Rediscovering Biblical Pastoral Authority

INTRODUCTION

            Those familiar with Church history know that since the days of Pentecost, the Church has been a brilliant light of Gospel truth while at other times managed to be only a flickering candle. It has illustrated faithful stewardship of the Gospel as well as corruption, chaos and confusion. It has been a powerful thermostat positively influencing the moral and spiritual climate of society. It has also been moral thermometer, reflecting the poverty of society’s spiritual bankruptcy. The Church has both stood for truth and compromised with error. In essence, its witness for the kingdom of God has been both powerful and problematic as it has cycled between rebelling against and returning to God’s instructions.

            When the Church was returning from its errors, exemplary leaders were often found at the forefront of each return. Some of these leaders would include Paul, John, Athanasius, Luther, Wesley and Whitfield, Edwards, and Moody. Though many admirable traits distinguished these men, of primary interest to this essay is the fact that they each possessed and were possessed by a certainty of their role as God’s servant to the Church. This certainty of purpose helped feed their fires of passion and tenacity, encouraging them to answer God’s call and lead His people from the darkness of their rebellion into the light of His renewal. These men not only illustrated a deep faith, but were also men of clear vision willing to be used by God in whatever way necessary to accomplish the vision that consumed them. They were not only certain about their role, but they were certain of its importance. Luther’s conviction and courage in the face of the Church’s corruption and theological error epitomized these ideals:

In 1521 he [Luther] was called to an assembly at Worms, Germany, to appear before Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Luther arrived prepared for another debate; he quickly discovered it was a trial at which he was asked to recant his views.

Luther replied, “Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the Holy Scriptures or with open, clear, and distinct grounds of reasoning … then I cannot and will not recant, because it is neither safe nor wise to act against conscience.” Then he added, “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me! Amen.”^[1]

           

            God seems to use such people of courage and conviction when He leads His people back to renewal. The Reformation didn’t just randomly happen because it’s not likely God does anything randomly. Instead, He always seems to have a purpose. Consistently He calls men like Luther, Wesley, Whitfield, Edwards, etc., to be shepherds of His people enabling and inspiring such men to lead His people to discover the better way of His will. He calls these men, molds them and develops them until they are surrendered, passionate, courageous, clear-headed servants certain of their God-called role as leaders of God’s people. One would be hard pressed to find a single biblical example of God’s moving his people forward in His will which does not have a primary figure leading others toward that will. This consistent pattern should be of great interest to those who are concerned about the present condition of the Church.

            Among evangelicals today there is fresh concern about where the Church is in this cycle of commitment and compromise. Some suggest its present condition is more compromised than committed. They hold the view that the Church is headed in the wrong direction, if there is a direction at all. They claim today’s Church is adrift in a fog of stagnation and indifference, content in its mediocrity, uncertain of its relevancy, deficient in the knowledge of why it exists.

Whether still or busy, too few [churches] are making any real headway.  Rather than missionary disciples for Christ going into the world, we have groups of people content to go in circles.  God calls us to make a transformational impact on the world, not provide a carnival of frenetic activity for ourselves. But to make this impact, we must engage in His mission for His sake and on His terms.  Pastors and church leaders must move beyond entertaining consumers and into engaging Christ’s mission.[2]

            Some might think this assessment of the church’s condition is too negative or simply overstated. Those that do need only read Richard Mayhue’s article Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry to find this reason for concern. In his article, he refers to a survey by John Seel, President of nCore Media, a recognized research expert:

Consider, for example, John Seel’s 1992 survey of twenty-five prominent evangelical leaders.  The leaders expressed their less-than-optimistic views on the general state of American evangelicalism at the end of the twentieth century. Eight dominant themes emerged from their responses:

1. Uncertain identity—A widespread confusion over what defines an evangelical.

2. Institutional disenchantment—A perceived ministry ineffectiveness and irrelevance.

3. Lack of leadership—A lament over the paucity of leadership in the church.

4. Pessimistic about the future—A belief that the future of evangelicalism hangs in the balance.

5. Growth up, impact down—A confusing paradox without immediate clear explanations.

6. Cultural isolation—A complete arrival of the post-Christian era.

7. Political and methodological response provides the solution—A drift toward unbiblical approaches to ministry.

8. Shift from truth-orientation to market-response ministry—A redirection away from the eternal towards the temporal in order to be viewed as relevant.^[3]

            Using Seel’s research, which revealed evangelical leaders’ belief that the Church today is adrift, and citing the work of Stetzer and Rainer, a strong case is made for believing the disenchantment about the Church’s irrelevance is warranted. It cannot be ignored nor explained away by positive thinking! Pessimism about the direction of the Church exists! Apparently, these concerns have existed for decades. Importantly, this uncertainty exists among the leadership of evangelical churches. How else could one explain the statements: “lack of leadership” and “pessimism about the future” and “shifting from truth-oriented to market-response ministry in order for the church to be viewed as relevant?” In light of this, if the study of history serves any purpose, pastors today are in need of rediscovering that same vibrant certainty which possessed the earlier fathers of the Church. As with them so it is today, church leadership must have a sense of certainty and conviction about both their roles and the role of the Church if they are to rightly lead the Church from its stagnancy and ineffectiveness to recovery and renewal! According to Mayhue’s article, this essential certainty is presently lacking. Many other things may contribute to the uncertainties of the modern church but weakness of leadership must be addressed if the Church is ever to experience needed renewal. It is remarkable that after two-thousand years, today’s Church leaders apparently struggle for certainty as to what they are to do and why the Church exists.

            These haunting thoughts lay a foundational belief that evangelical pastors need to prayerfully and passionately embark on a spiritual journey to renew or rediscover their proper biblical role as leaders of God’s people. Trusting history as a reliable teacher, one recognizes that God-called leaders are the instruments God uses to lead His people back from their wanderings. It must be concluded, therefore, that when pastors rediscover the certainty of their biblical role as leaders and they lead the Church to rediscover the certainty of its role, the renewal desired by many, and needed so desperately, will follow. If history is an indicator, God could presently be preparing those willing to lead His Church out of this lethargy and stagnation. Thus, now could be an exciting and critically important time to be a truly God-called visionary pastor/teacher.

            Believing there to be many evangelical leaders who want to make this journey of rediscovery, it might be best to begin with some pointed personal and pejorative questions such as: What is the present perception of the role of the pastor among evangelical Christianity? Has this perception recently changed and if so what motivated the change and is that motivation legitimate? If it has changed, how has that change impacted the present condition of the Church? Does the Church’s present perception of the pastor’s role agree with the biblical directives? These questions became a stimulus for research. The record of that research and commentary on what was discovered is what follows. The specific purpose of this paper is not only an appeal for pastors to see the need for a rediscovery and renewal of commitment to their biblical role as leaders but also, hopefully, to provide a reliable, biblical affirmation of that role and ignite a new certainty of purpose and significance regarding that calling. Errant and misguided perceptions of the roles of both pastors and churches existing today rob men of this certainty. A rediscovery of the pastor’s biblical role as leader is therefore critical, if churches are ever to emerge from their present stagnation into a more effective execution of their true purpose.

            Trusting in the worthiness of such goals, this paper seeks to investigate and instill a passion to pursue them. Its structure consists of the published articles of a few contemporary, evangelical scholars; some appropriate Scripture studies and concludes with final thoughts and commentary. It is arranged under the following headings: confirming changes in the perception of the pastor’s role, identifying the reliable model for Church polity, revealing the biblical role of the pastor and finally, concluding thoughts and observations.

CONFIRMING CHANGES IN THE PERCEPTION

OF THE PASTOR’S ROLE

            Articles published by evangelical scholars provide convincing evidence of recent changes in the perception of the pastor’s role and help identify the present uncertainties which presently exist among evangelical churches. Among those quoted are Howard Bixby, Vice President of Seminary Academics at Baptist Bible College, Ken Smith, author and retired Baptist Pastor of Florida writing for the Review and Expositor of Louisville, KY, Richard Mayhue, Senior Vice President and Dean of Pastoral Ministries of the Master’s Seminary Sun Valley, CA and Daniel Aiken President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. These are but a few of many who have similar concerns. There are two primary reasons the writings of these men were used. First, their articles appeared in respected theological journals and therefore carry the weight of responsible, respected research. Second, their articles reflected the evangelical viewpoint desired for the context of this project.

