Styrofoam Theology: Part 1- Pastors and Organic Church
Oct 12th, 2009 by John
There is a kind of hocus-pocus going on in current evangelical (emerging) conversations. It is a kind of conversational slight-of-hand that is doing away with the concept of pastor. The word “pastor” and the idea of pastor is besieged by many and is being cast into the circular file of irrelevancy. With alleged biblical support and 1st century historical underpinnings , the pastor, presto!, disappears. The sad reality of this confident discovery is that if you do away with pastor, you do away with Jesus. I don’t think that has crossed the minds of the newly enlightened ones.
Jesus was so bold as to call himself twice the “good pastor” (John 10:11, 14). The writer of Hebrews calls Jesus the “great pastor” (Hebrews 13:20) and Peter describes Jesus as “the chief pastor” (1 Peter 5:4). In case it has slipped the minds of the wizened organic church types, the English word pastor comes from the Latin word for “shepherd” which translates the Greek word poimen in each of the aforementioned texts. Jesus didn’t call himself the good-priesthood-of-all-believers-guy. He dared to call himself not a pastor, but the good pastor. Do away with pastor and do away with Jesus. Wow, what amazing things verbal slight-of-hand can do! Gospel magic revisited.
I know the term (poimen) in noun form is only used twice of human leaders (Ephesians 4:11 and Jude 12). Jude gives us a description of bad pastors and Paul mentions pastors as gifted leaders to the church. Paul, now get this, is never called a pastor nor ever described himself by that term. Paul was an apostle. Even Timothy and Titus were not pastors; they were apostolic delegates, emissaries speaking and acting on Paul’s behalf. Yet, human pastors, good and bad, show up in the Scripture right along with apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, overseers, elders, etc. Imagine that. But wait! There’s more. The verbal form, the ministry of pastoring, is mentioned twice, also. “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve…” (1 Peter 5:2). It seems that pastoring is what elders/overseers do. Elder, what do you do? I pastor. We have not even tapped into the rich Old Testament sources that fill the New Testament term shepherd/pastor with amazingly relevant meaning. It cannot be denied that behind Jesus’ use of shepherd/pastor in John 10 looms the majestic text of Ezekiel 34.
“But, John,” you respond, “you have got to realize that the church, the church is a leveled playing field. The priesthood of all believers means that we are all apostles and prophets and pastors and teachers and evangelists, blah, blah, blah. Jesus is the head.” So, the new thinking and writing goes. There are no leaders in the church. There is no hierarchy. That’s pagan Christianity. What is so sad is that none of this new thinking is biblical and it is certainly not supported by history, 1st century or otherwise.
So, if you are a pastor as I am, hang tough. When all this trendy organic stuff goes the way of all styrofoam theology, you’ll still be faithful to your calling, training and ministry. Jesus, the Chief Shepherd, has his eye on you and your church. I think he sits on a throne and is surrounded by the 24 elders. Imagine that, heaven is not a level playing field, either. I don’t know if the new thinkers will ever realize that as pastors we live and serve within a monarchy and not within USAmerican play churches. They seem to have a beef against the enculturation of the church and think their skewed view of church gives them license to re-interpret the New Testament text and re-write 1st century church history. That, to me, is sad.
Popularity: 4% [?]
John, you’re exactly right that from a NT perspective not every Christian is a pastor. Bear in mind also that from a NT perspective, a single congregation never has a single pastor or elder. The office is always plural: pastors, elders.
I think there’s alot of rhetoric and posturing on both sides of this debate. What if both aspects are true? 1) elders (pastors) are important to the church, and 2) the priesthood of believers indicates that the church is level and not a hierarchy.
In fact, I think both concepts are scriptural, and the church has tended to neglect one aspect or the other throughout its history.
-Alan
Milton (#1),
You wrote, “Bear in mind also that from a NT perspective, a single congregation never has a single pastor or elder. The office is always plural: pastors, elders.” You have no way of verifying that statement. If Ephesus was populated by numerous “house churches,” which is probably true, you cannot tell me in fact that each house church had multiple elders/pastors.
Alan (#2),
You wrote, “and 2) the priesthood of believers indicates that the church is level and not a hierarchy.” This is exegetically indefensible. The priesthood of all believers is not about hierarchy or not.
