The Roman Catholic Church has built up a system of special priesthood on a hierarchical basis, the grounds for which we will examine in subsequent chapters. In approximation to this the Protestant world generally has espoused a clergy system which negates the New Covenant ideal of universal priesthood. In recent times many of the churches of Christ which justify their right to exist by the contention that they plead for a restoration of primitive Christianity, have drifted into the practice of hiring at a stipulated fee, a man of special training to act as "the minister" for the local church, and to represent it publicly as the one who edifies, usually by what is designated "a sermon." The freedom of the speaker's platform (now commonly called the pulpit) is no longer extended to all of the saints, but they are excluded from it by the very act of contracting for one to "occupy the pulpit" in behalf of the congregation.
In view of the prediction that there should be no distinction between "the priests of the Lord" and "the ministers of our God" (Isa. 61:6) it is appropriate that an examination be made to determine if the present prevalent practice is in harmony with that of the primitive congregations, and if not, if it is a deviation so vital in nature as to prevent a complete restoration of God's pattern unless it is summarily halted. It would be impossible to prosecute a full investigation of all the ramifications of the modern procedure in a volume the size of this one, so we must confine our remarks to a few suggestive thoughts, which the earnest reader will continue to meditate upon for his spiritual profit.
It is regrettable that in a conflict arising over any traditional practice, the moiety of those concerned do not enquire whether it is divinely authorized in its inception; but having adopted it, they assume it must be right because so many do it, and then seek to find scriptures which may be bent or wrested to accommodate it. It is unfortunate too, that with every invention there must arise a new terminology to describe it, and this is often formed from words used in an altogether different sense in God's revelation. Confusion is intensified by the lack of candid investigation and by partisan attitudes.
The words "minister" and "ministry" are translations of the original language of the Holy Spirit, but they are abused and misused today until the basic idea is all but obscured. "Minister" is from the Latin ministro, which means "to serve, to attend, to wait on." This fairly conveys the ideas of the Greek terms, and it must be remembered that the word "minister" simply designates one as a servant, but never of itself, expresses the kind of service rendered. To use the word ministry in such a manner as to apply it exclusively to one kind, field or branch of service is to do an injustice to the word, and to the Holy Spirit.
It is urged that Paul declared he "was made a minister" (Eph. 3:7), that Tychicus was "a faithful minister in the Lord" (Eph. 6:21), that Epaphras was a "faithful minister of Christ" (Col. 1:7), and that Timothy was told how to become "a good minister" (1 Tim. 4:6). What does this mean? Simply that these men were good servants, faithful in whatever relationship they were called upon to sustain to God, Christ, and the congregation. The word "minister" comes from diakonos, which occurs 30 times, and is rendered minister 20, deacon 3, and servant 7 times.
The word is translated "deacon" in Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8,12. To employ it to designate a special type of labor in a congregation, exclusive of that done by the deacons would be absurd in the light of God's revelation. How many who ask a friend to come and hear "our new minister" have reference to a recently appointed deacon? Not long hence, to test the usage of the term, we asked an elder if a certain man was a, minister in the congregation. His reply was, "No, he is only a deacon." Yet the word "deacon" is but an Anglicized form of the Greek term for minister.
The word for minister also appears in John 2:5, 9 where it applies to the servants who drew water for the miracle which Christ performed. One could argue that a minister is a "drawer of water" with as much scriptural ground as he could argue that a minister is "a preacher of the gospel." Phoebe is called "a minister of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1) but we would hardly infer from that that she was sent forth as an evangelist. However, a short time ago a man who was framing propositions for debate said they should include the expression "minister, or evangelist," and explained, "Of course they are synonymous." But they are not!
There is nothing in the term "servant" which defines the type of service. The word servant does not mean "gardener, chauffeur, maid, or cook." There is a difference in saying, "A cook is a servant," than in saying "A servant is a cook." One might be a servant and not be a cook at all. There is a difference in saying "A gospel preacher is a minister" and saying, "A minister is a gospel preacher." The janitor who sweeps the building, the brethren who pass the Lord's Supper, the deacons who carry the bounty of the church to the needy--all are ministers of God and the congregation. To place one man's name in a prominent place and designate him as the minister of the congregation is an insult to every other disciple and a flagrant departure from the system of ministry revealed in the New Covenant writings.
It is a common practice in these days to speak of one "entering the ministry" by which is meant such a one expects to make a professional career out of preaching. Such language is so far in spirit from that of the word of God, it would have been unintelligible in the Jerusalem church. "Ministry," "ministering," and "ministration" come from diakonia, which is used 34 times in the New Testament. It first occurs in Luke 10:40 where Martha was said to be "distracted with much serving." One might infer from this that a person who went to college to study a ministerial course would major in "home economics." Martha was so deeply involved in ministering, that she applied for an "assistant minister" by saying, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve (minister) alone? Tell her then to help me."
