Q and A about Simple Church (part 2)
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-Ã -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:
- 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 (I know it gives a historical reference to their existence, but it does to pastor/teachers as well)
- In the simple church model, where do the biblical offices of pastor and deacon fit in?
- 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
January 13th, 2007 14:20
My first thought when I read this post was “Wow” … thanks for sharing your insight. I think you know what my background is and where I am coming from, and I am learning more and more that I really don’t know as much as I thought I did.
The last portion about music was very eye-opening for me. Your statement … “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.” … I think it’s dead-on. We were just briefly discussing something similar on Alan’s blog re: mutual adification and excellence (at least I think that was the topic).
Again, I appreciate your thoughts and insight … thanks for sharing!
January 13th, 2007 16:31
Steve, again this is a good post. However, the questions I asked were in the context of the statement you made when you were down here, that is that you wanted to go back and do church like they did it in the book of Acts. (Did I misunderstand you?)
They had deacons in Acts. I was just wondering where they fit in your plan?
January 13th, 2007 17:23
Heather, thanks for your continued interactions. It’s been nice to get to know you and Brandon and watch you both in your own journey and search. I look forward to reading more from both of you!
Gordon, the point I’ve tried to make could possibly be summed up in this way: Where there are needs in the body, God supplies.
In Acts 6, deacons were appointed in a specific body (the church in Jerusalem) because specific needs needed to be met. I don’t believe this is a mandate for the existence of deacons, and specifically not as a position that must be filled. However, when similar needs arise, there is a very good model there.
“Organic” is a key word in a lot of my thoughts on these topics, and that is a big part of what I see in the book of Acts. I think that might be a large part of where we differ on some of these issues.
January 13th, 2007 17:27
Steve,
I am confused. I see where you are coming from regarding the “office” of pastor, especially in light of Matthew 23:8-12. I am having trouble seeing where in Ephesians 4:11 that this passage does not call for the “position” of pastor, but rather the pastor as a gift to the church. Does this preclude that the pastor necessarily come from inside? Can the pastor not also be seen as a gift to the church even if he does not come from within that same body?
Also, you touched on 1 Timothy 3 and the qualification passages for elders/deacons. The word “office” used in 1 Timothy 3:1 is implicit in the term rendered for “overseer/bishop,” and is used in most modern translations, so I cannot make an argument for the use of the term itself, but is not leadership implied?
The Apostle Paul seems to be singling out the work of the bishop as he says “he desires a good work.” What work is he referring to? I don’t think the leadership implied is the John Maxwell school of thought or even servant leadership (I don’t like that phrase); but, it seems to me that the qualification passage for the “office” of overseer/bishop assumes some sort of leadership role.
Am I wrong?
Also, I am with you about music in the church.
Thanks for entertaining my ramblings.
January 13th, 2007 20:45
Tony, I can understand you being confused. I’ll be the first to say that this is nowhere near my most clearly written post!!
You asked: I am having trouble seeing where in Ephesians 4:11 that this passage does not call for the “position” of pastor, but rather the pastor as a gift to the church.
The language of Eph 4 leads me to that conclusion. For example, vs 7: “grace was given“, vs 8: “He gave gifts to men”, vs 11: “He gave some as…pastors”
You go on to ask some good questions: Does this preclude that the pastor necessarily come from inside? Can the pastor not also be seen as a gift to the church even if he does not come from within that same body?
No, it need not preclude it, and yes a pastor can still be seen as a gift. What I am trying to argue for, however, is a “normative” experience vs. the possible exceptions.
It’s like this: Many want to argue that because some churches appear to be quite healthy and successful (and for the sake of argument, we’ll say that assessment is correct) that the conventional way of doing church is acceptable and perhaps even the preferred way. But this does not do justice to the fact that the normative experiences described in Scripture look nothing like what we see in our church structures.
That’s why I make the point about hiring from the outside. Two things about that are not at all found in the New Testament record. They are 1) hiring, and 2) from the outside!
When Paul left Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5), why did he not tell him, “I left you there so you can oversee search committees to hire a pastor for each church”? No, he said, “I left you there to appoint elders in every city.”
I also view the qualifications for elder as something that can only reasonably be observed over time within the body. This all leads me to conclude that the normative experience in the NT was for elders to be people recognized within the city as faithful, godly men.
