Examples and Models
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “Examples and Models.” In that post, I tried to explain how my course has changed from seeking “full time ministry” to seeking full time ministry. Of course, a few years before that, I thought that the only way to seek full time ministry was to be in “full time ministry.”
————————————————
I love the latest post by a new blogger, Trey from “One Man’s Journey“. The title of the post is “Walk Away for the Love of Christ?” I love his honest reflection and life-changing questions. I also see in his questions many of the questions that I started asking myself a few years ago. Here is an excerpt from Trey’s excellent post:
As my family and I sunk into a financial pit of despair, I began to read much in the realm of finance, investing, financial planning, and biblical financial stewardship. I grew to love this and can see many ways in which the average Christian and also the average church misuses the resources provided by God. I began to see myself as doing this sort of consultation work to families, small businesses, churches, and parachurch ministries once I gained the proper training. But what about seminary? What about my calling? What will my family think?
As previously, most issues discussed here have not been settled in my mind completely. I have been reminded in my prayer times that God certainly does not need me. He has managed eternity just fine before me and will do so long after I become one of saints on high. Also, why do I need the spotlight of an official pastor-elder of a local congregation? Can I not teach and serve in other ways just an important to the kingdom?
Several years ago, I also had this “calling”. Looking back, I think that God was calling me to a more committed life of serving himself and others – he was calling me to full-time ministry, although I don’t think he was calling me to “full-time ministry”. At the time, though, I only saw two options: 1) become a vocational pastor, or 2) become a missionary.
Why did I only see these two options? Well, those were the only two options that I saw modelled. These were the only examples that I saw of what it meant to serve God full-time. So, I picked one – vocational pastor – and did what I was supposed to do: I went to seminary. But, as my family will tell you, I struggled with the idea of being a full-time vocational pastor from day one. I did not think that this accurately reflected what God wanted from me, but I did not have any other categories, models, or examples to compare to.
I knew what God wanted from me: he wanted me to serve him and serve others in everything that I said and everything that I did. But, this couldn’t happen if I worked a regular job, right? I mean, regular people are distracted by work and commuting and co-workers and business trips and office parties. But, God didn’t want me to be distracted by these “secular” things, so I needed to give all of that up, go to seminary, get hired by a church in order that I could concentrate on “spiritual” things.
As Trey expressed in his blog post, I thought that the real work of God was done by those people who prominently stood before me each Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday evening, etc. These were the people who knew God and what God wanted from me and others and how to teach the Bible and how to put on Bible studies and where to find the lost people and when to schedule the Children’s program.
A strange thing happened on the way though. As I was happily preparing myself for just this type of “spiritual” vocation, I took my professors seriously, and I read Scripture to find the answers to my questions. It began with recognizing that Scripture does not call the Sunday morning routine “worship”. I asked myself, “If that’s not worship, then what is worship?” Again, I turned to Scripture for answers. From those answers, I was forced to ask other questions and search for more answers.
In fact, the more I studied and read and asked questions, the more I realized that the type of “spotlight servants” which Trey mentions – and to which I was aspiring – was not described in Scripture at all. In fact, I would suggest that “spotlight servants” are antithetical to the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter – in fact, all the books of the New Testament. Instead, Jesus calls all believers to be servants – not “spotlight servants”, but servants.
And, slowly, I began to understand that “vocational pastors” may be necessary to carry out what we typically see associated with church today. However, when we examine church in Scripture, we see that “vocational pastors” seem out of place. Instead, we see people shepherding as they work, and discipling wherever they are, and teaching in any context, and caring and comforting wherever they find people who are hurting. We find leaders who lead by example, not from the spotlight. We find elders who are mature and wise and known, not hired for their education and speaking abilities. We find prophets and teachers and apostles who are willing to dialog instead of monologue. We find disciples who are constantly and consistently attempting to live for Christ with the help of other brothers and sisters. We find that there is no secular and sacred divide. Through the indwelling Spirit, all things become sacred – every place becomes a sanctuary – every believer becomes a priest and a temple.
