Thursday, June 10, 2010

The Pastor: Traditional vs. Biblical, by Joel Spencer

The following blog post can be found on Joel Spencer's blog over at http://desh412.blogspot.com/

First, here's a little background:

We were having a little conversation over Joel's facebook status, which read:

"Joel Spencer Wants to remind my local FB friends that Kristin and I still open our house every Thursday night for anyone to come in and gather. No sermons, no bulletins with orders of service to cling to, noone in charge but God Himself and Christ is the Head. All can come and share about the Word, where they are, where they're headed and be edified. This is the Church."

Naturally this stirred up some responses, and one guy quoted from Eph 4:11 which reads "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." He then proceeded to ask, "How can you have a church without the gift of God to the church, a pastor?"

Here is Joel's response:

This post was quickly scribbled down in response to a question that I was asked on facebook this morning after I posted a status about how we have no traditional "pastor" who leads the weekly gatherings in our home. What started as a 3-line comment turned long really quickly. The question was "How can you have a church without the gift of God to the church, a pastor?".

(This may have many grammatical errors. I have no time to edit it right now.)

My answer: Fantastic question Mr. Smith! One that I LOVE to answer actually. (First of all, I do find it interesting that only the lack of a “pastor” is what you brought up.) The issue with this is that the Body of Christ has errantly translated these roles into positions and titles. What you’re referencing as the definition of “pastor” is not the same as what Ephesians 4:11 is speaking of (at least I assume you would refer to a “traditional pastoral role” – ie: preaching sermons, visiting members, heading up “church” programs, etc.). None is elevated above another, when the Scripture is properly adhered to. Even the pastoral and apostolic roles are primarily to serve and take the lower position, simply enabling and teaching those who are younger in the faith. (The same translation/application error exists within the modern-day definition of “evangelist” and “apostle”. According to the original text, “apostle” (apostolos) is the more properly capable to be the messenger who is sent out, not the “evangelist” as most would refer to today. So, you see, it’s all about the original meaning of these things.)

As far as positions go, there’s a vast difference between offices held and functions. The best example we have is Jesus Himself. People wanted to elevate Him to an earthly position as a king, the “pastor of the ages” who would somehow make everything right in their religious worlds. He wanted no part of it. He laid Himself low and was as nothing when it came to lording over men, even though He was the only one with the right to do so. They wanted a leader-king, He washed feet. Jesus saw the eternal side of it all – something so much greater than any earthly position among men! Sadly, many “pastors” today respond out of the flesh and gladly fill this role – settling for earthly reward and status, unlike Jesus. The pastoral role, as is most common in nearly every “church”, is that the church is a business and the CEO is the pastor. The elders, deacons, etc. round out the pyramid of power until you get down to the lowly “laypeople”. Where is this in Scripture? What verses tell us of the “nobodies” in the Kingdom whose primary role is to show up when expected, give their money and carry out the designated leaders plans? There are no laypeople in the true Body of Christ - period. This is nothing short of yet another pattern of this world that has invaded the Body of Christ.

Christ is the Head and we are ALL the members. Can a physical body have 2 heads? It has one head and many members are controlled by it – ALL being equal, worthwhile and holding great value. Until Believers realize that they’re not meant to sit and “be fed” by an earthly leader, they will continue to lack personal revelation and the power that comes from grasping that each member is to be a vibrant, active, integral part of the Body. (Examine the people’s choosing Moses to go to God on their behalf because they didn’t want to do it themselves. The same thing happens today. “You, pastor, tell me what God is saying because that is easier.” It is a two-sided coin and both parties are responsible.)

