What Is A
Minister?
by Jon Zens
I have
been pointedly wrestling with issues related to Christ�s church since
1972. Some matters have crystallized in my thinking, and I would like to
share them with you in hopes that meaningful dialogue and serious
searching of the Scriptures might take place. We have nothing to fear by
looking at the Scriptures together.
The key burden on my heart that I would like to express
and develop is this: the ministry of the church as a whole will continue
to be crippled as long as we perpetuate the separation of "the minister"
from the New Testament vision of eldership, and as long as we
functionally divide God�s people into "ordained" (clergy) and "uncalled"
(laity).
Elders Instead of "Ministers"
The New Testament knows only of "saints, bishops and
deacons" (Php 1:1). "Bishops," "pastors" and "elders" all refer to the
same body of men (Ac 20:17, 28). The oversight of the church is
conceived of as a body of elders (1Ti5:17; Jam 5:14). However, the
traditional practice of "calling a pastor" separates this "office" from
eldership at virtually every point. Under the New Testament pattern,
laos (people) and kleron (clergy, inheritance) refer to
all of God�s people; hence, elders and deacons are part of the
"laity/clergy," not separate from or above it. "Most denominational
churches have departed from this pattern by distinguishing between the
pastor and the elders. Common practice makes the pastor a full-time
employee of the church, while the elders are laymen who function much
like a board of directors" (James Stahr, Interest, April, 1984,
p. 2).
In the traditional Protestant pattern, the pastor has a
"call" that the other elders do not possess, the pastor is trained
differently than the elders, the pastor is ordained in a different way
than elders, the pastor comes from outside the body whereas the elders
come from within the body, the pastor can be led to another church
whereas the elders are resident, the pastor can have "Rev" next to his
name but not so elders, the pastor is paid to carry out various duties
(but not the elders), texts that apply to a body of elders are
applied to "the minister"only, the pastor can occupy the pulpit while
the elders rarely (if ever) can, and the pastor determines the direction
of the worship service. Interestingly, the traditional Protestant way of
doing things actually parallels a non-gospel religious model (with
priests and witch doctors) more than it does the simple NT pattern.
The Shift from Eldership/Mutual Ministry to "The
Ministry"
No matter what area of church truth I study, it seems
that the ultimate source of the problem somehow works itself back to the
isolation of "the pastor" from the eldership. The frustrating thing to
me is this: even though the best scholarship in Bible study and church
history is united in the basic conclusion that "ethical guidance for
people recently converted to Christianity . . . was offered at first by
a polyform ministry of grace, reflected in the New Testament; but as
time went by moral authority was increasingly focused in an ordered
ministry of bishops and deacons," those who take this perspective
seriously are labeled as "off the wall," "unsound," and "dangerous" (the
quotation is from G.W. Forell, History of Christian Ethics,
Vol.1, 1979, p.39; cf. "One God, One Bishop: The Politics of
Monotheism," The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels, 1981, pp.33-56).
Given the fact that in the New Testament we are confronted with a
"polyform ministry of grace," must we not ask ourselves if the decided
shift to the focus on "the ministry" (clergy), which occurred quickly in
post-apostolic times, was valid or invalid? Judging by our
practice we give more credence to the post-apostolic tradition
than we do to the direct apostolic teaching (cf. Judy Schindler, "The
Rise of One Bishop Rule in the Early Church," ST, Summer, 1981,
pp. 3-9),
Will the Real "Clergy" Please Stand
Up?
If we take the New Testament seriously, anything that
promotes the traditional "clergy/laity" categories must be stopped. Are
those in "the pastorate" willing to renounce the title "Reverend" next
to their name (cf. David Foster, "Call No Man Teacher, Father, Rabbi�.Or
Pastor?," Journal of Pastoral Care, Jay Adams, ed.)? The whole
mystique that surrounds "the pastor" must be brought into line with
Christ�s statement to the apostles: "you are all brethren."
