Truth Magazine

By Guthrie Dean

Definition of Terms

1. Preacher. A preacher is a herald; one who gives a proclamation or message. Noah is referred to as a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). Solomon calls himself a preacher (Ecc. 1:1). Jonah was a preacher (Jonah 3:2). Peter, James, John, Timothy, Paul and others were preachers. Paul said that he was ordained a preacher and an apostle, and a teacher (1 Tim. 2:7). Comparing that verse with 1 Cor. 12:29 and Eph. 4:11, we learn that Paul served in three different “offices” or capacities. He served as preacher, apostle, and teacher. A preacher is also called an evangelist. This word appears in Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11 and in 2 Tim. 4:5. It means a messenger of good, and indicates a public proclaimer. A preacher is also a minister of the gospel (Acts 6:4; 21:8). In 2 Tim. 4:1-5 Paul tells Timothy to “preach the word,” to “do the work of an evangelist,” and to “make full proof of thy ministry.” It is true that all Christians are to be ministers of Christ, or servants of Christ. But all Christians are not ministers of the word in the sense that preachers are.

2. Pastor. A pastor (Eph. 4:11) is the same as an elder or bishop and, in this verse, is distinguished from the evangelist or preacher. A pastor is a shepherd, one who tends a flock. Israel had its spiritual leaders who were called pastors (Jer. 2:8; 3:15; 10:21; 23:1, etc.). In the New Testament every church, when fully organized, had a plurality of pastors to oversee the local flock. The Greek word for pastor is poimen. W. E. Vine comments on this as follows: “Poimen, a shepherd, one who tends herds or flocks (not merely one who feeds them), is used metaphorically of Christian `pastors,’ Eph. 4:11. Pastors guide as well as feed the flock; cp. Acts 20:’28, which, with ver. 17, indicates that this was the service committed to elders (overseers or bishops); so also in 1 Pet. 5:1, 2 `tend the flock . . . exercising the oversight,’ R. V.; this involves tender care and vigilant superintendence.” These flock-tenders are also called elders and “the presbytery.” The word elder is from the Greek term presbuteros, and indicates maturity and experience. The word presbytery is from the term presbuterion, and simply refers to a group of elders. See 1 Tim. 4:14 and Acts 20:17-28. These flock-tenders, or elders, are referred to as bishops or overseers in Acts 20:28 and Phil. 1:1. The word bishop (episkopos in the Greek) means an overseer; from epi, over, skopeo, to look or watch. This emphasizes the fact that they are responsible for the status and conduct of the local church. They are pastors (shepherds) because of their care for the flock, in tending, guiding, feeding and watching.

When A Preacher Is A Pastor

If a preacher of a given church is also selected by that church as one of the elders, then the said preacher is also a pastor. But he is never “the” pastor in the sense of being a one-man overseer. He may serve with others, along side other men, as a pastor or as an elder in a church. Obviously Simon Peter was both a preacher and an elder (1 Pet. 5:1-4). He was also an apostle (Matt. 10:2). But all preachers are not pastors any more than all preachers are apostles. It so happens that Peter was a preacher, an apostle, and a pastor, all three. But according to the “qualifications” for elders laid down in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, Peter could have been selected as an elder while the apostle Paul could not. Paul had no wife, no family, etc.

When A Preacher Is Not A Pastor

A preacher is not a pastor or elder unless he meets the Bible specifications and unless he is appointed as such by the local congregation. We have the record of Timothy preaching at Ephesus (1 and 2 Timothy), but there is no record of him ever being an elder. Paul preached three years at Ephesus (Acts 20:31) and was never called a pastor. The denominational concept of making “the preacher” of a church “the pastor” of that church (or “the elder” of that church) is foreign to the teachings of the Scriptures. A preacher (evangelist) and the elders (pastors) are distinctly different appointments and should not be confused as being one and the same. See again Eph. 4:11-12. They are different “offices” in name and different “offices” in function. The pastors oversee the work of the local church, all of it. A preacher (under the oversight of the pastors) does his own work of preaching and teaching publicly and from house to house (Acts 20:20).

Not only do the denominations confuse the preacher-pastor position with reference to name, but also with reference to function. Some of our brethren are very particular to use the names correctly but are confused as to their work or function. I have run into situations where the local churches expect the preacher to do the work of the pastors (with regards to discipline problems, visiting the sick, taking care of new converts, ad infinitum) while the elders drop down to the next notch and perform the work the deacons ought to be doing (benevolence, counting money, keeping books, caring for the property, etc.). This results in the preacher doing the work of the pastors, the pastors doing the work of the deacons, and the frustrated deacons doing nothing but twiddling their fingers. This is a most solemn matter, and each congregation should seriously reevaluate its practices regarding pastors, preachers, and deacons.

Truth Magazine XXI: 12, p. 178
March 24, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

Although the Protestant Reformation spoke of the priesthood of all believers, the Protestant systems -including American denominationalism-almost invariably created their clergies. For instance, William Paley, “Archdeacon of Carlisle,” delivered a sermon entitled, “A Distinction of Orders in the Church Defended Upon Principles of Public Utility,” given in the Castle Chapel, Dublin, “At the Consecration of John Law, D.D., Lord Bishop of Clonfert and Kilmacdaugh, September 21, 1782” (The Works of William Paley, 1860, pp. 585ff).

He argued that while “the precepts of Christian morality and the fundamental articles of the faith are” precise, absolute, and universally binding, “the laws which respect the discipline, instruction, and government of the community, are delivered in terms so general and indefinite as to admit of an application adapted to the mutable condition and varying exigencies of the Christian church.” Appeal is made to 1 Cor. 14:40: 2 Tim. 2; and Tit. 1:5, “all general directions, supposing . . . the existence of a regular ministry in the church, but describing no specific order of pre-eminence or distribution of office and authority.” Other such expediencies include the deacons of Acts 6, the collections for the saints of Acts 4, and the laying by in store upon the first day of the week in 1 Cor. 16. Therefore, the New Testament writings “exclude no ecclesiastical constitution” which future ages deem expedient.

