Where is the basis of appointment?
The old debate on the issue about church leadership among
the Reformed Baptists is always circling around the equality of the elders and
the distinction among the elders. Seldom attention is given to the basis of the
appointment of these leaders. We are weak and vague in this. The Reformed
Baptists, generally, believe in the theory that the pastor is the leader[i]. Ephesians
4.11-12 is often quoted, accompanied by the image of the Good Shepherd[ii], as
the basis for the calling of a pastor. However, anyone who has some basic idea
about the art of exegesis would know that the immediate context of the passage can
hardly constitute a command from the apostle as he has given to Timothy and
Titus[iii]. Paul
was encouraging the church to move on to maturity and unity by drawing her
attention to the gift of “the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor
teachers.” These four offices mentioned were the apostolic band and they were
given as a whole package. Exegetically, it is arbitrary to take the pastor
teacher out from the band and make it an office for today. The question would
rise from within the context, why choose the pastor teacher alone and why not
the apostles, the prophets, and the evangelists? However, in a cleaver manner, the
role of the pastor teacher has been singled out from the list, and please do
not bother to ask who gave the permission to do that. Never mind also about the
fact that big argument and a little twisting here and there had been done to the
text, the important thing is that a basis for the calling of the pastors has
been established.
Armed with this new “biblical basis”, these experts approach
Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus on the appointment of elders in the
local churches, and established the following theory.
1.
A pastor is a teacher and a good one.
2.
A distinction is therefore made in the Timothy
and Titus texts that there were two types of elders; namely the teaching elder
and the ruling elder.
3.
The
teaching elder is a good teacher and is called
by God, whereas the ruling elder is invited by the former to assist him in the
work.
4.
Another distinction is made that a teaching
elder is a full time worker and should be salaried by the local church while a
ruling elder is not[iv].
5.
The teaching elder is therefore the pastor.
So in a very simple manner, a basis for the calling of the
pastor is established and the relationship among the elders is solved. So we
can confidently convincing ourselves that we can have one pastor or teaching
elder and many ruling elders be appointed in a local church, with the pastor as
the chief of the elders.
Unfortunately, the story does not stop here, because there
is a new voice wanting to be heard from within the same fraternal. This group
of believers agrees that the “gift text” indicates a basis for the call of the
pastors. They also refer to Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus, but they
do not do the hair splitting and twisting stance with the text. They view the
“gift text” and Paul’s instruction essentially refers to the same persons who
were called to be the pastors. According to this interpretation, the pastors
and the elders are the same persons called by God to serve in the local
churches. There is no difference between the two and the elders are the
pastors. Ultimately, in a similar sentiment, that the pastor is still the designated
leader in a local church.
I suspected that the apostles did not call for an
“ordination” of the pastors when I was exposed to such debate. I can safely say
to myself today that indeed my suspicion was right. The New Testament evidence
clearly shows that there is no instruction from the apostles for the local
churches to ordain pastors. Historically, I believe, “pastors” is a romantic
idea created by the early Catholics and perpetuated by the Protestants till the
present day. While the New Testament shows us that the apostles gave
instruction to the local churches to appoint both elders and deacons only. The
scripture does not show any evidence that there is a special distinction between
the elders. This distinction is really a human arbitrary[v]. Elder
is the highest recognition that the scripture had given to a servant of God
serving in a local church. This would be also the best honor the local church
can give to that man.
So, now we have three distinctive views on the basis of
calling;
1.
The pastor is called by God while the elders are
invited by the pastors to assist them in the local church.
2.
The elder is called by God and he is the pastor.
Essentially these two are called to the same pastors’ office in the local
church.
3.
A board of elders is called by God to oversee or
supervise the life of the local churches. The New Testament recognizes only the
elders’ office and nothing else.
Or strictly speaking, there are only two distinctive views;
the difference is between a pastor leading a local church and a board of elders
supervising a local church.
Why bother to establish another basis for appointment? Church
members are already confused by the two existing views, why bother to produce
another? Do I think that church members are not confused enough? I have two
reasons why I want to be clear about the basis of calling. Firstly, it is our
duty as believers to be clear headed about the scripture. If the leaders of the
local churches are muddle headed, how are they going to supervise the local
churches? Otherwise it will be the case of the blind leading the blind and
eventually all will fall into the pit.
Secondly, it is for practical reason that we should be clear
about the basis of appointment. Based on Paul’s instruction to Timothy and
Titus, candidates would be appointed according to the list of qualification.
However, we seldom pay attention to the fact that a serving elder can be
disqualified by the list of qualification. Take for instance, when a pastor was
accused of having committed an act of sexual harassment and he was confronted
by some church members and was asked to leave quietly, but he refused. Now there
is a loophole in this calling of a pastor, because he was a pastor and not an
ordinary elder, and therefore did not come under the qualification list. He was
called by God and only God can disqualify him because that was the basis upon
which he was ordained as the pastor.
If the man was appointed as an elder according to Paul’s
instruction then he would be monitored by the qualification list. One of the requirements clearly stated that
the elder must be a husband of one wife. It means that the man must be a man of
one marriage. He must be faithful to his wife and not having a second wife or
sexual relationship with another woman. He must only draw sexual pleasure from
his wife in a loving relationship. By no means, he should draw such pleasure, whether
it is by force, threat, ape, or sexual harassment, from other women. The man
who had allegedly committed the act of sexual harassment should have either disqualified
himself from the job and leaves quietly, or the local church would have ask him
to leave.
I hope, with this present discussion, we can now focus on
the basis of appointment, and not continue to circle round the choice between
the distinction among elders and equality of the elders. For the two “so called”
different views actually believe in the same thing and both would have the
pastor as the leader. When we are able tell in no uncertain term that there is
only one basis of appointment and that is for the elders, and then we would be
able to determine the office and the job description of those who are called by
God to lead the local churches. At the present moment, it is quite clear that
our churches are operating without a basis. In practice, of course, it is not a
matter of life and death, the churches would still move on without any basis,
and the leaders can be called by different names. However, it is because we regard the Bible as
the rule over our practice, we cannot ignore the fact that we do not have a
basis to appoint pastors to the local churches.
No comments:
Post a Comment