The same word is employed for the daily distribution of food (Acts 6:1); for the administration of funds to the famine-ridden and drought-stricken Judean saints (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:l); for the work of Paul (2 Cor. 11:8); and that of Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5). Thus a person is engaged in ministry whether serving tables, carrying funds to the unfortunate, proclaiming the truth, or in any other fashion serving others. There is nothing distinctive in the word "ministry" as to the kind of service performed. There are two great sources of intellectual evil in interpretation of God's revelation. One is to create distinctions where God has made none; the other is to destroy and lose sight of distinctions which God has made.
A subterfuge is frequently employed in an attempt to justify the maintenance of a system of hireling one-man ministry among the churches. The term "minister" is dropped and "evangelist" or "preacher" employed in its stead. This does not "wash and make white" the sectarian system. It only whitewashes it. The term "preacher" leaves the same difficulty, for just as all are ministers of God, all are expected to be preachers of truth. If it is wrong to refer to one as the minister, it would be equally wrong to call him "the preacher of the church." The word "evangelist" cannot apply, because such men are not doing the work of an evangelist. This is evident by the report of an occasional one who resigns as located preacher to go out and do evangelistic work. The truth of the matter is that there is no scriptural term to designate "the local minister" in the sense in which he exists today, for such a character was unknown in the primitive congregations of disciples.
The basic question about which we are concerned does not involve the length of time a man remains in a given locality, nor the fact that he is supported financially. True, there are some provisional angles to these questions which might color our thinking, and which need to be considered, but we know that so long as one does the work of an evangelist in the New Testament sense he may remain at a place, and he is entitled to be amply supported according to his needs. The words "located minister" or "local preacher" are used today in a sense which implies far more than residence in a specific city. They are special designations for a special type of work, and to attempt to shift a discussion of the terms from their spiritual connotation to mere physical habitation is to be guilty of a form of sophistry which should not commend itself to honest men.
The royal priesthood has certain divinely given rights. These cannot be abrogated or transferred without doing serious injury to the church, or despite to the Spirit of grace. One of the basic rights is that of every faithful child of God who has the ability, to speak to his fellows for their edification and comfort. In the primitive congregations, men were urged to desire this gift above all others. The public worship service was so arranged as to provide for this exercise, and instead of one taking all of the time, the brethren were taught to yield the speaking privilege to others in mutual love (1 Cor. 14:30,31). To this fact the scholarship of the world gives ready acquiescence. "The participation in worship was not confined to the official members, but to every male member it was permitted to utter his apprehension of truth. The ordinary services of the church were very similar to those of a good prayer meeting at the present time." (A. H. Newman, D.D., LL.D., Manual of Church History, page 141).
"The form of worship of the primitive church was also exceedingly simple. Meetings were held commonly on the first day of the week in private houses or in some public building appropriated to that purpose. At those meetings prayer was offered, portions of the Old Testament and letters from the apostles were read, psalms and perhaps hymns were sung; and words "of exhortation" were spoken freely by anyone who might feel moved to do this." (Andrew C. Zenas, Professor of Biblical Theology, McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois. Compendium of Church History, page 28.)
"The major premise of every true conclusion as to the ministry of the Apostolic Age, must be the outpouring of the Spirit, hailed by Peter at Pentecost as the mark of Messianic times. In it Moses' ideal that all the Lord's people should be prophets was in substance fulfilled. Accordingly in their worship, as we see from 1 Corinthians 14, each believer was free to edify his fellows by 'psalm, teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation' as well as prayer or Eucharist. Whatever limitations expediency came in time to impose on this diffused ministry, the idea involved had, and has, abiding force; and it was not the idea underlying the later distinctions between 'clergy' and laity'" (James Vernon Bartlet, M.A., Ten Epochs of Church History, page 477).
"Worship in the apostolic age was a spontaneous expression of devout feeling. The order of worship was a free copy of the synagogue service. Selections from the Old Testament were read. Expositions of Scripture and spontaneous speaking followed." (George P. Fisher, History of The Christian Church, page 141.)
"The meeting described by the apostle (1 Cor. 14) is not to be taken as something which might be seen only in Corinth but was peculiar to that city; it may be taken as a type of the Christian meeting throughout the Gentile Christian churches; for the apostle, in his suggestions and criticisms continually speaks of what took place throughout all the churches--What cannot fail to strike us in this picture is the untrammeled liberty of the worship, the possibility of every male member of the congregation taking part in the prayers and exhortations, and the consequent responsibility laid on the whole community to see that the service was for edification" (Thos. M. Lindsay, D.D.; Principal of Glasgow College of the United Free Church of Scotland, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, page 48).