            Bixby begins with identified changes that have taken place over the last five decades:

During much of the last fifty years, the office of pastor has been viewed as similar to that of a military chaplain (incidentally, this writer views the role of military chaplain to be very, very noble and valuable in its context), but a military chaplain with the rank of captain would not be allowed to lead troops to win battles as other captains would. In fact, he is unarmed in carrying out his duties. His purpose is to meet the spiritual needs of the troops with whom he serves. For a variety of reasons, pastors have been relegated to being “teaching elders” while other “ruling elders” (the pastor may be allowed to be one of them also) lead the church as a group. As a “teaching elder,” the pastor preaches sermons, teaches lessons, performs church ordinances/weddings/funerals, and provides pastoral care/counseling for the people, but he may not overtly lead.[4]

                          Smith not only suggests error is present in the perception of pastor’s role but also suggests a weak understanding of the purpose of the Church at large and a weak understanding of a proper relationship between pastor and people. Furthermore, he implies that the congregations themselves bear much of the responsibility for this:

We still form the idea that “the buck stops with the preacher.” If the church is not growing as it should, if the finances are not coming in as they should, and if no one is “being saved,” we might have a “preacher problem” and to get our church “back on track” we might need a new leader! Why? “So we can get our church to doing what it is supposed to do!” There are plenty of times when we need to change the pastor, but if the doctrine were really believed by the congregation, we might need to examine the congregation! If they are the priests of reconciliation, if they are to be a part of the great commission, they need to get the job done! [bold, italics added]^[5]

In his article quoted earlier, Mayhue identified five imbalances which have resulted from these uncertainties which presently exist:

1. Overemphasis on man’s reasoning and a corresponding underemphasis on God’s revelation in Scripture.

2. Overemphasis on human need as defined by man and a corresponding underemphasis on God’s definition of man’s need.

3. Overemphasis on earthly relevance and a corresponding underemphasis on spiritual relevance.

4. Overemphasis on the temporal side of life and a corresponding underemphasis on the eternal.

5. Overemphasis on satisfying contemporary culture and a corresponding underemphasis on God’s pleasure.[6]

Mayhue stated a warning if the role of the biblical pastoral ministry is not rediscovered:

More could be written on these present dangers and deceits facing the evangelical church and ministry. However, we conclude by urging all of Christendom, both in America and around the world, to rediscover pastoral ministry as outlined in Scripture. Here you will find ministry that is biblically based, not demographically defined; Spirit led, not market driven; Christ centered, not man directed; and God focused, not consumer oriented.[7]

It has been said, “A mist in the pulpit results in a fog in the pew.”  How can one expect those in the pew to be certain if those in the pulpit are not? Confusion in any organization is inevitable when its leadership is uncertain. Aiken’s testimony about the present confusion existing among Southern Baptist churches, therefore, strongly implies an uncertainty of its leadership.

Southern Baptists, in the midst of the swirling tides of modernity, have attempted to stake their claim and send a clear message on who we are. The conservative resurgence initiated in 1979 charted the course, and I would argue that the revised Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 was something of a defining moment.  Still, I am not convinced we have a clear understanding and a clear vision of who we are and what we should be. ^[8] 

Well-meaning leaders who do not know or agree with the biblical role of the pastor may be doing more to contribute to the present confusion about the Church’s role then they are aware. Mayhue continued his description of the uncertainty of the church with the following rhetorical questions.  The need to give them serious attention and consideration is apparent:

The late twentieth-century church in general and pastors in particular face the following very crucial questions. What is the pastor to be and do? How should the church respond to a rapidly changing culture? What does God consider relevant? How concerned is Christ with the traditional and/or the contemporary? Are the Scriptures an adequate basis of ministry today? What are a pastor’s ministry priorities? Under whose authority does a pastor stand? How shall we distinguish between the God-called pastor and the counterfeit? Who defines the need for ministry—God or men? What direction does Christ want for His church in the twenty-first century? And foremost of all, when we stand before the Lord of glory and give account of our stewardship, “What will we say?” and, far more importantly, “What will He say?”[9]

            Four observations can be drawn from these preceding quotations. First, they provide passionate, persuasive and scholarly evidence that the perception of the pastor’s role has indeed changed over the last several decades and that uncertainty presently exists in regard to that role.  Second, this uncertainty has, in some cases, resulted in a redefinition of the role of the pastor into something other than the biblical model. Third, congregations must be made aware of these errant redefinitions and an effort must be made to return to a more biblical model. Fourth, the crippling confusion on the part of both the congregations and pastors regarding their biblical purposes for existence has led to uncertainty regarding how they are to relate to one another and the world. The obvious conclusion drawn from these observations is that there is legitimate need for action. Pastors must first renew or rediscover their biblical roles. Second, the church needs to renew or rediscover theirs. Most emphatically, these articles point out that churches and pastors need to pursue these actions with less consideration of modern trends and more deference to the biblical model.

Such actions might benefit from reflective questions such as: What biblically justifies the existence of the church? What is its true purpose? Is the Church accomplishing that purpose? Can those leading the Church identify and verbalize this purpose? Are those in the pews being properly instructed in and held accountable to that purpose? Who does the Lord hold responsible for this instruction? What does the Bible teach regarding how the Lord desires His purposes to be accomplished in His Church? Is there any biblical instruction on how our Lord desires the Church to be organized for accomplishing its purpose? Does the Bible teach anything about the leadership structure of the church? Is the Bible an adequate guide for defining both the role of the Church and the pastor? If it is, then is the church ready to comply with that definition or is it more open to following the corporate model of America or the Chaplaincy model of this nation’s military and Law Enforcement? Many of the answers to these questions should be found within the following pages.

Before these questions are addressed, however, it is first important to make a parenthetical statement. References have been made suggesting both churches and pastors need to rediscover their biblical roles. On the surface, this overt mention of both might be seen as inconsistent with the stated purpose of this paper. However, one need only recognize that due to the inter-dependence of both, one cannot mention the need of either without mentioning the need of the other. Mayhue clarified this when he stated, “Redefining the church inevitably leads to redefining the pastoral role.”^[10] The understanding of the role of the pastor, therefore, is inexorably entwined within the understanding of the role of the Church. It is reasonable to conclude, that the future effectiveness of the evangelical Church largely depends on how well pastors comprehend and lead in the execution of both their roles and the role of the Church.

Though the Church’s purpose and the purpose of the pastor are inseparable, an exhaustive attempt to define both would exceed the limits of this paper. Reviewing and rediscovering the role of the pastor as leader is this project’s primary focus. So, attention will be focused to that end. However, knowing the church’s purpose is fundamental in clarifying that focus. It is rational to assume that pastors must first emerge from their own fog if they are to lead the churches to emerge from theirs. Consider, for example, Matthew 28:18-20 (HCSB) the most common passage used to state the purpose of the Church:

18 Then Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.   19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” 

Reams of paper have been published giving various suggestions as to what this passage specifically means. Plowing through those works will only serve to divert the focus of this essay from its intended purpose. Therefore, it is assumed that the primary purpose of the Church is that of making disciples as the verse states. However, by no means is this summary statement meant to suggest that the Church’s present uncertainty of purpose mentioned earlier is now resolved. On the contrary, until 1) there is sufficient consensus that this passage truly is the definitive statement of the Church’s purpose 2) all agree to the definition of what a disciple is 3) an acknowledgment is made on how one should go about making said disciples, and, 4) determining whether or not the Church’s present focus is more on making ‘attenders’ than disciples, the Church’s uncertainty about its role will continue. Sadly, until there is a consensus regarding the specific, target of the Church’s purpose that clearly agrees with Scripture, the Church will never hit the target God intended. Subsequently, those responsible for leading the Church must be able to identify and communicate the intended role of the church if they are truly going to be effective. Any discussion of the present perception of the pastors’ role, therefore, must include his assignment to lead God’s people in both identifying and accomplishing the Church’s intended purpose. This requires that the pastor be encouraged, enabled by and given the respect and support of the congregation he leads. Only then will the Church be and do what it was intended to be and do. Recent changes in the perception of the pastor’s role as leader is an inevitable result of the present uncertainty of both churches’ and pastors’ intended purpose. Is it any wonder that some are also uncertain of how each is to relate to the other? All this means that one cannot mention the need of certainty regarding the role of one without also mentioning the need of certainty regarding the role of both. Reference to the need to rediscover the roles of both is, therefore, justified in any adequate discussion of the pastor’s role as leader.

