Serving One Another: A Study of New Testament Gifts: Volume Three: The Ministry Gifts

By Stephen P. Ansley

God wants His people to know the gifts He has given them.

Gifts appear in Scripture primarily in three passages, each with its own list, with other gifts mentioned individually here and there in other parts of Scripture.  This three volumes study of New Testament gifts deals with the three lists separately to honor the uniqueness of each list.  You are invited to come along with the author in discovering what God has given to His people, including you.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Christian Faith Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Aug 1, 2022
• ISBN: 9781685179182

Book preview

Volume Three: The Ministry Gifts

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Ephesians 4:11-16

32

An Introduction to the Ministry Gifts

In the early part of the book (volume 1) I introduced the subject of Ephesians 4 and church order and raised the question of how the church is to be governed. The essential from which we must not deviate is that Christ Jesus is the Head of the church. To that we must add the declaration of Ephesians 4:11 that Christ Himself has given apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. What are these five people, how are they to be identified, what are their responsibilities and authority, and how do they function? Have some of them, namely apostles and prophets, ceased to be given to the church? What are pastors and what is their relationship to elders? Who are the church’s teachers? What are the implications of all of this on how the church is to be ordered?

Throughout church history very different answers have been given to these questions, and the parties involved have been anything but kind toward one another. That diversity of opinion still characterizes us and shapes how we do church. In giving my answer to these questions I can almost guarantee that I will ruffle some feathers as well as say some things you have never heard, probably things you have never thought about. I do not doubt that I will be wrong some of the time, maybe more than that. But these are issues that need to be discussed, and they need to be discussed civilly and without calling each other heretics.

Love, unity, and peace are major considerations with Ephesians 4 as with Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. My plea to you is to read what I have written, compare it with Scripture, pray about it, and live in unbroken fellowship with those who differ with you. I have a dear brother who has recently left the church where we were members together and has gone to another church. His complaint was We don’t do things right. My response is simply, If you wait until you find a church that does everything right, you will never be back in church, or at best you will be there only long enough to find that they don’t do everything right either. Except when there is an unfaithfulness to the gospel, you should stay where you are.

Some readers will quickly accept what I will say, maybe too quickly. You are compelled to be a Berean, searching the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so (Acts 17:11). Please do not use the following material to go out with a little bit of knowledge and a lot of zeal to set everything straight. Always reforming is a wonderful watchword for the church, but reformations, if they are done well, take time. Church splits and people who split from church are usually strong indications that things were not done well.

All five ministers disappeared very quickly in church history. Without self-awareness apostles were disguised, prophets were intentionally suppressed, evangelists were absorbed, pastors became priests, and teachers were turned into bishops. I will explain each one of these as we come to their respective discussions.

What appears to be a variety of structural models in the New Testament give way to a new understanding that all of these patterns are merely variations on the theme of apostolic oversight. Certain insights become obvious that were obscured.

It is also possible to see church history differently than it has traditionally been viewed. As early as the second century there appeared to be a void of apostolic leadership, but such was not the case. Apostles were given, but not recognized as apostles. Rather, they were thought to be bishops that were distinct from elders and elevated over them. It was the beginning of a shift from an organic model to an institutional and hierarchical model. Into the third and fourth centuries the distance from the biblical model of apostolic leadership continued to grow. The historical model of bishops, elders, and deacons widened even more when the Eucharist began to be thought of as a sacrifice and priests were of necessity introduced into the mix. Bishops and elders became priests as over against the laity.

By the end of the fourth century the process of transformation was complete. Through the successive centuries apostles continued to be given to the church by her Lord, but the church did not recognize them as apostles.

Many students of Scripture understand Ephesians 4:11 to refer to four rather than five ministers. They believe that the grammar leads to the conclusion that pastors and teachers are one person (pastor-teacher) rather than two. I will continue to speak of five ministers, and will delay defending my opinion on this issue until coming to the discussion of pastors.

How are we to understand these five people whom our Lord Jesus has given to the church? They are, in fact, people, but that is not all they are. Kenneth Berding uses four words to describe them: assignments, roles, functions, and ministers/ministries (Berding: 2006, 32 ff.). The assignments they have received distinguish them. These assignments could also be called roles or functions. In biblical language they are ministers. The distinctive ministries of these five people will be described below as we deal with each of them in turn.