I do have people in my life who fit the biblical pastoral role. Men that I look up to, seek biblical counsel on and gladly submit to as I know that they have walked in my spiritual shoes. The primary difference however, is that they wield no place of position over me. They enable me to walk further and deeper on my own. They heed my wisdom and listen to what I have to say on spiritual matters, seeing, that even though I may not be as far along, God speaks to and through me as well. They are humble and seek no earthly titles or recognition from men. They’re more interested in preserving and establishing biblical truth than age-old doctrines and traditions. Most of all, they live before me with Christ as their life. I know them. I eat with them. I love them and they love me. This is the deeper role of a pastor that simply cannot be established with a 1 per 100 (at best) system in order. It simply cannot work! I have seen first-hand what does and it perfectly fits the biblical model (imagine that!). Those gathering as the Body of Christ were never meant to be passive observers. No one man reserves the right to solely manage a gathering of Believers – period. 1 Corinthians 12-14 might as well be removed from the Bible if churches continue to promote the clergy/laity model as correct. (Just ask your pastor if you can preach next Sunday and see what happens.)

Lately so many people say to me, in summary, “Joel, why don’t you just stop questioning everything and be like the rest of us?!? Stop offending us and asking us to examine why we believe what we do as Christians! You’re hurting my feelings!” *sigh* I’m not out to offend and anger anyone – it’s simply not my agenda whatsoever. I just want to know why even the thought of questioning the golden calf of religion is such a travesty deemed unmentionable? The response to such a reality is as simple now as it was back in the days that Jesus walked the earth. The Phariseeical mindset runs deep and long (see Matthew 22 and 23 for many familiar examples). Whether people like to entertain the thought or not, the religious order of today greatly mimics the religious order of Jesus day. They chose to cling to traditions and old, dead rituals rather than embrace the life that Jesus was about to usher in via His sacrifice. They were so enveloped in their own practices, speaking as God’s self-ordained mouthpieces, that they literally missed the Messiah Himself! A snippet for example’s sake, taken from Matthew 15: Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Even if the common approach to the role of a pastor were biblically correct, which it clearly is not, it is not being applied right. The verse in question states clearly, some are appointed, implicating several. So if this were to be held to correctly, from the mainstream Christian majority’s approach, should there not be scores of pastors within each separate organized church gathering? This is obviously incorrect as well as even in the largest of “mega-churches”, there is but one “senior pastor” who “oversees his flock”. It’s no wonder so many pastors who spent their lives attempting to be successful within this system fail miserably and get burnt out. The simple fact is they are trying to fill a position that was never intended for them to fill. To debate the fact that the position of pastor as it is commonly known is all about the ultimate servant is futile. Whose name is on the marquee out front? Whose salary is the largest on the payroll? Who preaches every service? Who generally leads communion? Who prays for those who come to the altar after the altar call? Who leads the altar call? (This could go on for days!)

The “lay people”? Of course not! The pastor! (Someone tell me, when is “Layperson Appreciation Day” again on the church calendar?) All eyes look to the pastor and he is clearly known as the leader of the local church. Ask anyone who is the head of the church, Christian or otherwise. If even 1 out of 100 say “Christ”, I’d be in awe. No, it is the pastor. We could all go back and forth and debate how your pastor doesn’t see things this way or how different your church is. The issue at hand is with the system that is in place, not just with the people who embrace it. Plain and simple, elitism runs rampant within the Body of Christ and it continues to push out the “lesser” and elevates the “greater”. Sitting down, [Jesus] called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” (Mark 9:34)

Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28)

It saddens me to no end to hear responses to my questioning of today’s “rule over” as opposed to “serve under” pastors. “Not my pastor!!!!” most say. “Mine preaches the Bible!”, “Our pastor is nice guy!” and let’s not forget, “You’re just rebellious and un-teachable!” (my personal favorite.) Friends, this is not about hurting feelings or offending others, it is much deeper. What does the Word really instruct us to do as the Body of Christ? Do we even know? Once we find out, should we dare to look, will we adhere to it and leave our traditions behind if they in any way oppose the Word? We will all personally be held responsible for what we cling to as Truth!

