A Review of Pagan Christianity (Part 5)
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Thus far in the review of this fascinating book (see February 17 & 24 and March 3 & 10), we have already seen its greatest strength, which is the research that is cited constantly in each chapter. The greatest weakness of the authors has been their application of some of this data. At least one of them has a bias toward house churches. Nevertheless, this inclination on their part does not invalidate the quotes and the information they provide. One of the most useful chapters is the fifth one: “The Pastor.”
The “Pastor” System
This practice has become so ingrained in religious denominations that everyone expects it. Even on the many occasions when a preacher explains that he is not a pastor, people ignore this fact as though he had said nothing at all. They continue to call him, “Pastor.” As Barna and Viola put it: “Remove the pastor and most denominational churches would be thrown into a panic” (106). They continue by saying that “the pastor is the dominating focal point” in the Protestant system. Then they boldly (and factually) declare: “There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that supports the existence of the modern-day pastor!” (106).
Wow! We in the churches of Christ have known that for centuries, but this is one of the few times anyone else has ever admitted the truth of the matter. The writers take the time to actually look at how words are used in the New Testament instead of just assuming that everyone is using the words correctly. For example, in the New Testament, references are made to the Jewish high priest (as part of that old system) and to Jesus as our high priest under the new. Peter also uses priesthood to mean each Christian in 1 Peter 2:5 and 9. The authors cite this New Testament usage in three passages of Revelation (1:6; 5:10; 20:6) (107). In other words, under our covenant, all Christians are priests, and Jesus is our high priest (Heb. 3:1).
They also point out that the noun pastors occurs only once in the New Testament (Eph. 4:11) (106). One would think, the way people use the word today, that the apostles signed their letters, “Pastor Paul” and “Pastor Peter,” which of course they did not. One would also think that Paul addressed his letters to “Pastor Timothy” and “Pastor Titus,” which is equally absurd. They have even been designated by scholars as “the pastoral epistles”! They even go so far as to say (and they are correct in saying it): “First century shepherds were the local elders (presbyters) and overseers of the church.”
Viola and Barna do not at this point delve into the way they know that, but the fact is that elders (presbyters), and shepherds (pastors), and overseers (bishops) all refer to the same group of men. It is always a mystery that denominational scholars seldom notice this fact. A careful Bible student will see it. A huge clue lies in the similarity of the qualifications for bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-2) and elders (Titus 1:5) (whom Paul also calls bishops) (Titus 1:7). Bishops and elders refer to the same men: one word relates to their function (they oversee the congregation); the other word relates to their age (older, and presumably wiser, men).
So how does the word pastor fit into this matter? Notice that in the qualifications a man (in order to be an overseer of the church) had to be able “to rule his own house”; if he had not done so, “how will he take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:5). This verse suggests the idea of pastoring, but two passages explicitly link all three expressions together. In 1 Peter 5:1-4 Peter begins by exhorting the elders, telling them they should “shepherd the flock of God.” Shepherd is the verb form of the noun pastor. The elders have the responsibility of pastoring the flock. They are shepherds, and Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. As they take on this task, they are overseers of the flock. The reader understands that these terms describe the same group of men.
One other passage makes this point clear. In Acts 20:17, Paul sent for the elders at Ephesus, and they came to where he was. In the course of the conversation, he admonished them: “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” The elders, then, are overseers who must shepherd the church. Notice that all congregations had at least two such men—because they are always designated in the plural. No congregation had a pastor; we always find elders or overseers (see Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5). So where did the idea of a one-man rule in a congregation originate?
The Origin of the “Pastor” System
The authors of the book did not provide the detailed examination given in the last two paragraphs. They do reiterate, however: “Among the flock were the elders (shepherds or overseers). These men all had equal standing. There was no hierarchy among them” (110). This is quite an admission. One wonders how many religious denominations one could find who would admit this fact—even though it is a simple truth taught in the Scriptures. And what all Bible students ought to ask is, “Why did the arrangement that God set up change?” and “How do we get it back?” The answer to the second question is not difficult. We can get this arrangement back any time we are willing to abide by what the New Testament teaches. Those in the churches of Christ have been calling for a return to New Testament teaching for centuries.
