Church climbing, pride and why I'm not like you

Church climbing is a particularly repellent activity. Treating the church as though there is some sort of greasy pole to climb really irritates me. The people that do this are not difficult to spot and are replete in our churches. 

I am sure we all know the sorts I mean - you can spot them a mile off. They are the ones looking for position in the church, those desperately hoping to catch the eye of elders and ministers. They shoehorn theological training into conversation, the places they have preached are mentioned apropos of nothing and, serendipitously, their latest set of sermon notes happen to fall out of their bible right in front of the minister. If they are musical, they happen to be at the piano after the service, just 'messing around' of course. They name-drop in the hope you may know and respect the people with whom they are connected. They are networkers, talking to all and sundry without ever really finding out about, or listening to, those whom they are speaking. They ask you about these same things to find out where you stand in the church pecking order. They cosy up to those who can get them on and laud it over those they perceive as inferior. They are the proud, superior church climbers seeking position and recognition.

It seems clear that this is nothing short of pride. It is a pride that assumes theological training is the same as knowledge and wisdom. It presumes you do not have training, or your training is worse than mine, so I understand things on a level you do not. It says I have experience in preaching, missions, childrens' work, music, or whatever, that really set me apart from others. It thinks, if others really knew about my background, education and abilities they would see that I really should be given position in the church. In fact, I really should be leading things in some way. Of course, these people never quite frame it in this way. Nevertheless, that is essentially the heart of this sort of self-promotion. It's the idea, if people really knew what I can do/have done, it's just obvious that I am the best person for the job. That is the heart of it and it is an ugly, repellent sin.

Now, I accept, I may have mentioned some of these things during conversations in church. Of course, when I do it, I'm not showing off and am certainly not seeking position in the church. When I raise these things it is because I want to be useful in the church and, how can I best be used if people don't know my experience, background and training? I'm not being proud when I claim my qualifications outflank yours, I'm just stating a fact acknowledged throughout academia. When I talk about my years of experience in preaching and missions I'm just highlighting that I may be able to serve the church in this way. The difference between me and you is: I'm not church climbing, I'm just factually stating my experience. Nevertheless, even though theological training, preaching experience and background in missions are never mentioned as a qualification for office in the church, it's pretty clear once you know these things about me I should be in the running. I'm not being proud, I'm just trying to make the most of my gifts and serve the church as best I can.

I'm not a church climber. It's just that, when all is said and done, my experience and training put me in a strong position to serve the church. In fact, I could serve the church all the more if I am given an office and it's pretty clear my experience lends itself to that. I am being servant hearted, trying to use all my gifts where they will best be utilised by the church. When you do it, you're being proud and grasping at position - that's obvious. When I do it, I'm really serving the church and seeking to make the most of my gifts. When you do it, you are a proud church climber. When I do it, I'm being a humble servant of the church. 

That is presumably why I find church climbing so irritating and offensive. If you really understood things the way I do, you would see how much more qualified I am than you for position in the church. You go about crassly stating your experience and qualification in the hope of a role for which you are clearly ruled out both inherently, by your pride, and comparatively, compared to me. I, on the other hand, just make known these things because, of course, the facts will speak for themselves.

When you do it, you're a proud, arrogant, misguided church climber. When I do it, I'm a humble, servant-hearted individual seeking to serve the church as best I am able. When you do it, it's definitely a sin, we all see that. When I do it, and if I'm given a role, it's for the church's good.

Pastors and Teachers or Pastor-Teachers?

Paul, in discussing the gifts that God gives the church, tells us in Ephesians 4:11-12 'And truly He gave some to be apostles, and some to be prophets, and some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (MKJV)'. There is little debate regarding the first three gifts, each representing a distinct role. However, there is a question over whether "pastors and teachers" denotes one spiritual gift or two.

Those who ascribe "pastors and teachers" as one gift tend to argue δὲ is repeated before each individual gift yet this article appears only once before the last two nouns. Grammatically, this signals a change and suggests "pastor and teachers" is a unit distinct from the preceding series. However, the discussion does not revolve around this grammatical rule, over which there can be no debate, but the nature of this distinct unit.

Bill Mounce argues:

The use of a single article with multiple plural nouns indicates a single unit, but it does not necessarily mean the two nouns are identical. This same construction occurs earlier in 2:20 and joins “apostles” and “prophets,” but these are not identical gifts.

Hoehner suggests that the distinction is that the prior gifts are expressed in an itinerate ministry and the later two are gifts for a local ministry. Harold’s discussion of this is excellent and worth reading (Ephesians. An Exegetical Commentary published by Baker).

