Building Up the Body -
One Man or One Another?
by Jon Zens
I
have many things on my heart that I would like to share with you
concerning the upbuilding of the church. In "The Local Church:
The Pillar and Ground of the Truth" (BRR, Summer, 1977), I set
forth some broad principles regarding the importance of the
local church in the believer's life. There I said, in commenting
on Heb.10:24-25, "these verses involve much more than just
sitting thirty to sixty minutes before the preached Word....
Something more is to happen when we assemble with the
brethren.... preaching only is is not enough." Further
consideration of these matters, however, has led me to believe
that there are some problems in our general outlook and practice
which simply militate against this "something more" being
expressed. In what follows I wish to explore some Scriptural and
historical matters which bear on the manner in which the body of
Christ is to be built up. Traditionally and practically we have
ended up focusing on one man, the "pastor"; I submit that the
New Testament focuses "on one another" in the upbuilding
process.
If
we are serious about Christ's truth, then we should not be
afraid to bring our private and local church practices under the
scrutiny of God's Word. John Owen made the following observation
in 1689:
For the most part, the churches that are in the world at
present know not how they came so to be, continuing only in
that state which they have received by tradition from their
fathers (The True Nature of a Gospel Church, edited and
abridged by John Huxtable [London, 1947], p.35).
If
there are things in our tradition which we do that are in
conflict with the N.T. revelation, then we must correct our
practice. I have attempted to speak in areas where clearness,
not haziness, is evident in the N.T. The questions I raise, and
the convictions I state may seem to be strong; but I ask you to
consider these things in the light of Scripture, and if you
believe there is Scriptural teaching I have missed, or
perverted, please seek to correct me. I believe these matters
are of utmost importance, and it is critical that we ascertain
the mind of Christ concerning the place of mutual ministry in
the local church. According to Eph. 4:16, we need that which
every joint supplies in order to grow in Christ.
-
THE NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE:
PRIORITY OF THE BODY
-
(1) The General Viewpoint:
A Functioning Priesthood 1 Pet. 2:5,9
Just as there was a people of God in the old age, so now
under the New Covenant there is an "Israel of God"
(Gal.6:16). But this new people is not national, but
spiritual in character -- "living stones." That which was
typified in geographical Israel has now come to living
expression in "a spiritual house, a holy priesthood," which
"offers up spiritual sacrifices" (v.5). This house is built
upon the foundation of Jesus Christ (v.4; cf. 1 Cor.3:11).
Of special interest to us here is the conception of this
family of God as "a holy priesthood....a royal priesthood"
(vv.5,9). Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant priesthood, and
is building a church in which every "living stone" is a
"priest." There were many requirements for the Old Covenant
priesthood, and as a result only a relatively few men
functioned in it. But the New Covenant priesthood includes
all saints.
More importantly, however, is the fact that the Old Covenant
priests had certain functions to constantly perform. Peter
focuses on this point: New Covenant priests function by
offering up "spiritual sacrifices" (v.5). A non-functioning
priesthood is an absurdity! What is included in "spiritual
sacrifices" can be seen clearly in such passages as
Rom.12:l, Heb.13:15-16 and Rev.5:8.
In Rom.12:l-8, it is important to see how Paul naturally
links our priesthood (v.1) with our functioning in the local
church: "so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and
every one members one of another. Having then gifts
differing according to the grace that is given to us"
(vv.5-6). Not "all members have the same office" (v.4), but
all members are to-function in the body (v.3b). It should
also be clear that the functions Paul has in view involve
(though not exclusively) the meetings where the church comes
together (vv.6-8).
-
There are four things with reference to the general
priesthood of believers I would like to point out.
-
First, a functioning priesthood is essential and basic
to the people of God.
-
Secondly, any church traditions and practices which in
their practical outworking squelch the functioning of
believers as priests must be rejected.
-
Thirdly, we must realize that people, not buildings,
constitute the "house of God" (cf. 1 Cor.3:9). For
example, well-meaning parents say to their children, "be
quiet and still, for we are in the house of God."
However, "God's house" must not be identified with any
building, for this clouds the fact that Christ's people
are a "spiritual house." The old covenant emphasis on
places has passed away because the fulfillment of these
types has come in a spiritual people (John 4:20-24).
-
Fourthly. in light of our priesthood, we cannot give
credence to the historical "clergy/laity" distinction.
