This is the last teaching in our current series on “ministry.” Up until now we have focused three sermons on the priestly nature of basic, mere Christianity: All Christians are priest and sacrifice wrapped up into one. That begs the question: For what then do we hire the pastor?

There are normally (for good pastors) certain teachings that are especially uncomfortable to deliver, tithing for example. Teachings of this capacity are emotionally laden with baggage from the past and fears of the future. People fear the possible existence of ulterior motives that are other than noble.

The Church just wants money and power. The preacher just wants money and power.

A teaching on the Scriptural purpose of pastoral ministry against this backdrop is always an uncomfortable endeavor—for the pastors of good character, who eschew even a hint of power grabs. Secondly, this teaching is given in a denomination (The Southern Methodist Church) in general and in two churches in particular with raw histories of nasty conflict between the “clergy and laity.” Thirdly, the answer to the question of the purpose of pastoral ministry is more obvious to those outside of the particular denomination and churches in which this teaching was given (thus the dire need for this teaching in this denomination).

At any rate this teaching in this context is especially difficult for me. I tread with humility and an honest appeal to my known character in giving this teaching. I am not grabbing for power. In fact I am giving up what tiny bit of non-existent power I might have in July, when I formally relinquish my duties to return to school.

Anyone that wishes may read what the official guidelines of pastoral duties and leadership duties are available on paper. These are not my concern. I am concerned with actual practice. The actual practice of the two churches in which I serve and the denomination in which I serve, like the rest of South Carolinian culture, is to render the “leader” / “pastor” a powerless figurehead who is present at ribbon cutting ceremonies with delightful smiles and “God bless yous.”

At this point I’m not passing judgment on this “interesting” practice. Rather, I’m going to give a brief thumbnail historical sketch of how we got here. Then I’m going to outline a very brief Scriptural sketch of pastoral authority and responsibility. Finally I’m going to ask the question of my beloved co-denominationalists, “Is this really what we want?”

A Brief Historical Sketch

At the birth of the church, authority was quite top-heavy, being located almost absolutely within the central Apostolic leadership. The Apostles were the ones to cut the bloody umbilical cord of the church from the heart of God. So-called “congregational church government,” historically-speaking, is a very recent innovation. We see the top-heavy church leadership in Acts 15, when the Apostles wrestle with “The Gentile Question.” Normal, everyday people looked on, as the Apostles wrestled with the matter, but it was James, the Father of the Jerusalem Church to finally bring debate and discussion to a close. No congregational vote was taken. No polling was conducted. The Apostles crafted a decision that can still be read in Acts 15:22-29, and that can still be felt today, as most Christians are former Gentiles.

We take for granted today many items, such as the New Testament, the Apostles’ Creed, even the belief that Jesus is fully God and yet fully Man. However, these theological gems are the fruit of top-heavy Church leadership. The question of who and what a Christian is, the nature of Salvation, the nature of God, etc. were not fully realized and appreciated in Jesus’s day much less two to three hundred years after Christ. These things were still being apprehended by the Church.

One controversy in particular stands out: The Arian Controversy. (No, I’m no referring to Hitler and his quest to create a super race.) The Arian Controversy stems from a very, very popular Church leader, Arius, who came to believe that Jesus could not have been fully God. He believed, though God created Jesus to be His God-Son, Jesus was the first thing that God the Father created. (This belief is quite similar to the modern-day Watchtower/Jehovah’s Witnesses theology.) Arius, quite the popular church leader came very close to moving the Church to adopting this heretical understanding of Jesus. People actually rioted in the streets in favor of Arius and his belief. Had the Church been democratic in Her government, we would have been something akin to the Jehovah’s Witnesses today. The Church Fathers, in particular a Father named Athanasius, fought not for public opinion. They fought for Truth, making a command decision in the Fourth Century. The top-heavy Church authority did not decide or create Truth. The top-heavy Church authority decided in the sense of realizing or apprehending self-existing Truth. When we recite the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc. we recite and celebrate the Fathers’ authoritarian realization and apprehending of self-existing Truth.

