Posted by John Reuther on January 27, 2010
In Part 1 of th
is article we thought about the conversion of the scribe and the care of a household. We move on here in Part 2 to give our attention to the functions of the head of a household.
The Head of a Household is a Leader
This is carefully stated in the parable of Matt. 13:52. Jesus was speaking to His disciples, and after setting many parables before them He asked them, “Have you understood all these things?” “And they said Him, ‘Yes’” (Matt. 13:51). The “therefore” of 13:52, which begins the parable of the householder, is the application of the parable directly to them in their leadership role in the kingdom. They have become disciples of the kingdom and they are like scribes (converted) who bring out of their treasure things new and old. The head of the household therefore is a leader.
What can we say about the leadership which a head of a household exercises? He will be a man of movement. He will not be a sitter, but the runner of the race of life; He will not be a stagnating pond, but a rolling river bringing fresh life to his household, his wife, family, church. Like the merchant of the earlier parable of Matthew 13, he will be a seeker of fine pearls, finding them in Christ, and filling his treasure with jewels for his family (Matthew 13:45-46). He will be drawing closer to the kingdom of God each day in this world himself, and seeking to lead his wife and family to the kingdom that is delighting him with its treasures. This also applies, as mentioned in the first article, to the teaching role of women in their households. It applies to the disciples in their role as leaders, teachers, and preachers in the church, and it applies to pastors today. We must be men of movement, always seeking, studying, praying, working, going, and growing.
But the movements of a household leader are in the context of the struggles and challenges of daily life. Spiritual leadership in this world involves leading a household through the darkness into the light, and making our own aware of the dangers as we lead them to safety in Christ and God’s word.
If Jesus is your greatest treasure, then your leadership in the home or in the church will be characterized by dynamic movement and patterned after the movements of Jesus whose call to discipleship is to follow Him.
But he will also be a man of motivation. The head on our physical body provides the source of power and direction to the whole body. The head is the coordinator and the communicator. In the same way, a spiritual leader motivates his household by utilizing the treasures of the kingdom that fill his own heart. He thinks God’s thoughts and feels God’s truth with a burning passion, and wants his household to share them with him. His thought life is not of the ivory-tower, arm-chair theologian type. He is not a heady thinker, but a hearty thinker whose heart and mind are joined in an inseparable union. A man may imagine that he knows the Bible from cover to cover, but if he does not bring out of his treasure things new and old he may really know very little.
Prayerfully meditate on the leadership of Jesus and ask God to make you a motivator like Him. How did He do it? He displayed the treasures of His Father and drew His hearers with the beauty and glory of God’s kingdom! He saw the glory of God; He saw the presence of the kingdom while the scribes and leaders of Israel saw only their traditions and their own expectations. He saw God’s plan being fulfilled in Himself and set out to accomplish God’s will in the world to which He was sent.
The Head of a Household is a Provider
As a provider, he will be a man who is rich in resources which he has for himself and for those committed to his care. This involves two things.
First, it means that he will gather and get riches. No one has a treasure chest unless he first gathers the treasures. Jesus said: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt. 6:19-21). Solomon, earlier in history, taught us that “Wise men store up knowledge” (Prov. 10:14). “Give instruction to a wise man and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man and he will increase his learning. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Prov. 9:9-10).
It also means that he will give those riches to others. He gathers not to horde them and imagine himself great in Scripture knowledge, but to talk about them, draw attention to them, and present them with enthusiasm, energy, and conviction to his household.
John Crotts gives an outstanding presentation of learning and living wisdom for leadership in the home. He develops the theme that heads of households are really like craftsmen who are building and maintaining a household which will be filled with treasure. He writes:
“T
rue wisdom is more than just sitting under a tree and philosophizing about life. It involves the hard work of craftsmanship. The wise craftsman searches out inspired truth from the Book of God and then carefully seeks to apply those truths to real-life situations. The result of this lifestyle craftsmanship is not about a bald head, beard, and a permanent spot on a high hill for people to come to seek out your wisdom, but a life that others recognize as skillfully lived. A wise life is a life worth living and a life worth following.”[1]
Matthew 13:52 is saying just that. The householder brings out of his treasure things new and old. He knows what valuables he possesses in Christ; he knows the needs of his wife and family; and He displays and dispenses the treasures for their benefit and prosperity, mixing new and old in a helpful balance. Pastoral ministry is shepherding ministry with wisdom and skill, studying the Scripture, studying the heart of man, and knowing the people of God committed to our charge.