What can be said at this point is that there are seven distinctions that are shared in common by all five of these ministers/ministries: (a) the Giver is the risen Lord, (b) these people are gifts, (c) these gifts are people, (d) they have specific assignments, (e) they are recognized by the church, (f) their ministries are trans-local, and (g) their ministries are equipping ministries. All seven characteristics are inter-related so much that it is impossible to speak of one without also saying something about the others. Thus, in the comments that follow there will be unavoidable, but not undesirable, repetition.

TheGiveris the Risen Lord

Ephesians 4:8-10 identifies the Lord Jesus by reference to His descent to earth (the incarnation) and His ascent far above all the heavens, the ascension following the resurrection. Verse 8 states, He…gave gifts to men. Then verse 11 begins, And He Himself gave… It is not simply He gave, but He is emphasized by the additional pronoun Himself. This is in the Greek text as well as in English.

If He Himself gave, then these ministers and their ministries cannot be given by the church; He and He alone has given them to the church. Furthermore, these may not be handed on, as from one apostle to a successor, who in turn gives the responsibility and authority to another person, who in turn…and so on. In every instance it is the Lord Jesus Who is the Giver. The role the church has in this process is in recognizing what He has given, not in doing the giving.

Luke reports that the church at Antioch ministered to the Lord and fasted, and the Holy Spirit said, ‘Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’ (Acts 13:1-2). When Luke states that the Holy Spirit speaks and sends, it does not diminish the selection of leaders, the tasks assigned to them, and their being given to the church as the work of the Lord Jesus Himself. Jesus promised that when He would go to the Father, He would send Another Who would not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak (John 16:13). The Spirit carries out the work of the Son.

The Lord Jesus Christ is Head of the church. It is His place to provide for her. One of the ways He has done that is by giving her five kinds of leaders with particular kinds of ministries. Paul stresses this with reference to his apostleship by saying in his letter to Galatia, Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)… (Gal. 1:1).

These People areGifts

In Romans 12 the gifts are inner motivations. In 1 Corinthians 12 the gifts are supernatural manifestations. Here in Ephesians 4 the gifts are people. The leaders Jesus gave (and continues to give) to the church are gifts themselves.

The text declares, "And He Himself gave… (my emphasis). The textual form of gave" in this verse is edoken, the indicative, aorist, active of didomi (did’-o-mee, 1325). The indicative mood is used to make a factual statement. It is the aorist tense that is of particular interest to us. The aorist (in the indicative mood) is a factual statement of past action but without regard to whether the action was momentary or continuous. That leaves open the possibility that Jesus might continue to give apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. It will prove to be continuous, but while that is not confirmed in this verse, what is important is that this verse does not rule out continuation.

The fact that these leaders are gifts to the church includes the dark possibility that they may be tempted to think too highly of themselves. The caricature that comes to mind is Gaston in Beauty and the Beast. Sadly, too many of us have seen Gaston in our church. By their attitude they say, I am God’s gift to the church! when they should say, I am given by our Lord that I may serve Him by serving you. As gifts they are to be characterized by humility. Servants are not exalted individuals. Servants are lowly. Their attitude should never be, I preside over you, but rather, I am given to serve you. Unfortunately, there are times that some leaders have worn the robes of the ruler, not the apron of the servant (Strauch: 1995, 91 quoting Michael Green).

The abiding truth is that our Head has given us good gifts when He has given these five ministers and their ministries.

These Gifts arePeople

The converse of "These Gifts are People is These Gifts are People." They are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. When we speak of these gifts from Christ, we run into a clash between seeing things theologically and seeing them sociologically.

It is commonly observed that the church is an organism, not an organization. There is both truth and error in that statement. Theologically, the church is an organism. But there is also no denying that sociologically, it is an organization. Major problems arise when we confuse the two, especially when we give priority to the sociological reality over the theological reality. When we do that, people become officers who hold offices, and their offices are identified by titles. The titles lead to prestige, privilege, and power over other people. Their horizontal network of relationships becomes hierarchical relationships of chain of command. The officers develop bureaucracies to facilitate their work.

We can trace the shift from the priority of the biblical model to the priority of the sociological model during the first four centuries of church history. Protestant readers might conclude that this description is characteristic of Catholic ecclesiastical distortion. But all of this happened in the church more than a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation. This is history we share as both Catholics and Protestants. It is our mutual history. There is no room for pointing fingers.

A cluster of things happened that were interrelated which in the end gave priority to organization (offices and titles) over organism (people and ministry functions): bishops became distinct from elders and were elevated over them, numerous ranks of bishops were formed, the Eucharist was identified as a sacrifice, which in turn required priests, chairs of authority were established, titles were granted, and distinctions between clergy and laity were made.