This top-heavy approach to Church leadership continued for another 1,200 years or so until about the 1500s. Many people, both common and elite (church and state) leaders came to realize that absolute authority had been radically abused. From this moment growing sentiment began asking the question, how do we keep authority in Church and State accountable? This was the heart of Martin Luther’s leadership in the Protestant Reformation. I believe all of the wars and revolutions in Europe and the New World centered around this one question, including our own American Revolution. Power in the Protestant Church began to mirror that of the evolution of the distribution of power in the State.

John and Charles Wesley helped to birth a Spirit-born revival in the Church in the English-speaking world. Many thousands of new believers were birthed into the Anglican Church. Yet, a phenomenon developed. While these believers began to form churches and accountability and prayer and study groups, they never fully integrated into the Anglican Church. They remained under the authority of the Anglican bishops. Wesley encouraged them to partake of Communion from their bishops. Yet two trends served to set this Methodist movement on the road to its own denomination.

The Anglican hierarchy would not formally recognize the leaders John Wesley, himself, trained. Thus, while these Wesleyan groups continued to remain under the spiritual authority of the Anglican bishops, they were being “spiritually fed” by traveling preachers. These Wesleyan groups, often simply took matters into their own hands, which took leadership burdens off of the traveling preachers (who might not see their “flocks” again, after preaching one Sunday, for several weeks).

The second trend driving the Methodists into building their own denominational home was the growing tension between England and the American colonies. The thought of serving the English King was bad enough. Are we to serve an English-popish figure, as well?—or so went the sentiment of the times. Many American churches—Methodist or Anglican—rarely saw an English bishop. Thus, yet again, the natives had to see to church affairs for themselves.

Eventually the Methodist and Anglican Churches became two distinctly recognized bodies, with the Methodist trending towards “low-church” leadership (ie the laity take care of things themselves). Yet the Methodists retained a flavor of an episcopal church structure.

The War between the States rifted deeply intimate folks. The Methodists were no different, breaking up into many distinct bodies. Following the War the Methodist bodies began a path towards reconciliation with one another that culminated in the early part of the 20th Century with the formation of the United Methodist Church. However, several distinct Methodist groups chose remain independent, including what would become the Southern Methodist Church (the denomination in which this teaching was given).

With the divorce between the United Methodist church and the Southern Methodist Church fully complete, the SMC took a decidedly Congregational approach to Church government, locating near-absolute authority at the local level. The congregation would govern the affairs of church property and life. The “preacher” would “lead” the “spiritual” life of the church. In practice the congregation has absolute power over the affairs of church property, life, the so-called spiritual life of the church, and over the preacher.

At this point I’m not making a judgment call over this current practice of church leadership. I’ve merely charted, ever so briefly, how we got to where we (in the Southern Methodist Church) are at today. Let us take a look at the Scriptural understanding of Church leadership, in particular pastoral leadership.

A Brief Scriptural Sketch

John 2:13-22 (I am indebted to Rev. Peter J. Leithart, writing in Touchstone Magazine, “Flesh of Hope & Glory,” March/April 2010, p. 5, for this understanding of this passage.)

In this passage Jesus cleanses the Temple. He is questioned by the authorities over the nature of why He did this. Jesus claims authority over the Temple to such an extent that the Jews understand Him to claim the absolute authority belonging to God alone—the ability to raze and raise the Temple. The Jewish leadership crucified Him for this. We Christians know He was claiming a far greater authority than that—the authority to replace the Temple with none other than Himself and then place a people under that authority—the Church.

Hebrews 3:1-6

In this passage the author reiterates the teaching of John. Jesus is the head over the house of God. The house of God is no longer the Temple. The house of God is the Church. Moses was the greatest servant in the house of God. Yet Jesus is far greater than Moses, being no mere servant, but rather the Son, the inheritor of the house that God built.

So at this point, we have Jesus as Head over the Church. We could say He is the Great Shepherd over the Church.

I Peter 5:1-11

Peter writes to the leadership in this group of churches, as one fellow elder to the group of elders in leadership under him. He is not writing to the congregation, though they are welcome to listen to his message to the elders. He is encouraging the elders, as under-shepherds of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus, to “shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight (authority)….” The congregation is the flock. The congregation is to receive authoritative leadership. The elders are the under-shepherds of Jesus. They are to exercise authoritative leadership. (And yes, they are to do so in the gentle spirit of humility.) The shepherding role is the role of the pastor; notice the play on words, which is no mere fru-fru without substance. The metaphor is the same throughout and is full of real substance. This authority, biblically-speaking, is the privilege of the pastoral leadership.