Gathering and giving out God’s treasures to one’s household is like maintaining real estate. Think about the house that you live in. It has a foundation which is firm. There is little that you need to do with the stone foundation. If it was properly laid, it is solid and holds up the house. On it the frame and the rooms and the roof were built. These things demand constant care and home improvement. The foundation compares to the old things that Jesus spoke about in the parable, and the rest of the house is the new: foundation and fulfillment.
If we do not keep up with the house it begins to fall into disrepair, its rooms become shabby, and the atmosphere of the house becomes depressing and unattractive. God designed a home to be kept up and filled with rich treasures. “By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established. And by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches. A wise man is strong, and a man of knowledge increases power” (Prov. 24:3-5).
A good man is able to lead his family in communicating those foundational truths which give solid support to our personal, family, church, civil, and social lives. These things include understanding God’s work in the Old Testament, the moral and ethical foundation of the Law of God, the Ten Commandments and their summary; the fear of the Lord and discipline for all true learning in life; The Sermon on the Mount; the Fruit of the Spirit; the meaning and application of God’s covenant in our lives; and the place of prophetic preaching in the plan and purpose of God as illustrated in the ministry of men like Moses and the Prophets.
A good householder is Christ-centered and fixed on Jesus. After all, He is the “pearl of great value.” He has sold the world to have Christ in the treasure of His heart, and his greatest desire is to lead his household in seeing and seeking that treasure.
He understands the newness of Christ and the changes that He brings for the good. He realizes that coming to Christ will mean repentance for his family also, and reformation for godliness. He understands that Christ’s Spirit has regenerated us and given us a new birth that renews, reforms, and restores us into His glorious image. He trusts in God to grant this for his wife and family, and for His church.
There is freshness about his perspective on life too. Like Paul he says: “Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet, but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13-14). He does not live in the past, being forever wounded by life’s losses, or burdened with past struggles. He does not want to repeat past sins or foolishness, nor let them sideline him for future usefulness. He will not give up; he will not be pessimistic or cynical just because things did not work out for him in previous situations. He will not allow the devil to discourage or depress him. He believes that God gives fresh wisdom and new solutions to life’s ongoing difficulties. He will do what James 1:5 directs a leader to do: plead for wisdom from God and believe that God will give it. Wisdom is new light on old truths, new solutions to old problems, hope for seemingly hopeless situations.
In the final installment of this article (Part 3), we will think about whether our “houses” are filled with trash, trivia, or treasure!
John Reuther,
Pastor, Covenant Baptist Church, Lumberton, NJ
Professor, Reformed Baptist Seminary, Taylors, SC.
[1]John Crotts,
Craftsmen:
Skillfully Leading Your family For Christ (Wapwallopen, PA: Shepherd Press, 2005) p. 27.
Posted by deangonzales on May 8, 2009
According to the Yale church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette,
The chief agents in the expansion of Christianity appear not to have been those who made it a profession or a major part of their occupation, but men and women who earned their livelihood in some purely secular manner and spoke of their faith to those whom they met in this natural fashion.
But such “lay-evangelism” has little Scriptural warrant in the minds of some Christian leaders today. I recently posted a question on the Puritan Board discussion website entitled “Do the Reformed Confessions Affirm the Duty of Evangelistic and Missionary Outreach?” A few of the respondents seemed irritated that I should even post such a question. (After all, didn’t the 17th century confessions get it all right!) Most were courteous but expressed satisfaction with the simple references to “the ministry of the word,” which mainly had to do with the clergy’s preaching and teaching responsibility. One Reformed pastor summed up the prevailing opinion well when he wrote
I believe most of us are all settled on the role of the preacher in declaring the gospel. I doubt many on the PB will argue against missionaries proclaiming the gospel. But how about the individual pew sitter? Is there a biblical mandate for them to witness or share the gospel? Is one needed? If I am honest to scripture, I have to admit that I cannot find one inference that commands individuals to preach the gospel.
Similarly, R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary in California, asserts, “There’s not a lot of evidence in the NT that unordained Christians did much ‘evangelism.’ This is the Achilles’ Heel of modern, populist, democratic, egalitarian evangelicalism.” Such thinking has even found support among some NT scholars. W. Paul Bowers, whose doctoral dissertation submitted to Cambridge University dealt with Paul’s view of his apostolic mission, offers the following assessment of the NT data vis-à-vis lay-evangelism:
The most the evidence indicates is that these churches were to facilitate accessions to their community by an attractive behaviour and by a responsiveness to inquiries. But an energetic, aggressive, mobile missionary outreach of the sort prosecuted by Paul himself is not described, expected, or enjoined for his churches.