In other words, God can use me as his full-time servant when I am selling cars, or writing code, or running a business, or seeing patients. I can pastor while I am teaching in a school or college, or taking care of the home, or packing boxes, or delivering mail, or selling clothes. I can meet with other believers as the church in a church building, or in a restaurant, or in a park, or in a home, or in a car, or in an office. God was calling me – and he is calling others – into full-time service, wherever we are and whatever we’re doing.
It is my desire to live the rest of my life as an example of following God and serving him full-time in whatever vocation he provides for me. I hope that the believers who come along after me will see my example as another option when God calls them also.
Images of Leadership
Here’s an interesting exercise. Surf over to Google Images. (You may want to make sure that “SafeSearch” is on.) Then, search the image database for whatever term you or others use to identify the leaders among your church. Here are a few examples: “pastor,” “preacher,” “minister,” “elder,” “deacon,” “priest,” “presbyter,” “bishop,” “vicar.”
Now, remembering that Jesus said that we should follow those who serve (that is, our leaders should be servants – Matthew 20:24-28 for example), search for the term “servant“.
Why are the images so drastically different?
Of course, I suppose, there’s a better way to check this than by doing a Google search. Do the lives of our leaders look like the lives of servants?
Gifting vs. Office
Three years ago, I was attending the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington D.C. I attended a presentation by Harold Hoehner on the topic of spiritual gifting vs. office. In response, I wrote a blog series describing and interacting with Hoehner’s view. (“Gifting vs. Office,” “Gifting vs. Office 2,” “Gifting vs. Office 3,” and “Gifting vs. Office 4.”) (By the way, I don’t like the term “office” when used in connection with the church. But, Hoehner used the term, so I used it in my series.) It’s interesting to see how some of my views and terminology has changed over the last three years. Here is that series:
————————————————————-
This is the first series of posts inspired by papers or conversations at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting this year. One of the first presentations that I heard was Harold W. Hoehner’s “Can a Woman be a Pastor-Teacher?” (If you can find this paper online, please let me know.) Apart from the provocative title, the content provided many opportunities for discussion. Hoehner’s premise was that we must not confuse spiritual gifting with office. Now, while I do not like the term “office”, I will use it for this discussion. His conclusion was that pastoring and teaching are both spiritual gifts, not offices. Since the Holy Spirit gifts different believers with different gifts, He may – and probably does – endow women with the gift of pastoring-teaching.
This series will center around the differences between gifting by the Spirit and office within the church. Is there a difference? Should someone holding a certain office always have certain gifts? Should someone with certain gifts always hold a certain office? If you think of other questions, please add them in the comments.
————————————————————-
Office
In Hoehner’s presentation at ETS (“Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher”), he made a distinction between gifting by the Holy Spirit and holding an office in the church (Remember, I do not like the term “office”, but I’m using it here because Dr. Hoehner used it in his presentation.)
Hoehner suggested that an office can be recognized in Scripture when there are qualifications for holding that office. Therefore, he sees three distinct offices:
- Apostle (qualifications given in Acts 1:15-26)
- Elder/Bishop-overseer (qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9)
- Deacon (possibly deaconess) (qualifications given in 1 Timothy 3:8-13)
Hoehner did not like to use the term “pastor” for the office of elder/bishop, because he says that “pastoring” is a Spiritual gift, not an office. However, it is interesting to note that he sees “apostle” as both an office and a gift, and “deacon” as an office and a gift (since “deacon” acutally means “servant”).
Are these “offices” in the church? Are there other “offices”? Is there a better term than “office”?
————————————————————-
At ETS this year, Harold Hoehner presented a paper titled “Can a Woman be a Pastor-Teacher?” He argued that there is a difference between gifting and office. Scripture designates an “office” (Remember, I do not like that term. I am using it because Hoehner used it.) by listing qualifications for the office. He recognizes apostle, elder/bishop, and deacon (possibly deaconness) as scriptural offices.
