There have been some disappointing posts recently on the ELS ministry discussion list. In some cases it has actually degenerated to name calling. What I have seen too infrequently is the kind of spirit that seeks to understand the argument of the other side, making a careful presentation of its own position.
Some would blame the medium, email. I don’t think that’s the problem. The problem is our impatient, prideful human nature. Email just facilitates our sin, like pen and ink or photocopiers, only much faster.
One of the participants recently took a break for a whole week. He may have been composing his responses during that time, because they certainly show more forethought than usual. I won’t reveal his name, to protect the innocent. However, I will quote a paragraph from his post that shows the reasoning behind his position.
His position is this (and I am willing to be corrected, if this summary is inaccurate): Jesus did not instituted an office to be filled by incumbents. Instead, He instituted freedom, so that the Church may create as many different kinds of offices as she may need. He also instituted the use of the Means of Grace. For example, it was His idea that someone should be there to baptize other people from time to time, and that someone (not necessarily the same person) should be there to administer the Lord’s Supper from time to time. Likewise, it was His idea that someone should be tapped to teach the Gospel, and (perhaps another person) to preach it on some regular basis. This free public use of the Means of Grace is called “the Ministry.” The writer supposes that this is the sum total of what the PMW teaches.
It is not, but maybe I’ll demonstrate that another time. For now, see Pastor Jay Webber’s Parsing of the PMW for a fair, “unbiased” understanding of the document.
Here is the writer’s carefully-worded defense of his position. Note that he is arguing against the notion that Jesus only instituted the position of “Pastor,” whether that means parish pastor or something more generalized.
I have in previous emails mentioned other public servants of Christ
that are mentioned in scripture. We are nowhere told that the lists
given is intended to be exhaustive, nor are the various lists
consistent, nor unchanging. We do read of deacons, which were not
the same as pastors, but were specifically mentioned in 1 Timothy. I
have also mentioned evangelists as part of the list in Ephesians 4.
We are not told in scripture that evangelist was a form of pastor. I
have mentioned that St. Paul was not called to baptize (1 Corinthians
1). Though he did baptize a few people, as he mentions, this does
not undo what Paul wrote (that he was not called to baptize). Any
one of these should be sufficient, but just as the early church had
freedom to select seven to serve the church, and these seven were not
pastors (though descriptions of their service included ministry of
the Word, and this may have been part of their call), the church has
freedom to call people into various forms of public ministry; even
those that had not previously existed. This doesn’t make their
service into public ministry any less divinely instituted, just
because scripture doesn’t provide all of the details and specify all
of the forms that public ministry may take.
As I see it, the reasoning is as follows. First, he claims that any one of the following points is sufficient proof for his argument:
-
The Bible mentions titles of public servants other than the title “pastor.” The Bible is silent about whether lists of such titles is exhaustive.
-
Deacons are mentioned in 1 Timothy, and are shown to be distinct from pastors.
-
Evangelists are mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, and scripture does not say that Evangelist = Pastor.
-
St. Paul in 1 Cor. 1 says he was not called (sent) to baptize.
In addition to those “proofs,” the following argument is offered.
- Premise
- The early church had freedom to select 7 to serve the church (Acts 6)
- Premise
- The 7 were not pastors.
- Premise
- Ministry of the Word may have been part of their call.
- Conclusion
- The church has freedom to call people into various forms of public ministry; even those that had not previously existed.
Finally, the following claim is asserted (in my words):
Though scripture doesn’t provide all the details and specify all the forms that public ministry may take, this does not mean that the service of offices created by the church is any less divinely instituted.
OK, there are a few things here, and careful readers of The Plucked Chicken may already have identified a few problems. But that hasn’t stopped me before, so away we go.
First, I’d like to note that the writer may be arguing against a bit of a straw man. That means he claims that his opponent(s) have said certain things, which they haven’t, but the claim provides the writer with something he can argue against more successfully than the real position of his opponents.
Straw man or not, how successfully does the writer make his argument? Let’s check the first four proofs, because “Any one of these should be sufficient.”
First
The Bible mentions titles of public servants other than the title “pastor.” The Bible is silent about whether lists of such titles is exhaustive.
I’ll grant the first sentence without seeing biblical proof, because I’ve seen the titles myself. In the second sentence, the writer claims something that I believe is correct, though I have not personally searched for such a biblical statement to verify that it doesn’t exist. Maybe the writer has searched, and apparently not found it.
Let’s suppose that the writer is correct. What does it prove? That we can’t say whether the list of titles is exhaustive or not. If the Bible doesn’t say it’s exhaustive, it must also not say that it’s not exhaustive, right? So it’s an argument from silence, a.k.a. a fallacy.
What about the other titles of public servants? Does that prove that Jesus instituted more than the office of pastor? Maybe, if we are using the exact same vocabulary in our debate that the Bible was using in those titles. But we are not. The writer’s opponents have defined what they mean by “pastoral office,” and it includes many of the other titles, if not all the ones in question.