John P. Dickson agrees and avers, “The proclamation of the gospel never appears as even a minor duty of Paul’s converts.” If what these men allege is true, it would appear that countless laypeople through the centuries either have gone “beyond the call of duty” or have assumed a prerogative that does not belong to them. If the latter, then we may at least rejoice that God overruled their “evil” for good.
Defining Terms
We beg to differ from this idea that the NT says nothing about lay-evangelism. Before attempting a biblical defense of lay-evangelism, though, we’ll need to define our terms. A definition of such terminology as “layman,” “laypeople,” and “laity” was provided in Part 2 of our study. There we noted that the terminology “is commonly used to distinguish the non-clergy, i.e., the ‘ordinary’ church member, from the clergy, i.e., the bishop, pastor, or elder.” We also cautioned against viewing the laity and the clergy as two juxtaposed entities within the church. All believers are called to be followers of Jesus Christ and active members in his church. From this larger group of disciples, those endowed with extraordinary gifts of utterance and administrative capacity and who exhibit mature Christian character are qualified to serve the more specialized task of the public teaching and managing of the flock, as well as evangelizing the lost. But, as we’ll argue below, the activity of “evangelism” in its general sense is not the exclusive province of the clergy.
The Greek verb euangelizomai (“to evangelize”) simply means, “to communicate good news concerning something.” The noun euangelion (“gospel”) similarly denotes “good news,” that is, the content of the communication. In the Hellenistic and OT usage, the terminology could refer to the good news of some personal blessing experienced (Ps. 40:9; Jer. 20:15) but was more frequently employed to depict the announcement of some political or military victory (1 Sam. 31:9; 2 Sam. 4:10; 18:19-20, 26, 31; 1 Kings 1:42; 2 Chron. 10:9;). The OT writers also employed the verb to describe those who celebrate the good news of Yahweh’s past deliverances or announce His future victories (Ps. 68:11; Isa. 40:9; 60:6; 61:1; Nah. 2:1). Most notable, perhaps, is the usage of euangelizomai in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 52:7 to portend God’s coming salvation:
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him
Who brings good news (euangelizomenou),
Who publishes peace,
Who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of happiness,
Who publishes salvation,
Who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”
Not surprisingly, the NT writers employ this terminology for the preaching of the good news of God’s climactic work of redemption through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Early in the synoptic Gospels, we read of Jesus “proclaiming the gospel” (Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:6). Sometimes the concept of “preaching the gospel” is conveyed by the verb alone (Matt. 11:5; Luke 1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 4:18; 7:22; 9:6; 16:16; 20:1). In other cases, the noun “gospel” is preceded by a verb of communication (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mark 1:14; 13:10; 14:9). In other cases, the noun is used to focus the reader’s attention on the message itself (Mark 1:1, 15; 8:35; 10:29). The gospel message and its announcement feature prominently in the Book of Acts (5:42; 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40; 10:36; 11:20; 13:32; 14:7, 15, 21; 15:7, 35; 16:10; 17:18; 20:24) and most frequently in the Pauline writings. In his first epistle, Peter uses the noun once (4:17) and the verb thrice (1:12, 25; 4:6). The author of Hebrews employs the verb twice (4:2, 6). Neither noun nor verb appears in the epistles of James or Jude. Though the verb appears twice and the noun once in the Revelation (10:7; 14:6), the apostle John never uses the terminology in either his Gospel or his three epistles. This “evangelism” lacuna in John’s Gospel is intriguing. “It would be a mistake, however,” Ulrich Becker appropriately cautions, “to assume that because certain NT writings do not use the vb. or the noun, the thought expressed by them is therefore completely lacking.” Indeed, John’s preferred terminology for communicating the good news about the person and work of Christ appears to be the Greek verb martureo, meaning “to bear witness.” And a careful reading of the NT corpora uncovers a variety of communication-verbs used to depict the work of evangelism, a point sometimes overlooked when assessing the question of whether laypeople may evangelize.
