Someone raised a point in a recent comment that touched an ancient chord of deep resentment that I once cherished as a "professional minister" and the pastor of several different churches over the years. My new internet friend and brother in Christ was simply trying to point out an inherent danger of small groups: the ease of false teaching being introduced into the church.
Unexpectedly he voiced what I now consider to be an unsubstantiated—but credible-sounding and serious—warning that the dynamics of Sunday School classes, cell groups, or house churches might create nothing more than a "pooling of ignorance." It's a very powerful argument that's been circulating longer than I can remember; and one that I quickly learned from other pastors and I soon began repeating to others.
His remark immediately brought to mind a sinful relic of my past: a long-standing feeling of superiority that I once enjoyed as an ordained minister, fueled no doubt by the willingness of several congregations to erect a nice lofty pedestal for me to stand upon. Secretly, I hated Sunday School because I couldn't teach every single class. You can imagine my initial hostility to the concept of small groups, cell groups, and house churches. Why? I'll tell you why and I don't think you'll find this sort of confession in print very often:
I didn't trust people in my church to read the Word of God for themselves and really make sense of it, much less share what they learned with others. Teaching and preaching, like the complex intricacies of neurosurgery, required years of theological education and a special "calling" by God to stand behind a pulpit and speak as His mouthpiece. I didn't trust the Holy Spirit to lead His people into all truth, as Jesus promised He would. Surely, Jesus was either using hyperbole or he was referring to pastors—the Holy Spirit would lead pastors into all truth, so they could spoonfeed the sheep. I certainly didn't want them to be teaching one another, even though I couldn't get away from the powerful evidence in Scripture that God had called, equipped, and expected them to do so (Proverbs 27:17; Romans 15:14; Colossians 3:16; 1Thess. 5:11; Hebrews 3:13; 10:24-25). Have you ever heard a reasonable explanation of the preceding verses from a pastor. If the sheep could teach one another, then why did they need me?
Paranoia! You bet! There's only one place more paranoid than the schizophrenic ward at your local mental hospital: your local neighborhood minister's fraternal! Honestly, I once felt so spiritually superior to my congregation simply because I had been placed in a position of authority. My pride really worked me over and I was convinced that sheep were too dumb to feed themselves or to know sheep food from sheep dung.
Nowadays I would much prefer to learn in a collegial context with brothers and sisters who are searching the Scriptures together, rather than sitting under some learned Bible scholar or hot-shot expositor who considers himself to be on a different spiritual plane from the ordinary Christian. God can use anyone to communicate His truth, even though they may not be able to parse Greek verbs and express everything with MacArthur-esque profundity. It's the way He intended it from the very beginning, so why mess around with God's perfect plan for our life together as His people?
The truth is, many pastors who have "arrived" in terms of success (power & influence) can rarely remember the names of their deacons and their wives, much less the poor guy and his family who joined the church five years ago and are struggling with their finances, wayward teenagers, and their marriage. But the people in my house church have wept with me and I know God speaks to them and through them in my life. We don't always agree on every interpretation of Scripture, but we love each other and that means a lot.
I hear ya. I think that a very unintentional side-effect of my theological schooling is me thinking that I now have the corner on Truth. This is obviously, and biblically, not the case. It’s something I’ve learned over the past 5 years in ministry. Great article.
Bill,
I agree, a good posting. You are certainly correct about the issue of paranoia in the pulpit, then again, people ARE really out to get you, so is it paranoia?
Concerning the point that you are making about trusting the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that Jesus was being hyperbolic in his statement, but your reaction to my comment might be tending in that direction. There is not doubt that people need teachers according to the charges given to Timothy. Rebuke and correction are an important parts of discipleship and this is done by fellow Christians. My original comment was…
“The key to the house church, however, is strong biblical leadership within the “cell†or “small groups†or whatever moniker that the groups might have.”
This does not necessarily mean the pastor (since he can certainly not be in all the classes all at once)and it does not mean that this leadership need be formally trained (I’m not! yet..) but it does mean that the leadership of these groups must be willing to challenge people’s interpretation of the scriptures rather than passively allow the group mind to determine the meaning of a passage outside of the most basic principles of interpretation. The promise of the Holy Spirit leading us in all things cannot be taken out of context of the wider corpus of scripture. The teaching of the Holy Spirit is manifold in nature. I have been taught in a more direct manner by the Holy Spirit, but also by the Holy Spirit as He guides those who have guided me. Otherwise, we could drop a new Bible in the laps of new converts and wish them well!
So, yes, we pastors often think too much of ourselves and cannot maintain a monopoly upon teaching, but neither can we take any sort of hands off approach. In my previous church, I would often make rounds to various classrooms to ensure that those whom the church had entrusted as teachers were, in fact teaching the Word. In addition, some classes would call me in specifically for a consult. This I was happy to do and charged to do as well. In addition, most Christians feel great frustration by this sort of bible by committee approach.
