By Jon Zens
Originally posted on HomeCurch.com
Statement on offsite articles

I have many things on my heart that I would like to share with you concerning the upbuilding of the church. In "The Local Church: The Pillar and Ground of the Truth" (BRR, Summer, 1977), I set forth some broad principles regarding the importance of the local church in the believer's life. There I said, in commenting on Heb.10:24-25, "these verses involve much more than just sitting thirty to sixty minutes before the preached Word.... Something more is to happen when we assemble with the brethren.... preaching only is is not enough." Further consideration of these matters, however, has led me to believe that there are some problems in our general outlook and practice which simply militate against this "something more" being expressed. In what follows I wish to explore some Scriptural and historical matters which bear on the manner in which the body of Christ is to be built up. Traditionally and practically we have ended up focusing on one man, the "pastor"; I submit that the New Testament focuses "on one another" in the upbuilding process.

If we are serious about Christ's truth, then we should not be afraid to bring our private and local church practices under the scrutiny of God's Word. John Owen made the following observation in 1689:

For the most part, the churches that are in the world at present know not how they came so to be, continuing only in that state which they have received by tradition from their fathers (The True Nature of a Gospel Church, edited and abridged by John Huxtable [London, 1947], p.35).

If there are things in our tradition which we do that are in conflict with the N.T. revelation, then we must correct our practice. I have attempted to speak in areas where clearness, not haziness, is evident in the N.T. The questions I raise, and the convictions I state may seem to be strong; but I ask you to consider these things in the light of Scripture, and if you believe there is Scriptural teaching I have missed, or perverted, please seek to correct me. I believe these matters are of utmost importance, and it is critical that we ascertain the mind of Christ concerning the place of mutual ministry in the local church. According to Eph. 4:16, we need that which every joint supplies in order to grow in Christ.

THE NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE: PRIORITY OF THE BODY

(1) The General Viewpoint: A Functioning Priesthood 1 Pet. 2:5,9

Just as there was a people of God in the old age, so now under the New Covenant there is an "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16). But this new people is not national, but spiritual in character -- "living stones." That which was typified in geographical Israel has now come to living expression in "a spiritual house, a holy priesthood," which "offers up spiritual sacrifices" (v.5). This house is built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ (v.4; cf. 1 Cor.3:11).

Of special interest to us here is the conception of this family of God as "a holy priesthood....a royal priesthood" (vv.5,9). Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant priesthood, and is building a church in which every "living stone" is a "priest." There were many requirements for the Old Covenant priesthood, and as a result only a relatively few men functioned in it. But the New Covenant priesthood includes all saints.

More importantly, however, is the fact that the Old Covenant priests had certain functions to constantly perform. Peter focuses on this point: New Covenant priests function by offering up "spiritual sacrifices" (v.5). A non-functioning priesthood is an absurdity! What is included in "spiritual sacrifices" can be seen clearly in such passages as Rom.12:l, Heb.13:15-16 and Rev.5:8.

In Rom.12:l-8, it is important to see how Paul naturally links our priesthood (v.1) with our functioning in the local church: "so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us" (vv.5-6). Not "all members have the same office" (v.4), but all members are to-function in the body (v.3b). It should also be clear that the functions Paul has in view involve (though not exclusively) the meetings where the church comes together (vv.6-8).

There are four things with reference to the general priesthood of believers I would like to point out. First, a functioning priesthood is essential and basic to the people of God. Secondly, any church traditions and practices which in their practical outworking squelch the functioning of believers as priests must be rejected.

Thirdly, we must realize that people, not buildings, constitute the "house of God" (cf. 1 Cor.3:9). For example, well-meaning parents say to their children, "be quiet and still, for we are in the house of God." However, "God's house" must not be identified with any building, for this clouds the fact that Christ's people are a "spiritual house." The old covenant emphasis on places has passed away because the fulfillment of these types has come in a spiritual people (John 4:20-24).

Fourthly. in light of our priesthood, we cannot give credence to the historical "clergy/laity" distinction. Howard Snyder points this out by saying:

The New Testament simply does not speak in terms of two classes of Christians -- "minister" and "laymen" -- as we do today. According to the Bible, the people (laos, "laity") of God comprise all Christians, and all Christians through the exercise of spiritual gifts have some "work of ministry." So if we wish to be biblical, we will have to say that all Christians are laymen (God's people) and all are ministers. The clergy-laity dichotomy is unbiblical and therefore invalid. It grew up as an accident of church history and actually marked a drift away from biblical faithfulness.... It is one of the principal obstacles to the Church effectively being God's agent of the Kingdom today because it creates the false idea that only "holy men," namely, ordained ministers, are really qualified and responsible for leadership and significant ministry (The Community of the King [IVP, 1977], pp.94-95).

The N.T., indeed, makes a distinction between leaders and people (cf. 1 Thess.5:12-13). But this distinction assumes the priesthood of believers, and does not swallow it up as the "clergy/laity" practice has in the past.

Eph. 5:18-21

In v.18, Paul issues forth an imperative, "be filled with the Spirit." The fulness of the Spirit, then, comes to expression through the five participles which follow: "speaking to yourselves... singing... making melody... giving thanks... submitting yourselves one to another" (vv.19-21). The "Spirit-filled" life is not some nebulous, ecstatic experience. It comes to visible expression in relationship with other people.

Thus, a basic aspect of our priesthood in Christ is to be in a submissive frame of heart with reference to the other brethren. That is to say, wrapped up in our priesthood is a spiritual commitment to others. Before Paul moves on to specific forms of submission (5:22; 6:1; 6:5), and specific headship responsibilities (5:25; 6:4; 6:9), he first sets forth the absolute necessity of mutual submission to one another in the fear of. Christ (5:21). Our Christian priesthood, then, means at least two things: (1) that we make a commitment of love to minister to our brother's spiritual welfare; and (2) that we submit ourselves to the ministry of our fellow brethren for our own edification. Biblical submission, in light of our priesthood, is two-way, not one-way.

1 Cor. 12:4-26 (cf Rom. 12:3-8)

In this context, Paul gave a proper perspective on gifts of ministry within the local church -- a perspective which many Corinthian believers had forgotten. Let us list Paul's basic points.

1. All believers possess the Spirit of Christ (v.13).

2. This common Spirit works in all believers (vv.4-7).

3. The goal of spiritual gifts is mutual edification (vv.7,11).

4. The church is a body, whose members all have a vital function (vv.12, l5-18, 21-22).

5. Ministry in the church does not focus in one member, but many (vv.14, 19; cf. Appendix A).

6. The many members, because of their personal union with Christ, have a living relationship with one another (vv.12, 25-26).

7. The body cannot function without its parts, and the functioning (priesthood) of the parts is necessary for the unity of the body (vv.17, 25, 27).

The body brought into existence by Christ's work does absolute justice to both the worth of each individual part, and to the corporate body as a whole. That is to say, neither is the individual swallowed up in the body, nor is the body sacrificed for the sake of the individual parts. Just as in a human body, it functions as a unified whole, but is dependent upon the proper functioning of all the parts. All of this takes on special meaning when the. general priesthood of believers is supposed. The body is not meant to depend upon the function of one member (vv.14, 19), while the other members are passively receptive. On that basis the body will be crippled, and perhaps die.

