Baptism in the Theology of A. H. Strong - The Organization of the Church - Summary of Ecclesiology Part II

On the topic of organization and church government, Strong is convinced that a church as an organization will not only naturally happen, but is prescribed in Scripture. He believes that the NT depicts a developing organization, which existed only in germ before Christ's death, but which was "already complete in all essential particulars before the close of the inspired canon, so that the record of it may constitute a providential example of binding authority upon all subsequent ages." This organization should be properly populated with regenerate persons, but given his belief that Scripture depicts a visible church "comprehending some who are not true believers," Strong allows for the possibility that the organization might not.[12]

This institutional model is adaptable, according to Strong, but always follows a generic type that is democratic, and possesses only two orders of officials and only two ordinances.[13] Here Strong is again Christocentric, clarifying that this model is democratic insofar as the body is trying to interpret the will of Christ, its "sovereign and lawgiver," but with regard to its source of authority, Christ, it is an "absolute monarchy."[14] The two offices that Strong accepts as valid are: bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and deacon. Strong opposes Calvin's differentiation between teaching and ruling elders, since the same individual should be gifted with both the gifts of teaching and ruling.[15] This teaching / ruling pastor, when it comes to church discipline, does not have the role of "judge," but rather that of a "prosecuting attorney" of public offenses. Strong divides transgressions that require discipline into two categories: private and public. Each is to be dealt with according to different rules. Discipline needed for private matters is focused on the restoration of the erring believer, but discipline enacted for public sins seems to be primarily for the protection of the institution, and only secondarily for the restoration of the individual believer.[16]

[12] Strong considers that Ananias and Sapphira were not true believers. Strong, Systematic Theology, 894-97. One has to wonder if, by the use of his terminology, Strong is trying to constitute different categories. When he first introduces the concept of the invisible church and the individual church, he is very consistent in using the term individual and not visible. While here he refers to the "visible church as comprehending some who are not true believers" (emphasis mine), not the individual church. It could be that Strong allows for an invisible or universal church composed of true believers that takes form in an individual, but still invisible, church composed of true believers, that in turns organizes itself into a visible church, which ideally should be composed only of true believers, but practically is not.

[13] Ibid., 897. Later in the text, Strong equates democratic with congregational (904). To be noted is Strong's very Biblical understanding of congregationalism: "Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan, so that the whole church moves together" (905).

[14] Ibid., 903. This is central to the understanding of Strong's view of the pastor. For Strong, "it should be the ambition of the pastor not 'to run the church,' but to teach the church intelligently and Scripturally to manage its own affairs. The word 'minister' means, not master, but servant. The true pastor inspires, but does not drive" (908). With Christ as the absolute head, the church does not need another head, instead, as Eph 4:11 states, it needs an equipper of the saints for the work of the ministry.

[15] Ibid., 914-15. The duties of the pastor, bishop, or elder are to be: 1) a spiritual teacher, 2) an administrator of the ordinances (to be discussed in more detail below), and 3) superintender of discipline and presiding officer at meetings. The duties of a deacon are to be: 1) a helper to the pastor by "forming a bond of union between pastor and people," 2) ministering to the sick and the poor, ministering in an "informal way" to the spiritual needs of the church, and tending to some "external duties" associated with the service of the sanctuary (see 916-18).

[16] Ibid., 924-26.

Van Dam. The Elder - A Book Review

Van Dam, Cornelis. The Elder: Today's Ministry Rooted in All of Scripture. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009. 283 pp. Softcover, $17.99.

The Elder is one volume in P&R's new Explorations in Biblical Theology series that tries to find the middle ground between academic and semi-popular books. This "solidly reformed" series' target audience ranges from the seminarian to the "thoughtful lay reader." Van Dam does a good job at connecting with his target audience by writing a book that is easily read, full of Scripture references, and seasoned with a few footnotes and two bibliographies.

Van Dam's chief goal is to "enhance a biblical understanding and functioning of the office of elder" (xii). His central presupposition is that there is continuity between Old Testament (OT) elders and New Testament (NT) elders. This continuity "need not be doubted"; yet, his justification is not convincing. Add to this the presence of some contradictions and the blurring of some Biblical categories, and one gets the feeling that Van Dam's system, rather than the text of Scripture, is driving his theology. To use N. T. Wright's analogy, it would seem that the roaring lion of Scripture is here often turned into a tame pet made to stand on its hind legs and dance a jig.

A prime example is the discussion about the typically reformed division between ruling and teaching elders. Van Dam uses his presupposition of continuity with the OT to justify this division. While he claims that NT (ruling) elders are truly parallel with OT elders, Van Dam claims a different parallel for the "minister of the Gospel," who is analogous to the Levitical office of the priest as an administrator of the Word and official spokesmen for God. Yet, according to Van Dam, he is "in essence a specialized elder" (117). So, besides the obvious question of what Van Dam does with the concepts of the priesthood of all believers and Christ being our only mediator with God, one wonders: if the "minister of the Gospel" is indeed a specialized elder, why is he paralleled to the OT priests and not to the OT elders? It seems that his theological system forces this two-step. A similar suspicion arises when ruling and teaching are presented as separate gifts to justify separate offices. Yet, only ten pages later, the pastor is declared to need multiple gifts. So, since a pastor should have multiple gifts, why does the differentiation of gifting force two separate offices?

The discussion on church discipline, while initially encouraging, is similarly affected by his system and also harmed by inconsistencies. While the initial phases of church discipline are enacted by the congregation, in Van Dam's view, the elders are the only ones who can move forward with the final step of church discipline and with re-admittance to the body due to true repentance. They are the gatekeepers who can shut the doors of the kingdom and separate the excommunicated one from "blessings such as forgiveness of sins" (174). In light of these strong statements, one is confused to learn that the elders cannot condemn the excommunicated one to hell. What then does it mean to exclude one from "blessings such as forgiveness of sins," and to shut the doors of the kingdom? The need for church discipline is also unclear: at times, the focus, driven by the OT parallel, is on the purity of the body, and at times, the focus is on the repentance of the sinner.

In addition to major jigs, there are also several other smaller reels that continue to weaken this volume. Van Dam is not consistent with his understanding of the interrelation between office and authority. At times, Van Dam associates the authority of the elder with God or with the Word, but not with the office as such. At other times, he associates authority with the office itself. The distinction between spiritual gifts and church offices seems to be acknowledged when useful, but ignored when not. Passages teaching about apostles are applied to elders without justification, just to mention a one example.

On a positive note, Van Dam reveals his pastor's heart when he exhorts elders to know the Bible and to know their flock. For him, the role of an elder "is not about getting something," but about giving (201). These biblical exhortations are much appreciated in an age of pastor-as-CEO. Also much appreciated is his stance that women should participate in the church, but that they do not need to be an elder in order to use their gifts in the body.

While this volume had a few good points, it was overall very disappointing. I would still strongly recommend to all who wish to understand Presbyterian and Reformed theology with respect to the office of the elder. In a time when many Baptists are often more enamored with following systems of theology than the Bible itself, I hope that an attentive reading of this volume will douse their torrid love affair for manmade systems and bring them back to the careful study of the lion of Scripture.

Wayland. Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches - A Book Review

Wayland, Francis. Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. New York: Sheldon, 1857. 336 pp. Free PDF on books.google.com or $20.00 used.

