The Greatest Danger of Pastor-Led Ministry
There is an error in the notion that ministry is led by pastors who serve in a priestly role that is so in opposition to what Scripture teaches that I can't stop myself from wondering if it is not outright heresy.
So much of what we take for granted as the role of a pastor places the pastor in the position of standing above the laity--between God and common believers.
Why is it assumed that it is the pastor who is empowered to pray in 'worship services?' Because s/he stands above the others and grants them access to God's ear? What other explanation suits our common practice?
Why is it a comfortable thing that the pastor leads the taking of the Lord's Supper? Because the pastor has the mediatorial authority to give meaning to the eating and drinking of the elements?
Why must a pastor baptize? Because without the act of the one who connects the common church attender to God, can the dunking or the sprinkling or the pouring have God's blessing?
Why is a marriage performed by a pastor superior to one performed by a judge?
So much of what we take for granted assumes that a pastor is a priest elevated above the people and that s/he possesses the ability to mediate between God and His people. The biblical truth, however, could not be further from that way of thinking.
There is one mediator between God and humanity, the man Jesus Christ.
There is absolutely no suggestion in the ministry of Jesus that He was discipling apostles to be priests. (Mark 9:35) He sent them to serve all and to be disciplers and witnesses.
Paul's teaching about this could not possibly be more clear. Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church. (Eph. 2:20) They are not mediators. They are not priests. The remainder of the body in this metaphor is positioned above apostles and prophets--between them and the Lord. Christ Jesus Himself is the chief cornerstone of the church, not the apostles and prophets. He alone stands between the people of God and the Father. Apostles and prophets are furthest away, not closest. The role of apostles and prophets is foundational, not mediatorial. It certainly is not priestly.
Apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds and teachers do not stand above the rest of the Body--between the laity and the Lord. Christ gifts the church with the APEST community to "prepare the saints (not laity) for works of ministry." (Ephesians 4:12--the Sloat literal rendering). People with APEST gifting do not mediate between the rest of the church and the Lord, they offer themselves in service to the whole body, serving and equipping God's people--saints, holy people--to live a lifestyle of service.
The pastor/priest/mediator model of leadership in the Body could not possibly be more at odds with what the New Testament teaches and models.
Yet, every time a pastor presumes to offer a prayer to the Lord on behalf of an entire congregation and presumes to tell the Lord what we think or what we ask, s/he is doing something that the Word gives no one except Jesus and the Holy Spirit authority to do. Pastor becomes priest.
When the pastor presumes that s/he can say, "Do this in remembrance of me," with more authority than any other disciple of Jesus, s/he perverts the New Testament plan.
If you are gifted and called by the Lord for ministry, you are not elevated above the Body. You are not a priest. You don't mediate. You are not positioned above the people. You are placed below them as an equipper and a servant.
It is any wonder that our churches are filled with consumers of religious products and services provided by the priestly class? Until we repent of the upside-down, dangerous and false teaching that called people stand between laity and God, the people in our congregations will never be disciples or saints and they will never live in the world as priests of God.
posted by bill Sloat at 8:55 AM
18 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
It makes little sense to me why only 'pastors' would be 'allowed' to baptize, serve the Lord's supper etc.
I would be interested in more explanation from someone who advocates only pastors leading such things. My suspicion it is concerns for it being 'orderly' and if so I doubt the concern has much merit.
The other is of course is putting such changes into practice. And it seems to me that this whole issue is something that does need to be dealt with on the macro level.
As far as the prayer thing goes, for me I guess it calls into question public (group) prayer in general. There are many people in our church who pray publicly and to whose prayer I give my 'amen' as others do as well. I or they are not attempting to offer a more valid prayer. If my 5 year old son prays on behalf of his friends or his church is as valid and effective as my prayer for our local body.
Now I agree that repentance is needed because even though I believe these things wholeheartedly, there are practices that can very much contribute to a clergy/laity understanding.
Thanks for the post bill.
brent - I'll let bill speak for himself but will just say that I can attest that he strives diligently to practice what he preaches, so to speak.
I'm curious, Brent, how my contention that the priesthood belongs to all disciples leads to your question.
I'll be glad you answer your question when I understand what the it is.