It is not going too far, then, to say that the "body" nature of Christ's people is most basic in the N.T. Erroll Hulse observes, "the main New Testament analogies describe the Church as a body made up of living members. The analogy of the human body predominates" (Local Church Practice, p.56). Howard Snyder comments, that "the Church is no mere collection of isolated individuals, but... it has a corporate or communal nature which is absolutely essential to it[s] true being" (The Community of the King, p.58).

Eph.4:11-16

In this passage the exalted Christ, leading captivity captive, gave gifts to men (v.8). Here, we are primarily concerned with the "pastor-teacher" gift of v.11. In the Puritan tradition, verses 11-12 have been taken to mean that Christ has given pastors and teachers ("doctors"):(1) for perfecting the saints; (2) for the work of the ministry; and (3) for the building up of the body of Christ (cf. "A True Description... of the Visible Church," [1589], The Reformation of the Church, ed. Iain Murray, p.200; Owen, True Nature, pp. 46-47; "The Form of Presbyterial Church Government," [1645], The Reformation of the Church, p.209). With this interpretation, the entire edification process fell upon the shoulders of "the officers" (cf. Thomas Goodwin, Works, Vol.11, p.310).

However, this interpretation does not appear to be accurate. The King James translation has in v.12, "for...for...for." But there is in the Greek a change in prepositions not reflected in this rendering. The Greek original has pros ...eis...eis ["for...unto...unto"]. Thus, this verse can be rendered, "He gave... pastors-teachers for equipping the saints unto the work of ministry, unto the upbuilding of the body of Christ." In other words, the function of the pastors-teachers is to equip the saints so that they can minister.

This construction is further borne out in the context. Verse 16 reveals Christ as joining the whole body together. The emphasis here, as in 1 Cor 12, falls on the total body ministry, not the exclusive ministry of pastors. The elders' function is a crucial part of the edification process. But the broader body ministry unto edification is specifically mentioned two times in v.16: (1) "every joint supplies"; (2) "in the measure of every part." Thus, edification is not conceived of as being achieved by the ministry of one part (the "pastor"), but by a mutual ministry of every part.In summing up this general N.T. perspective, we can say that:

All believers are 'ministers' (believer-priests) who have been gifted by God so that they may lovingly build up their spiritual brothers and sisters.... each Christian has received a spiritual gift... A gift is a special ability given graciously by God to each person in Christ's Body to help others toward spiritual maturity (Sixteen Tests of An Authentic New Testament Church, Fellowship Bible Church [l980], p.25).

In light of this, the service of elders and deacons must be viewed against the backdrop of the general priesthood of believers. They serve as an important part in the edification of the body; they do not constitute the only sources of edification in the body. More will be said on this in the historical section.

(2) The Specific Practice: "Build Up One Another, Even As You Are Doing" (1 Thess.5:11)

1Cor.14--"Each of you"

Some have shied away from this passage because it includes elements (like "tongues") which they feel have ceased. Whatever the case may be, however, it seems to me that there are some principles revealed here that confirm the lines of thought we have seen in 1 Cor.12, Rom.12, and Eph.4:16 (cf. Owen, Works, Vol.13, p.35).

Several things are evident in this chapter. First, Paul is dealing with the entire church a gathered: "the whole church come together in one place" (v.23: cf. 1Cor.11:18). Secondly, there is nothing said about the ministry of one man. Thirdly, there is much stated about the ministry of many: "that you may prophesy" (v.1); "when you come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has an interpretation" (v.26); "you all may prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted" (v.31).

The Greek word for "each one" is hekastos. It is used in the N.T. to show the individuality of judgment: "everyone shall give account of himself to God" (Rom.14:12; cf. Matt.16:27; 25:15; Rom.2:6). In Acts 2:3, the Holy Spirit "sat upon each of them," indicating that this happened to each individual. Does it not appear, then, that the edification of the body involves a hekastatic principle? That is, the "ministry" is not given to one man, but to "each of you." This does not mean, of course, that at every service each person must participate. But it does at least mean that the service at some point was open to those who had something from the Lord to contribute (cf. Appendix B).

We must keep in mind that this "each one" principle was taking place in the assembling together of the church: "when you come together [as a church, v.23], every one of you..." (v.26). It is, therefore, of note that in the Reformed tradition the minister and his sermon became the focus of attention, and the brethren speaking to one another was to take place in homes apart from the gathering of the church together (cf. Owen, Works, Vol.13, p.46; Colin Richards, "Fellowship in the Local Church," Local Church Practice, pp.97-98). On what N.T. basis may we remove the "each of you" practice from the stated "whole church" gatherings? In the Reformed tradition, "the acts of worship were grouped around the pulpit as the most important centre of the church" (J. L. Ainslie, The Doctrines of Ministerial Order in the Reformed Churches of the 16th and 17th Centuries [Edinburgh, 1940], p.51). Where in 1Cor.14 can we find a pulpit centrality that focuses on one man?

I am not suggesting in all of this that the elders do not teach in the church gatherings, or, conversely, that all must speak. Obviously, the teaching of the elders is to give backbone and guidance to the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim.3:2). But it is clear that speaking words of edification in the local church is not limited to one "minister." Where is any opportunity given to others to speak unto edification in our services? What grounds are there in the N.T. to limit public speaking to the elders, especially the "pastor"? 1 Cor.14 teaches the exact opposite of such an idea. Are the basic principles of this passage now obsolete because the canon of Scripture is closed?

Some may feel that the hekastatic principle opens the door for confusion and chaos. But the Corinthian church was practicing an "each of you" ministry, and Paul does not censure them for that. For Paul, there was no tension between peace and "all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted" (vv.31,33). Thus, to draw back from this principle by erecting a straw man such as, "imagine the confusion if every individual believer claimed his own vision or his own direct leading!" is to evade the teaching of 1Cor 14 (Erroll Hulse, Local Church Practice, p.36). This question must be faced: given the "each of you" principle in 1Cor 14, on what basis can we suggest that edification "is conveyed primarily through [Jesus'] work as a prophet as He instructs the churches through the messengers [the "pastors"] (Hulse, p.36)?

To summarize 1Cor. 11-14, can we not say that:

The essential activities of the church when gathered are (1) teaching, (2) edification through mutual ministries and (3) worship through the Lord's Supper, singing and prayer.... The meetings of the church should be characterized by the participation of many who are being prompted by the Holy Spirit (Sixteen Tests, pp.13, 27).

Rom. 15:14--Nouthetic Interaction

Here Paul gives a commendation to the church at Rome. They were "able also to admonish one another." The Word "admonish" (noutheteo) usually means to lovingly confront a sinful act or attitude with truth. The elders of a church are required to watch over the flock, and admonish when necessary (1 Thess 5:12). But the duty of admonishing extends to all the priests. These brethren were "able" to admonish one another. This implies that this is a skill which is learned. Relating this back to Eph. 4:11-12, we can see a specific instance here of how the elders are to "equip" the saints: they are to help train the general priesthood in the ability of "admonishing." Could Paul come among our churches today and see visible evidence that the brethren at large were "able" to perform this duty? If admonishing is left to the elders, then it is no wonder that the saints are ill-prepared for this important task. It is in such a realm as this that pastors and teachers are to equip the saints for the work of ministry. I do not see how such training can materialize if edification is conceived of as originating only from one man's ministry.