Wayland Academy in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, and the town of Wayland, Massachusetts have one thing in common: they are both named after Francis Wayland. Wayland, born in 1796 to a Baptist preacher and his wife, after studying medicine for three years and receiving his license to practice, abandoned the study of medicine in 1816 to attend Andover Theological Seminary. His studies having been interrupted by financial hardship, he accepted a position as a tutor at Union College for four years. He then was called to be the pastor of First Baptist Church, Boston. After receiving an honorary D. D. from Brown (1822) and getting married (1825), he eventually resigned his pastorate and accepted a professorship at Union College, teaching mathematics and philosophy (1826). In 1827 he was elected as president of Brown University, where he stayed over twenty-eight years. Upon his retirement from Brown, he served as the pastor of First Baptist, Providence for two years.[1]

Summary

While Wayland is mostly known for his writings in moral philosophy, intellectual philosophy, and political economy, he did publish several volumes in theology and Christian studies. One of these is this collection of fifty-two papers that originally appeared, probably during his tenure at First Baptist, Providence, in The Examiner under the name of Roger Williams (preface). In the first essay, Wayland presents a case for the unity among Baptists due to a lack of creeds and a focus on God's Word. He then states that the following essays are "the simple record of the observation of an individual" concerning the "principles and practice . . . of Baptists in the northern States" (16). The remaining essays are the record of his conversations with his readership: Wayland writing on a regular basis and, not only opining, but also answering the requests of his readers (on several occasions Wayland noted that a topic or the expansion of a topic is due to the request of a reader).

The topics evolve as follows: Wayland first begins talking about the doctrinal beliefs of Baptists (II-III). This makes him start lamenting how Baptist practices have changed in the last 50 years (III-IX). Here he is led to defend the typically uneducated Baptist preacher of 50 years ago, pointing out the benefits of such a man to reach the uneducated masses and the reliance that such a man had to have on the Spirit of God. This starts a new series of articles on the Ministry (X-XIII). He is led to lament how seminaries are not being effective in the production of ministers and uses as evidence the 4,000 ministers that were currently needed. In turn, this leads him to discuss how to improve the Ministry (XIV-XV). The highlight of this series of articles, which he revisits later in the volume, is the push for local Baptists to be active in their churches, and for their churches and their pastors to train people in their own congregation. After having concluded, temporarily, his remarks on the Baptist Ministry, Wayland returns to a discussion of doctrine, specifically the doctrine of Baptism (XVI - XVII). As any writing of his time, Wayland discussed the mode and the subjects of baptism, and criticized infant baptism. He then realizes that he had not offered any "suggestions on the subject of licensure and ordination of ministries" (99), and therefore dedicates the next three essays to the topic (XVIII-XX). Here he focuses on the call of God, as recognized by the individual and the community, on an individual's life.

Having often alluded to the loss suffered by Baptists "by following the examples of other denominations," Wayland then proceeds to list and discuss points of difference and commonality between Baptists and other denominations (XXI-XXIV), including a section specifically comparing Baptists and Pedobaptists with regards to doctrines other than baptism, per the request of a reader. He follows this set of essays with a discussion of places where Baptists have erred in imitating others (XXV-XXVII), noting issues in music, architecture, and details in the weekly service and in marriage and funeral services. This leads into a discussion on church and congregation, societies, denominations, conventions, missionary unions, and other related topics (XXVIII-XXXII). Due to a reader's request, Wayland then returns to the concept of Christian ministry in Baptist denominations (XXXIII). This leads him to a discussion on the public worship of God and the problem of maintaining it in the West, which brings him back to the issue of the great need for Ministers of the Gospel (XXXIV). Believing that the furtherance of the gospel is the duty of all believers, Wayland begins to advise his brethren in the West: they should not forsake public worship and weekly gathering, but cultivate their own walk with God and pray for God to raise a leader from among them (XXXV-XXXIX). This brings him to opine on the responsibilities of the churches in the cities (XL), before writing an essay on seminaries, colleges, and academies and how they should be structured to facilitate the formation of ministers of all ages and abilities (XLI). Ultimately, Wayland returns to the theory that the minister should labor to train other ministers (XLII-XLIII). Being convicted by his own arguments, he dedicates his last essays (XLIV-LII) to offering advice to the aspiring minister. His topics range from how to expand one's mental abilities to the preparation and delivery of sermons, from the importance of visitation to the importance of week-day and Lord's day services.

Critical Evaluation

From the point of view of structure, this volume, due to its nature, is not inherently structured. There is a semblance of a flow as one would have in a free-flowing conversation, for this is a conversation between Wayland and his audience, but there does not seem to be a clear path and a clear target, with the exception of the target at large which is the recording and discussion of principles and practices of the Baptists. At times topics are revisited, as in a conversation, and most essays start with a reference to the essay that preceded it. Therefore, while full of great historical information and insight, this non-indexed text is not user friendly as a quick research tool, unless one downloads the text version and uses some software's search feature. Yet, the author is not to blame, for this was not his original intended purpose for this volume.

As for the content, it might be surprising that someone as educated as Wayland, college and seminary student and the professor and president of a university, would downplay the formal education of ministers as much as he does in this volume. A careful reading of his essays, though, reveals that Wayland is not opposed to formal education, for in numerous occasions he supports it. What he is opposed to is the requirement of a formal education. He justifies this historically, experientially, scripturally, and practically. Pointing to the uneducated preachers of the early 1800s, he suggests they were able to deliver sermons in such a manner that everybody understood them, for they were using the language of the masses to deliver to the masses. Religious character, which is more important than education or intelligence to Wayland, does not require an education. Ultimately, speaking of the one called to minister, Wayland states that: "if he be apt to teach, he will be neither an imbecile nor a pedant" (52).

An integral part of his argument is based on the recurring theme of dependence on the Holy Spirit (for a few examples see: 20, 47, 80, 108, 115, 120, 123, 132, 207, 219, 243, 304) and on the New Testament (for a few examples see: 47, 86, 138). In this volume, Baptist doctrine is considered to have been taught by the Spirit to, "for the most part, plain, unlearned men" who "looked up in humility to the Holy Spirit to teach them the meaning of the word of God" (123). In the same vein, Wayland exclaims twice: "Is there any Holy Ghost?" (47, 108) as an answer to objections raised by his readers. Therefore, the God who does not make mistakes will call and sustain his people, with or without the use of educational institutions.

Another integral part of his argument is the Christian responsibilities of believers, of local churches, and of ministers themselves. For Wayland, "the gospel requires, that a Christian should be not only a receiver, but a dispenser of spiritual benefits" (381). So, when advising the believers in the West, he tells them that "there are gifts for edification among you, if you will only look after them and employ them. Christ does not plant barren vines in his vineyard" (233-34). He, therefore, critiques the church's reliance "on voluntary associations to do what each one should do himself" (270). Finding and training people among the local church is presented as not only more practical, as shown by many examples and many situations presented by Wayland, but it has as one of its advantages the fact that, unlike seminaries, local pastors can impart practical knowledge to their would be ministers. In addition:

What could be more delightful than for a minister to have three or four brethren uniting with him in carrying forward the work of God, all animated by the same spirit, all aiming at the same object, and filling the whole district in which they live with the preaching of the word (268).

Vocational, bi-vocational, and non-vocational ministries are all advocated depending on the local situation and the working of God. Both his emphasis on the Spirit and the emphasis on in-house training and church participation are as applicable now as they were back then, and are very appreciated in today's Christian culture.

Given the emphasis just discussed, an area of confusion in the understanding of Wayland's theology, as seen in this volume, is his understanding of ministry. At one point he is very clear on his dislike for the clergy / laity division. He states:

The fact is, if we must speak the truth, almost all our denominations are sinking down into the belief that all the direct work for the conversion of the world is to be done by the ministry; thus making a broad distinction between the clergy and the laity (I use these terms, not because I approve of them, but because they are so much in vogue). We are coming to think the minister is to do the work of the Lord, and the business of the private brother is simply to pay him for it (80-81).

Throughout the volume, though, he continually uses the term 'the ministry' and differentiates the ones who are not in the ministry with the ones who are in the ministry, inadvertently creating this same clergy laity distinction that he despises. Overall, though, Wayland's writing on the topic of ministry captures in many ways the essence of the critique of the modern, simple church movement, while still being in a very structured environment. This is not the only place where this book engages contemporary topics.

