Saturday, November 10, 2012

Ecclesiology and Hierarchy

I really wanted to do this post about another topic altogether, that being pastor search committees and their place in the church.  However, I realized before I could do a post on search committees I would first need to explain the proper role and function of a pastor.  After all, how could we form a committee to search for a pastor if we do not know what a pastor is?  And then I realized that before I could even speak to what a pastor is I would need to lay out some ground work on basic church ecclesiology in general with a specific examination of the hierarchical structure of the church.

Everyone with me so far?  No?  Oh, well I guess I should explain some of the words I'm throwing around so we can all be on the same page then.

What do I mean by ecclesiology?  Well, ecclesiology is basically a fancy term for the structure of the church. I'm sure that's about as clear as mud, so let me explain it a little further.  Ecclesiology is the study of what the church as a body or group should look like.  So ecclesiology addresses questions such as who can be a member of the church, should the church have certain rules, can the church kick someone out, who is the head of the church, how should authority be concentrated in the church, etc.  All those questions that people tend to think aren't really very important until their church goes and does something crazy like try and replace the carpet because the deacons thought it would be good to go with pile carpeting instead of shag are basically covered in ecclesiology.

And, because I'm using the term a little different than others, I want to take a minute to define "hierarchy" as well.  What I mean by hierarchy is really just the issue of roles and authority.  I do not mean to intimate that there is necessarily someone who is higher up the chain of command in a church, but rather what roles are there and who fills those roles.  The issue of roles may very well mean that someone is higher up the chain of command than someone else, for instance the Catholic Church is very much organized with different levels of command.  In other churches, such as some Baptist churches, the pastor may have very little to no real authority outside of his preaching, teaching, and visitation (we'll act like it's the same thing as counseling, but we won't use that term so that people don't get all flustered thinking their pastor is judging their psychiatric state).

So, here's the million dollar question (And since I'm going to answer it, you can feel free to send me a million dollars. No, really.): Does the bible contain instructions on ecclesiology that are binding on all churches in all times and in all places?

Some people argue that the bible does not contain instructions on ecclesiology, or at least the instructions are flexible.  That is to say, if the bible does not explicitly forbid something then that must mean it is okay.  This argument basically says that while God has given the Christian some instructions (for instance the basic qualifications for deacons and pastors) these instructions will look different in differing social and cultural contexts.  Whether we have one pastor or two, whether the pastor is the sole decision maker in the church or whether the deacons make the decisions, these are all cultural questions left up to each church if this argument is correct.

But, the other side of the argument is that the bible contains explicit instructions on church make up.  That is to say that God has voiced a definite order for the church and the church is only healthy when it conforms to that order.  If this argument is correct then that means the role and function of a deacon is described in the New Testament and to add to or modify the responsibilities of those who serve as deacons is not the right of the churches, for God designed the body and only he has the right to say how each part should function.  This position says that roles such as pastor and deacon are not culturally determined and do not change based on social context.

Now, I've divided the arguments rather woodenly, the fact is that both sides would agree there must be some cultural adaptation, and there must be some absolutes that do not change.  Every church agrees that this is true, and it is necessary to accept this to even have church.  For instance whereas a Reformed Baptist and a Traditional Presbyterian church would both agree on issues such as election, the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, and many other issues as well.  These two churches may agree on eschatology, soteriology, Christology, theology, and pneumatology, but they will disagree on ecclesiology.  For the Presbyterian the covenantal nature of the church indicates that the children of the covenant people are part of the body, for the Baptist the regenerate nature of the church indicates that only professing believers should be a part of the body.  This is an ecclesiological difference that results in a situation where the two would be hard pressed to worship together because they would see the body of Christ very differently.  (Which is why we have Baptists and Presbyterians today.)

So, why do I say that everyone agrees there must be some cultural adaptation?  Simply because it is true.  There are fringe groups who say that churches are not mentioned in the New Testament, therefore Christians should only meet in homes and the only valid churches are house churches.  However, most Christians agree that there is no prohibition against building churches and that the development of church buildings set aside as specific meeting places is a natural and acceptable development based on the way Christianity has grown throughout the centuries.  Likewise we do not see guitars, organs, snare drums or didgeridoos mentioned anywhere in the bible as musical instruments available for use in worship, yet most Christians would agree such instruments are perfectly acceptable. (I really have no intention of arguing for what most people already agree on.)

Okay, so we have to have some cultural adaptation.  It would be nearly impossible to practice Christianity without cultural adaptation in some way.  I don't speak Greek and would have a hard time understanding a pastor who only gave his sermons in Greek.  In fact I don't even understand Koine Greek well enough to be able to follow someone reading the Greek New Testament without pausing fairly often to interpret it so I can understand.  (And that's reading, just listening is harder still.)

So, to go back to our million dollar question (got that check book out yet?): Are there rules given on ecclesiological structure that are non-negotiable?  To this question I believe we can give a firm and absolute, "Yes!"  In fact I think not only that there are definite rules on ecclesiology, but that the vast majority of churches today are in violation of those rules.  I will address what churches should look like, starting with hierarchy, but from this point on I want to make clear that I am addressing this from a very particular view.  I am a Baptist, by choice and tradition both.  I am not going to make the argument for why a Baptist ecclesiology is right and any other ecclesiology is wrong.  I am going to begin with the assumption of a Baptist ecclesiology and build from there.  There will be significant overlap with all churches who agree to a regenerate membership only, and there will be significant overlap with other traditions as well, but I am not here going to lay out why the Baptist ecclesiology is right.  Thus the applications from this point on will be somewhat more limited depending on whether you are examining other non-Baptist traditions (the majority of Christianity).

