- In the summer of 1990, while pastoring a denominational
church in rural Mississippi, 1 felt led to teach a Bible study series on
the New Testament pattern for the church and its leadership. We were not
very far into this study before I began to seriously question the
scripturalness of many of our church practices and traditions. Most
troublesome was the question of whether or not my own position as the
Pastor of a local church was a scriptural one.
-
- I had always assumed that the one-Pastor system, being
the pattern followed in the overwhelming majority of churches today, was
founded upon Scripture. But as I began to earnestly study the Scriptures
on the issue of church leadership, one disturbing question kept intruding
itself-a question I present here for the sober consideration of the
reader. Where in Scripture is there warrant for one man to be the
spiritual leader and authority over the local church?
-
- Never mind that this is the pattern unquestioningly
followed throughout Christendom today. Where is it in Scripture? As I
searched the length and breadth of the New Testament, it became obvious to
me that such a pattern was nowhere to be found. Rather, I found that the
primary role in shepherding the New Testament churches was exercised, not
by a solitary Pastor, but by a plurality of men, described as "elders" or
overseers.
-
- And when they had ordained them elders in every church,
and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they
believed. (Acts 14:23)
-
- From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the
elders of the church.... He said unto them... Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood. (Acts 20:17-28)
-
- Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to
all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and
deacons: (Phil.1:1)
-
- For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in
every city, as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5)
-
- Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of
the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name
of the Lord: (James 5:14)
-
- The quotation above from Acts 20 makes it clear that
the "elders" and "overseers" are the same persons, and that it is they who
are given responsibility to shepherd, or pastor the church of God.
("Shepherd" is the literal meaning of the word "pastor.") So while others
besides elders may exercise a pastoral gift-Bible teachers, for instance,
there is no hint in Scripture of anyone claiming to be "the Pastor" of a
local church and assuming a position of oversight apart from and superior
to the work of the elders. We read nothing of a "Senior Pastor," or
"Presiding Elder." Such titles, in fact come perilously close to
blasphemy, since Christ Himself is spoken of as "the Chief Shepherd" (1
Peter 5:4).
-
- The apostle Peter confirms that the terms "elders" and
"overseers" refer to the same persons, and that their work is that of
pastoring the flock: The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also
an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker
of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among
you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not
for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (1 Peter 5:1-2)
-
- So when we read in Ephesians 4:11 that God has given
"some as pastors" (literally, "shepherds"), can we not assume that this
refers primarily to these elders, or overseers, and not to a one-man
office about which the rest of the New Testament is completely silent. Nor
is all this mere wrangling over terminology.
-
- The point to be fixed clearly in the mind from the
above scriptures is that, in the New Testament, churches were never
shepherded by one man, whatever his title or designation, but by a
plurality of men. Further, the clear impression given by these scriptures
is that elders were generally raised up by God from within the local
church, not hired and imported from outside-and certainly not from the
ranks of a professional "clergy".
-
- This gives rise to another question. Where in Scripture
is there any such thing as a servant of the Lord contracting to receive a
stated salary from a church? The New Testament clearly sets forth the
principle that those who preach the gospel are entitled to "live from the
gospel" (Matt. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:17-18), but there is never
any indication that this involves a stated salary, but rather, free will
gifts:
-
- Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him
that teacheth in all good things.(Gal. 6:6)
-
- Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of
the gospel... no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but
you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my
necessities. (Phil. 4:10-16)
-
- Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey
diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them. And let ours also learn to
maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.(Titus
3:13-14)
-
- The only case in Scripture of a "minister" receiving a
fixed salary occurs in Judges 17-a situation filled with compromise and
idolatry!
-
- But did not Jesus say, "The laborer is worthy of his
hire" (Luke 10:7)? True, but the briefest glance at the immediate context,
where these laborers are instructed to carry neither purse nor scrip, and
to "eat and drink such things as are set before you"-shows that a fixed
salary was the last thing our Lord had in view. Yes, the Lord's laborer is
worthy of his hire, but who is it that "hires" him? In whose employ is
he--the church's or the Lord's? Surely the Lord's, but the system of a
- salaried pastorate implies otherwise. I cannot help but
believe that the present-day "Pastor search" process, complete with
resumes, salary negotiations, trial sermons, and the like, is a grievous
offence to the Spirit of God. Again our urgent question must be: where is
all this in Scripture?
-
- Where also is the notion that the public ministry of
the Word is to be confined to one man in a local church, and that it is
contingent upon him being "ordained" by some human authority? On the
contrary, we read: Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other
judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first
hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn,
and all may be comforted. (1 Cor 14:29-31)
-
- Regardless of one's view concerning the nature of the
gift of prophecy and its validity for today, it is abundantly clear that
the practice of one man monopolizing the public ministry of the Word was
utterly foreign to the New Testament churches.