Making unbiblical distinctions among ourselves results in some awful
traditions, as the following illustration shows: "It was doubtless with
assurance born of the reverence with which he was customarily regarded,
that by stamping upon the meeting-house doorway floor [John] Smalley
made known to his congregation the moment of his arrival, so that
members of importance might rise and make him their obeisance as he
passed down the center aisle on Sabbath morning" (Mary L. Gambrell,
Ministerial Training in 18th Century New
England, pp.113-114). We may not duplicate this particular
obeisance, but the spirit of this illustration is still repeated a
thousand different ways in our day.
Preaching: In the Street or in the
"Sanctuary"?
Attached to the institution of "the pastor" is the
central duty of preaching. H.M. Carson states that preaching "is the
main means by which the people of God are built up in the faith"
(Hallelujah! Christian Worship, p.72). But it appears that
"preaching" in the New Testament is primarily an activity that took
place outside church meetings (cf. Stuart Olyott, "What Is
Evangelism?," Banner of Truth, July/August, 1969, pp.1ff.; C.E.
Dawson, "The Evangelicals," Gospel Tidings, Sept., 1982, p.247).
The church must be devoted to apostolic teaching. The elders may often
provide the backbone of such instruction in the assembly. But to equate
the reign of Christ�s word in the church with the pulpit ministry of
"the pastor" cannot be substantiated from the New Testament. It would
wonderful for those with preaching gifts to exercise them "outdoors," as
did George Whitefield. It needs to be remembered that the whole
rationale for the "centrality of preaching" is suspect: it arose in a
state-church where church attendance was compulsory.
"The body is not one member, but
many"
One of the most damaging spin-offs that comes with
separating "the pastor" from the eldership is the neglect of the
total body. When it is posited that "the whole weight of the order,
rule, and edification of the church" rests on "the pastor," as the
Puritan John Owen suggested, there is no way that proper attention can
be given to the "whole body" perspective in Ephesians 4:16. J.I. Packer
freely admits that the Puritan discussion of gifts "was dominated by
their interest in the ordained ministry . . . and questions about other
gifts to other persons were rarely raised" ("The Puritans and Spiritual
Gifts," 1967 Westminster Papers, p.15).
Where�s the Next Minister�s
Conference?
"The ministry" as separated from the eldership also
puts incredible pressure on gifted people that they were never meant to
bear. Articles from Christianity Today illustrate the obvious:
"How Many Hats Does Your Pastor Wear?," "Clergy Divorce Spills Over Into
the Aisles," "Who Counsels Ministers When They Have Problems?"
Since pastors are always "giving out," and because local churches are
unable and unequipped to minister to them, they must go away
periodically to conferences attended by those in the same syndrome.
Because the New Testament knows nothing of a "pastoral office" as
traditionally conceived, it is no wonder that those in it experience
"burn-out" in trying to measure up to its expectations. Life-fracturing
issues like nervous breakdowns, suicide, divorce, incredible family
stress, and sexual infidelity are especially high among the clergy. A
recent Focus On the Family intensive survey indicated that 1800
pastors leave the ministry per month in our country among all
denominations. When are we going to wake up and realize that there is
something rotten in the state of Denmark?
Ministry: Pulpit or Polyform?
The pastoral institution has probably been the most
formative factor in the shape that church services take (cf. Hezekiah
Harvey, The Pastor, 1879 [Backus Books, 1982], pp.27-28). The
earliest assemblies knew nothing of a "pulpit," and yet it has become an
article of furniture you dare not question. It is a parallel situation
to many who just assume that the apostles gave "altar calls" in the
first century. Scholarship from all traditions acknowledge that
in the New Testament we are met with structured informality. Note
these few examples of many that could be given:
�1Co14:26-36 "provides a glimpse of the early church
at worship. The service apparently contained a mixture of spontaneous
flexibility and traditional formality inherited from the synagogue.
Congregational participation is suggested by the words" [of 14:26]
(William Baird, 1 Cor./2 Cor., 1980, p.59).
�"In Paul�s day the worship service probably was more
open than are today�s services" (Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points
Enough?, p.182)
�"The glimpses we have of worshipping congregations
in the New Testament are of active participants" (Herbert Carson,
Hallelujah!, p.29).
