---------------------
The author makes an attempt to explain church leadership, and uses the Bible to justify his church's tradition regarding the pastor position. Because of this he assumes that elder means pastor, and the on staff paid pastor is the head of the local church.
However, the traditional church leadership model of a singular chief leader is not biblical. This is what the author advocates, and this is Bad Bible Teaching.
----------------------------
Ben Robin is a staff pastor of Trinity River Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.
I was sitting at the dinner table. We had just finished family worship that evening. My wife and I were talking about inviting “the elders” over to our house the next week. My five-year-old daughter asked, “Who are the elders?” I said, “They’re the pastors of our church. Elder is another word for pastor.” (The author describes himself as "staff pastor." Are these elders also "staff pastors?" In what capacity do they function? Are they paid staff? Are they co-equal with him as the "staff pastor?" These questions will not be answered.)
But is that true? Did I lie to my daughter? (Yes, probably.)
In this article, I’ll argue that every elder is a pastor (The author will use the term "pastor" nearly forty times but will always presume it means the chief leader.)
Note the break in the narrative. Was Paul continuing in his description of elders, or did he change subjects to overseers? Since Peter [1Pe. 5:2] seems to say that elders should aspire to be overseers, then maybe Paul was telling Titus the same thing.)
This is also why Paul includes “shepherds and teachers” in his list of gifts that the ascended Christ gives to his church for the sake of her maturity (Eph. 4:11–16). If someone wants to argue that this gives us grounds for a distinction between pastor as office and pastor as gift, then they’d have to reckon with the fact that the person is the gift in the text, not a function or activity of that person. (??? What does this mean? Since the author has not explained the term "office," why should we be concerned about function versus title?)
Pastoring is tied to the person in the role or office. The function of a pastor or shepherd—to lead, feed, and protect—is tied to the office of elder/overseer (Acts 20:28). That’s why elders “shepherd” or pastor the flock of God. In the New Testament, the relationship between the terms “elder” and “pastor” is entirely interchangeable and reversible, just like the terms “overseer” and “elder.” A pastor simply is an overseeing elder. (Whoa. Now that is a howler. Not only does the author want the pastor to be an elder/overseer/teacher, he wants him to the big dog on the eldership. There is no biblical justification whatsoever for this assertion.)
Application
If what I have argued above about the full interchangeability of pastor and elder and overseer holds true according to the Scriptures, then a few important implications follow.
First, we should not use the title “pastor” for someone, whether on church staff or not, who is not also an elder as recognized by the congregation. Additionally, we should not call anyone “pastor” if they don’t meet the biblical qualifications, such as men who fail to meet the qualifications or women who cannot meet the qualifications (1 Tim. 2:11–12). (We discuss this passage in detail here.)
Positively, we should treat non-staff (or lay) elders (Ohhh, so here we have it. Elders must be on staff [i.e. paid] in order to be be real elders. These real elders are pastors and teachers, but the "lay" elders are lower tier.
Ben Robin is a staff pastor of Trinity River Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.
I was sitting at the dinner table. We had just finished family worship that evening. My wife and I were talking about inviting “the elders” over to our house the next week. My five-year-old daughter asked, “Who are the elders?” I said, “They’re the pastors of our church. Elder is another word for pastor.” (The author describes himself as "staff pastor." Are these elders also "staff pastors?" In what capacity do they function? Are they paid staff? Are they co-equal with him as the "staff pastor?" These questions will not be answered.)
But is that true? Did I lie to my daughter? (Yes, probably.)
In this article, I’ll argue that every elder is a pastor (The author will use the term "pastor" nearly forty times but will always presume it means the chief leader.)
and every pastor is a bishop (or overseer).1 In particular, I want to make a case from Scripture (Yes, from Scripture.)
for why we should understand that these three terms refer to the same office. (The author will use the word "office" nearly 20 times but never define it. He will also make a distinction between the "office" and the gift, but never explain how this works, where it's found in the Bible, or how it plays out in a church setting.)
My argument moves along three steps. First, every elder is an overseer. Second, there are two ongoing offices in the church (i.e. elders and deacons). (Waaiit. These are the only "offices?" The author will later appeal to this verse:
Ep. 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers...
