Why priests?
Yesterday, Dave Black (Monday, April 20, 2009 at 8:55 a.m.) mentioned a book by Hans Küng called Why Priests: A Proposal for a New Church Ministry. This is what Dr. Black said about Küng’s book:
He attempted to detail the catastrophic emergency (as he called it) in Christendom. The root, he said, was a polarity between the office of pastors/priests (who form the “above”) and the members of the congregation (who form the “below”). He pointed to the rediscovery and use of the total membership of a congregation as a necessary remedy. His call for a return to the New Testament concept of the church, not as a highly organized and professionalized institution but as a ministry of all believers serving Christ in every walk of life, fell largely on deaf ears.
This description piqued my interested, so I checked our library for the book. Nope, the SEBTS library doesn’t have it. So, I searched online. And, I found the following snippet from a review:
Why have priests? Kung answers: no particular reason. The idea of “priesthood,” as that term is commonly understood, has no special theological meaning, or even special validity, in an authentic Christian church. There is no basis in the New Testament, or in real tradition, for a sacralized class of ministers whose “mission” is to “govern” the faithful. There is, however, such a basis for a priesthood common to all Christians and for leadership by individual Christians in faith and love. In other words, the notion of a restrictive priesthood, limited to certain individuals appointed from above and set apart by ordination, is theological nonsense and an accident of history. Kung argues this thesis as well as he did his recent work on papal infallibility, and its importance is perhaps more immediate than that of the latter. Rome will wrong its hands in horror, but Kung’s large and growing following among the new generation of Catholics will love every line of it.
Don’t miss the importance of what Küng is saying, both for Catholics and Protestants – all Christians in fact. In the New Testament, there is “no basis” for a special class of ministers. I agree completely. And, as Dr. Black pointed out, this work, as well as many others who make the same claim, has largely fallen on deaf ears. The church does not want to hear it.
Why? Because, for the most part, believers do not want to act as priests and ministers themselves. We are too comfortable allowing others to be our priests and ministers.
Prayer and the ministry of the word
Most of us are familiar with this passage from Acts 6:
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:1-4 ESV)
Now, I often see where verse (devoting oneself to prayer and to the ministry of the word) applied to elders. In fact, I read a blog post this week in which the author applied this verse to himself as the senior pastor of a church.
To whom should this verse apply? If you choose to answer, please give the reasoning behind your answer, preferably from Scripture.
What does a non-bishop oversee?
I wrote a post about two years ago called “What does a non-bishop oversee?” I was surprised to find the verb “to oversee” (which, I thought, was used only for elders / pastors / bishops / overseers) applied to all believers in Hebrews 12:15. Last week, I had another discussion about this same verb and verse with a friend of mine. So, I thought this would be a good opportunity to re-run this post.
——————————————————————-
What does a non-bishop oversee?
A few weeks ago, I posted a blog called “What does a bishop oversee?” In this post, I suggested that the επίσκοπος (episkopos) / επισκοπÎω (episkopeo) word group, when used in Scripture for Christian leaders, should be translated “looking after people” or “being concerned about people” as opposed to “overseeing an organization”. I followed this blog with an example (a negative example, from my point of view) in a post called “The Church or the Organization?” I was surprised at the response to this blog post (three times the page views and comments of the next most viewed/commented post). I did not originally intend to discuss the church / organization dichotomy. Instead, I was heading in another direction, which began in a post called “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority…” I will continue in the original direction in this post, which is looking at Christian leaders and their function and operation among the church.
In this post, I would like to continue to examine the επίσκοπος (episkopos) / επισκοπÎω (episkopeo) word group. Specifically, what does this word group mean for those who are not elders/bishops? Or, does it apply to non-elders/non-bishops at all?
Apparently, the author of Hebrews believes that this function does apply to all believers. For example, consider this passage:
Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it [from επισκοπÎω] that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. (Hebrews 12:14-16 ESV)
If you need to check the context, read from Hebrews 12:1. It is clear from this context that all believers are in view, and all believers should be “looking carefully” (as the NKJV translates the participle επισκοπÎω in 12:15).
