Is The One Pastor System Scriptural?
by Mark Frees
In the summer of 1990, while pastoring a denominational church in
rural Mississippi, 1 felt led to teach a Bible study series on
the New Testament pattern for the church and its leadership.
We were not very far into this study before I began to seriously
question the scripturalness of many of our church practices
and traditions. Most troublesome was the question of whether or
not my own position as the Pastor of a local church was a scriptural
one.
I had always assumed that the one-Pastor system, being the pattern
followed in the overwhelming majority of churches today,
was founded upon Scripture. But as I began to earnestly study
the Scriptures on the issue of church leadership, one disturbing
question kept intruding itself-a question I present here for
the sober consideration of the reader. Where in Scripture is there
warrant for one man to be the spiritual leader and authority
over the local church?
Never mind that this is the pattern unquestioningly followed
throughout Christendom today. Where is it in Scripture? As I
searched the length and breadth of the New Testament, it became
obvious to me that such a pattern was nowhere to be
found. Rather, I found that the primary role in shepherding
the New Testament churches was exercised, not by a solitary
Pastor, but by a plurality of men, described as "elders" or
overseers.
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and
had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on
whom they believed. (Acts 14:23)
From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of
the church.... He said unto them... Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost
hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he
hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:17-28)
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the
saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and
deacons: (Phil.1:1)
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set
in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city,
as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5)
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church;
and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name
of the Lord: (James 5:14)
The quotation above from Acts 20 makes it clear that the "elders"
and "overseers" are the same persons, and that it is they
who are given responsibility to shepherd, or pastor the church
of God. ("Shepherd" is the literal meaning of the word "pastor.")
So while others besides elders may exercise a pastoral gift-Bible
teachers, for instance, there is no hint in Scripture of anyone
claiming to be "the Pastor" of a local church and assuming a
position of oversight apart from and superior to the work of the
elders. We read nothing of a "Senior Pastor," or "Presiding
Elder." Such titles, in fact come perilously close to blasphemy,
since Christ Himself is spoken of as "the Chief Shepherd" (1
Peter 5:4).
The apostle Peter confirms that the terms "elders" and "overseers"
refer to the same persons, and that their work is that of
pastoring the flock: 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:
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; (1 Peter 5:1-2)
So when we read in Ephesians 4:11 that God has given "some as
pastors" (literally, "shepherds"), can we not assume that this
refers primarily to these elders, or overseers, and not to a
one-man office about which the rest of the New Testament is
completely silent. Nor is all this mere wrangling over terminology.
The point to be fixed clearly in the mind from the above scriptures
is that, in the New Testament, churches were never
shepherded by one man, whatever his title or designation, but
by a plurality of men. Further, the clear impression given by
these scriptures is that elders were generally raised up by
God from within the local church, not hired and imported from
outside-and certainly not from the ranks of a professional "clergy".
This gives rise to another question. Where in Scripture is there
any such thing as a servant of the Lord contracting to receive a
stated salary from a church? The New Testament clearly sets
forth the principle that those who preach the gospel are entitled
to "live from the gospel" (Matt. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim.
5:17-18), but there is never any indication that this involves a
stated salary, but rather, free will gifts:
Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that
teacheth in all good things.(Gal. 6:6)
Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel...
no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving
but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and
again for my necessities. (Phil. 4:10-16)
Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently,
that nothing be wanting unto them. And let ours also learn to
maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.(Titus
3:13-14)
The only case in Scripture of a "minister" receiving a fixed
salary occurs in Judges 17-a situation filled with compromise and
idolatry!
But did not Jesus say, "The laborer is worthy of his hire" (Luke
10:7)? True, but the briefest glance at the immediate context,
where these laborers are instructed to carry neither purse nor
scrip, and to "eat and drink such things as are set before
you"-shows that a fixed salary was the last thing our Lord had
in view. Yes, the Lord's laborer is worthy of his hire, but who is
it that "hires" him? In whose employ is he--the church's or
the Lord's? Surely the Lord's, but the system of a
salaried pastorate implies otherwise. I cannot help but believe
that the present-day "Pastor search" process, complete with
resumes, salary negotiations, trial sermons, and the like, is
a grievous offence to the Spirit of God. Again our urgent question
must be: where is all this in Scripture?
Where also is the notion that the public ministry of the Word
is to be confined to one man in a local church, and that it is
contingent upon him being "ordained" by some human authority?
On the contrary, we read: Let the prophets speak two or
three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to
another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all
prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
(1 Cor 14:29-31)
Regardless of one's view concerning the nature of the gift of
prophecy and its validity for today, it is abundantly clear that the
practice of one man monopolizing the public ministry of the
Word was utterly foreign to the New Testament churches.