John,
The priesthood of believers is about hierarchy concerning a believer’s or group of believer’s access to God. All have access to God through the same mediator, Jesus Christ. Similarly, the priesthood of believers is about hierarchy concerning a believer’s or a group of believer’s ability to serve God. All have been given gifts which are to be used to serve others as a way to serve and bring glory to God. We could add to these two points the idea of decision making (we often see the church as whole agreeing on a decision). I believe these three points are exegetically defensible, and that these points (among others) are often neglected or nullified by certain views of elders/pastors (not all views of elders/pastors).
Again, I believe that elders/pastors are important to the church and are scriptural. At the same time, all believers are priests before God and are given the same responsibilities of teaching others, caring for others, exhorting others, serving others, etc.
-Alan
My observation has been that most bad ecclesiology is “backlash”. It doesn’t spring from exegesis, but as a backlash against some other bad thing.
In the case of the no-pastor contingent, I’ve noticed that it usually springs from bad experiences with bad Pastors.
Either their Pastor was authoritarian, or simply a cold CEO, or for some reason they didn’t “pastor” or “shepherd” the flock with love in one hand and the Word in the other.
Of course the concept and office of “Pastor” is biblical.
And for better or worse, the new-born hearts of believers will lead them to gravitate to SOMEONE to shepherd them, whether they admit it or not.
May that one they gravitate to be a real shepherd with a real shepherd’s heart, who loves and leads his flock to the Great Shepherd and His Word.
Not sure where you’ve gotten your ideas of what organic church is but I haven’t seen many that believe in the total anarchy you describe above. I am sure there are some, but those certainly are fads devoid of biblical support.
The primary point of contention participants in the organic church, like myself, have is the hierarchal leadership structures that prevent every member of the body of Christ from functioning freely.
I think it’s disingenuous to compare modern day pastors (whose job description is found no where in Scripture) with Jesus, much less the priesthood of the OT.
No, the modern day concept of a pastor as someone who lords their authority over their flock is directly opposed by Scripture.
It’s sad, too, since the whole concept of the kingdom of God not being like the power structures of this world seems to be completely lost on a whole group of people who otherwise have noble intentions.
Hi John,
I’m not sure how to put it into words, but I think the importance of the pastor is skewed. Fact is, it’s OK for a congregation to lose the quiet person in the back. Who listen’s to him/her anyway? But lose a pastor? Some congregations never recover. I can rant on and on and on but I’m tired of all the rhetoric. Perhaps I can say this. I’m one of those who left the organised part of church. There are many that’s leaving and it’s not really just trendy organic stuff. This is not going to go away. It will not blow over. Do not take this lightly. Listen to what we have to say. (I’m not asking you to join us. I’m asking you to love us.)
The pastor is always the most visible part of the traditional church and the easiest to attack. For that I’m sorry. Leavers are sometimes insecure, and believe they have to defend by attacking. Perhaps one day, the time will come when the bride will no longer have a “them” and “us”. I pray that God will bless you abundantly. Your brother…
Alan (#5),
Your extrapolations of the NT notion of “the priesthood of all believers” is certainly Lutheran and Reformed, but hardly NT exegetical. There are no dimensions of decision-making related to “the priesthood of all believers.” That idea is read into the phrase, not exegeted from it. Sorry. It is not about egalitarian functions of all church members and equal authority in decision-making.
Wes (#7),
You describe bad hierarchal functions of the NT church. Good hierarchal functioning would be sure all believers find and express their place in the body of Christ, not prevent that.
Disingenuous? Really? To compare Jesus with the modern day pastor whose role goes back to the 1st century? You are the one who seems somewhat blind to church history. I, for one, am not impressed with “organic” reactions to bad pastoring that reaches the conclusion of no pastoring. It’s down right silly.
abmo (#8),
I do agree with you “that the importance of the pastor is skewed.” But to un-skew it really seems to upset the organic crowd.
Wes (#7) again,
To argue for a leader/follower paradigm in the kingdom of God is not identical to “the power structures of this world.” Leaders, real leaders who follow and desire to become transformed to the likeness of Jesus, are not lording it over others. Peter patently forbids that as he exhorts the leaders to “be shepherds.” You know that. You’ve built a straw man which you conveniently attack to establish you own categories on the NT text. It won’t work.
John,
There are also “no dimensions of decision-making related” to elders/pastors. “That idea is read into the phrase, not exegeted from it. Sorry. It is not about” the proper functioning of the elders/pastors, but about the role of “all church members and equal authority in decision-making.”
