The 'pastor'
who is really a 'licentiate' is to be ordained shortly. They made it clear the
'service' is under the auspices of the 'presbytery'....viz., the regional body
(of ordained men) is coming in to conduct the worship service. Consequently
there will be people from the entire regional presbytery present, Teaching and
Ruling elders as well as many regular folks from the other regional
congregations. But in this case it's not the local congregation's
service...it's the presbytery.
The climax
will be at the end of the meeting when the newly ordained 'Teaching Elder' will
raise his hands and give the benediction. And of course at this point he will
cease to be a member of the mother-congregation and instead will be joined to
the regional body. Just like that he will be elevated not just to an office,
but to the upper tier in the hierarchy.
This is rank
clericalism. This is further proved by the fact that in Presbyterianism the
ordained Pastor has to be 'installed' somewhere. This means more than what you
might think. Let me work toward that issue...
A presbyter forever?
I would say
the Biblical model is...you become an elder and if you move to a new
congregation somewhere else, you're not an elder there. If you're visiting, sure
you're still an elder from your congregation, but if you've left that
congregation, you don't have a continuing claim of authority. The new
congregation may make you an elder, they may take into account the fact that
you were once before an elder, but you're not always an elder per se.
Once an
elder always an elder is not an argument that can be made unless once again
you're trying to argue for some type of Apostolic Succession or attach in
intrinsic quality to the office. Certainly the Apostolate was a lifetime
office, but is that true for the elder? I suppose someone might appeal to
Peter's statement that he too was an elder...but he was also an Apostle. The
Apostles were to teach faithful men...but were they transferring the concept,
the foundation of their office on to the eldership? It doesn't seem possible,
the tasks being quite different. If they are equals or meant to be, then we
would have Apostles today.
Local or universal?
Does an
elder hold some kind of universal authority, over all the Church? Obviously a
visiting elder would be held in some regard but does he have authority over or
within another congregation? I see no basis for this, and Acts 15 certainly
doesn't teach it either. I would see that as an Apostolic level of authority
and part of the Apostolic mission, which ended about 1900 years ago.
Synagogue parallels
Even going
back to the Synagogue model which closely parallels the structure of the New
Testament congregation... elders did not have authority over other synagogues.
But I will grant synagogues did eventually have presiding leaders...akin to
what we would call a pastor.
So arguing
from that vantage point my strict two-office (Elder and Deacon) argument would
lose and the three-office (Pastor/Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, and Deacon)
would win. But with the synagogue there was definitely no formal organization
or hierarchy between the various congregations. They fellowshipped based on a
mutual understanding of recognition and respect. There was the Temple and the
local synagogue and nothing more.
The
synagogue model is instructive and an interesting study, but in the end we have
to rely on the New Testament itself. For those interested in pursuing the
synagogue issue, Lightfoot's 'Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud
and Hebraica' is helpful. It's been many years since I dove into the synagogue
question and I'm by no means exclusively relying on Lightfoot for what I'm
saying. I just recall that he's a very interesting read on some of these
issues.
Returning to
the charge of clericalism....
Intrinsic qualities, efficacy,
legitimacy and Donatism
Roman
Catholics teach a priest has intrinsic qualities. He has a certain ecclesial
power present in him regardless of his own personal faith or conduct. This all
goes back to the Donatist schisms in the 4th century when you had
groups of Christians claiming they were the True Church and Baptism and the
Supper were not valid when performed by men attached to the apostate Catholic
body. Or from a different angle, when Baptism was performed by someone they
believed to be unregenerate, they argued it wasn't valid.
Of course I
would say I can't tell the state of the heart of the man who baptized me. He
may or may not have been actually regenerate. In hindsight, I'm actually
inclined to think not. That's not the issue. The issue is do I recognize his
authority? Do I believe his profession and doctrine to be sufficiently
Scriptural? If he denied the deity of Christ for example that would be a red
flag that he's not a real believer. But if he does, then despite our
differences, and despite the fact that whether or not he's really and truly
regenerate...my Baptism is valid. It's not about him. It symbolizes what God is
saying about me and my status in relation to Christ.
Church Federation
The Church
struggled with these divisions and this was the beginning of what is called
Church Federation...the prototype of what later would become Church Membership.
(*Bingham's 'Antiquities' is helpful on this topic)
As the
divisions grew over time and exploded during the Reformation it got more
complicated as the number of sects continued to multiply.
This way of
looking at the Church in terms of Federation I think is not only a doctrinal
mistake but it's affected how people read Church history. I argue the Bible
only knows of the Universal Church and the local congregation...and of course
the individual. But Church History and much of theology is usually understood
by focusing on this realm that's inserted between the congregation and the
Universal....this realm that's tied to Denomination, Faction, or sometimes
Culture, Nation, or Civilization. It's
this inserted or fabricated mid-tier, that causes so many problems in so many
areas, both in the reading of history, the construction of theology, as well as
the understanding of the Church.
Catholics in
time taught the priest has intrinsic qualities. These qualities are part of the
priest’s essence as it were. He can be a whoring drunkard as many priests have
been and yet his sacramental administration, his ability to institutionally
officiate is still valid.
