Thus Sayeth the Pastor: the Nature and Limits of Pastoral Authority

[TOvermiller]

T Howard wrote:

Am I as your pastor telling you something that is a clear command of Scripture or is an abstract application from Scripture? If the former, you need to obey. If the latter, you may not need to obey.

I don’t think we disagree. Your conclusion, which I’ve quoted, expresses my thoughts exactly. I agree with you.

My point is that the Greek to which you’re appealing doesn’t support the argument you’re making in this one point. Thus, most English translations (ESV, NASB, NET, KJV, HCSB, RSV; NIV inexplicably translates this as “have confidence in”) use the word “obey” not “be persuaded.” Therefore, whether a pastor is persuasive enough is not a criteria we should use to gauge whether we obey and submit to what he is saying.

So, while we agree on the major premise of your article, this particular argument needs to be revisited.

[T Howard]

My point is that the Greek to which you’re appealing doesn’t support the argument you’re making in this one point. So, while we agree on the major premise of your article, this particular argument needs to be revisited.

T Howard, thanks for interacting on this detail. The following lexicon entries may be helpful in understanding the sense of this word to which I am appealing, including the passive voice form:

• “To submit to authority or reason by obeying—‘to obey.’” (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains [New York: United Bible Societies, 1996] , 466.)
• Peíthomai: “This word has such senses as ‘to trust,’ ‘to be convinced,’ ‘to believe,’ ‘to follow,’ and even ‘to obey.’ (Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985] , 818.)

The idea is not that a church member has no obligation to obey Scripture unless the pastor can persuade him. Any member is responsible to obey Scripture no matter what his or her pastor says or does. But Scripture governs the parameters of a pastor’s authority. As he preaches, teaches, and leads the church, he should be able to demonstrate that he is doing so in accordance with Scripture.

[Don Johnson]

……….

Mayhue and others at The Master’s Seminary do not see a congregational form of church polity, or government, or leadership in the New Testament. He downplays the spiritual maturity of new believers to the point that he views the ruling elders as being more spiritually mature and more religiously capable of making decisions that affect the affairs of the church because they are more biblically-centered in their thinking.

Andy Naselli doesn’t refer to MacArthur directly in this article, he is commenting on Dever’s polity as taught in this case by Jonathan Leeman. I find Dever’s polity more biblical, although I don’t believe multiple elders are required. They are an option, not a requirement. Naselli’s comment, with which I agree with the caveat that there is no requirement for multiple elders:

While godly, mature Christians disagree on which model is most biblical, I think the most biblical polity is elder-led and congregation-ruled.

That sums it up. You ought to know be aware of what the policy actually is if you want to make legitimate comparisons.

I’ll let you and Jim duke it out on his double-downed ignorance and sit back and watch. However, your one quote helps crystallize the issue. Congregational government modeled on democratic principles of equality (think Jean-Jacques Rousseau) gives one vote to each member regardless of spiritual maturity, faithful church attendance, financial support of the church, etc.

Per Lumpkin, I’m not sure how one can downplay the spiritual maturity of new believers.Galatians 6:1, for one, does speak of those who are spiritual in a church who restore others in a spirit of meekness. Spiritual immaturity describes new believers simply because they are new in the faith and it takes time to mature. That’s why pastors shouldn’t be novices and why many churches do not allow new believers or even new members to serve in leadership until there is evidence of spiritual maturity. Elders are elders precisely because they are (or should be) “more spiritually mature and more religiously capable of making decisions that affect the affairs of the church because they are more biblically-centered in their thinking.”

Per Naslli, I think he has it partly right, except the congregational-ruled. I think there’s a better way to express that since ruling is associated with elders in the NT. Elders lead but can only do it with congregation support and affirmation. So may elder-led, congregation-affirmed.

[Steve Davis]

Per Lumpkin, I’m not sure how one can downplay the spiritual maturity of new believers.Galatians 6:1, for one, does speak of those who are spiritual in a church who restore others in a spirit of meekness. Spiritual immaturity describes new believers simply because they are new in the faith and it takes time to mature.

No argument that the people are at varying levels of maturity. No doubt about it. Good leaders will take into account the relative maturity of their congregation and learn how to guide them. They will also trust the Holy Spirit to use the congregation to guide him as well. I’ve seen men try to force their will on a congregation and it ends badly. I’ve also seen good leaders take the time to lead a congregation to a needed decision and the church prospers. I’ve tried to follow the good models I observed in my formative years, with advice from seasoned pastoral friends and consultation with our people. Praise the Lord we make progress and have never had any serious disagreements among our people. And they aren’t all spiritual giants either. We’re working on that.

[Steve Davis]

Per Naslli, I think he has it partly right, except the congregational-ruled. I think there’s a better way to express that since ruling is associated with elders in the NT. Elders lead but can only do it with congregation support and affirmation. So may elder-led, congregation-affirmed.

well, I don’t mind your rewording of that, but I can’t accept MacArthur’s approach. Totally unbiblical in my opinion.

It strikes me that even episcopal and presbyterian churches have a congregational vote every Sunday; whose rear ends show up in pews. No? I can go, to a large degree, with “elder-led,congregation affirmed”, as Steve notes, but with the caveat that I’ve learned in life that a lot of “my” best ideas actually come from other people. Sometimes it’s conversations in the hallway, sometimes it’s taking my coffee break with the smokers, but the end result is that isolation in leadership, no matter what the structure, is dangerous.

It really parallels Hayek’s writing (and that of others) on the “economic calculation problem” vis-a-vis leaders. No leader, no matter how intelligent and Godly, can know everything known by those under his authority. Hence economic decisions are (paradoxically) made better by people of lesser ability who experience the consequences of their own decisions personally. I would dare suggest we could make a spiritual analogy to this, too.