In his critique of the change in church music due to the influence of other denominations (XXV), Wayland laments the decline of spontaneity and true worship he found in "congregational singing." Wayland argues that true worship should be planned, led, and sung, by the regenerate believers for the sole purpose of the worship of God. While he points out that instruments cannot worship God, and therefore seems to discount their appropriateness in worship, he does not dwell on this issue, but looks at what he saw as a bigger issue. The issue is the pattern he sees his contemporary Baptist churches adopting from the Congregationalists, who themselves adopted it from the Episcopalians: the pattern of the professionalization of the music, necessitating an organ and a choir. Here, he laments that true worship is replaced by the search for excellence which often results in "the congregation [listening] in silence to a mere musical performance, precisely as the audience at a concert or an opera" (151). This struggle is as current today as it was back then, causing the spilling of much ink and the splitting of many churches. May Baptists learn from history and be willing to say, like Wayland, that "artistic excellence" in not essential to blend "the whole audience in one consciousness of solemn worship" (150) and that "it is wicked to substitute a mere musical diversion for the solemn worship of God" (152).

Conclusion

Written one hundred and fifty years ago, this volume still speaks volumes to the issues our churches are faced with, while, at the same time, encouraging its readers that God, through His Spirit, is able. As Solomon so aptly said, "there is nothing new under the sun." Whether one wants to understand Baptist historic principles, get a glimpse of historic Baptist life and issues, be encouraged to preach without notes, or follow a series of personal training lessons, Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches is a very pleasant, interesting, stimulating, and thought provoking read.

[1] See: Martha Mitchell, Encyclopedia Brunoniana (Providence: Brown University Library, 1993), s.v. "Wayland, Francis" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=W0110; Internet; Edited Appletons Encyclopedia (Virtualology, 2001), s.v. "Francis Wayland" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.famousamericans.net/franciswayland/; Internet; and Answer Corp., Biographies (Farmington Hills, MI: The Gale Group, Inc. 2006), s.v. "Francis Wayland" [on-line]; accessed 23 October 2010; available from http://www.answers.com/topic/wayland-francis; Internet.

Dargan. Ecclesiology - a Book Review

Dargan, Edwin Charles. Ecclesiology: A Study of the Churches, 2nd and carefully rev. ed. Louisville: C.T. Dearing, 1905. 692 pp. Free PDF on books.google.com or www.archives.org.

Edwin Charles Dargan, professor of homiletics and ecclesiology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent many years before and after his time at Southern pastoring. He was a pastor in Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. He was also editorial secretary of the Sunday School Board, and as such was involved in deciding the advisability of issuing and in the writing of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. [1]

Summary

Originally prepared primarily as a text-book for Dargan's Ecclesiology classes (5), and therefore seemingly written primarily for Baptist pastors (35), Ecclesiology is Dargan's most famous volume published outside of his works concerning homiletics. It is considered by Garrett as "the second major monograph on ecclesiology by a Southern Baptist following Dagg." The volume reviewed here is the second edition, which according to Dargan was "most carefully revised, in fact almost rewritten," but not due to a change of "opinions on any essential points" (5).

Ecclesiology is divided into three parts: polity, ordinances, and work and worship. In the polity section, Dargan focuses on the NT evidence, history, and theology of church polity. Here he presents a view of a congregational church made up of regenerate believers, with two offices. In his two introductory chapters, Dargan is careful to define some ground rules and some terminology. In his chapters on church history, Dargan traces the development of church polity throughout the centuries. He concludes this part with chapters on councils, mutual relations between churches, Christian unions with other churches, and church and state relations.

In the ordinance section, Dargan, after an introduction of the topic of ordinances in general, discusses baptism and then the Lord's Supper. After an overview of the obligation of baptism, Dargan discusses the mode, the agent, the recipient, and the significance of baptism, and the problems with infant baptism. Dargan sees the act of baptism as "not spiritually efficacious in any sense, but is symbolical and declarative" (463). It is for "believers and believers only" (407). The mode must be that of single immersion and "the agent should be himself immersed, and act under authority" (390).

As for the Lord's Supper, he sees "the meaning of the ordinance [as] very clear and definite. It is distinctly and preeminently a memorial observance in regard to the great sacrifice of Christ, the atoning work of the Redeemer." He does admit that there are other subsidiary meanings, but focusing on them would be "to some extent . . . unworthy" (500). The Supper should be continually observed (491) exclusively by true believers (492). There are elements seen in the last supper, such as the use of un-leavened bread, wine, location, and the posture of the participants, which are not to be interpreted as commandments for the Lord's Supper (492). Dargan also points out that when Paul, in 1 Cor 11:27, mentions eating or drinking in an unworthy manner, this is not a reference to the state of the believer, but "in a manner out of keeping with the solemn and blessed meaning of the ordinance" (498).

In the last section on the work and worship of the church, he subdivides the church's relation to God as a charter relation, a personal relation, and an instrumental relation (540-41). Here he looks at worship, discipline, evangelism, missions, education, charity, and humanitarian work. For Dargan, "one of the most important works of the church is the edifying of itself. It owes duties to mankind and to God that it can by no means decline, but these do not require that it should be anything else than keenly alive to its own prosperity and growth" (551).

Critical Evaluation

Due to size limitations, this critique will focus on the reviewer's pet peeves and other items of special interest. This in no way constitutes an exhaustive list of positive and negative criticisms on such a massive volume.

Throughout the volume, the reader gets the impression that Dargan's main focus is on the externals of ecclesiology. For example, Dargan starts his volume with Part I - "Polity of the Churches," an entire section on polity, and while in this section he spends time discussing the meaning and usage of εκκλησια, Dargan does not devote any time developing his understanding of the essence of the church. All Dargan offers is a "Baptist" definition of the church based on church polity: the church "is a local body or society of baptized believers in Christ, where the true worship of God is observed, the word of God is preached and the ordinances of the New Testament are properly administered" (22). A similar weakness is found in his discussion of worship. Here there is no mention of passages like Rom 12:1-2 or Revelation 4, which deal with the essence of worship, but mainly a focus on the externals of the weekly service of the church. In the chapters dedicated to baptism, it also seems that Dargan again is mainly concerned with the externals, in this case it's the mode of baptism. This is evidenced in the forward placement, and in the larger number of chapters (four out of eleven) dedicated to the mode. On the other hand, the symbolism of baptism is relegated to the end of his discussion. While this possibly could be explained by the fact that some parts of the symbolism can better be illustrated and explained when the mode has been correctly ascertained, it would seem that the symbolism of baptism should be more important and therefore should be more central to the discussion.

Another general criticism is that, while in his discussion of the offices of the church Dargan begins with an admonition to be cognizant of one's own preconceptions, he seems to be plagued by his own preconceptions in several parts of his work. When looking at lists like Eph 4:11 and 1 Cor 12:28, he immediately assumes that appellations apostles, prophets, and teachers must be referring to offices (71), even if he later admits that the rest of the list in 1 Cor 12 is referring to gifts (81) and that Eph 4:11 is a list of gifts (86). Had he seen these as lists of spiritual gifts rather than lists of offices, as he finally concludes about prophets (79) and teachers (80), it would have helped his understanding and explanation of these gifts and the officers who possess these gifts. This understanding, though, is possibly present when he explains why the Baptist churches of his time were not exact replicas of the NT model (177ff). Realizing that the Spirit of God gives gifts according to His good pleasure, Dargan states that some of these gifts existed by direct divine appointment and not by the church authority. If ever in the good providence of God these gifts are again bestowed upon the churches, together with such undoubted divine credentials as to disallow every trace of fanaticism, we must accept them; but as things are, the churches have no more right now than they had then to decree and appoint these manifestations of divine grace and power (177).