Urgent questions arise: in light of our confession that
the NT is to guide us, why are our meetings entirely different than
those revealed in Scripture? Is it right for us to eliminate
participation in order to maintain the "centrality of preaching"? Why
were such meetings edifying and good for the early church, but
"dangerous" for us? Is the Spirit informing us in the NT, or do we posit
that this inspired information is no longer relevant?
One argument often ushered forth is that 1Co14 is
"early revelation" and is modified by "later revelation." But this is
specious reasoning on several accounts. First, what is there in the
"later" revelation that contradicts 1Co14? Second, Hebrews is
"later revelation," yet it contains the same emphasis found in
Corinthians: "exhort one another daily . . . . do not forsake your
assembling . . . but encourage one another." Third, James is "later,"
yet some commentators see 1:19 as a reference "to the free and
unstructured worship of early Christian assemblies" (Curtis Vaughn,
James: A Study Guide, p.35; cf. Earl Kelly, James: A Primer
for Christian Living, p.69).
If we are honest, we must confess that the
pulpit-tradition is a huge obstacle that blocks obedience to the
one-another, participatory dimension of body-life found in the New
Testament. David Thomas (in 1898!) summarized the situation well: "The
Christian church in assembly, on the same occasion, might have several
speakers to address them . . . . If this be so: 1. Should Christian
teaching be regarded as a profession? It is now: men are brought
up in it, trained for it, and live by it, as architects, lawyers,
doctors . . . . 2. Is the Christian church justified in confining its
attention to the ministry of one man? In most modern
congregations there are some Christian men who, by natural ability, by
experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to
instruct and comfort the people than their professional and stated
minister. Surely official preaching has no authority, either in
Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or
later. Every Christian man should be a preacher. Were the half-hour
allotted in church services for the sermon to be occupied by three or
four Christly men . . . with the capability of expression withal, it
would not only be far more interesting, but more profitably spent than
now ("1 Corinthians," The Pulpit Commentary, p.459).
But What About My Paycheck?
People in the ministry can feel threatened by the
implications of New Testament eldership. The traditional rationale for
supporting a pastor is without Scriptural warrant, and is based on
misinterpreted texts. But 1Ti5:17-18 indicates that a congregation is
free to help any of its elders, as it is able. As with all the other
points connected to "the pastorate," support needs to be put in the
context of a body of elders, not in connection with an imagined
"pastoral office" (cf. Ronald Hock, The Social Context of Paul�s
Ministry: Tentmaking & Apostleship, Fortress, 1980). Financial
help is not to be a motive in elders serving the flock; the assembly is
free to help elders; elders are free to work with their own hands
(1Pe.5:2; 1Ti.5:17; Ac 20:34-35).
Where�s the Beef?
If "the pastor" is such an important cog in church
ministry, then why is it so hard to validate such a function in the New
Testament? John H. Yoder pointedly summarizes the data: "The most
striking conclusion to be drawn from this enumeration is the absence of
two offices which are most characteristic of modern Christianity: the
�pastor,� in the sense of one professional minister leading a
congregation, and the �bishop,� in the sense of a minister with
authority over several congregations. Both of these terms were
originally interchangeable with that of �elder,� referring to one of
several men who shared the leadership in a local council. Henri
d�Espines, professor of Calvin�s own Geneva University, drew the same
conclusion, and has dared to say that Calvin�s view of the pastoral
office is un-biblical, that �this state of affairs is deplorable,� and
that �the restoration of the collective pastorate, exercised by a
veritable council of elders, is one of the primary conditions of the
spiritual renewal which our churches need.� Once again, we see Reformed
Biblicism at its best coming out in favor of the authority of the
Scripture over the church" ("Biblicism and the Church," Concern
#2, 1955, p.45).
Are You Seeing Some Light?
If you are or have in the past been in the "clergy"
role, and you are coming to the conviction that this position originates
from unscriptural traditions, there are some practical steps that must
be taken on your part.