Commenting on the word επισκοπÎω in 12:15, William Lane says in the Word Biblical Commentary:
The call to vigilance expressed in επισκοπουντες [that is, the participle of επισκοπÎω] refers not to some official expression of ministry but rather to the engagement of the community as a whole in the extension of mutual care (cf. 3:12-13; 4:1; 10:24-25). Christian vigilance is the proper response to a peril that poses an imminent threat to the entire community… In view of this very real danger, the members of the house church are urged to vigilant concern for one another. [451-52]
Thus, Lane understands the verb επισκοπÎω to mean “to show vigilant concern”. This is very similar to the definitions that I suggested in my previous post (“What does a bishop oversee?“): “to look after” or “be concerned about”. In this case, it is clear that the object of concern is not an organization, but the people (that is, the church) themselves. Believers are to show concern for other believers so that they do not fail to obtain the grace of God, so that no root of bitterness springs up, and so that they are not sexually immoral or unholy.
If all believers are “to show vigilant concern” for other people, could it not also be that bishops and elders are “to show vigilant concern” for other people (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-2)? Once again, I suggest that this is quite different than “overseeing an organization”; yet, this is the way the verb επισκοπÎω is often presented when it comes to Christian leaders. Perhaps, elders are supposed “to show vigilant concern” for other people not because they are elders, but because they are believers. In fact, they should be more likely “to show vigilant concern” for others because they are supposed to be good examples of what it means to follow Christ and obey Him.
The important thing to realize in Hebrews 12:14-15 is that it is our responsibility to be concerned about one another. This is not only the responsibility of Christian leaders. However, we all realize that there are occasionally hindrances and obstacles that prevent us from showing proper concern for our brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes, those hindrances and obstacles are in our lives; sometimes, they are in the lives of others.
What are some of the hindrances or obstacles to showing vigilant concern for other believers? How can we overcome some of these hindrances and obstacles?
Recognizing servants
I thought this short post by Matthew McDill (primarily quoting F.F. Bruce) called “Ministry is not a Career Choice” was very appropriate to our discussions on this blog this week:
“The policy of Paul and his colleagues seems to have been to wait until qualities of spiritual leadership displayed themselves in certain members of a church and then to urge the others to acknowledge and respect those as leaders. One of the most obvious qualities of leadership was a readiness to serve the church and care for its needs. Such leaders did not do the appropriate work because they had been appointed as leaders; they were recognized as leaders because they were seen to be doing the work.” F. F. Bruce, Commentary on 1 Thessalonians
The New Testament does not present ministry as a career choice.
By the way, remember that the word “ministry” simply means “service”.
(p.s. Congratulations to Matthew for completing his Ph.D. dissertation!)
Servants vs. Rulers
Thanks to Lionel for pointing me to a book by Lawrence O. Richards and Clyde Hoeldtke called A Theology of Church Leadership (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980). I haven’t read the entire book yet, I thought the section on leadership by service went well with my post from yesterday called “It shall not be so among you” concerning Matthew 20:25-28:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28 ESV)
This is how the authors contrast leadership by rule vs. leadership by service using the passage above:
This passage attacks many of our ingrained presumptions about leadership and help us define how a servant leads. In the paragraphs below are a few of the contrasts that are explicit or implied in the illustration Jesus uses…
Relationship with the led
The passage states it clearly: the ruler is “over” those he leads. But the servant is “among.” We cannot be servant-leaders if our position or role or our own attitude tends to lift us above others and makes a distinction between us and the rest of the people of God.Command
Rulers “lord it over” and “exercise authority” over the led. Here is a command-type of authority, which tells others what to do and demands conformity of behavior. But we cannot even imagine that a servant entering a household where he is assigned would issue commands! To attempt to use such a command authority calls forth one of God’s most powerful rebukes: “not so with you.”Mode
Command authority tells others what to do. The leadership mode involves issuing orders, passing on decisions the leader has made. Servants have one role in the household – to serve. Rather than tell, the servant shows. Example, not command, is the primary mode through which the servant leads.Effect
The command authority of the secular ruler does lead to behavioral change. There are all sorts of sanctions that secular leaders – be they in the military, in government, or in business – rely on to obtain the behavior they require. But servants must rely on an inner response in those they influence. Without the power to coerce behavior, servants must seek the free choice of the ones being led. The one style achieves behavioral conformity; the other style achieves heart commitment.Power
The secular leadership style has a wider range of coercive means to enforce response. In business, raises or denial of raises and many other symbols of approval and disapproval are used to coerce behavior. But in the church of Christ no such means of coercion are available. All such methods are decisively rejected! (106-107)
I think it is possible, effective, beneficial, and healthy to lead without ruling – that is, to lead through serving. But, it is also much more difficult.
