The Urgent Need For Reformation in Pastoral Ministry # 1

The Urgent Need For Reformation in Pastoral Ministry # 1

There is much to say about the need for reformation within local churches and, in particular, the way we structure our church meetings. Discerning and informed Christians will rarely disagree with this. But how many of us will recognize the fact that our traditional notions of pastoral ministry are just as equally in need of reformation and restructuring? To give but a few examples where traditional pastoral ministry departs from the patterns of the New Testament, please consider the following:

1. Traditional pastoral ministry promotes a one-man rule known as "the pastor." He is the final word and rule within most "evangelical" churches. In contrast, the New Testament teaches plural oversight by men known as elders (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1-4). Some churches, recognizing the need for shared oversight, have attempted to improve the traditional one-man pastor, and "board of elders." This man-made solution, however, still contradicts the pattern set forth in the New Testament which teaches a shared and equal oversight, not to mention that, in the end, it still amounts to basically the same thing: One man alone is exalted to a position over others and has the final word in church related matters! By the way, isn't Jesus Christ supposed to be the "senior pastor" (Heb 13:20; 1 Peter 5:4)? Although elders might e gifted differently and may even excel in specific pastoral tasks, there is no scriptural warrant for dividing church leaders into various "offices" with special, honorific titles.

2. Traditional pastoral ministry promotes lofty and honorific titles for church leaders such as "Reverend," "Minister", "Bishop," "Senior Pastor," and "Pastor." In contrast, Jesus taught that His people were members of a unique brotherhood with no need for elite and honorific titles (Matt. 23:6-12; Mark 10:35-45). Not only do special titles separate the Christian brotherhood and violate the scriptural teaching concerning the priesthood right of the believer (Eph. 4:11-12); 1 Peter 2:5-9; Rev. 1:6)), it also feeds the pride of men. In contrast to our present system of giving honorific titles, the New Testament teaches that believers were recognized by virtue of their humble and sacrificial service (Acts 15:26; Rom. 16:1-4, 12; 1 Cor. 16:15-16, 18; 2 Cor. 8:18; Phil. 2:29-30; Col. 1:7; 4:12-13) - not by titles! It's no wonder, then, that the early Christians avoided lofty titles (as was common among the Jews and Greeks) and, instead, chose lowly and unofficial terms such as "brother", "servant", and "fellow worker." One writer has said it well: "The array of ecclesiastical titles accompanying the names of Christian leaders today is completely missing from the New Testament, and would have appalled the apostles and early believers" (Alexander Strauch).

Contrary to our traditional and modern pastors, Paul wanted the churches to regard him and other church leaders as mere servants: "Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. 4:1; Acts 15:23; 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 4:5; 12:11; Eph 3:8). When addressing the elders in the Epistle of First Peter, the apostle Peter simply refers to himself as "your fellow elder" (1 Pet. 5:1). Here was his great opportunity to exalt himself with an honorific title such as "senior pastor," etc., but never chose to do so! Likewise, when the apostle John wrote to the seven churches in Asia, he merely referred to himself as "your brother and fellow partaker" in the trials, kingdom, and perseverance which are in Jesus (Rev. 1:9). Does any of this sound like these were the kind of men who would demand or even expect (not to mention gladly receive) others to call them a"Reverend," "Doctor," or any other ego-inflating title?

3. Traditional pastoral ministry does NOT promote mutual edification within the church service. Those pastors who do, usually allow congregational participation to a very limited degree. The average pastor still thinks that he and his sermon are to be the focal-point of the gathering. In contrast, the New Testament teaches that the local church meeting is to be a place where Christians actively exercise their spiritual gifts and encourage one another to love and good deeds (Rom. 12:6-8, 1 Cor. 12:4-12; 14:12, 26; Col. 3:16; Heb. 10:24-25; 1 Peter 4:10-11). Most pastors, however, do not fully understand such truths, let alone implement them within the church service. Thus, attending church for most Christians is simply a spectator event - with only one or two doing everything - instead of a participating event! The question we must face is: On what scriptural basis can we justify placing our responsibility of mutual edification and ministry into the hands of professional clergymen?

Why is it that a large percentage of Christians can attend church for years and know nothing (or virtually nothing) about their spiritual gifts or where they are to function in the body of Christ? Are our modern pastors producing responsible and functional Christians or a generation of passive pew-potatoes? In truth, pastors must return to their God-given role of equipping and liberating the saints so that they (not merely professionals) can do the work of ministry (Eph. 4:11-16). Hebrews 13:17 states that church leaders will one day "give an account" for their pastoral ministry. But what will they say to Christ on that day when their life-long work produced nothing more than infantile Christians who were expected to do nothing more than quietly attend, take sermon notes, and pass the offering plate? 

4. Traditional pastoral ministry promotes a "clergy-laity" division. The "clergy" are the professional ministers who are called and trained to do "the ministry," while nothing much is expected from the "laity" except to faithfully attend, tithe, and passively observe the ministry of the "clergy". In contrast, the New Testament teaches that every Christian is a minister and priest before God (1 Pet. 2:5-9; Rev. 1:6). In fact, the entire Christian church is a ministerial body with the authority to minister and exercise their spiritual gifts for the common good (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11; 14:12, 26; Eph. 4:11-16; Col. 3:16; 1 Pet. 4:10-11). This being true, on what scriptural basis do we divide the church into two classes of people: clergy and laity? Since words mean things and since they can convey the wrong impressions, is it not clear that we are in dire need of language reform within the body of Christ? When a generation of saints are repeatedly told that they are mere "laymen" and that real ministry should be left to the professionals, why should we expect any of them to be zealous and productive for Christ? If every Christian is a minister, why are we not allowed to minister to one another within the church service?

5. Traditional pastoral ministry teaches that "the pastor" is to be the dominant, focal-point of a church gathering. Although others might be allowed to minister (albeit in a very limited manner), "the pastor" and his illustrious "sermon" is to be the center-point and mainstay of the meeting. In contrast, the New Testament teaches that the church is to be edified and ministered by all the members present (1 Cor. 123:7, 14: 14:12, 26-31; Eph 4:16; 1 Pet. 4:10-11). This being true, why do our churches focus only one part of the body - "the pastor"? Why is there no mention of pastoral dominance in 1 Corinthians 12:14 - particularly when Paul in dealing with the very issue of spiritual gifts and their proper function in the local church? By centering our church services on one man and his gifts, are we not, in practice, reversing the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 12:14 and suggesting that "the body is not many members, but one"? 

~Darryl M. Erkel~

(continued with # 2)