Howard Snyder points this out by saying:
The New Testament simply does not speak in terms of two classes
of Christians -- "minister" and "laymen" -- as we do today.
According to the Bible, the people (laos, "laity") of God
comprise all Christians, and all Christians through the exercise
of spiritual gifts have some "work of ministry." So if we wish
to be biblical, we will have to say that all Christians are
laymen (God's people) and all are ministers. The clergy-laity
dichotomy is unbiblical and therefore invalid. It grew up as an
accident of church history and actually marked a drift away from
biblical faithfulness.... It is one of the principal obstacles
to the Church effectively being God's agent of the Kingdom today
because it creates the false idea that only "holy men," namely,
ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for
leadership and significant ministry (The Community of the King [IVP,
1977], pp.94-95).
The N.T., indeed, makes a distinction between leaders and people
(cf. 1 Thess.5:12-13). But this distinction assumes the
priesthood of believers, and does not swallow it up as the
"clergy/laity" practice has in the past.
In v.18, Paul issues forth an imperative, "be filled with
the Spirit." The fulness of the Spirit, then, comes to
expression through the five participles which follow:
"speaking to yourselves... singing... making melody...
giving thanks... submitting yourselves one to another"
(vv.19-21). The "Spirit-filled" life is not some nebulous,
ecstatic experience. It comes to visible expression in
relationship with other people.
Thus, a basic aspect of our priesthood in Christ is to be in
a submissive frame of heart with reference to the other
brethren. That is to say, wrapped up in our priesthood is a
spiritual commitment to others. Before Paul moves on to
specific forms of submission (5:22; 6:1; 6:5), and specific
headship responsibilities (5:25; 6:4; 6:9), he first sets
forth the absolute necessity of mutual submission to one
another in the fear of. Christ (5:21). Our Christian
priesthood, then, means at least two things: (1) that we
make a commitment of love to minister to our brother's
spiritual welfare; and (2) that we submit ourselves to the
ministry of our fellow brethren for our own edification.
Biblical submission, in light of our priesthood, is two-way,
not one-way.
-
1 Cor. 12:4-26 (cf Rom. 12:3-8)
In this context, Paul gave a proper perspective on gifts of
ministry within the local church -- a perspective which many
Corinthian believers had forgotten. Let us list Paul's basic
points.
1. All believers possess the Spirit of Christ (v.13).
2. This common Spirit works in all believers (vv.4-7).
3. The goal of spiritual gifts is mutual edification
(vv.7,11).
4. The church is a body, whose members all have a vital
function (vv.12, l5-18, 21-22).
5. Ministry in the church does not focus in one member,
but many (vv.14, 19; cf. Appendix A).
6. The many members, because of their personal union
with Christ, have a living relationship with one another
(vv.12, 25-26).
7. The body cannot function without its parts, and the
functioning (priesthood) of the parts is necessary for
the unity of the body (vv.17, 25, 27).
The body brought into existence by Christ's work does
absolute justice to both the worth of each individual part,
and to the corporate body as a whole. That is to say,
neither is the individual swallowed up in the body, nor is
the body sacrificed for the sake of the individual parts.
Just as in a human body, it functions as a unified whole,
but is dependent upon the proper functioning of all the
parts. All of this takes on special meaning when the.
general priesthood of believers is supposed. The body is not
meant to depend upon the function of one member (vv.14, 19),
while the other members are passively receptive. On that
basis the body will be crippled, and perhaps die.
It is not going too far, then, to say that the "body" nature
of Christ's people is most basic in the N.T. Erroll Hulse
observes, "the main New Testament analogies describe the
Church as a body made up of living members. The analogy of
the human body predominates" (Local Church Practice, p.56).
Howard Snyder comments, that "the Church is no mere
collection of isolated individuals, but... it has a
corporate or communal nature which is absolutely essential
to it[s] true being" (The Community of the King, p.58).
In this passage the exalted Christ, leading captivity
captive, gave gifts to men (v.8). Here, we are primarily
concerned with the "pastor-teacher" gift of v.11. In the
Puritan tradition, verses 11-12 have been taken to mean that
Christ has given pastors and teachers ("doctors"):(1) for
perfecting the saints; (2) for the work of the ministry; and
(3) for the building up of the body of Christ (cf. "A True
Description... of the Visible Church," [1589], The
Reformation of the Church, ed. Iain Murray, p.200; Owen,
True Nature, pp. 46-47; "The Form of Presbyterial Church
Government," [1645], The Reformation of the Church, p.209).