Second
Deacons are mentioned in 1 Timothy, and are shown to be distinct from pastors.
This is true. What does it prove? In the context of 1 Timothy and even other places where “deacons” are mentioned, the Bible doesn’t say that such men, as deacons, were ministers of the Word.
They are distinct from pastors, as the writer says, but we also know that Christians were interested in other kinds of service than the ministry of the Word. This point only proves that not every individual in the New Testament was a pastor.
Third
Evangelists are mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, and scripture does not say that Evangelist = Pastor.
Yes, they are mentioned, but I smell another argument from silence. Scripture also does not say that Evangelist != Pastor. Anyway, the point (if valid) would be moot, because it’s against a straw man. (See above under the first point — find the words “pastoral office.”)
Fourth
St. Paul in 1 Cor. 1 says he was not called (sent) to baptize.
This is true. What was Paul talking about? Was it according to his office as an Apostle of Christ? Or his office as a Missionary, sent by the church in Antioch? Or his office as a Pharisee? Paul doesn’t say. Yet from the context, we can safely say that it’s the office which brought Paul to Corinth. That’s his office as Missionary, commissioned by Christ through the church in Antioch.
So Paul wasn’t sent as a Missionary to baptize. What does this prove? It shows that his office as missionary was specialized. It does not prove that Missionary was to be distinguished from the “pastoral office.” Indeed, if Paul was sent to preach and teach the Gospel, then it was most certainly part of the “pastoral office.”
Another Argument, In Case The Other Ones Aren’t Convincing
- Premise
- The early church had freedom to select 7 to serve the church (Acts 6)
- Premise
- The 7 were not pastors.
- Premise
- Ministry of the Word may have been part of their call.
- Conclusion
- The church has freedom to call people into various forms of public ministry; even those that had not previously existed.
I grant the first premise. It’s right there in Acts 6. I also grant the second premise. The 7 were tapped because the Apostles said “It is not desirable that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables.” It shows that the “pastoral office,” which includes both the apostles and teaching the Word of God, does not necessarily include “serving tables,” though its incumbents may do so if they wish.
I grant the third premise, but it can’t contribute anything toward the conclusion because it’s another argument from silence. Ministry of the Word may have been part of their call, and then again, it may not have been part of their call.
We are left with the first two premises. Do they support the conclusion? Well, yes, if by “public ministry” you mean any service on behalf of others or to a group of people. But if by “public ministry” you mean the public ministry of God’s Word, then the conclusion is unsupported.
Finally, we have the last statement of the writer’s paragraph. It’s a claim without support, apparently meant to be self-evident. His point is that a lack of detail in scripture regarding “other” offices does not mean that their work is not divinely instituted. From this statement alone, it would seem that the writers’ opponents claim the work is not “divinely instituted.” The trouble is that I don’t know what the writer means by “divinely instituted,” though I’m pretty sure he doesn’t mean the same thing as his opponents.
I could agree with the writer’s statement in the following way. The work of deacons and evangelists, the work of St.~Paul as a Missionary, and the work of others was certainly given by God, each according to his own vocation. In the sense of divine vocation, their work is indeed “divinely instituted.” Also, it’s clear that God wants some things to be done. In many places, scripture also says by whom these things are to be done, but there are also responsibilities that the Church is supposed to manage collectively. In that sense too, it’s possible to think of the work as being divinely instituted. But the fact remains that I don’t know what the writer means by “divinely instituted.”
I do know what his opponents mean by “divinely instituted.” They mean that something has been established explicitly by God, as recorded in holy scripture. A divine institution involves God’s blessing and often a command that we should receive it and observe or keep it as long as He wants to use it.
What did Jesus institute? Well, He did give the Gospel message and the sacraments to His Church. In that way, He instituted the content of our preaching and teaching. That seems to be as far as some people want to go, thinking that the responsibility to administer the Gospel belongs only to the Church at large, and not any special office that Jesus instituted in the New Testament.
Did God also institute an office to carry out that preaching and teaching? Some would say no, somehow forgetting that when Jesus gave the Keys to His Church, He was doing so with the very first men in a special office for administering the Keys. Were the Keys only for them to use? I didn’t say that. I don’t think anyone in (or recently out of) our synod has said that either. Yet the apostles were the ones who received the Keys. Coincidence? More like Providence. Or better yet, a “divine institution.”
Likewise, when Jesus gave His Church the Great Commission, the immediate context is noteworthy. He may have been speaking in the presence of many people — even unbelievers and hypocrites. That’s inconclusive. Yet it’s clear that Jesus was speaking to the same men who held the office for the administration of the Word and Sacraments. That doesn’t mean the commission was not also for the Church in general, but it does mean that Jesus was establishing a special office within the Church and for the Church: the “pastoral office.” The apostles were pastors.
And by the way, the PMW agrees with me, though it could be made more apparent. 8-/