Adapted from Chapter 5 of Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. Prior posts follow:
Introduction to Pagan Christianity
Traditions Passed Off as "Christian"
The Church Building is Pagan? - Part 1
The Church Building is Pagan? - Part 2
The Church Service is Pagan? - Part 1
The Church Service is Pagan? - Part 2
As you read this, be careful not to read your modern-day concept of what a pastor is back into the Scriptures.
There is not a single verse
in the entire New Testament that supports the existence of the modern-day
pastor! The word “pastors” does appear,
but that word describes a particular function in the church, not an office or a
title that has regrettably become the Western concept of what pastor
means. The concept that a pastor is an
office or title is one that is read back into the New Testament in order to
justify it. In the New Kingdom and the
New Humanity established by Jesus, there are no offices or positions to
fill. He obliterated the hierarchical
form of leadership and warned us about it (Matthew 20:25, 23:8-11). Leadership is a function that is organic,
untitled, and recognized by its service through the process of time. In the New Testament, after individuals grew
into the spiritual man that functioned as such with the witness of their local
church, they would be publicly acknowledged as elders through different means such
as the laying on of hands. This was the
affirmation of a function, not the installment into an office or the giving of
special status. When it came to
apostolic workers, the pattern throughout the entire New Testament is that they
always left the church after they laid the foundation so that the members would
not look for them to lead and hinder every-member functioning.
So, how did this unbiblical
hierarchical office make its way into the Christian faith? The answer reaches as far back as the Fall of
Man. With the Fall came an implicit
desire in people to have a physical leader to bring them to God and an
obsession with the hierarchical form of leadership inherent in the systems of
the Fallen World. This theme is woven
throughout the entire drama of God’s people from Genesis to Revelation. In the late first and early second centuries,
we find that the church began to drift from its organic nature toward the
organizational patterns of the world found in her surrounding culture as new
converts brought their worldly mindsets into the believing community. This increased dramatically when the emperor
Constantine made Christianity both recognized and honored by the state in the
early fourth century. This blurred the
line between the church and the world, making Christianity fashionable and
resulting in large numbers of people with questionable conversions to join and
bring their wide variety of pagan ideas into the mix.
A destructive step occurred
in the churches when one elder started to be elevated above all the others in a
position called “bishop” that resembled the worldly caste system of the
political structures of the Roman Empire.
This position was created because of the belief that the church needed a
more controlled-system structure to protect it from heresy and internal
strife. The bishop was seen as the
spokesperson and head of the congregation who controlled all church
activities. In short, he was the
forerunner of the contemporary pastor. What
was organic was becoming more and more mechanical as time went on.
By the mid-third century, the
bishop had hardened into a fixed office and the Old Testament economy of
priests, temples, altars and sacrifices that God moved on from through Jesus
had begun to be resurrected. Even the
language of Old Testament priesthood started to be used to justify this
practice. By the fourth century, the
church became a full-fledged, top-down, hierarchically organized society. The graded hierarchy that involved bishops,
presbyters, deacons and laymen dominated the Christian faith. Bishops ruled over churches like Roman
governors ruled over their provinces.
Even churches began to exercise authority over other churches – thus
broadening the worldly hierarchical structure.
This allowed the non-New Testament concept that there exists a divinely
appointed person to mediate between God and the people to be accepted. By the fifth century, the concept of the
priesthood of all believers had completely disappeared from the Christian
practice. And as time went on,
proof-texting methods began to be used to make the New Testament seem like it
justified the clergy/laity hierarchy.
With the Reformation came a
rallying cry to restore the concept of the priesthood of all believers, but the
restoration was only partial; failing to recover the corporate dimension of the
believing priesthood. After the smoke
cleared, we ended up with the same practices that the Catholics gave us, only
clothed in new garb and new language. In
fact, Martin Luther actually denounced groups that practiced every-member
functioning in the church. He felt the
church was primarily a preaching station and the pastor was the functioning
head of the church. So, just like
Catholics, Protestants ended up basing their practices on human traditions
rather than on the Bible.
The clergy/laity distinction
borrowed from the kingdom of darkness has been carried into modern-day
Christianity and stolen people’s right to function as a full member of Christ’s
body. It has overthrown the main thrust
of the book of Hebrews – the ending of the old priesthood, made ineffectual the
teaching of I Corinthians 12-14, that every member has both the right and the
privilege to minister in a church meeting, and voided the message of I Peter 2
that every brother and sister is a functioning priest. Not only does it damage the congregation, but
it damages the person in the office.
Typically, a burden too heavy for one person to bear falls on the
shoulders of these individuals and results in massive stress, burnout, family
neglect, loneliness, depression, etc. Undoubtedly,
this comes from the impossible task of meeting all of the unrealistic
expectations that comes with the powerful influence of a worldly system that
humans weren’t meant to live in. They
typically must operate outside of the realm of their giftedness, which isn’t
good for them or those members for whom they are attempting to substitute for.
The system of solo pastora (single pastor) has answered I Corinthians 12:19, which asks “And if they were all one member, where would the body be?” Nothing so hinders the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose of making Christ’s headship visibly manifested in the church. As long as the pastoral office is present, the church has a slim chance of fulfilling this purpose.
Subscribe to 2nd man united by Email
I read through your thoughts on pastoral ministry. Would you be willing to consider the following? Why would the Bible use shephard language to describe pastors in the New Testament? Do shepherds leave their sheep? Why would Paul find it important to have Titus appoint elders in every town if they were not necessary? How would you explain Hebrews 13:17? 1 Tim 3:1 refers to the overseer role as an "office," how do you reconcile this with your view? Have you considered that the NT categorizes pastoral ministry as being exercised through a plurality of elders?
Posted by: Jon | August 03, 2009 at 09:23 PM
Jon-
Great thoughts and questions. First, I must point out that these are not my original thoughts, they are straight from the best-selling book called Pagan Christianity?: exploring the roots of our church practices, by Frank Viola and George Barna. I just tend to have an uncanny ability at summarizing material. With that said, I will do my best to answer your questions with what I believe to be the truth from what I’ve learned.
Why would the Bible use shephard language to describe pastors in the New Testament?
The Bible uses shepherd language because that is a great verb to describe the function of what pastors do.
Do shepherds leave their sheep?
Pastors didn’t leave in the New Testament, apostles did.
Why would Paul find it important to have Titus appoint elders in every town if they were not necessary?
I’m not seeing where it was ever presented that elders were not necessary or beneficial.
How would you explain Hebrews 13:17?
If you look at the Bible through worldly system lenses, you’ll see leaders as positions, titles, and offices. When you filter the Bible through an organic system lense (which the book argues that you should), leadership is a verb or a function. The book never argues that there shouldn’t be leadership or that you shouldn’t submit to it, but points out how leadership develops and functions in a living system environment, which the church is supposed to operate like since it’s a living organism and not a worldly institution.
1 Tim 3:1 refers to the overseer role as an "office," how do you reconcile this with your view?
I would have to disagree. I’m not seeing where the role of an overseer is ever referred to as an office.
Hope this helps understand the concepts a little better.
Posted by: 2nd man united | August 03, 2009 at 11:29 PM