It shall not be so among you
These sentences, spoken by Jesus, seem so simple to understand:
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” (Matthew 20:25-27 ESV)
So, why is this instruction by Jesus usually the first one to be set aside by the church?
Pastoring…
Last week, I read John’s blog post at “Jesus the radical pastor” called “Why I Love Being Gifted as a Pastor“. John begins his post like this:
I sat next to an old man today as he rested on a special hospital chair that tilts to a bed for him to have cataract surgery. He needed a ride to the outpatient client and surely a ride home. I wanted to be his chauffeur. He is my friend, Ray. He is 3 weeks from being 85 years old. He was being sedated, but he was still aware. I was quiet.
“Are you still there?†Ray asked suddenly and quietly.
“Yes, I am still here,†I said. There was a pause.
“I love you,†he said.
You should read the rest of the post.
This is pastoring… Thank you, John, for the example and the exhortation to spend my time loving people.
The Church or the Organization?
Two years ago, I wrote a post called “The Church or the Organization?” In this post I was beginning to discuss the differences between the church (the people of God) and the ways in which the people organize and structure themselves. There is a difference. I also give one example of the organization becoming more important than the people. I refer to a few other blog posts that you may be interested in reading.
—————————————————————-
The Church or the Organization?
In my previous post, “What does a bishop oversee?“, I suggested that elders/pastors/bishops should focus on the church – that is, the people – instead of any organization formed around or by the church. This was my concluding paragraph:
But, what difference does it make? Why does it matter whether our pastors/elders “oversee” an organization or “are concerned about” the people of God. Well, for me, it makes all the difference in the world. As an elder, I want to know what God requires of me. Does God require me to run the church like a well-oiled machine? Or does He expect me to “look after” and “be concerned about” those believers around me? I believer God’s focus is people… and so, our focus should be people as well. If my focus is on people, I will respond differently than if my focus was on an organization. My priorities will be different if my focus is on people instead of an organization. My time, resources, and effort will be spent differently if my focus is on people instead of an organization.
In the great discussion that followed in the comments, there were some questions about organizations and the church. David Rogers, from “Love Each Stone“, made the following statement:
I agree that a “bishop” should focus more on “overseeing” people than an organization. However, I think we would be hard-pressed to find those who would say no, they should neglect people, and focus more on the organization.
I do not quote David to point out a disagreement. In fact, I believe that we are probably very close on this issue. Instead, I want to use this statement as a starting point in to further discuss the difference between focusing on people (the church) and focusing on the organization.
First, I do not believe that it is wrong or evil for the church to organize itself for particular purposes. I think we see this in Scripture. For example, as Paul was travelling around the Roman Empire, he travelled with several people. I’m sure there was some type of organization involved. We know that Paul made tents at times in order to provide for himself and his travelling companions (Acts 20:34-35). One person working to provide for himself and others demonstrates some type of organization.
So, organization is not wrong or evil in and of itself. My good friend Theron from “Sharing in the Life” (Who is finally blogging again!), has a great post on organization called “The Role of Organization in a Body of Believers“.