-
- Sad consequences
- So when confronted with the plain teaching of
Scripture, I could not escape the conclusion that the oversight of the
local church is to be exercised by mature brethren raised up by the Holy
Spirit from within the church. and that public ministry of the Word is
open to any brother who has been divinely gifted for it. In Contrast, most
churches today entrust the spiritual leadership of the congregation and
the vast majority of the public ministry to a solitary Pastor, who is
chosen from among the professional "clergy," imported from outside the
church and promised a fixed salary for his services. Can the reader-with
his New Testament open before him-deny that this is a drastic departure
from the scriptural pattern? Indeed it is, and it has had predictably
severe consequences on the spiritual life of churches. The following are
only some of the problems that are created or aggravated by this
unscriptural one-Pastor system:
-
- (1) Perpetuates the deplorable distinction between
"clergy" and "laity."
- No more pernicious device of the devil has ever been
deployed than this utterly unscriptural distinction. Pastors today grieve
about being unable to involve the "laity." without ever considering that
it is the very system of dividing Christians into two classes that is to
blame.
-
- The answer is not to "involve" the laity, but to
abolish it! Away with the idea that Christian work is the province of a
special few!
-
- (2) Causes believers to neglect their own
responsibility for witnessing to the lost, encouraging the brethren,
in-depth Bible study, visiting the sick, etc., out of a conscious or
subconscious assumption that these are "the Pastor's Jobs." Often the only
one visibly working for Christ in the community is the Pastor, whose
witness is impaired by the fact that he is perceived as paid to do so, And
how rare is serious Bible study outside of the Pastor's study! There is a
widespread delusion that only the "ordained" Pastor is qualified to mine
the riches of God's Word, and that only he is responsible for using the
Word to encourage the brethren and warn the lost. As a result, men who
have been believers in Christ for thirty or forty years and "by this time
ought to be teachers" are still being spoon-fed them- selves. (Heb. 5:12)
In our
- churches today this is not the unfortunate exception.
It is the norm. Of all the damage wreaked by the unscriptural system of
handing over the ministry of the church to a single professional (or in
larger churches, a staff of professionals), this debilitating effect on
the men of the congregation is perhaps the most tragic.
-
- (3) Leaves little or no room for the exercise of
spiritual gifts, other than the Pastor's, in the gatherings of the church.
-
- (4) Leads to churches being built in the flesh, as
programs, promotion, and the Pastor's personality must replace the
spiritual gifts of the body.
-
- (5) Produces widespread discouragement among Pastors,
who are trying earnestly to fill an unscriptural role.
-
- (6) Denies Pastors the fellowship in the ministry they
so desperately need. Usually the difference in spiritual vision and
ministry responsibility between the Pastor and the congregation is so wide
that his only meaningful fellowship is with other Pastors, who are not
fellow-laborers in the same field, but have their own fields to worry
about.
-
- (7) Tends to negate the presidency of the Holy Spirit
in the church.
-
- Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind of the
Spirit, his pein the church. Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind
of the Spirit, his perception is clouded by his own personality, desires,
etc. How much better, when formulating plans or making a decision, for the
elders as a group, along with other spiritual men, to come before the Lord
in prayer.
-
- (8) Since one man is given responsibility for the
entire ministry of the church-and since no one man has all the
gifts-Pastors are forced to spend much of their time doing ministry they
are not supernaturally gifted to do, or else that ministry goes undone.
-
- (9) Creates a situation where one person, the Pastor,
can turn a doctrinally sound church into a heretical church overnight.
- Having multiple elders, while not providing absolute
immunity from doctrinal error, is a powerful check against heretical
teaching.
-
- (10) Leads to a paralyzing shortage of national
Christian workers in many mission areas, because of the assumption that
these workers must be professionally trained and imported from outside the
church. Where is the confidence that the Lord has already supplied the
body with the leadership gifts needed?
-
- (11) Puts undue pressure on the Pastor's wife and
children, as they are forced to live in a "fishbowl" environment as "the
preacher's" family.
-
- These are but a sampling of the consequences that I
believe can be laid squarely at the feet of unscriptural beliefs and
practices concerning the ministry.
-
- Some Objections Answered
-
- Objection 1: The proper role of a pastor is not to
assume the entire ministry of the church, but to mobilize and equip the
saints to do the work of the ministry. Therefore, most of the problems you
have listed are results, not of the single-Pastor system itself, but of
the abuse of that system.