Does functioning as a priest justify a pay check but discipling one and all to be priests not justify one?
I do, Dan, take very seriously practicing what I, uh well, preach. And, it does seem to empower people to mature in obedience to the Lord's commands.
And, I will say that we've celebrated the Lord's Supper monthly this year at Faith and I don't honestly recall how often I was the one who 'administered the elements.' It was at least one. I'll add that the most moving celebrations of Christ's atonement were led by people other than me.
During the last baptism service we held, a single mother baptized her children and I participated. Do you think her kids will ever forget that? Do you think she will?
I see nothing in the Word to convict me, although our Church Vocations Commission may be calling me if one of it's members read this.
M,
...it seems to me that this whole issue is something that does need to be dealt with on the macro level.
Well, we're all invited on February 21 to assemble in Findlay for symposiums on WE BELIEVE and Credentials.
No time like the present.
bill,
breaking this down (sorry in advance for the book):
So much of what we take for granted as the role of a pastor places the pastor in the position of standing above the laity--between God and common believers.
agreed, much of what we do can lead to this mindset, and therefore needs to be adjusted or abolished.
Why is it assumed that it is the pastor who is empowered to pray in 'worship services?' Because s/he stands above the others and grants them access to God's ear? What other explanation suits our common practice?
i see what you mean, but i don't think it'd be good to sway wholly the other way either. God says obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb. 13) that sounds somewhat shepherdly/priestly to me, and i don't think that it's wrong for them to pray for the congregation as a whole in the assembly, as they often lift them up behind closed doors. i would agree that a problem comes when they seem to be the only ones who can pray corporately, and that that can lead to the misconception we both vehemently oppose.
Why is it a comfortable thing that the pastor leads the taking of the Lord's Supper? Because the pastor has the mediatorial authority to give meaning to the eating and drinking of the elements?
again, i think this is more of an orderly thing, though i see no problem with it being done by others in the church. but i see nothing wrong with those who hold spiritual authority (namely, the elders, of whom the "pastor" is one) being the ones to normally do this.
Why must a pastor baptize? Because without the act of the one who connects the common church attender to God, can the dunking or the sprinkling or the pouring have God's blessing?
i baptized my wife in her parent's swimming pool back in 2008, on the precedent of philip and the ethiopian in Acts 8. 'nuff said.
Why is a marriage performed by a pastor superior to one performed by a judge?
at the very least, the "pastor" is definitely a Christian, and the ceremony seeks to explicitly honor God and His creating the covenantal union, bearing witness to it and blessing it. that seems enough reason for me. and if you're asking, why not another member of the church?, my answer is that we must abide by the laws of the land, and thus the "ordained minister" is required.
Paul's teaching about this could not possibly be more clear. Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church. (Eph. 2:20) They are not mediators. They are not priests. The remainder of the body in this metaphor is positioned above apostles and prophets--between them and the Lord. Christ Jesus Himself is the chief cornerstone of the church, not the apostles and prophets. He alone stands between the people of God and the Father. Apostles and prophets are furthest away, not closest. The role of apostles and prophets is foundational, not mediatorial. It certainly is not priestly.
i'm not a student of architecture, but i believe the chief cornerstone is the first part of the foundation, and the block off which the rest is based. therefore, it would seem the "apostles and prophets", if they are referring to the offices/giftings in the church, are most like Jesus in upholding the rest of the Body.
(part 2)
in general, bill, it seems like most of what you've been going on in your ecclisiology is Acts and 1 Corinthians. i would urge you to expand your study, particularly where leadership is concerned, to the so-called Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, to Hebrews (esp. ch. 13), and 1 Peter (esp. ch. 5). there you'll find things like the following from Hebrews 13:
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
and 1 Peter 5:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
speaking the Word of God. called to be undershepherds to our Chief Shepherd. called to exercise oversight, and have others submit to our leadership. sounds sorta priestly to me, in the broad sense you tend to use.
now don't get me wrong, i'm with you on not letting our actions speak to something we so passionately oppose, namely, that there is a distinction in connection to God between the elders/leaders of the church and joe in the pew (to use modern colloquial). but in at least some extent, there are to be leaders who are in some ways distinct from the rest of the Body, set apart by their giftings, their office, their payment (see 1 Tim. 5), and their care for the Body.