Hoehner goes on to quote Wallace’s argument that the grammar suggests that the first (“pastors”) is a subset of the second (“teachers”). Everyone who is gifted to shepherd a local flock of believers is gifted to teach, but the gift of teaching does not necessarily mean the person is gifted to shepherd (e.g., administration, exhortation).

This leads us to the view that “pastor” and “teacher” are somewhat distinct gifts. Whilst all pastors must be able to teach (cf. 1 Timothy 3:2), not all teachers are gifted to pastor. Mounce comments:

God has gifted some people to do everything. These are the wonderful pastors who have a small enough church that they can care for everybody and everything. I have a friend who does this. He loves smaller churches. He pastors them for about ten years, takes a sabbatical, and then looks for another small church to love and care for. He is just now headed for his third church as their pastor. And he will pastor them, and that by definition includes the calling to teach them. Ultimately churches are to be led by their teachers, which is why every pastor and elder must of necessity be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2). 

But there are other people who are gifted to teach. They may not have great administrative gifts, and may not be very good and sitting down with someone and listening to their issues. But they still love their God and their people just as fervently, and they show that love by spending a vast number of hours in preparing their sermons.

The interpretation of "pastors and teachers" as one gift often leads to the view that preaching and pastoral ministry amount to the same thing. On this view, church members with complex pastoral needs are often left high and dry as preaching alone is considered the remedy for all ills. Alternatively, this view can lead to a culture in which the preacher is expected to do everything - even handling complex pastoral matters outside his area of gifting - in direct conflict with both Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. In the worst cases, it can lead to ministry appointments based solely on teaching ability by churches expecting a pastoral worker despite failing to seek any evidence of such ability. As a result, preaching is viewed as the the solution to all pastoral matters because the minister is uncomfortable doing anything else and the congregation insists on a pastoral element to his role despite appointing him based on his teaching gift alone. 

Church ministers with both teaching and pastoral gifting are a rarity indeed! However, this should come as no surprise if we understand Ephesians 4:11 as denoting two distinct gifts. Moreover, Bill Mounce's comment, to which I would subscribe - everyone who is gifted to shepherd a local flock should also be gifted to teach but not everyone who is gifted to teach is necessarily gifted to shepherd a local flock - should lead us to conclude that we are more likely to find gifted teachers than gifted pastors within our congregations. 

Therefore, as title would suggest, we should be seeking to appoint pastors based predominantly on their pastoral gifting, as opposed to their teaching ability. Of course, as expressly stated in 1 Timothy 3:2, pastors must be able to teach; however, this is not the overriding qualification to the detriment of all else. For how is the full-time ministers time predominantly spent if not dealing with pastoral issues? Preaching is but a part, though a nonetheless important one, of the wider role. Indeed, it is possible to have continued sound ministry from lay members or itinerate speakers but pastoral ministry cannot be outsourced. Yet how often are pastors appointed based on pastoral ability over and above their teaching gift?

Perhaps a plurality of elders is required to meet this need as every elder must be able to teach. If we have elders who are able to teach, and this is a scriptural criteria for eldership, to appoint a full-time minister predominantly for his teaching ability - though, of course, he should have such a gift - seems rather to miss the point. Instead, although able to teach, we should be appointing full-time ministers on the basis of their pastoral gifting in the knowledge that we have other elders who, by definition of the role, can teach. Perhaps it is because preaching is viewed as the summum bonum, though that is not to say it is unimportant, that we have emphasised it in such a way that our churches may be full of people 'able to teach', with fewer who are able to pastor and even less who can do both.

Church/Family Balance

The Gospel Coalition blog have posted an excellent article titled '3 reflections on leading your family well'. Let me strongly urge you to read it.

We often talk about work/life balance in relation to secular jobs but we rarely apply this same logic to the church. If anything, church is often pushed to the detriment of family life and a lack of quality time spent with our family can be brushed aside as sacrificial service in the Lord's work. The Gospel Coalition highlights the clear and obvious danger of this for church ministers and offers three reflections on how to avoid the problems of church/family imbalance. However, I would venture that this is equally significant for those not in the full-time employ of the church.

The TGC blog states 'A day off is not just a good idea... it is essential'. I agree with the sentiment and, for most working ministers, this is a sensible and pragmatic step. However, for those not employed by the church, there is a secular job to take into account as well. The minister's service in the church is tied up directly with their day job. Therefore, it is feasibly possible to insist, as a church, they take one day off during the week. However, for the majority of the congregation, at least Monday-Friday is eaten up with secular work meaning service in the church must revolve around evenings and weekends. This, in some respect, makes it harder for the average member to strike a balance between serving in the church, a secular job and spending meaningful time with family. Where a minister has to contend with balancing two things (job/church and family) the average member must contend with three (job, church and family). Whilst a minister may take one day off in the week, that option is often not open to the church member who holds a secular job and wishes to serve meaningfully in the church whilst not neglecting their familial responsibilities. 

