Miguel Labrador's Blog, page 12

‘Redundant Foundations…’ are the reason Apostles & Prophets don’t exist today?

The construction of the church necessitated the foundational work Apostles & Prophets. When referring to God’s household, the church, Paul wrote: “…having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20).

Premise 1 – While the work of evangelists and pastor/teachers is important, only the apostles and prophets are described as being the foundation upon which the church is built.

Premise 2 – The “foundation of the apostles and prophets,” the foundation which they laid, was their revelation. (later signifying the completed bible)

Premise 3 – Jesus is the Chief Corner Stone of that foundation and there’s only one chief corner stone and thus only one foundation.

Premise 4 – There’s no need for other foundations.

Conclusion 1 : There is, therefore, no need for Apostles & Prophets today.

Conclusion 2:  Hence, there are no Apostles & Prophets today. 

Conclusion 3:  Pastors, Teachers, and Evangelists are the only ongoing means by which the church is built.

Are the previous premises and conclusions valid?  Why or Why Not? 

 

 

 

 

                         
CommentsThe question is, is this past tense or present tense? If past ... by Rob KampenRelated StoriesIf the Church is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets. Why are so many trying to build it on the foundation of pastors?Ephesians 4:11 – Who’s Sent?Training Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For Congregations 

Training Every Believer For Mission, Not Just Pastoral Care For Congregations

Today, my friend Marty, on his blog “CHOSENREBEL’S BLOG,” reposted an article written back in February of 2011.  It’s titled;

“LESLIE NEWBIGIN’S RADICAL INSIGHT INTO SEMINARY CURRICULA.”

 The Thesis of the article is;

 Seminaries are not Structured to Deliver the Right Kind of Graduate for the Mission of the Church.

 You can read the complete article HERE.

In the Cloud Forest Region of Ecuador, where my wife and I have been missionaries for over 7 years, we participated in the launch of and continue to work in a new seminary.  It’s called “Seminario Noroccidente” (Northwest Seminary), and I am an adjunct professor of Missiology and assist in Ecclesiology and Hermeneutics.  It’s a new work which has as its premise 8 hours of class instruction and 712 hours of application monthly.  I struggle with the other professors who have adopted much of the philosophy that Newbigin speaks of in the referenced article.  

What I found particularly valid in that post was one of the comments in answer to a question posed by Marty.  That question was “What can we do to change the way we train people for ministry so that the triumphs of the Gospel (past) and the glories of the Gospel (present and future) become the “ordinary consciousness” of all who call themselves Christians?

Here’s the response:

Here’s my list for things we should to better train folks on the seminary level for kingdom advancement through the Church:

1. Integrate mandatory, communal missional ministry into the seminary curricula. Create reasonable, achievable, and measurable goals connected with said ministry (especially for evangelism).

2. Have seminary profs participate in aforementioned missional ministry with students.

3. Read more biographies/histories of great evangelistic and mission-minded saints and movements from Church history. Make sure that at least half of this reading is preoccupied with NON-WESTERN saints and movements.

4. Teach theology through the lens of missiology rather than teaching missiology as the red-headed step-child of theology.

5. Stop making Sunday morning preaching the crown jewel of the pastorate. Without question, excellence in preaching/teaching of the Word among the saints at the local level is essential. However, we teach this to the exclusion of the broader panorama of what the Lord wants His leaders to do and be for the sake of His Church and His Kingdom (see Eph. 4:7-16).

6. Have multiple evangelism courses that require seminarians to learn about and practice various modes of evangelism (contact evangelism, relational/conversational evangelism, small group evangelism, etc.). Students would get some field education/internship credit for these. Evangelism on the local/neighborhood should figure into this.

7. Have classes in which seminarians would do nothing but pray. These would be pass/fail, and your grade would depend on whether or not you physically showed up. Different modes of prayer would be explored and practiced (meditation, intercession, solitude, etc.). Space would be alloted for reports on the way in which the Lord is meeting everyone in and through prayer.

8. A certain number of class days out of an academic year should be set aside for just hearing stories from proven pastors, missionaries, and evangelists . These kinds of stories help to fan into flame believers’ passion for ministry. Furthermore, such stories give saints the permission to dream big concerning the power of the Lord through His people.