On the other hand, Hoehner argued that gifts are not given based on qualifications. Instead, gifts are given by the Holy Spirit to all believers. He recognizes all of items listed in Eph 4:11, 1 Cor 12, and Romans 12 to be spiritual gifts. Any believer may exercise his or her spiritual gift as sovereignly endowed by the Holy Spirit. According to Hoehner, Eph 4:11 lists individuals who are exercising their spiritual gifts, not offices. Therefore, any believer may have the gifting to operate as an apostle (not as the office of an apostle though), a prophet, an evangelist, or a pastor-teacher (not as the office of an elder/bishop though).
Is Hoehner correct that there is a difference between gifting and office? Could any believer possess any spiritual gifts? Is there any scriptural evidence that some categories of believers (women, for instance) will never be granted certain spiritual gifts (pastoring/teaching, for instance)?
————————————————————-
So far, I have attempted to explain Harold Hoehner’s view as he presented it in this paper given at ETS: “Can a Woman be a Pastor-Teacher?” Here is his argument in summary:
- Many misunderstandings (his estimate was 95%, I think) about women in ministry are caused by a blurring of the distinctions between spiritual gifts and offices.
- Scripture gives qualifications for offices. Qualifications are given for apostles, elder/ bishops, and deacons/deaconesses.
- Scripture does not give qualifications for gifts. Gifts are given according to the will of God through the Holy Spirit.
- Since there are no qualifications given for the list in Ephesians 4:11 (apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers), pastor-teachers are individuals endowed with spiritual gifts, not offices.
- Therefore, even if women cannot hold a certain office, they can be pastor-teachers if they are so gifted.
To be honest, I have no desire to discuss women in ministry. Instead, I would like to discuss his distinction between spiritual gifts and offices.
First, my understanding of spiritual gifts seems to differ slightly from Hoehner’s understanding. Spiritual gifts are given by the Holy Spirit, through believers, for the benefit of others (1 Cor. 12:7). Scripture does not indicate that believers are endowed with gifts for life, or that believers can recognize their particular gifts. The “name” of the gifts (i.e. serving, leading, teaching), seem to come from the benefit given to others. In other words, someone has the gift of teaching because what the Spirit does through them teaches others. It is possible that the Spirit could use the exact same actions/words to encourage others at the same time. Therefore, the gift is recognized as teaching for group 1, while it is recognized as encouragment for group 2. Yet, the Spirit is working through the same person’s words.
If this view is correct, then we should not emphasize that a person is “exercising” a certain spiritual gift. The person does not control whether or not, or how, the Spirit decides to work through them. Instead, as Peter says, the person should speak and/or act according to the will of God, and allow the Spirit to use those words/actions as He chooses.
I do recognize that there are people within Scripture that are called “teachers,” “prophets,” “servants,” etc. However, in my view, this is the recognition of others that these are the primary ways that the Spirit works through those individuals. Thus, for one known as a “teacher,” the Spirit normally uses that person’s words to teach others; therefore, other people recognize this and refer to him/her as a “teacher.”
This is illustrated in 1 Cor. 12-14. In 1 Cor. 12:29, Paul asks the question, “Are all prophets?”, expecting a negative answer: No, all are not prophets. Thus, Paul recognizes that, for certain believers, the Spirit regularly uses their words as words of prophecy. But, the Spirit does not normally work this way through everyone. Then, in 1 Cor. 14:31, Paul states, “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.” In this verse, Paul recognizes that, even though the Spirit may not normally use someone’s words as prophecy, that potential is always there, because the Spirit chooses how He will endow gifts according to His will.
I realize that this may seem pedantic. However, I think the distinction is important. Which is important: 1) I should teach others, or 2) I should speak as the Spirit leads me, even if no one “learns” from my words. I am not responsible for how others receive my words or actions; however, I am responsible for obeying God is everything that I do and say.
Elders
Two years ago, I wrote a seven part series on Elders (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, and part 7). Unfortunately, I think many Christians understand elders/pastors/bishop more from their cultural definitions than from scriptural definitions and examples. Below I’ve re-published the conclusion of this series, along with links to the other posts in the series.