With this interpretation, the entire edification process
fell upon the shoulders of "the officers" (cf. Thomas
Goodwin, Works, Vol.11, p.310).
However, this interpretation does not appear to be accurate.
The King James translation has in v.12, "for...for...for."
But there is in the Greek a change in prepositions not
reflected in this rendering. The Greek original has pros ...eis...eis
["for...unto...unto"]. Thus, this verse can be rendered, "He
gave... pastors-teachers for equipping the saints unto the
work of ministry, unto the upbuilding of the body of
Christ." In other words, the function of the
pastors-teachers is to equip the saints so that they can
minister.
This construction is further borne out in the context. Verse
16 reveals Christ as joining the whole body together. The
emphasis here, as in 1 Cor 12, falls on the total body
ministry, not the exclusive ministry of pastors. The elders'
function is a crucial part of the edification process. But
the broader body ministry unto edification is specifically
mentioned two times in v.16: (1) "every joint supplies"; (2)
"in the measure of every part." Thus, edification is not
conceived of as being achieved by the ministry of one part
(the "pastor"), but by a mutual ministry of every part.In
summing up this general N.T. perspective, we can say that:
All believers are 'ministers' (believer-priests) who have
been gifted by God so that they may lovingly build up their
spiritual brothers and sisters.... each Christian has
received a spiritual gift... A gift is a special ability
given graciously by God to each person in Christ's Body to
help others toward spiritual maturity (Sixteen Tests of An
Authentic New Testament Church, Fellowship Bible Church
[l980], p.25).
In light of this, the service of elders and deacons must be
viewed against the backdrop of the general priesthood of
believers. They serve as an important part in the
edification of the body; they do not constitute the only
sources of edification in the body. More will be said on
this in the historical section.
(2) The Specific Practice:
"Build Up One Another, Even As You Are Doing"
(1 Thess.5:11)
Some have shied away from this passage because it includes
elements (like "tongues") which they feel have ceased.
Whatever the case may be, however, it seems to me that there
are some principles revealed here that confirm the lines of
thought we have seen in 1 Cor.12, Rom.12, and Eph.4:16 (cf.
Owen, Works, Vol.13, p.35).
Several things are evident in this chapter. First, Paul is
dealing with the entire church a gathered: "the whole church
come together in one place" (v.23: cf. 1Cor.11:18).
Secondly, there is nothing said about the ministry of one
man. Thirdly, there is much stated about the ministry of
many: "that you may prophesy" (v.1); "when you come
together, every one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has
a revelation, has an interpretation" (v.26); "you all may
prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be
comforted" (v.31).
The Greek word for "each one" is hekastos. It is used in the
N.T. to show the individuality of judgment: "everyone shall
give account of himself to God" (Rom.14:12; cf. Matt.16:27;
25:15; Rom.2:6). In Acts 2:3, the Holy Spirit "sat upon each
of them," indicating that this happened to each individual.
Does it not appear, then, that the edification of the body
involves a hekastatic principle? That is, the "ministry" is
not given to one man, but to "each of you." This does not
mean, of course, that at every service each person must
participate. But it does at least mean that the service at
some point was open to those who had something from the Lord
to contribute (cf. Appendix B).
We must keep in mind that this "each one" principle was
taking place in the assembling together of the church: "when
you come together [as a church, v.23], every one of you..."
(v.26). It is, therefore, of note that in the Reformed
tradition the minister and his sermon became the focus of
attention, and the brethren speaking to one another was to
take place in homes apart from the gathering of the church
together (cf. Owen, Works, Vol.13, p.46; Colin Richards,
"Fellowship in the Local Church," Local Church Practice,
pp.97-98). On what N.T. basis may we remove the "each of
you" practice from the stated "whole church" gatherings? In
the Reformed tradition, "the acts of worship were grouped
around the pulpit as the most important centre of the
church" (J. L. Ainslie, The Doctrines of Ministerial Order
in the Reformed Churches of the 16th and 17th Centuries
[Edinburgh, 1940], p.51). Where in 1Cor.14 can we find a
pulpit centrality that focuses on one man?
