Where Does God Exalt
The Office Of 'Preacher'?
By Roderick Edwards
Is it possible that both Protestant and Catholic worship-styles are oblivious
to New Testament patterns? Catholicism puts the sacrament on center stage and
includes a homily by a priest. For the most part, in Protestantism worship
services everything rallies around the sermon, which is delivered from behind a
pulpit. Generally, the office of preacher has been exalted. Is such exaltation
warranted from the Scriptures we claim to be sufficient for all faith and
practice?
We claim
that the NT documents provide God-inspired direction for the New Covenant
people of God, just as the OT Scriptures structured life for
The sermon as traditionally practiced,
in which a clergy person usually gives a message from behind a large, wooden
object, originated from Greek, not Biblical, sources. There is nothing
revealed in God's Word about the primacy and exaltation of a specialist who
issues forth a monologue Sunday after Sunday. Roughly in the period of 200-300
A.D. the sermon emerged as central in Christian gatherings. But the cue for
this practice was taken, not from the Lord's inspired apostles, but from Greek
culture. As one author noted, "The sermon was the result of
syncretism--the fusion of the Biblical necessity of teaching with the
unbiblical Greek notion of Rhetoric." [Edwin Hatch notes] Such are the
indications of the influence of Greek Rhetoric upon the early churches. It
created the Christian sermon. (Kevin Craig, "Is the
Sermon Concept Biblical?", Searching Together, 15:1-2, 1986, p.28;
citing Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas On Christianity, Peter Smith, 1970,
p.113).
The Greek verbs used in the NT to portray
preaching are found overwhelmingly in situations which are outside church
meetings and evangelistic in nature (cf. Eric Wright, "Terms Used
to Describe Apostolic Communication in the Book of Acts", Searching
Together, 13:2, 1984, pp.7-8). One of the few places where "proclaim"
(Greek, kataggello) is used in an ekklesia
setting is in 1 Cor.11:26, and this action is
accomplished by the gathered body, not by one person's sermon. The Greek words
used for what goes on in an assembly meeting carry with them a
mutuality: pray together, instruct one another, sing with one another,
exhort and comfort one another, care for one another, eat with one another,
etc. Preaching in settings outside of Christian gatherings is more one-way in
that unbelievers hear the gospel announced, although discussion and
give-and-take are certainly present also. Paul does charge Timothy to preach
the word, but it must be kept in mind that he was an itinerant evangelist, not
a resident elder. If you check out the references to Timothy in the NT, you
will see that he was a person on the move, not having a resident ministry in
one place. If preaching primarily takes place outside of Christian meetings, on
what basis can we exalt the office of preacher within the church?
Some point to Acts 20:7-12 as an example of the centrality of preaching, a time
when Paul spoke for a long time. But it must be noted that v.7 specifically
states that the purpose of their coming together on the first day of the week
was to break bread, not to hear a sermon. There were special circumstances
surrounding this particular meeting, for it was the last time Paul would ever
see them. I'm sure if Paul came to your assembly, you would want to prolong
your time together in order to hear what he had to say. Further, the verb used
here, dialegomai, from which we derive our English
word dialogue, implies give-and-take with the listeners. What Paul said
provided the substance of the gathering, but he did not talk non-stop for
hours. There would have been discussion and audience participation (cf. Norrington, To Preach or Not to Preach, pp.9,100).
The Greek word for "preacher"
(one who heralds a message) is used three times in the NT, and has evangelism
in the forefront. Paul twice designates himself as a herald (1 Tim.2:7;
2 Tim.1:11), and connects his mission to the Gentiles and his sufferings with
this function. In 2 Pet.2:5 Noah is called a preacher of righteousness,
However, he was not preaching to the choir members, but to a doomed,
unbelieving generation. Again, from the scant use of the word preacher in the
NT, there is no basis to exalt this function in the midst of assembly meetings.
1 Cor.14 reveals an open kind of
gathering, with no one person presiding, and with multiple
participation from the body. Well, if the traditional sermon is
removed from our meeting, what is to take its place? Without the focus on one
part's contribution--the sermon--it would be possible for the saints to be
built up in a gathering where they looked to Christ as the Head, by the leading
of the Holy Spirit, to bring forth from the brethren what is needful. There is
nothing in 1 Cor.14, or anywhere else in the NT for that matter, about pews, a
pulpit, a sermon, one person dominating the meeting, or an order of service.
William Barclay (himself from the very liturgical Church of Scotland) comments
on what he saw taking place in 1 Cor.14.
[1 Cor.14] sheds a flood of light on what a Church service was like in the
early Church. There was obviously a freedom and informality about it which is
completely strange to our ideas. Clearly, the early Church had no professional
ministry. There was obviously a flexibility about the
order of service in the early Church which is now totally lacking. There was
clearly no settled order at all. The really notable thing about an early Church
service must have been that almost everyone came
feeling that he had both the privilege and obligation of contributing something
to it (The Letters to the Corinthians, Revised Edition, Westminster Press,
1977, pp.133-135).
Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary notes concerning 1
Cor.14:26:
Verse 26 insists that the Corinthians continue to
worship in highly participatory and spontaneous fashion. Everyone has a hymn,
or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. This
does not mean that every person present exercises all of the gifts, nor even
that all exercise at least one in every service. But opportunity is made
available for all whom the Spirit leads on any given occasion to contribute
(The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians, Zondervan,
1995, p.278).
It is acknowledged by NT scholarship that early church gatherings were simple,
taking place for the most part in homes. James' command, be slow to speak and
quick to listen, may have such gatherings as a backdrop.
There may be an illusion to the free and unstructured worship of early
Christian assemblies (Curtis Vaughn, James: A Study Guide, Zondervan,
1960, p.35).
It is possible that contentious Christian babes were taking advantage of the
informal style of worship in the early Christian church to produce wrangling
(James: A Primer for Christian Living, Pres.&
Ref., 1974, p.69).
In light of 1 Cor.14 a big question I have is this: why is the NT evidence we
do have concerning Christian gatherings discarded and functionally treated as
irrelevant, and that for which there is no evidence the centrality of the
preacher and his sermon elevated to assumed divine status? Why do we confess
that the NT is a sufficient guide for the church's faith and practice, and yet
we meet together in ways that contradict its patterns? Are we at liberty to set
aside what is revealed about gospel gatherings in order to keep intact the
non-apostolic traditions that we have received? Paul said in 1 Cor.12:14 that the
body is not one part but many, yet we generally gather in a way that hinges on
one part and denies the contributions of all the other parts (except to put a
check in the offering plate).
Even as far back as 1898 David Thomas touched on some key points in this
regard:
The Christian church in assembly, on the same occasion, might have several
speakers to address them. If this be so: (1) Should Christian teaching be
regarded as a profession? It is now: men are brought up in it, trained for it,
and live by it, as architects, lawyers, doctors. (2) Is the Christian church
justified in confining its attention to the ministry of one man? In most modern
congregations there are some Christian men who, by natural ability, by
experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to instruct and
comfort the people than their professional and stated minister. Surely official
preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it
must come to an end sooner or later. Every Christian man should be a preacher.
Were the half-hour allotted in church services for the sermon to be occupied by
three or four Christly men with the capability and expression withal, it would
not only be far more interesting, but more profitably spent than now (1 Corinthians,
The Pulpit Commentary, p.459).
We must remember that human traditions
are not neutral. Jesus taught in Mark 7:5-13 that human traditions
originate from religious leaders and over-take on the force of law; they tend
to multiply and take precedence over more important matters; they render the
worship of God to be a vain undertaking; when they are elevated, the actual
commands of God take a back seat; when zeal is directed toward them, the
commands of God will be flagrantly violated; when people are fixated on
traditions handed down from the past, God's Word is made of no effect; and
fixation on traditions tends to permeate all of one's existence.
One tradition can spawn a legion of activities that support it. Think of all
the religious baggage that is created by the exaltation of the clergy's sermon:
myriads of books, seminars, videos, and classes on various aspects of How to
Preach; seminaries to produce people who preach; ministerial associations for
local support of those who preach; clergy conferences to encourage those who
preach; denominational machinery and politics to fill empty pulpits; local
church pastoral search committees; expensive church architecture that focuses
on the pulpit at center stage; the manufacturing of pews, pulpits, audio and
video systems and other accoutrements that enable the laity to hear sermons; a
wide gamut of specialized products, services, and perks for preachers; special
days for clergy appreciation; numerous sources for sermon outlines for busy
preachers, etc. Such a list could go on and on. Everything in our religion is
predicated on the notion, "We must have a weekly sermon." Yet few
ever ask, "Where does Gods Word reveal such a lop-sided emphasis?"
How can we continue to exalt the position of preacher when it is just a
long-standing human tradition? Do we realize that by elevating preaching we
have for the longest time rendered God's Word of no effect? Can we reflect on
the blessings that would be ours in Christ if we practiced an "each of
you" meeting where Christ as the Head would lead the brethren into
edification? Why do we pursue the centrality of preaching for which there is no
Biblical evidence, and thereby neglect, stifle, hinder, and suppress the kind
of open, edifying gathering which the NT does reveal?
I appeal to you to consider this illustration (which could be equally applied
in evaluating many other human traditions). If a group of new believers located
in a remote area of Africa read through the NT in their language, would they
ever come to the conclusion that in order for their meetings to please the Lord
they must exalt an office in which one person who stands behind a sacred desk
(a pulpit) and delivers a sermon week after week? They wouldn't. They couldn't
because such notions aren't to be found in the Scriptures. Why, then, do we
become so defensive when pulpit centrality is examined, questioned, and the
emperor is found to have no clothes?
