by Jon Zens

I have been pointedly wrestling with issues related to Christ’s church since 1972. Some matters have crystallized in my thinking, and I would like to share them with you in hopes that meaningful dialogue and serious searching of the Scriptures might take place. We have nothing to fear by looking at the Scriptures together.

The key burden on my heart that I would like to express and develop is this: the ministry of the church as a whole will continue to be crippled as long as we perpetuate the separation of "the minister" from the New Testament vision of eldership, and as long as we functionally divide God’s people into "ordained" (clergy) and "uncalled" (laity).

Elders Instead of "Ministers"

The New Testament knows only of "saints, bishops and deacons" (Php 1:1). "Bishops," "pastors" and "elders" all refer to the same body of men (Ac 20:17, 28). The oversight of the church is conceived of as a body of elders (1Ti5:17; Jam 5:14). However, the traditional practice of "calling a pastor" separates this "office" from eldership at virtually every point. Under the New Testament pattern, laos (people) and kleron (clergy, inheritance) refer to all of God’s people; hence, elders and deacons are part of the "laity/clergy," not separate from or above it. "Most denominational churches have departed from this pattern by distinguishing between the pastor and the elders. Common practice makes the pastor a full-time employee of the church, while the elders are laymen who function much like a board of directors" (James Stahr, Interest, April, 1984, p. 2).

In the traditional Protestant pattern, the pastor has a "call" that the other elders do not possess, the pastor is trained differently than the elders, the pastor is ordained in a different way than elders, the pastor comes from outside the body whereas the elders come from within the body, the pastor can be led to another church whereas the elders are resident, the pastor can have "Rev" next to his name but not so elders, the pastor is paid to carry out various duties (but not the elders), texts that apply to a body of elders are applied to "the minister" only, the pastor can occupy the pulpit while the elders rarely (if ever) can, and the pastor determines the direction of the worship service. Interestingly, the traditional Protestant way of doing things actually parallels a non-gospel religious model (with priests and witch doctors) more than it does the simple NT pattern.

The Shift from Eldership/Mutual Ministry to "The Ministry"

No matter what area of church truth I study, it seems that the ultimate source of the problem somehow works itself back to the isolation of "the pastor" from the eldership. The frustrating thing to me is this: even though the best scholarship in Bible study and church history is united in the basic conclusion that "ethical guidance for people recently converted to Christianity . . . was offered at first by a polyform ministry of grace, reflected in the New Testament; but as time went by moral authority was increasingly focused in an ordered ministry of bishops and deacons," those who take this perspective seriously are labeled as "off the wall," "unsound," and "dangerous" (the quotation is from G.W. Forell, History of Christian Ethics, Vol.1, 1979, p.39; cf. "One God, One Bishop: The Politics of Monotheism," The Gnostic Gospels, Elaine Pagels, 1981, pp.33-56). Given the fact that in the New Testament we are confronted with a "polyform ministry of grace," must we not ask ourselves if the decided shift to the focus on "the ministry" (clergy), which occurred quickly in post-apostolic times, was valid or invalid?

Judging by our practice we give more credence to the post-apostolic tradition than we do to the direct apostolic teaching (cf. Judy Schindler, "The Rise of One Bishop Rule in the Early Church," ST, Summer, 1981, pp. 3-9),

Will the Real "Clergy" Please Stand Up?

If we take the New Testament seriously, anything that promotes the traditional "clergy/laity" categories must be stopped. Are those in "the pastorate" willing to renounce the title "Reverend" next to their name (cf. David Foster, "Call No Man Teacher, Father, Rabbi….Or Pastor?" Journal of Pastoral Care, Jay Adams, ed.)? The whole mystique that surrounds "the pastor" must be brought into line with Christ’s statement to the apostles: "you are all brethren." Making unbiblical distinctions among ourselves results in some awful traditions, as the following illustration shows: "It was doubtless with assurance born of the reverence with which he was customarily regarded, that by stamping upon the meeting-house doorway floor [John] Smalley made known to his congregation the moment of his arrival, so that members of importance might rise and make him their obeisance as he passed down the center aisle on Sabbath morning" (Mary L. Gambrell, Ministerial Training in 18th Century New England, pp.113-114). We may not duplicate this particular obeisance, but the spirit of this illustration is still repeated a thousand different ways in our day.
Preaching: In the Street or in the "Sanctuary"?