I am not suggesting in all of this that the elders do not
teach in the church gatherings, or, conversely, that all
must speak. Obviously, the teaching of the elders is to give
backbone and guidance to the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim.3:2).
But it is clear that speaking words of edification in the
local church is not limited to one "minister." Where is any
opportunity given to others to speak unto edification in our
services? What grounds are there in the N.T. to limit public
speaking to the elders, especially the "pastor"? 1 Cor.14
teaches the exact opposite of such an idea. Are the basic
principles of this passage now obsolete because the canon of
Scripture is closed?
Some may feel that the hekastatic principle opens the door
for confusion and chaos. But the Corinthian church was
practicing an "each of you" ministry, and Paul does not
censure them for that. For Paul, there was no tension
between peace and "all prophesy one by one, that all may
learn, and all may be comforted" (vv.31,33). Thus, to draw
back from this principle by erecting a straw man such as,
"imagine the confusion if every individual believer claimed
his own vision or his own direct leading!" is to evade the
teaching of 1Cor 14 (Erroll Hulse, Local Church Practice,
p.36). This question must be faced: given the "each of you"
principle in 1 Cor 14, on what basis can we suggest that
edification "is conveyed primarily through [Jesus'] work as
a prophet as He instructs the churches through the
messengers [the "pastors"] (Hulse, p.36)?
To summarize 1 Cor. 11-14, can we not say that:
The essential activities of the church when gathered are (1)
teaching, (2) edification through mutual ministries and (3)
worship through the Lord's Supper, singing and prayer....
The meetings of the church should be characterized by the
participation of many who are being prompted by the Holy
Spirit (Sixteen Tests, pp.13, 27).
-
Rom. 15:14--Nouthetic Interaction
Here Paul gives a commendation to the church at Rome. They
were "able also to admonish one another." The Word
"admonish" (noutheteo) usually means to lovingly confront a
sinful act or attitude with truth. The elders of a church
are required to watch over the flock, and admonish when
necessary (1 Thess 5:12). But the duty of admonishing
extends to all the priests. These brethren were "able" to
admonish one another. This implies that this is a skill
which is learned. Relating this back to Eph. 4:11-12, we can
see a specific instance here of how the elders are to
"equip" the saints: they are to help train the general
priesthood in the ability of "admonishing." Could Paul come
among our churches today and see visible evidence that the
brethren at large were "able" to perform this duty? If
admonishing is left to the elders, then it is no wonder that
the saints are ill-prepared for this important task. It is
in such a realm as this that pastors and teachers are to
equip the saints for the work of ministry. I do not see how
such training can materialize if edification is conceived of
as originating only from one man's ministry.
-
1 Thess 4:18; 5:11-14--Constant Interaction
Paul here focuses on the mutual ministry of Christians to
one another. The hope all Christians possess is a doctrine
by which they may "comfort one another" (4:18). In 5:11,
Paul mentions that they practice, as an on-going ministry,
the building up of one another: "even as you are doing."
Again, we are forced to ask, can we meaningfully relate this
vital practice to what transpires in churches today? If the
brethren rarely see each other during the week, and if the
structure of the services focus on the "pastor," how can we
expect this mutual ministry to come to concrete expression?
I suggest here, and will expand on it later, that the reason
"one another" ministries are so stifled is precisely because
our practice flows out of the conviction that edification
comes about through one man's ministry: "on this office [the
"pastor"] and the discharge of it He hath laid the whole
weight of the order, rule, and edification of His church"
(Owen, True Nature, p.55).The "pastor" becomes the sole
source of edification. Thus, according to Goodwin, even when
"ordinary" brethren conversed with one another, the focal
point was to be "what it was in a sermon that God blessed to
them" (Works, Vol.11, p.357). But in the N.T. there is just
as much emphasis, if not more, on the profitability of
mutual ministry among the general priesthood. Yet this is
left virtually untouched in such treatises.
Historically, the duty of mutual edification has been
relegated to something which is "occasional," while for Paul
the "one another" ministry was the basic fabric of local
church life. Further, this mutual ministry was apparently
expressed in the church gatherings ("each of you"), but the
Reformed tradition has pushed it outside of such meetings.
