"What's your role as pastor in this? An indispensable element, or insignificant as God works with or without you?
Stuart: You have to understand that gifting is all about the Giver, not the receptor. And so if I am gifted, which I am, there's no reason for me to get any grandiose ideas about it; I'm simply the receptor of what God has sovereignly given me. This says nothing about me; it says much about him.
At the same time, there are gifts of wisdom and insight scattered throughout the whole church and you need to reckon with those as well.
"In This Together: an interview with Stuart and Jill Briscoe," Leadership Spring 2001, 66.
I believe the first two question asked in the above quotation are very significant to today's church. Somehow and someway, we have moved to such a low church understanding of the pastorate that many people believe that the role of the pastor is really not that important. As I have traveled to many churches, this belief takes several different forms.
Some promote the idea that a plurality of Elders means that no one should given the title of "pastor" but that all elders are equal. While there is some merit to this, it is not entirely true.
Others promote the idea that because of the priesthood of all believers, we all are equal and have equal abilities to interpret scripture, lead, and express our opinion. Again, while there is some merit to this opinion, it is far from being entirely true.
Some claim the mantle and title of pastor without any real training, discerning of gifts, or assurance of calling. They believe that all is needed is an internal desire to be a pastor and you are one. Again, while this has some merit, it is far from the complete truth.
Many believe that pastors are merely employees of their church who are responsible for church growth and maintenance, but who also have to do the will of the congregation. If these come in conflict, the pastor is fired.
I find all of these notions odd. They are so out of step with the entirety of biblical and church history.
How did we get here?
At its heart, I think we have embraced the radical enlightenment leveling of social classes to such a point that we have denied the importance of calling, gifting, and God-given roles. We have allowed a strange Marxist informed ideology to misshape our understanding of the Church.
We do so to our peril.
God is still in the business of calling people to Himself. All who come to Him are His children. We are all in grace. We all have access to the Father through Jesus's work by the means of prayer. We also have His Word that the Holy Spirit can and will apply to our lives.
This is the true meaning of the priesthood of all believers. We don't need another human priest to mediate for us because we have Jesus.
Moreover, we all are important to the body. (Please read 1 Corinthians 12 to see how Paul explains it) Each of us make up the body of Christ and all of us are needed. We all belong to each other, and we all are important. This is a secondary element of the priesthood of all believers.
I completely affirm the reality, importance, and truth of the priesthood of all believers. Yet, I deny where some, I believe because of their misplaced political philosophy, have taken this doctrine.
The priesthood of all believers does not mean that we all have the same roles and tasks. It does not mean that we are all equal in ability, responsibility, or role. In fact, 1 Corinthians 12 emphasizes God creative work in making us all different. As Paul states, we are not all the mouth nor all we all the hands of Jesus (1 Cor. 12).
God calls us to different roles and to be different parts of the body. What I find interesting is that while most affirm this truth, many within mainstream Christianity have willingly lowered the authority and importance of the calling of pastors. I don't think there has been a time in the history of the church when pastoral leadership and authority has been at a lower ebb.
Such a distinction and respect gives honor to the gift giver, who is the Lord. He arranged the body this way. To deny it means to dismiss God's order. When we do so, our churches suffer.
How have you understood the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers? How have you seen it used improperly? When and how have you seen it used properly?
This is the true meaning of the priesthood of all believers. We don't need another human priest to mediate for us because we have Jesus.
Moreover, we all are important to the body. (Please read 1 Corinthians 12 to see how Paul explains it) Each of us make up the body of Christ and all of us are needed. We all belong to each other, and we all are important. This is a secondary element of the priesthood of all believers.
I completely affirm the reality, importance, and truth of the priesthood of all believers. Yet, I deny where some, I believe because of their misplaced political philosophy, have taken this doctrine.
The priesthood of all believers does not mean that we all have the same roles and tasks. It does not mean that we are all equal in ability, responsibility, or role. In fact, 1 Corinthians 12 emphasizes God creative work in making us all different. As Paul states, we are not all the mouth nor all we all the hands of Jesus (1 Cor. 12).
God calls us to different roles and to be different parts of the body. What I find interesting is that while most affirm this truth, many within mainstream Christianity have willingly lowered the authority and importance of the calling of pastors. I don't think there has been a time in the history of the church when pastoral leadership and authority has been at a lower ebb.
To state it positively, pastoral leadership and calling
is part of God's plan for the health of the body.
While it is not everything within the body,
it is important and it should be given the respect that it deserves.
Such a distinction and respect gives honor to the gift giver, who is the Lord. He arranged the body this way. To deny it means to dismiss God's order. When we do so, our churches suffer.
How have you understood the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers? How have you seen it used improperly? When and how have you seen it used properly?
No comments:
Post a Comment