Ephesians 4:1-16

While the above passage is the privilege of pastoral authority, this passage sums up the responsibility of pastoral leadership into the pithy statement: equip the saints. This concept is couched in the call to transform vile, violent pagans into a peaceful community of God mirroring the perfect love and harmony of the sinless of the Oneness of the Trinity: Father, Son & Spirit.

A Simple Question

So let’s summarize what has been covered thus far. Historically-speaking, the Church globally once held total power centrally. Over the years, the desire to find a way to hold leaders in check to prevent the abuse of authority splintered the global Church. I currently find myself in a denomination that in practice locates absolute authority (including any so-called “spiritual” authority) at the bottom, with the congregation. The Scriptural teaching calls for a different practice, locating authority centrally with the Apostles and their representatives, the pastors, under the absolute authority of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus. However, with this privilege of authority comes the responsibility of providing care and nurture for the congregation in all areas of life.

Let us consider the dire condition of the Southern Methodist Church. Most of our churches are facing the unfavorable prospect of simply dying out, due to a severe (near absolute) lack of evangelism and discipleship. American society is rapidly changing, and what worked in yesteryear in our denomination does not work now (if it really every worked). Our people need to be equipped to deal with this situation in which we find ourselves.

Here is my simple question: Do we really want it this way? Do we really want to continue the Church structure/government we have?

The privilege of authority in the Church carries with it the responsibility of equipping the saints. Equipping the saints calls with the knowledge and wisdom of successful engagement with the world and growing church. Where you find authority (the congregation), you find the responsibility of the Gospel. How many average members in our local congregations are equipped to equip the fellow church people to effective reach the lost?

Do we really it want this way?

While the current practice may well be for the congregation to hold onto all authoritative and purse strings, while shifting carefully measured doses of responsibility to the preacher, is this practice Scriptural? Scripturally-speaking, where you see the practice of authority in the Church, there you see the position of Pastor. The problem is, that under this understanding, the Congregation holds the position of Pastor, while employing a preacher fulfill whatever undesirable Pastoral duties there may be (but with little or no respect and authority to execute these duties).

Do we really it want this way?

If we are to be consistent, when the sick need visiting, when that Sunday School lesson needs to be expounded upon, I suggest we call the “pastor,” not the “preacher”—for the position of pastor  in our case is being filled by the congregation, not the preacher. Where you see the authority in the Church, you will find the responsibility for ministry in the Church. The congregation is in practice the pastor with the preacher a mere “hireling.”

Do we really it want this way?

The congregation will only rise to the level of “spiritual” maturity as that of the leadership within the congregation. Where you see the authority in the Church, you will find the responsibility for ministry in the Church. The leadership of the congregation is held by the pastor of the congregation. In our case the congregation steadfastly holds the position of pastor, while employing a preacher.

Do we really it want this way?

The previous series, “Sensing God,” ended with the idea that as Christians, we have been called to be priest and sacrifice all wrapped into one for the world–both the church and the state– the neighborhoods and the Nations.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1 & 2; ESV).

However, objections are raised by most Christians in Traditional Southern Christianity to the apex of we pay “the minister” to do all our ministry stuff. Below are some objections offered up by many ordinary Christians unwilling to accept the title, “minister.”

  • feelings of incompetence
  • feelings of non-holiness
  • feelings of guilt and shame
  • feelings of intimidation
  • (Dare I say it?) (Yes, I dare say it.) LAZINESS

Yet, if we follow Paul’s flow through chapters 12 & 13 of Romans, we see that Paul envisions no professional type of Christianity. Chapter 12 began with “therefore,” which alluded to chapters 9-11 concerning Grace in God’s election of Israel and the Church. “Therefore,” because of this grace, minister with gifts of grace in this grace (12:3 – 8), love, bless, give to, understand & respect one another and outsiders in grace fueled by this grace (12:9-21), bless the state in this grace with this grace (13:1-7), and do the same to all (13:8-14).