IDENTIFYING THE RELIABLE MODEL

FOR CHURCH POLITY

            Any legitimate effort to identify a reliable model for the pastoral leadership role must be both academically responsible and biblically sound. If not, any effort to correct present errors might result in more errors. Care must be given, therefore, to ensure that any corrections offered to the present perceptions of that role are in agreement with Scripture. With this in mind, properly stimulated thought might be best accomplished through serious consideration of the following questions: Does the Church presently comprehend its intended role? Can the Church articulate its purpose? Are evangelical churches focused on and organized to accomplish that purpose? Are evangelical pastors leading their churches to be able to verbalize their biblical purpose and comprehend what they verbalize? Are pastors leading the Church toward a deeper understanding of and a more effective execution of that purpose? Is it possible that pastors and churches have become more concerned about being socially relevant then biblically sound? Who is responsible for the answers to these questions? Mayhue, Smith, Aiken and Bixby indicated many evangelical pastors struggle to find the answers to such questions today. Enabling pastors to better do so requires the identification of a proper model. This identification is part of the discipline known as church polity. Therefore, defining one’s church polity is a good place to begin defining one’s model of the pastor’s leadership role.

            Defining one’s church polity is dependent on what or whom one sees as the authority for determining that definition. An accurate understanding of the leadership role of the pastor, therefore, depends on how accurate the authority is which is used to define one’s church polity. For example, in defining the pastor’s role, one must first decide whether the Bible alone is adequate for providing the definition of church polity or whether another model such as a government or a corporation is a more appropriate source. Which is viewed as authoritative?

            The answer to that question reveals one’s worldview. The starting point for determining the pastor’s leadership role is determining what will be recognized as the reliable authority for defining church polity. What then, is the worldview of evangelical Christianity?  If it is a biblical worldview, then the Bible should be the authority for defining Church Polity. Though one might think evangelical Christianity accepts a biblical worldview and claims the Bible as the only sufficient authority for such matters, Bixby illustrated this is not necessarily the case:

As much as good exegetes and churchmen would like to think otherwise, the United States government to a large extent and corporate America to a lesser extent have become the model for church polity. This infiltration of the church by the concept of boards (legislatures and senates), committees, voting, and parliamentary procedures has affected how we view what the NT says about decision making in the church. A cultural need for a representative democracy and total congregation business meetings (referendums) has sometimes resulted in a search for Scripture texts to support traditional or preferred practice. Instead, we need to search the text for what it does say and try to develop church polity on that basis as we function in today’s culture. It is difficult to find a board or a committee “ruling” in the NT, whether it be called a deacon board or board of elders. Perhaps we should start with the text.^[11]

            In light of Bixby’s assessment, the obvious question is how can evangelicals who claim the Bible to be their authority for faith and practice, justify rejecting it as the primary foundation for church polity in favor of another model? The potential implication drawn from Bixby’s assessment should cause every evangelical to reflect.

Mayhue, in the mean time, correctly identified the only sufficient authority by which appropriate church polity should be defined:

We submit that God will use His Word as the benchmark by which He commends or condemns our labors in His church. He will not inquire whether a ministry was “traditional” or “contemporary,” but will ask, “Was it biblical?” Our ministry will either be in accord with His will or contrary to it. This Scripture expresses Christ’s reference point for rightly building the church. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16–17).^[12]

Mayhue appropriately declared that any wandering from the “benchmark” of Scripture, when defining its polity, opens the door for God’s condemnation of the labors of the Church. Because this is so, it is essential for the church to carefully review the present foundations of its polity and return to or confirm it as a Scriptural model. Only then can there be a certainty about the roles of the church and the pastor.

REVEALING THE BIBLICAL ROLE OF

THE PASTOR

            Because Scripture alone “expresses Christ’s reference point for rightly building the church,” it alone is the appropriate model for the pastor’s role. Subsequently, an accurate perception of the Scriptural model is primary. Such a perception requires a spiritually responsible and academically accurate study of the appropriate biblical texts. An attempt to perform such a study is presented under the following three headings: an exegetical word study, an exposition of texts obviously referring to the pastor’s leadership role and exegesis of some miscellaneous passages whose reference to the pastoral role are not as apparent.

An Exegetical Word Study

            There are three words within the biblical texts which are most often used to describe the office of pastor: bishop or overseer, a translation of the Greek word ἐπίσκοπος, pastor, a translation of ποιμήν, and elder a translation of πρεσβύτερος.  A study of these terms should help establish a composite view of what the Author intended to be the correct role of the pastor.

 

The pastor as ἐπίσκοπος

            In almost every successful organization there is a person responsible for the oversight of that organization. This might be a president, a CEO or a chairman, but their basic function is oversight. This is the basic concept of ἐπίσκοπος. It appears in 1 Timothy 3:1, “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” (KJV)

            The context of the passage is Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding the primary office of the church.  The word used to describe that office in this passage is a translation of the word ἐπίσκοπος.  According to BDAG[13], this word carries the idea of a guardian, superintendent, overseer, one who has the responsibility of safeguarding or seeing to it that something is done in the correct way. According to Strong’s Concordance, the Greek word is a compilation of two Greek words: epi a preposition meaning over or upon, and skopos which is a watchman.[14] The verbal form of skopos conveys the idea of watching out for or to pay attention to.  It is the word from which we get our English word scope.  How then does this information help in determining the leadership role of the pastor?

            The use of this word suggests that a pastor is to be a person of authority, having the responsibility of overseeing the church. He is to make sure that what is supposed to be done is being done, and being done correctly. His role requires not only a knowledge of the intended purpose of the church, but also a responsibility to supervise the church to make sure it is accomplishing its intended purpose. Additionally, it describes the pastor as one who guards the church from those influences which might discourage it from its intended accomplishments. 

            Strong further suggests that the term implies a superior or an inspector.[15] The term itself has no implication of what or whom it inspects. That is determined by the context in which it is used. In the New Testament, the context seems to always be in reference to the church. Therefore the overseer of 1 Timothy 3 is a person of leadership whose function is to inspect the church so as to assure it is accomplishing its intended purpose.

            Kittel also defines the word as a general term of leadership or responsibility. In common Greek usage, for instance, the term could be used of a ship’s captain who oversaw the working of the ship. Similarly, the term could be used of a mother who has oversight of her children. Those of the ancient Roman world who were overseers of the market had the responsibility of judging what was fair dealing and what was improper.[16] The term clearly indicates a person of responsibility and one who has authority over others. Kittel further points out that because the term refers to men within the church, there are two significant questions which arise:

a. Who is called ἐπίσκοπος and b. from what period does ἐπίσκοπος cease to be a description of the free action of members of the community and become the designation of bearers of a specific office to which they and they alone are called?[17]

Kittel went on to comment:

In answer to the first question we may note that the wandering, charismatic preachers of the Gospel, the apostles, prophets and teachers, are never called ἐπίσκοποi. This title arises only where there are settled local congregations in which regular acts were performed.  For these fixed leaders of congregational life the designation . . . quickly established [itself].[18]

In reply to the second basic question in the history of the episcopate, namely, when the description of free activity became a designation of office, it may be said that there was from the very first a necessary impulse in this direction.  To be sure, Paul in Ac. 20:28 is simply depicting the work and task of responsible men in the congregation.  But he is already directing his words to a definite circle whose members may be called πρεσβύτεροi or ἐπίσκοποi in distinction from others. And these men know what they were called.  The office is already present in substance. It has not yet been given a permanent name. But this will come soon.[19]

            Four relevant points of consideration emerge from these quotes. First, the term was not uniquely used by the church but was adopted by the church. Its secular use generally described a position of authority. The use of the term within the church paralleled its secular usage. In other words, the person holding the designation of ἐπίσκοπος within the church was a person having the responsibility for the oversight of the congregation. Second, ἐπίσκοπος was never given to those wandering preachers such as the apostles, prophets and itinerant teachers. Instead, it always applied to those who had leadership responsibilities in local settled congregations. This implies a specificity of the term’s application when used in reference to the church. Third, the term seems to have been adopted early in the church’s history. As congregations developed, the office was more clearly defined. This is evident from Kittel’s comparison of the Acts 20:28 passage and the Pastorals such as 1Timothy written later.[20]  Finally, Scripture clearly indicates that these men were clear about the fact that they had been called by the Holy Spirit to fulfill this role (Acts 20:28). This indicates that their authority as ἐπίσκοποi was not only recognized by the congregations of the early church, but was confirmed by the calling of the Holy Spirit. All these observations confirm that ἐπίσκοπος describes an office of authority and leadership which uniquely applies to one man within each congregation.