What then is meant by “lay-evangelism”? Lay-evangelism is the communication of the good news about the person and work of Jesus Christ by non-ordained Christians. Although the primary focus of such communication is the objective redemptive work Jesus accomplished in his incarnation, atoning-death, and resurrection and will consummate at his Second Coming, the communicator’s own subjective experience of this redemptive work is an aspect of the overall message. For example, Paul’s epistle to the Romans is, in large part, a communication of the gospel (1:15-16). Though Paul devotes much space to the objective basis on which the believer’s hope rests, he also highlights the subjective experience of the good news that both he and many of his readers had come to enjoy: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Moreover, the NT also includes the believer’s deeds or lifestyle as an important part of his message (Matt. 5:13-16; 1 Cor. 9:19-22; Phil. 2:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:9-10; Tit. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:1-2). Nevertheless, we will focus our attention in this study on the act of communicating the gospel.
Some NT Passages Supporting Lay-evangelism
The NT evidence for lay-evangelism is not as sparse as some scholars have suggested. Due to space constraints, however, we’ll have to limit our survey to just a few texts. For those looking for a more detailed and exhaustive analysis of the NT data related to this issue, other helpful studies are available.
Acts 6:7; 8:1-4; 11:19-21
Without question, the Book of Acts places the spotlight on the apostolic preaching of the gospel. Nevertheless, there are some scattered references to the participation of non-clergy in spreading the good news of the kingdom. In Acts 6:7, for example, we read, “And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.” While the preceding reference to the apostles devoting themselves “to the ministry of the word and prayer” (6:4) might incline the reader to accord all credit for the gospel’s spread to the apostles’ preaching, the subsequent context urges otherwise. There we encounter Stephen, one of the seven men who’d been ordained to wait on tables, preaching the gospel (6:8-10; 7:2-53). In his sermon on the spread of the word and Stephen’s evangelism as highlighted in Acts 6:7-9, John Calvin remarks,
Therefore, in keeping with the teaching Luke gives here, let us learn that we constitute a true church of God when we try our best to increase the number of believers. And then each one of us, where we are, will apply all our effort to instructing our neighbours and leading them to the knowledge of God, as much by our words as by our showing them good examples and good behaviour. That is also why holy Scripture exhorts us so often to win to God those who remain alienated from his church, for we see unbelievers as poor lost sheep. Our Lord has not given us insight into his truth for our advantage alone, but for sharing it with others. Because we see them as madmen casting themselves into hell, we must, to the extent we can, prevent them from doing so and procure their salvation. That, I tell you, is the zeal all Christians must have if they are not to limit themselves just to the public worship of God (emphasis added).
Stephen’s bold witness for Christ provoked the Jews’ animosity, and he became a martyr (”witness”) in the fullest sense of that word (8:54-60). The ensuing persecution that followed resulted in the dispersion of the disciples in Jerusalem, both men and women, excepting the apostles (8:1-3). The outcome of the dispersion is underscored in 8:4: “Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.” The term translated “preaching” is the participle of euangelizomai. A parallel text is found in Acts 11:19-21.
Perhaps in an effort to restrict this evangelistic activity to “ordained men,” John Gill identifies those scattered and preaching as “the seventy disciples and other ministers of the word.” We are inclined, however, to agree with J. A. Alexander’s interpretation:
The inspired writer, having paused to tell us what became of Stephen and Saul, now resumes his narrative of the dispersion, not by repeating what he said in v. 1, but by advancing a step further. As he there said that all (except the twelve) were scattered, he now says that all who were thus scattered preached the word. Some would infer from this, that none but preachers were expelled; but it is far more natural to understand the verse as referring, not to preaching in the technical or formal sense, but to that joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth, which is permitted and required of all believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or unordained (emphasis added).
The subsequent context supports Alexander’s reading. For once again, Luke provides us with a sample of the kind of evangelism he has in view in the example of Philip. Like Stephen, Philip was ordained to serve tables (Acts 6:1-3, 5-6) in contrast with an official appointment to “the ministry of the word” (6:4). Nevertheless, Acts 8:5 tells us that Philip went to Samaria and “proclaimed to them the Christ [ekerussen autois ton Christon],” resulting in many conversions (8:6-8). He was later prompted by the Spirit to go to Gaza where he was used by God to lead an Ethiopian eunuch to embrace the gospel with saving faith (8:26-40). In these contexts, Philip’s activity is depicted three times with the Greek verb “to evangelize” (8:12, 35, 40). It was probably in light of Philip’s gifts and success in communicating the gospel that he was later promoted to the more official function of an “evangelist [euangelistes]” (Acts 21:8).