A few of you might be interested to know that this discussion of the nature of the church as a spiritual reality versus an institutional reality has gone on for a long time.

German church historian and theologian Rudolph Sohm (1841-1917) pressed the distinction between office and institution on the one hand and charismata and spiritual reality on the other. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930), also a German church historian and theologian, responded by demonstrating that such an extreme separation was untenable.

Like Rudolph Sohm, Swiss theologian Emil Brunner (1889-1966) sought to separate the church as an institution from the ecclesia of Scripture. Karl Barth (1886-1968, Barth is pronounced Bart), also a Swiss theologian, persuasively countered Emil Brunner’s extremism by appealing to an analogy: a turtle without a shell is not a turtle at all. The church, its ministers and ministries, cannot function in some kind of cultural vacuum without institutional reality.

Since the Sohm-Harnack exchange, many books and articles have been written on this subject. For any readers who want to pursue this farther, a superb article by Enrique Nardoni analyzes much of that literature in Charism in the Early Church Since Rudolph Sohm: An Ecumenical Challenge. It is a good place to start.

When we use sociological language, we should be sure that both we and our hearers are aware that we are doing so. Under those circumstances, it is not improper to speak of the church as an institution. It is also never proper to deny that it is an institution. Sociologists describe institution as having (1) leaders and followers, (2) ways or rules for doing things, and (3) continuity. Those things are true of churches simply because churches are in the world. It is not possible to be a church that avoids this reality. However, that does not mean that as a sociological reality it must have offices and titles. A chair of an office identified by a title runs directly counter to Scripture. Rick Joyner correctly points out that God does not anoint a position, but a person (Joyner: 2004, 154). Christ does not give the church offices and titles, but rather people with particular ministries. If it were to happen that there were a time that He did not give apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, there would be no chair waiting to be filled.

When we use theological language, we recognize that ontologically the church is not of the world. The church is a spiritual reality that transcends the world even while it is in the world. That is why sociological study can offer many helpful insights, but in the end it cannot fully comprehend the church. Sociology has access to patterns of social behavior, but not to the Spirit. As a spiritual reality the church is given people: ministers and their ministries, or we could express it as people and functions rather than offices and titles.

There is a perpetual tension between the church as an institutional reality and the church as a spiritual reality. The challenge is to give priority to the spiritual reality and to minimize the institutional reality. That can be done by having a clear understanding of both perspectives, but especially being filled with a biblical perspective.

That starts by recognizing that Christ did not give chairs and titles, such as the Office of the Pastor and the Chair of the Bishop. But He gave people; those people had names: Peter, James, John, Paul, Barnabas, and Philip. If we choose to act and speak sociologically of giving these people offices and titles, we run more than a small risk of obscuring what Christ gave. We might give offices and titles, but He did not.

They have SpecificFunctions

If Christ gives people, what distinguishes them from other people? The answer is simply that they are people who have a particular ministry functions. This is implied in Ephesians 4:11. People and functions are bound together. On this matter I share the point of view of Kenneth Berding, who says, I have suggested in the text that the function and the person in the function are conceptually so close that, for Paul, it wouldn’t have felt like a shift. He could have viewed either the function or the person in the function as two ways of describing the same idea (Berding: 2006, 299, n. 12).

Discussing Ephesians 4:11 under the metaphorical image of The Body of Christ, Paul Minear says, The variety of gifts included different types of ministry, the emphasis here…falling upon the forms of service rather than upon the individual servants. All the gifts together constituted a gift to the body from its head… For the work of service (Eph. 4:12) is the function of all the gifts, whether prophecy or teaching (Minear: 1960, 218).

Discussion of functions should be approached both positively and negatively: the positive task is to describe the functions of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers; the negative task is to rule out offices and titles. The positive task may be deferred until we come to the extended discussion of these five ministries one by one below. First, we should clear the pathway by taking up the negative task.

In Titus 1:5-7 the terms bishop/overseer (episcopos) and elder (presbyteros) are interchangeable. Once these two terms became distinguished from one another in early church history, which should never have happened, the bishop took on an office. He was given a chair of authority, a title, and a realm. The cathedral church was the seat of the bishop. Cathedra is first Greek, kathedra, then Latin cathedra, meaning seat. The cathedral church was the seat or chair of authority of the Bishop. The Bishop’s office was trans-local. Other churches formed the diocese of the Bishop of the cathedral church. Henceforth, all church leaders were thought of as office holders. That has continued through church history. These days references to the office of pastor, the office of teacher, and the office of the bishop are ubiquitous. Even many of those people who believe that there are apostles today speak of the office of an apostle.