9. Provide more teaching on the equipment of the saints for vibrant ministry.

10. Mentor seminarians on the merits of neighborhood and local investment. Inculcating long-term rootedness in a rootless, wandering culture can ensure more effective ministry and stewardship of God’s resources for the future.

I thought the response was well thought out and poignant.  It comes on the heels of an article I just wrote yesterday entitled “For Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also,” and carries much of the same concerns.  The only caveat I would raise, is that I don’t think these things should be reserved for people at “seminary level.”  These points are valid and applicable for every believer.  As recently as this past Tuesday, I was speaking with another local leader regarding our seminary, and he said “I fear that many of these students, when they have received their training, will not engage mission, but will instead focus all of their instruction inward.” 

To be fair, we also have other avenues of preparing people for missions and ministry which include what we call “Discipleship Group,” and the daily practice of Making Disciples in over 25 local communities.  In addition, we are ramping up what some would call an “Un-Seminary.” It’s a process of quickly ramping up believers to be missionaries in their own contexts.   

So, if we took Marty’s question and revisited it with that sentiment, what would you add or change to the list above? 

                         
CommentsIn a little known passage in Acts 19 we get the clearest ... by MiguelMay I ask another question Miguel? Why in the world do we ... by CarlosI understand Jailer… But what if “mission” is an ... by MiguelI would take issue with #4, because teaching theology through ... by JailerRelated StoriesFor Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also.Church, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Are Local Churches Supposed to be Missional Turnstiles? 

For Where Your Church Treasure is, There your Mission Heart Will be Also.

The Mission is to Make Disciples. Disciples are made by going, baptizing, and teaching others to obey all things that Christ commanded. (Matthew 28:18,19,20) Included in the “all things” that Christ commanded are loving our neighbors as ourselves and loving God with all of our hearts, mind, soul, and strength (Mark 12:33), and bearing one another’s burdens. (Galatians 6:2)

Mission sources church, Mission informs church, Mission provisions church, and Mission shapes church. Once “church” happens, once the need is realized that it’s time to bring better organization, structure, and strength to Mission, whether it be a local church building, an agency, a denomination, or even a loosely related association or network, then this “organization’s” purpose is to unify the brethren, strengthen them, encourage them, and equip them FOR MISSION. If that organization, fellowship, gathering, congregation, or structure doesn’t do that, if it doesn’t put most of its resources, people, gifts, and money into making The Mission bigger, better and faster, then it’s no longer a church. It’s a social club.

The natural progression of mission is to increase in size, scope, and speed. Mission should be exponential. If the expansion of Mission (The Making of Disciples) is not naturally, or supernaturally evolving and expanding according to its God-Directed DNA, then it’s most likely because of human obstacles, disobedience, or self glory seeking. There are times when God slows mission (Acts 16:6), but that should be the exception rather than the rule.

When organizational heads get together to “plant” a church, it should be more like a mission enhancing station than a mission thwarting waiting room.  Every church should ask itself if it is putting the bulk of its resources towards increasing, extending, and growing mission, or in the increasing, extending, and growing of itself.

If you’re a Pastor of a Church, or one of its “leaders,” or maybe even on the Board of Directors of the church, ask yourself right now if most of your expenses are put into your church, or put into God’s mission. The Mission has the church. Local churches exist to serve the mission. If when you balance your church account and see that more of your preaching, time, funds, and energy are going into the church instead of into the Mission, then it’s a complete distortion of what biblical church is. The church is to be a living organism, a mission making machine of sorts, not a money-making,  self-sustaining, community draining, self aggrandizing operation.

I hear of churches that proudly proclaim that 10% of their income goes directly to mission! As if that’s something to be impressed by. Shouldn’t it be 90% going towards the mission and 10% in sustaining the station that serves mission? I like the word “station,” because that’s what the local church should be, a station where people gather to prepare themselves, along with others, to hone their missional effectiveness.