For the minister, I suspect a major issue is feeling they must plug all the gaps that cannot (or will not) be filled through the service of members. This can lead to overwork, often at the expense of family relationships. For the average member, a secular job is generally considered a necessity. The church, quite rightly, encourages individuals to use what time they have in the Lord's service. Unfortunately, with the immovable obligation of a secular job, this often ends up being at the expense of quality family time. Alternatively, one might set aside time for family and, with the pressure of secular work, quickly find themselves feeling guilty for a lack of service in the church. I suspect the sum of all this boils down to charity on all sides. Members must recognise the pressures of pastoral ministry and seek to help ministers strike an appropriate church/family balance by allowing them a day off and, more importantly, respecting it when it is given. Equally, ministers must be wary of pressing church members into service to the detriment of their family life bearing in mind occupational obligations.

However, all of this does very little to tackle the real issue. The central question is what does an actual work/church/family balance look like and what pragmatic steps can be taken to obtain it? I suspect those of us inclined toward introspective self-flagellation are always liable to feel we favour one thing over another. Turning down the opportunity to serve in the church because our wives and children deserve more quality time is liable to induce as much guilt as taking on such obligations. The standard church line, which essentially challenges individuals' use of time as a means of encouraging service in the church, is not an unfair or illegitimate one. However, it is only valid when serving in the church is contrasted with our personal desires and pastimes as opposed to our obligations and responsibilities. Neglecting our familial responsibilities is just as dishonouring as a refusal to serve the Lord in other ways. Stories abound of individuals who hate the church because their parents' seemed more concerned with meetings and the salvation of strangers than they did in the lives of their own children.

Ideally, one would put aside one day to be spent with our families alongside our secular work and service in the church. Unfortunately, the demands of secular jobs are ever increasing and the days of 9-5 are long gone. With most of the Western world in recession, those who do manage to hold onto their jobs are being asked to pick up the slack of the ones who have been let go. It is nigh on impossible to try and make dogmatic statements about how we reach an adequate balance in the modern world. Ultimately, it seems there is little more we can do than take a charitable view of others ability to serve and give an honest assessment of our own circumstances. It may even be that different things take priority during our different seasons of life.

Equating theological knowledge and ministry success with spiritual maturity

A fantastic post on The Gospel Coalition Blog by Paul Tripp warning about the danger of equating theological knowledge and ministry success with spiritual maturity.

I will not pass comment here but will offer a couple of selected quotes. In respect to equating theological knowledge with spiritual maturity, he says:

There is a huge difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is an accurate understanding of truth. Wisdom is understanding and living in light of how that truth applies to the situations and relationships of your daily life. Knowledge is an exercise of your brain. Wisdom is the commitment of your heart that leads to life transformation.

In respect to equating ministry success with an endorsement by God of spiritual maturity, he says:

God has the authority and power to use whatever instruments he chooses in whatever way he chooses. Ministry success is always more a statement about God than about the people he uses for his purpose.

Do read the full post - it really is insightful.

Using the term 'pastor' as a title

For centuries, it has been the practice of the Catholic Church to set clergy apart from lay members by conferring on them the title 'Father' to accompany their role as priest. Typically, lay members would refer to their priest as 'Father Bloggs'. Similarly, the Anglican Church gives the title 'Reverend' to those in authority such that lay members typically refer to 'Reverend Bloggs', although in some Anglican churches it is not unheard of for lay members to refer to their minister as 'Reverend Joe'. This conferring of title also appears to have crept into the non-conformist tradition too. Given the lack of formal exams which one must pass in order to go into most non-conformist ministries, there is no official title to be conferred on those who become leaders within such traditions (although the Presbyterian Church is a notable exception and many Methodists become 'Reverend' as well). Despite this, it is now commonplace for pastors within non-conformist churches to use the very role of pastor as a title e.g. 'Pastor Bloggs' or, for those who prefer informality but are evidently keen to set themselves apart, 'Pastor Joe'.

I should make clear at this point that I have no theological objection to churches having a pastor as part of a team of elders and that this is no more right or wrong than having a team elders without appointing someone to the role of pastor. Moreover, the views put forward on the use of 'pastor' as a title equally apply to the use of 'elder' in the same way (although churches trying to encourage members to refer to the leadership as 'Elder X' and 'Elder Y' do not seem to be widespread). I am not for one minute suggesting that we should not have these offices or that we should use some other term to refer to those who occupy them. However, the question remains as to whether such roles should be used as titles.