Finally, to your questions about leadership. I’m looking back over the post and trying to figure out what gave you the impression that I don’t believe leadership is implied in these passages. I think you and I agree on what leadership is not (i.e., your comment about John Maxwell’s writings), but I don’t mean to imply that leadership never takes place.
A big part of what I am trying to call attention to is the fact that all of these “positions” or “offices” or “gifts” are a means to an end, and not an end in themselves. It’s hard to write this stuff without it looking like I’m saying “I don’t want any leadership over me”, or “I think all pastors are horrible tools of the devil”
neither of which are anywhere close to the truth!!
The goal, as outlined multiple times in the NT (not the least of which is Ephesians 4) is the maturing of the body, with each member being equipped and then allowed to do their part in ministering to each other and to the world around them. I have said it many times here before, but I’ll say it again. If we put a structure in place that hinders that in any way, we need to rethink our structure!
Does that clarify anything, or muddy the waters further?
January 13th, 2007 22:43
Steve, you said, Gordon, the point I’ve tried to make could possibly be summed up in this way: Where there are needs in the body, God supplies.
I have no problem with this statement.
I also understand where you are coming from with the concept of “organic”. The church is a body, certain aspects of it should be natural.
However, the church is also a “building” according to Ephesians. Is that not “synthetic”? Can God not use that which is created by man for His purposes? (I mean, He IS sovereign, after all!
)
Just as you mentioned, deacons arose from a need. Could it not be that at some point in time, the current usage of the position of pastor arose from a need?
I appreciate the high ideals you have for the body of Christ. That is something that we share in common. The truth is, though, until Jesus returns (before the tribulation, I think
), any “system” of church is going to have inherent flaws because it is made up of flawed people. Thus, any model of church has the potential of placing barriers to the growth and development of its members.
I say that each of us should prayerfully seek a model of church in which we can grow, worship and serve our Lord. The fact that we have so many epistles in the NT written to various churches shows that God accepts and even expects variety within His church.
If I may put a bug in your ear, it would be nice sometime to hear you discuss how simple church is blessing you and enhancing your growth.
January 13th, 2007 23:04
Steve,
One thing I have never read from you is incoherency. Now my commenting on the other hand…the proverbial forest gets in the way of me seeing the proverbial trees.
Many want to argue that because some churches appear to be quite healthy and successful…yes, we tend to fallaciously argue from the part to the whole here quite often; as I have discovered that I myself do. The committee structure I feel is a great detriment (though I know you nor I want to chase that rabbit).
Would you say a normative experience from Scripture could be the recognition of a godly man in the body, his discipling to be an elder, and then after a given time of “proving,” he then assumes that “position?”
…trying to figure out what gave you the impression that I don’t believe leadership is implied…My concerns about leadership arose as an assumption, as you humorously pointed out…tool of the devil, you gotta be kidding me!!! I’ll give you a cruel chuckle over that one!
You have clarified all points well, Steve. I’m still not quite certain I understand completely your angle on 1 Tim 3, because I still want to see the pastoral “office” inherent there, but it may just take a little more rumination.
January 13th, 2007 23:22
Gordon, thanks for your continued interaction on this topic.
Just as you mentioned, deacons arose from a need. Could it not be that at some point in time, the current usage of the position of pastor arose from a need?
Yes, it’s possible, but if that is the case, then why do so many keep trying to defend it from Scripture? One can’t have it both ways. Let’s be honest about the origin of it.
And, if it is true that the current usage of the position of pastor arose at some point in the history of the church after the 1st century, what was the need it was addressing, and is that need still in existence today to be addressed in this fashion?
See, this was exactly my point about the idea of these positions not being positions that necessarily must be filled in order for a church to be “correct” in its structure.
The truth is, though, until Jesus returns (before the tribulation, I think
), any “system” of church is going to have inherent flaws because it is made up of flawed people.
Apart from the eschatological reference
, I agree completely with this statement. However, you go on to say:
Thus, any model of church has the potential of placing barriers to the growth and development of its members.
So, does that mean that we just settle for whatever we currently have? Seriously. I have outlined on this blog on more than one occasion what I feel are serious barriers in the way conventional church is structured. Are those really worth just brushing aside by painting all “systems” as flawed?
I’m not trying to beat you up, Gordon. You know by now that I love you dearly as a friend and a brother, and (this is very important) as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In many ways, I consider you and me to be fellow laborers together in this.
January 14th, 2007 00:09
Tony, thank you as well for your continued interaction. (By the way, are you still hoping to come to SEBTS for the conference in April?)
