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.

---

[i] We share the common sentiment with the Catholics and many evangelical churches in Malaysia.

[ii] Ezekiel 34; John 10

[iii] 1 Timothy 3.1-7; Titus 1.4-6.

[iv] 1 Timothy 5.17-18

[v] See my exegetical observation on the related texts in the article “Elders for the pastoral ministry”.

From Calvinism to Adapted Calvinism to Neo Calvinism

In this article I would like to deal with the question “What is Calvinism and who is Calvinist”. Calvinism essentially refers to Calvin’s conviction and philosophy that can be found in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (5 volumes), sermons, and other writings. Calvinism was clearly seen in the model of the Geneva Church that Calvin has established and controlled, and also in the running of the Geneva local government. According to Calvin’s conviction, these two institutions were not independent from one another. The approximation between the church and the state was not only as the result of him being both the ecclesiastical leader and a powerful politician, but also as the result of his conviction that a “national church” was a necessity to counter the Roman Catholic Church. This idea of a “national church” was commonly shared by almost all the reformers.

When Calvinism is defined by Calvin’s conviction and philosophy, and the way in which he managed both the Geneva church and the local government,  defining “Calvinist” would be quite straight forward. Obviously, Calvinist is one who has read and understood Calvin’s writings and sermons and accepted Calvin’s conviction as his own conviction. In this sense, Calvin and his close associates in Geneva and some other parts of Europe were the first Calvinists.

What about the Puritans who subscribed to both the teachings of Zwingli and Calvin? What about the Methodists who were under the leadership of George Whitefield? These believers were regarded as Calvinists by church historians, but were they actually Calvinists? Strictly speaking the Puritans were not Calvinists simply because they did not subscribed 100% to Calvin’s conviction. The fact that the Puritans, while subscribing to Calvin’s teaching, they also included Zwingli as their mentor, speaks clearly that certain part of Calvin’s teaching was not suitable for their struggle. They did not subscribe, but adapted Calvin’s teaching. Similarly, George Whitefield and his associates did not subscribe but adapted Calvin’s teaching for their ministry.

What about reformed faith in general and reformed Baptist conviction (The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith) in particular? I have established  that both the reformed faith and reformed Baptist conviction are no Calvinism in one of  my  articles[i]. Should there be any trace of Calvinism and it should be regarded only as adapted Calvinism at most, because it does not agree totally with Calvinism. This is obvious with reformed Baptist conviction. The word “reformed” is employed and not “Calvinist” simply shows that the early believers did not want to limit themselves with Calvin’s teaching alone. They preferred to have the freedom to select what they deemed as suitable from the other reformers’ teaching. The name “Baptist” suggests an independent local church and this is an obvious break away from Calvin’s and other reformers’ idea of a national church. Its conviction of believer baptism also played a role to distant themselves from Calvin’s permission to allow child baptism. Under such circumstance, do we still insist that reformed faith and reformed Baptists are Calvinists? Judging from history, reformed faith and reformed Baptist conviction is the result of a long process of adoption and adaptation of theological thinking. The whole process is dynamic and it cannot just be equated with Calvinism alone.

Strangely, yet, there is a dispute among the reformed people about Calvinism. At the global level, there is this group of conference speakers, with reformed background, who managed to attract to themselves a good following with their reformed teaching. Unfortunately, they have also attracted to themselves the unnecessary attention and criticism from certain party from within the reformed circle. They called them the New Calvinist because allegedly they have compromised the Calvinist conviction. Alarm has been sounded to the reformed believers to dissociate themselves from these New Calvinists. Such accusation can be heard also among the reformed Baptists locally. Reformed Baptists is such a small group of believers and yet we have fallen into this illogical dispute and division.

The question is, why bother to label another as New Calvinist when Calvinist does not exist? Why a reformed believer should condemns another reformed believer as New Calvinist? Strictly speaking, most of of the reformed believers are adapted Calvinists but never Calvinists. We do not uphold all the teaching of Calvin as the tenet of our faith. We have adapted Calvin’s teaching selectively . Our struggle therefore should not be between choosing either Calvinist or New Calvinist, but a firm commitment to preach the gospel fully as the Bible has taught it. We have to actively preach it to men and women who come from different cultures, different age groups, and different political situations.

---

[i] What is reformed faith?