Paley continued,

The separation of a particular order of men for the work of the ministry-the reserving to these exclusively, the conduct of public worship and the preaching of the word-the distribution of the country into districts, and the assigning of each district to the care and charge of its proper pastor-lastly, the appointment to the clergy of a maintenance independent of the caprice of their congregation, are measures of ecclesiastical policy which have been adopted by every national establishment of Christianity in the world.

While some prefer “a perfect parity among their clergy,” Paley defends “a distinction of orders in the church” as better promoting “the credit and efficacy of the sacerdotal office.” His defense is that (1) subordination breeds peace among “preachers of peace;” (2) differing orders are necessary “in order to supply each class of the people with a clergy of their own level and description, with whom they may live and associate upon terms of equality”-a thing which, no matter how despised by some, is demanded by “the rules or prejudices of modern life” (“when we have the world to instruct and to deal with, we must take and treat it as it is, not as the wishes or the speculations of philosophy would represent it to our view”); (3) respect for “the superior clergy” is enhanced by privileges, emoluments, credit, and reputation; (4) gradation of orders is necessary to invite the young to preach. The objects of all this is to save the lost and promote good works. “As far as our establishment conduces to forward and facilitate these ends, so far we are sure it falls in with his (Christ’s-RH) design, and is sanctified by his authority.”

Though Paley regards the arrangements as mere expedients, Christ through inspired men made divine arrangements to “forward and facilitate these ends” (cf. Eph. 4:8-12; Rom. 11:33-36). The simple work of elders, deacons, evangelists, and teachers can hardly satisfy men whose thinking is saturated with and conformed to the ways of “this present age” (Rom. 12:1-2). As. Paley noted, different religious groups since the New Testament age have created different clerical systems; what is true of one is not necessarily true of another. The emoluments, prerogatives, titles, gradations, and functions of the various clergies may be diverse. Yet, a classical earmark of human error in rebellion against divine truth is a clerical system of some sort.

Restoring the Ancient Order

Though the Protestant Reformation had an important “back-to-the-Bible” thrust-to which we are indebted-the work of overturning the clerical concept mostly waited for the labors of the restoration movement in this country. Protestantism spawned its own errors and its own clergies, but various restoration efforts in America attempted to bypass all human systems and aimed at primitive Christianity as revealed in the New Testament. Human councils, creeds, and clergies were abandoned by those seeking to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent. Great strides of progress were made in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Alexander Campbell assailed “the kingdom of the clergy” and “the hireling priesthood,” as in “The Third Epistle of Peter, to the Preachers and Rulers of Congregations-A Looking Glass for the Clergy” (Christian Baptist, 1823). In the Christian Baptist for Jan. 5, 1824, he urged, “Let us have no clergy at all, learned or unlearned-let us have bishops and deacons, such as Paul appoints . . . .” In the Millennial Harbinger of 1831 (p. 75), he argued that churches cannot think from the New Testament that “in their church capacity . . . . that they must have official heads and hands to administer ordinances, or to make it lawful for them to meet to worship God . . . .” In his anxiety to avoid even a near approximation to a clergy, Campbell did not think it right “to employ men to preach the gospel in a Christian congregation” (Millennial Harbinger, 183, p. 237), but thought a church could support men to convert the lost. “The hireling is one who works for wages merely; but everyone who receives wages is not a hireling. Were that the truth, then Paul himself was a hireling . . .

(Millennial Harbinger. 1835, p. 474).

In the early days, Campbell and others, while thoroughly convinced in opposition to the clergy, were somewhat confused over the work or office of the 0vangelist. They argued that it pertained only to the age of spiritual gifts, and that the proper way to spread the gospel was for whole churches to move into new regions, living such examples as would compel people to obey the gospel. Then the concept shifted to the evangelist as an itinerate, supported only for the purpose of going into new regions. But there were brethren who recognized that an evangelist could labor with a local church. J. B. Ferguson did so in Nashville, Tennessee, ana Moses Lard argued that an evangelist could do such work for one year or ten without taking to himself the work of elders or pastors (Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. II, pp. 258-259).

Return of the Clergy

But from 1866 to 1906, the one-man pastor system became popular along with instrumental music in worship, human societies doing the churches’ work, and fairs to raise money. When the Back-to-the Bible movement began changing into a Back-to-Denominationalism movement, the return of the clergy was inevitable! Though the word “clergy” was generally avoided, Isaac Errett set the pace by accepting the title “Reverend.” Men like D. S. Burnet, B. K. Smith, J. C. Stark, and Thomas Munnel promoted the clerical concept of the “ministry,” calling preachers “the pastor” and urging them to oversee the flock. When Daniel Sommer delivered the Sand Creek Address in 1889, he opposed the whole package of digression, including instruments, societies, fairs, and “the one man imported preacher-pastor to take the oversight of the church.”

By 1906 churches generally known as Christian Churches or Disciples of Christ had largely given up the concept of the preacher simply proclaiming the gospel and had adopted a clerical concept of the one-man pastor, promoter, general organizer, fund raiser, community spokesman, often civic leader, counselor, in short “the administrative leader of the church” (Clarence E. Lemmon, The Art of Church Management (1933), p. 3). Emphasis was placed on “an educated ministry” -referring, not to a thorough knowledge of Scripture, but to various studies in science, history, and human behavior. In the ’30’s and ’40’s, “Dr.” Hampton Adams wrote books on The Pastora’ Ministry, You and Your Minister, and Calling Men for the Ministry (including chapters on “The Minister As A Preacher,” “. . . As A Pastor,” . . . As An Administrator”), having obtained “the A. B. and D. D. degrees from Transylvania College; the B. D. Degree from The College of the Bible, Lexington, Kentucky; the M. A. degree from Yale University”.

