automatically dictates the presence of the other and automatically forms a hierarchy.
So, if I rephrase the original question using these definitions, then this is what I’m asking: Did Paul think of himself as being higher in rank, status, authority, or quality than the people he traveled with or the people in worked with in various cities?
Now, I want to point out something very important. I am not talking about extreme cases of superiority or subordination. I’m not talking about dictatorial leaders or blind followers. I’m simply talking about hierarchy of any kind, and superiors and subordinates of any kind.
A kind, benevolent, caring, supportive, and empowering superior is still a superior and is still above his/her subordinates in a hierarchy based on some rank.
So, in the remaining posts in this series, I will examine the terms that Paul used to refer to his traveling companions and other believers in various cities in order to determine if he used terms denoting a superior/subordinate relationship or if he used terms denoting an equal relationship.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the definitions I’m using.
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
What did Paul think about his subordinates?
A couple of weeks ago, a new blogging friend (Donald) and I had a good discussion on an old post called “The Phabulous Phoebe.” In those comments, Donald mentioned Paul’s relationship with Timothy, and how Paul referred to it as a father/son relationship. (See 1 Timothy 1:1-2 and 2 Timothy 1:1-2 as examples.)
These comments triggered a question in my mind: How did Paul think those who traveled with him and worked with him? Did he think of himself as being a superior with them being subordinates? Did he think of them all as equals?
Of course, we can’t ask Paul that question. And, he does not write a letter to tell anyone what he thinks about these various people. All we can do is consider how Paul referred to the people who traveled with him and how he referred to the people he worked with in the various cities where he spent time.
Why is this important? Not long after the apostle died, some of the Christians who came along after them began exhorting the church to form into a hierarchical system with the bishop at the top, elders under them, deacons under them, and everyone else under the official clergy. (Ignatius is one example of an early writer who proposed this type of hierarchy, although I don’t think his ideas caught on until many years after he died.)
Now, if you’ve read my blog for any length of time, then you know that I disagree with this line of thinking. I do not believe that Jesus or any of his immediate followers – including Paul – desired to see the church develop into some type of hierarchical organization.
Studying the way that Paul referred to the people who traveled with him and with whom he worked in various cities can help us understand a little more about the presence or absence of a hierarchy at that time. Obviously, this short study will not prove the presence or absence of a hierarchy among the church while Paul was writing as letters, but it is another point in the argument one way or another.
So, over the next few days, I’m planning to publish posts that examine the way that Paul referred to other people. Today, most of these people would be considered Paul’s “subordinates” – thus, the use of the term “subordinates” in the title of this post.
What do you think? Do you believe that Paul saw himself as being in a position of superiority while others were his subordinates?
——————————————
Series: Does Paul refer to other Christians as superiors/subordinates?
- What did Paul think about his subordinates?
- Defining the terms
- The ways that Paul most often refers to other believers
- When Paul refers to other believers using father/child language
- Examining Paul’s use of the father/child language
- Does Paul use the term apostle to refer to a superior/subordinate relationship?
- When Paul DOES use the language of superiors and subordinates
Most Read Post of 2007: The Church or The Organization
I’m out of town this week, so I’m linking to the most read posts on my blog from each year from 2007 to 2011.
The most read post on my blog from 2007 was “The Church or The Organization.”
Please take the time to read that post and the comments from my readers.
Thank you, and I’ll “see” you again soon.