1 Thess 4:18; 5:11-14--Constant Interaction

Paul here focuses on the mutual ministry of Christians to one another. The hope all Christians possess is a doctrine by which they may "comfort one another" (4:18). In 5:11, Paul mentions that they practice, as an on-going ministry, the building up of one another: "even as you are doing." Again, we are forced to ask, can we meaningfully relate this vital practice to what transpires in churches today? If the brethren rarely see each other during the week, and if the structure of the services focus on the "pastor," how can we expect this mutual ministry to come to concrete expression?

I suggest here, and will expand on it later, that the reason "one another" ministries are so stifled is precisely because our practice flows out of the conviction that edification comes about through one man's ministry: "on this office [the "pastor"] and the discharge of it He hath laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of His church" (Owen, True Nature, p.55).The "pastor" becomes the sole source of edification. Thus, according to Goodwin, even when "ordinary" brethren conversed with one another, the focal point was to be "what it was in a sermon that God blessed to them" (Works, Vol.11, p.357). But in the N.T. there is just as much emphasis, if not more, on the profitability of mutual ministry among the general priesthood. Yet this is left virtually untouched in such treatises.

Historically, the duty of mutual edification has been relegated to something which is "occasional," while for Paul the "one another" ministry was the basic fabric of local church life. Further, this mutual ministry was apparently expressed in the church gatherings ("each of you"), but the Reformed tradition has pushed it outside of such meetings.

In vv.12-13, Paul makes a clear distinction between the saints and their leaders. Those who have been set aside by the people of God as "elders" are to be "known" and "highly esteemed." The elders are "over them in the Lord." While this distinction is clear enough, it does not seem to me that our conception of it is always clear. This distinction has been taken to mean that the elders do everything --admonishing, teaching, etc. But we have already seen in Rom.15:14, and can see here in 1 Thess.5:11,14, that there is a general mutual ministry that saints are to perform among themselves. The elders, in particular, are to oversee the mutual functioning of the body. The elders function in a similar fashion to a player-coach on a football team -- only in the church there are several coaches, not one.

The function of pastoral leaders is to serve as 'player-coaches' of the congregation, by equipping the believers for their various God-appointed ministries.... a player-coach... unselfishly attempts to develop and coordinate the abilities of others while he himself fights the battle with them, shoulder-to-shoulder (Sixteen Tests, p.31).

After giving the general duty of edifying one another in v.11, Paul tells the "brethren" in v.14 that there are specific needs in the body to which they must minister. Again, Paul does not relegate this "warning/comforting/supporting" ministry to the leaders only, but makes it incumbent upon the body to have the same care for one another (1Cor.12:25).

Perhaps some would try to find in v.20, "despise not prophesyings," a reference to the centrality of one man's preaching. However, it must be remembered that in 1Cor.14:31 Paul stated: "you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."

Heb. 10:24-25 -- Serious Interaction

In Heb.3:6-14 and 10:24-29 we are faced with the sober reality that there is no place in the Christian profession for slothfulness. In both contexts apostasy is set forth as the alternative for those who neglect the gospel (3:1). But, also, in both places the same mutual duty is given as the God-ordained means of restraining apostasy and maintaining perseverance: "exhort one another daily...lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (3:13).... not forsaking the assembling [as a church; Greek: episunagogen]... but exhorting [one another] (10:25)." In the process of the saint's perseverance, then, a mutual responsibility stands as the primary revealed method of abiding in Christ and His house.

I dare say that there are too many professing Christians who have never considered the importance of the ministry of other brethren in their lives. We live in a society where it is "every man for himself," and the whole idea of mutual dependence is foreign to our thinking. In light of the Heb.3:13 and 10:25 perspective, can we not see why it is important to practice the "one another"/"each of you" ministry in our gatherings as a church?

Heb.10:25, of course, is cited as a basis for people to "come to church." It is probably the strongest passage on such a responsibility in the N.T. But what, according to 10:24-25, is to occur in our assembling? Where in 10:25 can you find the idea that we are to come to hear the ministry of one man? We probably assemble together, but do our services allow for the exhorting of one an other? If we are going to employ 10:25 to press the duty of assembling together, must we not also use it as a guide for what transpires in our services? In light of our practice, it appears that we use about half of the verse rightly ("assemble"), but think little about the other half ("exhort" one another).

For example, Thomas Goodwin, in discussing the "communion of saints, which the members of a church ought to have with one another," states that, indeed, mutual care "is a constant duty, and that we ought to seek all occasions of acting it" (Works, Vol.11, p.355). However, conceiving of the church gatherings as focusing on the minister and the sermon, and believing that "in private occasional converse, one member may not have opportunity to discourse with another once in seven years," Goodwin suggested that a separate "fixed meeting" was necessary, where the brethren could "know one another's cases and experiences" (Works, Vol.11, p.353). "The duty enjoined" in Heb.10:24, he says, "is a duty distinct from assembling together, which follows in the next verse [10:25]" (Works, Vol.11, p.354). Thus, while the N.T. connects mutual ministry and our gatherings as a church, we have in our practice separated them without exegetical basis. Why? Because we have structured our "corporate public worship" around the "pastor," and thereby relegated any mutual ministry to occasional meetings, perhaps "once a month" (Colin Richards, "Fellowship," pp.91, 96, 97).

In light of 1 Cor.12:23, 26, 31 and Heb.10:24-25, is it not time that we either acknowledge the discrepancy or justify our practice? The traditional "order of service" appears to be at odds with the "each of you" principle in the N.T. Unfortunately, it ends up focusing on one ministry, and not on the body. To graphically illustrate this, observe the elements in public worship as articulated by the Westminster Divines in 1645:

The ordinances in a single congregation are, prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of psalms, the word read, (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read) the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing ("The Form of Presbyterial Church Gov't," p.216)

Everything in this order is done by the "pastor" and other officers, except the "singing of psalms." This is essentially what we still practice today. Does this practice reflect a sensitivity to the glimpses of church gatherings we see in the N.T., or is it at odds with them? It seems to me that we have made normative that for which there is no Scriptural warrant (emphasis on one man's ministry), and we have omitted that for which there is ample Scriptural support (emphasis on one another).

Let us now come to some historical considerations that will help explain why we have come to such questionable practices.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: PRIORITY OF THE "PASTOR"

In this section I wish briefly to trace the historical development of church government which came to center in the "pastor" as the primary source of edification in the local church.

The Early Period

"The ministry in the Christian Church at the beginning was humble in outward condition and of the simplest in official character. In the course of the centuries it changed greatly" (Ainslie, p.1).

The Medieval Period

"We see that a great and imposing ecclesiastical organization has come into being. The officials of the Church, the clergy as they have come to be called, form a distinct class, separated from the ordinary people or laity" (Ainslie, p.l).

The Reformation Period

"In the midst of, and facing, such ecclesiastical conditions, with the ministry of the Church become such as we have seen it, the Reformation Movement of the sixteenth century arose.... There is one noteworthy fact at once to be noticed. The Reformers... when renouncing, and opposing themselves to, the Pope and his hierarchy. and setting aside the Medieval Church Orders, did not in the least reject a ministerial order and seek to abolish the Ministry as an institution in the Christian Church.... they believed in its immense importance and divine sanction" (Ainslie, pp.2,5).