Here he lumps the apostolic office with a listing of gifts he sees as no longer extant. Similarly, when discussing worship, the reader gets the impression that Dargan is entrapped in his concept of institutional worship where worship is a ritual and not a presentation of our bodies as living sacrifices, holy, acceptable to God, as our act of reasonable service.
There are a few instances where Dargan is inconsistent with his logic behind the use of terminology. Having shown that the etymology of the English word "church" comes from κυριακον, referring to the place of gathering as of the Lord's, Dargan upholds the propriety of calling the building and the congregation "the church." He readily admits that there is some ambiguity in the terminology, but here in a way dissimilar to his treatment of the terms bishop (86), communion, and Eucharist (485), he does not show the presence of mind to suggest a change of terminology. Here a change of the non-biblical terminology would have been beneficial to keep young, immature believers from misunderstanding what the term "church" in the NT refers to, therefore helping them correctly to understand the Biblical teachings on the church. As for the use of the terms bishop, communion, and Eucharist, appropriate teaching concerning the biblical meaning of the terms seems more appropriate than abandoning their usage.
As for the understanding of the meaning of εκκλησια, after a long survey of its different uses, Dargan concludes that "there is no need of the common appellations 'universal,' 'invisible,' 'visible,' 'militant,' 'triumphant,'" for "the church, in the New Testament senses of the word, is a local body of believers in Christ, and then more generally, the collective number of professing Christians, and then most generally of all, the sum total of all true believers everywhere, and in all times" (51).

Dargan's discussion on mutual relations in Baptist churches (Part I - Chapter XII) is somewhat dated, for it is not as much a treatise of the Biblical reasons why there should be cooperation (this is just briefly mentioned at the beginning of the chapter) as it is a description of the different ways Baptist churches cooperate. It has inherent historical value, but its practical value in our day and age is questionable. On the other hand, his chapter on church union with non-Baptist churches, denominations, and institutions is welcomed and something that is not as commonly found in volumes on ecclesiology. Dargan subdivides church union into four levels: doctrinal, organic, co-operative, and spiritual. With the intent to cooperate while remaining pure to one's understanding of the mandates of Scripture, Dargan considers the first two as difficult to achieve and historically lead to the centralization of power, the third one as easier, but historically unsuccessful, and the last one as not difficult. Dargan here issues an encouragement and a warning: "Baptists must love their brethren of other denominations, but must not partake in their errors" (247). May today's Baptists heed this warning!

In his discussion of the symbolism of baptism, Dargan's view of baptism as a declaration not just of repentance, but of obedience and of consecration (469f) is refreshing and should be heeded by today's Baptists. Also of interest is the fact that, while there are some allusions to baptism being the entrance into the church, there is no systematic treatment of this in the eleven chapters dedicated to baptism.

In his discussion on the supper, Dargan discusses a variety of passages that are possible allusions to the Lord's Supper (493ff). His treatment of these passages is welcomed, since these are not commonly discussed in books on ecclesiology. Unfortunately, the reader is left feeling that some of his decisions, as to whether these are genuine allusions or doubtful allusions, are arbitrary and not well supported. Dargan does note that the 1 Cor 11 passage indicates that the Lord's supper was observed as or in connection with a meal, but does so in a disapproving tone, wrongly seeing this practice, rather than the sinfulness of the Corinthians, as "virtually destroying the ordinance" (496). This explains why later on, he is in favor of a celebration connected with a "simple service of prayer and praise and reading of Scripture." He also disfavors the celebration of the Supper at the end of the morning service because often "the performance of this solemn rite is hurried through without sufficient solemnity or impressiveness" (531).

In the last part, Dargan presents a very institutionalized church. Yet, he does encourage community: "It is of the utmost importance that the members in the different walks of life should not only become acquainted with each other, but should feel a real personal interest in each other's welfare" (545). He also encourages older people to look out for other people's children (552-53). He also rightly warns that too much machinery will undoubtedly keep up a lively rattle, but it may not be a very effective working force after all. In fact the multiplication of agencies will easily interfere with real spiritual power; and merely humanitarian and social activity is sure to obscure too much the proper spiritual work of the churches (548).

Conclusion

Ecclesiology is a classic work in Baptist ecclesiology, and for that reason alone it is a recommended read for all serious students of the church. It is also a good resource of lists of issues to consider when studying ecclesiology, and a good summary of the historical and denominational trends in church polity, the ordinances, and the worship of the church.

[1] James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study, 1st ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 245-46, 442.

[2] Ibid., 245.

Pastor as examples, even in shepherding

I have often argued that one of the main roles of a pastor is to be an example.

... As I was reading Ecclesiology by Dargan (book review forthcoming), I got to thinking about the fact that most "shepherd" terminology in Scripture refers to Christ, not pastors (see for example John 10:11, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 2:25). And then it hit me ... as an example, pastors need to imitate Christ and be Christlike. If He is a shepherd, then, obviously, they need to be shepherds, not only because that is part of their gifting, but also to set an example of shepherding, so that all believers can be shepherds at some level or other. Like any other gift, here also there seems to be the general mandate and focused mandate (i.e. - we are all called to evangelize, but some are gifted as evangelists; we are all called to teach, but some are gifted as teachers; etc.). In this case, if you think about it, we are all called to shepherd (really most of the "one another" sayings in Scripture), even if some are specially gifted as shepherds.

So, to my pastor friends out there, don't forget to model shepherding to the people that God has put in your life. And along those lines, don't forget to model all that God has called you to do as a pastor. It's not enough to just live our "Christian life" in front of people, we have to be actively imitating Christ so that we can tell people to imitate us, as we imitate Him.

Majority rule in the church? - A. H. Strong

Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite plan, so that the whole church moves together.

found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium Designed for the Use of Theological Students (1903. repr., Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 905.

It reminds me of the numerous NT passages where we are told that the disciples were all in one accord. May we all take this attitude in our churches!

Ordination - Conclusion

In this series, an attempt was made to ascertain if the New Testament supported the concept of ordination. After looking at terminology and practice in the Old Testament, rabbinic Judaism, and the New Testament, two constants were identified in the Biblical data: there is a clear pattern of commissioning, but there is little agreement on the concept of ordination. The pattern of commissioning was summarized as the appointing of someone, who is gifted, to a specific task. It should happen through the laying on of hands, motivated by the call of God, and imbibed in prayer. S/he is to be from within a congregation and will be a representative of the congregation doing the commissioning. This does not imply an impartation of authority on the individual being commissioned. The understanding of ordination was then determined to be affected by one’s definition of ordination. Finally a sketch of what a theology of ordination and commissioning could look like was offered, and a few of its practical advantages were offered. Ultimately, no matter what we decide Scripture teaches on ordination, it behooves us all to be able to articulate our beliefs about it and to teach others so that all may be edified. Thanks for coming along with me on this journey. I pray we were both drawn closer to Christ and His Word through it.

Here is the summary of the posts in this series:

Introduction
Quick Lexical Investigation
Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part I, Part II, and Part III
Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Rabbinic Judaism
Evidence from the New Testament - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6
Analysis and Discussion of the Biblical Data - Intro, Commissioning Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, and Ordination
So What of Ordination?
Proposal - Part 1 and Part 2

Excursus 1 - The NT Concept of Ministry
Excursus 2 - Hierarchy in the Body of Christ

Ordination - a Proposal - Part 2 of 2

So, if ordination is for all beleivers at baptism, what of special callings? Commissioning would then be the norm for those. The Scriptural record presents us with examples of believers who were ministering when the Spirit of God presented them with a special calling. To this, the response of the church was to commission said individuals. So, since it would seem that commissioning is the way they are recognized in Scripture, we should follow the same pattern.[1] Room does not suffice here to tackle the distinction between function and gifting, but one must understand that while some functions in the body of Christ require a certain gifting, being gifted does not require the individual to be in a certain function, only the call of God does that. It should also be noted that in the last excursus, while studying 1 Corinthians 12, a Scriptural tension was identified: all gifts are important and necessary, yet some seem to be more important. It is my belief that this view of ordination and commissioning best resolves that tension, because it honors all gifts, yet when necessary, commissioning allows some gifts to be specially recognized.