On the other hand, a small but significant segment of brethren were meeting elsewhere across the country in groups identified generally as churches of Christ. Rather than return to a denominational concept of the clergy, these churches still aimed at a return to the Biblical concept presented in 2 Timothy 3:16-4:5. “An evangelist” could fulfil his “ministry” or do his “work” if he would simply, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” In keeping with Ephesians 4:11, “evangelists” and “pastors” were considered separate offices, works, or ministries. All clerical systems were alike anathema.

The Clergy Returns, Again!

But by 1950 these churches of Christ had experienced such an astonishing growth that many of them began to yearn for recognition, status, and acceptance by the world. Along with better motives, the Herald of Truth originated in a sense of denominational pride; the idea of some was that the Lutherans have “the Lutheran Hour” on the air and “we” should have “the Church of Christ Hour.” Benevolent, educational, and recreational institutions supported from church treasuries became increasingly popular in the ’50’s; brethren could point with pride to “Church of Christ” institutions not one whit behind Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian organizations.

Thus began 25 years of digression and controversy, debate and division. A small but significant segment of brethren tried to sweep back the tide of apostasy, but after the flood only small islands of resistance remained-just as had been the case in the previous century. And, once again, as the Back-to-Denominationalism trend set in to replace the Back-tothe Bible effort, the return of the clergy has been inevitable! A clerical system of some sort is a classical earmark of apostacy from the ancient order of things revealed in the new testament.

As social, recreational, and educational programs multiply among the churches, preachers are expected to be expert organizers, promoters, fund raisers, and managers. Paley’s defense of an ordered clerical system reveals some shrewd observation on his part, for it is true that the wise, mighty, and noble of this world tend to demand “ministers” who can satisfy their sense of prerogative. As churches of Christ have sought after and adjusted themselves to the demands of the wise, mighty, and noble, the .churches have discarded the concept of the preacher as simply proclaimer of God’s Word. The time is ripe among churches of Christ for the return of the clergy. The term “clergy” will be scrupulously avoided out of deference to “our traditions,” but clerical titles, responsibilities, prerogatives, ministries, and special education are already in the process of acceptance. While few brethren are ready to let the camel bed down in the tent, the nose, if not the head and neck, are already in.

For several years now, Ira North of Madison, Tennessee, and other brethren have openly accepted the title “Dr.” in reference to their work as preachers. Leroy Garrett used to make a specialty of calling all preachers laboring with a given church one-man pastors or clergymen, but he now makes a specialty of writing and publishing such ideas as this: “If contemporary preachers were as well grounded in behavioral sciences as Paul was, they surely could avoid some of the serious blunders they make in inter-personal relations and in misunderstanding scripture. Why do we exclude anthropology, sociology, and psychology from our `preacher curricula’ or, if we offer a veneer in these areas, why do we `doctor’ the content to harmonize with our religious creed and doctrine” (“The Ghetto Church of Christ,” by Cloyd Anthony, Restoration Review (1970), p. 14; cf 1971, P. 14).

Victor Hunter, former editor of Mission, has been working in Trenton, New Jersey, for about a year as a kind of liaison between members of churches of Christ and Princeton University. He is helping young men get into the “Divinity” program, and the school allows them to do their “pastoral field work” under Vic. He may have the distinction earned by Isaac Errett a hundred years ago, when he accepted a name plate inscribed “Rev. Isaac Errett,” a first for that day in the restoration effort. Vic is listed in the phone book as “Rev.,” both under his residential listing and that for the church.

An “educated ministry” is becoming the order of the day among many churches. This goes hand-in-hand with the push for church support of colleges. In appealing for church donations to colleges, Batsell Barrett Baxter said in 1963, “Actually the church has depended upon these schools for many years to play a major role in the training of preachers, elders, teachers, and others. Is it not right that the church should provide the funds for the training of its own leaders?” Again stressing the importance of an educated “leadership in the church,” he challenged, “What feasible, workable, effective method can today take the place of the Christian schools! (Questions and Issues of the Day, pp. 29-30, emphasis original). We wonder what “feasible, workable, effective method” New Testament churches had in the first century to raise up gospel preachers! If churches are dependent upon “these schools” for preachers, it will be natural for churches to inquire how much education a preacher has-particularly how much from “these schools”-before providing support for the spread of the gospel. This is creating a mentality illustrated by “personal workers” from a Nashville church, who visited some brethren who had just moved into the area. When the newcomers told where they had begun attending, they were duly warned, “You don’t want to go over there; we’ve heard that their preacher doesn’t have much college education.”

A Call for Ordained Professional Ministers

Mission magazine began “a series on training our ministers” in the June, 1976, issue. Ron Durham, the editor, posses what he sees as one of the dilemmas in our “leadership crisis”: “On the one hand, we oppose a professional clergy system. On the other, experience .seems to dictate something like that very .system because it works” (emphasis here and following original). Durham calls for a revision of our understanding or “theology of the ministry,” and then states emphatically, “We must accept the brute fact that it is right ,for the church to train and hire professional ministers.” Early restoration preaching in opposition to “the Romish’ clergy system” led to irresponsible, “simplistic book-chapter-and-verse pronouncements” and general opposition to “the religious professional.”

Though Durham opposes the authoritarian, creedal, “Romish” clerical system, he proposes “for us to devise an ordination (appointment) system” so that the church may “respond flexibly to changing needs.” While he recognizes “the biblical picture of . . . `lay’ evangelists, deacons, and elders-indeed, all disciples-” ministering as best they can, there is an imperative need for “professional ministers.” In other words, in place of the old conservative. creedal Protestant or Catholic clergy of the nineteenth century, Durham proposes for churches of Christ a new Liberal or Neo-orthodox, noncreedal, nonauthoritarian, broadminded, professionally trained clergy. That is, we should adopt the popular clerical concepts of the twentieth century instead of the popular system of the nineteenth century, but the Biblical concept of gospel preachers or evangelists is outdated in any case.

