THE CHURCH IN FLUX
Chapter 15
How about these offices, are they scriptural?
Question: the office of a minister of the church, the man or woman who brings the sermon each Sunday, and the office of the elder, does the New Testament sees these as two distinct offices, or are they identical?
Answer: the New Testament sees them as one and the same.
Here’s why: it’s well-known that the New Testament uses two different words to indicate the office of elder: episcopos (bishop, supervisor) and presbyteros (elder). The different names have even given birth to two distinctly different denominations: the Episcopalian Church in the USA and the Presbyterian Church allover the English speaking world. Nevertheless both episcopos and presbyteros indicate the same office: in the New Testament there is no difference between the two, they mean exactly the same thing.
So why then are there two classes of officials in the church: (1) ministers of the gospel, people who themselves have chosen this route, and are licensed to speak – ordained it is called – and may do all sorts of things, and (2) elected elders who are not allowed to do much?
Blame it on human ambition. Somewhere, many centuries ago, there was an aspiring elder, probably a man with great oratorical gifts, who called himself – only men in those days – an ‘episcopos’ as if that were a more privileged designation, while his colleagues were stuck with the ‘presbyteros’ designation, which suddenly became a rank of less value.
In time the episcopos person became the headmaster, the leader, the man who spoke on behalf of the local group, and was given the tasks to baptize, to administer communion, to speak at important occasions, and, when churches were established elsewhere, he was chosen to be in charge of other congregations as well, and so the office of ‘bishop’ was born, and soon afterward a man was elevated to be ‘papa’ or later ‘Holy Father’ – just imagine! – indicating the head of the human institution.
We also know that, once a situation in the church is established, it soon becomes ‘tradition’ and it takes an act of God – or whatever – to change this. So far this has not happened.
Hans Kueng in his 650 page book on The Church writes that presbyters or elders are men who have to safeguard apostolic tradition against false doctrine and to lead the communities. Hans Kueng is highly regarded for his theological knowledge and insights not only among Catholics but by theologians of all religious persuasions. Born in 1928 in Switzerland, he studied in Rome, and at the Sorbonne. He has a Doctorate in the theology and has been professor of Dogmatic and Ecumenical Theology at the University of Tuebingen, Germany until the Pope said: “Enough criticism from this professor”, and suspended his license to teach.
When we compare the New Testament references to preachers and elders then the conclusion is inevitable that frequently the same words are used to indicate both categories.
In my Greek New Testament there are a lot of instances where the word ‘elder’ is used. 1 Peter 5 starts with this verse: “The Presbyters who are among you, I as a fellow presbyter, exhort you…” Here the Apostle Peter calls himself an ‘elder’ and uses the same annotation for his fellow elders. How the Roman Catholic church managed to make this ‘elder’ the head of the church, is, of course, based on Jesus’ saying when he said that “On this rock ( Peter means rock) I will build my church.”
Paul, addressing the flock in Ephesus, when he is about to leave for the last time, calls the elders there ‘overseers’ or ‘episkopoi’, a designation Paul also uses in Titus 1:7. The apostle John always uses presbyter to refer to himself, as is evident in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1. When comparing such passages as 2 Timothy 4:2 and Titus 2:7 with such texts as Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5: 2 and 1 Timothy 3:2, then both presbyter and episkopos are used to describe the same situation, which leads me to conclude that the job description of elders and preachers run parallel and that their duties are identical.
In other words, the New Testament sees no difference between the office of preacher and that of elder. For example in 1 Timothy 5:17 – “The elders who direct the affairs of the church, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching”, the word ‘presbyter’ is used. The curious part is that the office of presbyter does not indicate an independent office, but, as in most of life, is dependent on the person’s talents. Paul often mentions this when he points out that, just as there is a variety of gifts, so is their a wide range of elders: the one elder has greater ability for a certain aspect of his or her task than another, and it makes eminent sense, also biblical sense, to take these into account. On this matter Dr Kueng remarks that ‘preaching was largely determined by the charismatic structure of the church’. In other words, those who had the gifts used them. He also writes that “the idea of ordination was presumably taken over from Judaism at more or less the same time as the idea of elders.” So again, as on so many occasions, the church simply took over Old Testament customs, so unlike Jesus and Paul who completely broke with these ingrained Jewish traditions.
It makes good sense – and good sense is often equated with wisdom – to use the talents present in a certain community. When a certain person, whether elder or not, has the time and the gift to preach, then he or she should be used in that way. This already was the case in the synagogues which Paul and Barnabas often attended as a start on their mission work in a certain locality. There all those who could offer a word of encouragement, were allowed to speak. Both women and children were allowed to read the laws and the prophets there. Acts 13:15 makes clear that Jews who came from abroad, were given the opportunity to address the assembly. That same was true, as related in 1 Corinthians 14:26, where it clearly says that “when you come together everyone has a hymn or a word of instruction.”
It is also striking that the New Testament baptism and Communion services are not at all connected to a defined category of official functions, not even to office bearers in particular. We know that in the Old Testament a head of household circumcised his own sons and personally killed the Easter-lamb and always presided ever the Easter-meal, so it is not surprising that this practice continued in the New Testament. Actually what is surprising is that the continuation of these religious acts, now in the form of baptism and communion, remain the exclusive domain of ordained ministers, which basically means that un-scriptural clericalism is to blame.
I can also point out that the New Testament knows no such matters as presbyteries – a gathering of regional ministers and elders – or classes in the Christian Reformed Church, a meeting of the same nature. Especially such matters as Synods or General Assemblies are totally foreign to the first church. The real disadvantage of these large gatherings, with official minutes published in large volumes, is, that if new initiatives are introduced, not exactly in accordance with certain previously taken decisions, then these efforts usually have not much chance to succeed or even to come to the floor: there always are ‘experts in church law’ present at these ecclesiastical forums who know the precedence which often means the death for new ventures.
The curious thing about the church in general is that officials often lack the conviction that Christ will look after his own. People, also the clergy, crave for rules so that they can control the situation. The result has been that the church has erected a superstructure that exceeds all outlines the New Testament provides; there always seems to be the fear that congregations cannot manage on their own and will be overwhelmed by the events of the time unless they were assisted by an ecclesiastical edifice of human origin. All these anxieties essentially display a lack of faith in Christ and His Word, as if He would leave the church in the lurch and will not provide sufficient guarantees to safeguard his people.
In The Spontaneous expansion of the church and the causes which hinder it, R. Allen, the author, in essence writes that, if the continuity of the work in the church depends on organization, then it is plain that it is somehow different than bringing the message of Life. Human organization is necessary to make human endeavor possible. But Christ is concerned with Life itself. If the work of the church is to bring the message of Life, if it consists of bringing to people the knowledge of Christ who is Life and who gives Life, then this work cannot depend on a source that is devoid of Life. This just won’t work, because they promote a form of organization, either be design or by accident which implies that belief in human structures can take the place of Christ.
Of course, I am not against organization. In order to get matters done, some sort of coordination is needed, because, without some sort of plan in place, nothing much gets accomplished. However, in the church these actions must be either ad hoc, for the moment only, or so flexible that freedom remains assured to prevent that inflexible structures, empowered with ecclesiastical authority, obtain their own independence apart from the Word of God.
In short: churches must not be subjected to organizational systems that exceed New Testament outlines, because, once on place, they tend to stay in place for centuries.
How then shall we live to prepare ourselves for the Kingdom to Come, which is THE central question the church faces today?
In the next series of chapters I will elaborate on this in more detail, by using examples from both the Old Testament and the New Testament.