I am going to suggest that the evidence from history reveals the swallowing up of a functioning priesthood of believers by the exaltation of this "ministerial order" in the Reformed tradition. It was among the Anabaptists that a more Biblical emphasis on mutual ministry surfaced (Snyder, pp.35-36).

First of all, we must understand that territorial and political considerations were wrapped up in the institution of the Reformed ministerial order (Ainslie, pp.16,6O). Just as the Protestants ended up instituting their national churches in competition with the established Romish churches, so the Reformed ministerial order was specifically implemented to take the place of the Papal church order (Ainslie, pp.11,41,56). I believe that reckoning with this point helps us to see that, once the Papal order was rejected, a potential vacuum was left. This vacuum was filled by the "ministerial order." Whether or not this order was the right answer is for us to determine in the light of Scripture.

Next, we must see that in the 17th century treatises on church life, two clear trends emerge. These trends are seen in two of the major works on church government by John Owen and Thomas Goodwin. The first trend was an exaltation of "officers." Owen saw "the due performance of the duties" Christ required "brought into this estate by the setting, fixing, or placing officers in it'' (True Nature, p.41; Cf. p.99 where a thriving church life is connected to "a multiplication of elders"). Thomas Goodwin identifies officers as the "furniture" of a house, and thus "when you have officers and ordinances dispensed by them, then you have a further presence, He will come down oftener amongst you. The more of ordinances, the more of Christ; the more officers, the more of ordinances" (Works, Vol.11, p.311, emphasis mine). This emphasis on officers, as Ainslie observed, has "largely persisted to the present day" (p.15; cf. p.34).

Of course, there is an importance placed on officers in the N.T. But, in light of all the emphasis we have seen on mutual ministry in the Epistles, the space given to "officers" in Reformed treatises must be designated as inordinate.

This brings us to the second discerable [sic] trend. With all the emphasis on "officers," the 17th century treatises on the church have virtually nothing on the "each of you"/"one another" ministries in the local church. Out of 546 pages on church order, Goodwin has six pages on "communion of saints." In John Owen's True Nature of A Gospel Church, he alludes to mutual ministry just a few times (pp.45,93; a four-page sermon on "The Mutual Care of Believers Over One Another" appears in his Works, Vol.16, pp.477-480, where he begins by seeing the church as "compacted together by officers and ordinances"; and in Vol.13, pp.19-49, he carefully delimits what "ordinary," "uncalled" [to the "ministry"] believers may do as ''priests'').

I think it is proper to make the general observation that the post-Reformation tradition, with its almost exclusive emphasis on "officers," had the practical effect of stifling a functioning priesthood of believers. It is important for us to realize, therefore, that we have been heavily influenced by this "officer"-oriented tradition, and that the N.T. data calls for a close scrutiny of that tradition. Just how this tradition has ill-effected [sic] us I hope will become more evident as we proceed.

Four-Office View

Arising out of this "officer"-orientation came a more specific focus on the one man called the "pastor." There emerged in the Reformed tradition a four-office view. The "pastor," the "doctor," the "ruling elders," and the "deacons" were conceived of as the expression of church order (cf. "A True Description...," pp.198-199; "The Form of Presbyterial Church Government," pp.209-214). Let us briefly consider each one, and then come back to expand on the office of "pastor."

"The "Doctor"

The "doctor" was made equivalent to the "teacher" mentioned in Eph.4:11 and 1Cor.12:28. The "doctor" was distinguished from the "pastor" in that the former was more facile in doctrinal matters, while the latter was more apt in practical matters ("Presbyterial Church Gov't," p.213). Here, we have the basic rationale for seminary professors, as the Westminster Divines stated that this "doctor is of most excellent use in schools and universities" (Ibid., p.213).

The "Ruling Elders"

These are men who "join with the minister ["pastor"] in the government of the church" (Ibid., p.214). Thus, the office of elder was divided up, based mainly on an arbitrary interpretation of I Tim.5:17, into the "teaching/ruling" elder (the "pastor" who labors in the Word), and "ruling elders." I say this use of I Tim.5:17 is arbitrary because it introduces an artificial distinction among elders. All elders must be "apt to teach," and all elders are to "rule." To be sure, there is in I Tim.5:17 a distinction among the elders. But it is a distinction of comparative time given, not a distinction of office. The ones who labor in the Word are part of a broader body of elders, all of whom are potentially worthy of financial support. There is in the text no warrant to elevate one man as the "pastor" (who is supported financially) and separate him from the other "elders." E.W. Johnson sums up the matter this way: "A church cannot be taught except it be ruled. and a church cannot be ruled except it be taught.... I do not believe in a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders" (Sovereign Grace Message, July, 1977, p.4: cf. BRR, Vol.7, #2, p.30). Our practice would translate I Tim.5: 17, "Let the elders who rule assist the fully-supported pastor who teaches and rules." Here again, we can see how the elevation of the "pastor" not only stifles the general priesthood, it also stifles the proper functioning of the eldership. The "ruling elders" become simply the "long arms" of the "pastor" (Ainslie, pp.63-64).

The "Deacons"

The deacons are to care for the material aspects of church life. But the Westminster Divines made it clear that the deacons were "not to preach the word, or administer the sacraments" ("Form," p.214). Such dogmatism is in contradiction with the ministry of "deacon" Philip (Acts 6:2-5), who both preached publicly and baptized many people (Acts 8:5,12).

The "Pastor"

In contrast to the N.T. focus on mutual ministry, the Puritans focused on the "pastor." Owen confidently asserted that "on this office ["pastor"] and the discharge of it He hath laid the whole weight of the order, rule, and edification of His church" (True Nature. p.55). Remember, he is not saying on the plurality of eldership rests the rule of the church. It is upon the one man who occupies the separate office of "pastor." Since our practice generally corresponds with this notion, we must reflect upon this question: where in the N.T. can we demonstrate that the edification of the church has been committed to the ministry of one part of the body, especially it, light of 1Cor.12:14,19,31 and Heb.10:24-25?

What authority, privileges and duties were attached to the office of "pastor"? Much detail will be given here in order to show that this one-man centrality effectively squelched the priesthood of believers. If all edification is attributed to one source, then the many members, practically speaking, have no function. They become passive recipients, not active priests.

"The Power of the Keys"

First, to the "pastor" alone was given "the power of the keys" (Ainslie, pp.61,66). These "keys" were exercised "by preaching and carrying out Church Discipline" (Ainslie, p.67). Thus, "only ministers... were to preach publicly" (Ainslie, p.69). When preaching, they usually wore a black gown (Ibid., p.37). The act of one man preaching the Word became the focal point of the church gatherings (Ibid., pp.49,59). It is no wonder, then, that "in the interior of a Protestant Church, the pulpit has always been the principal piece of furniture" (Ibid., quoting Dr. Pannier, p.50). But we must ask: in 1Cor.14 is a singular or multiple ministry emphasized? Where in the N.T. can we observe "that the acts of worship were grouped around the pulpit as the most important centre of the church" (Ibid., p.51)? Preaching in the Reformed tradition, notes Ainslie, "became something of a sacramental act and greater than the sacramental symbols of the Communion" (p.52).