———————————————————————-
In this series, I’ve suggested that Scripture does not hold elders to a higher standard of character, leadership, teaching, shepherding, or oversight. Also, I’ve suggested that Scripture does not add any responsibilities to elders in these areas above the responsibilities of all believers. Instead, I’ve suggested that, according to Scripture, all believers have the same responsibilities in these areas.
Does this mean that elders are unscriptural? Does this mean that elders are unimportant?
No. Elders are both scriptural and important. Scripture teaches that the church in Jerusalem had elders. Scripture teaches that Paul appointed elders in the cities that he visited. Scripture teaches that Paul told Timothy and Titus how to recognize elders. James and Peter both expected elders in the various churches to whom they wrote.
Elders are scriptural and important. When we recognize elders, we should recognize those who best exemplify the character, leadership, teaching, shepherding, and oversight required of all followers of Jesus Christ. When we think of people who are best following Jesus Christ and who are best serving other people, elders are the ones we should think about. When we want to see a flesh-and-blood example of what it means to live for Christ here and now, elders should be our best examples. These are the people who point us toward maturity in Jesus Christ – not toward themselves. When we need help in understanding something, or when we need assistance, or when we need comfort, or when we need exhortation, or even when we need correction, we should think of elders – not because they alone are responsible in these areas, but because we have observed how they live in obedience to Christ in these areas.
Again, this does not mean that elders are more responsible. It means that elders have demonstrated that they are more faithful in obeying Christ the way that all believers should obey Christ. However, elders who recognize that it is important for all followers of Jesus Christ to live this kind of obedient life will not always respond to requests for help from other believers. Instead, they will recognize that it is necessary that other believers have opportunities to demonstrate their character, to lead, to teach, to shepherd, and to oversee. Thus, elders who are interested in maturing all believers toward Christ will often defer an opportunity to serve to other believers, because those elders know that it is more important for the other believers to grow in maturity than it is for the elders themselves to do something, even if the elders might do it better.
In many contexts, people believe that elders lead best when they are visible and vocal. However, this is not necessarily true. Yes, there are times when mature believers (any mature believer, not just elders) should make themselves seen and heard in order to protect the gospel (not to protect our pet doctrines, but to protect the gospel). I have personally never been in one of these situations. I believe that they are rare, but the situation could come up. However, for the most part, I believe that elders demonstrate their maturity and Christlikeness most when they are not seen and not heard but are instead serving in obscurity by leading, teaching, shepherding, and overseeing in ways that demonstrate the humility and gentleness of the Spirit of Christ. If someone must be “in the limelight” – if they must be noticed – if they must be the main speaker – if they must make their opinion known – then it could be that this person is not demonstrating the character of Christ – who humbled himself taking the form of a servant – and reliance upon God, but is instead revealing a character of pride and self-dependence.
I recognize that there are serious implications of my views concerning elders. I hope to discuss many of these implications. However, I also want to give you an opportunity to discuss these implications. So, for the conclusion of this series, I am asking you – my readers – to help us understand the implications. Later, I will publish another post in order to discuss these various implications. Here are my questions for you:
1. Am I missing something in my understanding of elders?
2. What are the implications of this view of elders?
——————————————————————-
Series on Elders
1. Elders (Part 1) – Introduction
2. Elders (Part 2) – Character
3. Elders (Part 3) – Leadership
4. Elders (Part 4) – Teaching
5. Elders (Part 5) – Shepherding
6. Elders (Part 6) – Overseeing
7. Elders (Part 7) – Conclusion
Special Equippers?
Last year, around this time, I wrote a post called “Special Equippers?” Hopefully, in that post, I successfully argued that the list of gifted individuals in Ephesians 4:11 are not “special equippers” but are instead given to equip the church just as all followers of Jesus are given to the church in order to equip the church. Many times, when people exegete certain passages especially related to leaders (elders, apostles, etc.), they fail to take into account similar passages that deal with all believers. Here is that post:
————————————————
A couple of days ago, in my post called “And he gave… (Ephesians 4:11)“, I suggested that the list of gifted individuals in Ephesians 4:11 (i.e. apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers) was simply a sample of all gifted followers of Jesus Christ. These four (or five) types of giftings are not gifts that are necessary for the church above and beyond the other spiritual gifts.
