J.P. Moreland rightly asks, Why is it that if you want to be a chemist or teach literature you have to have training, but if you want to be a minister all you need is to feel a call on your life? Where is the need for knowledge?
Think about it this way. Would you seek the services of a physician who only had a master’s degree in medicine? Would you allow a physician who had no training at all in medicine, but merely felt the “call” to be a doctor, to operate on you? No, because your health is too important to entrust to someone who lacks the knowledge necessary to fix your body. Why then, do we think it is acceptable for ministers of the gospel to “operate” on people’s eternal souls—which is much more important than operating on temporal bodies—with just a call to ministry? Jesus’ disciples sat at His feet for 3+ years before they entered into full-time ministry. Theological education (whether formal or not) should be viewed as a precondition for ministry. Too much is at stake for anything less. Attempting spiritual surgery without sufficient knowledge can lead to others’ spiritual death rather than life. Let’s get educated!
Thinking to Believe 
December 1, 2011 at 1:58 am
I think it’s the whole “in our weaknesses, God makes us strong” and that it is God that works through us rather than our super oratory skills.
Yet I still agree with you – training ought to be in place.
I can never remember whether it was Spurgeon or Calvin who stated “you should pray as if it all depends on God, and act as if it all depends on you”. Words that have stayed with me for a long time now.
LikeLike
December 1, 2011 at 6:50 am
I cannot agree more. There is nothing more serious that inflicting spiritual damage to a person’s spirit. This can be done through false teachings and misinterpretation of the scriptures, regardless of the intent or outward piety of the minister, the damage is inflicted nonetheless
By the grace of God I have come out of a situation of what I would call “spiritual abuse”. I am not trying to be dramatic but that is in essence what it was.
That said, there is no substitute for proper theological study for anybody that wants to tell other people about God. This is why the scriptures warn about being too quick to be a teacher and that greater condemnation will come to teachers who fail.
I find that ministers fall into this trap when they become part of a particular denomination where they are pressured to uphold certain beliefs that are characteristic of their particular group when deep down they have reservations and I would say even the Holy Spirit is telling them differently. You cannot be a true minister without using the critical thinking skills that God has given us. If more would do this we would have less problems, better teachers and greater unity in the body of Christ.
Naz
LikeLike
December 1, 2011 at 6:50 am
While I don’t think formal education is necessary (reason being that it is not always available), I do agree that in whatever calling one has, he or she needs to be well-informed, well-read, and well-practiced. Before I preached my first sermon, I wanted to read through my whole Bible. When I read the Word, I usually look at more than one translation to enhance my understanding. I have encountered numerous instances where someone had misread or misunderstood what they had read because they had a poor grasp of the English language, and I therefore strive to keep mine fresh. I do not take ministry so lightly that I ignore the basic necessity to “present [myself] to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
LikeLike
December 1, 2011 at 2:29 pm
@Scott, I’m not referring to oratory skills, but knowledge. One can be a poor speaker and be qualified to minister the Word of God, but they have to have the right content.
@Naz, you are right. Scripture warns that teachers will be held to a higher standard for what they teach. Ministers have to ensure that they are properly interpreting the Word of God. That requires skill, and that skill is learned over time.
@Beaux, I agree that formal education is not necessary, although if it is available, and if it is at all possible to get it, we should. Self-study is great, but it is no substitute for the rigors of formal education.
Jason
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 8:36 am
We should absolutely get formal education if able. And someday, I hope to have it available. But, even beyond formal education, we still need to self-study. We should self-study before, during, and after formal education. Formal theological education is far better than mere self-study alone because, just as in secular education, it challenges one beyond what one would normally extend oneself, which produces growth.