So while Acts places the spotlight on the apostolic preaching of the gospel, it does not support the argument that the task of evangelism is confined to the clergy. To be sure, even when alluding to non-clerical examples of evangelism greater attention is given to those (Stephen and Philip) whose deeds were most notable. But these exceptionally gifted men were only samples of a more widespread activity on the part of ordinary disciples to proclaim the good news about Jesus Christ. Dennis Johnson captures well the significance of the evangelistic dispersion when he remarks,
As the Lord in Isaiah summoned the people to be his witnesses, so now all believers, empowered by the Spirit, can speak the word of God boldly (Acts 4:31). In fact, the first step in the gospel’s spread to the earth’s ends are taken not by apostles, but by other Christians, who are scattered by persecution as the apostles remain in Jerusalem (8:1)” (emphasis added).
To the interpretation of Alexander and Johnson, we could add the voices of other commentators. Bottom line: “scattered disciples,” of which Stephen and Philip were a part, proclaimed the gospel (euangelizomai) though they were neither apostles nor ordained to the office of pastor or teacher.
I Corinthians 4:16; 11:1
In Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth, we find two of the apostle’s famous “imitation” texts. “I urge you, then,” he says in 4:16, “be imitators of me.” Again, in 11:1, he writes, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” Read in isolation these injunctions are somewhat ambiguous. Imitate Paul in what? The context, of course, must decide the answer to that question.
The first passage is nestled in a context where Paul contrasts his humility and faithfulness, under the constant pressure of the world’s rejection and persecution, with the “Christian” triumphalism (akin to the “health, wealth and prosperity gospel” of our day) to which some in the Corinthian church were falling prey (4:8-13). “I do not write these things to make you ashamed,” says Paul, “but to admonish you as my beloved children” (4:16). Then Paul highlights his unique position among the others who served as “guides” for the Corinthian church—it was Paul who planted the church in Corinth and who is, therefore, their “father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (4:17). So as their “guide” par excellence, Paul entreats them, “be imitators of me” (4:18) and explains this as the purpose for Timothy’s visit: “That is why I sent you Timothy … to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church” (4:19).
What precisely, then, are Paul’s “ways,” which he expects the Corinthians to “imitate”? A cursory reading of the passage might lead to the conclusion that Paul is simply enjoining a humble, self-sacrificing lifestyle that perseveres in the face of difficulty and persecution. But one must probe a little deeper and inquire what it was about Paul’s life that occasioned the hardship and persecution? It was not merely a moral lifestyle. They had become “fools for Christ’s sake,” and “the scum of the world,” on account of their public attachment to and communication of the gospel. Robert Plummer grasps the implication for the Corinthians:
If the Corinthians are to imitate Paul by enduring suffering, mocking and persecution, it is not “suffering for suffering’s sake.” For the Corinthians, as for the apostles, their open adherence to and proclamation of the “foolishness of the cross” will result in the world’s disapproval and opposition.
The import of 11:1 is much the same. Since the verse occurs at the beginning of a chapter in our English Bibles we might be tempted to look in the subsequent context to uncover its intended import. However, the paragraph breaks in most modern versions of the Bible rightly place 11:1 at the end of an extended section in which Paul addresses the question of things indifferent and the need for those with a strong (or informed) conscience to accommodate their behavior in order not to offend those with a weak conscience (chs. 8-10). Throughout, Paul sets himself forth as the paradigm of such accommodation (8:13; 9:1-27; 10:33). Once again, a cursory reading might lead to the conclusion that Paul is simply enjoining such attitudes as unselfishness, deference, and love for one’s neighbor. But as in the text above, so here, the Pauline lifestyle that the Corinthians are to imitate is not an end in itself but a means to a end. At two points in particular, Paul brings this end into sharp focus:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some (1 Cor. 9:19-22).
According to this text, Paul accommodates his lifestyle (not his message) to his audience in order to “win” (kerdaino; vv. 19, 20 [2x], 21, 22) or to “save” (sodzo; v. 22) some. It’s important to note that Paul does not speak explicitly of “proclaiming the gospel.” But since men are won to Christ through the communication of gospel truth, we are right to view that activity as assumed in the context. In other words, Paul wasn’t just winning or saving people by accommodating to their conscience. He was accommodating to their conscience so that his communication of the gospel might bear more fruit. Paul concludes the section on a similar note:
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved (1 Cor. 10:31-33).
The point is not merely that the Corinthians are to live in a way that doesn’t cause others to stumble and perish. The point is, rather, that the Corinthians are to imitate Paul who employed an unselfish, deferring lifestyle as a means to a greater end—namely, that they, whether “Jews … Greeks … or the church of God,” i.e., those outside the church and those inside the church, “may be saved.” And, as in the case above, their salvation would not result from the mere observance of Paul’s lifestyle. Rather, their salvation would result from Paul’s proclamation of the gospel that was also accompanied by a “serving others” disposition, which is what the gospel is all about!
