The articles on British evangelicalism and the lack of growth in Sydney churches in September/October’s Briefing were full of good content and complemented each other well. Early on in the British article the following question appeared.
“Does the rise in ministers mean that less ministry is happening overall?”
I fear this may be so – patterns and views of ministry that are espoused in evangelicalism can be less than Biblical and (therefore?) mean that less ministry is actually happening and part of it is linked to how people become church leaders.
An elder is an older man
Biblical descriptions and qualifications of church leaders – elders, older men (and also ‘ministers’ – ie, deacons) – seem to assume age. It seemed normal for potential church leaders to be married with children – so that their suitability for caring for a church could be judged by how they managed their own household. They had to be well thought-of by outsiders – which, one imagines, might well include the ability to earn their own living and not be dependent on others [admittedly, this last comes from 1 Thess 4 where Paul is writing to the whole church – but an ability to earn one’s own living should cause one to be well-thought of by outsiders].
In contrast, our default model seems to be approaching students or recent graduates and ask them to consider full-time paid gospel ministry. Why are we looking for ‘elders’ among people in their early twenties? The Bible pattern seems to be that church leaders are drawn from older men already suitably qualified rather than from a pool of people who have been on the “church leader development track” since their twenties. Although, there is a “church leader development track” scripture – and every man is on it whether he likes it or not. This track is simply the normal Christian life – often buttressed by the testing grounds of marriage and fatherhood and the need to earn a living (see above).
This is neither to say that young men should not lead churches (one imagines that we should not despise latter-day Timothys because of their youth); nor that people should not be trained – but the norm appears to be older men being elders.
I do some work for a trust that funds theological students and I see applications that include lines like “I felt called to church leadership while at university”. Firstly, I might want to probe how the person felt called. The main calling in the New Testament is to follow Christ. Perhaps a better line would be, “People said I should consider paid Christian work because of my character and gifts”. A good response to this might be “Are they offering you a job? If not, then perhaps you are not being called right now but come back in 20 years (when you really will be an elder). In the meantime, be faithful in the small areas God has put you in; perhaps raise a family; search the scriptures to check what you are being taught by older men; earn your own living; speak and live for Jesus there; and we shall see how you get on with that.”
A further drawback is that young men “studying for the ministry”[1] often rely on the earnings of their wives. Should that really be so? The wife serves two masters (her husband and her employer) and the natural result of sexual intercourse is carefully avoided[2]. Furthermore, the young man then gets to lead a church while his children are still very young – and it is therefore not easy to see if his children are submissive or believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
When my full-time paid, secular job was made redundant no-one at a church which follows the “train younger men to be older men” model suggested I consider paid church leadership. At 48, was I too old to be an older man?
More ministers – less ministry?
I suspect less ministry might be happening since selecting younger men and training them to be older men implies that the gospel is furthered best by more people being paid to pastor and evangelise – ie, paid spiritual gift exercisers (PSGEs – people who earn a living practising a spiritual gift[3]). This therefore leaves non-PSGEs unsure as to what they can be doing as Christians – ‘ministry’[4] is relegated to spare time and financial support. There is little vision for what ministry looks like outside a paid role.
“The Purpose-Driven Life” – a book by Rick Warren, a US church leader – starts with a great reminder that “it’s not all about you” [ie, that God is the centre of everything] and says many helpful things but the great disappointment for me was the close of chapter 36. Near the end of the ‘Made for a mission’ chapter (and what a great reminder that is) Mr Warren tells us about his father, who was a paid pastor, and his passion for souls (“One more for Jesus”). Mr Warren says, “I intend for that to be the theme of the rest of my life. I invite you to consider that to be a focus for your life too”.
But how? Unfortunately Mr Warren has little practical advice for us. The two people he invites us to emulate – himself and his father – are both pastors, a role very few readers of the book will play. And this, I suspect, is at the core of so many problems the church has in the west. PSGEs tell us how to run our lives, what to focus on, from very different positions and are poor at speaking into our own situations.
I think it is significant that the two examples Mr Warren chooses – and holds up as role models – are both PSGEs. What would someone look like whose focus was on winning souls and yet who was not a PSGE? Mr Warren does not tell us. Perhaps he doesn’t know many people like that. I certainly don’t. Now that would be an interesting topic.
The sheep look up but are not fed. Who is going to teach us how to fully live and speak for Jesus without being PSGEs?
This might seem like an unfair criticism – but I am responding to the question originally posed concerning how much ministry is going on and suggesting why there might be as little as the questioner feared.
“How then shall we live?”[5]
I suspect producing even more PSGEs is not financially sustainable. The Sydney article referred to above hints at this, “We are employing more workers and this has… significantly increased the cost base… [but] there has not been a matching growth in people attending church… this equation will become increasingly vexed”. Perhaps finance will force us towards where better theology would have done anyway.
1 Timothy 3 tells us that “If anyone aspires to overseeing-ship-ness[6] he desires a noble task”. It is a good thing to aspire to church leadership and (therefore, one might imagine) it should be the goal of every man – to be an elder along the lines that Paul goes on to describe. Yes, not all should be teachers (James); pastors and teachers are gifts to the church (Ephesians 4); but Hebrews 5:13 implies that all mature Christians should be able to teach. It should be the norm for older men in churches to be aspire to oversee[7] to some extent and churches should expect that of their men as they age.
Some men (and women) are terrific workplace evangelists. Such people should not be encouraged to leave their tent-making (at least, certainly not until they are ‘older’) but rather they should be equipped to speak and live for Jesus more and more where they are. Not only will they be effective there but they will be role models for the ‘normal’ Christian – and perhaps Risk Warren will write about them one day.
An 80s worship song talked about “An army of ordinary people”. Pray God we do not reduce it to “an army of paid gospel workers” – it is not Biblical; we cannot afford it; and it has not and will not reach the world with the gospel.
Presbyter Arneson – an older man but one who has never been paid to teach the Bible.
[1] ..and should full-time residential college should be the default option?
[2] Controversial – and I do hope readers do not home in on this and ignore the rest
[3] I do not mean this acronym in a disparaging way – it’s simply the most accurate term that I have come up with
[4] There is a wide debate to be had on what exactly we mean by ‘ministry’ and if the definitions we choose can be defended Biblically
[5] Taken from Schaeffer – who, I imagine, got it from Peter
[6] My own translation [full disclosure: I have never formally studied Greek – but I understand there is no separate word for ‘office’ in Paul’s original Greek]
[7] And it is rare in the New Testament for titles and offices to be used – it is the function that is emphasised. Philippians is the only letter in which Paul includes ‘ministers’ and ‘overseers’ in the addressees; and Ephesians 4 is the only place where titles appear.