Attached to the institution of "the pastor" is the central duty of preaching. H.M. Carson states that preaching "is the main means by which the people of God are built up in the faith" (Hallelujah! Christian Worship, p.72). But it appears that "preaching" in the New Testament is primarily an activity that took place outside church meetings (cf. Stuart Olyott, "What Is Evangelism?," Banner of Truth, July/August, 1969, pp.1ff.; C.E. Dawson, "The Evangelicals," Gospel Tidings, Sept., 1982, p.247). The church must be devoted to apostolic teaching. The elders may often provide the backbone of such instruction in the assembly. But to equate the reign of Christ’s word in the church with the pulpit ministry of "the pastor" cannot be substantiated from the New Testament. It would wonderful for those with preaching gifts to exercise them "outdoors," as did George Whitefield. It needs to be remembered that the whole rationale for the "centrality of preaching" is suspect: it arose in a state-church where church attendance was required.

 "The body is not one member, but many"

One of the most damaging spin-offs that come’s with separating "the pastor" from the eldership is the neglect of the total body. When it is assumed that "the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of the church" rests on "the pastor," as the Puritan John Owen suggested, there is no way that proper attention can be given to the "whole body" perspective in Ephesians 4:16. J.I. Packer freely admits that the Puritan discussion of gifts "was dominated by their interest in the ordained ministry . . . and questions about other gifts to other persons were rarely raised" ("The Puritans and Spiritual Gifts," 1967 Westminster Papers, p.15).

Where’s the Next Minister’s Conference?

"The ministry" as separated from the eldership also puts incredible pressure on gifted people that they were never meant to bear. Articles from Christianity Today illustrate the obvious: "How Many Hats Does Your Pastor Wear?" "Clergy Divorce Spills Over Into the Aisles," "Who Counsels Ministers When They Have Problems?"

Since pastors are always "giving out," and because local churches are unable and unequipped to minister to them, they must go away periodically to conferences attended by those in the same syndrome. Because the New Testament knows nothing of a "pastoral office" as traditionally conceived, it is no wonder that those in it experience "burn-out" in trying to measure up to its expectations. Life-fracturing issues like nervous breakdowns, suicide, divorce, incredible family stress, and sexual infidelity are especially high among the clergy. A recent Focus on the Family intensive survey indicated that 1800 pastors leave the ministry per month in our country among all denominations. When are we going to wake up and realize that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark?

Ministry: Pulpit or Polyform?

The pastoral institution has probably been the most formative factor in the shape that church services take (cf. Hezekiah Harvey, The Pastor, 1879 [Backus Books, 1982], pp.27-28). The earliest assemblies knew nothing of a "pulpit," and yet it has become an article of furniture you dare not question. It is a parallel situation to many who just assume that the apostles gave "altar calls" in the first century. Scholarship from all traditions acknowledge that in the New Testament we are met with structured informality. Note these few examples of many that could be given:

•1Co14:26-36 "provides a glimpse of the early church at worship. The service apparently contained a mixture of spontaneous flexibility and traditional formality inherited from the synagogue. Congregational participation is suggested by the words" [of 14:26] (William Baird, 1 Cor. /2 Cor., 1980, p.59).
•"In Paul’s day the worship service probably was more open than are today’s services" (Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough?, p.182)
•"The glimpses we have of worshipping congregations in the New Testament are of active participants" (Herbert Carson, Hallelujah!, p.29).
Urgent questions arise: in light of our confession that the NT is to guide us, why are our meetings entirely different than those revealed in Scripture? Is it right for us to eliminate participation in order to maintain the "centrality of preaching"? Why were such meetings edifying and good for the early church, but "dangerous" for us? Is the Spirit informing us in the NT, or do we assume that this inspired information is no longer relevant?