-
- Reply: Since the single-Pastor system is universally
beset with these problems, the burden of proof lies on its defenders to
prove that the system itself is not at fault, particularly since it is a
system with no warrant in Scripture. The concept of a church led by a
Pastor-equipper who mobilizes the saints to do the work of the ministry
sounds attractive, but the experience of thousands of frustrated Pastors
testifies that it simply does not work. There is simply too deeply
ingrained a perception in the minds of the congregation that Christian
work is for a special few. The clergy-laity gap is the great demobilizer
of the saints. Anyone trying to abolish that gap is doomed to failure
while clinging to a system where one man, professionally trained and
credentialed, is viewed as "the Minister." Incidentally, those who espouse
the concept of the Pastor- equipper normally have a very limited notion of
what the "work of the ministry" includes. For instance, even
- the Pastor who makes equipping the saints an emphasis
of his ministry will normally call a fellow clergyman-not someone from the
congregation-to fill the pulpit when he is away.
-
- Objection 2: The approach you have suggested would
produce incompetent church leadership at best, and doctrinal mayhem at
worst.
-
- Reply: This is a serious charge because it I implies
that the Holy Spirit is incompetent in placing the proper leadership gifts
within each church. Is it seminary training that qualifies a man for
leadership in the church, or the gifts of the Spirit? We have often been
guilty of giving lip service to the latter, while placing greater weight
on the former.
-
- Objection 3: The word "overseer" is singular in 1
Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 where the qualifications of the overseer are
described. This suggests at least the possibility of "overseer" being a
one-man work.
-
- Reply: It is a most natural use of language to employ
the singular when describing the qualifications of a position. For
instance, I might say, "A United States Senator (or even, the United
States Senator) must be a man of integrity. honor, etc." without in the
least implying that there is only one United States Senator, or even one
per state! To stress Paul's perfectly explicable use of the singular here,
while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the rest of the New Testament,
would be a
- strange and twisted exegesis. At any rate, a closer
look at Titus 1:5-7 rules out the possibility that Paul was advocating a
one-pastor system. How can the use of the singular "overseer" in verse 7
possibly imply that each local church is to have only one overseer, when
two verses earlier Paul had introduced the subject by reminding Titus of
his instructions to "appoint elders [plural I in every city"? To my mind,
this is conclusive.
-
- Objection 4: Were not the "Pastoral Epistles" addressed
to single individuals?
-
- Reply: This objection is based on the common
misconception that Timothy and Titus were each "Pastors" of local
churches. This is simply not true. To quote from the Zondervan Pictorial
Bible Dictionary: "Though these letters do furnish worthwhile directions
for pastors, the addressees were not Pastors in the usual present-day
sense of that term. Rather, they were Paul's special envoys sent by him on
specific missions and entrusted with concrete assignments according to the
need of the
- hour."
-
- Objection 5: What about the leadership role of James at
Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). Epaphras at Colossae (Col. 4:12). And Epaphroditus
at Philippi (Phil. 2:25)?
-
- Reply: This objection, which I have heard used in
defense of the one-Pastor system is a patent example of reading the Word
of God through the distorting lens of tradition. James, the Lord's
brother, was an apostle (Gal. 1:19). not a Pastor. Epaphras was an
evangelist. The "fellow bond-servant" of Paul who brought the gospel to
the Colossians (Col. 1:7). (Strange that if he were "Pastor" of the church
at Colossae. he is never seen as present there, but always with Paul
elsewhere!. (Col. 4:12; Philem. 23) Epaphroditus is simply described as
one of Paul's fellow-workers who was sent by the Philippian church as a
minister to his needs. All this is evidence for the one-Pastor system?
-
- Objection 6: Do not the "angels" of the churches in
Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors (e.g. "To the angel of the church in
Ephesus write...," etc.), and is there not one per church?
-
- Reply: No person reading the New Testament apart from
preconceived notions would ever imagine that the "angels" of Revelation
2-3 refer to Pastors. Although the Greek word angelos may be translated
"messenger," in every other occurrence of the word in Revelation-and it
occurs 76 times!-it unquestionably refers to literal angels. If it does
mean
- "messenger" in Revelation 2-3, it still could hardly be
stretched to mean "pastor." In every case where the New Testament uses the
phrase messenger of..." (e.g. "messenger of Satan," "messengers of John,"
etc.), it always describes by whom the messenger is sent, never to whom.
In other words, "the messenger of the church in Ephesus" would not likely
mean a messenger sent to the church, but a messenger sent by the church,
perhaps as part of a delegation to minister to the apostle in his exile on
Patmos and to receive instructions from him.
