Just so you know, this is no theological paper! It’s more of a reflection on ministry.
In his letter to the Ephesians (4:1 – 16), Paul sets out what we hold in common before talking about diversity and purpose in ministry. He lists five leadership ministries: apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher (APEPT). Paul is giving a collegial model of leadership—something we Presbyterians have. Well, in theory, anyway.
When I introduce this leadership model to elders in New Zealand, as I introduced it at the Eldership Unleashed conference in Alberta, I use a particular scenario. This time, it was the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami. As people reflect on such an event, I give five responses they might experience, then ask them to own up to which of the five (or more) they identify with. These responses relate to the five ministries. With every group, including those at the elders’ conference, all five are present. Why am I not surprised? God has given these five ministries “to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12 – 13). The trouble is, we often haven’t recognized, nurtured or mentored them.
So what are these ministries?
The apostle is the entrepreneur of the faith, the one who sees the future, and often lives in the reality of the future that others cannot see. They can be seen as dreamers, people who are not really on the same planet as us, away in some little world of their own. They’re visionaries. If we don’t understand their ministry we are inclined to simply dismiss them and shut them down. They go quiet and/or leave, and we miss the opportunity to hear the voice of God calling us onward. Their dream may be five, 10 or 15 years down the track but we need to listen now so we can start walking in that direction. As one apostle – type told me, “It’s like I can see over the horizon; in fact, I am already there!” This guy was forced to leave his leadership role because the denomination of which he was a part didn’t understand this ministry and simply couldn’t cope with him.
The prophet questions the status quo. They are uncomfortable people to have in our midst, often seen as hard and judgmental. So we shut them down. Prophets weren’t popular in the Bible, either. By not understanding, mentoring and listening we are likely to miss the voice of God in our midst to our detriment. A prophet – type I know was banned from preaching in his own church even while he was itinerating throughout New Zealand. His home church found his words too uncomfortable. Time showed he was right.
The evangelist is the sales person. They are often full of enthusiasm, which can get a bit tiring for the rest. They certainly think everyone should be an evangelist just like them! Because they also challenge us, we like to cut them off, and miss the potential for people being drawn into relationship with Jesus.
We are more familiar with the pastor. They tend the people of God, nurturing and building them up. The church’s current ministry model is almost exclusively based in this and the teaching ministry. The pastor’s prime concern is the welfare of those under the church’s care; perhaps better understood as chaplaincy. Their main priority is that all is peaceful.
The teacher imparts information to people. Most times the teacher simply loves researching the subject and sharing that with others.
When we ignore, shut down or are simply ignorant of the first three ministries, we miss out, and it shows in the decline of the impact of the gospel in our communities. Bring back the “APEs,” I say! (I recently asked a congregation to ask their elders if they were APEs or not. That started a few conversations!) There is tension within these five ministries, so that’s why Ephesians chapter 4 starts with the things we hold in common. In holding to these, we can let the tensions of the diversity be creative in our midst. Instead of shutting down the disturbers of the peace, let’s learn to listen for the voice of God and work out how we are to move the people of God under our collective leadership towards that uncomfortable place to which God is calling us.
Professional vs. Non – Professional
I see nothing from the New Testament that suggests there is a professional and non – professional distinction in ministry—a distinction that would elevate one group to a higher importance than the others. We have to get rid of this notion that ministry is the preserve of a professionally trained few and take up what we profess about the priesthood of all believers. No believer is closer to God by virtue of their training. Leadership is first a calling from God, and training follows. It is my experience that not all theologically trained individuals are leaders. Likewise, leaders may not be theologically trained but are leaders nonetheless.
I am not speaking against theological training. I value that in our heritage. What I am arguing for is a much broader, biblically based model of collective leadership within which the theologically trained professional is but one contributor alongside those whose theological training has come from years of wrestling with God through life experiences and the teaching of the theological professionals. We need to get rid of intellectual snobbery. There is no such distinction as lay, professional, or non – professional in the New Testament.
Our Reformed context says all believers are priests. Our Presbyterian context says that at every level of the church we seek the mind of Jesus, who is the church’s head, through the collective wisdom and diversity of a collegial leadership model. We have to move from the pastor/teacher model that is currently viewed as the prime ministry in the church, just as the Church of Scotland said in its 2001 report, Church Without Walls. In New Zealand, our 2002 General Assembly said the core of ministry within the Presbyterian Church is the whole people of God, and that the function of the professional is to teach, resource and equip the whole people of God for ministry. The same assembly affirmed the importance of a trained eldership in the leadership of the church. Great decisions, but I fear that’s about as far as it has gone to date.
I really have to ask, why? If we don’t practice what we preach about the priesthood of all believers, then we are being hypocritical!
How have we come to the place where we put such emphasis on a professional ministry? Tradition? Where in the New Testament can we find the justification of this model of ministry? I haven’t found it yet and although I keep asking, no one has been able to answer me. And that’s because I don’t think it can be answered in scripture.
We are not “reformed,” and hence, a finished product; rather, we are both reformed and reforming. Or so we say. It is the same with scripture—it’s our supreme rule of faith—but when it challenges our traditions, watch the intellectual gymnastics! Jesus challenged the professionals of his time on this very issue of tradition taking precedent over scripture. (Matthew 15:1 – 9)
Unleashing all for ministry
Back to ministry. Every follower of Jesus is a minister of the gospel. Both professional and non – professional. All five of the ministries listed in Ephesians are amongst the whole people of God. We have to change our thinking. The pressure on the professional is unrealistic and the expectations of the non – professionals unreal.
Here in New Zealand, the General Assembly has allowed elders, within their own congregations, to be authorized to lead and administer both communion (20 years ago) and baptisms (10 years ago). Not just in a vacancy situation. The sky hasn’t fallen as some feared and I think it would be fair to say that many professionals have found it freeing. We haven’t gone far enough yet. I would like to know where in the New Testament is there any teaching about which believers may not conduct the sacraments? I can’t find it. I do see believers meeting together, breaking bread, having fellowship, praying and attending to the teaching of the apostles. The reality is that if Jesus were a Presbyterian, unless he was a professional, or an elder approved by presbytery, he could not conduct the very sacraments he instituted. He couldn’t share the sacrament in a home group, (as he did) unless the session had approved it and there was someone present who was authorized to lead it.
This would also apply to Paul or any other of the apostles! We have a long way to go.
So what does this mean? I believe that if we wish to move forward constructively and not continue to retrench, we need to unpack this whole question of ministry including the collective, fivefold nature of it. Clearly if we are to be true to our reforming roots, we need to align ourselves with the scriptures, which we claim to be our supreme standard, and not our traditions. This is a conversation we have yet to have in New Zealand. We like to reorganize, restructure or tinker with the structures and processes in the hope of moving the Kingdom forward, when what we need to do is take a long, hard look at our ministry assumptions (among other things).
I think the real reason we want to see more people in church is not primarily about the Kingdom of God but about having the finances to continue doing what we have always done in the way we have always done it. That’s not Kingdom work, that’s church work! But that’s another subject.
God bless you. It was a privilege and honour to be among some of you last May and to be the recipient of your warm Canadian hospitality.