What does your Christianity look like apart from structured religion? Sadly, the majority would not even know what to do if someone was not present to tell them what to do next (ie: a traditional pastor). I believe this grieves God deeply because it devalues His children and keeps them ignorant of their purpose and potential. For years I’ve said, after having a bird’s eye view as one on paid staff at two different churches, most congregations would be more up in arms if the pastor didn’t show up than if God did. As a matter of fact, I believe One can often go completely unnoticed.

In summary, all people and roles are welcome in the gatherings we’re a part of. All are on a level playing field and titles have absolutely no role to play. Unity is achieved because the Spirit is our Guide and Christ is our primary Teacher. So while most would say, “how can you gather as the Church without a traditional ‘pastor’?” I’d respond, “Why would we need one?” There is no business to oversee. Each one who is a part of the gathering is invited to teach (which is simply expounding on Scripture – not some privilege for the select few). There’s no salaries, building projects or power bills to pay, so we don’t pass offering plates – choosing to live lives that cheerfully give, that God says He loves. We don’t adhere to service orders so no one needs to tell us what to do next. The differences are too vast to adequately list here. One way, the wide way, is a business and many travel down that path without question. The other way is the high way, where God dwells. Christ alone is the Head and anything that hinders us from becoming more like Him is thrown out the window and deemed unnecessary. So, while many might say “how can you not have a traditional pastor?”, I say “I’d rather have the biblical pastoral role in place instead”. All who have been born from above have gifting and abilities ready and waiting to be used in the Body of Christ. I will continue seek to join the LORD in drawing them out. Everyone else can keep “going to church” and sitting in rows with hands folded while someone preaches to them…. again. I choose freedom. I choose a living organism that is The Church that Christ Himself is building. This Body is not built with human hands and no man can claim any credit or reward. It is all His.

17 comments:

  1. I don't want to go through and pick out every little thing that I disagree with in this post, but I will say that it seems like he is reacting against a widespread misapplication, even perversion, of the office of pastor. He makes several good points about how pastors do not fulfill the biblical function of pastor, but proving that most pastors don't understand the biblical function of their office does not prove that the office itself is not biblical (non sequitur). Are pastors today too much like CEO's? Sure. Are too many churches governed by the will of a single individual? Absolutely. But it simply does not follow from these premises that the "office" of pastor is unbiblical. The pastoral epistles, Hebrews, and 1 Peter offer plenty of evidence that some men within the church were regarded as having real, imputed authority over others, as opposed to voluntarily ceded authority such as this blogger describes in his relationships. I think this is a good example of how a well-intentioned, frustrated generation of Christians is reshaping biblical ecclesiology to fit the 21st century mood. And, in my opinion, it attempts to dress anti-authoritarian egalitarianism in robes of biblical fidelity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike,

    I am not sure where the Bible really mentions pastor as being an office, though I imagine a better case could be made for "elder" as being an actual office. Maybe I am just overlooking something. 1 Peter 5 states "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;
    not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock."

    This verse is not addressed to a pastor but to the elders (plural). Elders are responsible for the task of shepherding the church, not pastors, at least according to this verse.

    I have heard some argue that elder may simply refer to an older believer rather than those who are appointed to the office of elder. This would not necessarily rule it out as being an office, however. I am not sure what to believe about this.