The argument could be made that this is just a changing of terminology and that it does not substantially change anything, but that misses two crucial points. First, baptism as ordination would not only continuously teach that all believers are supposed to minister, it also would create a basis of accountability and a marker in time to which brothers and sisters in Christ could point when exhorting a believer who has abdicated his responsibility to minister (à la Anabaptist).[2] Second, commissioning is a very focused approach to appointing people. If done well, it requires the involvement of God and of the community. Since commissioning is task centered, unlike ordination, it has limited scope and no transferability. Since it also does not implicitly impart authority, besides the representation of the commissioning body or the authority associated with a specific task or role, commissioning deals with some of the tensions with the issue of women’s ordination. Commissioning of elders would be limited to men, but commissioning of other sorts could be open to women. This would free NAMB to commission a called, qualified woman as a chaplain, for example, with no reservations, for, once her task is done, her commission expires, therefore not risking a blurring or categories.[3]

Now, lest I be accused of naïveté, I do realize that such a Copernican change would not come without its issues, but a theology of ordination / commissioning developed along these lines seems to be more faithful to the New Testament and to have the potential of alleviating some current problems. What do you think? Could this be implemented? How would churches react to such a change?

[1] White, in White, “So You Have Been Called to the Ministry,” 5, notes that “even Spurgeon, the most famous preacher never to be ordained agreed that confirmation of the church was a needed element for the call to ministry.” Commissioning would be such a confirmation.

[2] During church discipline, Anabaptists were known to remind the person being disciplined of their baptismal vows.

[3] In Ann Miller, “The Ordination of Women Among Texas Baptists,” Perspective in Religious Studies 29.3 (Fall 2002): 269-70, Miller expresses frustration with NAMB’s policy of endorsing, but not ordaining. While commissioning would not solve the heart of the issue, a theology of ordination and commissioning developed along these lines seems to have the potential of alleviating the current issues that surround ordination, or if nothing else, it would force people to deal with the real issue, instead of getting stuck on the side issue of ordination.

Ordination - a Proposal - Part 1 of 2

Based on the conclusion that since all believers are ministers, all believers should be ordained, one might ask: when? When they are admitted to the ministry of the church: that is when they are saved. And when could this be proclaimed publically? When they publically proclaim their faith in Christ: that is at baptism. The concept of baptism as ordination is not novel. Yarnell suggests that in the Roman church, there was a clear tie between baptism and entrance into the Royal priesthood.[1] Eastwood also presents and documents this view more thoroughly. In addition, Eastwood also presents evidence of this concept in the Orthodox church.[2] Brown implies that baptism as ordination was part of the Anabaptist teachings on baptism and the practice of the early Brethren.[3] As Yarnell’s warns, “there is no biblical evidence for the medieval assumption that baptism is ordination into the royal priesthood.”[4] Yet, while no Scripture passage directly ties baptism with ordination, some philosophical ties can be drawn. First, if baptism is seen as the entrance into the church,[5] it is therefore the entrance into a community of ministers. It follows logically that to enter this community, one needs to be admitted to the ministry of the church. Second, one could look at Jesus' baptism as an example. Granted that, according to Scripture, Jesus’ baptism had a different theological importance than just the initiation of his ministry, yet, his baptism is often described as his “inauguration to public ministry.”[6] Could the parallel be made that our baptism, while it has a different theological importance, could also be described as our “inauguration to public ministry”?[7]

This view of baptism as ordination would have the benefit of emphasizing the call into ministry of all believers. It would re-emphasize that all gifts are necessary in the body of Christ (as seen in the previous excursus post), and that all are required by their Lord to use their gifts. What of special callings? We'll talk about those in the next post.

[1] Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “The Priesthood of Believers: Rediscovering the Biblical Doctrine of Royal Priesthood,” in Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, eds. Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 240.

[2] Cyril Eastwood, The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful (London: Epworth Press, 1963), 47, 94-95, 159, 148-150, 239-240.

[3] Dale W. Brown, “A Baptismal Theology with Implications for Evangelism, Conversion, and Church Growth,” Brethren Life and Thought 28, no.3 (Sum 1983): 154, 159-160. Kreider in Alan Kreider, “Abolishing the Laity – An Anabaptist Perspective,” in Paul Beasley-Murray, ed. Anyone for Ordination? (Tunbridge, Wells: MARC, 1993), 84-111, advocates this position also, but admits that the goals that he suggests, “although in keeping with much Mennonite thinking, by no means represent a cross-section of Mennonite practice in any country” (97).

[4] Yarnell, “The Priesthood of Believers,” 240.

[5] This is an accepted doctrine in Baptist circles for which there is also a lack of biblical evidence.

[6] See for example Daniel Akin, "The Meaning of Baptism," in Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, eds. Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 63.

[7] See Brown, “A Baptismal Theology,” 154, for a similar, more extensive argument.

Hierarchy in the Body of Christ - another small excursus

The concept of hierarchy in the church is one that unfortunately has been warped by a lack of understanding of the concept of ministry and the concept of ordination. Thus it might be beneficial to look briefly at 1 Corinthians 12, for it deals with hierarchy and contains a connection between ministering and gifting. In the Trinitarian formulation of vv. 4-6, Paul presents a clear and distinct picture of variety in gifting (charisma), ministries (diakonia), and activities, and of unity through the God who bestows them. Thiselton describes it as follows:

charisma implies a monopoly of the Spirit, since the same Spirit apportions out gifts in variety and degree in accordance with divine purposes, even so no one type of ways of serving signifies some special claim to extol Christ’s Lordship, since the same Lord commissioned varieties of ways of serving.[1]

Paul then proceeds to present a vivid image of unity in diversity and of the necessity of all the members in the body of Christ (vv. 12-26). Specifically, in v. 22 he states that “those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.” Thiselton argues that ‘weaker’ is not the best translation here and proposes “less endowed with power or status,”[2] but, regardless of how this idea of weakness is fleshed out, the central message is that those members are necessary. Paul flips the Corinthians’ assumed hierarchy on its head and continues to do so in the next several verses by focusing on honor given to less honorable members. While discussing these verses, Patterson comments, “God has so prepared our bodies that those portions of it which might otherwise have been despised are subjects upon which the most abundant honor is actually given.”[3] Paul’s reference here could be to less aesthetically pleasing organs which need to be covered by clothing, but “in addition to this thought there must be certain recognition of the intrinsic value of the internal organs which we carefully protect because life depends upon their proper functioning.”[4] So here Paul claims “that the normally conceived body hierarchy is actually only an apparent, surface hierarchy.”[5] This concept is central to the heartbeat of this passage, which is a message of unity: we need others and others need us.

Yet, in the midst of this chapter on unity, necessity, and apparent lack of hierarchy, Paul, in v. 28, makes the following statement: “God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that . . .” (emphasis mine). This enumeration cannot be dismissed as just a simple list, and it is unlikely to be chronological, but does it imply ranking? Most commentators see this as a ranking of importance,[6] and while some suggest that this is mainly Paul continuing to turn things upside down for the Corinthians,[7] the presence of a hierarchy of importance cannot be totally ignored.[8] Here, as is often found in Scripture, there is a tension: all gifts are important and necessary, yet some seem to be more important. Contrary to the similar Animal Farm saying,[9] this tension is eased with the understanding that “one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually [gift(s)] as He wills” (v. 11). Believers, therefore, should understand that there are no second class citizens caused by a variety of spiritual gifts, for it is God who has determined each one’s gifting. Furthermore, as followers of Christ, humility and the love of others, keeps said hierarchy from becoming a matter of pride or contention. Finally, one should not confuse these three gifts with roles or positions in the church. After all, all believers are commanded to make disciples, and therefore all believers are asked to be teachers. We should therefore, as Paul says in v. 31, truly desire the best gifts, including the gift of teaching, and supremely the gift of love.

[1] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistles to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 931-2.

[2] Ibid., 1007.

[3] Paige Patterson, The Troubled Triumphant Church (Dallas: Criswell Publications, 1983), 223.

[4] Ibid.

[5] D.B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 94.

[6] See Patterson, The Troubled Triumphant Church, 225; Thiselton, in Thiselton, The First Epistles to the Corinthians, 1013-15, claims that Bruce, Grosheide, Robertson and Plummer, Dunn, Lang, and others also take this stand.