Discipline came to be noncentralized in the hands of the "pastor," for obvious reasons (Ibid., pp.73-74). Nevertheless, in practice the "pastor" came to dominate in the disciplinary procedure (Ibid., pp.76-77,85,87-88). The reason the "pastor was so dominant in the worship service was because they believed he had a special "ministry unto edification" (Owen. True Nature, pp.42,55) which was given to no one else. For example, Goodwin observed that the edification of the church was extremely important, "for there is a fulness of stature appointed, and every member must grow up unto it before it [sic] goes to heaven" (Works, Vol.11, p.300). But he viewed this edification process as coming through "officers," not through one "another" (Ibid., pp.311-312). Interestingly, and perhaps expectedly, Goodwin must, in pressing home the need for the "pastor," deny the sufficiency of the Spirit-anointing each believer possesses (1 John 2:20,27).

By these officers he buildeth the house more and more.... The more ordinances, the more of Christ; the more of officers, the more of ordinances.... Because the church is under age [Eph.4:13] therefore she is to have these officers over her until she comes to a perfect man, and to the full stature. And children under age, now as well as then, are to be under tutors and governors, Gal.4:2... he contented not himself to have them enjoy such occasional means as the brethren in communion were able to afford each other... but he would farther have men of the best and eminentest gifts set apart usually unto it.... Yea, further, the apostle otherwise intimates. that without men being set apart unto it. there would be no preserving of knowledge, but the ordinary sort of believers would have been exposed to the danger of being carried away by seducers.... for ordinary sort of believers, being children not fully grown up, would easily have been seduced, if they had not had guides.... if this business had been in common left to the common care of every member watching over each other, there would have been a defect (Works, Vol.11, pp.310-314).

You can see how there is here a functional disdain for the mutual ministries, but an all-sufficiency attributed to one man's ministry.

"Administer the Sacraments"

Not only was the "pastor" the only one who could preach publicly, but he was also the only one who could "administer the sacraments" (Owen, True Nature, p.68; Ainslie, pp.56,63,65; Owen, Works, Vol.13, p.43; Goodwin, Works, Vol.11, p.309). Now I believe that it is in order for the elders to oversee the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper in the local church. But I have a real problem with this idea that "pastors" are the exclusive "dispenser's of the sacraments." The background of this idea that only certain men are qualified to administer the ordinances of the church is very suspect, and reeks of magical notions about the elements (cf. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, pp.154-158). From reading the N.T., you would get the impression that the Lord's Supper was a meal shared among the brethren, lot something to be formally "administered.''

"Read the Scriptures Publicly"

The Westminster Divines taught that only the "pastor" could read the Scriptures publicly ("Form," p.210). Three Old Testament contexts are cited as proof "that the public reading of the Scriptures belongeth to the pastor's office."

"Rules For Examination"

Obviously, the man to occupy this exalted office of "pastor" must have distinctive qualifications. After Owen outlined the duties of the "pastor," it is not surprising that he exclaims, "what learning, labour, study, pains, ability and exercise of the rational faculties, are ordinarily required unto the right discharge of these duties" (True Nature, p.70). More to the point are the "rules for examination" of potential ministers drawn up by the Westminster Divines:

He shall be examined touching his skill in the original tongues, and his trial to be made by reading the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, and rendering some portion of some into Latin; and if he be defective in them, enquiry shall be made more strictly after his other learning, and whether he hath skill in logic and philosophy.... What authors in divinity he hath read, and is best acquainted....He shall also, within a competent time, frame a discourse in Latin upon such a common-place or controversy in divinity as shall be assigned to him ("Form," pp.226-227).

If these "rules" were translated into first century terminology, there would have never been any elders ordained in the churches (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5)! Do we really believe that such standards were applied to men in the early church? Is it not safe to believe that many elders in the early days were common men, mature in the faith, able to meet the inspired standards of 1Tim.3:l-7 and Titus 1:6-8 (cf. 1Cor.1:26-28)? Must "ordinary pastors and teachers... be more than ordinarily skilled in their writing" (Goodwin, Works, Vol.11, p.314)? Why are such high standards applied to the "teaching/ruling" elders, but not to the "ruling" elders?

All of this, I believe, has created an artificial standard of intellectual attainment for "ministers." It explains why there is emphasis on academics in seminaries. It explains why much teaching is so involved and intricate that it goes over the head of the average believer. It explains why believer-priests are afraid to express their opinions. One brother wrote me recently and, before setting forth his ideas, apologized with these words: "I have had no seminary education, and I do not know Greek, and that causes me to feel a little intimidated." If a man has the annointing [sic] of the Spirit, he is spiritually equipped to "test the spirits" and to discern spiritual things (1Cor. 2:15). All of this accounts for why "ministers" are treated as an elite class, to whom "reverential estimation" is due (Owen, Works, Vol.13, p.58). The following example may be somewhat extreme, but the spirit of it lives on.

It was doubtless with assurance born of the reverence with which he was customarily regarded, that by stamping upon the meetinghouse doorway floor [John Smalley made known to his congregation the moment of his arrival, so that members of importance might rise and make him their obeisance as he passed down the center aisle on Sabbath mornings (Mary L. Gambrell, Ministerial Training in 18th Century New England, pp.113-114).

I am not saying that elders are to be ignorant. I do not for a minute wish to depreciate the proper acquisition of knowledge by elders. I am simply questioning the inordinate emphasis on learning which goes far beyond the Scriptural requirements. Also, these high standards are related to a separate office for which there does not appear to be any Scriptural warrant.

With this emphasis on the "learning" of the "pastor," another unfortunate thing has occurred. The''pastor," being ''above" the common people, became isolated from any ministry of the people to him. Thus, exhortation and encouragement could come only from other ministers. ''Let this whole treatise of discipline be read in the consistory, and let the ministers, elders, and deacons be censured one after another; yet so that the minister concerning doctrine be censured of ministers only'' (''The Book of Discipline," [1587], The Reformation of the Church, p.184).

With the "pastor" conceived of as "eyes to the church" (True Nature, p.59), how did the Puritans deal with mutual ministry? Obviously, they confessed the "priesthood of all believers," and believed that brethren had mutual responsibilities. However, it is clear that the pervasive centrality of the "pastor" thwarted any meaningful expression of mutual ministry in the church. When Owen and Goodwin deal with this subject, you get the feeling that the "common" brethren would have a cloud hanging over their heads for fear of "intruding into the pastor's office" ("A True Description," p.200). Owen sets out "to show... what remaineth for the rest of God's people to do, for their own and others' edification" (Works, Vol.13, pp.19-20). Of course, he rules out mutual ministry occurring during the meetings of the church (Vol.13, p.43). He allows for "cases extraordinary" where an "uncalled" Christian may "teach and declare the faith to others." But "for such an undertaking [he] must have a warrant by an immediate call from God," and Owen goes on to elaborate three ways in which such a call may be discerned (Vol.13, pp.28-29). Further, "uncalled Christians" may search the Scriptures diligently (Vol.13, p.39). They may also judge by the Scriptures the doctrine they hear publicly (Vol.13, p.40). Here, we must wonder how most "uncalled" brethren would feel about "questioning" the learned "ministers," especially since they were taught that such men "were to be heard as if it were God Himself speaking" (Ainslie, p.48). There would surely be a marked hesitancy to raise questions about what they, heard publicly from the Puritan giants.