The departure from the way God arranged for each church to be governed began with Ignatius of Antioch (A. D. 35-107), who “elevated one of the elders in each church above all the others” (110). This exalted elder was referred to by Ignatius as the bishop. Barna and Viola provide several of his quotes in which he exhorts all members of the church to listen to the bishop. Notice that this practice occurred 200 years before Constantine—and that no basis for it exists in the Scriptures. With just this one change, the church had begun the path that eventually led to the papacy. “It fell to the bishop alone to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, conduct baptisms, give counsel, discipline church members, approve marriages, and preach sermons” (111).
The reader who possesses insight will undoubtedly conclude that, not only does this practice wrongly elevate one elder over the others, it also begins a clergy system. And that is precisely what occurred. Clement of Rome was the first to use the term laity to refer to those who were not leaders in the congregation. Then Tertullian became the first writer to designate Christian leaders by the word clergy (113). In the New Testament, all members are equal and one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26-27). The roles of leadership are functional—not positional. In order that the body of Christ function as it should, we have leaders, all of whom are subject to Christ. But nowhere did Jesus design or specify two (or more) classes of Christians.
The System Hijacked
The “pastor” system was well on its way to being developed when it suddenly swerved and headed in another direction. The “bishop” now began to be called a priest. “In the third century, every church had its own bishop” (114). After Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration, it did not take long for a church council to develop. One was conducted in Nicea in A.D. 325. Remarkably the bishop (now a priest) came to be regarded as one who could forgive sins (115). No one has that power but God. Yes, it is true that the prophet Nathan told David that his sins were forgiven (2 Sam. 12:13), but God revealed that to his prophet; Nathan had no authority of his own to make that decision.
Jesus was once thought to be a blasphemer because he told the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you” (Mark 2:5). Some of the scribes correctly reasoned, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” which was exactly the point Jesus wanted them to see—that He is God (Mark 2:6-12). Anyone claiming to have the power to forgive sins today would be making a claim to Deity just as Jesus did—whether they intended to do so or not. No human being has the power to forgive someone else’s sins.
By the end of the fourth century, some churches began to exercise authority over other congregations (115), which was still another departure from the teaching in the New Testament. Also, Cyprian began to try to trace a succession of bishops all the way back to Peter in order to strengthen the office of the bishop. Cyprian also introduced the term sacerdotes to refer to “clergy” members, as well as the idea that they could mediate between God and man (115-16). Of course, the New Testament teaches, “There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Anyone else who would claim to have such a role would be both presumptuous and defiant toward the Scriptures.
The chapter continues by showing who introduced the idea that the bread and the fruit of the vine become the actual body and blood of the Lord (116-17) and the rise of celibacy among the “priests” (bishops) (117). It needs to be noticed that none of these things would have occurred if Christians had retained the knowledge of the Scriptures that they once had. All of these developments are easily refuted by just a little knowledge of New Testament writings. For example, how could bishops (priests) be required to be celibate when one of the qualifications is to be the husband of one wife and have children (1 Tim. 3:-25; Titus 1:5-6)? Hello!
Several more pages of innovations being introduced make for interesting reading, including the section on the concept of ordination. The word in the Scriptures, the authors claim, possesses the idea of “endorsing, affirming, and showing forth what has already been happening” (124). It was changed into a “sacerdotal endowment” (126) and continues to be thought of that way by many.
The Resurrection of the “Pastor” System
When the Protestant Reformation developed, it rejected much of what the apostate Roman Catholic Church had incorporated into its teaching that had no basis in the New Testament. A few things it did not challenge (but should have). They kept the new concept of ordination. They touted the priesthood of all believers, but they could not quite bring themselves to divest all remnants of that system. They discarded the priesthood as practiced by Catholicism, but they did not go back to the New Testament to get the right pattern. Viola and Barna assert that “they resurrected the one-bishop rule, clothing it in new garb” (128).
