Styrofoam Theology: Part 2- Some History
Oct 13th, 2009 by John
I have noted a mantra from the organic church sympathizers. Any critique of their priesthood-of-all-believers, no-hierarchal-structure, anti-clergy/laity split, all-are-leaders-and-thus-none-are-leaders theology receives this: “Well, show me from the New Testament anyone with a modern pastor job description.” I want to respond, “Show me your thorough-going American egalitarian, democratic, consensual decision-making polity in the New Testament.” It just ain’t there.
I admit that the modern pastor job description isn’t there, either. Yet, the modern pastor job description, while culturally informed, has deep, deep roots in 1st and 2nd century church polity. In their fine book The Pastor: Readings from the Patristic Period, Philip L. Culbertson and Arthur Bradford Shippe present the shape, nature and expression of pastoral ministry and care. We are talking pastoral ministry in the 150s-early 200s AD. That is not that long after pastor/apostle John went to meet his Maker. Yep, there are solo pastors over churches. Ironically, and encouragingly, the writings of these early church pastors/fathers present issues you would find discussed at the “modern” National Pastors Convention in San Diego. And since these early pastors are not spinning pastoral ministry out of thin air, we assume they are continuing pastoral ministry shaped by The Didache itself.
But, John, the church fathers are not inerrant and The Didache isn’t either. I agree. Yet, pastoral ministry emerged in a specific shape very early on by leaders deeply committed to the New Testament (and Old Testament) text. Recognized leaders emerged, taking oversight of the church and directing its affairs and disciplining its members. Teaching in line with apostolic doctrine was a priority and calling people to a kingdom-of-God morality was emphatic. We don’t see groups sitting around waiting for the Spirit to move and incite either teaching or moral accountability. We see pastor-teachers aggressively engaged in the care of the flock of God. Yes, there were some pneumatic groups who spawned heresy, but that was dealt with, too.
I am stunned that there is a movement that actually is trying to erase pastors and pastoral authority and care from the church. I do not question the fine intentions of those in the movement, but I do wonder about their discernment.
Popularity: 3% [?]
You mean that Paul wasn’t a democrat? You mean Jesus didn’t promote democracy? But John McCain told me…. haha.
Thanks for this post. I agree that there is a certain amount of good in having a pastoral authority in the church, tempered with pastoral humbleness.
John,
I haven’t read the book that you mentioned, but I have read the Didache. The Didache does not mention single pastors over churches (or single elders or single bishops). Instead, the Didache instructs churches to select bishops and deacons: “Therefore, choose for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of God, men who are gentle, not lovers of money, dependable, and proven, for they also serve you with the service of prophets and teachers.” (The Didache 15:1)
Similarly, Clement of Rome (who wrote about the same time as the Didache was written) admonished the church in Corinth for kicking out their elders (plural).
I’ve also read Polycarp (who wrote just after Clement), who was supposedly a disciple of John, who told the church in Philippi to submit to the elders and deacons: “Therefore, it is necessary to keep away from all these things, submit yourselves to the elders and to the deacons as to God and to Christ.” (Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3)
There is someone in the early church who suggested a single leader, like you said. It was Ignatius, who also wrote about the same time as Clement and The Didache). He wrote, “Make every effort to do all things in the harmony of God, while the bishop presides over you in the place of God and the elders [preside over you] in the place of the assembly of the apostles and the deacons, who are dear, [preside over you]…”. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 6:1).
Ignatius gave this same instruction to Polycarp. He told Polycarp to tell the church at Smyrna to make sure they submit to the single bishop as to God. (Ignatius to Polycarp 5:2; 6:1) For some reason, when Polycarp wrote to the church in Philippi, he did not follow Ignatius’ advice (as quoted above), but instead said “bishops”, not “bishop”.
In fact, it is another 100 years after Ignatius before someone else (Cyprian) takes up his call for a single bishop over each church.
You also may be interested to know that Ignatius does not claim his teaching about a single bishop over the church as coming from Scripture. He also says specifically that he did not learn this from any man (such as John). Instead, he says that the Holy Spirit revealed this to him directly. (Ignatius to the Philadelphians 7:1-2)
The Roman Catholic Church clearly acknowledges that their hierarchy comes from Ignatius. I think the idea of a senior pastor comes from him as well, especially when we read that he says that only the single bishop (or others by his acquiescence) can marry people, serve Communion, and baptizes.
Since you brought it up, I thought you might be interested in these excerpts from the church history.
-Alan
By the way, my comments (either above or in the previous thread) do not mean that I am in favor of a “thorough-going American egalitarian, democratic, consensual decision-making polity”. I’m not. But, I’m also not in favor of pastoral/elder authority.
-Alan
Hi John,
I’ve read this and your previous post about styrofoam theology. I do not think your understanding of the “organic church” movement is accurate. I do not know anyone who is holding to a more organic theology who also thinks we should get rid of pastors. Everyone I know who is part of an organic church is very concerned about what the Bible teaches and it does not teach. Although the word “pastor” is not a term they define in the modern sense, they do see it as a biblical word… one that more closely resembles its biblical meaning – servant.
The organic church is not trying to erase pastors, at the very most they are trying to biblically define pastors. This is not a bad thing.
Perhaps some do not have a biblical understanding of pastors and are therefore trying to erase them. But the few should not define the whole.
God Speed,
Lew
Great answers Alan and Lew!