    You mention that this generation is "reshaping biblical ecclesiology," but isn't the ecclesiology we have inherited the remnant of Catholic ecclesiology and practice? That is the argument of many who advocate this new "perspective" if you will.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well I agree with a lot of your post. I think there is a biblical role of a pastor that someone has a carry, in your case there are just multiple people carrying. As far as a office of pastor, maybe not 100% clear from scripture. As you mention, someone has to run the everyday operations of churches with buildings, bills, and needy people.
    However, I believe that too many people are aggrivated with pastors and their leadership (or lack of.) I believe that there are plenty of pastors who are abusing their position in their churches but I think in most cases the real blame should be put on the laypeople.
    I am a associate pastor and I come to my office each day and try to figure out how I am going to get everything done that I need to get done. I would love to give away many of the responsibilities that have been put on me but nobody wants any. It all goes back to the 80/20 principle: 20% of the people do 80% of the work. Fact is a good percent of laypeople are lazy and apathetic. As long as that is the case in churches we are going to have problems.
    Eric I believe you are in a very blessed situation to not have an office of pastor in your church due to everyone carrying out the responsibilities God has given them. I pray that more Christians would realize God has more for them than coming to church, singing a couple of songs, and sitting through a sermon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hahah its not actually my church though Chris, it's my friend Joel's. that would be pretty sweet, maybe I'll get something going here in Savannah like he has.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sure. The idea of a "pastor" or "shepherd" is derived from the verses you mentioned as well as others (Acts 20.28, John 21.16, etc). And personally, I think the biblical idea of the office of pastor is almost synonymous with that of an elder (Paul uses overseer and elder synonymously in Titus 1). In fact, I would say that "pastoring/shepherding" is a function of the office of "elder." I would say that Paul's list in Eph. 4.11 is probably a listing of functions performed by those who are elders in the church. A single elder may not perform all of the functions but there certainly is overlap. Indeed, I agree with you that there was in the first century and should be today a plurality of leadership. There may be some dispute as to whether every elder was a pastor, but certainly every pastor was an elder. Whether or not "elder" is an office should be beyond question. The fact that Paul lists criteria for that role(Titus 1, 1 Tim. 3) assumes that some people are and some people simply are not able to be called by the title. Both 1 Tim. 4.14 and 5.22 (cf.3.6) seem to indicate that becoming an elder/pastor/overseer involved some sort of formal commissioning by other elders implying some level of real, imputed authority. Which is really the main point with which I am concerned. Elders/overseers/pastors were not simply godly men whom were informally recognized and followed. They were given a formal commission by others (Jesus to Peter in Jn 21.16; Paul to Ephesian elders as reflected in Acts 20.28; 1 Tim 3 and 5; Titus 1). The weight of biblical evidence is substantial. Its really not a fuzzy issue.


    As for the age/elder issue, I would point to 1 Timothy 5.22 and 3.6,10. Paul's concern seemed to be spiritual age rather than physical. 4.12 suggests that Timothy was a younger man.

    I think the biblical case that I have made for the legitimacy of the elder's office should address the concern about inherited Roman Church baggage. The office of elder/pastor is certainly "catholic," but in the first century sense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A final point I wish to make comes from 1 Tim. 5.17 "The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching." The word "rule" occurs 8 times in the NT and 4 times in this book. The other 3 are in ch. 3 and are translated "manage" as in the managing of a household. Paul says that an elders must be able to manage his household well and keep his children under control. At the very least, this suggests that elders possess a real authority which is analagous to the authority of a father/head of household. Fathers have real authority over their families which is given to them by God. One other occurrence of the word is in 1 Thess. 5.12 and is translated "have charge over" indicating an entrusted responsibility (see also Acts 20.28). If the relationship of an elder or pastor is informal, from where is this recurring theme of responsibility come from? I would say that the elder has responsibility for the church in the same way that a father has responsibility for his family and will thus be held accountable in the same way that a father is held accountable. His authority and responsibility are derived from God and he is accountable. But the ordering and structuring of authorial lines are directly by God's design. Authority is simply a part of the created order. It would be strange for all other relationships to have lines of authority and not the church. And on that note, I would strongly encourage you to pick up a book by Bruce Ware titled Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. He suggests (and makes a good case) that authority and subordination are eternally extant in God's intra-trinitarian relationships. Therefore, authority structures in creation are simply reflections of that reality and are good by God's design. The book will thoroughly offend the egalitarian sensibilities of many, but the biblical evidence is there.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To Chris I would pose a question to this statement that he made, "Fact is a good percent of laypeople are lazy and apathetic". Is this not so because the "layperson" has been removed from the entire equation. The entire structure of organized religion is primarily for the member to be an onlooker as opposed to an active participant. Even the physical set-up of "churches" makes this clear. ("You, 'laypersons', sit out there and watch us, the 'clergy' on the platform.") You show up, you sit down. You stand when told, sit when told. "Tithe" when told. Listen to the sermon (all seated quietly, without any response allowed, other than the expected "amens" of course). You don't have a chance to discuss the sermon within the gathering, share what the Lord is speaking to you with the gathering.... the entire structure removes the members of the Body and elevates the clergy. What else would you expect from them but to be lethargic and apathetic? After all, you are paid to do "the job", right? It makes absolute perfect sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike, I don't Timothy was that young, even if he was instructed not to let anyone "despise his youth." I don't necessarily feel like physical age is a necessary factor; if it were, we would have been given some sort of guideline probably. An elder would have to be someone who is spiritually mature, which would most likely entail them being a believer for some time. This would naturally exclude many younger people--Timothy was probably in his 30s I would imagine (just a guess). 1 Tim 3:6 says "he must not be a recent convert." But then when it discusses deacons there is really no such qualification.