Or maybe it was old clothing—that had not been worn since the 4th century. What would have happened if the bishop had not evolved into a priest? He would have evolved into a pastor. What occurred came from John Calvin, who did not like the idea of ministers being called a priest. “He preferred the term pastor” (130). Luther did not like priest, either; he preferred minister, preacher, pastor (130). Many people today do not know the difference between the three words—because they do not know how the Scriptures define them. Pastor was the word that finally won out in the 18th century and has been used ever since (131). Undoubtedly, many sincere people think that the pastor system is in the Bible, though it is not and took centuries to develop as it is thought of and used today.
The Author’s Applications
No one can deny the marvelous research that was done in order to explain how “Christendom” came to be where it is today. But the authors make a few interpretations of their own. They argue that the pastor of the Reformation did not function as a priest in claiming to have the authority to forgive sins, but that he did view himself as “a mediator to communicate the divine will” (129). The problem is that this sentence is confusing because there is both a good and a bad sense that might be meant by these words. Luther went too far along these lines, as evidenced by the quote below:
God speaks through the preacher…. A Christian preacher is a minister of God who is set apart, yea, he is an angel of God, a very bishop sent by God, a savior of many people, a king and prince, in the Kingdom of Christ…. There is nothing more precious or nobler in the earth and in this life than a true, faithful parson or preacher (133).
Most people would probably view this statement as over the top. Whenever someone claims to speak for God, we should all run for cover—if by that he means that he has a direct pipeline to God and that He is telling him what to say. Those who say, “The Lord gave me a word” (or a message or told me what to say), are, in fact, claiming modern-day inspiration. The Bible teaches that prophesying (via inspiration) would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-10). And it has.
Nevertheless, Paul told Timothy to preach the Word (2 Tim. 4:1-5). So if a preacher is speaking where the Bible speaks, He is presenting God’s Word—not by his own inspiration, but by what God has revealed to all of us. Preaching the right message does make him a savior of many people, but such power does not belong to him; it resides in the Gospel (Rom. 10:17).
Anabaptists
The authors mention the persecution of the Anabaptists by both the Catholic and the Protestants, and they assign the reason as being their doctrine of every-member involvement, which was offensive to some. They say that Luther vigorously opposed the concept and said that the practice came from “the pit of hell” and that its adherents should be put to death (129). Luther was not above using passionate language. The Anabaptists were put to death, but there was another reason. Their name refers to the idea that they “baptized again.” Actually, they did not consider sprinkling a valid form of baptism (which it is not). They were despised, hated, and persecuted for this reason since most people (Catholic and Protestant) had been sprinkled. The authors leave the impression that the Anabaptists were only persecuted because of every-member involvement, but their insistence that people be immersed was the greater provocation.
Every-Member Involvement
The authors, however, are correct in saying that the New Testament church was not designed to be “pastor-driven” (135-36). 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4:11-16 make it clear that all members are to contribute to the well-being of the local congregation. Every part of the body has a function; each one has his own share of work to do. They are correct when they point out that the book of Hebrews shows that the Old Testament priesthood had come to an end. If God had wanted a one-man rule in the church, why did He give spiritual gifts to all the members (1 Cor. 12)?
Barna and Viola also demonstrate how unfair this system is to pastors—for one person to provide leadership, train leaders, preach and teach, raise money, organize programs, oversee all the administrative functions, resolve conflicts, represent the congregation to the community, counsel, and evangelize the unsaved (138). A thought-provoking observation is then offered:
Imagine for a moment that you were working for a company that paid you on the basis of how good you made people feel. What if your pay depended on how entertaining you were, how friendly you were, how popular your wife and children were, how well-dressed you were, and how perfect your behavior was? (139).
Is it possible that some brethren view a preacher in this light also? Perhaps the difference is that in churches of Christ we expect the same of a preacher while denying him the same authority a pastor has. Hmm.