In vv.12-13, Paul makes a clear distinction between the
saints and their leaders. Those who have been set aside by
the people of God as "elders" are to be "known" and "highly
esteemed." The elders are "over them in the Lord." While
this distinction is clear enough, it does not seem to me
that our conception of it is always clear. This distinction
has been taken to mean that the elders do everything
--admonishing, teaching, etc. But we have already seen in
Rom.15:14, and can see here in 1 Thess.5:11,14, that there
is a general mutual ministry that saints are to perform
among themselves. The elders, in particular, are to oversee
the mutual functioning of the body. The elders function in a
similar fashion to a player-coach on a football team -- only
in the church there are several coaches, not one.
The function of pastoral leaders is to serve as
'player-coaches' of the congregation, by equipping the
believers for their various God-appointed ministries.... a
player-coach... unselfishly attempts to develop and
coordinate the abilities of others while he himself fights
the battle with them, shoulder-to-shoulder (Sixteen Tests,
p.31).
After giving the general duty of edifying one another in
v.11, Paul tells the "brethren" in v.14 that there are
specific needs in the body to which they must minister.
Again, Paul does not relegate this
"warning/comforting/supporting" ministry to the leaders
only, but makes it incumbent upon the body to have the same
care for one another (1Cor.12:25).
Perhaps some would try to find in v.20, "despise not
prophesyings," a reference to the centrality of one man's
preaching. However, it must be remembered that in 1Cor.14:31
Paul stated: "you may all prophesy one by one, that all may
learn, and all may be comforted."
-
Heb. 10:24-25 -- Serious Interaction
In Heb.3:6-14 and 10:24-29 we are faced with the sober
reality that there is no place in the Christian profession
for slothfulness. In both contexts apostasy is set forth as
the alternative for those who neglect the gospel (3:1). But,
also, in both places the same mutual duty is given as the
God-ordained means of restraining apostasy and maintaining
perseverance: "exhort one another daily...lest any of you be
hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (3:13).... not
forsaking the assembling [as a church; Greek:
episunagogen]... but exhorting [one another] (10:25)." In
the process of the saint's perseverance, then, a mutual
responsibility stands as the primary revealed method of
abiding in Christ and His house.
I dare say that there are too many professing Christians who
have never considered the importance of the ministry of
other brethren in their lives. We live in a society where it
is "every man for himself," and the whole idea of mutual
dependence is foreign to our thinking. In light of the
Heb.3:13 and 10:25 perspective, can we not see why it is
important to practice the "one another"/"each of you"
ministry in our gatherings as a church?
Heb.10:25, of course, is cited as a basis for people to
"come to church." It is probably the strongest passage on
such a responsibility in the N.T. But what, according to
10:24-25, is to occur in our assembling? Where in 10:25 can
you find the idea that we are to come to hear the ministry
of one man? We probably assemble together, but do our
services allow for the exhorting of one an other? If we are
going to employ 10:25 to press the duty of assembling
together, must we not also use it as a guide for what
transpires in our services? In light of our practice, it
appears that we use about half of the verse rightly
("assemble"), but think little about the other half
("exhort" one another).
For example, Thomas Goodwin, in discussing the "communion of
saints, which the members of a church ought to have with one
another," states that, indeed, mutual care "is a constant
duty, and that we ought to seek all occasions of acting it"
(Works, Vol.11, p.355). However, conceiving of the church
gatherings as focusing on the minister and the sermon, and
believing that "in private occasional converse, one member
may not have opportunity to discourse with another once in
seven years," Goodwin suggested that a separate "fixed
meeting" was necessary, where the brethren could "know one
another's cases and experiences" (Works, Vol.11, p.353).
"The duty enjoined" in Heb.10:24, he says, "is a duty
distinct from assembling together, which follows in the next
verse [10:25]" (Works, Vol.11, p.354). Thus, while the N.T.
connects mutual ministry and our gatherings as a church, we
have in our practice separated them without exegetical
basis. Why? Because we have structured our "corporate public
worship" around the "pastor," and thereby relegated any
mutual ministry to occasional meetings, perhaps "once a
month" (Colin Richards, "Fellowship," pp.91, 96, 97).
In light of 1 Cor.12:23, 26, 31 and Heb.10:24-25, is it not
time that we either acknowledge the discrepancy or justify
our practice? The traditional "order of service" appears to
be at odds with the "each of you" principle in the N.T.
