A Response to “Pagan Christianity?”
3.6 Chapter 5 Review – The Pastor: Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning
Viola and Barna are particularly fixated on the necessity of what they call “every-member functioning”, by which they mean that every church member must be free to contribute spontaneously with a song, teaching, or prophecy in the church meeting and that all have equal right to involvement in any aspect of church ministry and operation. They draw this principle from a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the New Testament concept of the priesthood of all believers. In its traditional meaning, this is a robustly biblical doctrine founded upon passages such as 1 Peter 2:9:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.
These passages are usually understood to mean that Christians do not need to approach God through any merely human mediator. There is no special priestly class of Christian with more direct access to God. Rather, each one of us has equal, direct access to the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit.[1] The New Testament pastor has no unique spiritual status that is not shared with the rest of the congregation. This certainly does have implications for the function of each believer in the church and may well include the idea that we ought to minister to one another in various ways. At the same time, it has been traditionally acknowledged that Scripture also recognises different giftings for service and that God appoints different offices in the church, with unique functions and responsibilities. We may be all equal in spiritual status before God in Christ, but we each have different roles or functions. Sadly, the recent history of the church witnesses to many distortions of this doctrine, where it is used to deny any structure of authority or differentiation of roles in the church to suit modern, individualistic egalitarianism.[2] Viola and Barna stand as yet another example of this disastrously unbiblical way of thinking.
With this worldview, it is unsurprising that Viola and Barna take issue with the traditional Christian understanding of the pastoral office. Their objections are often muddled and unclear. They understand there should be multiple pastors in the church. Well and good: that is standard Reformed practice. But they deny that “pastor”[3] is an office in the church, but only a descriptive term for a particular function performed by different people. In a footnote, they write: “Ordination to office presupposes a static and definable church leadership role that did not exist in the apostolic churches.” Their understanding is that the early church had “no official leadership”. They think that in the first century, certain individuals would simply come to exercise leadership functions over time (“organically”), and might have occasionally been publicly endorsed or recognised by the Apostles as elders/pastors/overseers. Thus, they reject any notion of ordination. The main problem with ordination, they say, is that it creates a “clergy/laity distinction” that makes some Christians “more privileged” than others. They say, “the pastoral office has stolen your right to function as a full member of Christ’s body”.
I will admit, I find their attitude here frankly appalling. Recognising that God appoints different “official” offices in the church does not mean some Christians are more privileged than others. We are not all called to be leaders and teachers. The Christian has no right to be envious of the gifts and calling of others (1 Corinthians 12). But all of this confusion can be settled by the clear teaching of Scripture, to which we will now turn.
First, we find the biblical teaching is that elders were appointed to their role, not merely “recognised” after an extended period of unofficial leadership. In Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in every church” (Acts 14:23). Titus is instructed by Paul to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5) and is given a set of qualifications to help identify those who would be suitable. These passages use two different Greek words for “appoint”. In Acts 14:23, the word means “to vote by stretching out the hand, to appoint”.[4] The word clearly implies a selection process, in which a man is chosen for a role. The one other occurrence of the word is in 2 Corinthians 8:19, in which a man is commended by Paul as having “…been appointed by the churches to travel with us as we carry out this act of grace…” This cannot mean simply “recognised” as performing a particular function, as Viola and Barna would want to say, but as being chosen for a function yet to be undertaken. The word in Titus 1:5 is similarly unambiguous, meaning “to set in order, appoint”.[5] This word is used widely throughout the New Testament in different contexts. Let’s quote just a few examples:
Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? (Matthew 24:45)
Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. (Acts 6:3)
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Hebrews 5:1)
Thus, elders were plainly appointed to a role which they did not previously fill. This is what we mean when we use the word ordained, which is just an alternative translation of the word appointed. Men are ordained or appointed to the office of elder. Insisting to the contrary, Viola and Barna cite Acts 13-19, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians (yes, they cite whole books) as evidence that elders were already in place before they were “endorsed” by the Apostles. I cannot guess what exactly in those passages is supposed to prove their point, but I do not see anything that could reasonably be construed in that way.
We also find that the nature of the office is actually very clearly defined in Scripture. As we have already mentioned, several characteristics are identified as those that qualify a man to become an elder (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). In Acts, we find Paul addressing the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20:17), where he explains their function in the church:
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. (Acts 20:28)
The elders were tasked with caring for the church. In particular, they were to be alert for “fierce wolves” and “men speaking twisted things” (Acts 20:29-31). Teaching was also a major duty for the elder, as we have already seen (1 Timothy 3:2, 5:17; Titus 1:9). Occupying a position of leadership (oversight) in the church was to be a position of authority and responsibility:
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. (Hebrews 13)
12 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. (1 Thessalonians 5)
This is incompatible with the radical egalitarianism advocated by Viola and Barna. While Scripture is clear that leadership and authority in the church should differ from worldly leadership (Matthew 20:25-28), it cannot be doubted that some kind of clergy/laity distinction is indicated here. And not only should elders be obeyed, but they should be honoured by the brethren whom they serve. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:1: “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.”[6] He later writes in chapter 5 of the same book:
17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves his wages.”
Paul calls the elders who preach and teach “labourers” who deserve to be compensated for their labour in service to their congregations. In Galatians 6:6 he writes: “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.” The same principle is expounded in more detail in 1 Corinthians 9:3-14. He writes in verse 14: “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.”
All of this together paints a perfectly clear picture, in complete opposition to the ideas advocated by Viola and Barna. The role of pastor/elder/overseer in the first-century church was, in fact, a well-defined leadership position, that involved both teaching and caring for the church. Elders carried a measure of authority in the church, under the headship of Christ, and were expected as a matter of justice to be materially supported in return for the work they undertake for the congregation. By removing this office from the church, Viola and Barna are in disobedience to clear biblical imperatives and do great damage by overturning the God-ordained pattern for the government of the church.
[1] See: Ciano, R. (2020). Luther’s Doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers: The Importance for Today. Credo Magazine. https://credomag.com/2020/01/luthers-doctrine-of-the-priesthood-of-all-believers-the-importance-for-today/#:~:text=All%20of%20us%20are%20priests,Heb%2013%3A16)%2C%20ultimately
[2] Griffith, R. (2023). Priesthood of All Believers? Desiring God. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/priesthood-of-all-believers
[3] We [and they] understand “pastor” to be synonymous with the terms “elder” or “overseer” (also translated “bishop”).
[4] Definition from Strong’s Concordance, accessed through: Bible Hub. (n.d.) 5500. cheirotoneó. https://biblehub.com/greek/5500.htm
[5] Definition from Strong’s Concordance, accessed through: Bible Hub. (n.d.) 2525. kathistémi. https://biblehub.com/greek/2525.htm
[6] I would not use this passage as direct proof that Scripture regards “overseer” as an office, because the word “office” here is supplied by the translators. Young’s Literal Translation reads: “If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth.” However, “office” is a perfectly appropriate term to use. A standard dictionary definition of “office” is “a position of authority or service”. I cannot see how anyone could deny that this applies to how Scripture describes the role of the elder in the church.
Next Section: 3.7 Chapter 6 Review – Sunday Morning Costumes: Covering Up the Problem
0 Comments