Next, the "uncalled Christian," Owen said, has "one another" duties. He gives several qualifications as to when and how such duties are to be performed (Vol.13, pp.43-45). Common brethren must be careful. for example, about "opening" Scripture, for "there is much difference between opening or interpreting the word, and applying the word upon the advantage of such an approved interpretation" (Vol.13, p.44). The approved interpretation must mean that which has come forth from the "pastor." Nothing could be more detrimental to the priesthood of all believers than to suggest that one man gives out "approved interpretations" of Scripture, which "uncalled" brethren cannot produce.

Thus, he suggests that in order for mutual ministry to be "for the better, and not for the worse, observe these things:--"

1. Have two or three families meet in a home (Vol.13, p.46), where they may:

2. Pray together (Vol.13, p.46),

3. Comfort and strengthen one another "with the same consolations and promises which, by the benefit of the public ministry, they have received from the word" (Vol. 13, p.46; emphasis mine),

4. "Apply unto and instruct one another in the word of God, doing it as a charitable duty. and not out of necessary function" (Vol. 13, p.46).

5. "The people of God are allowed all quiet and peaceable means, whereby they may help one another forward in the knowledge of godliness..." (Vol. 13, p.47).

He closes by making it clear that "interpreting the word" belongs only to the "ministers," while "applying" the word belongs to the common believer (Vol. 13, p.49). Owen cites with approval Rutherford's words of 1641: "Our assembly, also, commandeth godly conference at all occasional meetings, or as God's providence shall dispose, as the word commandeth, providing none invade the pastor's office, to preach the word, who are not called thereunto by God and His church " (Vol. 13, p.49).

Goodwin basically follows this same pattern, and emphasized that mutual care "does not properly consist in the communication of such gifts, whereby the church is edified in the public worship of God" (Vol.11, p.57).

One can easily see in all this that the "pastor's" ministry dominates the public gatherings, and even spills over into the private meetings where his sermons compose the basic subject matter. Also, it can be noted that in Owen's point four above, he does not view mutual teaching as a necessary function. However, we have seen from the N.T. that it is to be the most basic function of the priests in the New Covenant, and that it occurred, not only in homes, but in the gathered meetings of the church.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES: THE NEED--A RETURN TO BODY PRIORITY

1. Do elders constitute Christ's authority in the church? The Reformed tradition tends to view elders as necessary in order for Christ's authority to be present. David Fountain, for example, says:

The local assemblies were not complete, and needed Christ's authority in their midst by means of Elders.... There is no authority in the church properly so-called but rests in the officers of it ("Authority and Elders," The Ideal Church, p.14).

Colin Richards says:

A fellowship of Christians without God-appointed officers can hardly be regarded as ideal or complete -- and some would say, and I think with justification, that such a fellowship could hardly be considered a church ("Fellowship," p.101).

But is this correct? In Acts, elders were ordained in every "church" (14:23). The church was existing and functioning for a considerable period before the elders were set apart. A church without elders is, indeed, "lacking" (Titus 1:5), but it is nevertheless a church.

The local church possesses authority from Christ to set apart qualified officers, and to discipline its members (Matt. 18:17). Paul confronted the Corinthian church as a whole, not the elders, with their failure to purge out the leaven. The action taken to judicially sever the man occurred when the church was "gathered together" (1Cor.5:4). In Rev.2-3, Christ deals directly with each church (cf. 22:16). In Matt.18:17, matters of discipline are taken "to the church." The person of Christ is manifested in the assembly, and the authority is in His Word which rules the congregation (Matt.18:20; Eph.5:24). Yes, the elders "rule" in the local church, but the form that "rule" takes does not negate the continual authority of the church to act in accordance with His Word. And, certainly, the church does not turn over its authority to the officers when they are elected, as Owen suggested (True Nature, pp.46,59).

2. Is there any Scriptural warrant to separate one man as "pastor" in distinction from the other elders? No. If you have three elders, you also have three pastors (cf. BRR, Vol.7,#2, p.30). It is generally admitted that "elder/bishop/pastor" are three designations of the same office. Tradition has created a separate office of "pastor," set up seminaries to train men for the "ministry," and presented such men as the primary source of edification in the local church. The Scripture views elders as a body of men (Acts 20:17,28). The charge to feed the body comes to all elders, not just to those who "labor in the Word and doctrine." In our practice we end up with two kinds of elders, and one (intellectually higher) set of standards is applied to one man, and another set for the others. On what Biblical basis do we practice this?

3. Is there any Scriptural warrant for one man's ministry to be the center-point of church gatherings? No. Obviously, the teaching of the elders, as a body, both public and private, should direct and feed the flock. But there is no evidence anywhere in the N.T. for the centrality of one member's ministry (cf. 1Cor.14:14,19,31). Rather, to the contrary, there is abundant evidence in the N.T. of multiple participation in the church gatherings (1Cor.14:31). Again, it appears that we have made normative that for which there is no evidence (one man's ministry), and we have abandonded that for which there is copious evidence ("each of you," 1Cor.14:26).

4. Does this mean that everyone should speak in the public gatherings? No. But we should seek to capture the spirit of the N.T. and allow time in meetings for multiple participation, mutual ineraction, and opportunity for questioning of those who teach the Word. Why? Because the N.T. emphasizes that our cleaving to and growth in Christ is intimately connected to our mutual ministries to one another. Our speaking to one another is for the purpose of edification, which is synonomous with being built up in Christ (Rom.14:19; 1Cor.14:3,12,26b; 1Thess.5:11). The N.T. presents us with a functioning priesthood ministering to one another in the church gatherings; our practice reveals virtually no opportunity for saints to mutually minister in our services. I am simply pleading that we turn from our one-man orientation, and practice one-anothering.

5. But how will the Word reign in our gatherings if one man does not do most of the teaching? We are probably so used to thinking in terms of one man's ministry that one-anothering is new to us. Therefore, we must orient ourselves to the fact that the centrality of the Word must not be equated with the speaking of one man. The N.T. nowhere makes this equation. Rather, the congregation is to be edified by teaching from the body of elders and the other priests. The Puritans were aware of the priesthood, but unfortunately, their conception of the "pastor" served to squelch the actual functioning of the priesthood-at-large. Edification from the body is hardly necessary if the "whole weight" of edification rests on the "pastor," as Owen suggested. If God has ordained for us to grow in Christ through manyh functioning priests, then the limiting of edification to one part is singularly damaging (Eph.4:16).