Sad consequences
So when confronted with the plain teaching of Scripture, I could
not escape the conclusion that the oversight of the local
church is to be exercised by mature brethren raised up by the
Holy Spirit from within the church. and that public ministry of
the Word is open to any brother who has been divinely gifted
for it. In Contrast, most churches today entrust the spiritual
leadership of the congregation and the vast majority of the
public ministry to a solitary Pastor, who is chosen from among the
professional "clergy," imported from outside the church and
promised a fixed salary for his services. Can the reader-with his
New Testament open before him-deny that this is a drastic departure
from the scriptural pattern? Indeed it is, and it has had
predictably severe consequences on the spiritual life of churches.
The following are only some of the problems that are
created or aggravated by this unscriptural one-Pastor system:
(1) Perpetuates the deplorable distinction between "clergy"
and "laity."
No more pernicious device of the devil has ever been deployed
than this utterly unscriptural distinction. Pastors today grieve
about being unable to involve the "laity." without ever considering
that it is the very system of dividing Christians into two
classes that is to blame.
The answer is not to "involve" the laity, but to abolish it!
Away with the idea that Christian work is the province of a special
few!
(2) Causes believers to neglect their own responsibility for
witnessing to the lost, encouraging the brethren, in-depth Bible
study, visiting the sick, etc., out of a conscious or subconscious
assumption that these are "the Pastor's Jobs." Often the only
one visibly working for Christ in the community is the Pastor,
whose witness is impaired by the fact that he is perceived as
paid to do so, And how rare is serious Bible study outside of
the Pastor's study! There is a widespread delusion that only the
"ordained" Pastor is qualified to mine the riches of God's Word,
and that only he is responsible for using the Word to
encourage the brethren and warn the lost. As a result, men who
have been believers in Christ for thirty or forty years and "by
this time ought to be teachers" are still being spoon-fed them-
selves. (Heb. 5:12) In our
churches today this is not the unfortunate exception. It is
the norm. Of all the damage wreaked by the unscriptural system of
handing over the ministry of the church to a single professional
(or in larger churches, a staff of professionals), this debilitating
effect on the men of the congregation is perhaps the most tragic.
(3) Leaves little or no room for the exercise of spiritual gifts,
other than the Pastor's, in the gatherings of the church.
(4) Leads to churches being built in the flesh, as programs,
promotion, and the Pastor's personality must replace the spiritual
gifts of the body.
(5) Produces widespread discouragement among Pastors, who are
trying earnestly to fill an unscriptural role.
(6) Denies Pastors the fellowship in the ministry they so desperately
need. Usually the difference in spiritual vision and
ministry responsibility between the Pastor and the congregation
is so wide that his only meaningful fellowship is with other
Pastors, who are not fellow-laborers in the same field, but
have their own fields to worry about.
(7) Tends to negate the presidency of the Holy Spirit in the
church.
Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the mind of the Spirit,
his pein the church. Though the Pastor may earnestly seek the
mind of the Spirit, his perception is clouded by his own personality,
desires, etc. How much better, when formulating plans or
making a decision, for the elders as a group, along with other
spiritual men, to come before the Lord in prayer.
(8) Since one man is given responsibility for the entire ministry
of the church-and since no one man has all the gifts-Pastors
are forced to spend much of their time doing ministry they are
not supernaturally gifted to do, or else that ministry goes
undone.
(9) Creates a situation where one person, the Pastor, can turn
a doctrinally sound church into a heretical church overnight.
Having multiple elders, while not providing absolute immunity
from doctrinal error, is a powerful check against heretical
teaching.
(10) Leads to a paralyzing shortage of national Christian workers
in many mission areas, because of the assumption that these
workers must be professionally trained and imported from outside
the church. Where is the confidence that the Lord has
already supplied the body with the leadership gifts needed?
(11) Puts undue pressure on the Pastor's wife and children,
as they are forced to live in a "fishbowl" environment as "the
preacher's" family.
These are but a sampling of the consequences that I believe
can be laid squarely at the feet of unscriptural beliefs and
practices concerning the ministry.
Some Objections Answered
Objection 1: The proper role of a pastor is not to assume the
entire ministry of the church, but to mobilize and equip the saints
to do the work of the ministry. Therefore, most of the problems
you have listed are results, not of the single-Pastor system
itself, but of the abuse of that system.