"We understand edification here in its general and original sense, as given to it in St. Paul's writings, as referring to the advancement and development, from its common ground, of the whole church. The edification, in this sense, was the common work of all. Even edification by the Word was not assigned exclusively to one individual; every man who felt the inward call to it might give utterance to the Word in the assembled church." (Dr. Augustus Neander, Ordinary Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin, Church History, Vol. I, page 251).
"From this (1 Cor. 14:26) and other passages it is clear that the upbuilding of the church was not confined then, as now, to one, or at most two, of the congregation; but was the privilege of all the members, and though such a practice is liable to abuse (James 3:1), it is possible that its entire disuse has led to still greater evils obvious to all--'quenching of the Spirit.' " (Robert Young, Author of Young's Analytical Concordance, and Young's Translation of the Bible).
"There is no doubt, that in the ordinary Lord's Day meeting of the apostolic churches, quite a number of brethren took part in the speaking and praying. This is clear to any one who will read carefully the fourteenth chapter of First Corinthians. It is true that the instructions contained in that chapter are mostly given to persons possessed of spiritual gifts; but if, when men possessed of such gifts were in the church, it was not best that any one of them should ordinarily occupy the entire time, why should we think it best to reverse the rule in the absence of such gifts? Surely we have no right to make such a change unless there be something in the absence of spiritual gifts which demands it...a proposition that will hardly be affirmed. In the beginning of the Reformation the Scripture precedent just mentioned was recognized, and the brethren very generally undertook to restore it to practice" (J. W. McGarvey, in Apostolic Times, 1873).
Since it cannot be denied that in the days of the apostles, the edification of the congregations was not limited to one or two men, but was the privilege of all who were faithful and able, and that this precedent was by actual disposition of the Holy Spirit, and with apostolic approval and regulation, it remains for us to enquire upon what grounds the principle is now ignored and another contravening system inaugurated which was unknown to the early saints?
The most common excuse for the modern substitution is that the picture given in the New Testament belongs to the days of spiritual gifts bestowed by the laying on of apostolic hands, and consequently is not binding upon the church today in the absence of such gifts. But was not every letter written to and regulating the churches, penned in the days of spiritual gifts? Then by what reasoning can we apply any of the New Testament to the congregations of today? If we can carelessly dismiss the plan of edification bound upon the saints when "the whole church assembles," can we not also dismiss all other instructions given to the church?
If the system of hiring one man to speak to the assembled church each time is superior to that of having "all speak one by one" (1 Cor. 14:31), why did not the Holy Spirit bestow the gift to edify only upon the most talented one in each congregation? Do not men possess natural gifts or abilities in these days? If supernatural gifts belong to the supernatural era of the church, and natural gifts belong to the natural age of the church, is it not true that the same principles which governed the use of supernatural gifts to the edification of the assembly, must also govern the use of the natural gifts to the same end?
The Holy Spirit uses the term charisma to designate the gifts. "Charisma comes of course from charizomai; it means anything given of free bounty, not of debt, contract or right. It is thus obviously used in Philo, and as obviously in Rom. 5:15; 6:23; and less obviously, but I believe the same force in the other passages of St. Paul, as also in the only other New Testament place, 1 Peter 4:10. In these instances it is used to designate what we call 'natural advantages' independent of any human process of acquisition, or advantage freshly received in the course of Providence; both alike being regarded as so many free gifts from the Lord to men, and as designed by Him to be distinctive qualifications for rendering distinctive service to men, or communities of men" (Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D., Lady Margaret's Reader in Divinity, University of Cambridge, The Christian Ecclesia, page 2).
Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit employed the identical term to designate both natural and supernatural gifts, referring to the gift of sexual control (1 Cor. 7:7) in exactly the same fashion as the direct manifestations of 1 Corinthians 12:4, can we not conclude that all gifts or abilities are to be utilized for "the common good" (1 Cor. 12:7), regardless of the method of bestowal? And would not a system which makes impossible the functioning of the abilities of all the brethren today be as obnoxious to God as the same system would have been in Corinth in the days of Paul?
The Holy Spirit moved Peter to write to the exiles of the dispersion, "As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's grace" (1 Peter 4:10). Would the same Spirit, if writing to the church of God today, change the message to read, "Let each stifle his natural gifts, and employ another, as good stewards of God's grace" ? If the apostle Paul wrote to a congregation in Rome in the twentieth century would he say, "I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another" (Rom. 15:14), or would he recommend that they hire a "local minister"? Inasmuch as he was satisfied about them, and satisfied with them, would he be satisfied with our modern innovation which, while the people love to have it so, makes impossible the functioning of the assembly as Paul outlined it?
When the apostle addressed his first letter to the congregation at Thessalonica, he emphasized the fact of the coming of our Lord, adding, "Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing" (1 Thess. 5:11). Is there a better time to exercise the members in building one another up than when all have gathered in one place? This was God's program for the congregation originally. Has he altered it for the present time? Who will dare affirm that an uninspired man may utilize all of the time appointed to public edification, if an inspired man was not allowed to do so?