We count five, and deacons are not found on this list.)
Third, a common function implies a common office. (We do not determine doctrines from what is implied.)
Therefore, elders are pastors are overseers.
No Elder, No Overseer
According to the New Testament, every elder is an overseer. In Acts 20:17, Paul gathers “the elders of the church” in Ephesus for his farewell address. The central thrust of his counsel to them is found in Acts 20:28: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” What are the elders to do? Care for and watch over themselves and the whole flock. Why? Because the Holy Spirit has appointed them as overseers in the church. The elders are the overseers. (So far, so good...
No Elder, No Overseer
According to the New Testament, every elder is an overseer. In Acts 20:17, Paul gathers “the elders of the church” in Ephesus for his farewell address. The central thrust of his counsel to them is found in Acts 20:28: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” What are the elders to do? Care for and watch over themselves and the whole flock. Why? Because the Holy Spirit has appointed them as overseers in the church. The elders are the overseers. (So far, so good...
Or, we might suggest that not all elders are appointed to be overseers, but they should aspire to this:
1Pe. 5:2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve...
Notice that Peter exhorted the elders of this church to be shepherds and overseers. We can only assume that being an elder did not automatically include being a shepherd or an overseer.)
Not only that, but later in his life, Paul wrote to Titus about his task to care for the churches on the island of Crete. In Titus 1:5, Paul gives Titus his standing orders: “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” There were churches in Crete, but they weren’t in order, according to Paul. There were true churches, but they weren’t healthy churches because they didn’t have elders leading them. Paul goes on in Titus 1:6–9 to give qualifications for these elders. Because if Titus is going to fulfill his task, he’ll need to know which people to look for. (Still doing good...)
Paul’s first qualification is that an elder must be “above reproach” (Titus 1:6). He lists other aspects of an elder’s character, but he repeats the first one. Importantly, in the middle of a longer list of qualifications for elders, Paul says, “for an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach” (Titus 1:7). How was Titus to put these churches into order? Appoint elders or overseers who must be above reproach. Paul uses the two terms interchangeably. (Maybe, maybe not. The author assumes his perspective is true, but we simply want to look at what is written without preconceptions.
Not only that, but later in his life, Paul wrote to Titus about his task to care for the churches on the island of Crete. In Titus 1:5, Paul gives Titus his standing orders: “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” There were churches in Crete, but they weren’t in order, according to Paul. There were true churches, but they weren’t healthy churches because they didn’t have elders leading them. Paul goes on in Titus 1:6–9 to give qualifications for these elders. Because if Titus is going to fulfill his task, he’ll need to know which people to look for. (Still doing good...)
Paul’s first qualification is that an elder must be “above reproach” (Titus 1:6). He lists other aspects of an elder’s character, but he repeats the first one. Importantly, in the middle of a longer list of qualifications for elders, Paul says, “for an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach” (Titus 1:7). How was Titus to put these churches into order? Appoint elders or overseers who must be above reproach. Paul uses the two terms interchangeably. (Maybe, maybe not. The author assumes his perspective is true, but we simply want to look at what is written without preconceptions.
Let's quote:
The reason I left you in Crete was that you would set in order what was unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, having children who are believers and who are not open to accusation of indiscretion or insubordination.
As God’s steward, an overseer must be above reproach—not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not greedy for money. Instead, he must be hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the faithful word as it was taught, so that he can encourage others by sound teaching and refute those who contradict it.
Note the break in the narrative. Was Paul continuing in his description of elders, or did he change subjects to overseers? Since Peter [1Pe. 5:2] seems to say that elders should aspire to be overseers, then maybe Paul was telling Titus the same thing.)
If a church doesn’t have any elders, then it doesn’t have any overseers. No overseer means no elder because the two terms refer to the same office. ("Office.")
Two Offices, Not Three
According to the New Testament, there are two offices in the church, not three. (The author restates his assertion.)
According to the New Testament, there are two offices in the church, not three. (The author restates his assertion.)
The Scriptural qualifications show this as well. In 1 Timothy 3:1–13, Paul only gives qualifications for two different groups of people: overseers (or elders) and deacons. Qualifications imply offices, just like responsibilities and privileges form job descriptions. ("Office.")