In both historical and contemporary churches offices are part of the most prominent elements of social church structure. The most extensive form is that of the Catholic Church with its hierarchy of the office of local priest, trans-local bishops, arch bishops, cardinals, and Pope. Protestant churches, too, are not free of office with the office of local pastor supplemented by denominational offices. Anglican and Methodist churches are not far from the Catholic Church in this structure. Even Baptist churches, which are congregational in polity, have denominational offices above the local church which provide additional oversight and service, and sometimes, though they do not like to admit it, authority. Even when that is not true, what Baptist church with congregational polity is without its internal hierarchy? It is typically an internal hierarchy of office without self-awareness or at least without acknowledgement.

Hans von Campenhausen correctly observes, It is no accident that in the New Testament the explicit concept of an ‘apostolic office’ is absent. Paul terms his calling a divine ordinance, a ministry, and a grace given him by the exclusive choice of God himself (Campenhausen: 1997, 27). Is this not also true of evangelists, pastors, and teachers? The New Testament has no vocabulary of ministerial offices. The reason is simple: Christ gives people to the church; He does not give offices and titles. There is also something to the concept of realm or sphere, but we will come to that in due time.

Peter Wagner’s contribution to the church has been weighty and highly valuable. His understanding of office and his insistence on offices, however, strikes me as unbiblical and therefore faulty. His stress on offices and titles might make some sense sociologically and practically, as for example, opening doors of access. But if it is not a scriptural model, how can it be God’s way? I will have more to say about Peter Wagner’s views on this in the discussion of titles.

Titles are devices by which offices are publicly recognized. Titles connotate status, rank, achievement, honor, privileges, power, authoritarian supremacy, and even perks.

Jesus cautioned against the destructive effects of titles and by implication offices. Alexander Strauch says, Jesus prohibited His disciples from using honorific titles, calling one another Rabbi, exalting themselves in any way that would diminish their brotherly relationship… (Strauch: 1995, 89). Jesus spoke of the scribes and Pharisees who sit in Moses’ seat… But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren… And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted (Matt. 23:1-12). Alexander Strauch adds, In complete obedience to Christ’s teaching on humility and brotherhood, the first Christians and their leaders resisted special titles, sacred clothes, chief seats, and lordly terminology to describe their community leaders (111).

With this in mind it is not hard to see the contrast between what Jesus said and the view of Peter Wagner with regard to titles. He says, Peter and Paul both referred to themselves as apostles of Jesus Christ. This is important because such a title carries with it a dimension of great authority… It is like Joe Doe, United States Ambassador to Japan… Without the title, Joe Doe is just Joe Doe, and high-level doors do not open to him (Wagner: 2006, 61). Peter Wagner promotes this use of titles quite explicitly in his book Apostles Today, chapter 5, The Power of a Title. He goes on to say, The church has become quite comfortable using titles for evangelists, pastors and teachers. Therefore, the idea of using titles for the offices of Ephesians 4:11 has not been rejected in principle (62).

My response is that it should be rejected in principle because Ephesians 4:11 does not speak of offices and titles; it speaks of ministers and ministries. Furthermore, Paul does not refer to himself as an apostle in the way that Peter Wagner suggests. Paul never identifies himself as the Apostle Paul. He consistently uses apostle as an apposition, not a title. The Apostle Paul is a title; Paul, an apostle is an apposition. An apposition is two words put side by side with the second word explaining the first word. Thus apostle as an apposition is descriptive of the function of Paul. It is not a title. Never. We need to quit speaking of the Apostle Paul, which is a common practice today, but instead speak in the way Paul himself spoke in Scripture, Paul, an apostle (Rom. 1:1-2; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; and Titus 1:1). This is consistent with the fact that Paul also delighted in identifying himself as a servant and slave (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). Rick Joyner exhorts us, We should become wary of any ministry that is overly demanding of being called by any title (Joyner: 2004, 194).