The rationale for the new clergy system is exactly the one used for the older system. The Mission mindset is largely the product of twenty years of emphasis on “Where There Is No Pattern” in the interest of churchsupported colleges, clinics, camps, orphanages, and other centralized projects such as the Herald of Truth. This attitude toward Scripture is at one with the old denominational emphasis on “expediency,” the thrust toward doing or allowing whatever is not expressly forbidden. William Paley said “the laws which respect the discipline, instruction, and government of the community, are delivered in terms so general and indefinite as to admit of an application adapted to the mutable condition and varying exegencies of the Christian church.” The New Testament writings “exclude no ecclesiastical constitution,” thus permitting a clergy system, whether it be the Romish system of the early centuries, the subsequent Protestants vstem of the reformation, or the more recent liberal and NeoOrthodox systems.

Paley urged concession to “the rules or prejudices of modern life” in constructing an ordered clergy, and Durham likewise appeals to “a practical situation. Our age is marked by a tendency to turn to religion as the answer to emotional and psychological ills. A biblical theology of the ministry will not allow us to dismiss this fact of life. . . ” Furthermore, the church should “not settle for the minister” who “refuses to equip himself to deal” with such affairs. (Ron Durham will have to pardon me for observing that this sounds something like a creedal, authoritarian judgment, i.e., we must get rid of all preachers who will not accept “ordination” as a “religious professional”!)

Abandon the All-Sufficiency of Scripture

The new approach “will require” of preachers “training not only in Bible but in all disciplines as psychology and counseling.” The church must “provide internships and job prospects for the professionals.” It must develop “the sort of responsible ordination or appointing procedure which would supply the dimension of accountabilitv which is so generally lacking in our ministerial training.” This cry .for “accountability” has been the battle cry for building every ecclesiastical structure of human authority and religious oppression, from the earliest Roman Catholic model to the latest restructure of the Disciples of Christ denomination! In short, it means that those who do not accept the system and submit to the systemizers will be shown the nearest exit. The church “will not settle for the minister” who adamantly defends the outmoded concepts of gospel preaching found in the Bible.

Of course the Mission folks are still a minority in comparison to the mainstream of institutional churches of Christ, but they are also the cutting edge of a newer liberalism which is destined to grow as it did from 1875 to 1900. Just as the Isaac Errett’s and J. H. Garrison’s put out material like The Old Faith Restated in an effort to put the brakes on, even so the James Bales’ and Tom Warren’s are fighting tooth-and-nail to stop the kind of thinking characteristic of Mission. Harding College is a somewhat conservative influence and the Harding Graduate School of Religion features men of a somewhat conservative mold like Earl I. West and Jack P. Lewis. Though these middle-of-the-road liberals consider it anathema to be charged with any responsibility in producing the Mission mind set, a recent issue of the Harding of Memphis Graduate School Bulletin shows something of the relationship. In an article stressing the importance of “The Biblical Field,” Jack Lewis begins, “The preacher today must be trained in many skills. His work touches administration, business management, social work, youth work, and counseling, as well as ministry of the Word. Each of these contributes its share to the ongoing life of the church and to his success in evangelism” (Vol. 14, No. 4, July, 1975).

In contrast to both the missionaries and the middlers, the Bible still says a gospel preacher fills his “ministry” full whenever he will “preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Nothing is said about training, ordaining, or accountability in psychology, counseling, administration, business management, social work, or so-called youth work. A few of us still believe that it is the work of a preacher, as a preacher, to simply “preach the word. ” Nothing more. Nothing less.

New Testament Christianity Vs. Clerical Systems

New Testament Christianity is the perfect antipathy to all clerical systems with their inevitable titles, flaunting of academic degrees, prestige, elevation, and prerogatives. Every clerical system has this in common: The gospel preacher is made into something more, less, or other than a gospel preacher. He is given the role and responsibility associated with some Scriptural function which belongs to another in the divine order, or is given a role and a responsibility which find no counterpart in Scripture at all.

The work of a gospel preacher is to proclaim Jesus Christ and him crucified-that includes our obedience to the gospel call, all things that pertain to the kingdom of God, and the whole counsel of God (2 Tim. 4:1-5; 1 Cor. 2:2; Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 8:12; 20:20-27). Preachers, like anyone else, can derive temporal and secondary benefit from knowledge of the world around him; God put no premium on ignorance. But God’s Word is the one power unto salvation, and a knowledge of that Word is the one absolute necessity for the work of a gospel preacher (Rom. 1:16; 2 Tim. 2:2).

Various clergy systems have included one or more of the following characteristics, all alike unscriptural: (1) claim to special or miraculous call; (2) clergy-laity distinctions; (3) swayed by ambition, material interests, and clerical arrogance; (4) systems of church government based on human reasoning, civil government, or some non-biblical pattern; (5) setting aside the divine plan in order to make room for human substitutes; (6) titles of distinction; (7) clerical attire setting off some brethren from others; (8) placing youth in the position of overseeing others of more maturity, dedication, and knowledge-as in the one-man pastor system; (9) unscriptural theology, philosophy, and special knowledge made the province of the clergy; (10) presumption that ordination by clergy bestows some special blessing; (11) tend to move in circles of the affluent, proud, and popular, shunning the humble, poor, and retiring; (12) dependence on written, flowery prayers and speeches instead of the earnest outpouring of a heart which loves God, knows His Word, and genuinely seeks to save souls; (13) dependence on oratorical or philosophical display for power in preaching, along with (14) theatrical gestures or maneuvers; (15) the art of pompous and pious tones in preaching; (16) soft, indirect preaching, passing over popular sins and people; (17) lead people to identify political theories and national interests with the will of God, as by arming soldiers with religious motivations and zeal in wartime; (18) presumption to being holders of the mysteries necessary for the care of souls, and convincing people to depend on ,them for this care-including today, psychology, sociology, anthropology, “church management,” and a plethora of “counseling” sciences; (19) presumption of near infallibility on all sorts of matters of judgment. (20) The clergy are a presumed class among the people of God, wholly unauthorized in Scripture, though mentioned in every Scripture which speaks of lawlessness, apostasy, and will worship (Matt. 7:21ff; Col. 2:23; 2 Thess. 2; 2 Jn. 9).