In reality, when a local church is “planted,” “built,” or “structured,” it often slows mission, controls it, stops it, and “becomes” the mission itself. Most of the ministry, mission, service, preaching, and discipling happens “there,” instead of “out there” – where you SIT instead of where you’re SENT.  It becomes an ingrown hair which affects the entire body. Instead of discussions about how to extend reach, the internal language of mission changes to “how we can make ourselves bigger, better, badder, and bullet proof.”  Instead of building super highways to mission, it builds more parking lots. We fool ourselves with conversations about balancing the gathering and the scattering because eventually, and if we’re honest, the bulk of the churches resources are directed inward towards maintenance instead of outwards in mission.

If, when you speak of “church planting,” you want to create a place which thwarts mission, stops mission, focuses mission inward, robs mission, and eventually becomes the mission, then NO THANK YOU! If you’re thinking about creating cisterns instead of aqueducts, then you can keep it.  If you’re trying to create a missional maze instead of an acceleration station, then shame on you!  If your intention is to construct a cloistering cage rather than a catalyzing community, then crumble up your blueprint. If you’re thinking about creating a place whose purpose is to facilitate mission and provision mission then you just might be putting the cart before the horse. Mission provisions and facilitates the church.

Yes, Mission (Scattering) and Church (Gathering) are cyclical. But the gathering should never be the main thing or the thing which requires the most resources to maintain. When the gathering place for mission becomes the mission, it’s time to repent. When that happens, it’s no longer time to shift paradigms, it’s time to shatter them. “For where your church treasure is, there your mission heart will be also.”

So the ‘Church’ throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria

‘Enjoyed Peace’

‘Being Built Up’

And ‘Going On’

in

The fear of the Lord

The comfort of the Holy Spirit

AND it ‘Continued to Increase’

 Acts 9:31

BY ALL MEANS, DO NOT FORSAKE THE ASSEMBLING OF YOURSELVES

(HEBREWS 10:25)

BUT DO NOT FORSAKE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH YOU ASSEMBLE!

 

 

                        Related StoriesAre Local Churches Supposed to be Missional Turnstiles?Church, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Two Kingdoms in a Phone Booth. 

Evangelism – Which Comes First? Law, Gospel, or Neither?

“The Law must precede the gospel.  The Law must come first and kill the person so that the gospel can make him alive.  The Law must convict the person of his sins so he will want salvation.  It is simple.  You preach the Law first, then the gospel.  You must make people thirsty for the water of life before they will want to drink.  The Law makes them thirsty.” ~ Matt Slick

I have heard this line of thinking often and while compelling, I think it does several things:

1.  It can, and often does, lock evangelism into a method. 

2.  It creates an “us law keepers” vs. “them law breakers” mentality.

3.  Its starting point is man, not God.

4.  It attempts to make disciples with the law of Moses rather than “the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21) (Galatians 6:2) and “all that Jesus commanded.”  (Matthew 28:19,20)

Further, in examining every post resurrection instance of “evangelism” in scripture, I fail to find a single instance that starts with the law.  Let’s take a look at a few:

Acts 2:17-40 – Commonly addressed as “Peter’s First Sermon”  Peter starts with this idea, “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.  Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.”  - Peter starts with God and His promise. 

Acts 3:11-26 – Commonly referred to as “Peters Second Sermon.”  Again, Peter starts this way, “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.”  Peter starts with God Himself.

Acts 7 – Stephen’s famous speech to the Sanhedrin.  Stephen starts in this manner, “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran. ‘Leave your country and your people,’ God said, ‘and go to the land I will show you.”  This evangelistic message, again, starts with God and His promise.

Acts 8:26-40 - Philip and the Ethiopian – The Ethiopian was reading about Jesus and Phillip started by declaring who Jesus is.  ”Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.” 

Immediately after Paul’s conversion he began to evangelize in the synagogues by starting with “At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.”  (Acts 9:20)

Finally, for now, in Acts 17, Paul’s famous encounter on the Areopagus, he starts with, ““Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.  For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.”  Again, Paul starts with God.  

In each of these cases and more, evangelistic encounters start with who God is, His Promises, and His Son Jesus.  None of these evangelistic encounters start with the Law.  

Perhaps we need to look directly to the Master himself for where one of His evangelism encounters started with the law.  The woman at the well is perhaps Jesus’ best known and most used “evangelistic” encounter.  He starts in this way; “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”  Note here that God IS the one standing in front of her.  But, he doesn’t start with the law, he starts with who He is and His promise.