It is with this end in view that Paul concludes the section, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (11:1). Indeed, “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; 10:45). Similarly, Paul’s mission was redemptive—not that Paul himself provided atonement for sinners, but he pointed men to that atoning sacrifice. He preached “the cross,” as the Corinthians well knew (1 Cor. 1:17; cf. 2:1, 4, 13; 4:15; 15:1-2; 2 Cor. 10:14; 11:4, 7). Hence, the Corinthians were to adopt the essential mission of Christ and of Paul. Obviously, there were dimensions of both Christ’s mission as the Redeemer and also Paul’s mission as an apostle that the Corinthian believers could not imitate. But a zeal for the salvation of the lost and a gospel conversation both by life and by lip was within their province as Christ’s disciples. Accordingly, they were to refrain from any personal liberty and accommodate themselves to the cultural milieu of their audience so that the gospel, which they were expected to communicate according to each one’s ability and opportunities, would run unfettered and bring many to Christ.
Ephesians 6:15, 17
On the heels of Peter’s confession of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus responds with his famous programmatic statement: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The reader should not miss Jesus’ mixed metaphor—the church is both like a building project and also like a military operation. One should also note that neither metaphor conveys the idea of a passive or defensive posture. On the contrary, both metaphors denote the ideas of growth, progress, forward movement, completion, and victory.
It seems likely that Paul had Jesus’ dual metaphor in mind when he wrote his letter to the Ephesians. The letter focuses largely on Christ’s church in this present evil age, and it employs both the building as well as the military metaphor throughout. In chapter 1 Paul informs his readers that God
raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
This Christus Victor theme Paul repeats in chapter 4:8-10. After explaining that “grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (4:7), Paul then informs the church that these gifts are the spoils of Christ’s military victory over the kingdom of darkness, which he accomplished through his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension (4:8-10). Paul then describes how these grace-gifts are distributed among the members of the church: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (4:11-12).
So the special “clerical” gifts are bestowed on the church for the purpose of fitting or equipping “the saints,” a reference to all true disciples (clerical and non-clerical) so that all disciples might engage in ministry to the end that Christ’s body, the church, might be completely built. Note the shift to building metaphor. This building metaphor is continued in verses 15-16:
Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.
So every member of the church has received grace (4:7) to engage in works of ministry that have as their end the edification of Christ’s body, the church.
After detailed practical instruction intended to enable the saints to fulfill their calling, Paul returns to the military metaphor in 6:10-17. Here, the apostle begins with a general exhortation, urging the saints to “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might” and to “put on the whole armor of God, that [they] may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil” and all his demonic forces (4:10-13). This is followed by a list of “spiritual armory” with which each believer is to be equipped in order to fight the good fight of faith (4:14-17).
In interpreting this text, one should recall Ephesians 4:7-16 as well as Matthew 16:18. Hence, the “equipage of the saints for the service of ministry” in Ephesians 4:12 is here described in terms of fitting each believer with “spiritual armor.” Moreover, in keeping with the ideas of growth and advance in both Ephesians 4:7-16 and Matthew 16:18, Paul’s exhortation to “be strong” and “to stand,” should not be interpreted as the believer or church merely holding its ground. Commentators who tend to highlight the nature of the armor described in verses 14-17 sometimes miss this. They tend to describe the battle Paul envisions as defensive rather than offensive. But such an approach betrays poor exegesis and misses the bigger picture. The picture is that of soldiers prepared to do battle against the forces of evil with victory as their goal, not mere survival. The exhortation to “be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might” (4:10) is intended to stir up the kind of courage necessary for a forward advance. Indeed, the terminology “stand against [stenai pros]” (4:11), “wrestle against [he pale pros]” (4:12), and “withstand [antistenai]” (4:13) are offensive, not merely defensive expressions. Remembering the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18, we are to see the church being called to storm “the gates of hell.”
With these preliminary observations in view, we’re ready to focus our attention of verses 15 and 17, in which many commentators see an allusion to the communication of the gospel. Verse 15 literally reads, “And having your feet fitted in readiness of the gospel of peace” (author’s translation). The relationship between the noun translated “readiness” (hetoimasia) and the genitive “of the gospel” is our crux interpretum. Some interpret “of the gospel” as a genitive of source, i.e., the readiness that comes from the gospel (see NIV, NET, ESV). Others, however, interpret “of the gospel” as an objective genitive. So the NRSV reads, “As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace” (see also NAB, TEV, NJB). This reading fits well with two OT texts Paul may have had in mind, Isaiah 52:7 and Nahum 1:15:
How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns” (Isa. 52:7).