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 8:56 am
Beaux, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
LikeLike
December 10, 2011 at 1:59 pm
I can’t seem to find a good place to ask this question, so I’ll ask here since this is about an educated ministry. I have personally never had any formal education in the bible, but it seems there are some things taught clearly in the bible that the educated ministry ignores. Or maybe I am just plain wrong with only the need for someone educated to inform me. One case in point is the biblical instructions given by the apostles to establish multiple elders in the churches. According to all that I can find and read this is referring to what the present church calls pastors. It seems that pastor, elder, bishop, overseer and presbyter all basically refer to the same thing. In Acts 20 Paul, giving instruction to the elders at Ephesus, says that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. Other numerous scriptures indicate that the apostles established elders in each church to oversee, or shepherd the flock. All I have ever seen is churches led by one man called a pastor. If there are elders they are only a token in light of the scriptures. So I need someone to show me where this apostolic directive as instituted by God was to be done away with. I find no evidence of a single man leading any assembly, except maybe Diotrephes, and no indication that any elder was above any other in authority. If an apostle was to come back today and establish a church, is there any reason to think he would do it different than it was done in the early church? If not, then why don’t churches today practice this form of church governance, especially those that call themselves apostolic. I really would like to know why this practice was discontinued. Is it simply because it really doesn’t matter? I do understand not every detail the early church practiced would apply for all time, as in customary changes, but the establishment of elders doesn’t seem to fall in that category. If it was that important to them and to God then, why is it not important now?
Jimmy
LikeLike
December 15, 2011 at 11:26 am
Jimmy,
I’ve read the arguments for multiple elders and I’m not convinced by them. There’s no question that each city had multiple elders, just as today. What is being assumed, however, is that there were multiple elders in each local assembly/congregation within each city. Perhaps that was the case, but the text does not say that. Indeed, given the fact that most people met in small house churches within each city, it would be difficult to have more than one elder for each house church.
Even if we agree that it is beneficial to have multiple elders, for many this is not practically feasible. Think about those who are starting a new church? It’s hard enough to find one elder to do this work, yet alone two or more. Most churches cannot feasibly have multiple elders until they reach a certain size.
Jason
LikeLike
December 16, 2011 at 11:22 am
Jimmy, I agree with your sentiments. You make some really good points as to why we should have multiple elders leading a congregation and I agree that scripture seems to back it up.
By having multiple elders, leaders are forced to be more accountable to the church and there is less chance of the church being taken advantage of by a wayward shepherd. A one-leader church can turn into a cult. Cult’s usually if not always have one leader that have total control. I have seen some very unhealthy adoration of church Pastors that borderline on idol worship. While we are to respect to every man, we must not treat a pastor or elder with any favoritism because of his position – but we do in reality, maybe without realizing it. We are to submit one to another and our leaders should be the greatest of servants and are not to be served unduly.
While we should appeal to scripture to the issue of church governance, we should also consider what is best for the church and for unbelievers in order that the church attracts people instead of repelling them. There are countless examples in history and present day of church governance disasters that have been and are led my one man. It is no wonder so many unbelievers are cynical of church.
In my opinion, I strongly believe that church governance in our day should be by committee or group of elders/leaders. I do not agree with one man as Pastor being the sole leader of a church body, other than Jesus Himself of course.
To be clear, I understand there will always be a single leader in small group type activities like home bible studies. But what I am talking about is the modern day church where there can be a few hundred or thousand people as part of one group. This is where I believe we need a group of people that have equal authority and position to govern the group. Also, there is no law or requirement that we follow the example of the early church to the letter. We should study how they did things of course but we need to exercise sound judgment on how we govern ourselves in present day with all things considered. We do not live in a vacuum and we need to consider all things and strive to not bring offense to the church or make a cause for someone to stumble, believer or otherwise.
God Bless.
Naz
LikeLike
December 18, 2011 at 7:18 am
Jason, I also have wondered if the elders pertained to each local church, and as you said the scripture does not specifically say, but a couple of scriptures seem to indicate it does. In Acts 14:23 they ordained elders in every church. House churches are spoken of as churches also. And James 5:14, where one is to call for the elders of the church for prayer. It would seem strange for one to be instructed to call for other elders of other congregations to ask for prayer. I totally agree that small churches, or a man starting a church, are fortunate to have one elder or pastor. Maybe this is the reason elders were not established until later journeys by Paul. It just seems to be the prevailing pattern that multiple leaders working together to shepherd people was what God had in mind. Just as the text does not say there were elders over each local assembly, there is also no clear example of a single elder in charge over an assembly. The Lord did not leave one apostle in charge over the others when he ascended, but even in modern churches when there are other leaders there is always one designated in charge as in “Senior Pastor”, or “Presiding Elder”, or some such title. I’m just saying it seems to adopt a form of church government that is foreign to the bible.
