First Timothy 3:1-7
This saying is trustworthy: “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a good work.” 3:2 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money. 3:4 He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. 3:5 But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God? 3:6 He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact. 3:7 And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap.
Several weeks back I was having a conversation with a fellow believer. This individual made a remark about her pastor that spoke volumes, demonstrating how Biblically uninformed our culture’s view of a pastor has become. She said, “My pastor is very knowledgeable about the Bible, and is a really good teacher, but he’s not a very good pastor.” Why? Because he was not a very good counselor.
My mind immediately harkened back to the passage quoted above. Have you ever stopped to compare this qualification list against our modern-day conception of what a pastor should be? Paul lists 15 criterion by which we can judge a man’s fitness for the pastoral office: 10 positive, 5 negative. Among those named all but one pertains to the individual’s character and lifestyle. That one criterion is a skill requirement: he must be an able teacher. (The list in Titus 1:6-9 is similar. There Paul wrote, “He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.”)
While a pastor will surely be involved in counseling the saints of his congregation to one extent or another, counseling is not a required skill-set for pastors. In fact, many of the skills we often associate with pastors in our church culture (administration, relationship expert, etc.) are not found in Scripture. A pastor who happens to be skilled in those areas will be an added asset to his congregation, but those skills are not necessary to being a good pastor. The only skill a pastor needs to be a good pastor in the Biblical sense is the skill of teaching the Word of God.
Interestingly, the one skill required of pastors is often the one skill they lack. It has been my experience that few pastors do much teaching. Wednesday night Bible studies often differ little from Sunday evangelistic services. They all follow the same basic pattern: read a Bible verse, close the Bible, tell several stories, yell loudly, and then at the end of the message refer back to the Bible verse, taking it out of its context to make it applicable to the point they want to convey. That may be a cynical and generalized depiction, but most of you have been in a church like this so you know the truth of what I’m saying.
It’s a sad reality that most Pentecostal pastors are uneducated in the Scripture. What little they do know rarely comes out in their sermons. They tend to emote rather than instruct. They lack theological content and categories. Their theology consists of catchy phrases and one-liners. Their idea of a good sermon is coming up with a new twist on an oft-read passage of Scripture. They lack the ability to instruct their congregations on meaty doctrinal issues such as justification by faith, the relationship between sanctification and justification, how Jesus can be divine and human simultaneously, the relationship of faith and science, etc. Neither could they intelligently address important cultural and moral issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, cloning, stem cell research, etc. This ought not be. This is not to dismiss the many good things they can do, but all of those good things combined cannot make up for their lack in the one area required of them: teaching.
In light of my recent thoughts on this topic I was more than happy to see that Al Mohler will be doing a three part series on this very topic this week: “The Pastor As Theologian.” The first part of the series was released yesterday. The other two parts will be released on Wednesday and Friday. They can be accessed by clicking on the above link as well. I think you will enjoy what Mohler has to say on this topic.
April 18, 2006 at 4:04 pm
“The only skill a Pastor needs to be a good Pastor in the Biblical sense is the skill of teaching the Word of God.”
Jason – Your flock is waiting for your arrival.
LikeLike
April 18, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I generally agree with this post, Jason. The CEO model forces a lot of people into types of work they are not trained for. However, I have found that this is not as often the case in mainline churches.
LikeLike
April 18, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
(Philippians 1:1)
My understanding is that an overseer is a Pastor. Does that mean there can be more than one Pastor per Church ?
LikeLike
April 18, 2006 at 4:34 pm
David,
That’s what my wife says. I’m not so confident.
In regards to your second post, many today do argue that there SHOULD be multiple pastors, and that this is the Biblical model. While it may not be a bad idea, I’m not convinced it is necessary Biblical, yet alone a Biblical requirement.
We have to remember that the early church met in houses. If each house church had its own pastor, there would be multiple pastors in each city. That would explain why, when Paul writes to a particular city, that he addresses the elders/overseers (plural) in that city.
With that said, there is some evidence that there were multiple elders in any given congregation. Even if this is so, it would not necessarily mean there would be more than one pastor in that congregation because “elder” encompasses more than the office of pastor. There could be one pastor, one teacher, one evangelist, etc.
Jason
LikeLike
April 18, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Aaron,
I agree. We have made the pastor into an “all-in-one-position,” trying to cram the five-fold ministry down his one-ministry throat! It’s not healthy for a congregation when their pastor is doing things he is not equipped to do, and when doing those things detracts from his main calling.