You wrote: Would you say a normative experience from Scripture could be the recognition of a godly man in the body, his discipling to be an elder, and then after a given time of “proving,” he then assumes that “position?”
With a bit of hesitation, I would answer “yes” to this. I only hesitate because I recognize that Scripture nowhere steps through this “process”. I am deducing this type of process from what we do have in Scripture, and the requirements for an elder as outlined by Paul in both 1 Timothy and Titus.
[On further previewing of this comment, I think I would perhaps suggest a simplification and re-ordering of your proposed "steps" in the process: I would say that a normative experience from Scripture could be, after having the opportunity to watch his life being lived out (especially in his family), the recognition of a godly man in the body who is then recognized as an elder.]
This just seems to me to be the most natural way for elders not only to be recognized, but respected and honored.
Plainly put, how can one truly honor and respect (and be persuaded by, as in Hebrews 13:17) one that they don’t really know?
Or, to put it in a more positive light: How much more will people be inclined to truly honor, respect, and be persuaded by one that they have shared life with, fellowshipped with, seen raise his family, etc. etc. etc.?
Remember all the talk about Clinton when he was president, and how we needed to still respect the “office” of president, even if we didn’t respect the man? I don’t think that works in the body of Christ. We can’t respect an “office” while not respecting the man in that office. And we can’t truly respect that man without getting to know him personally and seeing his life lived out in front of us.
Thanks for at least being willing to entertain my ramblings!
By the way, what further questions do you have about my “take” on 1 Timothy 3? I’m not opposed to equating “elder” with “pastor”, but then, if we do (which I assume you’re wanting to do, since you said you want to see the office of pastor in there), it begs some other questions. I’ve hinted at some of them in this post and other comments.
January 14th, 2007 00:20
Steve, you said, So, does that mean that we just settle for whatever we currently have? Seriously. I have outlined on this blog on more than one occasion what I feel are serious barriers in the way conventional church is structured. Are those really worth just brushing aside by painting all “systems†as flawed?
I apologize if you feel I am “brushing aside” the problems of the church. I feel like in the months of dialogue we have exchanged, I have been more than willing to discuss the problems of the church as well as alternatives. I honestly don’t feel that I am “brushing aside” anything. I am simply trying to make the point that there is no perfect system. However, if you feel that I am not giving enough validity to your concerns, I apologize.
January 14th, 2007 00:21
Steve,
These are some great posts! I have some questions and plan to chime in on this topic tomorrow. (when it’s not 12:15AM):-)
I was thinking about doing a blog on my views concerning eschatology… Based on your last reply, It would seem that we have at least one thing in common on that subject already…;-)
Be blessed…
Brandon
January 14th, 2007 00:44
Gordon, I don’t want to appear to be high maintenance!
hehe But yeah, I do feel like you’re brushing some of the concerns aside in favor of the status quo.
I think, in all honesty, I’d like to see a bit more defense (both biblically and experientially) of the conventional models from you or others who may be so inclined to disagree with my analysis or my proposed alternatives. Unless I’ve been missing it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone answer my charges that the conventional system keeps people stunted in their growth.
Maybe it’s the fact that it’s after midnight, or maybe I’m just feeling weary today. But I want someone to show me where my analysis is faulty. I want to be proven wrong!
I don’t want to just entertain possibilities that the current pastoral role evolved over time, without being shown why it’s still the best way for us to minister to people today.
You’ve told me before that you believe it’s biblical. Are you reconsidering that position? If not, can it be both biblical and potentially evolutionary in its development?
Where did monologue-style preaching in the church come from? And why should that be the norm? I want to see some defenses of these things.
I’m not looking for someone to just pat me on the head and tell me I’m right. (You’re not doing that, by the way, which is great!) But I want some substantial evidence to the contrary if there is to be a contrary position.
You and I have discussed preaching before, and you believe that when Paul told Timothy “preach the Word”, he meant something similar to what you and many others do (and I used to do) every Sunday. Why? Help me see that!
You acknowledge my use of the word “organic”, but then counter with something that is “synthetic”. Before we discuss the synthetic, I want to know what is organic about the conventional model?
It’s things like the above paragraphs that make me feel a bit like things are being brushed aside. I just want to understand your position better. That’s all.
January 14th, 2007 01:05
Brandon, thanks for stopping by. I look forward to your input, as well
January 14th, 2007 06:56
Steve -
You said: “And, if it is true that the current usage of the position of pastor arose at some point in the history of the church after the 1st century, what was the need it was addressing, and is that need still in existence today to be addressed in this fashion?”