What about the rich young ruler?  Jesus starts off with the following; “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”  Jesus starts off with who God is. (Mark 10:17-27)

Maybe Jesus with Nicodemus?  Jesus again starts of in this way; “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” (John 3:3) Jesus started off this conversation with God, His Kingdom, and His Promise. 

Final thought:  How were old testament saints evangelized before the law was given?  Was it by presenting the law first?  No, it was by being made aware God and His promise first.  We too, as gentiles are to embrace the same God and promise. “Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”  Abraham was evangelized first by God and His Promise.

The striking absence of the law being used first in evangelism is telling.  What does it tell you?  The Law is already written on the hearts of people before you ever get to them. (Romans 2:15)  They know it.  What they don’t know is who God is and what His promises are.  Doesn’t it make sense to confirm the latter before punching with the former? 

This post is designed to engage you.  And so, I’d like to ask you a few questions:

 

1.  What biblical warrant is there, if any, that says we must use the law first in evangelism?  

2.  Did Jesus use the law first in the proclamation of His own Good News? Where?

3.  Is it correct to Make Disciples using the law of Moses (The 10 Commandments), or are we to Make Disciples by teaching Christ’s law (1 Corinthians 9:21) (Galatians 6:2), and to obey all that Christ Commanded? (Matthew 28:19,20)

 

 

 

                         
CommentsMiguel, I love your answer to Carl above. The difference ... by Brian ConsidineWell said Rick. I believe your response is very insightful and ... by Sean IsaacsStarting with the Law is starting with God. His Law, His ... by Alex van NesCarl, Thanks for the first time comment and the quote from ... by MiguelI find those most critical of evangelism methods (law to the ... by Carl HendersonPlus 5 more...Related StoriesIdentifying With and In Your Cultural Contexts For Disciple MakingChurch, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Counting the Cost – or – What’s in it For Me? 

If the Church is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets. Why are so many trying to build it on the foundation of pastors?

Possible Points of Considerations:

There’s only one church and Jesus is it’s Chief Cornerstone.
There’s only one foundation to the church. 
We can’t lay foundations over foundations.
Prophets & Apostles are no longer needed.
Someone’s got to step in.
The Bible has been completed and there’s no more special revelation.
They existed in their time for a specific task which has been completed.

Counterpoints

The Church has multiple foundations (Romans 15:20)
The Church was “being built up” (Ephesians 2:20) and “is still being fitted together” (Ephesians 2:21)
Christ “gave” (past tense) the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, “with a view to” (future tense) equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11,12,13)
The church grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:16)

 

So, If the Church is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets.  Why are so many trying to build it on the foundation of pastors?

                        Related StoriesEphesians 4:11 – Who’s Sent?Are Local Churches Supposed to be Missional Turnstiles?Missional Leadership Does Not Isolate or Separate 

‘Giving Back’ Through Consumption ≠ Transformational Development

“In a culture where giving back through consumption is increasingly popular, and where myriad companies market items that purportedly help those in need, we should be cautious and deliberate about how we choose to support international development.”

This is an excerpt from an article on how companies like TOMS purport to help the poor.  You can read that article in its entirety here.  What I found particularly poignant in that article, were the words “giving back through consumption.”  I suppose it’s quite a natural outgrowth of capitalistic thinking, but to be honest, I struggle with the concept from a biblical point of view.

 

 

It’s probably an over simplification, but I could categorize giving in 3 ways;

 

1.  Giving to Give – Jesus’ teaching and example

2.  Giving to Get – Prosperity Gospel & Seed Faith Nonsense

and

3.  Getting to Give – “Giving Back Through Consumption.”

So, help me out here.  Is “Giving Back Through Consumption,” a biblically viable form of transformational development? 

Also, you may be interested in my 4 part series called “A Theology of Poverty & Praxis” 

 

                         
CommentsOkay now for my real comment on the substance of what you ... by CarlosYeah, it is sort of a new buzz word. It means helping the poor ... by MiguelMiguel, I don't want to second guess you so I will ask…what ... by CarlosRelated StoriesDisenfranchised Disciple MakersPoverty as a Lack of Freedom to GrowThe Gospel Is Hate Speech. 