in general, i agree with what you tend to get at, bill. as i was driving home the other night talking with my wife, i was shocked at how much some of the things i was saying line up with what you've spoken of on here (which, if those things are faithful to the Spirit's Word, i shoudn't be so surprised). but i want us to be thoroughly Biblical on this, and to be pressed and shaped by the "whole counsel of God" (cf. Acts 20).
please keep wrestling with us in this, brother. we need each other.
bill, on your comment:
During the last baptism service we held, a single mother baptized her children and I participated. Do you think her kids will ever forget that? Do you think she will?
this is something i love about the acts 29 guys. several of their churches have family (by biology or Christ's blood), who have been with them on their journey to faith, be the one(s) to immerse them.
short version: amen, brother.
Hey all...
Bill, as for the question of written word versus a word spoken by the Spirit, here's what I would say: The word spoken by the Spirit in a gathering may be the word I/we need to hear most immediately, but I still believe it must be tested by the written word, and therefore is submissive to it. Without such a position, you are left with nothing to test it by, and pretty soon we're all down in Jonestown (you want sweetened or unsweetened?).
And, as Walt has been pointing out, I think you have to be careful not to throw out leadership as you rightly throw out priestly mediation. Leaders do not stand above the people IN CHRIST, but several passages make it clear they do in authority in the church, and they certainly stand before the people to lead the way. As I say that, understand that I mean all APEST leaders, not just vocational pastors.
I was not aware of the gathering in Findlay. Is anyone here going?
Fran,
Bill, as for the question of written word versus a word spoken by the Spirit...: The word spoken by the Spirit in a gathering may be the word I/we need to hear most immediately, but I still believe it must be tested by the written word, and therefore is submissive to it. Without such a position, you are left with nothing to test it by, and pretty soon we're all down in Jonestown (you want sweetened or unsweetened?)
I couldn't agree more.
I'm not against the written Word. For cryin' out loud! I'm the one who won't shut up about the New Testament plan!
My point is that Protestants have so elevated the authority of the written word that they often minimalize Jesus as the Living Word presented in the written Word AND, even compared to sixteenth century Catholics, they diminished the role of the Holy Spirit.
For me, this is a both/and thing.
I can't see a justification for quenching messages of knowledge and wisdom and revelation and prophecy and interpreted tongues simply because we value the authority of the written Word. But, that's what I've seen take place in practice in all of the many of our congregations with whom I've gathered over the past nearly 40 years.
walt,
i'll save a longer spiel for when i have more time, but how do we not hold the written Word in at least as high esteem as a word of prophecy/knowledge/etc.?
Your whole 'book' blessed me--as your stuff always does.
Please understand--all of you--how thoroughly I embrace the Word.
I am the one in all the the CGGC who won't stop pounding the drum for ministry on the New Testament plan! My arms, back and wrists are throbbing because I do not cease to pound that drum as loudly as I can.
I know it must be my failure as a communicator that can have so many of you question my allegiance to the authority of the written Word while, at the same time, I write most of what I write here about New Testament Christianity.
In fact, it is because I hold the written Word is so high an authority that I advocate the paradigm for the gathering of disciples that is modeled in the Word.
Based on the authority of the written Word, I believe that people living in the Spirit today are still blessed with messages of revelation, knowledge, prophecy, instruction and tongues and their interpretation. I believe that, if we wouldn't so thoroughly plan our gatherings, a person led to speak in one of those ways wouldn't feel more embarrassed to speak in the Spirit than to fart out loud in the sanctuary. But, that's my assessment of our worship paradigm.
Brian, can I say that f word here?
I'm not against the Word. I'm for the Spirit in the same way that the Word models the power of the Spirit operating in Christ's Body.
Bill--
I never doubted your allegiance to the written Word, it was just the way you phrased it in a previous comment that begged for clarification.
Fran,
Bill--
I never doubted your allegiance to the written Word, it was just the way you phrased it in a previous comment that begged for clarification.
It is a concern for me that so much of what I feel I need to say as a prophet leaves so many whom I love confused.