I would only add that the organic church movement is not wholly an American phenonemon. The majority of the movement is actually overseas, especially in restricted countries such as China. I’ve spoken with many IMB missionaries who also admit that the organic church model is what they are taught (and have found to be extremely effective) to plant when they are sent to an area to evangelize.
I’d like to know why something that is good enough for missionaries is not good enough for everyone?
Why, outside of a desire for spiritual kings, do we think it is natural to build earthly kingdoms/organizations we mistakenly label “church”?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Apostle Gammage and Robert Hartzell, Larry Vern Newman. Larry Vern Newman said: jesus the radical pastor | exploring the life and mission of the …: Any critique of their priesthood-of-all-b.. http://bit.ly/47LALz [...]
Alan (#2),
So we are left with the interpretive/historical dilemma–are bishops and deacons appointed/installed with multiple leaders over one house church or one for each house church, so that a plurality of leaders are installed in each city?
I know that there is a huge discussion even within organic churches about the 5-fold gifting of Eph. 4:11, that is, the ideal multiple team in any church (or group) is apostle, evangelist, prophet, pastor and teacher. I am no convinced of this because other NT letters do not describe that scheme for each community of faith.
I am glad you’re not in favor of a “thorough-going American egalitarian, democratic, consensual decision-making polity.”
Lew (#4),
I know that not all organic church models seek to erase the pastor, but there is a segment that does. That is the contingent I have in mind. I don’t think pastor is equivalent to servant in a strict sense. Pastor is *poimen* in Greek and servant is *doulos.* If pastors are servants, the NT writers had access to that specific term. And, I do not mean that pastors should not be “servant-leaders” or should not serve in the spirit of a *doulos.*
Wes (#5),
Maybe some churches are pastorless in China, but not all…and you know that. “Spiritual kings” tips your hand that you have domineering, lording-it-over-type pastors in mind. I despise the OT phrase “touch not the LORD’s anointed” being applied to pastors. Pastors never have been kings and if they think they are, they are wrong. That is very far from the kind of pastor(s) I am writing about.
John,
“poimen” doesn’t mean “servant” or “servant-leader” or “leader”. It literally means “shepherd”. What I was saying is that the term “pastor” or “shepherd” is defined by a servant attitude (among other things). In other words, when the organic church looks at the description given to those who are called to be shepherds they see the NT describing them as servants – I do not find this very often in the modern day church institutions.
God Speed,
Lew
Lew (#10),
I agree with you.
[...] 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 talk he has [...]
John,
Sorry I’m late to the conversation, I’m picking up second-hand from Scot & Jamie. First, let me say I always enjoy hearing your voice at Jesus Creed. I hope to meet in person someday. The preface to the book Scot recommended “Learner-Centered Teaching” says a lot of what I’ll try to say here, which you can read at Amazon.
I’m not anti-pastor. On the contrary, I don’t see how we’d want to do anything but multiply the pastoral folks in a community as soon as possible, sharing the load of that important work, based on the criteria posed in Titus and Timothy, and the example and value of multiplication that are thematic in the NT.
And the “just ain’t there” point for decision-making overstates the case. The whole community in Acts was involved in working out the decisions that defined them as the people of God, and the apostles (plural) seemed to expect and welcome this (“choose from among yourselves . . .”). This happens on multiple occasions in Acts over major issues (entire community involvement) and does not appear to be unwelcome to the apostles. I don’t care if we call the give-and-take in Acts hierarchical or egalitarian or what-have you, but I don’t think they just mirrored the world around them, nor do I often see that dynamic in today’s churches. It seems like in Acts, most folks in the community (apostles and otherwise) felt responsible for the group as a whole, whether financially or theologically. We’ve lost that dynamic, that sense of shared responsibility for community action. It’s been delegated to the few or just one per congregation. Contrary to Jesus’ advice, we often call make the head pastor into the “father”, “teacher”, etc. in the very sense, I suspect, that Jesus said not to, with the undesirable results for the pastor and congregation. If we want to develop maturity and shared responsibility for the community, then we must share decision-making; if we want to promote the opposite, we just have to do the opposite, which is what we tend to do. Pastors who are parents of grown children know this, but few apply it to congregations and then they wonder why so few folks are excited about all the great stuff that they have planned for them, but not with them. Churches in the West tend to treat congregations like children whether they are or not.
And where did all the plurality of teachers go? The Jerusalem church devoted itself to the apostleS teaching, and that’s not even counting Jesus’ brother James and others who likely did some teaching as well. And how is Timothy going to appoint elders who are “able to teach” if Timothy is the only one ever teaching? Paul has to tell Corinth to not favor one teacher over another and to limit the prophetic messages to 3 per gathering! And he’s upset that he has to go over the basics because by now, they ought to be teaching others. Honestly, do we lack the plurality of teachers in churches because we have exhausted the qualified and gifted people for this important work or for less acceptable reasons, reasons that are contrary to our mission? I don’t think there’s any doubt that it is the latter in the vast majority of churches.
Again, I’m not anti-pastor, I just wish we’d shift to either a missionary mentality or even a parental one (both want to develop maturity and turn over responsibility as soon as its safe to do so). We’re too prone to hero worship and spiritual delegation to keep the work so centralized. The issue for me is developing maturity in people and multiplying ministry. We’re terrible at both of those in the West and I don’t see how that changes without our typical, modern, working definition of “pastor” changing.
I hope that even if you don’t agree with the idea of multiple pastors per congregation, that you think better of the discernment of those who do. At any rate, thanks for raising the issue.