The Gospel Is Hate Speech.

They, whomever “they” are, need:

To be Restored

To be Reconciled

To be Saved

To be Healed

To Hear The Good News

To be at Peace

To be Sought Out

To be Set Free

To be given Hope

And…

“To be Delivered from their Sin.”

“They,” those that are without Christ, the lost, or those who have not been translated from the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of light (Colossians 1:13), according to Christians, need all of those things.  The problem is that assuming any particular sub-set or group needs those things and expressing the same, may be considered anti-social or culturally unacceptable.

This is no where better demonstrated than in recent events regarding homosexuality.  Ed Stetzer recently had this to say:

“We must realize that believing what the Bible says about sexuality will increasingly put us at odds with our culture. Pressure will continue to mount to accept a worldview rooted in cultural acceptance rather than biblical revelation. And we must prepare ourselves for the day when acceptance will not be enough—affirmation may be demanded to be a part of society.  You can check out that whole article here. 

“Affirmation may be demanded to be a part of society“

As a Christian people, our words are falling under ever intensifying scrutiny.  Like Ed said above, acceptance will not be enough.  Homosexuality is just one of the many culturally accepted norms that is thought by Christians to oppose biblical revelation.  The day Ed speaks of is already here. Affirmation will be demanded by words that Christians will not be willing to give and by the imposed avoidance of words that are intrinsic to Christian belief.  The next logical step is to excise those words which stand in opposition to modern culturally accepted norms, abolish them, and classify them as Hate Speech.”  

“They,” not just homosexuals, but all those who find the Christian message offensive, do not need, do not want, and are offended when others say that “they” are a people who need:

Restoration - Reconciliation - To be saved - Healing -Good News -Peace -To be Sought out -To be set free -Hope -To be delivered from their sin.

And so, Christian people are faced with a challenge.  Is it possible to communicate the gospel, to make disciples, and to truly love God and our neighbors without the words we’re used to using?  Should we change our language and speak with a more diplomatic dialect?  Should we, in a sense, become all things to all people to win some and keep the conversation open (1 Corinthians 9:22), or should we just keep using the Bible’s God-breathed vocabulary and Spirit appointed venues and suffer the consequences.  

My wife recently had this to say:

“I love with a Christ-centered worldview, which is pretty hard to separate from myself, who I am, and how I live. My agenda is always going to be to love and honor Christ and to love my neighbor as myself. But if my neighbor expects that I can love him or her and they allow it only by calling me to separate myself from the very foundation of who I am, which drives me to think, speak and act in a way contradictory to a secular worldview or one without Christ, then my neighbor is asking me to do the very thing he hates — to be disingenuous.”

My wife speaks to this issue with distinct clarity.  We as believers, Christians, are incapable of cleaving Christ’s words from our relationship to Him.  Jesus said we are to Abide in Him and have His words abide in us. (John 15:7)  If we say to any people group that they need: 

Restoration - Reconciliation - To be saved - Healing – Good News -Peace -To be Sought out -To be set free -Hope -And To be delivered from their sin,

then we are, in essence, saying passively and by necessary consequence, “they” are:

In disrepair – unreconciled – lost – sick – harbingers of bad news – anxious – in hiding – trapped – hopeless – and captive.

There’s no excuse for the horrendous manners in which the gospel has been presented by angry people over the ages and likewise the pressure, manipulation, and sheer idiocy, but where are the Voltaires of the day?  Where are those who, like him, would say, “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Where are the Orwells who warn through sarcasm when in 1984 he said, “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

Must Christians be forced into calling that which is evil good and that which is good evil? (Isaiah 5:20) (Malachi 2:17)  Must they “affirm” as Ed says, that which is in direct opposition to their world view?  Must Christians become “disingenuous” as Claudia says, just to dialogue?  A few questions:

Is it possible to communicate the gospel without our favorite gospel words?

Should we just toss the use of words all together and preach the gospel through our actions alone?

How do you personally point to Christ without pointing at others?