So, in other words, are only reverends required to pay taxes to Caesar? Are only reverends required to have genuine love? Are only reverends required to bless their enemies? If the answer is an emphatic no, then how do we get away with saying that only reverends are “gifted” for ministry?

Colossians 1:3-23

In this passage we will notice a progression/pattern. There is deliverance from “the domain of darkness to the kingdom of darkness … to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (1:13; ESV). Certainly this was Paul’s testimony. Paul says this was the testimony of the church at Colossae. Consider verses 21 & 22:

And you, who one were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him (ESV).

This was the testimony of this Colossian church. Certainly this was also Paul’s testimony. Thus the progression so far is (A) deliverance from Satan’s dominion to (B) the Kingdom of the Beloved Son, wherein we find forgiveness. Unfortunately, we often stop at this point in the progression. Fortunately, Paul does not stop. There is one more place beyond receiving forgiveness upon deliverance to the Kingdom of the Beloved Son:

Being Equipped for Ministry

Thus the progression would look like so–for the normal, everyday, believer:

Deliverance from Satan’s dominion–} Deliverance to Jesus’s Kingdom–} Being equipped the Holy Spirit for redemptive ministry

Paul speaks of the Gospel, itself, bearing fruit and growing (vs. 6). He is thankful that they have obeyed the Gospel (verse 6), which is bearing fruit and growing among them. He then prays for “all spiritual wisdom and understanding” for them so that they might, like the Gospel, bear fruit in every good work (vv 9-10).  This, dear folks, is a call to ministry. Paul speaks of himself as having ”became a minister” of this Gospel (verse 23).  

Immediately, people will hone in on the word, “minister,” and assume Paul is speaking of his Apostleship. Yet, as I demonstrate from the contextual flow, this cannot be the case. Paul is speaking of his becoming a minister — in general. This is the third phase in our Colossians 1 progression: deliverance from, deliverance to, equipping/anointing for ministry. It is true that Paul was an Apostle, a great one at that. Yet before Paul was an Apostle, Paul is a minister, which simply is a word for servant under authority for mission. Paul is a general minister, and his specific ministry is his Apostleship.

The whole of the Colossian church was called into “the ministry.” In actuality, we cannot say “the ministry,” for there is not just “one” ministry. The question is not were the Colossians/are we called into “ministry?” Rather the appropriate question is, “into which ministry(ies) are we called?”

Verse 23 is rather scary:

if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel in all creation under heaven (ESV)

This verse speaks to the very real possibility of not “continuing in the faith, stable and steadfast.” To me this verse is not so much scary, as it is filled with a wide door of opportunity for various flavors of ministries of grace gifts. If we are to continue in the faith, we will need the normal, everyday people of God, the ministers of God, as our support. Of course pastors, as a certain type of minister, have responsibility in this area, but they do not have the total responsibility, as our list from Romans 12:3-8 suggests.

Thus, we are beginning a new series, “Ministry,” to explore this seemingly radical idea of “every Christian an anointed minister of God.”

In this series we have been considering the effect of the physical senses on the human soul, how the Spirit of God might use those senses for His work in us and the effect we have on other people for God through each of these senses. In a similar vein to both ”Sensing God, Feeling Church” and “Sensing God, Touching Church” we are considering the effect of feeling upon the soul in this sermon-synopsis. Particularly, can we know something deep within our heart of hearts for which there are no words? 

We good Conservative Christians often pride ourselves on how much stock we put into our statements of faith, our Bible knowledge, and our struggles against modernity, postmodernity, liberalism and secular humanism. Here are some questions for us:

Do we really know God, or do we simply know about Him?

Do we engage with others in our neighborhoods and Nations with our experiential knowing of God?

Do we in the simple process of living life invite others to a deeper walk with God?

Mark 10:32-45

In the flow of these stories Mark moves us from Jesus bearing his grieving heart to his closest companions to two of them asking Him for special privileges. They have been with Him for three years, and these two are not able to know Jesus at His moment of need. They are not able to know Jesus to such a depth as to have pity or sympathy for Him on His terms in His struggles. They know about Him but apparently do not know Him. He bluntly tells them in verse 38:

You do not know what you are asking (ESV; underlining mine).