Christ specifically forbade the spirit which leads to clerical systems, including the use of presumptive titles (Matt. 23:5-12). All of the following titles-with their attendant garb and privilege-violate both the spirit and letter of Christ’s teaching: Pope, Patriarch, President, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Reverend, Right Reverend, Very Reverend, Doctor, Reverend Doctor, Most Worshipful, Worshipful Master (Masonic), Holy, Most Holy, Very Holy, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. The statement of Jesus, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven,” has been violated by the assumption upon the part of some of the very title mentioned: “Father” (Matt. 23:9).

All clerical prerogative or professionalism violates the principle of Christ, “All ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8). Like the children in a family, all saints have equality of spiritual standing before God (Gal. 3:26-29). All members of the family may not perform the same service, but God did not provide for any professional or clerical elevation at all in His family. The concepts of elevation, honor, and reverence inherent in the professional clergy are in open rebellion to the expressed will of God.

Be Strong and Work!

God’s people must view with sadness, if not surprise, the return of the clergy. Yet, on the positive side, let us have a mind to work that which is right. “Be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work: for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts” (Hag. 2:4). God will bless the faithful teaching of His Word, to His glory (1 Cor. 3:6). If He does not need an ordained clergy or professional ministry, He does command that His people be busy serving “unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).

Elders, deacons, preachers, and teachers are not positions of elevation and prestige. They are only offices, ministries, or works ,for service to others. In the same passage where Jesus eliminated from Divine service the clergy system, he commanded humble, energetic service. “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exhalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Matt. 23:11-12).

The need of the hour is not a professional ministry, pastoral preachers, or a clerical system of any description. We do not need the return of the clergy, for this is only a part of the sickness of God’s people “from the sole of the foot even unto the head” (Isa. 1:6). The need today is exactly what it has always been since the first era of apostasy: a return to the divine standard. We need humble servants, saints busy in the kingdom, preachers who preach the Word, elders who oversee the flock, and deacons who serve. We need faith in God and His Word, a restoration of the ancient order of things (Isa. 55:8-10).

Let us not be ashamed, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2 Tim. 1:7). Let us not fear, for “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty” (1 Cor. 1:27). Let us not falter, for “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls” (Jer. 6:16). Be not of those who say, “We will not walk therein,” but of those who say, “Here am I; send me” (Isa. 6:8).

Truth Magazine XXI: 11, pp. 169-174
March 17, 1977

By Randy Harshbarger

In religious circles, the subject of God’s “clergy” and God’s “laity” has received much attention. Although the New Testament says nothing about the subject as it is usually thought of, just a little over one hundred years after the last apostle died, the bishops of the church in each community began exerting unscriptural power. Here was the result: after continuing to assume power not rightfully theirs, the church leaders eventually placed themselves above the common member of the church, i.e., the laity. During this period the laity became dependent upon the clergy for access to God’s favor.

Eventually the apostle Peter was given pre-eminence over the other apostles, in an effort to justify the clergy-laity system. It was suggested that Peter served as an elder in the church at Rome; upon this foundation the Catholic church claims Peter as her first pope. These events occurred just a short time after the first century church was obeying God’s command to have “elders in every city” (Tit. 1:5; Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 3:14-15). Forsaking the Divine pattern gave rise to the now universal distinction between the clergy and laity. God’s plan to have humble servants oversee the spiritual needs of the congregation gave way to man’s plan which provided an unscriptural elevation of certain leaders in the church over other members. This man-made distinction cannot be found in the word of God, and is therefore sinful (Acts 15:24; Rev. 22:18-19; 1 Jn. 3:4).

Discussions During Restoration Movement

Various leaders of the Restoration had a great deal to say about the clergy and laity, expressing much sympathy for the so-called lay member, while the clergy received many anathemas! When men began to break away from denominational concepts, it was natural that the exalted clergy should come- under attack. One reason for Thomas Campbell’s disassociation from the Seceder Presbyterians was his suspicion “of clerical monopoly.”(1) A casual perusal of all seven volumes of The Christian Baptist will reveal that Alexander Campbell had much to say on the subject. As one writer says in referring to The Christian Baptist, “It was small, as a hornet is small, and its sting was as keen. It attacked especially three characteristics of the existing churches,” one of which was “the authority and status assumed by the clergy.(2)

In the third issue of “this stinging paper,” Campbell began a series of articles on the clergy by saying, “No class or order of men that ever appeared on earth have obtained so much influence, or acquired so complete an ascendency over the human mind, as the clergy.”(3) This dominion over the laity, Campbell said, had been in existence for some 1500 years. Historians observe that Campbell seemed to relent somewhat after The Christian Baptist years. Tucker said, “Campbell grew to appreciate the need for an educated and specially trained ministry, but the anticlericalism of his early witness made a deep mark on the Disciples of Christ.”(4) Although Campbell may have altered his thinking along these lines in later years, many learned to oppose the clergy as it then existed from his mighty pen. We, too, must never cease to oppose this presumptuous curse in religion.

One thing that differentiated the Disciples from the Baptists was that the Disciples practiced no special call to the ministry. Also, no sharp distinction was made between the clergy and laity. Generally speaking, the early Restoration preachers and leaders, as well as the common member, held to the concepts just given. In other words, the clergy-laity system was absent. Brethren were concerned with the so-called laity becoming more active or prominent in the church, by playing a more important role in worship, decision making, and daily duties. However, after the Civil War, those members of the church who may be classified (and have been) as liberals, were having second thoughts as to the feasibility and effectiveness of each church having elders to lead and guide. Certainly it is regrettable that some men who did not possess biblical qualifications of a bishop or overseer, were appointed. Still, this was not a valid reason to have a pastor who cared for the flock by himself as opposed to God’s plan for elders in every church!