The pastor as a ποιμήν

            When used in reference to the pastor of the congregation, there is only one occurrence of the noun ποιμήν in the New Testament which refers to this office.  Ephesians 4:11 describes those whom God has given to the Church as equippers: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers (bold added). Their task is described in v. 12, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (KJV).  As defined in BDAG[21], the term ποιμήν means shepherd, one who herds sheep, a sheep-herder. According to Kittel, the absence of the Greek article before the term translated teachers suggests that these words describe one function not two. In other words, the pastor is to be a teacher, he is a pastor/teacher. Kittel goes on to say, “These shepherds are the leaders of the local church . . . the pastor’s task is to care for the congregation and to combat heresy.”[22]  This would mean that as shepherds of old protected their flocks by guiding them to good pastures and being responsible for them, even to the point of giving their lives, so the pastor today is to protect his congregation. He is to guide them to the good nourishment of God’s word and will as the one responsible to the Father for the direction and condition of His flock, giving them his life in the process. On the other hand, as the flocks of old followed the voice of their shepherd, so today’s congregation is called to follow the voice of their pastor as He proclaims the truth and application of God’s word.

            According to Ephesians 4:12, the good shepherd of God’s flock will lead his flock in such a way that they mature in their spiritual growth, (perfecting), until they are equipped to do the work of ministry. It is significant to note that the Father gave the pastor/teacher as a gift to the church that by him they might be equipped to do the work of ministry. Today’s perception is that the pastor is hired by the church to do the work of the ministry and that it is the duty of the congregation to oversee and review his performance. This is a complete reversal of the teaching of this passage and the intended application of ποιμήν.  Note also that this edifying of the flock is to result in the building up of the body of Christ. It seems obvious that if the pastor of the Church is not allowed to shepherd as this word describes, the church will not become equipped as God desires it to be. One might conclude that those who first read these words would have had no doubt about the role of the pastor when he is described as a shepherd because of the multiple flocks and shepherds that existed in that day. The imagery would have struck deep in their hearts and minds. 

            To further appreciate the significance of the use of this term in describing the primary office of the Church, consider the following:

Many fine young men have done poorly as pastors of local churches because they were unable to bring a commanding presence to the work. They may have been excellent supervisors, or warm-hearted teachers, or compelling evangelists, but they lacked the authoritative leadership required of a shepherd. Even the addition of experience and maturity cannot fully compensate for the absence of the ability to lead effectively.^[23]

One can hardly deny that shepherding is a leadership function. If the pastor’s role is going to be a biblical one and he is going to be a true ποιμήν, therefore, he must possess the ability and accept the responsibility of leadership. If the church today is going to rediscover its intended effectiveness, it will require a return to the biblical model of the shepherding pastor.

The pastor as πρεσβύτερος

            This term is commonly translated ‘elder’ and has two possible applications. The first is chronological; the second is experiential. A sibling who is chronologically older is the elder of the siblings. In this sense, those who are the oldest among the congregations would be called the elders. It is not likely that simply being older is a qualification for leadership responsibility so this is probably not the application that best suits the usage of this term in this context. The second application is that of having more experience. The young person, for instance, who has had more experience in dealing with challenges or difficulties might be sought out and considered an elder in that community more than a chronologically older person who hasn’t had such experiences. This application would doubtless be the intended meaning when it was used to identify the office of pastor.

            A significant question arises at this point. Does all this require that elders hold a distinct office like that of pastor or deacon, or is the term used only to define those who held the position of pastor? This conundrum has been discussed by many over a long period of time. As a word of explanation, Kittel offered the following:

The peculiar problem of the use of πρεσβύτερος in Judaism and Christianity arises out of the twofold meaning of the word, which can be employed both as a designation of age and also as a title of office. The two meanings cannot always be distinguished with clarity. . .^[24]

            Simply put, the controversy regarding the definition of this term is whether elder is the title of an office or a description of those already in office?  That is to say, were elders appointed in the early church appointed to a distinct office of elder, or is the label given to describe those who are to hold the primary office of pastor? This is not the place to offer too much debate regarding this question. So, suffice it to say that the writings of Paul suggest all three terms overseer (bishop), shepherd and elder apply to the same office.  However, there are those who would suggest that there might have been elders who did not hold an office of any kind but were regarded as elders by their peers out of respect.  Even Kittel seems to give a mixed message when he stated:

A surprising point in the Pastorals is that the bishop plays an important part here as well as the presbyters . . . and that his functions are the same . . . It is thus natural to suppose that the offices are one and the same in the Pastorals. Only thus can one explain the fact that just after Titus is told to appoint elders the portrait of a bishop is given. Yet one can hardly make a complete equation. This is proved by the simple fact that in the Pastorals ἐπίσκοπος is always in the singular while the πρεσβύτεροι form a college.^[25]

           It seems Kittel clearly proposes that ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος were the same function but then proclaims that such is not possible because one is singular and one is plural. Were the πρεσβύτεροi an informal college of lay people or were they ἐπίσκοποi? Thorough study of this would again derail the purpose of this paper. However, several possibilities emerge which could answer this question. For instance, they could have been lay leaders of the church of which one was the overseer. They could also be a collection of overseers of different congregations. They could be a combination of either of these or something not yet mentioned. Bixby, however, proposed what may be the most appropriate answer to this question:

The NT church should be understood in its historical context rather than in light of practices observed in the twenty-first century. In the book of Acts, groups of believers met in homes (there were no dedicated church buildings as we see today) after hearing the OT read in the synagogue and sometimes even preaching the new revelation from God. The believers and seekers then went into homes to talk about it and worship God. Apparently, these meetings were frequent and accompanied by eating meals (cf. Acts 2:41–47; 12:12; 18:1–8). The cultural context was different from that of today.

As the number of believers multiplied in each city area, small “house churches” of 20–40 people continually sprung up (the church in China is currently in this pattern). It has been estimated that there may have been thousands of believers in Jerusalem by the end of the first century. The term Church of Jerusalem would have referred to the composite of many small house churches (also note 1 Cor 16:9 and Col 4:15).

The pastors/elders/bishops of these house churches would have met together periodically to encourage and strengthen each other, to decide issues, and to lay hands on new pastors for new house churches that were springing up.

The Titus 1:5–9 process of appointing (ordaining) elders (πρεσβύτερος)/bishops (ἐπισκόπος) could be a transitional precedent for the house church elders meeting together to accomplish this task. Bringing charges against a fellow pastor for discipline could also be accomplished as they gathered to care for the city-wide testimony of the church (1 Tim 5:19, 20).

The Jewish congregations would have referred to their pastors as elders, while Gentile churches would have used the title of bishop during this transitional period of spreading the gospel and starting churches. The term pastor gradually came into use as a preferred term.^[26]

           More investigation of these views would produce volumes and after publishing those volumes, still some might not agree. The relevance for this discussion, however, is the point Kittel makes in the beginning of the above quotation. The only reasonable conclusion is that though it is possible that not all elders were overseers, those that held the office of ἐπίσκοπος were πρεσβύτεροi, responsible for leading their congregations. What does this mean in reference to the subject at hand?