There is a very good reason why titles do not belong to us: they belong to our Lord Jesus. Markus Barth observes that all ‘clerical’ titles available from Israel’s history and literature have been conferred upon Jesus Christ and comprehended in him (Barth: 1974, 481). These titles generally appear in many references; I will provide only one for each: Prophet, prophetes, prof-ay’-tace, 4396, (John 7:40), Priest, hiereus, hee-ee-yooce,’ 2409, (Heb. 5:6), and King, basileus, bas-il-yooce,’ 935, (John 18:37); Lord, kurios, koo’-ree-os, 2962, (Col. 1:3); Christ, christos, khris-tos,’ 5547, (Mark 8:29); Apostle, apostolos, ap-os’-tol-os, 652, (Heb. 3:1); Evangelist, euaggelistes, yoo-ang-ghel-is-tace,’ 2099, (Luke 4:18, descriptively as euaggelizo, yoo-ang-ghel-id’-zo, 2097); Pastor, poimen, poy-mane,’ 4166, (Heb. 13:20); Teacher, didaskalos, did-as’-kal-os, 1320, (John 13:13); Bishop, episkopos, ep-is’-kop-os, 1985, (1 Pet. 2:25). These titles are His; they are not ours. As these terms apply to people in His church, they only identify the functions to which He has called them.

The church is an institution, but not without limits. We avoid the excess by steering clear of offices and titles and adopting the humility and servant attitude which is proper among brothers and sisters in God’s family and emphasizing our relationship and avoiding references to rank. We are called to serve one another, not be lords over one another. This is true for apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers as much as it is for the rest of us. Our relationships are to be horizontal, not vertical.

It is the call of the old nature in us that seeks honor and glory from other people. That is the primary reason we seek offices and titles. We are not Reverend, Teacher/Doctor, Bishop, Pastor, or Elder (the list could go on). We may be Raymond, a teacher, William, a bishop, or Paul, an apostle. We will not give priority to the spirituality reality over the sociological reality until we speak, think, and behave in a biblical way.

Before passing to the next section, a word about Christian schools is in order. As Christians we have chosen to adopt the model of the secular academy for our schools of higher learning, whether colleges, universities, or seminaries. These halls of learning involve offices and titles. The learned doctors don cap and gown. They perpetuate the form by conferring a variation on titles, namely degrees: bachelor, master, doctor. I admit I have participated in this model as a student, and when there has been talk about replacing it with a relational model, I have been uneasy for reasons that will become clear as I proceed.

When I sought an institutional theological education, my learning skills and specialized knowledge took an extremely rapid ascent and taught me how to continue learning in the most skillful and efficient ways. But while in school, I also was distressed that no one seemed interested to know my heart or provide me with ministry experience and skills. I met other students who left me shocked that they would complete their academic degree programs, remain deficient in character and ministry skills without anyone noticing it, and enter professional careers in ministry.

During my years of military service and university studies, I was involved with the Navigators. It is a Christian organization, similar in some ways to Cru (formerly Campus Crusade) and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Part of their distinction is that they major in man-to-man training (Paul to Timothy to faithful men to others also, 2 Tim. 2:2) and also in small team organization after the model of Jesus and the Twelve (small sub-teams within the larger team). This relational and scriptural model as exemplified by the Navigators presents a compelling argument in favor of a relational structure for spiritual training as an alternative to the heavy institutional model of the more widespread formal Christian school approach (Bible colleges and seminaries).

In my experience the relational model of the Navigators emphasized Christian living, but under-emphasized Christian doctrine. I would not give up the relationships I formed with Navigator men nor the ministry skills I learned from them. On the other hand I have always had a strong desire to understand my faith, and therefore, the Navigator suppression of utilizing biblical commentaries and books of theology distressed me, and that hunger was not satisfied until I received formal theological training.

I believe that we do not need to abandon either of these two models. Since I benefited greatly by both of them and see these combinations of strengths and weaknesses in them, some readers will accuse me of wanting to keep my cake and eat it too. That may be true. If we had to choose, the relational model is best because it is closest to the biblical one. But that does not mean that we cannot or should not do both. The problem comes when we miss the relational model altogether. It is primary. Formal, institutional, theological education is secondary. I am whole heartedly in favor of institutional training if it is not a substitute for the biblical, relational model.

By the way, I found in my own experience that most theological professors lived according to the academic model in their insistence on being recognized as doctors and professors who sat in chairs of teaching. I view that as unnecessary, undesirable, and extremely institutional. A few of the professors I knew, but only a few, were humble enough to drop the titles, ignore the loftiness of the chairs, and relate to students as true brothers and sisters. Some even encouraged students to address them by their first name. I did not learn less from them because of that; I learned more. May that relational practice increase in the halls of theological academia. On the other hand I am not rigid in my opposition to the use titles within the halls of academia.

