BIBLICAL CHURCH OFFICES

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

BIBLICAL CHURCH OFFICES

            Upon Jesus’ ascension, a task was given to the church: to go and teach all nations, baptizing them. To accomplish such a task, Christ gave the church five distinct types of ministers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph 4:11). Such offices should not be confused with spiritual gifts, as listed in 1 Corinthians 12 or Romans 12. All believers possess spiritual gifts; yet, only a few hold an office of the church. Holding an office is a privilege, not a right, and one which requires exceeding accountability and seriousness.

Of the five offices of the church, there subsist a variety of opinions and interpretations. For example, are these offices reserved only for men? The answer to that question will vary greatly depending on the hermeneutic of the one answering (and some more informed perhaps than others). Rather than outlining my own reasons for holding my view, suffice it to say that I believe these offices are not reserved only for men; yet, I am certainly able to see the perspective of one who believes so.

Another question asked by many believers is whether all five churches offices Paul lists continue to exist today, primarily the role of apostle and prophet. Some reference Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth to argue that tongues and prophecy (often including apostleship) do not exist. “…but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away” (1 Cor 13:10). Since Paul speaks of prophecy and tongues in this context, the assumption could be that such abilities existed only for an ordained interval of time and not any further. I believe that such a claim is a stretch and, yet, do not discount its credibility.

While different in function, the goal of all five offices of the church is the same: namely the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry and building the body of Christ (Eph 4:12). For the following, I will operate under the view that all five offices subsist today. How then should Christians understand the roles of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher? My aim is to examine each office and how it should appear in current contexts.

Apostle

            An apostle is an ambassador of the gospel and one who is sent from and by his or her local congregation. Many church planters would be considered apostles. There should, however, be a distinction between the Twelve Apostles[1] and the general role of apostle. Scripture often speaks of apostles in both senses. As founders and leaders of the early church, the Twelve Apostles were given the unique role of serving the early church specifically. No person has ever nor will ever have a role as the Twelve Apostles did. Some may, however, hold the general role of apostle, i.e. one who is sent by God to accomplish a specific task. As the Twelve Apostles held the responsibility of establishing the church, the office of apostle also brings with it the task of building local churches. Many missionaries seem to hold this office as well. The Twelve Apostles dispersed around the nations and influenced people for the gospel of Christ; the same is true of the general office of apostle but on a local level rather than an establishment of the church universal, which was given to the Twelve. One who is an apostle today might have a distinct gift of building local churches and ministering at a foundational level.

Prophet

            Where Old Testament prophets were given the responsibility of declaring God’s message of repentance, the New Testament role of prophecy is disparate in that one who prophesies boldly declares the message of God by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. It is not as if Old Testament prophets did not do so as well; yet, Old Testament prophets were given a specific message for a specific people, e.g. Judah or Israel, while New Testament and modern prophets proclaim a broader message with the authority of Scripture. Furthermore, Old Testament prophets offered God’s revelation, which had not already been given to his people. Because the canon of Scripture is complete, however, church-era prophets offer no such extra revelation, for God’s complete revelation has already been given; anyone who claims to be a prophet offering an extra word from God, particularly one that contradicts the text of the Bible, is a false prophet and, therefore, no prophet at all. True prophecy is totally accurate, a prophecy will never be incorrect or mistaken; if the claimed word from God is incorrect, it is not prophecy. Prophets often see spiritual issues in a clearer sense than others. Sin or righteousness is blatantly obvious to a prophet; he or she then is obliged to point out such issues to the people to whom they minister. A prophet is recognized in the way of proclamation. One who prophesies, therefore, proclaims the message of God with authority and with the obvious emboldening of the Holy Spirit.