I for one am glad that no one has a monopoly on truth. Perhaps this is what is meant when Christ said: “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:”
[Mark 13;21]
I doubt this passage refers to people in the insane asylum who sincerely believe they are Jesus Christ. I do somehow think this passage refers to those who consider themselves to have a monopoly on truth.
Let me share with you a ‘moment’; nothing special, just a hint of what I think Bill might be driving at.
I was part of a church plant once. Though I was just a member of the congregation, I was deeply immersed in my theological degree. I had already done some prior theological training and had prob spent about 5 years in a bible college by this stage. And I was an A-Grade student.
Not long into the church plant, a working man (computer tech) and his family joined us. He was regenerated within a few weeks, and began throwing himself into scripture.
He had been a Christian for prob 3-4 weeks when we had a fascinating conversation. He told me he’d been reading Mark’s Gospel. “And guess what I’ve discovered so far?” he asked. “What?” was my response. “That no one knows who Jesus is.” “Go on.” “Well, the Pharisees don’t get it, the disciples definitely don’t see it, his family are missing the obvious but …” (I was very intrigued by this point) “… the demons are the only ones who know who Jesus is; they know he is the Son of God: but everyone else is blind to it.”
I was flabbergasted. It took me years of bible college to learn that, to get to that level of reading. And here was a three-week old computer tech Christian teaching me, a soon-to-be-ordained minister!
Reflecting on that story makes me feel shame (at the way we can parade our degrees and learning) and humble wonderment at the truth of Romans 15:14.
Error can happen anywhere; in a small group or in the pulpit. We all need to be Bereans and put all teaching up against God’s Word.
The Pharisees (and later, the talking heads of Rome) didn’t put much stock in the average man’s ability to discern the teachings of Jesus. But Jesus never once said we had to be officially trained to understand His Word. In fact, there have been countless instances throughout church history when it was the most educated who were more prone to error and heretical teaching.
The wisdom God gives us through His Word must be tempered with humility and grace.
Amen to your post.
Great big “Amen.”
I really hope you’re just trying to bring our attention to a neglected truth — that all of Christ’s sheep are stewards of the truth and are responsible for encouraging one another with it. However, one could easily read your post as though you’ve dispensed with the teaching office and calling altogether. The abuse of a thing is no reason to give up its use. The pride you had in the pulpit does not negate the value of the pulpit itself.
Most of the passages you mention relate to the practical encouraging that all Christians are responsible to do for one another as well as themselves. This does not displace the teaching ministry. Rom. 15:14 (“you…are able to instruct one another”) doesn’t necessarily imply that just anybody in the congregation could stand up and teach anybody else. In fact, that would lead to the self-constradiction of women teaching men, which Paul condemns in 1 Tim. 2:12. The passage most likely means that the congregation was mature enough that there were sufficient gifted teachers in her midst; that is, they didn’t need an outside teacher. Yet Paul still wrote to remind them because of his apostleship. Col. 3:16 refers to teaching in the context of *singing*. This is not teaching out of one’s own head but teaching according to the form of the pre-written lyrics. Your challenge, “have you ever heard a reasonable explanation of the preceding verses from a pastor”, makes it sound like pastors are a bit embarrassed by these verses and have nothing to say about how they relate to the teaching office. I hope my brief comments help dispel that notion.
Here are some passages that clearly teach the importance of the pastoral teaching office. I know you know these, Bill, but I’m quoting them for the sake of others who may be misled by this one-sided post.
I’m sure there are abuses on both sides of this. And pastors are particularly susceptible to pride in the pulpit. But I also know many pastors who quake in the pulpit in themselves and would much rather not have the authority were it not for the fact that Christ has called them to it. Most of the churches that I observe that have a very strong, differentiated teaching minstry also have sheep who are most well equipped to share truth with one another.
I’m disappointed and puzzled by this post. Bill, do you believe that Scripture ordains the office of pastor-teacher and that there is a distinctive ministry and authority given to the exercise of this office?
I haven’t been to seminary, but I think I understand the arrogance of which you speak. Way back in ’86, they made the mistake of declaring me a National Merit Scholar and telling me that meant that I was smarter than 99 and 1/2 percent of the college-bound students that year. Of course, since then, I’m disabled and have spent a bit more time than the average person in the Scriptures (I have nothing but time and need something to challenge my mind). All this combines to make me really arrogant, though I try not to be. I’m in a huge church, and I’ve always quietly advocated that we break up into little house-churches. It is so excruciating to sit in a Sunday School class and hear it taught badly. I nearly bite my tongue in half. The point I guess I wanted to bring up with this whole long boring biography was this. I’ve WORKED to learn to listen to the wisdom God has to share through people who aren’t like me. But, because of my disability, I require a certain amount of church discipline. It’s tough to know how much is too much or too little. I’ve got a pastor I trust. I trust him because I know he works to keep the time open to stay close to God. I remind him sometimes that if he lets me or anyone occupy so much of his time that his relationship with God suffers, then how can we trust the advice he gives? No house church leader would ever have that much time to devote to God, would they? Not maybe unless they were single. Anyone who wasn’t REALLY close to God would run on frustration when they saw me, instead of making wise choices. If you put all of us DIFFICULT people in one little group that the seminary-trained pastor would handle, then how would we ever benefit by the example set before us by the church body. We do sometimes, ya know, really slowly.