Naz, you make some excellent points. I’m persuaded many problems I’ve personally experienced in churches could have been avoided with a multiple elder form of leadership. My concern is that if churches are to have multiple elders in each church, the injustice we are doing to the kingdom of God ought to be strongly considered. It seems highly possible modern churches have adopted a form of church governance handed down to them compliments of the Roman Catholic Church.
I too would not want to bring offence to the church or cause anyone to stumble.
Jason when you have time will you respond about those two scriptures. Thanks
Jimmy
LikeLike
December 19, 2011 at 9:33 am
Jimmy, yes, the one leader concept is modeled from the Catholics. It goes without saying the doctrinal and governance issues that group has so I will refrain from elaborating being an ex-Catholic myself.
Another advantage of having multiple leaders in a church is that the congregation can realize that the true leader of the church is Jesus Christ removing focus from one individual,
Also, I would like to point out that even with a group of elders there can be damage done to the Saints as Peter exhorts not to be “lords” over God’s people. I think though this less likely to happen than if one man had all the authority. As in politics, democratic systems are preferred over dictatorships.
The use of the word dictator may sound harsh, but in a candid conversation with my pastor in my previous church (UPC), he did not deny that he in fact was a dictator in our church and that I (quote) “could do a lot worse if I was part of another church”. So in his eyes he was a “good” dictator and it was for my benefit somehow. This is the kind of doctrine a lot of pastors are falling prey to and in the process they are puffed in their mind and elevate themselves above the flock. We need to be wary of this because it is happening today.
1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.
I can speak from personal experience and it sounds like you too, Jimmy, have had some experiences as well. Unless you have experienced this sort of thing and lived through it, it is hard to relate to. The scriptures really come to life when you experience them in your own life. My experience, although a hard and difficult one, has changed my life and God really has delivered me from a spiritually abusive situation.
Praise the Lord !! …
Naz
LikeLike
December 20, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Jimmy,
The two passages you cited are the best support for the multiple elders model, but I don’t find them convincing. Look at the context of Acts 14:23:
Acts 14:21-23 They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, 22 strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said. 23 Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.
In the immediate context Luke is speaking of what Paul did in three cities, not just one: Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. Given the fact that Luke was speaking of separate cities, he had to speak in the plural (even if each city only had one congregation and one elder per congregation). On this view “each church” refers to the church in each city, or more probably the collective church body in each city even if that church body met separately in various home churches. Multiple elders were appointed for these three cities, and distributed to the congregation of each city. But it very well could have been that of the, say, 15 elders they appointed in Antioch, each one oversaw a single house church. The text does not demand one view or the other. I think it should be pointed out that “every” does not appear in the Greek. The preposition used with “church” is kata, and as Daniel Wallace argues, this is a distributive use of the preposition which means elders were appointed and distributed in the various churches of those three cities.
Furthermore, even if we agree that there should be multiple elders in each church, the Bible is silent as to how they are to interact with each other. So the idea that if you have multiple elders they all have the same authority, is not derived from Scripture. You could still have a situation in which one of those elders does most of the work or assumes the role of being the final authority for decision making after the input of all the elders has been heard and taken into consideration. In other words, the abuses that many people think the multiple elders model will solve is not necessarily the case. Indeed, in virtually ever church I have been a part of there were multiple ministers, and yet there was still only one minister who had the final authority. Indeed, a practical case could be made that such a model is necessary.
As for James 5:14, the fact that the believer has to “call” for the elders may indicate that they would not otherwise ever be assembled together. And why would that be? Because the normal daily or weekly gatherings were in house churches, and you would only encounter a single elder at your house church. So this could be interpreted as good evidence for the single elder model. We can’t just assume that when Paul speaks of the “church” that he is referring to a particular congregation. He usually uses the term to refer to an entire city of believers, or the universal fellowship of believers. You say it would seem strange to call for pastors of other churches to pray for you, but that’s because of our historical context. Not only are our churches separated by a greater distance than churches would have been in that day (because our cities are so much larger), but because our churches today are largely in competition with one another rather than working in cooperation with one another.
I agree with you that the Bible does not endorse a single elder model either. My point is simply that there is no clear model, so we are free to pick one that best suits the kingdom of God and is practical. I think it is wrong-headed to claim that one model is Biblical while another is not. One model may have more practical advantages than another, but that’s a matter to be settled by culture and practicalities.
Jason
LikeLike