Unfortunately, it ends up focusing on one ministry, and not
on the body. To graphically illustrate this, observe the
elements in public worship as articulated by the Westminster
Divines in 1645:
The ordinances in a single congregation are, prayer,
thanksgiving, and singing of psalms, the word read,
(although there follow no immediate explication of what is
read) the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the
sacraments administered, collection made for the poor,
dismissing the people with a blessing ("The Form of
Presbyterial Church Gov't," p.216)
Everything in this order is done by the "pastor" and other
officers, except the "singing of psalms." This is
essentially what we still practice today. Does this practice
reflect a sensitivity to the glimpses of church gatherings
we see in the N.T., or is it at odds with them? It seems to
me that we have made normative that for which there is no
Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man's ministry), and we
have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural
support (emphasis on one another).
Let us now come to some historical considerations that will
help explain why we have come to such questionable
practices.
-
THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
PRIORITY OF THE "PASTOR"
In this section I wish briefly to trace the historical
development of church government which came to center in the
"pastor" as the primary source of edification in the local
church.
"The ministry in the Christian Church at the beginning was
humble in outward condition and of the simplest in official
character. In the course of the centuries it changed
greatly" (Ainslie, p.1).
"We see that a great and imposing ecclesiastical
organization has come into being. The officials of the
Church, the clergy as they have come to be called, form a
distinct class, separated from the ordinary people or laity"
(Ainslie, p.l).
"In the midst of, and facing, such ecclesiastical
conditions, with the ministry of the Church become such as
we have seen it, the Reformation Movement of the sixteenth
century arose.... There is one noteworthy fact at once to be
noticed. The Reformers... when renouncing, and opposing
themselves to, the Pope and his hierarchy. and setting aside
the Medieval Church Orders, did not in the least reject a
ministerial order and seek to abolish the Ministry as an
institution in the Christian Church.... they believed in its
immense importance and divine sanction" (Ainslie, pp.2,5).
I am going to suggest that the evidence from history reveals
the swallowing up of a functioning priesthood of believers
by the exaltation of this "ministerial order" in the
Reformed tradition. It was among the Anabaptists that a more
Biblical emphasis on mutual ministry surfaced (Snyder,
pp.35-36).
First of all, we must understand that territorial and
political considerations were wrapped up in the institution
of the Reformed ministerial order (Ainslie, pp.16,6O). Just
as the Protestants ended up instituting their national
churches in competition with the established Romish
churches, so the Reformed ministerial order was specifically
implemented to take the place of the Papal church order
(Ainslie, pp.11,41,56). I believe that reckoning with this
point helps us to see that, once the Papal order was
rejected, a potential vacuum was left. This vacuum was
filled by the "ministerial order." Whether or not this order
was the right answer is for us to determine in the light of
Scripture.
Next, we must see that in the 17th century treatises on
church life, two clear trends emerge. These trends are seen
in two of the major works on church government by John Owen
and Thomas Goodwin. The first trend was an exaltation of
"officers." Owen saw "the due performance of the duties"
Christ required "brought into this estate by the setting,
fixing, or placing officers in it'' (True Nature, p.41; Cf.
p.99 where a thriving church life is connected to "a
multiplication of elders"). Thomas Goodwin identifies
officers as the "furniture" of a house, and thus "when you
have officers and ordinances dispensed by them, then you
have a further presence, He will come down oftener amongst
you. The more of ordinances, the more of Christ; the more
officers, the more of ordinances" (Works, Vol.11, p.311,
emphasis mine). This emphasis on officers, as Ainslie
observed, has "largely persisted to the present day" (p.15;
cf. p.34).
Of course, there is an importance placed on officers in the
N.T. But, in light of all the emphasis we have seen on
mutual ministry in the Epistles, the space given to
"officers" in Reformed treatises must be designated as
inordinate.
This brings us to the second discerable [sic] trend. With
all the emphasis on "officers," the 17th century treatises
on the church have virtually nothing on the "each of
you"/"one another" ministries in the local church. Out of
546 pages on church order, Goodwin has six pages on
"communion of saints." In John Owen's True Nature of A
Gospel Church, he alludes to mutual ministry just a few
times (pp.45,93; a four-page sermon on "The Mutual Care of
Believers Over One Another" appears in his Works, Vol.16,
pp.477-480, where he begins by seeing the church as
"compacted together by officers and ordinances"; and in
Vol.13, pp.19-49, he carefully delimits what "ordinary,"
"uncalled" [to the "ministry"] believers may do as
''priests'').