However, the argument is often made that Scripture indicates that these gifted individuals are responsible for the special function of “equipping” which is not the responsibility of other believers – that is, those believers without the giftings listed in Ephesians 4:11. (And, now, David Rogers from “Love Each Stone” has asked a similar question in the comments of my post on Ephesians 4:11.) Since this post will deal mostly with Ephesians 4:11-12, I’ll include that passage of Scripture here:
And he [Jesus] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ… (Ephesians 4:11-12 ESV)
I’ve written about previously in a post called “Ephesian 4:12 and Equipping Ministries“. The subject of this very long sentence (the sentence doesn’t end until the end of verse 16) is the pronoun “he” – referring to Jesus – which is emphasized both by its inclusion in the sentence (the pronoun “he” is not implicitly required) and by its prominent position in the sentence. Thus, Paul is emphasizing the fact that Jesus – and only Jesus – gives gifted individuals to the church for the equipment of the church. He gives these gifted individuals according to his grace (Eph 4:7), not according to our own abilities or talents.
The phrase translated “to equip” in the passage above is actually a prepositional phrase that is literally “for the equipping” or “toward the equipping”, with “equipping” being a rough translation of the noun καταÏτισμός (katartismos). The prepositional phrase works adverbially to describe the purpose of Jesus giving the gifted individuals.
The argument is often made that since καταÏτισμός (katartismos – “equipping”) is used only of these four (or five) gifted individuals, then only these individuals carry the responsibility of “equipping” the body. Thus, these are often called “equipping ministries”. I do not think it is valid to assign the responsibility of “equipping” only to these four (or five) gifted individuals based on the us of the noun καταÏτισμός (katartismos) for a couple of reasons.
First, while it is true that καταÏτισμός (katartismos) is only used in reference to these gifted individuals, it is also true that this noun is only used once in the entire New Testament. Thus, the noun καταÏτισμός (katartismos) is only found in Ephesians 4:12. It is not even used in the Septuagint (LXX – the Greek translation of the Old Testament). Can we argue from one use of a noun that only these gifted individuals are responsible for this result?
Paul uses a similar noun (κατάÏτισις – katartisis), which is also used only once in the NT in 2 Corinthians 13:9, when he says that he and his fellow workers pray for the “restoration” (“perfection”, “equipping”) of the Corinthian believers. I have never seen anyone suggest that only Paul and his companions are responsible for praying for κατάÏτισις, since the noun is only used in association with Paul and his fellow workers.
However, to me, there is an even more convincing reason to see καταÏτισμός (katartismos – “equipping”) as the responsibility of all believers. The verb form of the noun καταÏτισμός (katartismos) is καταÏτίζω (katartizÅ), which is translated (in the infinitive) “to put in order, restore, complete, fully train, prepare”… in other words, “to equip”. We have the advantage of having multiple instances of this verb in the New Testament and in the Septuagint.
For example, this is the verb used when Scripture tells us that James and John were “mending” their nets (Matt. 4:21). Luke uses this verb when Jesus says, “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained (καταÏτίζω – katartizÅ) will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40). At the end of the letter to the Hebrews, the author prays that God would “equip” the readers with everything good to do his will (Heb 13:20-21).
But, there are also instances where the verb καταÏτίζω (katartizÅ) is used of believers acting toward other believers.
For example, in 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote:
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united (“perfected”, “restored”, “equipped”) in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10 ESV)
Since Paul does not mention the work of “equipping ministers” in Corinthians, it would be difficult to argue that Paul was telling the believers in Corinth to allow the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers to “equip” or “restore” them to the proper way of thinking.
Similarly, consider this passage from Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth:
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration (“equipping”), comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you. (2 Corinthians 13:11 ESV)
The command to “equip” is given in the context of the believers in Corinth working together. There is not a sense in this verse that some specially gifted believers are supposed to do the work of “restoring” while everyone is responsible for rejoicing, comforting, agreeing, and living in peace.