Stan: Thanks for commenting and welcome to my blog!
Yes, I am pointing out a neglected truth, together with making a personal confession of sorts. Blogs are a great way to do both and it’s also good for my soul to express such things in the context of a Gospel community: something along the lines of “confess your faults one to another.”
Regarding your fear that I may have “dispensed with the teaching office and calling altogether,” please let me assure you that I firmly believe that pastors and teachers are unique gifts presented by Christ to His body, the Church, of which He is the Head. My understanding is that these gifts are divinely and sovereignly bestowed and, therefore, functional in nature (i.e., for the equipping of the saints). We may have some differences between us on whether these gifts are “functional” gifts versus what you describe as “the teaching office and calling” or “the pulpit,” I don’t know.
I struggle using the term “office” because it reminds me of what I have come to see as an unbiblical clergy/laity distinction: something that has done more damage to the body of Christ than any single heresy or practice in two thousand years. Jesus clearly put forth His views on leadership in ways that cut to the heart of self-exalting titles and offices among believers:
So here’s what I have come to embrace as the teaching of the NT: those who effectively function (as those Christ-gifts are designed to do) within the body of Christ do not need titles, offices, pulpits (literal or figurative) or positions of authority. There is a huge difference between someone who has been officially appointed to an office, rightly or wrongly, and someone who has been sovereignly placed within a group of believers to function as a pastor/teacher. The one who only wears the title may never truly function as the gift of Christ to the Church; while the one possessing the divine gift has no need for a title. In fact, Jesus said, “you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers….Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8-10).
A friend of mine put it like this,
Also, it might help to understand that I am also looking at things from a “simple church” perspective in a missionary setting, something that I wish I could have had eyes to see before now. And although I know you’re involved in a relatively new church plant, things have certainly moved along according to a totally different model of church: a more traditional, centralized, and structured fellowship of believers than I might plant here in Britain.
I hope this helps clarify my position a little more clearly.
Thanks to everyone for their comments, although I’m a little behind in responding to each of you. I hope to do that tomorrow, as it’s getting late here.
Thanks, Bill, for the humble, nondefensive response and the clarification.
I agree that blogs can be good for personal confession, and personal confession can be good for the soul. Where I got concerned was when you went from confessing personally to indicting the minister’s fraternal for paranoia in the pulpit. It is one thing to speak of hyper-control in believers interacting with one another around the Word. But to speak of paranoia in the pulpit is to talk about an entirely different matter — the authoritative proclamation of the Word. Not just anyone is called to that service in the body.
I agree wholeheartedly that labels and titles don’t mean much in comparison to whether an individual has been sovereignly gifted and graced by God to serve functionally as an elder. But it’s not possible to reduce the biblical understanding of office to mere function. Paul did give them labels, and we are best served in our understanding if we use those labels. Furthermore, the office is not entirely functional. We are given qualifications by which to recognize men. Paul doesn’t say that an overseer is someone who looks like this; rather, he must be this. These are qualifications for an officer, not merely a description of one.
Also, Paul told Titus (1:5) “to appoint elders in every town”. That means that there were men who were qualified and probably functioning like an elder but who were not yet appointed to the office. They may have functioned that way, but they didn’t have the public title and recognition as such until they were appointed. The same kind of argument could be made about deacons from Acts 6.
I’ve seen with my own eyes the problems that come when someone is functionally an elder but doesn’t have the title. It hinders the man in his own boldness, in his effectiveness and in the way he is received by the flock. The flock is told to obey their leaders and to be subject to their elders. It puts them in a difficult position when they don’t have any official recognition to go by as to who these people are!
I recognize that the concerns, emphases, and formalities in forming a body in a different culture may be somewhat different from those that I’m familiar with. I trust that you are discovering those and incorporating them wisely. I’m interacting here because I can see where certain emphases need to be qualified or else other important biblical truths could be compromised.
Earlier this year our leader of our house group left, and the leadership decided much to our concern that she was not to be replaced but to lead ourselves.
As a group we have gone from strength to strength and we often comment we could never have a leader to our group again. The ethos of the group has totally changed. However I do feel that the house group is now a church in itself, one I actually prefer to the main body of the church. Not that I dislike the people or leadership of the main body of the church, I think it’s that I like the closeness of a small church which the house group resembles.