I think it is proper to make the general observation that
the post-Reformation tradition, with its almost exclusive
emphasis on "officers," had the practical effect of stifling
a functioning priesthood of believers. It is important for
us to realize, therefore, that we have been heavily
influenced by this "officer"-oriented tradition, and that
the N.T. data calls for a close scrutiny of that tradition.
Just how this tradition has ill-effected [sic] us I hope
will become more evident as we proceed.
-
Four-Office View
Arising out of this "officer"-orientation came a more
specific focus on the one man called the "pastor." There
emerged in the Reformed tradition a four-office view. The
"pastor," the "doctor," the "ruling elders," and the
"deacons" were conceived of as the expression of church
order (cf. "A True Description...," pp.198-199; "The Form of
Presbyterial Church Government," pp.209-214). Let us briefly
consider each one, and then come back to expand on the
office of "pastor."
-
"The "Doctor"
The "doctor" was made equivalent to the "teacher"
mentioned in Eph.4:11 and 1Cor.12:28. The "doctor" was
distinguished from the "pastor" in that the former was
more facile in doctrinal matters, while the latter was
more apt in practical matters ("Presbyterial Church
Gov't," p.213). Here, we have the basic rationale for
seminary professors, as the Westminster Divines stated
that this "doctor is of most excellent use in schools
and universities" (Ibid., p.213).
-
The "Ruling Elders"
These are men who "join with the minister ["pastor"] in
the government of the church" (Ibid., p.214). Thus, the
office of elder was divided up, based mainly on an
arbitrary interpretation of I Tim.5:17, into the
"teaching/ruling" elder (the "pastor" who labors in the
Word), and "ruling elders." I say this use of I Tim.5:17
is arbitrary because it introduces an artificial
distinction among elders. All elders must be "apt to
teach," and all elders are to "rule." To be sure, there
is in I Tim.5:17 a distinction among the elders. But it
is a distinction of comparative time given, not a
distinction of office. The ones who labor in the Word
are part of a broader body of elders, all of whom are
potentially worthy of financial support. There is in the
text no warrant to elevate one man as the "pastor" (who
is supported financially) and separate him from the
other "elders." E.W. Johnson sums up the matter this
way: "A church cannot be taught except it be ruled. and
a church cannot be ruled except it be taught.... I do
not believe in a distinction between ruling elders and
teaching elders" (Sovereign Grace Message, July, 1977,
p.4: cf. BRR, Vol.7, #2, p.30). Our practice would
translate I Tim.5: 17, "Let the elders who rule assist
the fully-supported pastor who teaches and rules." Here
again, we can see how the elevation of the "pastor" not
only stifles the general priesthood, it also stifles the
proper functioning of the eldership. The "ruling elders"
become simply the "long arms" of the "pastor" (Ainslie,
pp.63-64).
-
The "Deacons"
The deacons are to care for the material aspects of
church life. But the Westminster Divines made it clear
that the deacons were "not to preach the word, or
administer the sacraments" ("Form," p.214). Such
dogmatism is in contradiction with the ministry of
"deacon" Philip (Acts 6:2-5), who both preached publicly
and baptized many people (Acts 8:5,12).
-
The "Pastor"
In contrast to the N.T. focus on mutual ministry, the
Puritans focused on the "pastor." Owen confidently
asserted that "on this office ["pastor"] and the
discharge of it He hath laid the whole weight of the
order, rule, and edification of His church" (True
Nature. p.55). Remember, he is not saying on the
plurality of eldership rests the rule of the church. It
is upon the one man who occupies the separate office of
"pastor." Since our practice generally corresponds with
this notion, we must reflect upon this question: where
in the N.T. can we demonstrate that the edification of
the church has been committed to the ministry of one
part of the body, especially it, light of
1Cor.12:14,19,31 and Heb.10:24-25?
What authority, privileges and duties were attached to the
office of "pastor"? Much detail will be given here in order to
show that this one-man centrality effectively squelched the
priesthood of believers. If all edification is attributed to one
source, then the many members, practically speaking, have no
function. They become passive recipients, not active priests.