There is an important distinction to be made between a job and a title. 'Pastor' and 'elder' are simply jobs that exist within the church just as 'teacher' and 'head of department' are jobs that exist in schools. We would think it utterly bizarre for someone to refer to themselves as 'Teacher Bloggs' or 'Data Analyst Joe' as though these things represent some sort of title and yet we routinely find pastors referring to themselves in such a manner. Ultimately, this represents somebody conferring on themselves a title which they believe carries authority and status but which, in reality, is nothing other than a job akin to any other. If nothing else, it is cringeworthy - the ecclesiastical equivalent of a child in the playground insisting his self-appointed title of 'gang leader' makes him more credible to those both inside and outside his group of friends.

If this were just something to wince at with embarrassment it would not be such an issue. However, the problem is more serious in reality. It is symptomatic of a pride which wants recognition and status. In contrast to both the Anglican and Catholic churches, the non-conformist tradition placed great emphasis on the enabling of the Holy Spirit to help all who read the Bible understand its meaning. It is partially on this basis that formal exams were not always necessary to enter non-conformist ministries. Moreover, such a view often meant that those who were lay members of the church, who had a recognised ability to teach, could take on the role of pastor in a way that meant they were not elevated above the congregation. Someone who was formerly a member was seen as simply taking on a new role/job in the church without being placed on a pedestal. However, insistence on the use of 'pastor' as a title undoes this. Automatically it sets one apart from the congregation at large and seeks to use the term as indicative of status and importance  - things totally at odds with the biblical model of church leadership.

The inference that the term 'pastor' carries with it status and importance leads to another problem. As soon as we begin ascribing greater value to the role of pastor than to other roles in the church we begin to foster resentment amongst the membership. More than this, it encourages younger members to shun particular roles because they are seen as of little value whilst doggedly pursuing teaching roles, regardless of whether they are gifted or not, because they believe this will bring them a degree of credibility within the church. If we look at the words of Jesus this is entirely backward. He says: 'If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all (Mark 9:35, ESV)'. When we take away the idea of pastor being a title and recognise it simply as a job like any other in the church we can avoid such thinking (or at least do something to minimise it). All roles within the church are valuable but if we give people titles rather than roles we strongly suggest otherwise.

Further to this, the Bible is clear on the roles laid out for men and women within the home and within the church. This division of roles does not ascribe higher value to the role played by one gender - both are equally vital and valuable (1) - but the Bible is unequivocal about the role of women teaching in the church (2). If teaching, as should be the case, were not tied up with status there is no reason why this ought to be an issue. However, when we use the term 'pastor' as a title and we only give credibility to those who teach from the pulpit it is natural that those who are prohibited from this role because of their gender, not through lack of ability, would feel frustrated and annoyed. Nevertheless, it should be clear that all roles within the church are valuable and the role of pastor is not intrinsically of more worth than any other - it is simply a role. Indeed, I am yet to come across anyone who has kicked up a fuss because they were prohibited from cleaning the toilets because it was not their role within an organisation. However, if huge levels of respect and credibility were heaped upon those who cleaned the toilets, and a title was bestowed upon those who did it to highlight who fulfilled that most respectable of roles, you can fairly guarantee that those not allowed to do it would be up in arms. The issue is then not about being prohibited from a particular role but being held back from those roles that bring the greatest respect. If we view the role of pastor in its proper place this should never become a problem. Using the role as a title, however, can only make this issue worse and resentment grow.

There are some very good reasons to have a pastor. It can be of great benefit to the church to have someone fulfilling this role. Nevertheless, we should view it in its proper place. It is not a role which should see a man elevated above the congregation nor should it be viewed of more intrinsic value than other vital roles in the church. When we begin to set the pastor on a pedestal we downgrade other roles in the church, we can discourage members who work hard in other roles by suggesting the part they play is less valuable and we can encourage people to shun 'lesser' jobs and to pursue the role of pastor less out of a calling and ability and more out of a desire to appear credible and of greatest value in the church. By all means lets employ pastors but lets not make the mistake of conferring it on people as a title. Subtle though the difference may be lets recognise the term 'pastor' as a job and less like a title to be coveted or, worse still, trumpeted.

Notes
1. I happen to take a complementarian view of the roles of men and women. For reasons of space this is perhaps another post for another day.

2. See 1 Tim. 2:12