Evangelist

            The evangelist is often considered in an incorrect manner, e.g. one who travels to various local churches ministering. While one who does so may certainly be an evangelist, it should be remembered that an evangelist is an office of the local church given for the equipping of the saints. Evangelists then hold an equipping ministry to the local church. Evangelists tend to possess a rare ability to present the gospel in an announcing fashion, which beckons others to salvation. Salvation obviously does not come by the power of any human but only by the Holy Spirit; yet, the Spirit of God empowers evangelists to preach the gospel announcing the good news of Christ and bringing others to salvation. Bear in mind, however, that evangelists are given by God to the local church for the equipping of the saints. Therefore, evangelists minister in a local congregation. While there is nothing inherently wrong with itinerant ministry, one who holds the office of evangelist is given a ministry in a local church.

Pastor

            The pastor is often translated as shepherd (1 Pet 5:2-4). The ultimate model for a shepherd (and indeed all churches offices) is Jesus who refers to himself as the good shepherd who gathers the flock, cares for them, knows them, rescues them, and lays down his life for them (John 10:2-16). Guidelines and criteria are given for pastors by the Apostle Paul (1 Tim 3:1-13). The term he uses, however, is elder. The term, bishop, is also used interchangeably (Acts 20:28). The overarching ministry of a pastor is that of an overseer or one who spiritually guides a local body of believers.

 

Teacher

            Often, the role of pastor is coupled with that of teacher. In the Greek, the two terms are used together as pastor-teacher. In Paul’s instructions on pastoral duties, a pastor is to have the ability to teach. Therefore, the role of pastor also involves teaching and, in the opinion of many, implies a dual role of pastor-teacher. Teachers hold the task of interpreting God’s divine revelation through Scripture. Like the other four offices of the church, a teacher is ultimately required for equipping the saints for the work of ministry. Teaching then does not see an end of learning but rather life transformation, which results in the public ministry of the local church. One who can rightly exposit the text of Scripture to God’s people is a teacher and is given such a task for the equipping of the saints.

The End Means of Each Office

            The overarching purpose of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (or any combination of them one believes exist now) stems from the glory of God and is manifested in the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry. A key component in this concept is that the work of ministry is not (only) reserved for the ministers and leaders of the church themselves but rather for the members of the body, i.e. ministers function primarily to equip rather than to work as the sole ministers of the fellowship. Such an assignment has two parties involved: the ministers and the congregants where both must take their responsibility seriously. A minister in the local church should understand his or her role as equipping, as a lay member should understand his or her role as one being equipped for ministry. When church offices function in this manner, God’s work is accomplished and he is glorified.

---

[1] The specifics of who is a biblical Apostle is debated, e.g. Paul or Mathias. Commonly, both are regarded for various reasons; yet, Scripture is clear about the number being twelve so one must ascribe to one or the other.

THE LOSS OF REVERENCE IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

THE LOSS OF REVERENCE IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP

            Christian worship has changed significantly over the years. Nevertheless, its vitality to Christian life has remained. In recent years (and decades), I contend that reverence in Christian worship has been lost. There are likely a number of contributing factors for this loss of reverence, which I believe stem from an overemphasis on consumerism, i.e. the church, to appeal to unbelievers, has created an atmosphere of worship, which takes a casual approach. I do not argue for legalism or for an impersonal relationship with God but rather for a realization of who God is and subsequently an appropriate response to him in worship. I intend here to discuss the dangers of Christian worship’s loss of reverence. In my observations, three primary results have occurred, which I will discuss not only as reality but also as a warning to the church so that the trend may be reversed.

A Diminishment of the Splendor of God

            The increasing casual approach to worship in the church has surely contributed to a diminishment of the splendor of God. It is not as if God’s splendor itself has been diminished; rather, the realization of such splendor has been diminished and will continue to diminish if a casual attitude continues to compound. Consider Isaiah’s response to being in the presence of God during his vision in Isaiah 6. Moreover, consider Paul’s response to the presence of Christ and Moses at the burning bush. One might argue that these are extraordinary circumstances. While such a rebuttal would be accurate, it does not suffice, for, through the Holy Spirit, God’s presence is a reality of Christian worship, i.e. believers are always in the presence of God and certainly when they gather to worship him. Perhaps, the underlying issue then is not the absence of God’s presence but the lack of realization about it. These extraordinary circumstances in Scripture reveal people who responded drastically because they realized God’s presence. A casual approach to worship is not conducive to realizing the presence of God. A casual attitude is about selfish comfort, selfish desires, and selfish goals. If people are not careful, the casual approach to worship will diminish the realized splendor of God.