Those church leaders and members who advocated this one-man pastor position were the most liberal element in the church. Their desire to exalt one man over the rest of the congregation, to rule in the absence of qualified men, was another step that brought them closer to complete apostasy. This group of people accepted instrumental music among other things. Today a large portion of them call themselves the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). They claim to be a denomination and make no bones about it! Issac Errett received from some friends a doorplate inscribed “Rev. Isaac Errett.”(5) It is heartening to know, “Errett was soundly condemned for imitating clergy-dominated denominations,” and there were still “inflexible restorationists” who sought to lead Disciples back to the old paths. The Lord condemned the wearing of religious titles that exalted certain men above others (Matt. 23:112). Appellations of honor that are meant only for God and His Son are not to be worn by men. In spite of this plain Bible teaching, the denominations already had, and the more liberal element in the church were ready for. the “clergy.” Those who knew what the Bible said (or what it did not say!) on the subject of distinguishing God’s clergy from His laity continued to resist moves in that direction.

Definitions

It is not uncommon to hear members of the church describe themselves as “laymen.” They mean, of course, “layman” as opposed to one who belongs to something the religious world calls “the clergy.” Christians may have a true concept of what it actually means to be part of God’s clergy and laity; the denominational world does not. We believe the following definitions are generally understood and accepted by most people familiar with denominational jargon. “Clergy: men ordained for religious service, as ministers, priests, etc., collectively.” `Laity: all the people not included among the clergy; laymen collectively.” Those who understand a “clergyman” as one who has been elevated by special ordination or miraculous call need to understand that Christians are neither ordained nor called in the denominational usage of the words.

Therefore, we believe, using the widely accepted definitions of these words, “layman” describes us best, even those who preach. We are laymen as opposed to those trained to wear the clerical garb. We have not been trained as priests like those in Rome. None of us are exalted clergymen giving the rest of us humble laymen access to God’s grace. All professional or clerical training, theology, and titles are foreign to God’s Word

All Christians Comprise God’s Clergy and Laity

As was hinted at earlier, no distinction is made in the Bible between clergy and laity. Clergy is from kleros, an assigned lot or heritage. The only time the word appears in the New Testament, it teaches that all God’s people are equally His inheritance in Christ (Eph. 1:11). Because Christians are priests and ministers, we are God’s clergy. Because no distinction is made, we also comprise His laity. Laity is from laos, the people. “The people of God” is not a separate part of God’s family (Heb. 4:9; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:9). God’s “people” are His “heritage.” Therefore, His laity is His clergy and His clergy is His laity!

All who have become children of God have entered the ministry or service of God (Rom. 6:14-23). As the apostles were sent forth to carry on Christ’s ministry (Jn. 20:21), all Christians likewise have a ministry to fulfill. “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk. 16:15), is the proper starting place for the fulfillment of our ministry as children of God. Carrying the gospel to all, as we ourselves live by it, is God’s will for us as His ministers.

Christians are also described in this way: “Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God . . . But ye are . . . a royal priesthood . . . a peculiar people” (1 Pet. 2:5,9). Notice the “people” make up the “priesthood.” All believers in Christ are priests! As priests we are able to offer “a sacrifice of praise to God” and sacrifices of service to Him (Heb. 13:15-1.6; Phil. 2:17). We are to be “living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1), always striving to be acceptable to the Lord. However, we as priests cannot offer the sacrifice for our sin. We are priests who enjoy all spiritual blessings as a result of the death of our “great High Priest,”. Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:12). It is only by the sacrifice of Christ for our sins that we are able to render service as priests to Him.

Yes, we are priests. But only because the great High Priest has allowed us to be. As priests, as ministers of Christ, our prayer should be that our service rendered to Him will be accepted. “Having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need” (Heb. 4:14-16).

Conclusion

Our Christian ministry, our priestly nature, our roles as part of God’s clergy and laity, is, as are all things, intended primarily for the glory of Him (1 Pet. 4:10-11). Although some might call us a “populist, antiinstitutional radical”(6) for writing along these lines, this will not deter us from saying some things that need to be said. All of God’s clergy and laity must faithfully discharge their duty in all respects. If it means opposing the growing storm of liberalism now prevalent, then so be it. Let us do all things to the glory of God and faithfully uphold His word.

Truth Magazine XXI: 11, pp. 168-169
March 17, 1977

By Daniel H. King

Preachers are among the most privileged people in the world in one sense of the word-they have the exalted honor of standing before the children of men and the people of the Most High as heralds of the good tidings of Christ. Indeed, it is a wonderful thing to be an ambassador of the Lord Jesus, but it is also a task which encompasses many grave responsibilities, not the least of which is seeing to it that we do not abuse our privilege. Yet all of us know of cases where it has been abused. Perhaps we have been guilty of it personally. Moreover, no preacher who has been very long in the harness will try to tell you that it is easy to avoid. Any man who prepares and delivers two or more sermons a week, holds a few meetings every year and teaches various classes will admit that he has made his mistakes-or else he is being dishonest or simply has not grown any in his knowledge of the scriptures. He understands full-well the meaning of the statement of James regarding the teacher of the Word: “Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgement. For in many things we all stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also” (Jas. 3:1, 2). Though we realize and admit our imperfections, yet our goal as preachers as with all Christians, should ever be the perfection and virtue of our Master (Phil. 3:12, 13). It is thus wise to examine with caution our preaching (2 Cor. 13:5), both in content and in delivery, so as to ascertain that it does not fit into the categories which are to follow. For, if it does it is an abuse of the privilege delegated to us as stewards of God.