 

                         
CommentsHi Miguel, You ask if it is possible to share the Gospel with ... by Carlos“I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the ... by AmyRelated StoriesChurch, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Identifying With and In Your Cultural Contexts For Disciple MakingSabbath & Mission 

Missional Leadership Does Not Isolate or Separate

We’re getting ready to kick of another major push outward to bring the gospel and make disciples in our contexts and beyond.  In order to do this, we’re forming a key group of those who have demonstrated one thing; A desire to extend the reach of our current mission practice.  There’s a movement happening here in the Cloud Forest of Ecuador.  We may have desired it, prayed for it, and even helped facilitate it, but the Lord brought it to fruition and He alone deserves the glory.  

None the less, we all are convicted and stand in agreement that it’s time to reach further into the communities we’re working in and reach further out to where the Gospel has not been planted and where disciples to be are in waiting.  All of the members of this key group have thought much, prayed much, and counted the cost.  They all, singles, husbands, and wives, are poised to begin learning how to be missionaries in their contexts and beyond.

Pathways International, is teaming up with Forge International in order to make this happen.  The details of this cooperation in mission are forthcoming.  For now, you can get an overview here.

I wanted to address a concern that was raised by one of the more mature and advanced members of our new Ecuadorean Forge Tribe.  He said, that he was a bit preoccupied that almost half of the group were new believers or not as advanced as the other half of the group.  I assured him that this was a very good thing.  I’ll never forget an obscure statement by Lesslie Newbigin, when he said:

 “Sending churches are often insulated from the correction

that it needs to receive from the new converts.”

In other words, the leaders that begin a missional initiative must always be ready and open to receive both the encouragement and corrective exhortation of those who have been reached.  New converts interject value and momentum into mission.  To create class structure or to separate actually hurts mission.  The “new thing” that the Spirit may wish to do among you is often relayed from the mouth of babes.

Are there any good reasons for separating out new converts from the more mature in scattering (mission) or gathering (church)?  What are they?  

 

 

 

 

 

                        Related StoriesDiscipleship Group – We’re Going Mobile!Are Local Churches Supposed to be Missional Turnstiles?Identifying With and In Your Cultural Contexts For Disciple Making 

Are Local Churches Supposed to be Missional Turnstiles?

It’s pretty much a given that mission work is launched from local churches.  I say “pretty much” because I’m not sure it’s conclusive.  The more natural flow, to me, is that Church is launched from local Mission.  Think about it.  The mission is to make disciples.  Eventually, those disciples will gather together and form local gatherings.  Those local gatherings form networks of believers and become “The Church” in a geographical region.  The Church of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch are but a few examples.  We find no evidence in the New Testament of a church building on a corner in a specific neighborhood.

These networks of gatherings are consist or make up the “churches” referred to in the New Testament.  We do know that these “churches” were not considered temples, synagogues, or like definitive structures.  We all take our modern conception of “church” and impose it on the commonly understood form of the local church “back then.”  

A guiding principle for the New Testament Church is to voluntarily to support the needs of others (Acts 2:45; Romans 15:25-27), support Christian workers (1 Corinthians 9:11-12; 1 Timothy 5:18), and expand Christian outreach (Philippians 4:15-16).  In other words, the associations of local gatherings were to primarily serve others by and through mission.  The mission has the church, the church doesn’t have a mission.  God builds His church by direct action and through the agency of others.

It is common thinking that church members serve others “through” the local church, which in most cases is that building on the corner.   It is also assumed that one has to enter into that local church and be sent out from that local church to do mission.  In essence the local church becomes a turnstile and assumes the control of mission’s entrances and exits.  Church planting, if we’re honest, is often the desire to plant a mission making machine instead of establishing a missional mode.  But, is that biblical? 

 

                        Related StoriesChurch, Idolizing the Archaic, or Advancing on the Cutting Edge?Two Kingdoms in a Phone Booth.Ephesians 4:11 – Who’s Sent? 

Don’t You Think it’s Time to Stop Referring to the Function of Elders, Pastors, and Deacons as ‘Offices?’

I think the word “office” when used to describe the function of Elders, Pastors, and Deacons is a horrible imposition on the scriptures and an even worse translation.  

