His Church
Conclusions
One of the central themes of this study is the section on ‘The pastoral system’.
We have already mentioned Diotrophes who wanted to be the focus of attention in
one congregation. We have seen also another reason for the development of this
non-biblical pattern, which is the reluctance of individual believers within a
congregation to spiritually participate in the life of the church. We saw an
outstanding example of this reluctance to communicate direct with God from
Exodus 20:19 - “they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but
let not God speak with us, lest we die.”
The pastoral system often produces undeveloped members who are overly dependent
on the one who does everything for them. One consequence of this is that it
frequently becomes a massive burden for the one on whom people are so dependent.
It further results in producing underdeveloped Christians who are often unable
to find answers for themselves in prayer and in the Scriptures. This system by
its very nature tends to interfere with the all important New Covenant principle
of every individual believer being deeply dependant on communion with God.
Whether or not the ‘pastor’ preaches this personal relationship, this unbiblical
structure hinders many people from entering in to it.
Arguments for the pastoral system
Is there in the Bible anything that could help support belief in this system?
The following are five explanations I have heard as a basis for this structure:
- In the book of Revelation, the letters to the seven churches are all
addressed to - “... the angel of the church at ...” - This means the pastor.
The word ‘angel’ here (AGGELOS) is the same Greek word used in every other
instance where ‘angel’ occurs in the New Testament. Was it a pastor who visited
Mary? Was it a ‘pastor’ who delivered Peter out of gaol? Does the writer to the
Hebrews mean “we may entertain pastors unawares?”
It is possible that the use of the word angel (messenger), in this instance,
could be in some way figurative. However it would be inappropriate to formulate
from this a system that is inconsistent with the plainly revealed truths of the
rest of the New Testament. Also, if this were true, then would it not seem
extraordinary that the pastor is by-passed in all of the other New Testament
letters? The epistles are addressed to: the saints (all believers), the bishops
(i.e. the elders) and deacons etc, but never to ‘the pastor’. If such a role
existed, it would have been rude and inappropriate to not even mention ‘God’s
appointed leader’!
- James was the ‘leading elder’ at Jerusalem. This is so because he is
mentioned several times and gave a summarising word in a meeting of the apostles
and elders on a particular matter (Acts 15:6-22).
First of all, such a term (leading elder) is never used or even alluded to with
reference to James or any other elder. Secondly, in a conversation/debate
situation where the final goal is truth, there will often be someone who gives a
final summary to the discussion. That someone may not always be the same person
on each occasion, but even if it were, this would not create a new ‘office’ in
the Church.
- There were elders - plural in each city, but only one per ‘house meeting’ in
that city.
It is true that Titus was told to appoint elders in every city. However, this
does not make clear the more exact distribution of those elders, but in Acts
14:23 we read: “And when they had ordained them elders (plural) in every church
(singular)”. The view of ‘one-city one-church’ is a conceivable argument from
Scripture. However, we have to realise the huge changes in size and population
of what we call a city today. But even if this were to be applied as a principle
then it still does not lead to all that goes hand-in-hand with the pastoral
system.
- Someone has to be in charge, and preferably someone qualified.
Someone is simply human reasoning, not what the Word of God teaches. It is true
that nearly every, if not all, earthly organisations have a singular ‘managing
director’ figure to oversee them. God’s EKKLESIA is not a part of this world’s
system.
As for the necessity of trained people to run churches, this also is not based
upon any biblical argument. However this does lead to an opportunity to consider
another spiritual truth of the Kingdom of God. Firstly, the emphasis on a
biblical elder is character more than ability. Secondly, the abilities that are
required cannot be taught by any man. All genuine functions in the Church of God
are a gift from God; they cannot be learnt by theological training. Having been
endowed of God for some task, it is true that a person can grow in this
ministry. The Holy Spirit is our Teacher, all subsequent ‘training’ is provided
by Him. This does not negate the need of others within the Church from whom we
can learn, but the Body is fitted together by Him. He joins us together with the
right people, at the right place, at the right time, in order to provide us with
the lessons we need to learn, when we need them.
- Israel had Moses, Joshua and then a King; therefore each church must have one
overall leader.
In the realm of Old Testament analogy, surely Moses (God’s mediator), Joshua
(Hebrew form of Jesus – saviour) and kingship all speak of our Lord Jesus! There
is no such warrant to apply these ‘types’ to the subject of leadership in the
Church. However, this does lead us to reflect on another lesson of God’s
dealings with His people.
DAVID GOD'S KING?
In so many situations (pastoral system churches) it does seem as though, under
the circumstances, ‘such and such’ is the right man for the job. If this system
is in opposition to biblical precedents, then how can it be that God still takes
an interest and continues to bless, speak and minister to hearts? The answer is
- the Father heart of our loving, merciful God. He is slow to chide and swift to
bless. We see this very principle at work in Israel’s history and their desire
for a king.