-
"The Power of the Keys"
First, to the "pastor" alone was given "the power of the
keys" (Ainslie, pp.61,66). These "keys" were exercised "by
preaching and carrying out Church Discipline" (Ainslie,
p.67). Thus, "only ministers... were to preach publicly"
(Ainslie, p.69). When preaching, they usually wore a black
gown (Ibid., p.37). The act of one man preaching the Word
became the focal point of the church gatherings (Ibid.,
pp.49,59). It is no wonder, then, that "in the interior of a
Protestant Church, the pulpit has always been the principal
piece of furniture" (Ibid., quoting Dr. Pannier, p.50). But
we must ask: in 1Cor.14 is a singular or multiple ministry
emphasized? Where in the N.T. can we observe "that the acts
of worship were grouped around the pulpit as the most
important centre of the church" (Ibid., p.51)? Preaching in
the Reformed tradition, notes Ainslie, "became something of
a sacramental act and greater than the sacramental symbols
of the Communion" (p.52).
Discipline came to be noncentralized in the hands of the
"pastor," for obvious reasons (Ibid., pp.73-74).
Nevertheless, in practice the "pastor" came to dominate in
the disciplinary procedure (Ibid., pp.76-77,85,87-88). The
reason the "pastor was so dominant in the worship service
was because they believed he had a special "ministry unto
edification" (Owen. True Nature, pp.42,55) which was given
to no one else. For example, Goodwin observed that the
edification of the church was extremely important, "for
there is a fulness of stature appointed, and every member
must grow up unto it before it [sic] goes to heaven" (Works,
Vol.11, p.300). But he viewed this edification process as
coming through "officers," not through one "another" (Ibid.,
pp.311-312). Interestingly, and perhaps expectedly, Goodwin
must, in pressing home the need for the "pastor," deny the
sufficiency of the Spirit-anointing each believer possesses
(1 John 2:20,27).
By these officers he buildeth the house more and more....
The more ordinances, the more of Christ; the more of
officers, the more of ordinances.... Because the church is
under age [Eph.4:13] therefore she is to have these officers
over her until she comes to a perfect man, and to the full
stature. And children under age, now as well as then, are to
be under tutors and governors, Gal.4:2... he contented not
himself to have them enjoy such occasional means as the
brethren in communion were able to afford each other... but
he would farther have men of the best and eminentest gifts
set apart usually unto it.... Yea, further, the apostle
otherwise intimates. that without men being set apart unto
it. there would be no preserving of knowledge, but the
ordinary sort of believers would have been exposed to the
danger of being carried away by seducers.... for ordinary
sort of believers, being children not fully grown up, would
easily have been seduced, if they had not had guides.... if
this business had been in common left to the common care of
every member watching over each other, there would have been
a defect (Works, Vol.11, pp.310-314).
You can see how there is here a functional disdain for the
mutual ministries, but an all-sufficiency attributed to one
man's ministry.
-
"Administer the Sacraments"
Not only was the "pastor" the only one who could preach
publicly, but he was also the only one who could "administer
the sacraments" (Owen, True Nature, p.68; Ainslie,
pp.56,63,65; Owen, Works, Vol.13, p.43; Goodwin, Works,
Vol.11, p.309). Now I believe that it is in order for the
elders to oversee the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's
Supper in the local church. But I have a real problem with
this idea that "pastors" are the exclusive "dispenser's of
the sacraments." The background of this idea that only
certain men are qualified to administer the ordinances of
the church is very suspect, and reeks of magical notions
about the elements (cf. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and
Their Stepchildren, pp.154-158). From reading the N.T., you
would get the impression that the Lord's Supper was a meal
shared among the brethren, lot something to be formally
"administered.''
-
"Read the Scriptures Publicly"
The Westminster Divines taught that only the "pastor" could
read the Scriptures publicly ("Form," p.210). Three Old
Testament contexts are cited as proof "that the public
reading of the Scriptures belongeth to the pastor's office."
Obviously, the man to occupy this exalted office of "pastor"
must have distinctive qualifications. After Owen outlined
the duties of the "pastor," it is not surprising that he
exclaims, "what learning, labour, study, pains, ability and
exercise of the rational faculties, are ordinarily required
unto the right discharge of these duties" (True Nature,
p.70). More to the point are the "rules for examination" of
potential ministers drawn up by the Westminster Divines:
He shall be examined touching his skill in the original
tongues, and his trial to be made by reading the Hebrew
and Greek Testaments.
|