6. What, then, are the basic functions of the elders? They are to oversee the priesthood by: (1) equipping the saints so that they can fulfill their ministries (Eph.4:12); this is done by teaching and example; (2) teaching and applying the Word of God publicly and privately (Acts 20:28). I want to be very specific in answering this question, for since I have questioned the idea that edification arises primarily out of one man's ministry, some will conclude that I am throwing out the idea of elder. I am suggesting that the N.T. teaches rule by elders, not by one part of the body. The elders are to act as a body, not as (1) the ''pastor'' and (2) the "ruling elders" who act as the ''long arms'' of the ''pastor.'' The men in this body are equal in office, but obviously differ in the expression of their gifts and in the time they may give to watching over and feeding the flock. Here, then, are some specific functions of the elders/pastors/bishops as summarized by Alexander Hay:

1. To preside over the gatherings of the church, they are responsible to see that order is maintained in the meetings of the church and that all is done in accordance with Scripture. 2. They act as leaders of the congregation, taking the initiative where necessary in that which concerns its corporate life. 3. They act in representation of the congregation in pronouncing its decisions and in the laying on of hands. 4. As the ones who preside they must not permit a weak brother to engage in disputing and criticising. They must not allow wrong doctrine to be taught. 5. They must see that there is full liberty for the exercise of all the gifts of the Spirit by all who possess them, but that no one minister who has not a gift of the Spirit to do so. 6. They must see that the Scriptural procedure is followed in the case of any who may fall into sin. 7. At times they had to act as judges and arbiters in disputes between brethren, although, evidently, others besides the Elders may perform this service.... The ministry of the Word is the privilege and responsibility of all, and the Elders simply see that it is carried on as it should be by all according to God's Word. They are not priests ministering to laity, but leaders of equals; not professors teaching a class that never graduates, but leaders of a team. Their leadership and presiding should be inconspicuous. When all goes well they have no need to intervene.... God has placed them in the church for its oversight and they are responsible directly for the supervision of all the spiritual activities of the congregation (The N.T. Order For Church and Missionary, pp.238-239,301,326).

7. What is to be gained by moving away from centralization of edification in the "pastor"? If the N.T. teaches much about mutual ministry, and nothing about one man's ministry, then we will find ourselves blessed in implementing Christ's commandments because we love Him (John 14:15; 13:17). If our union with Christ is meant to be nourished particularly by mutual ministries, then we will be strengthened by experiencing them. If our gatherings together as a church are to be maximized unto edification, then this will be gained by "exhorting one another, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs," and profiting from the elders' teaching. Obviously, many have been edified in a church under one man's ministry. But has Christ revealed that we are to be edified by one gift or by many? Is it Scriptural to attribute the "whole weight" of edification to the "pastor," or not? We will gain by ceasing to be passive priests, and becoming active priests. In light of the fact that "pastor"-centrality has historically put water on the flames of mutual ministry, we will gain much in Christ by returning to that which is revealed in Scripture.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

1. We must let the light of the Word shine on our practice. Alexander Hay observes:

Tertullian found it necessary to say, "Custom without truth is error grown old." There is not a little in our modern Church order and practice that has no Scriptural warrant. Yet, because it has long been the custom, it is accepted without question as an essential part of the divine order (N.T. Order, p.285).

Remember, the Reformed tradition has been very dogmatic in asserting that their ''ministerial order" possessed "divine sanction" (Ainslie, p.5). "From the N.T. and the Scriptures as a whole came the chief formative guidance in the work of instituting the Reformed ministry" (Ainslie, p.13). But just where in the N.T. is the exegetical warrant for the "pastor-doctor-elders-deacons" view? Where in the N.T. do we find that Christ has placed the "whole weight" of edification on the ministry of "the pastor"? What are we to do with all the weight of evidence regarding mutual ministries? Must we not see from history a rather clear correlation between the rise of the "pastor" and the demise of one-anothering? "How does the church actually function compared with what the Word of God says? Is the practical application of Eph.4:11 and 1Cor. 12:28 even possible in our church, given its present structure? If not, what would God have us to do?" (Snyder, p.94).

2. "We must remember not to be afraid to be adventurous and willing to experiment in church life. We shall not be reluctant to do this or rash in our actions if we engage in a constant revision of all our activities" (Colin Richards, "Fellowship," p.99; emphasis mine). Specifically, "there is the need, too, for audible participation by the congregation. Let the 'Amen' be hearty at the end of the prayers (1Cor.14:16). There ought to be opportunities somewhere within the life of the church for prayer and general ministry for all members of the local church. Although this is an area that bristles with problems we cannot ignore it or else we are guilty of failing to take seriously the words of Paul in 1Cor. 14:26; 'When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation"' (Richards, "Fellowship," p.93). The elders must train the people to come to the gatherings with something on their heart from the Lord that will edify the others. Our practice has probably trained them to be passive. But the priests must have an opportunity to function, under the oversight of the elders. Provision must be made for this, which cannot occur if the "pastor" dominates the "order of worship." John MacArthur, Jr., makes this astute observation:

God has given each member certain spiritual gifts for the work of the ministry.... The local church essentially is a training place to equip Christians to carry out their own ministries. Unfortunately, for many Christians the church is a place to go to watch professionals perform and to pay the professionals to carry out the church program. In many quarters Christianity has deteriorated into professional "pulpitism," financed by Iay spectators. The church hires a staff of ministers to do all the Christian service. This scheme is not only a violation of God's plan, but an absolute detriment to the growth of the church and the vitality of the members of the body. Every member needs to find a significant place of service. To limit the work of the ministry to a small, select class of full-time clergymen hinders the spiritual growth of God's people, stunts the development of body, and hinders the evangelistic outreach of the church into the community (The Church: The Body of Christ, pp.122-123).

3. We must strive after local churches that visibly minister to one another. If growth in Christ is the goal, then the N.T. reveals mutual ministry as a crucial means to this end. Elder oversight is also critical in the edification process, but the goal is for all the parts to function (Eph.4:16). Are our churches marked by the "love" Christ commanded? Jay Adams raises some searching questions for us to consider in this regard:

The church has virtually lost its image as the loving, forgiving, helping, and healing society of people who gather together to "build up one another." There is plenty of talk about the church as the institution in which you can find coldness, and slander, and alienation; but what has happened to her first century image?... Where can you find a church. in which the members really "provoke one another to good works"? Where do you find those who are spiritually restoring a brother who is caught in a trespass?... Where in the church do you see the confrontation of brethren who have offended one another taking place (Matt.5:23-24; I8:15-20)? [Christ and Your Problems, pp.8-9].

Are "orthodox" churches providing an alternative for those turning to the ''unorthodox'' charismatic movement for vital fellowship? Sound doctrine must be joined to a functioning priesthood.

Our union with Christ brings us into a body (1Cor.12:13). Christ saves individuals, but ordains for them to grow in fellowship with others (whose gifts and graces they need), not in isolation.

We must allow our confidence in Christ to bring with it confidence in our brethren. Max Weber, in his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), observes that in Puritanism "the most extreme form of that exclusive trust in God.... comes out for instance in the strikingly frequent repetition, especially in the English Puritan literature, of warnings against any trust in the aid of friendship of men. Even the amiable Baxter counsels deep distrust of even one's closest friend, and Bailey exhorts to trust no one and to say nothing compromising to anyone. Only God should be your confidant" (p.106). Contrary to these sentiments, the N.T. teaches that we are to be open in our relationships with brethren, and bear one another's burdens (Gal.6:2). We should expect the best from our brethren, not the worst (Philemon 21; 2Thess. 3:4).

4. We must realize that functioning more Biblically as a church does not in and of itself produce spirituality. It is the Spirit as the presence of Christ who gives life to the body. Alexander Hay makes this crucial observation:

The visible forms of the order are without power in themselves; in fact they are such that they cannot stand alone. It is the presence of Christ in the gathering of the church, the guidance of the Spirit through the prayer of the church, and the gifts of the Spirit manifested through the members of the church, that provide all the wisdom and power and produce all the fruit (N.T. Order, p.297).