[7] Martin sees this list as “also participating in [Paul’s] status reversing strategy” (Martin, The Corinthian Body, 102). According to Thiselton, in Thiselton, The First Epistles to the Corinthians, 1014-15, Barret suggests that Paul is making a direct juxtaposition with the list found in 12:8-10, which he sees as “the Corinthian definition of ‘pneumatics’ traits;” and Chrysostom claims that Paul purposely lists the gift of tongues last everywhere.

[8] Given the nature of the gifts listed after these first three (but not enumerated), and the parallel nature and order of these three gifts with the gifts listed in Eph 4:11-12, the importance of these three gifts is probably due to their equipping role and is most probably associated with their proclaiming nature.

[9] In George Orwell’s novel, the once egalitarian pigs, after having been corrupted by absolute power, replace the last law “all animals are equal,” with “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Ordination - So What of Ordination?

Based on the variety of definitions for the term ordination,[1] a definition of ordination needs to be adopted before further discussion can ensue. For the sake of this discussion, we will consider two aspects presented by two different definitions: “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church,” and “to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority.” Both of these contain the concept of ministry. A brief look at the lexicography and the use of the term ministry in the New Testament (see the The NT Concept of Ministry excursus) results in the understanding that ministry is grounded in service and is required of all believers personally, not by proxy. This would seem to indicate that if ordination is defined as “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church,” then, since all believers should be ministers, all believers should be ordained.

As for the second definition, it additionally includes the concept of authority. We have seen, in the previous analysis, that the commissioning observed in Scripture does not display a pattern of imparting authority. Could ordination then be understood as a special commissioning which imparts authority? After all, as Patterson correctly points out in his chapter “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” the current struggle over the ordination of women is not a struggle over ordination, but a struggle over authority in the local church.[2] It is my conclusion from the Scriptural data presented above that the “imparting authority” understanding of ordination is not supported by the biblical text, thus the primitivist idealist in me would have to disregard it as irrelevant to a New Testament church.

What do you think? In the next post(s) I will present a proposal based on all that we have discussed so far.

[1] See note 3 in Ordination - quick lexical investigation.

[2] See Patterson, “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” 260-61.

Ordination - Analysis - The Concept of Ordination

While there is an emerging pattern of commissioning, consensus is absolutely lacking among the commentators as to whether any of the New Testament passages discussed above refers to ordination or not. This is primarily due to each commentator’s understanding of the meaning of ordination, and, in some commentators, is secondarily due to a desire not to be anachronistic. Case in point is Pelikan’s commentary on Acts. He sees the laying on of hands in Acts 6 as clearly implying ordination, but he does not see the laying on of hands in Acts 13 as the rite of ordination. This is not a conclusion deduced by any textual clue, but surmised because of his assumption that Paul and Barnabas would have to have been ordained already.[1] A similar stance is taken by Culpepper while discussing Acts 13. He states that “this passage is undoubtedly significant for the development of the church’s practice of ordination, but it can hardly be said that Paul and Barnabas were ordained in this occasion.”[2] Many more examples could be given from commentaries, systematic theologies, journal articles, and books on the topic of ordination, but the bottom line is that the identification of some passages in the New Testament as ordination boils down to one’s understanding of the meaning of ordination.

[1] Pelikan, Acts, 95.

[2] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 479.

Ordination - Analysis - A Clear Pattern of Commissioning - Part 3 of 3

To summarize, the commissioning pattern is the appointing of someone, who is gifted, to a specific task. It should happen through the laying on of hands, motivated by the call of God, and imbibed in prayer. S/he is to be from within a congregation and will be a representative of the congregation doing the commissioning. This does not imply an impartation of authority on the individual being commissioned.

Ordination - Analysis - A Clear Pattern of Commissioning - Part 2 of 3

The next two patterns that could transpire from the Biblical data are: (1) the concept of creating representatives and (2) the lack of imparting authority. (1) The implications in 1 Timothy 5:22 discussed above seem to allow for such an interpretation. It could also be argued that this is what the apostles did when they appointed the seven in Acts 6, what the church of Antioch did in Acts 13, and what the churches did when they sent traveling companions in 2 Corinthians 8:19 and Acts 15:25-27. In addition, this seems to be the pattern in Numbers 8:10. A similar argument could be made about the appointing of leaders in general (Heb 13:7) and elders in particular (1 Pet 5:3) due to their nature as examples to the body and to the community. Yet, this pattern should be adopted with caution, lest we commit the same mistake the Israelites did when they sent Moses up the mountain by himself as their representative or lest we perpetuate the clergy/laity division (as seen in the previous excursus post) and assume that those who have been commissioned are to minister in our stead. Very a propos is the warning of Thomas White, who reminds us that “it is important to note that ordination does not create a separate class of Christians or a separate class of clergy who must intercede for believers.”[1] We have only one high priest (Heb 3:1) and mediator (1 Tim 2:5) and his name is Jesus Christ. So, if we are to accept the pattern of creating a representative, we need to understand that these representatives are for men, either as examples or as messengers on our behalf; but they do not fulfill our duties as believers. Interestingly enough, the passages relating to the installation of Joshua (Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9) do not seem to fit this pattern. They are also the only passages which indicate a transfer of authority during the laying on of hands. Since these are Old Testament passages that occurred during a time when not all were indwelled by the Spirit, and since their pattern does not seem to be repeated in the New Testament, the simple solution is to disregard them, as they are not applicable to the task at hand. (2) Ultimately, there seems to be little to no evidence in the passages presented above, that commissioning imparts authority. While some of Daube’s insights are beneficial, his understanding of samakh should not be forced onto the New Testament text.

While commissioning does affirm giftedness, for there is a link in the commissioning passages between the presence of gifting and the ministry for which people were commissioned,[2] the pattern seems to indicate that people were commissioned from within the body for a specific task and not just a simple recognition of gifting.[3] The pattern of commissioning individuals from within the body makes common sense, if the people commissioned are to represent the ones commissioning them and if the people doing the commissioning are to be able to ascertain that the people whom they are commissioning possess the gifts necessary to perform the task at hand. Gill, who combines call and ordination,[4] was a big proponent of this stance, for he stated that “he must be a member of a church, to whom he is to be ordained as a pastor. . . . one that is not a member of the church, cannot be a pastor of it.”[5]

[1] Thomas White, “So You Have Been Called to the Ministry,” Calling Out the Called (Fort Worth: Seminary Hill Press), 8.

[2] The seven were to be “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3); Paul and Barnabas were listed in the list of prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1); 1 Tim 4:14 and 2 Tim 1:6 directly refer to the charisma of Timothy as an encouragement to keep on doing what he needed to do in Ephesus; 1 Tim 5:22, since it refers to elders, it is referring to people who have been gifted to perform said role in the local church.

[3] This pattern is evidenced in the historical practice of not ordaining an individual until he was called by a church to an official ministry position.

[4] For he states that “the election and call of them, with their acceptance, is ordination. The essence of ordination lies in the voluntary choice and call of the people, and in the voluntary acceptance of that call by the person chosen and called; for this affair must be by mutual consent and agreement, which joins them together as pastor and people. And this is done among themselves; and public ordination, so called, is no other than a declaration of that. Election and ordination are spoken of as the same; the latter is expressed and explained by the former.” Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 580.

[5] Ibid., 597.

The NT Concept of Ministry - a small excursus

We now need to take a small excursus from our topic of ordination so that you can understand where I am coming from in the next post in our ordination series. This excursus on the concept of ministry, as I see it in the New Testament, is by not way exhaustive. It's just a short intro to a larger and longer conversation.

Like many Biblical terms, the term ministry is often misunderstood due to inappropriate use of language. Terminology like “the call into the ministry” and “the minister of ______” often unintentionally create a clergy/laity division: the clergy are the ministers in the congregation and need to be set aside by means of ordination, while, even if some members of the laity might receive the appellation of lay ministers, the laity often see themselves as something less than ministers. But what does Scripture teach about ministry?

