Quantcast
Nov
01

“Sola Scriptura” or Not?

Elder, deacon, pastor. When and how did this third level of leadership, the “pastor,” come to be?

In my last post, “We Are All Clergy,” I began to explore the issue of a third level of leadership that developed in the church in the early 2nd century called “Bishop,” which we would today refer to as “Pastor.”  How do we account for the preponderance of its use in churches that would die on a hill called, “Sola Scriptura?”

In seeking to answer how this departure from the New Testament structure of elders and deacons came about and stuck, historian Bruce Shelley gives three possible options:

  1. Some Christians argue that the men who guided the destiny of the early church willfully and sinfully departed from the divinely authorized pattern, so that the changes they made should be repudiated and reversed.
  2. Other Christians contend that the church and its leaders were exercising the liberty they had in the absence of any divinely authorized pattern.  The government they developed may have served a good purpose in their time, but it is open to change to meet the needs of later generations, including our own.
  3. Still other Christians argue that the Holy Spirit so dwelt in the church and guided its decisions that the developments of the early centuries in doctrine and church structure were the work not of man but of God.  They are, therefore permanently binding for the church.[i]

Shelley then asks the most obvious question that must come from these three possibilities.

This third answer, advanced by most catholic Christians, makes much of what its spokesmen call the witness of history.  But if the changes made in the second, third, and fourth centuries are attributed to the Holy Spirit, why not the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth?  Why must we stop with the so-called catholic centuries?[ii]

An obvious question that must be asked of those who would take the position that this was the work of the Holy Spirit through church history, even if it looks different than the patterns for church leadership presented in the New Testament, is how do you know which patterns of church leadership are of the Spirit and which are not?  I am confident that there are some who would say, “The pattern we use, single pastor with elders and deacons was of the Spirit through church history,” would never have Cardinals and a Pope even though those positions have also come about through church history.

If the Holy Spirit was behind the development of this third level of leadership, residing in one person, whatever he was called, Pastor or Bishop, why didn’t the Holy Spirit think of that before the canon of Scripture was closed?  Why was that not instituted during the formative years of the church while they were still under the direct authority of the apostles?  For those who would say it was based on Ephesians 4:11, I must ask why Paul was so rude not to mention the “Pastor” of the church at Philippi when he wrote to it.  Instead he only mentions the overseers (plural) or depending on the translation you are using, elders (plural) and deacons (plural).

So what about Ephesians 4:11?  This verse is the sole New Testament basis I have ever heard anyone appeal to in seeking to justify an office in the church called “Pastor.”  I will speak more of this text in future blogs, but let me ask a few questions.  Anyone who teaches how to interpret the Bible will emphasize one thing over and over: “context.”  Is there anything in the context of this verse that has anything to do with leadership structure, offices in the church, or authority in the church?  Yes, verse 15 says, “Christ is the head.” That’s it.

What if, in fact, we saw “pastors” in Ephesians 4:11 as what Paul calls them, gifts to the church rather than offices in the church?  That would allow for the possibility that several people could provide pastoral care for the church based on their gifting, not on whether they hold a staff position. That would also mean several gifted people with the gift of teaching would teach and teach others to teach; those with the gift of evangelism would evangelize and teach others to evangelize so the whole body is built up.  If we limit the use of these gifts only to people sometimes called “clergy,” who are paid staff, we can rob the body of the benefit of many gifted people Christ has given to the church.

So, is there a New Testament pattern for church leadership, Shelley’s second possibility?  If so, what is it?  We will explore that in my next post.

 



[i] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, rev. ed. (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 72.

[ii] Ibid., 72.

About Jim Hislop

Jim Hislop is the Director of Western Seminary's Center for Leadership Development.

Comments

  1. Michael Willemse says:

    Jim

    I’m not quite sure what you are getting at in this series of articles.

    It seems clear to me that the role of “Minister” can be seen in Scripture. Paul writes to Timothy who seems to be the minister of the church at Ephesus. Timothy seems to have some authority in the Ephesian church since he is to “command certain men not to teach false doctrines” (1 Tim 1:3). He has a role which includes public prayer (1 Tim 2:1), teaching (implied by e.g. 1 Tim 2:8ff), public reading of Scripture and preaching (1 Tim 4:13), and evangelism (2 Tim 4:5) – all of which is described as Timothy’s ministry (2 Tim 4:5). His role is a result of the elders laying hands on him (1 Tim 4:14) and by implication is under their oversight.

    Are you saying that the role of minister is not biblical? Or is your concern with the situation where the minister’s role is seen as separate from and one step above that of the elders i.e. “Pastor” as CEO?

    (By way of information, the church in which I serve holds a two office view (elders and deacons) and the “Minister of the Word and Sacraments” is simply an elder with particular gifts and a particular task. (Although, in practice, our churches often look to the minister to set direction.))

    • Thanks Michael for your thoughtful response. Yes, my concern is that we have created an official class of leadership in addition to the elders and deacons the Bible talks about. I noticed when you used the word Minister the first time it was capitalized signifying a title or official role. Is the “Minister” also an elder in your church? Does he or she have authority over the elders or have veto power among the elders or are they just one of the elders who happens to get paid for what they do? Somehow this extra Biblical “office” (whatever you call it) has become accepted as the norm and spoken of as almost Biblical which is the point of this blog.

      I personally appreciate the descriptive term “staff elder”. The person is an elder and is on staff but is not considered to be part of another official level of leadership.

      You might want to read Gerry Breshear’s blog that was just posted today. I like his conclusion – “I wish we just had elders and deacons”.

      • Michael Willemse says:

        Thanks for your reply, Jim.

        In our churches, a man is ordained as “Minister of the Word and Sacraments.” However, both confessionally and functionally, the minister is a “teaching elder” who is paid for his work. He is not positionally higher than the elders, nor does he have right of veto or any other particular powers over them. In other words, we hold to a two office view.

        In practice, because a minister works full-time in the church – and is therefore able to give more time and thought to things than other elders may be able to do – and also because he is paid, people can treat him as though his position is above the other office bearers and / or he can regard himself in the same way. I think this attitude can be reinforced when people describe him as “the” pastor. I have often said to my fellow elders “no – we are all pastors (shepherds).”

        Thanks for pointing me to Gary Breshear’s post – I’ll go have a look.

      • Michael Willemse says:

        Jim

        I’ve just read Gerry’s post and thought that I should add to my earlier comments that, in our churches, elders and deacons are also ordained to their particular office – ordination is not just for ministers / pastors.

  2. That’s good stuff Michael, thank you for your input.

Trackbacks

  1. […] there a New Testament pattern for church leadership? In my last post “Sola Scriptura or Not,” I asked this very important question. While I believe the New Testament is almost devoid of […]

  2. […] As Michael Willemse says on November 3, 2013 in his comments to an earlier post (Sola Scriptura” or Not?) […]

  3. […] As Michael Willemse says on November 3, 2013 in his comments to an earlier post (Sola Scriptura” or Not?) […]