That’s not really a fun game.
Let’s start over. Can you show me elder/pastor decision-making in Scripture?
-Alan
Alan (#13),
I’ve read widely in both what you call traditional understandings of pastor and also Niel Cole’s and Frank Viola’s stuff. I’ve read Stabbert’s book, too, regarding all the terms Paul uses for leadership in the NT. I think Stabbert’s book is now out of print, but it’s very good. I think we can agree that there are at least two categories within the NT church according to Paul—leaders and followers. I really don’t care what leaders are called…elders, pastors, overseers, apostles, etc. Because Jesus as a leader called himself pastor, and because the Ephesian elders/overseers and the leaders addressed by Peter were exhorted to “be shepherds over” the church, the term pastor (shepherd) is a thoroughly legitimate NT term for leaders (no matter the specificity of their giftedness). Leaders make decisions for and along with followers (Acts 6, Acts 15, Hebrews 13 as examples of clear texts). Now, if there are no decision-making functions of leaders (elders) on behalf of and with the church, then qualifications for them become superfluous or redundant in the sense that what applies to elders (I Tim. 2/Titus 1) ought to apply to all the church. I don’t see that. Do you?
John,
Yes, actually I do think that 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 apply to the whole church. In fact, you’ll find each of those characteristics (including teaching) applied to all believers throughout Scripture. What’s the difference? Elders are those who actually do (at least more consistently) what all believers are supposed to do.
Leaders are very biblical. I have no argument with you there. Notice I even included that in my first comment. But, what is a leader in the biblical sense? Is it someone who makes decisions? Not according to Jesus. A leader is someone who serves. People follow those leaders by serving also. As Peter says, elders don’t “lord it over” (i.e. exercise authority… its the same term) others, instead they are examples. According to the author of Hebrews, we are not to follow the orders of leaders, but we are to follow their “way of life” and “faith”.
By the way, the preposition “over” is never used in the position of one believer related to others (in spite of bad translations that seem to indicate otherwise). We are elders “among” not “over”. Similarly, the verb sometimes translated “oversee” is not just associated with elders. We also find it in Hebrews 12:15, where all believers are told to “oversee” one another.
Again, I’m not arguing against elders. Elders are extremely important to the life of the church. I thank God for the mature believers that God has placed in my life, especially those who the church has recognized as elders.
-Alan
Alan (#15),
I just don’t see it: “Yes, actually I do think that 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 apply to the whole church.” The elders direct the affairs of the church well (1 Tim. 5:17) So, a tautology in your view…the church directs the affairs of the church…?? And Paul as an apostle directs Titus, his emissary, to “appoint (ordain?) elders in every town” (Titus 1:5) and gives qualifications for those people so appointed. This is not a congregational vote. Appointed by Titus (and perhaps by Timothy in Ephesus). In my view, you are mistaken if you think these texts apply to the whole church.
John,
1 Timothy 5:17 does not say that the elders are to direct the affairs of the church well. Instead, Paul tells believers to honor those elders who lead well and who work hard in the word and in teaching. (I’ve already talked about how Jesus told us that “leading” means “serving” for one of his followers.) This is very similar to what Paul says about “leaders” in general in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, which he then follows by telling all the believers (not just the leaders) to admonish, encourage, help, and be patient (1 Thess 5:14). Apparently, while Paul did think that elders and possibly others would be leading and teaching, he did not think ONLY elders or leaders would be teaching or admonishing.
As you stated in your post, Titus was not an elder. He was an apostle, or at least the representative of an apostle. In Acts 6, we see the church (or at least those complaining) choosing the seven who were to take meals to the Hellensitic widows. In Acts 15, we see the whole church agreeing with the apostles and the elders. In 1 Corinthians 5, we see the church as a whole being responsible for separating from a brother who was living a sexually immoral life.
In fact, throughout the NT, even when writing about very difficult problems (even doctrinal problems), the authors never tell the leaders or elders to take care of those problems. Instead, the responsible is given to the church to whom the letters are addressed.
So, yes, I think the church (empowered and directed by the Holy Spirit) is responsible for directing the affairs of the church. As Paul wrote in Ephesians, while specially gifted individuals are important to the maturity and work of the church (Eph 4:11), it is only when the whole church works together based on the gifts given to each member does the church grow in love and maturity. Similarly, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:22-25, it is those parts of the church that SEEM less important that are actually more important to the church.