5. We must ask ourselves if our churches are being prepared for future suffering. Our current "freedoms" with reference to assembling together may be disrupted some day by governmental upheaval. Are the saints being prepared now to care and sacrifice for one another? What if all evangelical pastors were arrested? Would the churches be in a position to continue functioning? The possibility of an underground church in the future (which is a reality in many places) should cause us to reflect upon our preparedness for such a situation. Learning to care and minister to one another now is essential (cf. Richard Wurmbrand, Preparing for the Underground Church).

6. We must listen obediently to Christ speaking in Scripture. It is possible to nullify the Word of God by our traditions. A reluctance to re-examine practices that appear to be contrary to the Word is indication of a party-spirit, or a fear of truth. May we with meekness receive the Word and practice it.

Some might feel that churches are not "ready" for the truths that have been discussed in this article. But why should truth be postponed? Were churches "ready" to practice the responsibilities of priesthood a hundred years ago? Fifty? Twenty? If years of tradition are wrong, just when will we be "ready" to edify one another as we should? If something important is missing in our churches, then the time has come for us to implement what Christ has revealed. The implications of a functioning priesthood probably seem "radical" only because we are used to patterns of tradition which have no foundation in Scripture.

Brethren, I have poured out my heart. I ask you now to think about these matters before the Lord and His Word. If you have a word of correction, caution, modification, or encouragement, I want to be receptive to your comments. Remember, my primary concern has been to question the priority of the "pastor" in light of the priority of the priesthood in the N.T. I believe that continuance of one-man orientation is the precise area that will hinder us from the one-anothering that is revealed as an essential element of growth in Christ. May the Lord Jesus give us wisdom in all things.

APPENDIX B

Although William Barclay is unreliable as a theologian, the following excerpt from The Letters to the Corinthians on 1Cor.14 (pp.149-150) is the best precise summary of the spirit of N.T. church gatherings that I have ever seen. The sub-headings are not in the original text, and several comments will follow the excerpt.

LIBERTY BUT NOT DISORDER

Paul comes near to the end of this section with some very practical advice. He is determined that anyone who possesses a gift should receive every chance to exercise that gift; but he is equally determined that the services of the Church should not thereby become a kind of competitive disorder. Only two or three are to exercise the gift of tongues, and then only if there is someone there to interpret. All have the gift of forthtelling truth, but again only two or three are to exercise it; and if someone in the congregation has the conviction that he has received a special message, the man who is speaking must give way to him and give him the opportunity to express it. The man who is speaking can perfectly well do so, and need not say that he is carried away by inspiration and cannot stop, because the preacher is able to control his own spirit. There must be liberty but there must be no disorder. The God of peace must be worshipped in peace.

THE CHURCH SERVICE:

Freedom Within Structure

It is true to say that there is no more interesting section in the whole letter than this, for it sheds a flood of light on what a Church service was like in the early Church. There was obviously a freedom and an informality about it which is completely strange to our ideas. From this passage two very great questions emerge.

PASTORS ARE NOT THE ONLY SOURCES OF EDIFICATION

(1) Clearly the early Church had no professional ministry. True, the apostles stood out with a very special authority; but at this stage the Church had no professional local ministry. It was open to anyone who had a gift to use that gift. Has the Church done rightly or wrongly in instituting a professional ministry? Clearly there is something essential in that, in our busy age when men are so preoccupied with material things, one man should be set apart to live close to God and to bring his fellow men the truth and the guidance and the comfort which God gives to him. But on the other hand there is the obvious danger that when a man becomes a professional preacher he is at least sometimes in the position of having to say something when he really has nothing to say. However that may be, it must remain true that if a man has a message to give his fellow men no ecclesiastical rules and regulations should be able to stop him giving it. It is certainly a mistake to think that only the professional ministry can ever bring God's truth to men.

THE PRIESTHOOD PREPARED TO FUNCTION

(2) There was obviously a flexibility about the order of service in the early Church which is now totally lacking. There was clearly no settled order at all. Everything was informal enough to allow any man who felt that he had a message to give to give it. It may well be that we set far too much store on dignity and order nowadays. It may well be that we have become the slaves of orders of service. The really notable thing about an early Church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling that he had both the privilege and the obligation of contributing something to it. A man did not come with the sole intention of being a passive listener. He did not come only to receive, he came also to give. Obviously this had its dangers for it is clear that in Corinth there were those who were too fond of the sound of their own voices; but nonetheless the Church must have been in those days much more the real possession of the ordinary Christian. It may well be that the Church lost something when she delegated so much to the professional ministry and left so little to the ordinary Church member; and it may well be that the blame lies not with the ministry for annexing those rights, but with the laity for abandoning them, because it is all too true that there are many Church members whose attitude is that they think far more of what the Church can do for them than of what they can do for the Church, and who are very ready to criticize what is done but very unready to take any share in doing the Church's work themselves.

Comment on Barclay's Remarks

(1) Barclay's statement that in our "busy age" it is good to have "one man" set apart from material things and to live close to God, lacks Scriptural support. Elders are certainly to be supported by the church, but such support is by no means limited to "one man." If possible, the church should support as many elders as it can, not because of busy times, but in order to maximize edification in the church (cf. Greg Hufstetler, "The Support of Elders in the N.T.," BRR, Vol.7, #2, pp.46-50). Further, there is little similarity between the description of elders in the N.T. and the "professional ministry" that has appeared in the history of the church.

(2) Some have argued that 1 Cor.14 must be "qualified" by later N.T. revelation. For example, Pastor Al Martin said in this regard that "churches are taking on their more permanent form under the direction of Timothy and Titus...and you see a transition.... The directions of Paul with regard to the life of the church at Corinth are materially different from the directions in the Pastoral EpistIes" ("Law and Gospel," delivered in Toronto, Feb.11, 1980). Just what is "materially different"? Is 1Cor.14 in some way at variance with the Pastorals? Of course not. Was the Corinthian church functioning without elders when Paul wrote 1Cor.14? We have every reason to believe that they had elders just as did all the other churches. Thus, we can conclude that there is nothing incompatible between 1Cor.14 and later N.T. revelation. The idea that as time elapsed the early church gatherings saw an increasing focus on the ministry of elders and a corresponding decrease in the ministry of the general priesthood is without Biblical foundation. The full ministry of elders is completely compatible with the full functioning of the priesthood. But post-apostolic church life quickly moved away from the simplicity of N.T. polity to a position where the church hierarchy swallowed up the ministry of the spiritual priesthood.

(3) As I have studied that matter, it has been of interest to note that commentators generally are agreed on the freedom-within structure nature of the N.T.church gatherings. For example, in commenting on James 1:19, "let every one be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger," Curtis Vaughn and Earl Kelly observe:

There may be an illusion [sic] to the free and unstructured worship of early Christian assemblies (James: A Study Guide [Zondervan, 1960], p.35).

It is possible that contentious Christian babes were taking advantage of the informal style of worship in the early Christian church to produce wrangling (James: A Primer for Christian Living [Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974], p.69).

The question I must ask is this: if it is acknowledged that such structured informality existed in the early church meetings, on what basis do we not practice the basic principles found in 1 Cor.14? Why was it good for them, but apparently unworkable or "dangerous" for us? Do our traditional order of services reflect structured informality, or a closed formality that stifles the priesthood of believers one to another?