That thought got me thinking and reminded me of one of the things that *I* personally believe about homeschooling. Humor me for a minute here …
Many years ago these were not a lot of books, there were not a lot of educated people. Getting a higher educatin was very expensive – almost out of arms reach for most people. If one was to learn their 3 Rs one needed an instructor, someone to teach them.
The average family couldn’t just pick up a book and start teaching their children because either the parents weren’t educated themselves or they had no books to teach them from. So … another person was needed who was educated, who had access to the books, and that person taught the children.
But is that necessary now? Books are plentiful and the vast majority of parents are educated enough now to teach their children, at the very least, the 3 Rs. Aside from getting into all the other reasons why we homeschool, since this in no way is the topic here, this is one of the reasons why we homeschool. There is no need for my children to have someone else teach them when I am more than capable of teaching them at home with all the books I own or can buy or have access to, and all the knowledge that I have
(LOL). Yet we still believe that we have to send out children off to someone else to teach them because we are incapable of doing it ourselves.
Do you see where I am going? I see your line of thinking here that perhaps the current office/position of pastor did arise from a need in the past. Perhaps, just for arguement’s sake, one reason might be because many people were uneducated and many people did not have access to the Scriptures at all or in a language that they could understand, or they simply didn’t understand the Word and believed that they needed someone to teach it to them (especially considering the history of the church).
But is it necessary now? Is it necessary now for me to *depend* on someone else to preach to me each week and tell me what God’s Word says? I’m in no way saying that the “senior pastor” is an evil thing (please don’t misunderstand what I am saying). But many years ago people were spoon fed the Scriptures for the reasons I mentioned above. And here we are still today with most Christians depending on the weekly spoon feedings for nourishment for their souls when they have access to the Scriptures and ability to read them and to understanding them for themselves.
Just a thought ….
(please don’t read anything into what I did or didn’t say — just thinking out loud here … and it’s early … and now I must run because I am way late for church!)
January 14th, 2007 10:28
Heather, great analogy with regard to homeschooling. I think you may have a point there.
Sorry to make you late for church!
hehe
January 14th, 2007 23:11
Steve,
how can one truly honor and respect…one that they don’t really know? This is certainly a drawback; I have no argument here, because when I started at the church I now serve, and having served only this church as pastor, I feel just now, having been here five years, that I have moved beyond the “trial period,” so to speak.
Nevertheless, I did feel loved and respected, just simply because of the “office” itself and still do; but the root problems you have fingered seem only rectifiable by a change at the germinal level.
How much more will people be inclined to truly honor, respect, and be persuaded by one that they have shared life with, fellowshipped with, seen raise his family, etc. etc. etc.? Yes…with time. It took a good while for the folks I serve to warm up to me, but I imagine it is that way with any pastor.
As far as 1 Tim 3, I have always understood it as a “pastoral” epistle, Timothy as a “pastor,” and the qualification passages were for pastoral leadership; I was taught that way at SEBTS (Drs. Owen and Matthews). But after reading several posts of yours, Alan’s, and Raborn’s, my interpretation of that passage may not be entirely correct; not wrong, but certainly I have not taken it as far as it can go. I don’t know yet. I have probably superimposed my understanding of church, as the institutional or traditional model upon it, and gone from there.
I do not see that traditional church is precluded but neither is the more organic, simple model either; Gordon and I have that in common, and I do think you see it that way too.
OK. I hope I have not muddied the waters. As always, I am grateful for the conversation.
January 14th, 2007 23:25
Tony, your comment has really blessed me. You and Gordon both have shown extreme patience with me in many of these conversations, and I thank God for both of you (as well as all of my commenters).
You didn’t muddy the waters here, and I so appreciate the humility with which you have discussed these things. I hope I come across with a similar humility.
May God continue to bless you as you serve Him. I look forward to more interaction on other topics as we go forward.
January 19th, 2007 23:03
[...] In a comment on a recent post, my dear friend Gordon Cloud gave me a gentle prod: If I may put a bug in your ear, it would be nice sometime to hear you discuss how simple church is blessing you and enhancing your growth. [...]
March 26th, 2007 04:34
Hi Steve,
I thought I would throw in my two cents worth … and thanks for visiting my blog. what follows, is only an overview and not a comprehensive treatment.