I think the
problem here lies with the whole idea of clericalism, attaching this intrinsic
quality to the man. Again, contra Donatism, my Baptism's validity or the
Supper's validity isn't dependent on the man's conduct, and contra Clericalism
it's not dependent on some kind of inherent quality the administrator
possesses. Either way the forms God has instituted for the Church aren’t
dependent upon some kind of ‘holy’ man or cleric. I won’t go so far as to say
the Presbyterians treat their officials this way…but they come close. And some
among them are definitely moving in that direction.
The quality of Presbyterian
clericalism
When
Presbyterians remove their 'pastors' into this next level of the hierarchy they
are straying into clericalism. When the climax of the ordination service is the
new 'pastor' giving the benediction...that's clericalism. Some of them grasp
this I think and don't really have a problem with the charge or the concept.
Others chafe at this label, but I would say the practice and the structure itself
gives the charge some weight. I'm in no way suggesting they view their
ministers in exactly the same way as the Roman Catholic system does, but I am
saying they've crossed a line and embraced a doctrinal construct that is
related to and perhaps closer to the Roman system.
Office implies officiating. Permanent
or intrinsic office implies permanent and continuous officiating.
This is a little harder to grasp and hence not easy to explain.
Since the
'pastor' belongs to this special hierarchical tier, he has to be functioning or
officiating as a 'pastor'. He has to be assigned, installed somewhere, a
congregation, a university, an administrative position. Since none of this is
actually in the Bible, creating new categories isn't a problem.
However, the
idea that a person possessing these intrinsic qualities would be floating about
without an assignment is problematic. That an ordained man would just be
sitting in a congregation somewhere would mean he's not exercising the
office...perhaps you can see this concept is something beyond a congregational
shepherd or leader?....this is a real 'office', a change in a person's status.
This is why I'm calling it clericalism.
As I
suggested earlier if he left a congregation and moved elsewhere and was just
assembling with a new group...that's a problem. Because then he would need to
become a 'member' of the local congregation. But he can't, because that would
mean he's no longer part of the hierarchical group, the 'presbytery'. And to be
un-ordained or defrocked would mean you did something wrong, something that
made you lose your status. If you just abandon it...well, that's abandoning a ‘calling’
and it's a problem for someone to take up 'the office' and to lay it down
willingly. They don't like that. Once you’re in, you’re supposed to stay in.
So for a
'pastor' to leave one congregation to go to another, he has to be 'called' and
'installed'. If he leaves without a 'call' then he's floating loose. Like I
said there are exceptions, university or seminary professors, administrators,
military and nursing home chaplains...I seemed to have missed these offices in
my reading of the Bible.
What's the
problem? Well, I frequently hear Protestants critique High Church groups for
having Archbishops, acolytes, Archdeacons, lay ministers, crucifers and more. The
critique is rooted in Scriptural Sufficiency. But in their case they don't have
a leg to stand on. Clerk of the Session, Moderator, Chaplain, and Professor...these
are all offices they've made up. Once you get away from the Scripture it
becomes difficult to draw lines. Where does it stop? It doesn't. It can't.
I won't even
get into the whole area of professionalism, and the clerical and institutional
issues with seminaries right now. That's something I'm dealing with elsewhere.
In fact if a
'pastor' leaves without a 'call' he's in trouble. He'll have a very hard time
getting another congregation within the faction to 'call' him. He'll probably
end up having to 'resign' and it's something of a disgrace, a form of discipline.
They treat
the 'pastors' in a way very similar to how the Roman Catholics treat their
priests. We don't need to go to the other extreme and reject all authority, all
Church government, and all offices. The Bible outlines these things and we can
adhere to it and avoid both extremes.
There’s also
a great irony in that Protestants retain the Reformational understanding of
Vocation. Luther repudiates Medievalism by suggesting the shoemaker and carpenter
can be faithful Christians and pleasing to God. You don’t have to become a monk
or nun to please God. You don’t have to become an ascetic to be a good
Christian. Of course we all would agree with that.
But in the
post-Reformation era this was taken further and as Dominionism developed
particularly in Reformed circles the task of the politician, artist, lawyer and
so forth became not only valid vocations but were also viewed as ‘holy’
callings. This I don’t agree with. Our holy calling is to be Christians. That’s
our vocation. And actually I would say the only special ‘holy’ vocation is to
serve as a leader in the Church…and yet when I’ve said that I’ve been charged
with promoting clericalism! I believe the vocation of Elder or Bishop is indeed
a special calling with eternally oriented tasks that are of a different nature
than that of the sculptor, jurist, senator, carpenter or factory worker. There’s
nothing wrong with making a living at those common tasks. Nothing at all. Nor
am I suggesting ecclesiastical office holders are somehow more holy or more
superior Christians. No, but in their case their work, their actual task is of
a different Kingdom-nature than someone who is soldering pipes or filling out
forms.
I truly
believe we can derive a simple but fully sufficient Biblical polity. But for
those committed to Denomination and Institution, it's far too simple and lacks
vision. And then we're forced to ask a question. Before I asked, what is 'a'
Church, meaning what comprises a Biblically valid congregation? Now, we have to
ask what is 'the' Church? That's a bigger question that helps shape how we
approach these issues. And I would add what is the Kingdom? The questions go
together and both are beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do here in this
series.
We shouldn't
let circumstance drive us. Reactionary solutions are just as bad as
innovations. This has been a major force throughout church history and the
history of theology.