It is urged that if the "located minister" does not attempt to rule the flock, he may be hired to feed it. Does not the same passage which enjoins upon the elders the oversight also enjoin upon them the feeding of the flock? If the elders can do one act by proxy, can they not do the other? But even if it could be demonstrated that a hireling minister could be maintained to edify the body without usurping the duties of the elders, it can never be proven that he can do so without usurping the privileges of the saints!
What is the secret for elimination of this clergy system which strikes at the very vitals of the universal priesthood? It lies in the conversion unto Christ of the whole body of believers. The desire for a big program promoted by big preachers has its inception in pride, and this must be crucified, and humility enthroned in every heart before the simplicity of the divine arrangement can be restored. Brethren in the Lord must learn to be satisfied with the plain spiritual fare of heaven, unadorned by the embellishments of men. In short, we must cease to care about becoming like the sectarian world about us, and be content to remain as God would have us. The flock of God must not only learn to be satisfied with the fodder provided, but also with the feeders provided, by a beneficent God. As it is, the leadership in many places is a purely honorary position involving no particular responsibility or work, both having been shifted to a hired servant for whose wage the flock is taxed.
G. S. Judd, writing about the churches in Kentucky, in the Apostolic Times, July, 1876, says: "Theoretically, we are commonly considered to be Scripturally organized when the congregation has a plurality of elders and deacons. Practically, however, a congregation is not considered to be in efficient working order unless there are in addition to this, a clerk and a preacher, or what we are in the habit of calling an evangelist, which is a misnomer and a solecism, since the preachers are called, and not sent, unless the church gets tired of a preacher and sets him adrift: then he is, perhaps, an evangelist after the modern sort. The eldership is expected to be a rather small volume, a compend or epitome of all the Christian graces and excellencies, and then be 'lookers on in Venice.' It is always held that an elder, especially at his election, must be apt to teach, but the notion that they should ever attempt it is obsolete or obsolescent, so much so that in a general way an elder is thought to be a little presumptuous who undertakes it. From sheer disuse the eldership has become a mere cipher placed before the preacher. The whole expression, as it now stands, is only a sort of religious decimal instead of a unit of any value. The question has not yet been decided whether or not we would not know more about the Bible, and be better off in every particular had we not one single solitary preacher in any congregation in Kentucky as a pastor. Will you please think about it?"
The royal priesthood must be made to realize that divine rights have been surrendered to, or captured by, a special caste, an incipient clergy. These rights must be rescued or God's plan of the ages will be nullified as it pertains to our responsibility. By what scriptural authority do men set themselves up, or offer themselves for hire, as the ministers of the congregations? On what bases do they claim such exaltation, eminence, enthronement and esteem over the other regal princes of the priesthood of heaven? Is it by virtue of a more noble birth? Is it the result of a superior knowledge conveyed to them by other mortals? Are they composed of a more worthy clay which elevates the fortunate ones thus created to shine as brighter constellations in the Christian galaxy? By what transcendent revelation do they attain to such illustriousness that they may reduce the residue of the royal family to a plebeian existence in which they can aspire no higher than to pay their assessments for such crumbs as are dispensed to them from the lofty heights of intellectual greatness?
Every Christian is a priest! Every Christian is a minister! Every priest of God has a divine right as a minister of God to serve the King of kings and his loyal subjects. Every talent must be utilized in God's service. Every man who has the ability to exhort, edify or comfort his brethren must be granted the right to do so. God has placed no pulpit as a throne in the midst of the congregation, to which one man has an exclusive right. The freedom of the speaker's platform for every loyal subject must be asserted, or we must admit that a part of the worship of God belongs to a stipendiary, and in that phase we can only approach God through human mediators, financially supported by the saints "to perform their ritual duties." Since this is the function of priests (Heb. 9:6) we will then have a special caste of priests above their fellows, and we will be on the way to Rome. The one-man hireling ministry system is the entrance wedge leading to apostasy!
A writer in the Apostolic Times, 1878, declared, "No man can prove that the first churches had regular preaching in our modern manner and style. Instead of one pastor, and he only an evangelist, they had a plurality of pastors, and we know not that even one of them was a preacher. We have undertaken to popularize the church with an ungodly world, because the world and worldly church members demand, and not because the Word of God teaches it, nor because the first Christians had it...Those churches which live on preaching have an unhealthy life, and need to be tried. Leave them to themselves a little, and we shall see who desires to worship God. Such will meet and worship without a preacher. They attend to have their ears tickled and to enjoy themselves, as when they go to a concert. The true worshippers need to be rid of all such dead weight, and we owe it to them to do all we can to reform."