I know that you guys take me seriously and are not inclined to reject what I say out of hand and still I leave you perplexed. The great majority of CGGCers who are aware of my prophetic words do not accept them gladly. I can only imagine how what I say and the way I say it impacts them.
The Word says, "The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets." It is a failing of mine not to speak as clearly as I could.
M,
The whole post that includes the following comment raises the level of our discussion:
Consider one of my favorite verses from Colossians: "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ." 1:28
Nevertheless, the Greek word in this verse in not the verb kerusso. Preaching, as I understand--and as we do it--is far from what Paul is talking about here.
It is a tragic reality that, in the Western Church, truth means so little. If truth meant something, it would be a part of our discipling culture that people gifted as prophets and teachers would be deeply schooled in the languages of Scripture. Based on the things that are said here, I'm guessing that I'm as well school in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic as any other participant on this blog and I don't know as much as someone with my calling should know at this age in my life.
The truth is that the early church's lexicon of the various methods of communicating the core truths of the our faith was extremely sophisticated. I know of four verbs with very distinct meanings that are regularly used to describe how disciples communicate truth in the various ways the church needs to communicate it.
We use one word--PREACH. And, we define the term in the evangelical church by perverting traditions that come from the late Middle Ages and the Protestant's tweaking of Christendom in the sixteenth century.
I embrace all that the Word says about proclamation. But, based on the insight of someone with even my limited understanding of the New Testament words, we are not obeying New Testament commands and models because we don't have even a foggy notion of what the actual words mean.
And, until we practice macrorepentance of that sin, we will never walk in truth. And, we will never experience the blessing that comes to those who go to the trouble to understand what it means to obey.
M,
The symposia are mentioned on the CGGC website.
So, here's a warning to one and all: If God is willing, there will be one prophet present who advocates the Mission and Vision Statements and who sees them as a hill upon which he will sacrifice even his Life Ordination.
If anyone from this direction wishes to share a ride, let me know.
Greek does not translate as well into English as we'd like it to, both in grammar and vocab. Journals reveal that scholars often debate the semantic range of words. Some words are incredibly precise while other single words can have incredibly wide meanings. This will always be a challenge and yes, one that we have not engaged enough.
bill, I think that where I (and possibly others) sometimes struggle is that because you are gifted or wired to primarily see the problems/sin/unfaithfulness, it is difficult for others to know where to go.
I know that this is where others need to take up the mantle, but until someone does, it's going to be most difficult for all of us I think.
I for one welcome all of your thoughts, but would also also appreciate it if you would separate what you are convicted is a direct word from the Lord from your own thoughts on how it is played out, if possible. Maybe everything you have said has been such, I'm not sure. Surely not every thought about God every expressed during the life of Isaiah (or a never-name N.T. prophet) was God's word spoken through them. So, yes, please give the raw word, feel very free to seek to flesh it out, but distinctly.
A further struggle is this: Say all of us accept what you have said that a sermon (in whatever form) is acting as a priestly mediator, as is a pastoral prayer, and planning etc, what do we do this Sunday? Maybe that goes beyond your gifting but until someone helps articulate a way forward, things would be difficult.
M,
I for one welcome all of your thoughts, but would also also appreciate it if you would separate what you are convicted is a direct word from the Lord from your own thoughts on how it is played out, if possible.
I promise to do that in the future.
However, the part about at least four Greek verbs for communicating truth compared to our word preach is neither prophetic nor prophecy. It is reality. It comes from the secondary gift of being a teacher. In order to obey, we need to know the command/example and there are times that all we need to do is learn what can be learned.
In my opinion, in Christendom-dominated evangelicalism, we are too often content to blindly accept the traditions of those who went before us when we should be examining the Word for what it really says.
Say all of us accept what you have said that a sermon (in whatever form) is acting as a priestly mediator, as is a pastoral prayer, and planning etc, what do we do this Sunday? Maybe that goes beyond your gifting but until someone helps articulate a way forward, things would be difficult.
I do think that the greatest wisdom in this area will come from apostles who decide to repent of Christendom's pastor/priest model. What we do at Faith at the moment is very inadequate. I am endeavoring to work out structure to go with repentant vision with my apostolic friend David Plamondon.
Post a Comment
<< Home