So, from a baptist perspective, what can we say about the hierarchy, that is the defined roles and positions within the church?  And what evidence can we find in Scripture to show us whether these roles are non-negotiable or culturally dependent?

First, let us address pastors.  The term "pastor" is not used in the New Testament.  However, the terms "Elder" and "Overseer" are used.  In the ESV the term "Elder" is used in the New Testament in the following places: Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1:1; and 3 John 1:1.  The term overseer is used in: 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25.  So, what can we learn about these two terms from these passages?

The first thing we see is that it appears that "elder" and "overseer" are interchangeable, depending on context.  So Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17 that elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.  Without going into the issue of "ruling elders" vs. "preaching and teaching elders" we can see that all elders were expected to "rule" in some sense.  In the context the only thing they could be ruling over would be the church.  In 1 Timothy 3:5 we see that overseers are to be those who "care for God's church" in the same context as people who "manage" their own households.  Thus the overseer is to be one who manages the church.  Finally in Titus 1:7 we see that Paul says an overseer is God's steward.  Thus the overseer and the elder are the same thing: those who manage or rule the church, given to teaching and preaching the word of God and caring for his people.

But, we see more than just that.  If we look closely at 1 Peter 5:5 we see something more.  Throughout 1 Peter the term "elders" is used, mostly in the plural.  Now, the letter itself was a circular letter, that is it was intended to be read by many churches.  In many cases the term could be plural because Peter was speaking to multiple churches and wanted to make sure that everyone understood he was speaking to all churches, not just one elder who was in one of the churches.  However, in 1 Peter 5:5 we see that Peter says, "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders."  This indicates that Peter was assuming that each church would have multiple elders.  Peter could easily have said, "you who are younger be subject to your elder" if he intended to indicate that each church should have one and only one elder.  By stating that the "younger" should be subject to the "elders" he assumes there are multiple "elders" each "younger" person should be subject to.  Likewise in Acts 14:23 we see that Paul and Barnabas appointed "elders" in "each church."  Explicitly in Acts we see the idea that there are multiple elders being appointed in "each church."

What's my point?  Well, the indication in Scripture is that the proper ecclesiology for a church, when we are discussing pastors/elders/overseers/bishops (yes the term "bishop" is a valid interpretation as well) is that there should be more than one in most churches.  On top of that, the role for an elder is fairly well defined: they are the shepherds, overseers, rulers, and stewards of God for the church.  The elder is to preach and teach, to visit the sick, to care for God's people, to counsel, and to watch over the church in general.

But wait, there's more!  Not only is the office well defined, and not only do we see indications that it is expected that multiple elders would be over most churches, but the qualifications are well defined too!  Paul tells Timothy and Titus both exactly what they should be looking for in an elder.  Paul doesn't say things like: "He must have a degree in theology, have at least 5 years experience as a leader in another congregation, be between 35-45 years old, be creative in his preaching, smile when he speaks, and be a good problem solver."  Paul gives an explicit list containing the attributes that God says are the qualifications for an elder, and none of the ones I listed above are on that list.

Yes, and? Okay, if we add any additional qualifications to an elder, for instance saying he cannot drink at all, or he cannot smoke at all, or he cannot wear tennis shoes, or he has to have a certain accent, what we are saying is that God's list is not sufficient for our church.  We are saying that though God gave a list of qualities for what we should be looking for in a pastor, we know better than God who would fit in our church.  We can justify this in any way we want, but that's what we are saying.  If we accept that God is the sovereign ruler of his church then we must also accept that anyone who meets his qualifications should be allowed to serve as the overseer of his church, even if that person isn't who we would have thought would be the best fit.

Our justifications (for instance saying, "Well the older people in our community won't accept a pastor who drinks a beer with his steak") do not hold muster when compared to the light of Scripture.  If we say only a certain man who meets a list of 50 qualifications can lead our church and grow it because of our local community, what we are saying is that the growth of the church is not dependent on the gospel or on God's adding people daily, but rather upon us having the right man who will speak with the right vocabulary and be eloquent enough to convince people to join.  This goes against everything we see in Scripture.

Most of our churches do not have a biblical ecclesiology when it comes to this first rung of hierarchy.  Most churches have one pastor.  In many churches the deacons are actually the rulers of the church.  In churches that have multiple pastors usually one is the "Senior" pastor and the others are "associates," having no real authority but to advise and carry out the orders of the "Senior pastor".  We do not see such divisions in Scripture, but rather see all elders treated equally, and held to the same standards.  If we would worship God rightly and expect him to bless us, we should first begin by aligning the body of God with his word, after all, what is the worship of our mouths if we deny his word with how we live?

A couple of additional (and better laid out) arguments on the issue of plurality of elders:

From a Southern Baptist Perspective

And another SBC perspective making the argument

No comments:

Post a Comment