In Deut. 17:14 it was predicted that, when Israel would come into the Promised
Land that the people would say: “... I will set a king over me, like as all the
nations that are about me.” Knowing that they would be unrelenting about this,
in response, Moses said “Thou shalt in anywise set him king over thee, whom the
Lord thy God shall choose.” I encourage you to read all of 1 Sam. Chapters 8 and
12, where this whole scenario will become abundantly clear; it was not the
highest purpose of God to give them an earthly king. We will not pause to
consider the reign of Saul, but simply note that it all turned out disastrously
even as Samuel had warned them. However, our merciful God did not abandon them,
He gave them David. God does not usually reject us at the first falling-away
from His statutes. We know also, that God works all things to bring about the
good of His people. Thus does He often do in the multitude of situations where
His people will not even consider being different from the others around, God,
in His longsuffering, does not abandon His people. Yes, God can still speak in
these situations; He can speak through an ass if necessary - (Num. 22:28). But
our commission as the children of God is not to say, “Well, God uses this or
that and therefore we do it that way.” We are commanded to obey the revealed
will of God, which He has preserved for us in Holy Scripture, often at the
expense of the blood of His saints!
There are other reasons why many churches may appear to be ‘successful’ whilst
operating the pastoral system. One is, that it could be due to the leadership of
a genuinely gifted person who, whilst continuing an inherently faulty practice,
may none-the-less be ministering in the life-flow of God. On the other hand,
though a church may have quenched the Spirit of God, it still continues,
outwardly, relatively unaffected because it has a well-rehearsed method and/or
an industrious ‘program’!
A LESSON FROM SARDIS
“These things saith He that hath the seven spirits of God, and the seven stars;
I know thy works, that thou has a name that thou livest, and art dead.” (Rev.
3:1).
I hope this study has shown without doubt that God has given, and preserved for
us a pattern for His Church. But as with every biblical truth, we can still try
and pursue the establishment of it in the flesh. Those looking on from the
outside evidently thought of Sardis as a live, spiritual church. Perhaps those
within that assembly thought of themselves in that light. On the surface at
least, they must have appeared to have things right. But the assessment of Jesus
of them was: “Thou art dead!”
Does this mean that we may as well give up any attempt to fashion things on the
outside according to the right way, for fear of being hypocrites? Of course not.
There is no alternative for those who want to please God in every way. However
we do need to have hearts that match our minds. The correct outward form of
church-life, in and of itself, cannot be equated with spirituality. It is quite
possible to follow all of the ‘form’ and be as dead as Sardis!
A LESSON FROM THE TABERNACLE
“Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it.” (Psalms
127:1)
We must be ever conscious that although the Holy Scripture provides us with the
pattern for the building, the process must be carried out through a spiritual
enabling from God. Bezaleel and Aholiab were masters of their trade but they
still had to be filled with the Spirit of God and wisdom to be properly
qualified to work according to God’s design – see Exodus 31:1-6.“Except the LORD
keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” (Psalms 127:1)
Having established the ‘Tabernacle of God’ we mustn’t ever think the work
complete. The building is only a means to an end. The whole purpose of the
construction of the Tabernacle was in order that it might provide a suitable
framework for the ‘Service of God’. This does not mean that the Tabernacle does
not need to be maintained, but having established a work in the Spirit it must
then be entirely committed to Him to keep it.
WHAT NEXT?
This work is by no means an exhaustive study on Church life. Even if it were, no
such thing could be treated as a how to manual. Praise God, He has preserved for
us a trustworthy record of the Church in the Bible. These Church-life principles
are intended to work as a whole. They do not, by and large, produce so much
benefit if only some of them are applied in isolation from the fuller picture.
The New Testament furnishes us with a clearly defined ‘wineskin’, which God has
designed as His vessel for the spiritual life of Christ – the New Wine. As for
any details not mentioned in Scripture, there must be liberty, only, within the
bounds of sound biblical principles.
It is not my purpose here to offer any suggestion on how to convert from the
‘pastoral model’ to the New Testament pattern. The underlying requirements for
this to happen are: The all-out desire to please God at any expense. There will
always be very strong resistance to changing very long-standing traditions. For
a new church it should not prove difficult if it is known at the out-set that
this is the intended pattern for development. However, there may be strong
criticisms, or worse form the existing establishments. It also requires an
unswerving belief that the Scripture, in particular the New Testament teachings
are as applicable today as they were when they were first written – (see
appendix 1). I wish to make it clear that my desire for this return to New
Testament simplicity is not primarily one of correctness of form, but an
aspiration to know afresh the unhindered movings of God in HIS CHURCH.
[use your 'home' key to go to top of page]
