Let's get rid of the Pastor ...

Seems a bit radical doesn't it. But if this article from "Present Testimony Ministry" is anything to go on, if begs a thought or two.

Frank Viola has written a book called "Pagan Christianity: The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices."

The article in question takes excerpts from this book and unpacks them in quite an orderly and well researched fashion. To say that he challenges the position of our modern church pastor is an understatement. Here are some excerpts from the article ...

The Pastor.

He is the fundamental figure of the Protestant faith. He is the chief, cook, and bottle-washer of today’s Christianity. So prevailing is the Pastor in the minds of most Christians that he is better known, more highly praised, and more heavily relied upon than Jesus Christ Himself!

Remove the Pastor and modern Christianity collapses. Remove the Pastor and virtually every Protestant church would be thrown into a panic. Remove the Pastor and Protestantism as we know it dies. The Pastor is the dominating focal point, mainstay, and centerpiece of the modern church. He is the embodiment of Protestant Christianity.

But here is the profound irony. There is not a single verse in the entire NT that supports the existence of the modern day Pastor! He simply did not exist in the early church.

Pretty much in your face for an opening statement, but I must admit, it did keep me reading right to the end of the article. The bluntness continues ...

The Pastor is in the Bible . . . Right?

The word “Pastors” does appear in the NT:

And he gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as PASTORS and teachers (Ephesians 4:11, NASB).

The following observations are to be made about this text.

* This is the only verse in the NT where the word “Pastor” is used. One solitary verse is a mighty scanty piece of evidence on which to hang the entire Protestant faith! In this regard, there is more Biblical authority for snake handling than there is for the modern Pastor. (Mark 16:18 and Acts 28:3-6 both mention handling snakes. So snake handling wins out two verses to one verse.)

* The word is used in the plural. It is “Pastors.” This is significant. For whoever these “Pastors” are, they are plural in the church, not singular. Consequently, there is no Biblical support for the practice of Sola Pastora (single Pastor).

* The Greek word translated “Pastors” is poimen. It means shepherds. (“Pastor” is the Latin word for shepherd.) “Pastor,” then, is a metaphor to describe a particular function in the church. It is not an office or a title. A first-century shepherd had nothing to do with the specialized and professional sense it has come to have in modern Christianity. Therefore, Ephesians 4:11 does not envision a pastoral office, but merely one of many functions in the church. Shepherds are those who naturally provide nurture and care for God’s sheep. It is a profound error, therefore, to confuse shepherds with an office or title as is commonly conceived today.

On the subject of ordination, here are Frank's views ...

The Fallacy of Ordination

In the fourth century, theology and ministry were the domain of the priests. Work and war were the domain of the laity. What was the rite of passage into the sacred realm of the priest? Ordination.

Before we examine the historical roots of ordination, let us look at how leadership was recognized in the early church. The apostolic workers (church planters) of the first century would revisit a church after a period of time. In some of those churches, the workers would publicly acknowledge elders. In every case, the elders were already “in place” before they were publicly endorsed.

Calvin and Luther apparently did their bit ...

From Priest to Pastor

John Calvin did not like the word “priest” to refer to ministers. He preferred the term “Pastor.” In Calvin’s mind, “Pastor” was the highest word one could use for ministry. He liked it because the Bible referred to Jesus Christ, “the great Shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20). Ironically, Calvin believed that he was restoring the NT bishop (episkopos) in the person of the Pastor!

Luther also did not like the word “priest” to define the new Protestant ministers. He wrote, “We neither can nor ought to give the name priest to those who are in charge of the Word and sacrament among the people. The reason they have been called priests is either because of the custom of the heathen people or as a vestige of the Jewish nation. The result is injurious to the church.” So he too adopted the terms “preacher,” “minister,” and “Pastor” to refer to this new office.

And my final snippet from Franks article/book is bound to raise the ire of most people ...

Now that we have unearthed the roots of the modern Pastor, let us shift our attention to the practical effects a Pastor has on the people of God.

The unscriptural clergy/laity distinction has done untold harm to the Body of Christ. It has ruptured the believing community into first and second-class Christians. The clergy/laity dichotomy perpetuates an awful falsehood. Namely, that some Christians are more privileged than others to serve the Lord.

Our ignorance of church history has allowed us to be robbed blind. The one-man ministry is entirely foreign to the NT, yet we embrace it while it suffocates our functioning. We are living stones, not dead ones. However, the pastoral office has transformed us into stones that do not breathe.

Permit me to get personal. The pastoral office has stolen your right to function as a member of Christ’s Body! It has shut your mouth and strapped you to a pew. It has distorted the reality of the Body, making the Pastor a giant mouth and transforming you into a tiny ear. It has rendered you a mute spectator who is proficient at taking sermon notes and passing an offering plate!

All in all, a pretty interesting read. And I thought I was being radical reading Mark Geppert's book - "Bridges: Getting from A to B" which seriously and convincingly challenges the pyramid shaped style of modern church hierarchical leadership. Sounds like I'm talking up the emergent/post modern church model doesn't it?

I'd be interested to hear your comments on Frank Viola's article, but I would ask one thing. Please read the article first!

Also, has anyone else read Mark Geppert's book "Bridges: getting from A to B"? Definitely worth the read in my opinion. I think it may be hard to get hold of here in Australia though, as it is published in Singapore.