A quick lexical search in the New King James translation of the New Testament reveals that, as in the case of ‘ordain’, the ‘minister’ family of terms actually translates ten Greek terms which represent five families of terms. Unlike ‘ordain’ though, there is much more cohesion, since approximately 80% of the time the ‘minister’ family of terms is translated by the diakonos family of terms.[1] Eduard Schweizer, in Church Order in the New Testament, while discussing the concept of ‘office’, looks at all the terms used in Koine Greek which convey the idea of office or ruler: archē, “office in the sense of precedence, being at the head, ruling;” archôn, “ruler;” timē, “office in the sense of a position of dignity;” telos, used outside the NT to define “the complete power of office;” leitourgia, “service undertaken by the citizens for the community, and by the worshippers for the gods, and in the Septuagint (about 100 times) the ceremonial service performed by the priest;” and leitourgos, one performing leitourgia. He concludes that outside of their use for Judaism, pagan religions, and the political system of the time, these terms are primarily used (with the exception of Paul’s being called leitourgos in Romans 15:16) to refer solely to Christ Himself.[2] To be complete, there are three more exceptions to this pattern not mentioned by Schweizer: in Philippians 2:25 Epaphroditus is described as one who ministered (leitourgos) to the needs of Paul; in Acts 13:2 the verb leitourgeô is used of the ministering to the Lord going on in Antioch; and in Romans 15:27 the same verb is used of the churches in Macedonia and Achaia ministering to the church in Jerusalem in material things. Considering the limited number of exceptions, Schweizer then proceeds to point out the overwhelming use of diakons and opines on the appropriateness of its use. He concludes that:

In view of the large number of terms available, the evidence of the choice of words is unmistakable. … all the New Testament witnesses are sure of one decisive fact: official priesthood, which exists to conciliate and mediate between God and community, is found in Judaism and paganism; but since Jesus Christ there has been only one such office - that of Jesus himself. It is shared by the whole Church, and never by one church member as distinct from others. Here therefore there is without exception the common priesthood, with no laity.[3]

Lexically, an understanding of the concept of ministry must come from an understanding of the diakons family of terms and how they are used in the New Testament. This family of terms includes the noun diakonos, the adjective diakonia, and the verb diakoneô and in a variety of different ways embodies the idea of service. Since a study of the understanding of diakonos could constitute an entire paper in itself, we will here only look at a few selected illustrative examples of its usage in the New Testament. In Ephesians 4:11-12 we are told that Christ “Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry (diakonia), for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Christ, therefore, has given certain gifts[4] to His body for the purpose of equipping the body to be able to serve Him.[5] Obviously then, the work of the ministry of the church is the work of the entire body, not of a select few. In 1 Peter 4:10, Peter encourages believers by exhorting them: “as each one has received a gift, minister (diakoneô) it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” Here we see that every member of the body of Christ possesses at least one gift and is exhorted to use it in service to others.[6] Again, the work of the ministry of the church is the work of the entire body, not of a select few. So, one can conclude that the ministry of the church is a ministry grounded in service and is required of all believers personally, not by proxy.

What do you think about this understanding of ministry and how it impacts the concept of ordination?

[1] The next closest is the λειτουργός family of terms with approximately 15%. The other three terms are ὑπηρέτης, “helper, assistant,” used by Jesus to describe to Paul the works that Jesus had for him to do in Acts 26:16; ἐργάζομαι, “practice, perform, officiate at,” the temple by the pagan ministers in 1 Cor 9:13; ἱερουργέω, “to act in some cultic or sacred capacity,” used of Paul ministering the Gospel to the gentiles in Rom 15:16. Definitions from BDAG.

[2] Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, trans. Frank Clarke (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1961), 171-176. Definitions from Schweizer.

[3] Ibid., 176.

[4] For a discussion of the understanding of this passage as a list of gifts, see my article: “Ephesians 4:11 - Spiritual gifts or positions?”

[5] For this understanding see F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 349; and Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians – An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 550-51.

[6] See Paige Patterson, A Pilgrim Priesthood – An Exposition of First Peter (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 159.

Ordination - Analysis - A Clear Pattern of Commissioning - Part 1 of 3

The terminology of laying on of hands seems to be the thread that ties these commissioning passages together from the Old Testament to the New Testament. There is no pattern when it comes to who is supposed to physically do the laying on of hands, but there seems to be a strong indication that even if the whole congregation is not involved, the ones involved are representatives of the congregation. There is much evidence that the Lord is the one who needs to initiate and direct such commissioning, hence the repeated association of prophecy. This is not surprising, for as servants of the Lord, our duty is to do what He commands us: nothing more, nothing less. There is also much evidence for the centrality of prayer in said commissioning. Again, this is not surprising, for prayer should be central to the life of a believer.

Some might argue that the New Testament passages also show a pattern that commissioning should only be done for deacons and elders, but that would not be doing the data justice. In Acts 13, we do not see a commissioning of elders, but of traveling evangelists or missionaries. It is often assumed that Timothy was an elder at Ephesus, but it is much more natural to see him as an apostolic aid.[1] Just from these two comments, we are left with only one passage describing the commissioning of elders (1 Tim 5:22) and, depending on one’s understanding of deacons and Acts 6, possibly one passage describing the commissioning of deacons (Acts 6:1-6). Yet, one last argument will be entertained; it rests with the variety of terms used for the appointing/calling/choosing of people in the New Testament. Two terms are used for the appointing of elders. Paul uses kathistēmi when referring to Titus’ job to “appoint elders in every city” (Titus 1:5). Incidentally, this is the same term used by Luke in Acts 6:3, when the apostles ask for seven men whom they “may appoint.” Unlike Paul, Luke uses cheirotoneô to refer to the appointment of elders by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23). The same term, cheirotoneô, is used by Paul for the appointment of traveling companions in 2 Corinthians 8:19. One could easily hypothesize that due to the use of similar appointing terminology, the traveling companions were also probably similarly commissioned for this task. Such a conjecture is given further validity from the Latin Vulgate’s use of ordino, ordinare to translate cheirotoneô in 2 Corinthians 8:19, and from the etymology of cheirotoneô which ties it to the stretching or raising of hands.[2] This therefore opens the door for any number of other commissioning scenarios besides the commissioning of elders and deacons.

[1] See for example: Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 187, 263; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 772n82; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 323.

[2] See DELG, s.v. “χείρ;” BDAG, s.v. “χειροτονέω.”

Ordination - Analysis and Discussion of the Biblical Data - Intro

As mentioned in the introduction, I tried to approach this series in a scientific method. After all I learned how to do research in the Combustion Laboratory of the School of Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Tech. Therefore, now that I have presented the Biblical data, with a minimum of analysis, I can now analyze and discuss it, and then, finally, present a proposal based on this summary.

So ... looking at the Biblical data there are two constants which can be seen: there is a clear pattern of commissioning, but there is little agreement on the concept of ordination. Let us discuss them one at a time. In the next post we will start discussing the clear pattern of commissioning. Then we will discuss the lack of pattern of the concept of ordination. In the mean time, be thinking of what patterns do you see from the data.

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - 1 Timothy 4:14 & 2 Timothy 1:6 - Part last (6) of many

Due to their interconnection, 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6 will be discussed together. Both passages contain a reference to the laying on of hands on Timothy. Both passages use the noun epithesis" instead of the verb epitithēmi used in the three New Testament passages mentioned above. Yet, to stipulate that these therefore refer to a different kind of laying on of hands would ignore that a common etymological root between epitithēmi and epithesis" corroborates the interchangeability of the two terms.[1] Both refer to a gift, charisma, that is in Timothy and which he needs not to neglect (1 Tim 4:14) and to stir up (2 Tim 1:6). One passage identifies the agency of the eldership in the laying on of hands, while the other the agency of Paul. One adds that the gift was given by prophecy, while the other that it is the gift of God.