           There are whole denominations and some individual congregations which have interpreted the function of the elder as an office despite the weak evidence for that view. Others have a church polity which defines elders as those whose opinions carry the weight of influence with the congregation but do not necessarily require that this respected individual be ordained for any office. Whatever the specific application of the term, the important point is that in every interpretation of πρεσβύτερος includes an assumption of leadership and respect. An elder therefore is a person whose opinion is sought and as such has leadership influence. The fact that ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτεροs are viewed as the same in 1Timothy and Titus is easily reconciled if one recognizes that though there might have been some laymen who were elders because their opinions were highly regarded, the relevant point for this paper is that every ἐπίσκοπος was a πρεσβύτερος and by virtue of his office was expected not only to lead, but to be respected as one would respect any elder. In this view, the appointing of overseers required that elders be recognized but clearly one of those would be elevated to a position of responsibility by assuming the office of ἐπίσκοπος. Debate over the question of which of these different ideas is the more accurate, or if some combination of them might be (as interesting as that might be to some), is, again, not relevant to this discussion. In summary, all overseers were elders, but it is possible that not all elders were overseers. This interpretation seems too obvious to refute. Whether one can agree with this or not, the result is the same. Because these terms were used interchangeably, describing the pastor as a πρεσβύτερος requires one to accept the role of the pastor as that of a respected leader.

            A summary of these word studies appeared in Bixby’s article already mentioned. In it he offered five succinct statements summarizing the role of the pastor as revealed by these words:

1.      The terms pastor/bishop/elder were given leadership-laden meanings as placed in the biblical text. All three are focused on some aspect of providing leadership for the people of God in the church.

2.      Pastors are set apart to lead by the call of God, their identification by the church, their preparation, the proof of their life to be qualified, and the setting apart (ordination) by their church and people.

3.   The Chief Shepherd (pastor), ἀρχιποίμενος, has said that he will evaluate, judge, and reward pastors for their leadership (1 Pet 5:4; Heb 13:17). If God holds the pastor responsible to lead the church, the pastor should be allowed to succeed.

4.   The shepherd/sheep analogy of John 10:1–16 emphasizes the shepherd lovingly and carefully leading while the sheep confidently follow and do not fear. First Peter 2:25 refers to Jesus as the Shepherd/Bishop of our souls. The term pastor places them under the Chief Pastor of 1 Peter 5:4 with the charge to lead Christ’s sheep. The root meanings of these terms demonstrate a special relationship to God.

5.   The NT clearly describes pastor-to-people relationships in terms of leadership and response to leadership.^[27]

            Before further clarifying the role of the pastor through exegesis of the certain passages of Scripture, a brief summary statement is in order.  If the purpose of the Church today is uncertain as has been mentioned, and purpose of the pastor’s role is subsequently also uncertain, the study of these three words strongly suggests that rediscovery of the church’s purpose is going to require men willing to accept the responsibility of leading the church to that rediscovery. The three words above which are used to describe the office of what is now called the pastor, require pastors and their churches to acknowledge the pastor’s role as leader. While it is not the focus of this essay to identify the particulars of that leadership, it is clear that the pastor is to be the leader of the congregation. Applying that truth to the needs of the Church today means that above all other things, the pastor’s role includes courageously leading the Church in the rediscovery of its biblical role and then leading it to fulfill that role.

An exposition of obvious texts

            There are several Scriptural passages which also give clarification to the leadership role of the pastoral role. Among them are: 1Timothy 3:1-5, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Peter 5:1-2. A thorough exposition of these passages, though enlightening, would not be relevant to the specific focus on the pastor’s leadership role.  Therefore, brief expositions of each of these passages will focus only on the significant emphasis they provide regarding the pastor’s leadership role rather than their instruction regarding qualifications.

1Timothy 3:1-5 HSCB

            The first of these passages is in Paul’s letter to Timothy. The context of these verses is Paul’s instruction to his young disciple regarding the primary office within the church

1This saying is trustworthy: “If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble work.”

2 An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,

3 not addicted to wine, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy—

4 one who manages his own household competently, having his children under control with all dignity.

5 (if anyone does not know how to manage his own household how will he take care of God’s church?)

            After suggesting the overseer is to be an example of what it means to be a mature believer, verses 4 and 5 give specific insight to the leadership role of the pastor’s duties. Herein described as an overseer (ἐπίσκοπος), the pastor is to manage his own household well. Explanation for this is found in verse 5 which states, “If a man is unable to manage his own house, how can he manage the house of God?” This clearly suggests that the role of the pastor is that of a manager much like a good father manages his family. The parallel is inescapable. The term translated manage is the Greek term προΐστημι.  Strong defines this term as meaning to be over, to preside, to rule.[28]  In using it to describe the function of a father, it is correct to assume that such ruling is to be with compassion and concern for the welfare of those being ruled as an exemplary father would rule, motivated by concern for his family rather than mere desire for power. This then is the instruction Paul is giving to Timothy. Appoint men who will have the courage and compassion to rule with concern for the welfare of those he rules.

Titus 1:5-9 HCSB

            The second of these verses, as in the case with the previous, Paul gives instruction regarding the primary office of the Church. In the Titus passage, however, his instruction appears as follows:

5 The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders in every town:

6 someone who is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of wildness or rebellion.

7 For an overseer, as God’s manager, must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money,

8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, righteous, holy, self-controlled,

9 holding to a faithful message as taught, so that he will be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it.

            In light of previous discussion, it is interesting to briefly mention the parallel of elders to overseers in verses 5 and 7. This is an example of that which has been previously mentioned wherein these two terms are used to describe the same office. The primary relevance for this study, however, is found in vv 7 and 9. In considering the pastor’s role, he is again instructed to be a manager.

            This term manager HCSB (steward  KJV) is different from the term translated manager in the 1 Timothy 3 passage. The Greek term is οἰκονόμος.  Strong defines the term:

Particularly, one who has authority over the servants or slaves of a family to assign their tasks and portions. Along with this was the general management of affairs and accounts. Such persons were themselves usually slaves^[29]

            Again, as in the case of the word translated manager in the Timothy passage, there is a strong implication of responsibility and leadership. In the Titus passage, the additional implication is that of a slave who himself is responsible for the assignments, duties and behaviors of the rest of the slaves of his master’s household. This powerful word picture suggests that while the responsibility is still to manage both the things and the personnel of the household, instead of the context being concern for the welfare of a caring father in the Timothy passage, the concern is the pleasure of the master in the Titus passage. This is not contrast but further expansion of understanding. The pastor is not only to manage the household of God as a caring father would manage his family; he is also to manage the household of God with a view toward the pleasure of his Master. He himself is a servant as those for whom he has responsibility. 

            Verse 9 expands the understanding of the pastor’s role even further. Here one sees the responsibility of holding fast to what has been taught. This which has been taught is described as the faithful message (HCSB).  This implies that the role of the pastor is to make sure that the message of the gospel given to the first century believers is the same message being given to the 21^st century believer. It is the responsibility of the pastor to make sure that what is being taught and what is believed within the flock, over which he has been placed, is hearing the right message, believing the right message and illustrating in their lives the right and faithful message God has given. Additionally, the pastor is charged with the responsibility of confronting those who might have a different or altered message to assure that there is no wandering from the faithful message of God. All of this implies not only a responsibility that requires courage to perform. It is a responsibility that requires preparation. People are not born with the theological capacity to defend all the subtle lies of modernity. One must be equipped, prepared, able and courageous enough to act when the danger of error confronts the household of God. This is the role of the biblical pastor. 

1 Peter 5:1-2 HCSB

The last of the passages which obviously refer to the role of the pastor is found in 1 Peter 5:1-2. The context of these verses is different. The passages in 1 Timothy and Titus were those of the Holy Spirit through Paul, writing to a specific individual.  In 1 Peter, it is apparent that the audience is the entire church.  In this the closing section of his letter, Peter wants to address those whom he called elders,  In doing so he uniquely uses a form of each of the three terms previously discussed in the word study section of this project:

 

¹ Therefore, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of the Messiah, and also a participant in the glory about to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you:

² shepherd God’s flock among you, not overseeing out of compulsion but freely, according to God’s will; not for the money but eagerly;

In verse 1 he describes himself as an elder and then exhorts all the elders who might read his correspondence. He thus identifies himself as one of those who by experience and knowledge has gained the respect of believers. He instructs them to shepherd the flock.  This is a verbal form of the noun ποιμήν which was previously identified as being the term translated pastor. Finally, there is a participle form of the noun ἐπίσκοπος translated overseer or bishop in verse 2 as well. It is significant that forms of all three of the words mentioned in the word studies mentioned earlier appear in this singular passage. This inter-related usage significantly affirms the equality of their application.