1. The pulpit is abused when used to teach false doctrine, human philosophy, or the traditions of men. In the denominational world we see on every hand the abuse of the pulpit through the promotion and perpetuation of the false doctrines of their various founders. Reformation heroes are raised by them to a level above the Son of God and venerated for their doctrines of “Justification By Faith Alone,” “Perseverance of the Saints,” etc. Imperceptive hearers marvel at the courage of these great men of antiquity and derive consolation from their comforting doctrines. But the problem is that these are no more than just that-human doctrines. They are false and cannot save (Matt. 15:9). As well, the false doctrines of those who have been members of the body of Christ but have “gone out from us” and “departed from the faith” are just as human and just as devoid of saving power as those which the denominations promulgate (Gal. 1:8-9). Premillenialism and Neo-Pentecostalism are good examples of this point. They are, in fact, the same erroneous teachings espoused by evil workers all over the land. And divine blessings and promises are not attached to human doctrines.

In addition, every generation has its human philosophies which vie with the truth of the gospel for the minds of men and women. Materialism, atheism, agnosticism, antinomianism, existentialism, occultism, communism, and super-patriotism are among those that currently are at work to capture the hearts of the masses. Sometimes these “isms” infest the preachers and thence the pulpits. When this happens, the purpose of God has been thwarted and the cause of Christ hindered-for the pulpit is not to be the sounding-board of human philosophy (Col. 2:8).

In this same category there are the traditions of men. The Catholic Church is the best example that we can bring to mind of where traditionalism has “gone to seed.” Sprinkling for baptism, holy water, bead counting, Mariolatry, extreme unction, popery, and a multitude of other incredible dogmas find their only possible authority in the supposed sacredness of the traditions of men. Even most of the sectarians are loud in their protests against the fallacious and insane practices. But the same things exist in these other human religions and have even surfaced occasionally in the church of Christ. Often we hear arguments like this: “David Lipscomb accepted contributions to the college from church treasuries, so we can do it today,” or “Congregations have been supporting this benevolent society for forty years, so they should certainly continue their practice.” The plain and simple truth is that the authority of human tradition is no authority at all. We must have a “thus saith the Lord” instead of a “thus with human tradition” (Col. 2:8; 3:17). Without it we are no better off than the Catholic priest or the sectarian clergyman.

2. The pulpit is abused when used to promote personal opinions. There has always been a tendency for a few to assume an exact correlation between what God likes and dislikes and what they prefer or are displeased with. At this point we speak of a form of religious demagoguery, i.e. the pushing of personal opinions and preferences from the pulpit. Now, admittedly, it is a hard temptation to overcome in many instances, but preachers should refrain from expressing convictions about politics, labor unions, service in the armed forces or police departments, customs, styles in clothing and hair, etc. When a law has not been given by God, a preacher is no less than a dictator when he gives people the impression that one exists. Many preachers have ruined their credibility by preaching that it is wrong for the hair on a man’s head to touch his collar or cover his ears. Some have publicly opposed to wearing of sideburns, mustaches, and beards when they know that a scripture could not be found that prohibits any of these. And what is more, most of the young people at whom they point their remarks know this. What possible respect can they have for a preacher who in one breath condemns the doctrines of men and in the next tries to force one on them? It is sometimes a wonder to me that there are any young people at all in the congregations where some men preach.

Preachers should try their best to keep their personal opinions about things to themselves. But if they must persist in advancing them, at least they should do people the courtesy of prefacing their remarks with a phrase akin to this one: “Now, my opinion on that is this . . .”

3. The pulpit is abused when it is used to deliver personal attacks on others. Occasions arise in the life of every gospel preacher when he is tempted to misuse his privilege in order to “get back” at others in a public way. Sometimes this occurs when a man is asked to move for one reason or another and he does not think that it is time to go. His feelings get in the way of his better judgment and he causes great harm to himself and to the church by a tirade against those that urged his dismissal, making himself a martyr in a clandestine plot. Very often this leads to a division in the church.

Or, it may take the form of an harangue directed at a particular individual or church that has (to his mind at least) wronged him or the church with which he is working. Personal pride is the awful culprit and most of us have far too much of it. So, remember, “All of you gird yourselves with humility, to serve one another: for God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5). It may be that our feelings have been genuinely hurt, but the pulpit is not the place to get our revenge (or anyplace else for that matter; Rom. 12:17-21). It is better to sacrifice our own feelings in such situations than to bring unnecessary harm to the cause of Christ and limit our potential in his service.

4. The pulpit is abused when ungodly attitudes and temperaments are displayed by the preacher. Much too often we have attempted to excuse ungodly attitudes on the part of some preachers by explaining that “it is the message that hurts people’s feelings.” The reason that we are always tempted to explain situations like this is that this is one of the oldest tricks in the Devil’s book. In a majority of cases the message is the thing that hurt their feelings. The preacher is blamed in order to escape the inevitable alternative, the admission of guilt (Gal. 4:16).

At times, however, preachers actually do speak in tones that betray anger, contempt, resentment, bitterness, hate, and so forth. There can be no excuse for a man “flying off the handle” and losing control of his senses in the way that some do. Paul wrote to the preacher Timothy and said, “The Lord’s servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:24, 25). It is therefore wrong to imply that the way we say a given thing is of no real importance. It is important to the hearer-it can convince or it can cause irreparable damage-depending upon the way we say what we say. And it is important to God. Therefore, tact should be in the vocabulary of every preacher of the truth.

5. The pulpit is abused when used for entertainment. Have you ever gone to hear a preacher and left with the impression that the only Book he knew anything about was Mr. Ha Ha’s Joke Book? Or, have you ever attended a gospel meeting where the gospel took a back seat to a series of “booga-bear” stories, used for the purpose of frightening the young into obedience to the invitation? If you have, then you know precisely what we are talking about. On such occasions many (except those who know what real preaching is like) go away saying, “What a wonderful speaker brother Silvertongue is,” instead of “What a wonderful Savior Jesus is” (1 Cor. 2:1,2), or something similar.