Though we might agree that organizations are not bad, and may even serve a good purpose at times, this does not mean that we will be “hard-pressed to find those who would say no, they should neglect people, and focus more on the organization”. Unfortunately, in today’s “Church Growth” literature, we find just this: a focus on the organization at the expense of the people involved. Here is one example:
Mark Driscoll is an interesting figure. He is at times accepted and at times excepted by emerging/missional believers. Some praise him and the Mars Hill Church which he started in Seattle, WA. Others claim that he is not truly “emerging” but more accurately reflects “evangelicalism” or the seeker church movement. Similarly, some evangelicals say that Driscoll is emerging, while others (like the Southern Baptist Convention, which appears to be wooing him and his Acts 29 Network) welcome him as a fellow evanglical. In other words, Driscoll somehow represents both the emerging and the evangelical flavors of Christianity – loved by some in both camps and hated by some in both camps.
In his 2006 book Confessions of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church, Driscoll describes the phenomenal growth of Mars Hill Church. In one chapter, he explores some of the decisions that he had to make in order for Mars Hill Church to grow from 350 people to 1000 people:
We had to quickly reorganize all of our systems and staff. Our administrative pastor, Eric, left, which we all recognized was God’s call on him. And our worship leader was a great guy and great musician but was unable to coordinate the multiple bands in the three locations, so we let him go. This was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever made because he was a very godly man who had worked very hard and would have been fine if the church had not gotten so crazy so quickly, and he and his very sweet wife were both close personal friends of mine. But I needed a worship pastor who could lead multiple bands, coordinate multiple services in multiple locations, and train multiple worship pastors while keeping up with a church that was growing so fast that we had no idea exactly where it was going. [135]
Now, just in case you think that Driscoll may have made the decision to let his close personal friend go because of his concern for other people, please continue reading:
A very wise friend who is a successful business entrepreneur, Jon Phelps, shared an insight with me around this time that was very clarifying. He said that in any growing organization, there are three kinds of people, and only two of them have any long-term future with a growing organization. First, there are people on the rise who demonstrate an uncanny ability to grow with the organization and become vital leaders. Second, there are people who attach themselves to the people on the rise as valuable assistants who rise by being attached to someone on the rise. Third, there are people who neither rise nor attach to anyone who is rising, and they cannot keep up with the growing demands of the organization. These people fall behind, and the organization can either allow their inability to slow down the whole team or release them and move forward without them. This is difficult to do because they are often good people who have been partly responsible for the success of the organization. But the needs of the organizational mission, not an individual in the organization, must continually remain the priority if there is to be continued success. [135]
From what I have read, none of the people who commented would agree with Driscoll’s approach. However, I also do not think that Driscoll is alone in his priorities. There are many who say that the organization should be placed above the people involved.
What Driscoll describes is the exact opposite of my position. The pastors/elders/bishops must focus on the people before the organization. However, we should all admit, even if we do not go to the extreme that Driscoll went to, it is much easier to put the organization above the people. But, according to Scripture, the people should always come first.
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.
Are pastors good for nothing?
I wrote the post “Are pastors good for nothing?” about a year ago. I believe that one of the reasons that Christians today remain immature (look at the way we general act and react!) is because leaders have attempted to lead from above, separated from the church. I do not think we can shepherd or care for people from above; we must remain among them. This post is an attempt to describe why “pastoring” is so important, but perhaps not the way it’s usually understood.
—————————————–
A few days ago, when I came into our office at work, my coworkers were having a discussion about elders and pastors. (I will use the terms elders and pastors interchangeably in this blog post.) We discussed the concept of a pastoral office. Of course, if you’ve read my blog posts about elders, you know that I do not believe that Scripture describes an office of pastor or elder. When I describe my understanding of elders, I’m usually asked the following question: “If pastors/elders do not have special responsibilities and duties because of their position as pastor/elder, then why do we need them? Why would Scripture instruct us to appoint pastors/elders?” In other words, given my view of pastors/elder, what are pastors good for? Are they good for nothing?