Reply: Since the single-Pastor system is universally beset
with these problems, the burden of proof lies on its defenders to
prove that the system itself is not at fault, particularly since
it is a system with no warrant in Scripture. The concept of a
church led by a Pastor-equipper who mobilizes the saints to
do the work of the ministry sounds attractive, but the experience
of thousands of frustrated Pastors testifies that it simply
does not work. There is simply too deeply ingrained a perception in
the minds of the congregation that Christian work is for a special
few. The clergy-laity gap is the great demobilizer of the
saints. Anyone trying to abolish that gap is doomed to failure
while clinging to a system where one man, professionally trained
and credentialed, is viewed as "the Minister." Incidentally,
those who espouse the concept of the Pastor- equipper normally
have a very limited notion of what the "work of the ministry"
includes. For instance, even
the Pastor who makes equipping the saints an emphasis of his
ministry will normally call a fellow clergyman-not someone from
the congregation-to fill the pulpit when he is away.
Objection 2: The approach you have suggested would produce incompetent
church leadership at best, and doctrinal mayhem at
worst.
Reply: This is a serious charge because it I implies that the
Holy Spirit is incompetent in placing the proper leadership gifts
within each church. Is it seminary training that qualifies a
man for leadership in the church, or the gifts of the Spirit? We have
often been guilty of giving lip service to the latter, while
placing greater weight on the former.
Objection 3: The word "overseer" is singular in 1 Timothy 3:2
and Titus 1:7 where the qualifications of the overseer are
described. This suggests at least the possibility of "overseer"
being a one-man work.
Reply: It is a most natural use of language to employ the singular
when describing the qualifications of a position. For instance,
I might say, "A United States Senator (or even, the United States
Senator) must be a man of integrity. honor, etc." without in
the least implying that there is only one United States Senator,
or even one per state! To stress Paul's perfectly explicable use
of the singular here, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence
of the rest of the New Testament, would be a
strange and twisted exegesis. At any rate, a closer look at
Titus 1:5-7 rules out the possibility that Paul was advocating a
one-pastor system. How can the use of the singular "overseer"
in verse 7 possibly imply that each local church is to have only
one overseer, when two verses earlier Paul had introduced the
subject by reminding Titus of his instructions to "appoint elders
[plural I in every city"? To my mind, this is conclusive.
Objection 4: Were not the "Pastoral Epistles" addressed to single
individuals?
Reply: This objection is based on the common misconception that
Timothy and Titus were each "Pastors" of local churches.
This is simply not true. To quote from the Zondervan Pictorial
Bible Dictionary: "Though these letters do furnish worthwhile
directions for pastors, the addressees were not Pastors in the
usual present-day sense of that term. Rather, they were Paul's
special envoys sent by him on specific missions and entrusted
with concrete assignments according to the need of the
hour."
Objection 5: What about the leadership role of James at Jerusalem
(Acts 12:17). Epaphras at Colossae (Col. 4:12). And
Epaphroditus at Philippi (Phil. 2:25)?
Reply: This objection, which I have heard used in defense of
the one-Pastor system is a patent example of reading the Word
of God through the distorting lens of tradition. James, the
Lord's brother, was an apostle (Gal. 1:19). not a Pastor. Epaphras
was an evangelist. The "fellow bond-servant" of Paul who brought
the gospel to the Colossians (Col. 1:7). (Strange that if he
were "Pastor" of the church at Colossae. he is never seen as
present there, but always with Paul elsewhere!. (Col. 4:12;
Philem. 23) Epaphroditus is simply described as one of Paul's
fellow-workers who was sent by the Philippian church as a
minister to his needs. All this is evidence for the one-Pastor
system?
Objection 6: Do not the "angels" of the churches in Revelation
2-3 refer to Pastors (e.g. "To the angel of the church in
Ephesus write...," etc.), and is there not one per church?
Reply: No person reading the New Testament apart from
preconceived notions would ever imagine that the "angels" of
Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors. Although the Greek word angelos
may be translated "messenger," in every other occurrence
of the word in Revelation-and it occurs 76 times!-it unquestionably
refers to literal angels. If it does mean
"messenger" in Revelation 2-3, it still could hardly be stretched
to mean "pastor." In every case where the New Testament
uses the phrase messenger of..." (e.g. "messenger of Satan,"
"messengers of John," etc.), it always describes by whom the
messenger is sent, never to whom. In other words, "the
messenger of the church in Ephesus" would not likely mean a
messenger sent to the church, but a messenger sent by the church,
perhaps as part of a delegation to minister to the apostle in
his exile on Patmos and to receive instructions from him.