They areRecognizedby the Church

All members of the church are called to Christian ministry. That would suggest that Christian baptism is ordination into ministry. In his commentary on Ephesians Markus Barth suggests this point. He says, It is possible that the term ‘one baptism’ in (Ephesians) 4:5 includes this reminder: all the saints have received the same ordination and made the same pledge to fulfill their share in the ministry entrusted to the church (Barth: 1974, 481).

But not all ministry is leadership-ministry; leadership is only one form of ministry. What is commonly called ordination is not an initiation into ministry, but rather the formal and public recognition that the individual is entering into leadership-ministry. It would appear that such a public announcement in the church would be legitimate following a vetting process and the appointment to a particular leadership task.

But there are some problems with thinking of ordination in this way. For starters it causes us to forget (or never know) that every Christian is ordained to ministry. It also bypasses the most prominent example of ordination for ministry (including leadership ministry) by baptism in Scripture, namely, that of Jesus; It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove (Mark 1:9-10). Markus Barth boldly opens the possibility that the references to the laying on of hands, usually associated with ordination, in 1 and 2 Timothy have been mistakenly thought of as done at a time beyond Christian baptism. He says, The ordination mentioned in 1 Tim. 4:14; 6:12; 2 Tim. 1:6 may well refer to the confession and laying-on-of-hands connected with baptism rather than to an antecedent of a bishop’s consecration (Barth: 481-482). I will have more to say about ordination in Appendix B.

They areTrans-localMinistries

At the risk of annoying you by repetition, I want to restate that the mission of the church is to disciple all nations. Nations in scriptural terms (ethne, eth’-nee, 1484) are unique, cultural-linguistic people-groups. The discipling of all nations involves one’s own people group, but as soon as possible also other people-groups both near and far, until all people-groups of the world have been evangelized and discipled. All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:18-20). and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem (in your own people group), and in all Judea (near people groups), and Samaria (people groups culturally more distant, but sharing some common features), and to the end of the earth (people-groups altogether culturally distant) Acts 1:8. We call this the Great Commission. The discipling of a people-group can be measured by people entering into the Great Commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and with all your mind and You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:37-39). The Great Commission and the Great Commandment belong together.

Why have I restated this in this setting? I have done so to take it a step further by saying: the mission of the church, discipling the nations, cannot be fulfilled without the functioning of these five ministers/ministries: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. They cannot do that by being locally bound; they are trans-local. That will become clear as we see their functions.

Most people have no problem seeing that apostles, prophets, and evangelists are trans-local (the belief that there are contemporary apostles and prophets is a separate issue to be dealt with later). But pastors and teachers are another matter; it is uncommon to recognize that they are trans-local. Furthermore, most people believe that pastor-teachers and elders are interchangeable terms.

We are sent the right direction in our thinking on this subject by Adolph von Harnack, (1851-1930, German Lutheran theologian and prominent church historian), though even he did not go as far as I go. B. H. Streeter says, Harnack’s main contention is that in the earliest period there existed side by side what were really two distinct kinds of ministry—a universal and a local. The first comprising Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers, had a scope of activity theoretically co-extensive with the Church universal, and derived its authority from the Holy Spirit; the second consisted of Presbyter-bishops and Deacons, appointed by popular election in particular local churches—with functions limited to the church which had elected them (Streeter: 1929, 71-72). David Aune gives a similar summary, According to a famous thesis formulated by A. Harnack, apostles, prophets, and teachers were held in esteem throughout the entire church, yet commissioned by no single local community; they wandered from community to community and were held in the highest respect by all. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, on the other hand, were leaders whose authority was limited to the local congregations of which they were part (Aune: 1983, 201). This thesis was set forth in Adolph von Harnack’s, die Lehre der zwolf Apostel. Since I do not read German, I am dependent on the scholarship of David Aune and B. H. Streeter to convey the thought of Adolph von Harnack. That some ministers/ministries are local and others are trans-local is a thesis that I find easy to accept in spite of the fact that David Aune points out that the role of two orders of Christian leaders, one universal and the other local, has not gone without criticism… (201-202).

David Aune also quotes 1 Corinthians 12:28 and comments on it, ‘And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.’ The ordinals used in connection with the first three roles indicate that Paul placed particular importance on them (Aune:1983, 201).

The way in which I go beyond Adolph von Harnack is my belief that pastors are trans-local. I arrived at this conclusion through the back door. Only when I came to see that the New Testament speaks consistently of elders as leaders of local congregations, but never calls them pastors, did I consider the possibility that pastors are trans-local. Then I began to