Further significance of this passage is the fact that instead of describing the office as that of a shepherd, Peter is telling those who hold the office, “Be shepherds!” Similarly, instead of merely describing the office as that of an overseer, here in this passage, Peter exhorts those who hold the office, “Be overseers!” Peter is exhorting them to focus on doing the job as opposed to merely holding the office. Additionally, Peter speaks a word about motivation. The pastor is to shepherd not motivated by some sense of compulsion but as one who does so freely out of desire to do so.  Peter also mentions the motivation should not be financial, but should be out of a passion for the pursuit of God’s will.

            The kind of leadership described in these passages cannot happen if the role of leadership is stripped from the man of God as in the case of the chaplaincy model or the committee-led or deacon-led church model. Neither can this leadership take place if it must be shared with or surrendered to others who have not been specifically called and prepared to confront the subtle deceits that frequently confront the Church. Similarly, being so consumed by a desire to be liked by those in the flock that they would rather not be confrontational is not going to accomplish the pastor’s role as leader either. The leadership role of the pastor is that of a shepherd, full of concern for the family of God but driven by the desire to please his Master. He is more concerned about shepherding to the pleasure of his Master than being called a shepherd by his flock.  He is more concerned about overseeing to the pleasure of the Father than being called an overseer by man.

An Exegesis of some miscellaneous texts

            While the previous verses doubtlessly referred to the primary office of the Church, the following verses are viewed as probably referring to that office. Though the specific reference may not be clear to some, their study is potentially insightful.  The first of these is found in Hebrews:

Hebrews 13:17 HCSB

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account, so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

Whereas Paul’s instruction in previous verses was to his disciples Timothy and Titus, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews, addressed their comments to the entire body of Christ. The context in which these verses are found is a section of Hebrews which largely deals with practical theology. The practical instruction, therefore, is to all the church both of that age and throughout the ages. Additionally, whoever these are that the author identifies as leaders, it is probable that secular leadership is not the reference. This is due to the obvious fact that secular authorities are not responsible to keep watch over the souls of believers. To whom then, does this term refer and what is the teaching intended by the author? 

The term leaders in the HCSB is the plural of the Greek term ἡγέομαι. Strongs defines the term to be a leader, chief. . . Spoken generally of those who have influence and authority.[30] Though the reference to the leadership of the Church is rather generic, it is clear that the primary office of the Church, the pastor, has to be one of those to whom this passage refers.  Argument can be made, perhaps that leaders might include deacons.  But as to the teaching of the verse, it can hardly be denied that this verse refers to the primary leader of the Church, the pastor. What becomes difficult for some lay people today is the teaching the Church is given in this verse about those who are called leaders. Namely, they are to obey.  The Greek term used here is a passive imperative of the verb πείθω.  In the active voice, according to Strong, the term means to persuade[31]  In the passive voice, however, the definition becomes meaning to let one’s self be persuaded or to be persuaded.[32] The verb appears in the imperative mode which indicates that allowing one’s self to be persuaded by the church leaders is not to be optional. It might come as a great surprise to some that they are commanded to allow themselves to be persuaded by their pastors. But that is what the verse teaches. In addition, there are two warnings written within this verse. One warning is addressed to leaders and one is addressed to the congregation.  The leaders’ warning is found in the words, they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. These words give warning of a grave accountability. While the Scripture clearly holds the congregation accountable to following the leadership of their pastor, it also teaches that the pastor is going to be held accountable for the condition of the souls he is given to oversee. The weight of this grave responsibility rests partially on the shoulders of the congregation which leads to the second warning.  In the words so they can do so with joy and not with grief, suggests that if the leading of a congregation becomes less than a joy for their pastors, God is going to hold the congregation accountable for it. The specific warning which follows clarifies this reality: for that would be unprofitable for you. In light of the numerous reports of the high percentages of churches in stagnation or decline, one might consider the importance of the subject of rediscovering the leadership role of the pastor and the purpose of the Church.

The Angels of Revelation 2 and 3

            The second set of examples of miscellaneous texts which refer to the leadership role of the pastor is perhaps the most controversial.  In the seven letters of the Revelation dictated to the Apostle John by the Lord Jesus, each of the letters was addressed to the angel of that church. For example, as with all the letters, the instructions to John about the letter to Ephesus is: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:” (Revelation 2:1 HCSB).  The reader is given a little help as to who these angels are in the previous chapter within the declarative of Jesus’ description of himself to John:

17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. He laid His right hand on me, and said, “Don’t be afraid! I am the First and the Last,   18 and the Living One. I was dead, but look—I am alive forever and ever, and I hold the keys of death and Hades.  19 Therefore write what you have seen, what is, and what will take place after this.  20 The secret of the seven stars you saw in My right hand, and of the seven gold lampstands, is this: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (HCSB).

            Clearly the secret of the seven stars in Jesus’ right hand is that they are the seven angels.  Though there is no further clarity offered, it is clear that the angels of whom Jesus is speaking enjoy the comfort and protection of Jesus’ hand; yet, the question remains, who are these angels? 

Several thoughts have been offered in answer to this question. Bakers Exegetical Commentary gives a wonderfully succinct and adequate overview of each of the different thoughts:

1. Some scholars (Alford, Beasley-Murray, Johnson, Schüssler Fiorenza, Beale) identify them as literal angels, building on the biblical teaching of guardian angels (Ps. 34:7; 91:11; Dan. 10:13–21; Matt. 18:10; Acts 12:15; Heb. 1:14) and stars as representing angels (Job 38:7; Isa. 14:12–13). Thus these would be “patron angels” (Schüssler Fiorenza) of the churches. The primary objection to this is that the letters of the next two chapters address the problems of the churches and demand repentance from many—strange if the addressees were literal angels.

2. Others (Swete, Beckwith, Ladd, Prigent, Mounce) believe the “angels” are personified spirits of the churches or “heavenly counterparts” (Lohmeyer, Beasley-Murray, Harrington, Giesen) of the churches. In other words, they are used to typify the spiritual character of the churches and to address the spiritual needs of them as a whole. As we have already seen, personification is frequently utilized in the book (e.g., Death and Hades). However, this seems overly subtle. Furthermore, the other symbol, the lampstands, points to actual churches, so it is perhaps more likely that this points to actual beings.

3. Still others (Roloff, Krodel) believe the angels here reflect the tendency in Judaism and some parts of Christianity to worship angels. As Roloff (1993: 39–40) argues, the placement of these in the hands of Christ would remind the readers that they are not to worship angels but the one who controls the angels, Jesus Christ. The problem here is that this fits verse 20 but not the address in each of the letters to angels. The function of angels transcends the problem of worshiping angels.

4. Some (Zahn, Brownlee, Lenski, Walvoord, Hendriksen) believe that these are “messengers” (one meaning of ἄγγελος, angelos) or leaders of the churches, perhaps bishops or pastors (for this use see Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:25). This would fit the use of “stars” throughout the ancient world (Jewish and Hellenistic) to designate dominion or sovereignty. The letters seem to address the churches as a whole rather than individuals, however, and “angel” throughout the Apocalypse (over sixty times) always refers to heavenly beings.

5. A few (e.g., Thomas 1992: 117–18) believe these are “messengers” in general, not leaders, perhaps some sent to Patmos to minister to John or the bearers of these letters to the individual churches. Thomas mentions Epaphroditus and Epaphras (Phil. 2:25; 4:18; Col. 4:12) as examples of this type in the NT. The problem with this is related to the problems of the fourth view. It is possible but does not fit either the tone of the letters or the use of ἄγγελος in the book.^[33]

            Time will not be taken to given an exhaustive response of each of these views. A brief comment about each, however, is in order. According to the first possible interpretation, the term refers to heavenly, angelic beings. Osborne correctly points out the weakness of this view.  Yet, in addition to his comments, if one holds to the belief and that each individual is responsible to God for his own behavior it will be very difficult to accept an interpretation which assigns any responsibility given to angels which makes them culpable for the behavior of churches.