He invites them to know Him in a fellowship of sorts: the fellowship of suffering servant leadership for the world in verse 42:

You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them (ESV; underlining mine).

Psalm 31:6-8

David rejoices because God has “seen my affliction; you have known the distress of my soul” (verse 7; ESV; underlining mine). The mere fact that God has the fact of David’s distress in His mind is not what comforts David here. What restores David’s soul and empowers him to press on in faith is that God knows David so intimately that God has pity and sympathy on David in his distress; so that God delivers him.

Exodus 1:8

This pharaoh who comes into power does not know Joseph. Now, this statement is ridiculous if the meaning of know is to know as a personal acquaintence or to know about. Of course this pharaoh could not have been been personally acquainted with Joseph, as the king was not 400 years old. Nor is it likely that this pharaoh had no knowledge of Joseph. The only way in which this verse makes sense, as Rabbi Abraham Heschel teaches in his work, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism, is that this pharoh did not have pity on Joseph and Joseph’s people.

Hosea 1, 2 & 4:1-6

Hosea is typically seen as the prophet who took a whore for a wife as a prophetic example to Israel for their prostitutional abandonment of God. However, the better way to understand Hosea is as the only man in his day who to truly know God at such an intimate depth as to be able to have pity on and sympathize with God in His struggles for His people. These passages feature an emotional roller coaster. God is ready to kick His people to the curb absolutely. Then God remembers His covenental bond with Israel:

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God” (1:10; ESV).

God knows His people and longs for His people to know Him, intimately, experientially. He longs for His people to be moved to sympathy and compassion for God in His struggles out of the depths of their intimate, experientially knowing of Him. After pronouncing judgment and restoration of His people in deeply intimate terms:

And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me “My husband,” and no longer will you call me “My Baal” (2:16; ESV)

God climaxes with this promise: “And you shall know the LORD” (2:20; ESV; italics mine). God promised He would so radically transform them that they would desire to know Him from their heart of hearts and be moved to sympathy and pity and compassion for Him.

Mark 10:17-31

In this famous story Jesus is approached by a man, who Mark tells us He loves (10:20). This man knows the commandments and ways of God. But this man is unwilling to sell his distractions to know Jesus through experience. The disciples are astonished at Jesus’s remark about those wealthy in distractions. Jesus reassures them that God is fully capable to save people willing to sell all their distractions for lifestyles of authentic experientially knowing Jesus. They would come to intimately know God’s power to provide.

Mark 10:13-16

Strangely, this story features the disciples as the antagonists who fail in their knowing of Jesus’s heart. He rebukes them, saying that the kingdom of Heaven is only for those who become like children. I do not believe Jesus is referring to the naiveté of children. Rather I believe the context demands that we understand Jesus to mean that we must become like children in the sense of total abandonment in knowing people intimately.

John 17:3

Jesus tells us that Salvation is knowing God and Jesus.

Philippians 3:10

Paul tells us that he longs to know Jesus, the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings.

Hebrews 13:7-16

The author asks the readers to imitate their leaders, who spoke the Word of God to them. The flow of the letter demands we understand their leaders to be both their local elders, their apostolic fathers, and the saints of the Old Testament. He them makes one last comparison between the sacrificial system of the Temple and Jesus. Just like the sacrifices for sin are burnt outside the camp, so Jesus was taken to be crucified for the sin fo the world outside Jerusalem. The author compels us to go to Jesus “outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured” (13:13; ESV). This is the fellowship of His sufferings that Paul talked about. We are invited to know Jesus in this way as a lifestyle of worship.

As believers, do we know God or simply know about Him? Let us consider a provocative statement by Rabbi Heschel:

Religious thinking, believing, feeling are among the most deceptive activities of the human spirit. We often assume it is God we believe in, but in reality it may be a symbol of personal interests that we dwell upon. We may assume that we feel drawn to God, but in reality it may be a power within the world that is the object of our adoration. We may assume it is God we care for, but it may be our own ego we are concerned with. To examine our religious existence is, therefore, a task to be performed constantly (from God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism).

We certainly have a friend in Jesus, as the old hymn goes, but does Jesus have a friend in us?

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.