Jason
LikeLike
April 18, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Pastor Dulle,
You must listen to the Prophets when they speak. Otherwise, you can stone us.
“…because “elder” encompasses more than the office of pastor.”
Please explain “offices.”
Does anyone else struggle reading
that annoying word verification ?
Maybe Greek letters might be easier.
LikeLike
April 18, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Jason,
A great book on the true heart of ministry is Nouwen’s Creative Ministry . I’m going to be putting a review of it up on my blog soon.
LikeLike
April 18, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Oh – I put up a link to this post on my blog.
LikeLike
April 20, 2006 at 12:11 pm
David,
By “office” I am referring to a position of ministerial authority.
Jason
LikeLike
April 21, 2006 at 7:50 am
I agree with your assessment that the Bible requires the overseer to be an able teacher. I was thinking though that with the influences of our society an overseer is pressed to be more. With churches being corporations and the legal requirements that follow, regulatory guidelines to ensure tax exempt status from the government, and a litigious society that requires awareness proper policy making to minimize the effects of litigation, I think we would want an overseer that has these other abilities (there are a number of others but I won’t list them).
Therefore, I pose the following question: can a pastor fulfill his Biblical obligation by having sufficient knowledge to identify those that are portraying the Gospel incorrectly, but bringing “on staff” those more gifted in teaching to ensure that the congregation gets the teaching that it needs?
I intentionally used the word overseer here because the version you quoted used it. I’m worried that my limited knowledge of Greek and how words are used my effect some of my understanding here. Would it be possible for you to explain the Greek term used and its common usage in Greek? I ask for this because the English definition would lead one to believe that the Bible is talking about the “office” as one of an administrator.
LikeLike
April 21, 2006 at 4:12 pm
As we look in the OT, humans have always wanted ‘a king of their own’ so to speak. Sometimes they wanted God to be their king, and sometimes they preferred a man, a human.
In my opinion, I think some people want pastors to be their king. And, in return, some pastors want to be the king.
Sometimes this is the pastor’s fault, sometimes not. True, the position of pastor is Biblical, but can we say that we are following the Biblical example? What about the other offices? Why are we leaving them out?
I believe a good pastor is one that equips and empowers the saints to seek after God, teaches them how to evangelize the lost, and demands that they read and DO what the Bible says. Don’t lie, don’t steal, forgive those that have sinned against you, help the poor, don’t lust, don’t envy, don’t hate, don’t gossip, don’t be a drunkard, don’t cause strife, don’t debate, LOVE one another, and HUMBLE yourselves!!
:0)
Just my two cents.
LikeLike
April 24, 2006 at 9:21 am
Linda,
Those were some good insights. Thanks for the post. The one thing I would disagree with, however, is your statement that a pastor should not debate. In Titus 1 Paul said a pastor must be able to do just that: “He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.” Healthy debate is good, for it is the means by which we defend the truth against its detractors.
Jason
LikeLike
April 24, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Jason,
I have known some people, even pastors, that want to “debate” with everyone and on every topic. I don’t think this is healthy, nor do I think it is profitable.
I’m talking about the type of “debating” that causes division IN the church, and the type of “debating” that causes people OUTSIDE the church to say “dude, chill the freak out!”
I have come across people that think you are going to hell if you don’t believe EXACTLY as THEY believe->on everything! They are so exhausting!
To be honest, in my opinion, these types of people lack true sevant-like love, compassion, and are driven by pride and ego. They want to be right, all the time, and that’s that. They love strife, hostility, quarreling, are jealous, envious, have selfish ambitions, cause divisions and usually feel that everyone is wrong except those in their own little group. In Galatians we see that these are the works of the flesh.
I believe anything that exalts itself above Jesus, is idolatry. Whether it’s a religious act, or a person trying to prove THEY are RIGHT, just to be right. It’s wicked, and from the evil one.
Wait! Don’t shoot me yet->keep reading!
Now, we do have multiple examples in the Bible where Paul and other believers corrected, instructed and yes, “debated” with some people. Usually, the goal was either to convert them to Jesus {the truth}, explain the way(s) of God more accurately, or to stop them from turning believers away from Jesus {the truth}.
When Paul went to Ephesus, he went to the synagogues to ‘debate’ with the Jews. Why? To convert them to Jesus, the truth. To convince them that Jesus WAS the Messiah. (Acts 18)
Paul also disputed with the people in Athens, trying to persuade them to turn to Jesus, and to the One true God of heaven and earth.