            In the second of these views, the metaphorical application of the term is possible, but if one holds this view it is difficult to rationalize the personal nature to which John is commanded to write each letter. Additionally (as Osborne points out) though plausible, this view is weak because one would have to also accept a metaphorical interpretation of lampstands.  Doing that would violate the precision of the term’s explanation given by Christ. The third possible explanation is really too weak to give comment beyond what Osborne has already pointed out. Skipping to the fifth possible explanation, Osborne correctly identifies its weakness by pointing to the fewness of those that accept it. It is the fourth explanation that holds the most interest. Getting to it is the reason for furrowing through the others.

            If one understands the term ἄγγελος as A messenger, who is sent in order to announce, teach, perform, or explore anything,^[34]as Strong defines it, then one can quickly see the preference and relevance of this fourth possible interpretation. It would mean that Jesus is writing letters to the leaders of the Church (e.g. the pastor of each church). He is holding each leader accountable for the condition of the Church, thus explaining the reason for addressing the church as a whole. This interpretation also agrees with the Hebrews passage reviewed earlier which declares a higher accountability of those who are church leaders. 

            If one accepts the interpretation that this word is referring to the primary office of the church, the pastor, several things are revealed regarding his leadership role. First, because Jesus holds them in his hands, they are people of authority. However, their authority is not their own, and they must, therefore, be very careful about how they utilize the authority they have been given. Second, because the letters are addressed to them, they need to realize that they are responsible not only to give account, but to give leadership in implementing the direction and behaviors exhorted by the Lord. Finally, because they are described by a term meaning messenger, pastor’s/shepherds/overseers of the Church must recognize both their priestly duty in standing before God as a leader of men and their prophetic duties of declaring God’s message to men in His behalf.

OBSERVATIONS, COMMENTARY AND

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

            It is of primary importance to note that this study has focused on the positional aspect of pastoral leadership. The role of the pastor has been the subject not the execution of that role.  While the pastor’s position as leader has been biblically defined, it is important to note that no leader has been effective by merely being given a position. While it is a concern that evangelicals are somewhat unclear about this position and its responsibility, the resolution of this concern will not happen until pastors not only recognize their role as leaders but also execute exemplary leadership. Every pastor should be a leader by both position and example. A potentially interesting study might be to consider how errant pastoral examples have contributed to the present incorrect perception of the pastor’s role.  But that is not the focus of this project.

            Further, any adequate review of the modern perception of the pastor’s role would not omit at least a brief mention of how this biblical model works in the multi-staffed church. Each church individually needs to decide how to structure their staff and there are many ways to do this. However, there are some underlying principles which can be gleaned from this review which have multi-staff application.

            Obviously, the dynamics of the pastor’s role in a church which has only one staff member are quite different from those of a larger multi-staff congregation. Yet, even among the multiple staff of the larger congregations, there must be some clear understanding as to who is the leader or the chief under-shepherd (so to speak) under Christ. Even in the rare co-pastor model, if it is to be successful, there must be a clear delineation of roles between those who are co-pastors. There must be agreement on who leads what, and when they lead it and who has responsibility for this and who has responsibility for that. The need for leadership may be shared, but the ultimate need for leadership which is certain about its role applies to all churches no matter which dynamic that church adopts. The important point is that in the myriad examples of Scripture where God uses man to lead his people, there is not a single example of God leading through a committee or consensus of the will of the people. There may be a host of counselors, but again and again there is one man whom God holds responsible to lead his people. There may be multiple pastoral staff arranged in a myriad of hierarchical structures, but there must be someone clearly identified as the leader to avoid uncertainty or even chaos. Those in that position must not only understand their biblical role and the role of the church, but also all the roles of all who are called staff who both assist him and serve with him, under his direction. Likewise the pastoral staff must also have this same comprehension. It doesn’t matter how many staff members a church may have, the effectiveness of the Church will depend in part on each of them understanding their particular biblical role as it applies within that church’s structure. This study is intended to clarify the role of the pastor, as the leader of the Church under Christ, whether he is the only staff member or whether the church has several on the pastoral staff. The specifics of how each might be structured, as it holds to the biblical model, should be crafted and agreed upon by each pastor, staff and congregation under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.

            A summary of the observations of this review is that the pastor’s role is that of a supervisor, a man worthy of respect, a shepherd, ruler, teacher and a messenger of God. These are the major pieces of the composite that, when viewed together, form the biblical model of the pastor. Each of these has an undertone of leadership. For instance, as a supervisor is responsible for those he supervises, so the pastor is responsible for his congregation. This is a leadership responsibility. As a shepherd is responsible for leading his flock, so the pastor is responsible for leading his members. This is a leadership role. As a leader should be one who is respected by those he leads, so the pastor should be viewed with the respect of that of an elder. This is a leadership dynamic. As a ruler gives direction to those over whom he rules, the biblical pastor is described as a ruler over the church. This is a leadership function. As a messenger represents the leadership of the one for whom he carries the message, so the pastor leads by the authority of him who called him to be that messenger. This is the biblical description of the pastor’s role. In short, the correct perception of the pastoral role must include him as the leader of his congregation. Whether the pastor wants to be leader or not, is not the question. Whether the Church wants him to him to be the leader or not is not the question either. What the Bible indicates is that God requires him to lead His congregation.

            This biblical model is in stark contrast with those congregations which have evolved into a committee-led, deacon-led or board-led practice. In such cases both the church and the pastor risk being out of the will of God. It may be more comfortable for the Church if its entities are in charge and even have oversight of the pastor, but that is the reverse of the biblical model. The Church must look to their pastor to lead if it is to be in agreement with the biblical model and emerge from their present stagnation. Likewise, pastors’ perceptions of their roles must be more in line with the biblical model if they are to fulfill their calling and lead their churches from the stagnation in which it presently exists. It may be easier for the pastor to merely feed the sheep, or comfort the sheep, leave them to their own decisions and attempt to deflect responsibility for the direction of the sheep, but that does not alleviate him from his biblical mandate. The proper perception of the role of the pastor must be more than that of an employee of the church or that of the chaplain to his congregation.

            If the perception of the pastor’s role is to be a biblical one, he must recognize himself and be recognized as the leader of the congregation under God. Failure to do so is a denial of the teachings of Scripture. This is further clarified in this article found in the Chafer Theological Seminary Journal:

A shepherd must feed, guard, doctor, and lead the sheep. When there is an attack, the shepherd gathers the sheep together and chases off the attacker. If a sheep becomes injured or sick, he tries to repair the damage and heal the sheep. When they tend to be afraid, such as in a storm or potential attack by an enemy, the shepherd gathers and comforts them. The shepherd of people has similar tasks. He leads, feeds, guards, comforts, encourages, rescues, and helps the spiritual healing of his congregation. Teaching the congregation, which is comparable to feeding the sheep, is the most prominent and most important function of the shepherd. It is listed foremost among the shepherd’s functions in Ezekiel 34, Psalm 23, and John 21. John 10 has the same emphasis—the shepherd leads the sheep to pasture. Acts 20 speaks of guarding, and in the context, guarding is done by teaching truth and warning against error. 1 Peter 5 stresses that a shepherd must have the eagerness to shepherd his own flock and warns against the heavy-handed, dictatorial attitude. ^[35]

            Rediscovering the pastor’s role in the Church is going to require pastors with courage willing to face the challenge of reclaiming that role. For whatever reasons, churches today have looked to deacons, boards, councils and committees to lead them. The pastor is often expected to do what the Church tells him. Some even organize oversight groups (both official and unofficial) for the purpose of meeting with the pastor to let him know where he is failing and how better to meet their expectations. In these cases, the church has become the supervisor of the pastor conflicting with the biblical model which calls for the pastor to be the supervisor of the church. This abandonment of the teachings of Scripture will have to be addressed if the Church truly wishes to seek renewal. This will not only require courageous pastors willing to stand up for what is right, but will also require humble churches and church influencers willing to surrender and repent from that which is wrong. Mayhue candidly identified what lay ahead for evangelical churches if they do not return to such principles of God’s Word. The following warning reflects his observation that the church is substituting man’s reasoning for God’s revelation. The present confusion over the role of the pastor is but one example of this substitution.

