Theological Musings

n part 1, I dealt with the first of three questions from Gordon Cloud regarding some differences in the simpler approach to church “structure”, vis-à-vis more traditional, conventional models of church administration. In this post, I would like to move on to the second and third questions. To review, the three questions were:

1. Where does the Bible mandate multiple elders? (I know it gives a historical reference to their existence, but it does to pastor/teachers as well)
2. In the simple church model, where do the biblical offices of pastor and deacon fit in?
3. Where do musicians fit in? (You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that God hasn’t equipped you for this ministry! )

Gordon asks in the second question about the “biblical offices of pastor and deacon”. The wording of this question reveals some of the presuppositions that are brought to these types of discussions, and results in a bit of a loaded question, so bear with me while I dissect it!

First of all, the adjective “biblical” gets used a lot to imply that the noun modified is mandated by Scripture and is therefore necessary for “correct” ecclesiology. I’m not necessarily saying that Gordon was consciously thinking this when he used the word “biblical”, but I think it’s necessary first of all to examine whether or not “offices” are biblical, either for pastor or deacon, in light of this question.

One could possibly make the case for the office of deacon. 1 Timothy 3 begins with instructions regarding “any man [who] aspires to the office of overseer”, which appears from Scripture to be synonymous with “elder”. Then, in verse 8, Paul continues with “Deacons likewise”, which appears grammatically to put deacons in the same category as elders/overseers with regard to the term “office”.

However, no such instructions can be found for an “office of pastor”. In fact, the only time the word “pastor” is used in the New Testament, with regard to the church (and not literal shepherds or Jesus Himself), is in Ephesians 4. I have made the point on this blog before that there are problems using Ephesians 4:11 to defend our modern view of “pastor”, and especially that of “senior pastor”. Two of the problems are listed here:

• The “pastors” mentioned in Ephesians 4 are “gifts” to the Church, not necessarily positions or offices to be filled.
• If we maintain that an “office of pastor” is necessary based on Ephesians 4, then we must reckon with the offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and teacher (if one does not hyphenate pastor-teacher into one gift, which is possible to do).

I have heard some in the past attempt to apply passages regarding “elders” to “pastors”, and thereby find much more NT support for the “office of pastor”. Based on some of the descriptions and instructions regarding elders (most notably, 1 Peter 5:1-3), I think it is quite possible to view pastors as elders and vice-versa.

The difficulty with this, though, is that it ends up leading back to the discussion on multiple elders. Is the NT record indicative of one elder leading the church? Some refer to the “senior pastor” as “the teaching elder”, or some “first among equals”, etc. but these designations are nowhere found in Scripture. The only distinction that is made among elders or “shepherds” is that Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. For example, here is 1 Peter 5:1-4 (NASB):

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Peter contrasts between earthly “shepherds” and Jesus, “the Chief Shepherd”. Not between “pastors” and “elders” or “senior pastor” and other “staff pastors”.

So, we’ve dealt with the “office of pastor”, but what about the deacons? I recently made this point in a discussion somewhere else (although at the moment, I can’t recall where!) that deacons existed in Acts 6 to fill a particular need. There is no indication that this “office” continued on in every single church. However, Paul does give instructions, as I’ve already noted, as to the qualities of a deacon, so it is quite possible that deacons were “the norm” in all of the churches in the NT.

The point that I want to make here isn’t so much that deacons did or did not exist in some churches. The point, again, is with regard to their functioning, and what that role is to the body. I see no evidence that any of these gifts are holes that must be filled at all times in every church. But to the extent that the Spirit gifts and calls people in the body for these roles, they function organically in the body.

So, with all of this in mind, my response to Gordon would be that my experience with simple church and interaction with others on a similar journey is that all of the gifts and types of servants mentioned in the Bible are legitimate roles in the body of Christ. Pastors, elders, deacons, etc. are not opposed by simple church models.

But here is the key difference between the simpler method of church and the conventional model that we see around us: In a simple church environment, the recognition of these gifts (and the exercise of them) is a much more organic, informal process. Simple churches do not generally hire someone (and especially not from the outside) to do the work of shepherding the flock. Rather, those among them who are gifted in those areas function in that capacity as needed.

It bears repeating once again that the gifts given to the church are for the maturing of the body, and not for the lifelong listening/receiving by the members of the body.

I’ve gone pretty long on this second question, like I did with the first, so let me just briefly answer the third (because the answer is quite brief anyway).

Where do musicians fit in? The mentions of music in the New Testament (with regard to the church), are simply that we should speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. While at times, I do share my musical talents with different assemblies of believers, I do not believe that I am gifted musically for that purpose alone, nor do I believe that my musical talent entitles me to any special position or status within the church. But the question relates to music within the simple church concept, so let me address it in that light.

Music is actually one of those areas that often causes confusion when one steps outside of the traditional structures of our churches. Quite often, many will assume that we must have some form of music during our gatherings, and quickly, the move is made to identify someone in the group who can “lead” that. However, I believe this is completely unnecessary. According to 1 Corinthians 14, anyone can (and should) bring a song as the Spirit leads.

I do not derive my philosophy of music in the church in the same way that some conclude that musical instruments are inappropriate. So I’m not saying that certain uses of music within the church are wrong, per se. However, I don’t believe that “congregational singing” is as essential to our gatherings as we often seem to think it is. In fact, if I could say this without it sounding really obnoxious, I think that the reason we have elevated “congregational singing” so much is because this is one of the few ways we allow the otherwise passive congregation to participate.

In light of what I have just shared, I will attempt to write a post in the near future outlining some of my particular thoughts on how music can be used within the gathering of believers.

Until next time,

steve