The Early Church
According to the New Testament account, the first century Churches were shepherded by local Elders, who were called and set apart by the Lord, to provide oversight. The Elders themselves, although enjoying local autonomy at the individual assembly level often looked to each other and to certain ‘ascension gift ministries’ – Eph 4:11 (usually those who founded the Church), for mutual accountability and support. Such a combined Eldership, often embraced the broader challenges facing the early (city) Church collectively.
The 1st Century Churches met regularly in private homes. The believer’s homes proved to be ideal in providing opportunities for relational intimacy, more effective teaching (interactive dialogue rather than a lecturing style monologue) and mutual accountability; and led to a more vibrant and authentic (unforced) ‘church life’ in which close friendships were forged and nurtured.
This of course is not possible in todays much larger, rigidly structured, and tightly programmed, institutional church ‘events’. Some may argue that such needs can be met in the contemporary church ‘Home Group’ structure.
However, this belies the fact that the ‘Home Church’ was the vital hub of relational Church life in the first century; while larger combined gatherings (which came later) simply added a further dimension to the Home Church gatherings.
Today we have reversed this emphasis, so that the regular Sunday ‘events’ are the main focus and ‘Home Groups’ simply reflect the needs and desires of the institution.
Church Leadership
It is important to remember, that the ascension gift ministries were never seen as the leaders of the local Churches once local Elders were appointed. Rather they were seen more in the light of ‘fathers in the faith’ who continued to have the best interests of the Churches in mind.
The Lord Jesus gave gifts to the Church (Eph 4:11); ‘to equip the saints for the work of the ministry,’ namely: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. And along with local Elders these are to provide leadership or oversight to the Church.
Although much has been written in recent times, concerning these ‘ascension gifts’; much of what has been portrayed, has often revealed a strong ecclesiastical or personal bias on the part of the author rather than a correct interpretation of scripture.
For example, it is misleading, to apply the term ‘Office’ to these gifts; particularly if such a rendering implies a title and serves to strengthen the case for a ‘hierarchy of church leadership’; this is not merited by scripture. It would be more correct to see these gifts expressed as a ‘function’; a service if you like, rather than a claim to titular authority.
In fact, the ascension gifts are not formal positions as the term ‘office’ might imply. The Greek text has no definite article connected with any of the gifts in the Ephesians 4 passage or elsewhere in the New Testament. And they are never used as titles. In his Epistles, Paul often introduces himself as ‘I Paul an apostle…’ i.e. ‘I Paul … [whose function to the body of Christ is to serve as] … Apostle [i.e. sent one].
Today we often wrongly read into this: ‘I … [the Apostle] Paul inferring title…’ Such a rendering of scripture is misleading and has more to do with our particular ecclesiastical paradigm and desire to perpetuate it.
When the ascension gifts emerge in an authentic expression of church life, their primary function is to nurture and equip the believing community towards spiritual maturity, unity, and service.
The word ‘office’ in Acts 1:20; Romans 11:13; 12:4 and 1Timothy 3:1, 10, 13 is a wrongly applied. In Acts and 1 Timothy, the word has no equivalent in the Greek text; it was simply ‘added’ by some translators [rendering the passage as a transliteration rather than a translation].
In the Romans passages, the Greek words should be rendered ‘service’ and/or ‘function’. To suggest a meaning that indicates a position that one fills is therefore quite wrong. And perhaps has more to do with trying to defend the (unbiblical) hierarchical style of Church leadership.
Senior Pastor
Few today would realise, that the so called ‘office’ of Senior Pastor, is an invention, a contrivance, of man. Historically its antecedent was the ‘Bishop’ who originally, according to scripture; was simply an elder or overseer; (these terms were used interchangeably to describe the same function in the early Church).
However, in the Church’s drift away from that of being a ‘living, dynamic, Spirit-led organism’ towards the corporate style organisation or institution of today; this function was eventually, and wrongly given the status of ‘office’ and ‘elevated’ to that of a superintending minister presiding over the local elders.
This sad development simply paved the way for a ‘corporate style takeover’ of the Church which has continued over the centuries until the modern day Church bears little resemblance to its first century counterpart.
Hopes this helps…
March 26th, 2007 07:30
John, thanks for your comment. You’ve fleshed out even more a lot of what I was trying to say in this post (although I had to go back and re-read the post to remember what I had said here specifically!! hehe)
Hope you hang around and jump into other discussions here. Your insights are quite good.
steve