 

[T]he church is increasingly in danger of equating religion with Christianity, and making “going to church” equal with salvation. The church increasingly substitutes human power for God’s power, and replaces talk that centers on God directly with mere peripheral talk about Him. The church increasingly confuses emotion with worship in Spirit and truth, and looks toward the cleverness of man’s words rather than the power of the gospel. If the evangelical church remains on its present course, we fear that by popular demand the next generation may replace true Christianity with an impotent, idolatrous religion as did the ancient churches of Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea.^[36]

            It should be difficult to read this assessment without becoming inflamed with desire for God to raise up pastors willing to return to their biblical model and churches willing to accept their pastors as men God has called to lead them. Pastors are needed to lead churches out of mediocrity into the excellence of a real encounter with the real will of the real God. If the church is to once again be the brilliant light of the gospel in the darkness of human society or if it is to once again become faithful stewards of the gospel, leaders must emerge and be allowed to emerge, willing to accept the responsibility and opportunity of being the shepherds of God’s flock. Pastors are to be such leaders and only in fulfilling that role will they fulfill their calling. Churches need them to be such leaders. The evangelical church is in desperate need of a new generation of Pauls, Athanasius’s, Luthers, and Wesleys, Edwards and Moodys that she might again be led out from the impotence of uncertainty into the joy of the certainty God intends!

            A word of caution is needed before sharing final thoughts. Though it is biblically incorrect not to perceive the pastor as the leader of the congregation, it is equally wrong for the pendulum of correction to swing so far that the pastor’s assumes the role of a dictator, the only voice to be heard. It may be biblically incorrect to limit the role of the pastor to that of chaplain, or caretaker of the church, but it is equally wrong to define him as papal or dictatorial. Every pastor is a human being and as such is capable of error. When the Bible states, “If we say, ‘We have no sin,’ we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8 HCSB),” the truth of that statement applies to pastors as well as congregations. While he may have been assigned rule over the congregation, that rule must not be so self-reliant that he does not seek out and listen to the wisdom of God found in the advice and counsel of other spiritually mature church members. He may be the one God holds accountable for the direction and condition of the flock,[37] but the wise pastor will listen to God as He speaks to him through the counsel of Godly, gifted people in his congregation. The Bible is replete with examples of the value of counselors. Effective pastors will not mistake leadership with dictatorship or authority with superiority.

            Therefore, the wise pastor will recognize his human frailty and not only seek the counsel of the spiritually mature, but will, for his own benefit, establish some kind of personal procedure for accountability. For some, this may be a difficult thing to establish. It requires both the humility of the pastor to listen to their loving admonition, which might even be contrary to his opinion, but he must also have the courage to humbly stand against those who oppose what he knows for certain to be the will of the Father even if that means standing alone. This dichotomy is what defines that greater responsibility of the pastor to which the writer of Hebrews refers.[38] This is the reason pastors more than all others must be men who walk with God, men of prayer and men of the word. They must not only be gifted in their ability to teach what the Bible says, but they must be men who have the wisdom to know the will of God, the courage to stand and proclaim that will, the faith to trust that will and the strength to perform it. This is confirmed in an article of the Grace Theological Journal:

Above all other appellations a pastor should be known as a man of God whose life is shaped by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. This should stir the pastor’s heart to communicate the Word to the members of his church in the hope that they will come under the mastery of the Word.^[39]

            In summary, there is a balance that needs to be maintained between the acceptance of the duties of leader and the humility of recognizing one’s limitations as a man.  He must be willingly held accountable to a high standard of example by those over whom God has placed him as leader, but that accountability should never have to result in a compromise of his role as their leader. This is required of a biblical perception of the role of the pastor.

            The final remark comes in the form of another question. How does the pastor and church correct present, errant perceptions and return to the biblical model of the pastor’s role? Obviously, the most important step is to identify the biblical model and accept that model as sufficient in spite of the popular trends to the contrary. The second step is to ensure that those pastors willing to become leaders know what they and the Church are biblically tasked to do. Discussion revealing the particulars of each of these steps would require another essay.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiken, Daniel. "The Future of Southern Baptists: Mandates for What We Should Be in the Twenty-First Century." Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Vol 9, 2005: 69.

Baur-Danker. Greek Lexicon.

Bixby, Howard L. "Elder Rule." Journal of Ministry and Theology, Vol 10, 2006: 8.

Galli, Mark, and Ted Olsen, . 131 Christians Everyone Should Know. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2000.

Kennedy, Tod. "The Shepherding Aspect of the Pastoring and Teaching Ministry." Chafer Theological Seminary Joiurnal, Vol 9, 2003: 43-44.

Kittel. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

Kurtaneck, Nickolas. "Are Seminaries Preparing Prospective Pastors to Preach the Word of God?" Grace Theological Journal, Vol 6, 1985: 367.

Mayhue, Richard L. "Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry." Master's Seminary Journal, Vol 6, 1995: 37-38.

Osborn, G.R. Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Smith, Ken. "The Local Baptist Congregation and Laity." Review and Expositor, Vol 85, 1988: 654-655.

Stetzer, Ed, Rainer, Thom S. Transformational Church. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2010.

Strongs. Exaustive Concordance.

Young, Jerry R. "Shepherds Lead." Grace Theological Journal, Vol 6, 2002: 333.

---

            ^[1] Mark Galli and Ted Olsen, eds., 131 Christians Everyone Should Know (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000) 35.

            [2] Ed Stetzer and Thom S. Rainer, Transformational Church (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2010) 3.

            ^[3] Richard L. Mayhue, “Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry” Master's Seminary Journal 6 (1995): 37-38.

                [4] Howard L. Bixby, “Elder Rule” Journal of Ministry and Theology 10 (2006): 8.

            ^[5] Ken Smith, “The Local Baptist Congregation and the Laity” Review and Expositor 85 (1988): 654–655.

                [6] Mayhue, 54.

           

            [7] Ibid., 53.

            ^[8] Daniel Aiken, “The Future of Southern Baptists: Mandates for What We Should Be in the Twenty-First Century” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 9 (2005):69.

            [9] Mayhue, 42-43.

            ^[10] Mayhue, 49.

            ^[11] Bixby, 7.

            ^[12] Mayhue, 43.

            [13] Baur-Danker Greek Lexicon (BDAG), s.v. “ἐπίσκοπος.”

           

            [14] Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, s.v. “ἐπίσκοπος.”

                [15] Ibid.

                [16] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), electronic ed., s.v. “ἐπίσκοπος.”

            [17] Ibid.

            [18] Ibid.

            [19] Ibid.

                [20] Ibid.

            [21] BDAG., electronic ed., s.v. “ποιμήν.”

            [22] TDNT., s.v. “ποιμήν.”

            ^[23] Jerry R. Young, “Shepherds, Lead!” Grace Theological Journal 6 (2002): 333.

            ^[24] TDNT., s.v. “πρεσβύτερος.”

            ^[25] Ibid.

            ^[26] Bixby, 11-12.

            ^[27] Bixby, 13-14.

            [28] Strongs s.v. “προΐστημι.”

            ^[29] Strongs s.v. “οἰκονόμος.”

            [30] Strongs., s.v. “ἡγέομαι.”

            [31] Ibid., s.v. “πείθω.”

           

            [32] Ibid.

^[33] G.R. Osborne, Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2002) 98–99.

            ^[34] Strongs, s.v. “ἄγγελος”

            ^[35] Tod Kennedy, “The Shepherding Aspect of the Pastoring and Teaching Ministry” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 9 (2003): 43–44.

            ^[36] Mayhue, 54

            [37] Hebrews 13:17.

            [38] Ibid.

            ^[39] Nickolas Kurtaneck, “Are Seminaries Preparing Prospective Pastors to Preach the Word of God?” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 367.