So, yes, the whole church is responsible for directing the affairs of the church.
Paul give instructions to Timothy and Titus about how to (appoint/recognize/vote for – all those English terms could be used in a translation of the various terms used) elders. Does this mean that only Timothy and Titus were responsible for doing this? Perhaps. We don’t know. However, just because these characteristics (qualifications?) where given to help recognize elders, it doesn’t mean that only elders were responsible for living according to these characteristics. Like I said, I think we can find all believers called to live according to all of those qualities in Scripture.
-Alan
John,
Thanks for laying out a pastoral theology. In “Pagan Christianity” the idea is established that the term “pastor” is an obscure word used only one time to refer to a leadership position and is without context. i had never thought about it before and it did shake me a bit. i wondered if we used the term simply because it was so vague. Yet your work “Jesus the Pastor” and this clarification help put the term in its larger perspective. This was helpful because i truly did wonder what the role of a “pastor” was and if it was every really biblically defined.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Taljaard and dbgooglereader. dbgooglereader said: Styrofoam Theology: Pastors and Organic Church: There is a kind of hocus-pocus going on in current evangelical .. http://bit.ly/sJrWS [...]
John: “If Ephesus was populated by numerous “house churches,” which is probably true, you cannot tell me in fact that each house church had multiple elders/pastors.”
Milton: True enough, John, and you cannot tell me in fact that any single house church had a solitary pastor in the modern sense.
Milton (#19),
Well, of course, there was not a solitary pastor “in the modern sense.” But if unfolding 1st and 2nd century church polity points in any direction, it is toward the solitary pastor serving the church.
Yes, that’s certainly true.
[...] lately around the topic of pastors, leadership and the priesthood of all believers (so far with Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & Part 4). John, himself a pastor, is down-right angry with some of the [...]
John,
You said: (#14) “I think we can agree that there are at least two categories within the NT church according to Paul—leaders and followers.” Actually, he describes in 1 Corinthians 12 this :”27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.” And contextually, it is implied in that chapter and elsewhere that there are other gifts too.
The problem with the current role of “Pastor” in the modern protestant sense is that the person conferred with the title pastor (and that IS what we are discussing, not what a true “pastor” should be) is expected to be a teacher, and a prophet, and an administrator, and a miracle worker, and a counselor, and one who helps others. We place in the current pastorship the expectation to do nearly everything for the church. A pastor should be a shepherd: one who tends to the flock, keeping it from wandering away, helping it grow. The best way to do that is to find and train others in their spiritual gifts.
The problem isn’t with the pastor as the Bible describes it, it is with what we have made it. The pastor should pastor, not everything else, and not working 90 hours a week to do it.
“The priesthood of all believers means that we are all apostles and prophets and pastors and teachers and evangelists, blah, blah, blah. Jesus is the head.” So, the new thinking and writing goes.”
Do you have quotes for that? Because I haven’t seen anyone say anything like that. In fact, I have a problem with the idea of a unitary Pastor in the modern sense precisely because there are a variety of gifts. Not all are apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, etc…so why do we want to wrap that all up in one impossible job description? Yes, Jesus is the Good Pastor, our one teacher…so why arrogate his job to ourselves?
Leadership is important, and is a gift given to some for the sake of the whole body. Teaching is important, and is a gift given to some for the sake of the whole body. Counseling is important, and is a gift given to some for the sake of the whole body. Why pile all these things and more onto one person’s shoulders, denying the opportunity for all in the church to use their gifts, as well as letting them off the hook for their callings?
I am confused about what “priesthood of all believers” has to do with the topic. Priests are not “pastors.” The “priesthood of all believers” does not do away with pastor-ship. A priest is one who acts as an intermediary with God, offering sacrifices for somebody else. All Christians ultimately are supposed to be priests, interceding with God and sacrificing prayerfully. I believe our Christian priesthood is primarily for the non-Christians. (Hah! I also believe all humans ought to be priests for all non-human creation. And priests, per se, are the priests for the Christians.)
Priests are not, in and of themselves, pastors or helpers or counselors or social workers or nice people. They are sacrificers. What has the priesthood of all believers got to do with abolishing the office of pastor?
– Fr. Sean Lotz, priest and pastor
[...] John Frye's posts on the role of Pastor have been one of the triggers for this post. Particularly the discussion between John and Alan Knox on John's first post of his series. John's latest posts seem quite [...]