Objection 7: Perhaps the many New Testament references to multiple
elders are due to the fact that, while each church had
only one elder or overseer, each city had several different
churches. For instance, when Paul writes to "the saints in Christ
Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons"
(Phil. 1: 1), there may have been a number of congregations in
Philippi, each with their own overseer, or Pastor.
Reply: This reasoning may seem to answer certain passages, but
it utterly falls apart in view of others, such as Acts 14:23
("So when they had appointed elders in every church...), James
5:14 ("Let him call for the elders of the church"), etc.
Objection 8: Even if it can be proven that the New Testament
churches had multiple elders that would not necessarily be
normative for the church today. After all, everyone agrees that
believers in the Jerusalem church sold their goods and had all
things in common, yet who suggests returning to that pattern
today?
Reply: To say that the pattern of the New Testament church is
not normative for us today is tantamount to saying that God
has left us without any pattern at all. Distressing thought!
Has God really left us at the mercy of human ingenuity in deciding
how the ministry of His Church is to be ordered? Rather, let
us say with the Psalmist, "I esteem right all Thy precepts
concerning everything" (Ps. 119:128). In regard to the selling
of goods by believers in the Jerusalem church: (1) The
passage in question, Acts 2:42-47, does not say that all those
who believed sold all their possessions. This was not "Christian
communism" as it is sometimes pictured. The use of the imperfect
tense in verse 45 implies that from time to time, as
necessary, they sold their goods to distribute to brethren in
need. (2) I, for one, am not prepared to say that the example of
these early Jerusalem saints is not the norm for believers today,
particularly in light of the words of John's epistle: But whoso
hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and
shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the
love of God in him. (1 John 3:17)
Objection 9: You cannot deny that God has through the years
mightily blessed many Pastors and churches who have used the
one-Pastor system, and continues to do so today.
Reply: No one would think of denying this. Yet the problems
mentioned above cannot reasonably be denied either. And who
would claim that the fruitfulness of the Church as a whole is
anywhere near the divinely intended level? Besides, it is a
mistake to think that because God graciously blesses someone
operating under a certain set of beliefs or practices, that He
thereby endorses those beliefs or practices. God has, for instance,
greatly used many preachers, teachers, and missionaries
who have held to the teaching that Christians may lose their
salvation. Yet few who are taught in the Scriptures would suggest
that this view therefore has God's sanction, or that it is unimportant
to uphold the scriptural teaching of Salvation. Praise God,
He does not require us to be perfect in our interpretation of
Scripture before He will use us. If so, who could hope to be used?
But as we are given further light on the Scriptures, it is our
duty and our Joy to conform our beliefs and
practices as nearly as possible to the Word of God.
Objection 10: A multiple-elder system might well solve some
problems, but at the same time it would create a whole new set
of problems of its own.
Reply: This I willingly admit. When, however, you are operating
under a scriptural pattern, the problems that arise are
scriptural problems. That is, they are problems that have been
anticipated in Scripture and for which guidance is provided in
Scripture. Also, let us not forget that, quite apart from the
question of what problems might be solved or created, we ought to
follow the New Testament pattern simply because it is the New
Testament pattern. We conform to the authority of Scripture
as a matter of principle, not for pragmatic reasons. But when
we do so, we invariably find God's way to be the best way.
Objection 11: Surely you don't think all the problems you mentioned
would vanish if our churches simply changed their pattern
of leadership?
Reply: Unfortunately, no. Not overnight at least, particularly
where the clergy-laity mentality has been firmly entrenched for
decades. But even in such a case a return to the New Testament
pattern, if wholeheartedly adopted by the local church,
would certainly produce a dramatic effect. The manifold problems
and unscriptural attitudes nurtured by the false
clergy-laity distinction could at least begin to be resolved.
In other situations, where a fresh start is possible (such as on the
mission field, in new churches, or with new converts), these
problems can be avoided altogether.
What shall we say then? The one-man pastorate, far from having
the sanction of Scripture, is essentially a "Protestantized"
holdover from the Roman Catholic clerical system. For those
of us who claim the Bible, rather than tradition, as our authority,
it is time to fervently search the Scriptures to see if these
things are so. (Acts 17:11) I would that every reader of this booklet
might share the blessing I have found by "turning my feet to
His testimonies" (Ps. 119:59) and choosing to meet in fellowship
with those who gather in New Testament simplicity and order.
I have written more about this in a small booklet entitled, What
I Have Found: My introduction to "brethren" assemblies. *
A free copy may be obtained by writing to the publisher of this
booklet.
Published by
Spread the Word
2721 Oberlin Drive
York, PA 17404