-
- Objection 7: Perhaps the many New Testament references
to multiple elders are due to the fact that, while each church had only
one elder or overseer, each city had several different churches. For
instance, when Paul writes to "the saints in Christ Jesus who are in
Philippi, including the overseers and deacons" (Phil. 1: 1), there may
have been a number of congregations in Philippi, each with their own
overseer, or Pastor.
-
- Reply: This reasoning may seem to answer certain
passages, but it utterly falls apart in view of others, such as Acts 14:23
("So when they had appointed elders in every church...), James 5:14 ("Let
him call for the elders of the church"), etc.
-
- Objection 8: Even if it can be proven that the New
Testament churches had multiple elders that would not necessarily be
normative for the church today. After all, everyone agrees that believers
in the Jerusalem church sold their goods and had all things in common, yet
who suggests returning to that pattern today?
-
- Reply: To say that the pattern of the New Testament
church is not normative for us today is tantamount to saying that God has
left us without any pattern at all. Distressing thought! Has God really
left us at the mercy of human ingenuity in deciding how the ministry of
His Church is to be ordered? Rather, let us say with the Psalmist, "I
esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything" (Ps. 119:128). In
regard to the selling of goods by believers in the Jerusalem church: (1)
The
- passage in question, Acts 2:42-47, does not say that
all those who believed sold all their possessions. This was not "Christian
communism" as it is sometimes pictured. The use of the imperfect tense in
verse 45 implies that from time to time, as necessary, they sold their
goods to distribute to brethren in need. (2) I, for one, am not prepared
to say that the example of these early Jerusalem saints is not the norm
for believers today, particularly in light of the words of John's epistle:
But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and
shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of
God in him. (1 John 3:17)
-
- Objection 9: You cannot deny that God has through the
years mightily blessed many Pastors and churches who have used the
one-Pastor system, and continues to do so today.
-
- Reply: No one would think of denying this. Yet the
problems mentioned above cannot reasonably be denied either. And who would
claim that the fruitfulness of the Church as a whole is anywhere near the
divinely intended level? Besides, it is a mistake to think that because
God graciously blesses someone operating under a certain set of beliefs or
practices, that He thereby endorses those beliefs or practices. God has,
for instance, greatly used many preachers, teachers, and missionaries
- who have held to the teaching that Christians may lose
their salvation. Yet few who are taught in the Scriptures would suggest
that this view therefore has God's sanction, or that it is unimportant to
uphold the scriptural teaching of Salvation. Praise God, He does not
require us to be perfect in our interpretation of Scripture before He will
use us. If so, who could hope to be used? But as we are given further
light on the Scriptures, it is our duty and our Joy to conform our beliefs
and
- practices as nearly as possible to the Word of God.
-
- Objection 10: A multiple-elder system might well solve
some problems, but at the same time it would create a whole new set of
problems of its own.
-
- Reply: This I willingly admit. When, however, you are
operating under a scriptural pattern, the problems that arise are
scriptural problems. That is, they are problems that have been anticipated
in Scripture and for which guidance is provided in Scripture. Also, let us
not forget that, quite apart from the question of what problems might be
solved or created, we ought to follow the New Testament pattern simply
because it is the New Testament pattern. We conform to the authority of
Scripture as a matter of principle, not for pragmatic reasons. But when we
do so, we invariably find God's way to be the best way.
-
- Objection 11: Surely you don't think all the problems
you mentioned would vanish if our churches simply changed their pattern of
leadership?
-
- Reply: Unfortunately, no. Not overnight at least,
particularly where the clergy-laity mentality has been firmly entrenched
for decades. But even in such a case a return to the New Testament
pattern, if wholeheartedly adopted by the local church, would certainly
produce a dramatic effect. The manifold problems and unscriptural
attitudes nurtured by the false
- clergy-laity distinction could at least begin to be
resolved. In other situations, where a fresh start is possible (such as on
the mission field, in new churches, or with new converts), these problems
can be avoided altogether.
-
- What shall we say then? The one-man pastorate, far from
having the sanction of Scripture, is essentially a "Protestantized"
holdover from the Roman Catholic clerical system. For those of us who
claim the Bible, rather than tradition, as our authority, it is time to
fervently search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. (Acts
17:11) I would that every reader of this booklet might share the blessing
I have found by "turning my feet to His testimonies" (Ps. 119:59) and
choosing to meet in fellowship with those who gather in New Testament
simplicity and order. I have written more about this in a small booklet
entitled, What I Have Found: My introduction to "brethren" assemblies. *
-
- PLEASE NOTE: The above article is 100% consistent
with the Scriptures I have found through many hours of personal study on
this topic, which is the only reason I have included it. PLEASE NOTE THE
SCRIPTURES ABOVE ALL ELSE.
|