Behold, upon the mountains, the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace! Keep your feasts, O Judah; fulfill your vows, for never again shall the worthless pass through you; he is utterly cut off (Nah. 1:15).
If Paul had these passages in view, both of which speak of “feet” (pous, LXX), “proclaiming the gospel” (euangelizomai, LXX) and “peace” (eirene, LXX), when composing Ephesians 6:15, then he’s portraying the layperson as a fellow-worker with him in spreading those glad tidings that set the prisoner free. The Christian’s ministry would resemble that of his Master who, according to Paul in 2:17, “Came and preached peace to [the Ephesians] who were far off and peace to [the Jewish people] who were near.” Accordingly, the “gospel,” says John Stott commenting on Ephesians 6:15, “is God’s power to rescue people from [the devil’s] tyranny.” “There is not only the firmness of a defensive stance,” says Harry Uprichard, “but the alertness and mobility of an offensive action. This is the Christian soldier’s ‘mission statement.’” And what a mission! “It is a striking paradox,” notes G. B. Caird, “that the soldier should be equipped for battle with a declaration of peace.”
The evangelistic interpretation of verse 15 gains further support when one notes the last piece of the Christian soldier’s panoply in verse 17b. There, Paul enjoins believers to “take … the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The likelihood that Paul drew nearly all his armory language from Isaiah’s prophecy makes it probable that the reader should interpret this piece of armory, as that in verse 15, evangelistically. In other words, “the sword [machaira] of the Spirit, which is the word of God” should be read against the backdrop of Isaiah 49:1-6. There, Yahweh commissions his Servant whose “mouth [is fashioned] like a sharp sword [machaira]” (49:2) to be a “light for the nations that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49:6). As the members of Christ’s body proclaim the gospel, the Servant wields through them the “sharp word” that vanquishes the enemy and sets the captives free. So we agree with Clinton Arnold when he writes, “The Word of God and the work of the Spirit are the means by which the people of God step out in defiance of Satan and rob his domain.” This evangelistic interpretation is further confirmed in the three following verses where Paul enjoins the believers to enter the battle in a posture of prayer, seeking God’s grace for their success and Paul’s (6:18-20). And how does Paul describe his engagement with the enemy?
[Pray] also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak (emphasis added).
We conclude, then, that Paul expected the Ephesians to join him in that grand building project and military enterprise whose Master Builder and Field Marshall was none other than Jesus Christ. They were not all called to be apostles or pastors or teachers, but they were all called to share the good news as lay-evangelists. Accordingly, the ordained man is responsible not only for setting an example of evangelistic engagement (2 Tim. 4:5), but he is also responsible for equipping the saints through the ministry of the word with the spiritual armor requisite for their own missional role in extending Christ’s kingdom (Eph. 4:12; 6:13-17).
Philippians 1:12-18; 2:15-16
Paul wrote the letter to the Philippians, like Ephesians, while he was incarcerated. The Philippians, like the Ephesians, may have been tempted to “lose heart” in light of Paul’s sufferings (see Eph. 3:13). So Paul seeks to encourage the Philippians with the knowledge that God has used Paul’s imprisonment for the advance of the gospel:
I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ. And most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear (1:12-14).
Of special note for our purposes is Paul’s reference to “most of the brothers” being emboldened “to speak the word without fear” (1:14). The Greek term adelphoi, translated “brothers,” is a term that refers to Christians in general. The fact Paul had just addressed the congregation in Philippi as adelphoi (1:12) makes it unlikely that he has clergy exclusively in view in verse 14. Indeed, it’s even possible that the second use of adelphoi may be gender inclusive, as is the first. Hence, Paul is probably referring to evangelistic efforts carried on both by laymen and laywomen.
How does Paul feel about this lay-evangelism? He is concerned that some are operating with the wrong motives, seeking to compete with Paul (1:15-17). No matter, though. Paul is more concerned that the gospel be preached whether out of rivalry or sincerity. “What then?” he writes. “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice” (1:18). So this passage portrays laypeople as “advancing the gospel” (eis prokopen tou euangeliou, 1:12), “speaking the word” (ton logon lalein, 1:14), “preaching Christ (Christon kerussousin, 1:15), and “proclaiming Christ” (Christon katangellousin, 1:17). Far from objecting to lay-evangelism Paul celebrates it and, by implication, commends the same to the Philippians.