First, I think a quick summary of my understanding of pastoring is in order. (If you want the longer description, see my recent post “How do you find the time to pastor?” and my series on elders that begins with the post “Elders (Part 1) – Introduction“.) Aussie John gave a great summary of my position in a recent comment. He described a pastor as: “A sheep among sheep gifted to compliment the other sheep and their giftedness”, and he described pastoring as “to minister as a brother in ministry, instead of as the Head Honcho! …to minister and be ministered to as brethren in the same family!” Thus, I believe that an elder is part of the church, one who is recognized by the church as obediently carrying out the responsibilities of all believers: teaching, caring for people, leading, etc.
But, if a pastor is simply one sheep among other sheep, one who is gifted as others are gifted, one who teaches while others also teach, then, what is a pastor good for? Why do we need pastors? Why does Scripture tell us to appoint elders? Are pastors good for nothing?
For those of us who hold to a high view of Scripture, we know that pastors must be good for something. However, recognizing that elders are important does not mean that we automatically must accept that pastors should be the organizing, planning, head-honcho types with which we’re sometimes presented.
Instead, I believe that elders/pastors should primarily function as examples to other believers. They should be examples in their living, their caring, their teaching, their leading, etc. In fact, when elders are appointed/chosen/recognized, churches should choose those who are already living as examples to those around them. But, why is it important for groups of believers to have examples?
None of us are perfect – not even pastors – but all of us tend to look more highly on ourselves, our opinions, our gifts, our talents, our ideas, our plans, etc. than we should. When presented with two options – one ours and one coming from another person – we will tend to choose our own idea. When presented with two ways of dealing with a problem, we will tend to choose that way that seems right to us. When contemplating how to help someone in need, we tend to want to help in the way that looks best to us. Thus, we all tend to choose our own way.
But, if the group – church – as a whole has recognized several people who generally make wise decisions and generally live life in a way that honors God and helps others – elders/pastors – then the church has a resource to help make these kinds of decisions. If we respect these leaders then we will choose to follow them and their opinions instead of following our own ideas and opinions. (Of course, if the elders/pastors care about people, then they will also listen to the ideas and opinions of others. And, also, elders/pastors will tend to listen to other elders/pastors as well.)
These decisions can cover a plethora of topics, from interpreting Scripture to feeding those who are hungry, from scheduling meetings to helping the oppressed. Thus, when we recognize those who are more mature among us, we give ourselves a visible standard of living for Christ. But, this standard does not come from a position to obey, but from an example to imitate.
Interestingly, and finally, if pastors are truly mature, then they will be the first to yield to the interests of others. Thus, the pastors who complain because they are not getting their way are probably not the people that we should follow. Similarly, those who demand that we follow them because of their position are also demonstrating that they are not the ones who should be followed. Instead, those people who consistently live their lives loving God and loving others and maturing in Christ Jesus are the examples that we should follow.
The Senior Pastors of the Seven Churches?
When people look for justification for the modern concept of the “senior pastor”, they often turn to the first few chapters of Revelation, where Jesus addresses seven letters to the “angel” of seven different churches in Asia. The question is, “Do the ‘angels’ in Revelation 2-3 represent senior pastors or spiritual messengers?”
Now, Alan Bandy of Café Apocalypsis has addressed this question in his post “The Angels of the Seven Churches: Humans or Spiritual Beings?” Alan concludes that these “angels” are spiritual beings and gives 4 different reasons. This is the most convincing reason to me:
(1) One reason is that the most common use of angelos, by far, denotes an angelic being. The sixty seven occurrences of angelos in the book of Revelation, with the exception of 2:1,8,12, 18; 3:1,7, and 14, all unambiguously refer to an angelic being. It seems highly unlikely that angelos significantly differs only in chaps. 2–3 without clearly indicating a different denotation from its normal usage in the book.
If the “angels” of Revelation 2-3 are spiritual beings and not senior pastors, then where will people look for scriptural justification for the modern position of senior pastor?