    This leads me to a question....do you think maybe the only difference between elders and deacons is age/spiritual maturity?

    ReplyDelete
  9. another point is worthy of discussion I think. In 1 Tim 3, Paul wrote "if anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task." It doesn't really say anything about an overseer being appointed here--it just gives qualifications for those who desire to be overseers.

    In Titus, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders in every town, and in Titus 1:10 it appears that the reason given for appointing elders is because there were many who going around teaching false doctrine. It seemed necessary for Paul to have elders appointed to combat this trend...but what about today?

    We don't have Paul the apostle to appoint elders for us, which doesn't invalidate the need for elders/overseers. What it does seem to necessitate is rather than some authoritarian church claiming the authority of the original Apostles to appoint leaders, that you would have a church that is simply led by the Holy Spirit in the task of recognizing and appointing overseers/elders.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike,

    another thing I thought of is this: because in some instances the church needed to appoint elders, does that mean that the need for elders is universal? or were elders simply appointed in places where the church was experiencing problems and gravitating towards false teaching?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Michael, I think it is ironic how you view Joel's church as reshaping ecclesiology because the version that most churches in America in the 20th century claim to be "Biblical" is merely an invention of 18th & 19th century revivalism.
    I got tired of the politics in church. Most of the churches that I have been a part of have been ruled by a cadre of local business leaders. My church has churned through several pastors in the past few years. Having a pastor to be the fall guy is a handy way for the "leaders" who are actually pulling the strings to keep the spotlight off of themselves.
    The same people who dominate a community tend to dominate their churches as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry to leave you hanging. I've been out of pocket for a few weeks.

    Jesse, in many respects, you may be accurate in claiming that "most churches in America in the 20th century claim to be "Biblical" is merely an invention of 18th & 19th century revivalism." And I would never try to say that the predominant American model of church does not have serious issues. But, I would maintain from the biblical text itself that elders and deacons are biblical offices with real imputed authority. Sounds like the churches you were a part of were guilty of showing partiality to the wealthy which is clearly forbidden in James 2. However, just because churches are corrupt in the way they choose leaders does not invalidate the offices themselves.