Finally, in Galatians, Paul says:
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. (Galatians 6:1 ESV)
Again, in this verse, the work of καταÏτίζω (katartizÅ – “restoring”, “completing”, “equipping”) is the work of all who are “spiritual” not just certain specially gifted people.
In these three passages, we see that the work of καταÏτίζω (katartizÅ – “equpping”, “restoring”) is the work of all believers, and Paul in particular does not have any problem using this term in relation to all believers. This is not a term that Paul associates only with a special group of gifted individuals.
So, who is responsible for “equipping” the body of Christ? Jesus (Eph 4:11). He is the only one who can equip the body of Christ for the work of service. How does he do this? Well, one of the ways that Jesus equips his body is through the gifts that he gives to the church. He gives these gifts to the church according to his grace for the benefit of all members. As Paul explains in Ephesians 4:16, the church does not grow in love when the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers use their gifts to equip the body. Instead, the church grows in love when all parts of the body use their gifts to build up the body. And, as we’ve seen from other passages, all members of the body are also responsible for “equipping” the body.
Ruling or Leading?
Two years ago on this blog, I was stepping through several passages and phrases that are used in Scripture to describe elders and other Christian leaders. I wrote one post called “Ruling or Leading?” as part of that series. I think the distinction between ruling and leading is a very important distinction. I hope you enjoy this post:
——————————————-
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.
No Senior/Teaching Pastor?
My friend Maël from “The Adventures of Maël & Cindy” is writing a series concerning whether or not the “senior pastor” role is biblical. His first post is called “The Senior Pastor – Introduction“. Look through his blog for the other posts.
I do not intend to discuss his premise or his arguments. I’ll just say for the moment that I agree with him that a separate “senior pastor” or “teaching pastor” role is not biblical. Instead, I want to discuss something related.
After reviewing the literature on the topic, Maël lists four options:
- The first view is the most common one: the senior pastor is the leader (some may even say ‘head’ or ‘under-shepherd’) of the congregation. The other pastors, usually called associate pastors or ministers with specific designations, help him in the work of his ministry. He is the main shepherd of the flock and the main preacher for the congregation… He might seek advice from the other pastors and be very open to their thoughts and suggestions, but ultimately ‘the buck stops with him’. Throughout this series, this view of the role of a senior pastor will be referred to as the ‘traditional’ view.
- The second view is similar to the first one: the senior pastor is still the leader of the congregation with associate pastors helping him in the work of his ministry. He is still the main shepherd of the flock and the main preacher for the congregation. However, in view number two, unlike in the traditional view, when there is room for pastoral decision making and vision casting, his vote counts as only one among equally weighted votes with the other pastors… This view will be referred to as the ‘leader of leaders’ view…
- The third view is called by Strauch the ‘first among equals’ view. Strauch pictures the difference between the senior pastor and the other pastors as being one of function, not title. The senior pastor is “the natural leader, the chief speaker, the man of action;” he challenges, energizes, strengthens, and ignites the group. In this view there is the sense that this leader is the leader because of his personality and outgoing attitude. He is probably the most outspoken of the pastors and possibly the main teacher also, but he is not officially designated the senior pastor. Note that the difference between views two and three can be very subtle. While it seems that the outworking of both views is similar, the fundamental difference is in the need to officially name this separate office and the implications which develop because of it.
- The fourth view is one void of a human senior pastor altogether. In this view, all the pastors are equal in the eyes of the people and equal in practice. Some advocates of this view will purport that Jesus Christ is the rightful senior pastor of any congregation.
While Maël doesn’t name this last view, I’m going to call it the “no senior pastor view”.
Now, my questions. Have you been part of churches with any of these structures? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of each of these views? How do you think the “no senior pastor view” would work?
When you think of leaders
When you think of leaders – that is, leaders within the church – what do you think about first? Do you think about their ability to speak and teach? Do you think about their ability to motivate or persuade? Do you think about their zeal or passion? Do you think about their organizational or managerial skills? Do you think about their training or education? Do you think about the way they serve others?
Do you follow who those who speak well, those who are able to motivate, those who are passionate, those who can organize, those who are educated, or those who serve others?
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.