I think that no one would oppose the use of an occasional humorous story or illustrative anecdote. Jesus used them often in his teaching. All students of the techniques of teaching are aware that an illustration can be “the window through which you see the point.” Yet, if an illustration becomes an end within itself, instead of the means to the end of illustrating the point, then it has been carried to the extreme. Our intention as preachers is to preach the gospel (Mk. 16:15), not to entertain. We might take knowledge of the fact that even though we preachers might assume the responsibility of the comedians, they will not do our job for us. If people do not hear the gospel from those who preach, then most will probably never hear it at all; for, “how shall they hear without a preacher? ” (Rom. 10:14).

6. The pulpit is abused when used for egotistical gab and braggadocio. In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians he offered as his commendation of himself the “manifestation of the truth” (4:2), and his past record of faithful service in Christ’s kingdom (6:4-10). Howbeit, he only offered these so that the brethren at Corinth would have an answer for those that gloried in appearance rather than in heart (5:12). Under other circumstances humility would have forced him to be silent on such matters. Yet, every once in a while a preacher comes along chose whose work does not speak for itself, so he feels duty-bound to inform everyone as to how great he is and how magnificent his achievements have been. I remember attending a meeting held by a “big-name” liberal preacher in which the aforementioned literally overwhelmed the audience with a long list of the places that he had been and the marvelous accomplishments for which he was responsible. I hope that I was not the only one that went away that night with a sick stomach. This is an obvious abuse of the pulpit, which according to the Bible is to be used to exalt Christ and not for self-aggrandizement (Phil 2:9; 2 Cor. 10:5).

7. The pulpit is abused when used to overly compliment, congratulate, or flatter the audience or individuals in it. Taken to the extreme, that in which there is nothing harmful per se can become wrong. This is the case when the pretentious charlatan takes up the torch of another and lifts it high for all to see and marvel, albeit his motives are selfish. We have all seen it happen in secular society and often read of the flatterer in the scriptures (Prov. 26:28; 29:5; etc.). But there are times when it occurs in the church.

I have heard preachers praise a church to the high heavens to such a degree that it became obvious that they were merely attempting to” insure themselves a permanent place in the hearts and pocketbooks of the hearers. Again, I have heard preachers introduce others and commend them in such a way as to cause the audience to deem them more than mere humans. Once I heard brother B. C. Goodpasture introduced to an assemblage and remember expecting at the end of the extended adulation and blandishment to see the apostle Paul or Peter rise to speak. I was duly disappointed. I do not mean that I did not hear a good speech, for I did. But the pulpit is no place for such flattering words. It conditions Christians to think of men “above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

8. The pulpit is abused when used for uncouth and unbecoming preaching. Though I must happily admit that I have never been present when such has occurred, yet I have been informed of numerous instances where preachers have uttered obscenities or curses from the pulpit. In most cases when they were called onto the carpet about this they explained that they did not intend it to be obscene or to have the meaning of a curse. This sounds good on the surface, but even if the intention was right (and if I sound skeptical, its because I am), it is certainly not expedient (1 Cor. 6:12), nor does it edify (1 Cor. 10:23), and it could cause another to stumble (Rom. 14:13). Furthermore, let preachers recognize that they do not stand above the laws of God on such matters; if anything, they will be judged more harshly for the use of unbecoming language (Jas. 3:1). The preacher should exercise the precaution of cleaning up his vocabulary while he is not in the pulpit, so as to avoid the embarrassment of “letting it slip” : “Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear” (Eph. 4:29). The preacher who uses corrupt speech owes God and the church a public apology (Jas. 5:16).

A problem closely resembling this one has its roots in the openness about sex which pervades our generation. Some preachers have not used the best judgment in treating these matters in a public way. Do not mistake what I am saying. We need to speak frankly of these things so that people will understand and know what we are talking about. But do not be fooled into thinking that a sex-education course can be taught from the pulpit. Such things should be left to the home and the parents. Of late, it often has been said of certain preachers that their sermons that deal with these subjects are embarrassing and explicit to the point of being lewd. Such brazen men should learn that there is no acceptable excuse for using the pulpit in this way.

9. The pulpit is abused when used for riding a hobby. A gentleman was once asked about his incessant preaching on attendance and contribution. He had longsince begun to sound like a broken record on the topic. It had gotten to the point that he never got into the pulpit without delivering a diatribe against those (usually not present) who were guilty of heinous sins in these particular areas. His reply was, “Until they get the message I’m going to preach it over and over.” This man was a genuine hobbyist. He rode this subject as though Christianity involved only two responsibilities. The doctrine of Christ involves far more and we must ever be considerate of that reality. No doctrine or practice, be it ever so biblical or threatening, is worthy of that kind of attention, since we have the responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). Failure to do so will cost the church in both the short and long run too. I know of two specific cases where this very attitude has wrecked churches and left them a smoldering ruins. It is probable that they will never recover from the ravages inflicted by men of such small minds. God will have no mercy upon those who because of their one-track minds and hobby-riding ways would thusly brutalize the body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:16-17). But, lest we hurriedly pass on and leave a stone unturned, we would add that taking a stand with the scriptures is bound in certain cases to lead to division. At times like this the faithful servant of the Lord has but one alternative: to contend earnestly for the faith no matter what the consequences (Jude 3). During such periods of especial danger he will find it necessary to speak of these things often (Acts 20:31; 1 Tim. 4:6; Tit. 3:1; Jude 5). This does not make him a hobby-rider, because he will have the good sense to balance his teaching so as to leave no areas of weakness which have the potential of becoming the battle-grounds of the future.

Conclusion

In the main this article has been negative and denunciatory. That is not because my attitude toward preachers and preaching is sarcastic but on account of the nature of my assignment. In actuality the opposite is true. My attitude is very positive and optimistic. My own opinion is that we at the moment have some of God’s truest noblemen preaching among us. We also have some rascals. It is because of them and because of the fact that there is not a one of us who could not stand to improve in one way or another that these lines have been penned.

Truth Magazine XXI: 11, pp. 165-167
March 17, 1977