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?