In Acts 18, we have Priscilla and Aquila “explaining the way of God more accurately” to Apollos. Did they “debate” with him to PROVE to him THEY were right, and HE was wrong? hmmm.. I don’t think so. I think they did it out of love. They wanted to share the whole truth about Jesus to him.
What about Peter and Cornelius? Peter didn’t go to Cornelius’ house to tell him he is wrong, a gentile, and not going to heaven. No, he shared the good news about Jesus and the free gift of salvation, with him and his whole household. The first Gentiles to be saved!!
But, of course I agree that there are times where believers inside the church must be “corrected” , because a “little leaven leaveneth the whole lump!”
I think the early church had a lot of diversity, which may have caused a lot of natural division. But, I think the message of salvation was simple, Jesus.
I think we see proof of this , as we read Paul’s letter to Titus. There were Jews trying to twist and destroy the simple message. In Acts we see the same thing happening. Jews were trying to tell the new Gentile believers that they MUST be circumcised in order to be saved. I guess I can’t blame them. I mean God almost killed Moses because he hadn’t circumcised his boy yet. Obviously circumcision was very important. I must say that I have seen the very thing today. Not in terms of ‘circumcision’ but other ‘religious’ rules. The ‘Jews’ try to sneak in, especially of the Pharisee sect, and try to tell the newly converted Gentiles that they MUST follow the law of Moses and be circumcised in order to be saved.
In the letter Paul writes to Titus, he warns Titus and tells him that “there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” {v.10&11} There were Jews that were teaching things that they shouldn’t have. and they were doing it for “filthy lucre’s sake”!
Do we have this same scenario today? I believe so! In 4000 year, the works of the flesh haven’t really changed. We see the works of human nature staying very consistent starting in the book of Genesis all the way to the book of Revelation. Greed, pride, envy, etc. etc. etc.
So, in my opinion, let’s do ALL things in LOVE and with a goal in mind. (1) To correct people that are leading others away from Jesus, (2) convert people toward Jesus, or (3) “explaining the way of God more accurately”
Sorry for rambling!
peace!
LikeLike
May 3, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Andy,
I agree that any additional abilities possessed by a pastor are beneficial to a congregation, particularly in our complex age as you noted. I took a class on church administration and there is a lot of important legal stuff a church needs to know about. In a small church the pastor would have to delve into those areas, but for a church of average size the pastor can use others who are gifted in administration to take care of that for him (like the apostles delegated “mundane” matters to others so they could concentrate on the ministry of the Word and prayer).
Yes, I do think a pastor can and should bring in other teachers to feed his congregation no matter how studied he is in theology. No matter how knowledgeable a pastor is his knowledge will always be limited. There are too many areas of study to be versed in them all. It would be good, then, for a pastor to bring in “specialists” to deal with certain topics. But by no means can a pastor be ignorant of Biblical theology and still be a qualified pastor. What often passes for a good pastor is little more than a good administrator/leaders who is a people-person. Those traits are great in a pastor, but they don’t make a pastor. If I was in charge of this movement I would require every minister to obtain at minimum a bachelor’s-level education in theology before being licensed.
There are two slightly different Greek words translated as “overseer” in 1Tim 3:1 and 1Tim 3:2. The word in vs. 1 is episcope. The word in vs. 2 is episcopos (both of which we derive the English “episcopal”). Some translations translate it as “overseer” (NET, NIV, NIB, NAS, NAU), while others translate it as “bishop” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRS, WEB). Both words refer to one who has the oversight of caring for others (for their spiritual needs in the Christian context). So the word does sort of carry the notion of administration, but the object of that administration is people, not organizations and operations. The first word, however, can be used in a more general sense as “office” (Acts 1:20). Strangely it can also mean “visitation” (Luke 19:44; 1Pet 2:12).
Episcopos is used interchangeably with “elder” (presbuteros). Compare Acts 20:17 (presbuteros) with 20:28 (episkopos), and Titus 1:5 (presbuteros) with 1:7 (episcopos). While the office of overseer/elder probably includes more than pastors, the office definitely includes pastors. Scripture speaks of elders much more than it does “overseers/bishops” when referring to church offices (18x vs. 2x), but it is clear that they are one and the same office. Only later did the church separate them wherein a bishop was considered a pastor to the pastors, or super pastor who governed all the local pastors and churches.
Jason
LikeLike