    Eric,
    First, the issue of age. 1 Tim 3 seems to indicate that the difference between an elder and a deacon is one of function rather than age or spiritual maturity. In v.10, Paul mentions that deacon should ALSO first be tested" meaning that both elders and deacons needed to be men who had been proven genuine and faithful within the body. I think it was more common for older men to be deacons but i don't think there was an age requirement. If so, Paul would have said. We cannot know Timothy's age, but he was obviously young relative to the the normal age for an elder at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Second, Eric wrote:"another point is worthy of discussion I think. In 1 Tim 3, Paul wrote "if anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task." It doesn't really say anything about an overseer being appointed here--it just gives qualifications for those who desire to be overseers." My response: The "appointment" is implied by the fact that there are qualifications. Someone has to recognize that individual as being what he aspires to be. Aside from this, Acts 6 records the laying on of hands to appoint deacons, Acts 13 records laying on of hands for commissioning Paul and Barnabas as missionaries (note here that Paul himself was an apostle, yet even he needed to be recognized by the church through an appointment before going out on its official business), and finally, in 1 Tim 4.14 Paul indicates that Timothy received his gift through the laying on of hands by the elders. This statement comes immediately after the "let no one look down on your youthfulness" statement, which strongly indicates that whatever Timothy's gift was, it was central to his position/function as pastor.

    Thirdly, "are elders essential everywhere or only where false teaching is threatening the flock?" My response: All flocks everywhere are in danger of being led astray. Certainly Scripture and the guidance of the Spirit are safeguards against this, but mature leadership is also a necessity. But the question itself is almost impossible to answer conclusively since almost every church that we have in the NT was threatened by false teaching (which would support my first statement). If so many churches started by the apostles struggled with false doctrine, how could we be so arrogant to believe that we are not in danger. You can be sure that wolves are in the midst of every American church. In fact, isn't that what this whole blog is about? Roman catholic baggage and 18-19 century revivalist baggage polluting the church? Regardless, for the sake of argument, i might suggest that Paul appointed elders in Ephesus before there was any danger of false doctrine.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lastly, Eric said: "We don't have Paul the apostle to appoint elders for us, which doesn't invalidate the need for elders/overseers. What it does seem to necessitate is rather than some authoritarian church claiming the authority of the original Apostles to appoint leaders, that you would have a church that is simply led by the Holy Spirit in the task of recognizing and appointing overseers/elders."

    Eric, I don't think I disagree with anything here. It seems like your point is more about HOW the leaders are chosen and not so much about the offices themselves. But I don't see a real difference between your two descriptions except "authoritarian" (which I am not entirely sure what you mean by that).

    In closing, i just want to say again that I am not defending the contemporary church "institution." I am simply arguing for elders and deacons as biblical and necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I dunno what I meant really. I guess by authoritarian, I mean by how people in the church abuse their positions. sometimes leaders manipulate the congregation by their perceived spiritual authority. I guess there has to be some oversight, but the point I am trying to make is that there is a sense in which everyone is equal before the Lord, even though we may have different functions in the body. the way it plays out usually is that most people view the leaders as the ones who are supposed to be morally superior and the ones with the authority and ability to do ministry. I think what gets lost is that everyone in some sense should be working towards the same standard of holiness that elders/deacons are expected to have.

    ReplyDelete
  16. and pastors/leaders can be authoritarian in the sense that they reinforce this way of thinking in their congregation--namely, that they are the experts, while everyone else has to depend on them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. yeah, you're right about that. I agree 100%

    many pastors certainly abuse their positions for the sake of being the big cheese. it also seems to me there is a systemic problem in which pastors are often expected and held accountable by, say a deacon or elder board, for being "the superiors" and if they don't keep the machine running, they are in danger of losing their job. I think that there must be plenty of pastors who would genuinely love to see their congregations take initiative in doing what Christ expects, but they are up against church bodies who believe that the pastor's job is to be morally superior and give them cathartic experiences every Sunday by stepping on their toes, but not holding them accountable for real growth. It's a cultural problem, i think. And that's where people who are sincerely concerned start asking questions about how to react. Do we leave the established church or stay to fight against the machine? At this point in history, I don't think the majority of American Christians have a clue that things should be different, including most pastors. So,I don't feel that its entirely fair to paint them as villains leading the flock astray(and i'm not saying that you are doing that although many would). So your options are to create a healthy alternative and invite people to it. Or take a pastorate in a conventional church and work for change (HA!).
    Maybe that would be a good blog discussion...

    ReplyDelete