One argument often ushered forth is that 1Co14 is "early revelation" and is modified by "later revelation." But this is specious reasoning on several accounts. First, what is there in the "later" revelation that contradicts 1Co14? Second, Hebrews is "later revelation," yet it contains the same emphasis found in Corinthians: "exhort one another daily . . . . do not forsake your assembling . . . but encourage one another." Third, James is "later," yet some commentators see 1:19 as a reference "to the free and unstructured worship of early Christian assemblies" (Curtis Vaughn, James: A Study Guide, p.35; cf. Earl Kelly, James: A Primer for Christian Living, p.69).

If we are honest, we must confess that the pulpit-tradition is a huge obstacle that blocks obedience to the one-another, participatory dimension of body-life found in the New Testament. David Thomas (in 1898!) summarized the situation well: "The Christian church in assembly, on the same occasion, might have several speakers to address them . . . . If this be so: 1. Should Christian teaching be regarded as a profession? It is now: men are brought up in it, trained for it, and live by it, as architects, lawyers, doctors

. . . . 2. Is the Christian church justified in confining its attention to the ministry of one man? In most modern congregations there are some Christian men who, by natural ability, by experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to instruct and comfort the people than their professional and stated minister. Surely official preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or later. Every Christian man should be a preacher. Were the half-hour allotted in church services for the sermon to be occupied by three or four Christly men . . . with the capability of expression withal, it would not only be far more interesting, but more profitably spent than now ("1 Corinthians," The Pulpit Commentary, p.459).

What about My Paycheck?

People in the ministry can feel threatened by the implications of New Testament eldership. The traditional rationale for supporting a pastor is without Scriptural warrant, and is based on misinterpreted texts. But 1Ti5:17-18 indicates that a congregation is free to help any of its elders, as it is able. As with all the other points connected to "the pastorate," support needs to be put in the context of a body of elders, not in connection with an imagined "pastoral office" (cf. Ronald Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking & Apostleship, Fortress, 1980). Financial help is not to be a motive in elders serving the flock; the assembly is free to help elders; elders are free to work with their own hands (1Pe.5:2; 1Ti.5:17; Ac 20:34-35).

Where’s the Beef?

If "the pastor" is such an important cog in church ministry, then why is it so hard to validate such a function in the New Testament? John H. Yoder pointedly summarizes the data: "The most striking conclusion to be drawn from this enumeration is the absence of two offices which are most characteristic of modern Christianity: the ‘pastor,’ in the sense of one professional minister leading a congregation, and the ‘bishop,’ in the sense of a minister with authority over several congregations. Both of these terms were originally interchangeable with that of ‘elder,’ referring to one of several men who shared the leadership in a local council. Henri d’Espines, professor of Calvin’s own Geneva University, drew the same conclusion, and has dared to say that Calvin’s view of the pastoral office is un-biblical, that ‘this state of affairs is deplorable,’ and that ‘the restoration of the collective pastorate, exercised by a veritable council of elders, is one of the primary conditions of the spiritual renewal which our churches need.’ Once again, we see Reformed Biblicism at its best coming out in favor of the authority of the Scripture over the church" ("Biblicism and the Church," Concern #2, 1955, p.45).

Are You Seeing Some Light?

If you are or have in the past been in the "clergy" role, and you are coming to the conviction that this position originates from unscriptural traditions, there are some practical steps that must be taken on your part.

The "clergy" system is a mammoth institution. Its tentacles reach deep into the inner workings of almost every religious group. Not every "clergy" person takes the New Testament seriously, but those who do need to lead the way by personal example to a paradigm shift which better reflects Christ-centered assembly life. People who withdraw from the traditional "clergy" model out of faithfulness to Christ will usually have a heavy price to pay, but the spiritual rewards are beyond description.
The truth is, remaining in a system that has crushed and ruined many people’s lives is the wrong price to pay. Why do you suppose 1800 people a month are leaving "the ministry"?

"We Believe the Bible Is Our Infallible Rule of Faith and Practice"
Many churches make this confession, but do they really take the New Testament seriously enough to evaluate all of their practices in light of it? Such a confession becomes very hollow if it is not backed up by honest hermeneutics and sincere obedience. I’m tired of hearing preachers yell, "If we can’t find it in the Bible, we won’t believe it or do it." Scripture will not support a host of things that go on unquestioned in churches, yet pastors and those in the pew will become livid if their sacred cows are challenged.