An Augmentation of Humankind

            While the realization of God’s splendor is surely diminished as a result of casualness in worship, there also subsists an augmentation of selfishness and human glory. Humanity is not worthy to receive all praise and honor, as God is; thus, any augmentation of humankind is false. Because of humanity’s wretched depravity, no person (but Christ) deserves any glory whatsoever. One might contend that Christians are made holy in Christ; nonetheless, holiness is not achieved but is given and only by and in Christ. Believers should not, therefore, confuse holiness as a product of their own making but as God’s gift to his people. Humanity is fallen because of feeble attempts to steal glory from God, which never works. To approach Christian worship casually then is to not only diminish the reality of God’s glory but to also falsely grant glory to humans. A casual approach to worship is not an augmentation of humanity’s glory, for humanity truly does not possess any, but rather a false bequeathal of glory that never belongs to people but only to God. To worship God rightly is to realize his holiness and to understand that humankind does not even belong in the same universe with such splendor.

A Minimization of Sin

            A casual approach to Christian worship also cultivates a minimization of sin. In the presence of God, Isaiah understood his wretchedness because he saw God’s holiness (Is 6:5). When believers see God for who he is, it should rightly cause them to subsequently see themselves for who they are: namely wretched and sinful people in need of a Savior. Additionally, seeing God for who he is and understanding the magnificence of God’s grace in Christ should cause the church to worship God simply for who he is and praise him for his undeserved mercy. As Isaiah realized his own unrighteousness in God’s presence, Christian worship should cause believers to do the same. A casual attitude in Christian worship yields a lack of understanding about who God is and, therefore, a minimization of sinfulness that exists in every human.

For Christians to Worship God Rightly, They Must First See God for Who He Is: Holy

            Christian worship is a dialogue between God and his people; it is responsive in nature, i.e. God initiates his revelation and his people then respond. The first step, however, is God’s revelation. To worship rightly, Christians must first see God for who he is: namely holy. Without such revelation, a proper response is not possible. To cultivate that an atmosphere for such a revelation, reverence is necessary. A casual approach to worship should not exist in the church. One would not consider a meeting with someone of nobility to be a casual encounter. Why then should Christians consider worship gatherings a casual social meeting? Perhaps, the church, in the name of standing against legalism and stiffness, has created too casual of an environment for proper Christian worship and should return to the roots of God’s holiness and splendor. Worship is a privilege but is certainly not casual; therefore, the church’s attitude toward worship should be one of utmost reverence.

THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM

THE CHRISTIAN CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM

            Socialism has become a trending topic in recent years. Usually, one side is adamantly opposed to it while the other side strongly supports it. Those who have not lived in or seen societies who have been destroyed by socialism tend to be more lenient toward its evils. My aim here is to provide a Christian case against socialism since many of the arguments for it have growingly come from Christians.

            Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community or government as a whole. It is not new; yet, modern socialism is a direct derivative of Marxism, which is a way of organizing society where the workers own the means of production. Marx even proposed that socialism was the next necessary step in the progress of history. My disclaimer is that I am a firm believer in small government (as small as possible). Socialism is diametrically opposed to the small government mindset. Nonetheless, I intend to present a brief Christian case against the dangers of socialism.