Let’s get to it then.  The Culprit, not Paul, but the translators of the King James Bible in 1 Timothy 3:1 translate the verse in this way…  ”This is a true saying, If a man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work.”  The King James Version is not the only culprit.  The English Standard Version (©2001), New American Standard Bible (©1995), NET Bible (©2006), and even the Webster’s Bible Translation all use the word “office.”

Some translations, like the Weymouth New Testament, further complicate the matter with translations like this: “Faithful is the saying, “If any one is eager to have the oversight of a Church, he desires a noble work.”  Adding the word “church” here demonstrates the translators assumptions on the import of the passage.

The New International Version (©2011) does not use the word “office,” but translates the passage in this way: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task.”  I am not a fan of the NIV (Non-Inspired-Version) (jokingly), because of its dynamic equivalent translation manner (idea for idea, instead of word for word) but in this case they seem to have it correct.  

Finally, the New Living Translation (©2007), while not using the word office, translates the passage this way: “This is a trustworthy saying: “If someone aspires to be an elder, he desires an honorable position.”  What I find problematic here is the word “position.”

Pastors/Elders and or Deacons are not offices or positions in the church.  Unless you can define position or office in such a way as to not make them take hierarchical form.  Jesus said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles dominate them, and their men of high positions exercise power over them.  But it must not be like that among you. On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.”  Jesus forever busted hierarchy structures for the church. 

Peter, often thought of as the leader of the church, had this to say to all of God’s chosen people (the church) who were dispersed and living as foreigners in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia the following:

“Therefore, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of the Messiah and also a participant in the glory about to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you: Shepherd God’s flock among you, not overseeing out of compulsion but freely, according to God’s will; not for the money but eagerly; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

Peter uses the words “Elder” and “Pastor” (In verb form) here and specifically echoes the words and sentiment of Jesus regarding hierarchical leadership.  There is no “office.”  Leadership in the church is functional not positional in the sense of some exercising authority over others in hierarchy structures.  If there is “position,” it’s always amongst the people. See (1 Thessalonians 5:12) and (1 Peter 5:2)

One problem ~ Actually two, but This one makes me take pause, but let’s consider it together.  In Acts 1:20, Peter says, regarding Judas: “”For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and, ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’ ~ Ouch!

We have a couple of choices here.  We can accept that Apostleship was indeed an office and by logical consequence apply it to Pastors and Elders in which my proposition dies, or we can consider the use of another word in this passage.  The NIV again, in my opinion, does a good job with this passage when it translates this verse in this way: “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’

The latter causes no contradiction with Jesus’ and Peter’s words above but does go against the grain of nearly ever other translation.  Also, we must remember that the quote from Psalms refers to the enemies of the Messiah in general, but is applied by the apostle to Judas in particular. In the Hebrew text, Psalm 69:25 uses words that are in the plural number, “let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents”; and refers to all the enemies of Christ, the chief priests, elders of the people, Scribes and Pharisees, who covenanted with Judas to give him so much money to betray Christ into their hands.

In essence, the “office” being replaced here may apply to something much more broad than a position of one man.

The second problem for me, however slight, are all the time where the words “office of priest” are used in scripture.  See: (Deuteronomy 26:3), (Luke 1:8), etc.  But again, I would recon these translations as driven by religious agenda.  Even if I am wrong on that, the new covenant era counts all as priests (1 Peter 2:5-9).  If we’re all priests, then we all have the same office and hierarchical structures are flattened. 

Final thought:  The word “office” is too heavy laden with modern unbelieving hierarchical leadership concepts.  It is imprudent and often controlling to impose it on biblical texts.”  Chances are, if you’re adamant about protecting the term, you might be one of those who is disobeying Jesus by “Lording” over people.

So, isn’t it time to jettison the word and its associated concepts in favor of Jesus’ command?   

 

 

                         
CommentsI agree Miguel. May I suggest we go even further and stop ... by CarlosThanks Bro. Miguel, another “home run.” Sharing this. ... by Frank ColemanYeah. 'bout that time. by David WoodsRelated StoriesLeading Edge Missiology and Ecclesiology?Of Hierarchy, Tiers, and Levels of Authority Within the Church.Church Discipline In A Social Media World?