Not only that, but in his letter to a church in Philippi, Paul writes “to all the saints,” including “the overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). It would be quite odd for him to leave out the pastors if he’s writing to “all the saints in Christ Jesus,” especially since he outlines the two offices, qualifications and all, in his other letter. (?? This is an strange argument. Why would the author think it odd to leave out pastors unless one presumes that pastors are part of the leadership?
Not only that, but in his letter to a church in Philippi, Paul writes “to all the saints,” including “the overseers and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). It would be quite odd for him to leave out the pastors if he’s writing to “all the saints in Christ Jesus,” especially since he outlines the two offices, qualifications and all, in his other letter. (?? This is an strange argument. Why would the author think it odd to leave out pastors unless one presumes that pastors are part of the leadership?
Indeed, Paul didn't mention evangelists either. Should we consider that odd as well?)
A careful reader of 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9 may also notice that the list of qualifications is virtually identical. So, if you say a pastor is not an elder, then you risk loosening the connection between overseer and elder as well.
If you want “pastor” to be a New Testament office in any sense, ("Office.")
If you want “pastor” to be a New Testament office in any sense, ("Office.")
then you’ll need to decide if pastor goes in the elder bucket or the deacon bucket. There’s no other option in the New Testament. (What about neither bucket? Why does the author presume that a pastor "office" belongs among the leadership?)
Common Function, Common Office
Finally, a common function implies a common office. ("Office.")
Finally, a common function implies a common office. ("Office.")
Considering roles according to responsibilities or duties is the way we mark off one office from another. This isn’t merely corporate enterprise-speak in ecclesiological dress. Consider the story of the Bible from the perspective of shepherd leadership.2
Israel’s leaders failed to shepherd God’s flock. Ezekiel’s condemnation of the wicked shepherd-leaders is as striking as it is stirring (Ezek. 34:1–10). Perhaps most terribly, the wicked shepherds failed to feed the sheep, and instead fed only themselves (Ezek. 34:2, 8). Thus, the Lord God himself would come in search of his sheep as their Good Shepherd (Ezek. 34:11; cf. Ps. 23, John 10:1–18).
Remarkably, one of the promises of the new covenant is that God will give his people faithful shepherds. The Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah, “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:15). Notice, the main job of a shepherd is to feed the sheep, but the metaphor has meaning only if it is spiritual, not physical. Christ’s shepherds feed his people with “knowledge and understanding,” just as Jeremiah said and just as the Lord Jesus himself did (cf. Mark 6:34).
If you want to be a good shepherd, you have to be able to feed the people of God on the Word of God. (Certainly. However, the author jumps to the conclusion that this means the pastor preaches sermons.)
Remarkably, one of the promises of the new covenant is that God will give his people faithful shepherds. The Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah, “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:15). Notice, the main job of a shepherd is to feed the sheep, but the metaphor has meaning only if it is spiritual, not physical. Christ’s shepherds feed his people with “knowledge and understanding,” just as Jeremiah said and just as the Lord Jesus himself did (cf. Mark 6:34).
If you want to be a good shepherd, you have to be able to feed the people of God on the Word of God. (Certainly. However, the author jumps to the conclusion that this means the pastor preaches sermons.)
This biblical theology of pastors (or shepherds) gives us one significant and clear reason why Paul included “able to teach” as the only distinct competency for the office of elder or overseer. (The shaky chain of logic is that since elders must be able to teach, and pastors are elders, that pastors are the teachers because that is feeding the flock.
That's a lot of supposition.)
Elders must “teach” the Word in order to fulfill their job description (1 Tim. 5:17, 2 Tim. 4:2). In fact, that’s how elders “shepherd” or pastor the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2). Whoa, wait. Let's quote again:
1Pe. 5:2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve...
There is no mention of teaching here.)
This is also why Paul includes “shepherds and teachers” in his list of gifts that the ascended Christ gives to his church for the sake of her maturity (Eph. 4:11–16). If someone wants to argue that this gives us grounds for a distinction between pastor as office and pastor as gift, then they’d have to reckon with the fact that the person is the gift in the text, not a function or activity of that person. (??? What does this mean? Since the author has not explained the term "office," why should we be concerned about function versus title?)