-
Stop using "Reverend" and other religious titles in
connection with your name (and encourage those around you to cease
using language that assumes the "clergy/laity" distinction).
-
Renounce your "clergy" status and see yourself as
part of the "laos" of God who has manifestations of the Spirit, along
with everybody else, for the good of the body (1 Cor.12:7).
-
Teach the body that your "clergy" role and all the
expectations that go with it are based on human traditions and not the
Gospel.
-
Instruct the brethren that all aspects of caring for
one another rest with the body, not on some spiritual elite.
-
Take concrete steps to de-centralize the function of
your gifts in the body.
-
Begin a new methodology of truth-seeking and
truth-speaking. Instead of "clergy" spoon-feeding the "laity," study
important issues together from the Word with a view toward
finding Christ�s will and acting upon it.
-
Adopt a teaching style where dialogue occurs and
questions/insights from others are encouraged.
-
As the body makes concrete changes in the way
"church" is done, the emphasis shifts from dependency on one person to
edifying multiple participation.
-
Your financial support as a clergyperson is
admittedly a difficult issue, but needs to be Scripturally and
creatively evaluated. Regardless of all the specific circumstances in
your case, if it will help the assembly develop its one-another
ministries, you at least need to be willing to follow Paul�s
example: "You yourselves know that these hands [by tentmaking]
ministered to my own needs and those of others with me. In everything
I have pointed out to you that, by working in this way diligently, we
ought to support the weak" (Ac 20:33-35). As ministry becomes
increasingly shared in the body, it takes the load off one person and
frees the congregation to evaluate how its financial resources can be
maximized for edification and meeting people�s needs.
The "clergy" system is a mammoth institution. Its
tentacles reach deep into the inner workings of almost every religious
group. Not every "clergy" person takes the New Testament seriously, but
those who do need to lead the way by personal example to a paradigm
shift which better reflects Christ-centered assembly life. People who
withdraw from the traditional "clergy" model out of faithfulness to
Christ will usually have a heavy price to pay, but the spiritual rewards
are beyond description. The truth is, remaining in a system that has
crushed and ruined many people�s lives is the wrong price to pay. Why do
you suppose 1800 people a month are leaving "the ministry"?
"We Believe the Bible Is Our Infallible Rule of
Faith and Practice"
Many churches make this confession, but do they really
take the New Testament seriously enough to evaluate all of their
practices in light of it? Such a confession becomes very hollow if it is
not backed up by honest hermeneutics and sincere obedience. I�m tired of
hearing preachers yell, "If we can�t find it in the Bible, we won�t
believe it or do it." Scripture will not support a host of things that
go on unquestioned in churches, yet pastors and those in the pew will
become livid if their sacred cows are challenged.
I am submitting my understanding of Scripture to the
body of Christ. If you believe I am mistaken, please sharpen me with
Scripture. On the other hand, if I have articulated things that are
worthy of further reflection, then please follow through on the
implications. Are you willing either to come up with the goods (from
Scripture) to justify the status quo, or change your thinking and
practice in light of the Word?
Below are some books that have helped me in the areas
discussed above.
-
Campenhausen, Hans von. Ecclesiastical Authority
& Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries,
Stanford Univ. Press, 1969.
-
Davies, J.G. The Early Christian Church,
Baker, 1981.
-
Goppelt, Leonhard. Apostolic & Post-Apostolic
Times, Baker, 1980.
-
Grudem, Wayne. The Gift of Prophecy in 1
Corinthians. Univ Press of America, 1982.
-
Hanson, Anthony. The Pioneer Ministry: The
Relation of Church & Ministry. Westminster, 1961.
-
Lindsay, Thomas M. The Church & the Ministry
in the Early Centuries. James Family Pub., 1977.
-
Niebuhr, H. Richard. The Ministry in Historical
Perspectives, Harper & Row, 1983.
-
Warkentin, Marjorie. Ordination: A
Biblical-Historical View. Eerdmans, 1982.
Revised 03/06/03