Regardless of the differences, due to their apparent parallelism, the two passages have often been assumed to refer to a single event,[2] to which it may be believed that 1 Timothy 1:8 also refers. This event is often seen as Timothy’s “ordination into service in general (assuming such was the practice of the early church) or [his] commission for a special task such as his ministry to Ephesus.”[3] Due to the differences in the passages, Fee offers a different perspective. He postulates that 1 Timothy 1:8 and 1 Timothy 4:14 refer to the same incident, that is a confirming or commissioning of Timothy’s giftedness, a special equipping for his next divinely appointed task of ministry, but that 2 Timothy 1:6 refers to a separate incident, that of the impartation of the Holy Spirit on Timothy.[4] The topic of the impartation of the Spirit through the laying on of hands is obviously outside the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say at this time that while the laying on of hands does not seem to be a necessary practice for the reception of the Spirit, there are three incidents in the book of Acts which describe said practice.[5] Towner, while agreeing with Fee, adds that “it is not impossible that Timothy received his commission as Paul’s coworker at the same time.”[6]

In these passages there is therefore clear evidence of the laying on of hands on Timothy. Prophecy is associated with this laying on of hands, probably as an accompanying activity, “a reference to words of the Spirit spoken by a prophet(s) that confirm and identify Timothy’s giftedness.”[7] This giftedness could refer to the gift(s) given to Timothy by God to enable him to perform the good works that God had prepared beforehand that he should walk in them, but more probably it refers more specifically to the gift(s) given to Timothy to enable him to perform the tasks that he needed to perform as an apostolic aid. It does not necessarily refer to an office, especially the office of elder at Ephesus.[8] Yet again, there is not a consensus on who is doing the laying on of hands, but it is likely that the hands were the elders’, representing the community’s recognition.[9] While in 1 Timothy 4, Paul reminds Timothy of these laying on of hands to encourage him, he does not point to them as having imparted power or authority to Timothy to enable him to perform the task at hand. To help him on his task, Timothy is encouraged to focus on the Word and his response to it. Those things will allow him to save himself and those who hear him. There is also nothing in this text that would point to the laying on of hands as creating a representative. Likewise, in 2 Timothy 1:6, there is no concept of creating a representative or of imparting authority, unless the rite itself ontologically demands such an understanding.[10]

[1] Pierre Chantraine, Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque [DELG] (Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1968), s.v. τίθημι. Chantraine lists θεσις", and ἐπίθεσις", as a sub voce of τίθημι, and ἐπιτίθημι, and deems them to be part of a coherent system. In the commentaries, the terminological difference is neither mentioned nor are any assumptions made from it.

[2] See Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 209; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles,70, 261-63, 476; C. Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales, vol. 2, 4th ed. Études Bibliques (Paris, France: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1969), 708, 728; Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 480. Often the differences are explained by the assumed differing nature of the two letters: 2 Timothy is a more personal letter, therefore Paul only mentions himself.

[3] Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 71.

[4] Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 774, 786-88; cf. Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 480.

[5] For the reception of the Spirit through the laying on of hands see: Acts 8:17-19; 9:12-17; 19:6. Ellingworth, in Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 316, believes that this is what Paul refers to in the letter to the Hebrews when he mentions the laying on of hands (Heb 6:2) in his list of “elementary principles.” Ellingworth comes to this conclusion due to: the proximity in the list of the principles of baptism and the laying on of hands; what he sees as the supporting text in v. 4; and the lack of support for a “transmission of office” view in that context. He does also add that “the reference is so brief and general that it is impossible to be certain.” When thinking about this topic, it is important to consider that at Pentecost (Acts 2) and at what some call the gentile Pentecost (Acts 10:44-48), the Spirit clearly descended on believers without the laying on of hands. In addition, ignoring Ellingworth’s proposal for Heb 6:2 and Fee’s proposal for 2 Tim 1:6, there is no teaching in the epistles of said practice. This lack of pattern and clear teaching does not invalidate the use of the practice in the book of Acts, but, it does seem to make it non-prescriptive.

[6] Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 459. Towner sees 1 Tim 4:14 as a separate congregational commissioning by the church in Ephesus (324-25, 459-60).

[7] Ibid., 323. Similarly see the following for a slight variation on the same theme: Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 71; Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 208; Quinn and Wacker, The first and second letters to Timothy, 386. C. Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales, vol. 1, 4th ed. Études Bibliques (Paris, France: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1969), 517, understands prophecy, not as a word from God, but as a consecrating prayer which is an integral part of the sacramental action of the laying on of hands.

[8] This is the consensus of Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 322n40; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 263; John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 205; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 772n82. Fee goes as far as saying that “only the most biased reading of this letter sees Timothy as ‘holding office’ in Ephesus.” Cf. Jeremias (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 209) and Calvin (Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 775n97) propose that πρεσβυτερίου should be read as “to the presbyterate.”

[9] Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 323-4; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 775.

[10] This seems to be the understanding of samakh in Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 245, who understands these two passages as being the “earliest reference to apostolic succession.” Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 396, present the understanding of the generic symbolism of the human hand in the ancient world to suggest that power, authority, and responsibility might be implicitly involved.

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - 1 Timothy 5:22 - Part 5 of many

While lacking any terminology referring to the appointing/calling/choosing of elders, this passage is often assumed to refer to elder commissioning. The understanding of commissioning derives from the assumptions made about the other two passages in the personal letters of Paul containing laying on of hands terminology (as will be seen below), combined with the general use of the laying on of hands terminology (as seen in the discussion above). The context of the passage seems to indicate that the people being commissioned are elders.[1] Whether this passage refers to the commissioning of elders in general or to the commissioning of replacement elders in particular cannot be ascertained by the text.[2] Towner further comments that the second person singular of epitithēmi “envisions Timothy as taking the lead in the procedures (though it is not necessary to rule out participation by others in leadership).”[3] The personal note of the letter does diminish the certainty of this conclusion, though, and there is nothing in this passage that warrants the limiting of participation to only the leadership. Regardless of who is performing the commissioning, the text does furnish another important insight into the laying on of hands. This laying on of hands must not be done “hastily” for it might result in sharing “in other people’s sins.” [4] We do not see here a pouring of one’s personality into the person on whom one is laying his hands (contrary to some of the understanding of Daube’s samakh concept), but the reverse process might be seen where the sin of the one receiving the imposition of hands affects the one imposing his hands. This could point to a pattern of “creating a representative or substitute,” for the sin of a representative reflects on the one he represents. Again, this passage does not deal with transference or impartation of authority.

[1] Verses 17-20 clearly refer to elders, and since the consensus from commentators is that v. 21 refers to vv. 19-20, and not to the whole chapter, it logically follows that v. 22 has to continue the train of thought about elders. See Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 372; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46 (Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 316; and George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 237. The fact that the concept of sin flows throughout this entire section (vv. 20, 22, 24) also serves to confirm this tie.

[2] It does seem unlikely that this passage refers “to the later church ritual of reinstating a penitent sinner” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 317; see also Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374n72).

[3] Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374. One has to wonder if Towner’s limiting the action of laying on of hands to the leadership is anachronistic or due to his perceived understanding of 1 Tim 4:14.

[4] For this causal interpretation, see the discussion on μηδὲ in Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 317-18 or Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374n73.

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - Acts 13:3 - Part 4 of many

Acts 13:3 uses the same terminology for the laying on of hands as Acts 6:6. Preceding this practice, the Holy Spirit had instructed the believers at Antioch to aphorizô, “set apart, appoint,” Paul and Barnabas for the work to which He had called them. Therefore the first element to note in this passage is that there was a prophetic word from the Holy Spirit (v. 2). The second is that prayer and fasting was central to the event (v. 3). Third, as in the Acts 6 passage, there is ambiguity as to who laid hands on them: the prophets and teachers or the congregation.[1] Fourth, as in the passage above, the commissioning in this passage does not seem to denote any transfer of power, but could be interpreted as the creation of representatives of the church in Antioch. The return to Antioch of Paul and Barnabas to give a report to the church about the work that God had been doing through them (Acts 14:26-27) could give credence to a representative understanding of their commissioning.

[1] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 479. For example, note that Culpepper leans toward the whole congregation while Bruce believes it is their “colleagues” who laid their hands on them (F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 246).