The pastor is the gift, not the pastoring. If the function of a pastor is teaching, (The author has not demonstrated that this is the function of pastor.
Further, teaching is a spiritual gift:
Ro. 12:6-7 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach...
The author seems to be attempting to prop up the pastor as the CEO at the top of the church pyramid, making him some sort of uniquely gifted spiritual superman.)
then pastor is synonymous with elder because elder is the teaching office. (Where does the Bible tell us this? "Able to teach" is not establishing an office, it is describing a qualification.
And we still haven't even learned what an office is. If there is a "pastor" office, why isn't there a "teaching" office, plus three more offices? Again:
Ep. 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers...
Now, Paul does tell us these five are for the purpose of maturing the saints into the Body. This implies a ministry role, but it may or may not be leadership. Also, the author would need to explain how the other four offices come to bear on the leadership equation.)
Teaching as an authoritative function differs from other gifts in the New Testament, such as administration, for example. (Why?
And by the way, the author made a big deal out of the pastor position feeding the flock is the gift, but now he admits that teaching is a gift.)
Oversight and teaching give shape to the shepherd’s pastoral job description. (Which the author has yet to establish.)
Or, as Jonathan Leeman recently put it, “Rule is definitional to shepherding.”
Pastoring is tied to the person in the role or office. The function of a pastor or shepherd—to lead, feed, and protect—is tied to the office of elder/overseer (Acts 20:28). That’s why elders “shepherd” or pastor the flock of God. In the New Testament, the relationship between the terms “elder” and “pastor” is entirely interchangeable and reversible, just like the terms “overseer” and “elder.” A pastor simply is an overseeing elder. (Whoa. Now that is a howler. Not only does the author want the pastor to be an elder/overseer/teacher, he wants him to the big dog on the eldership. There is no biblical justification whatsoever for this assertion.)
Application
If what I have argued above about the full interchangeability of pastor and elder and overseer holds true according to the Scriptures, then a few important implications follow.
First, we should not use the title “pastor” for someone, whether on church staff or not, who is not also an elder as recognized by the congregation. Additionally, we should not call anyone “pastor” if they don’t meet the biblical qualifications, such as men who fail to meet the qualifications or women who cannot meet the qualifications (1 Tim. 2:11–12). (We discuss this passage in detail here.)
Positively, we should treat non-staff (or lay) elders (Ohhh, so here we have it. Elders must be on staff [i.e. paid] in order to be be real elders. These real elders are pastors and teachers, but the "lay" elders are lower tier.
Now the author has descended into false teaching.)
as full pastors ("Full?" What are partial pastors?)
and be careful of common terms we use for them. New Testament plurality presupposes basic parity and equal authority for those in the office of pastor or elder. It can be easy, even in healthy churches, to use “pastor” for the staff elder and “elder” for the non-staff elder. (The author's biblical documentation has disappeared.)
But varying the terms helps teach the congregation that no fundamental difference exists in authority. (What does this mean? Is the author saying that there is no fundamental difference in authority between the "office" of elder and a "lay" elder? But using different terms for them assists the congregation? What?
This is astonishing. The author invents a category of non-leader leaders called "lay" elders, and it's important for the congregation to know there's a distinction between them, but does not tell us what this might be or why it's crucial.
What a nightmare.)
In fact, young men who aspire to the office of overseer might even find the itch they have is scratched by serving in lay eldership. Because, according to the Bible, an elder simply is a pastor. (But one of those "kay" elder/pastor/teachers is the boss man, hmm?)
1 . The term “bishop” comes from the Greek word episkopos through the Latin language and into English, though Bible translations today often use “overseer” to render it. Bishop and overseer are exactly the same thing in the original language of the New Testament.
2 . For a beautiful biblical theology of the shepherd metaphor for leadership in the Bible, see Timothy S. Laniak, Shepherds After My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible. You’ll need to understand that “shepherd” and “pastor” are two different words for the same thing. “Pastor” comes into English from the Latin and Anglo-Norman French word for feeding or grazing, similar to our word “pasture.” “Shepherd” or “feeder” or “herdsman” are legitimate translations of the Latin word pastor.
No comments:
Post a Comment