It is interesting to note that D.M. Lloyd-Jones, who wrote Preaching &
Preachers, sensed that some traditions were hindering full church life.
There is also this whole question of the exercise of gifts in the church.
[Some] have certain major difficulties, one of which is the so-called one-man
ministry. We have our views about that, but I feel the time has come for us to
examine even questions such as these. It does not mean that you necessarily
abandon that ministry, but it does focus attention on this: are we giving
members of the church an adequate opportunity to exercise their gifts? Are our
churches corresponding to the life of the New Testament church? Or is there too
much concentration in the hands of ministers and clergy? But I still ask,
"Do we manifest the freedom of the New Testament church?" In other
words, this is another reason why we must come back and consider the whole
doctrine of the nature of the church, and the marks of the church. The notion
of people belonging to the church in order to come to sit down and fold their
arms and listen, with just two or three doing everything, is quite foreign to
the New Testament ("Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various
Occasions", 1942-1977, Banner of Truth, 1989, pp.195- 196).
If you know these things, blessed are
you if you do them. Brethren, I can give testimony to the wonderful
blessings of growing in the practice of meeting together around the person of
Jesus Christ in simplicity. Of course it is open to abuse: Paul was correcting
the Corinthians in chapter 14. It is more vulnerable when you trust the Lord to
guide by the Spirit and not an order of service. It requires commitment to
people -- like yourself! -- who
can act at times like porcupines. It involves Spirit-sensitive brothers and
sisters who are active participants, not just passive receivers. Fervent love for
Jesus Christ, a desire to discern and act the mind of Christ, and deep humility
with openness must flow among the brethren. Taking up our cross and following
Jesus is not easy, but it is the only way of true blessedness.
I believe that the exaltation of preaching, while no one could doubt that some
good fruit from it has been born over the years, has blocked us from pursuing
the gathering of saints in simplicity which is revealed in the NT. It often
keeps people in a position of spoon-fed dependency, instead of fostering their
growth and maturity into works of ministry. But when we boil everything down,
isn't our basic concern, "What has the Lord revealed to us in His Word in
this regard? If we exalt that which He hasn't, are we not going to be the worse
for it? Why wouldn't we want to devote our zeal to what He has shown us in the
Scriptures?"
The story was told of a brother in the 1800s explaining to a Lutheran scholar
his understanding of the early church and their gatherings. When the scholar
noted, "Yes, but can such things be practiced in these days?", the reply was, "Have you ever tried it?"
Jon Zens, April 2004
www.batteredsheep.com/preacher.html
-----------------------------
I [Roderick Edwards] wanted to post this great article by Jon Zens to show that Roderick Edwards isn't just some kook out
here causing division as I'm often accused of -- but rather many others
have come to the same conclusions about the role of Pastors and Preachers.
Folks, as Preterists, do we really want to simply carry over futurists concepts
of "church"? Please allow me to quote another great writer on
the subject:
Which would you rather have in
error? God’s word, or God’s church? Creeds,
or Christ? Commentaries, or Scripture? It is no
problem for me to point at the church and say, “Error!” But, when you say that
God’s word is in error, or charge it with being so obscure that it cannot be
understood, then I have a problem. -- Samuel Frost -- From Studies
in Preterism Part 2 http://www.restorationgj.com/id181.htm
Indeed, it is time to question the errors of a post-Parousia church that
missed the Messiah because they were so busy trying to set up their own
enduring power structures -- from priests, to bishops, to popes, to pastors, to
preachers -- They have robbed the Christian of his place in the Kingdom and
have instead left us with with THEM still claiming to
point us to Christ -- as if we still need them to teach us [their
neighbor] to 'Know the Lord' when the Bible tells us we shall all know him
from the least to the greatest. These men, as well intentioned are 2000+ years
too late. We are on the other side of that transitional situation. They can
flap their wings and strut around all they want with their B.A.s
and M.A.s and T.H.D.s
and claiming we aren't being exegetical (read: seminarian) enough for
them, but the time is coming when the freedom promised us will finally be
realized and we will gently ask them to take their place in the Body rather
than behind their Greek-influenced pulpits.
Brothers and sisters, I know you see this. It will bear itself out. Roderick
Edwards may not be the best at relating it, but nevertheless, it will continue to
be an issue for, first those of the Preterists who carry over their faulty futurism and then spread to all of
Christianity -- and this they fear. Just as the Roman Catholics feared
the Reformers, just as the Reformers feared the so-called sectarians.
This realization of our liberty in Christ has merely begun.
May we all be one in the glorious COMPLETED LIVING PRESENT House of God, with
Christ as the Holy of Holies,