Despite Modern Claims, a Defense of Socialism Is Not Biblical

            Many seem to make the argument now that socialism is biblical, Christian, or even that Jesus was or is a socialist. These claims, while containing a certain shock-factor, do not hold the weight necessary to justify them. Certainly, Jesus spoke of helping the needy, the poor, the widows, the orphans, and even paying taxes; yet, Jesus did so in relation to individuals rather than the government. Paying taxes is necessary because obedience to the law is necessary. Nonetheless, to equate such a command with government responsibility to make life better for everyone is a far stretch. When Jesus commands to care for the hungry, the thirsty, and the naked (Matt 25:35-40), his illustration clearly references an individual rather than the government. A government’s primary role is not one which protects the quality of life but rather life itself. The United States Constitution has in mind freedom as its underlying purpose. Quality of life and the pursuit of happiness then belongs to the individual, i.e. if freedoms^[1] are protected by the government, the pursuit of happiness is possible. Certainly, issues of justice are replete throughout the scriptures; yet, the responsibility always falls on the individual rather than the government. Thus, to claim that socialism is biblical or that Jesus is a socialist is hermeneutically irresponsible.

Socialism Demands Theft

            Prior to 1913, the United States did not have a federal income tax; such became law with the institution of the 16^th Amendment. It may come as a surprise to many that the country functioned well without such a tax burden. Moreover, since the implementation of federal income tax and the United States Treasury, both taxes and debt have increased; this is likely not coincidental, for human nature desires even more when more is taken. While Jesus commands his followers to pay taxes, as it is the law (Matt 22:21), his command is not necessarily an affirmation of its wrongness just as his submission to authorities during his crucifixion was not support of what they were doing. If a government’s primary role, both biblically and constitutionally, is to protect the freedoms of its people (which I believe it is), anything over and beyond that obligation requires, at its foundation, theft. Consider the various programs, agencies, and people to whom tax money is paid; it is certainly not for the foundational function of government, i.e. protection of freedom. Tax money, by its nature, is taken from individuals who have earned it, many of who might not otherwise pay for many of the programs government employs. In most other contexts, if money is unwillingly taken from individuals, it is considered theft. Taxes are no different. Taxation, by its nature, is theft. Such a claim has a shock-factor to it; yet, when reasoned, it is sensible. For a society to implement socialism, taxes must increase; therefore, blatant theft must increase. In this way, socialism is not biblical nor right but is, in fact, immoral.

Socialism Neglects Individual Responsibility

Briefly mentioned already, the implementation of socialism demands a neglect of individual responsibility. The Bible and Jesus Christ never discuss social concerns as government responsibilities but rather as those that belong to individuals. Certainly, in the name of protection, governments are to carry out justice. Nevertheless, the tasks of caring for the needy is assigned to individuals. To employ socialism is to take that responsibility away from the individual. Additionally, employing socialism makes it likely that people who benefit from it become complacent in their responsibility to not only offer assistance to the needy but to also hold a sense of entitlement, i.e. because the government provides their needs, they do not feel a sense of urgency to change their situation. Scripture always gives the responsibility of helping those in need to individuals rather than government. Socialism then is not biblical because it often encourages a lack of responsibility.

Socialism: It Sounds Too Good to Be True

            A common adage is this: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Socialism is such an item. Rarely has socialism worked in human history. In fact, countries and societies where it is implemented currently are still too new to make a determination on its effectiveness. Largely, however, the majority of countries who have tried socialism have failed, the effects of which are seen today, e.g. Venezuela and Cuba.^[2] While socialism shines with its tempting luster, the proven and effective forms of small government which currently exist have worked the best. Christians should stand for freedom, for individual liberty, and for responsibility. Socialism does not support this mindset and is, in fact, opposed to it. To hold a godly worldview then, Christians should understand the dangers and pitfalls of socialism.

---

[1] Freedoms here is broader than many attempt to make it. Freedoms do not refer to specifics, e.g. marriage, driving, etc. but rather to the general ability to live life as one wishes without interference as long as decisions do not impact the rights of others.

[2] Communism is not used interchangeably with socialism here but is considered to be stalwartly tied.