Indeed, Paul not only views the Philippians as partners in the gospel (1:4), which is likely more than a mere reference to their prayers and financial support, but he exhorts them to live in a way “worthy of the gospel” (1:27). Their whole life was to function as an advertisement for the good news about Jesus Christ. The apostle reiterates this theme in chapter 2 when he exhorts them,
Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain (2:14-16).
The point of interest for us is whether Paul is portraying the Philippians’ gospel witness before a lost world as purely passive. Those who argue for a “passive” witness, i.e., godly lifestyle without a communication of gospel truth, base their case largely on the meaning of the Greek verb epecho, which is translated by many versions (NAS, NKJ, NLT, NET, ESV, CSB) and interpreted by many commentators as “hold fast.” The problem is that the only four other occurrences of this verb in the NT are intransitive (Luke 14:7; Acts 3:5; 19:22; 1 Tim. 4:16). In this passage, however, the verb is used transitively with “the word of life” as the object. Consequently, some translations (KJV, DRA, ASV, NIV, NJB) and commentators favor the idea of “holding forth the word of life.” After conducting a thorough survey on the usage of the verb in extra-biblical literature, James Ware concludes, “It can be stated categorically that the verb [epecho] does not bear the sense hold fast in any ancient passage, and the etymology and usage of the word … preclude such a meaning.” If Ware and others who support the idea of “holding forth the word” are correct, then Paul is calling on the Philippian believers to imitate him and the other emboldened “brothers” (1:12-18) in functioning as heavenly luminaries (2:15b) not only by means of living the gospel but also by means of proclaiming the gospel (2:16a). John Calvin nicely captures his sense when he writes,
The reason why they ought to be luminaries is that they carry the Word of life, by which they are enlightened, that they might give light also to others…. We are candlesticks, the Gospel is the candle, which, being placed in us gives light on all sides…. But the manner of carrying it, of which Paul speaks, is that He has entrusted His doctrine to us on condition, not that we should keep its light suppressed and inactive, but that we should hold it forth to others. The sum is this: That all that are enlightened with heavenly doctrine carry about with them a light, which detects and discovers their sins if they do not walk in holiness and purity; but that this light has been kindled not only that they may themselves be guided in the right way, but that they may also show it to others (emphasis added).
We conclude, then, that the Philippians’ partnership with Paul in the gospel was to include more than prayer and financial support. Paul wanted them to imitate him, not in assuming his precise role as an apostle, but in assuming the role of all Christian disciples, that of shining forth the light of the gospel both in their conduct and also in their communication.
Colossians 4:5-6
Like the letters to the Ephesians and the Philippians, the letter to the Colossians was written while Paul was in prison. And as in the case of other believers, Paul expected the Colossians not only to pray for his evangelistic endeavors but also to follow his example. So, after imploring their prayers for his evangelistic efforts (4:3-4), he directs to them the following enjoinder:
Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
Literally, verse 5 reads, “With wisdom walk before outsiders, buying the time.” Obviously, Paul is concerned about the way believers conduct themselves before unbelievers. The means or method he prescribes, however, seems at first glace obscure. What does it mean to “buy the time”? The translation “redeeming the time,” found in some older translations (KJV, DRA, ASV), can be misleading. That conveys the idea of reclaiming time lost (presumably from the devil?). The Greek verb (exagoradzo), however, need not denote “buy back” in this context but simply “buy” or “acquire.” Accordingly, some commentators and translations interpret the phrase as an idiom meaning something like, “making the best use of the time” (ESV, CSB). Being a good steward of one’s use of time is the means (or manner) by which the believer behaves wisely among unbelievers would be the combined idea.
But this reading is highly unlikely in light of Paul’s subsequent exhortation that refers to the believer’s verbal communication with the non-believer. It seems preferable, then, to interpret the Greek kairos not as “time” but as “opportunity” (see 2 Cor. 6:2). This is the way a number of English translations (NAS, NAB, NIV, NLT, NET) and Bible commentators interpret the term. So believers are enjoined not merely to be good stewards of time but to “buy up the opportunity.”
Opportunities for what? Here is where verse 6 comes into play: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” The “opportunity” Paul has in view is related to the Colossians’ interaction with “outsiders.” Note carefully that it is not merely a “passive” or non-verbal interaction Paul envisions. The Colossians should be alert not merely for opportunities to play the “Good Samaritan.” More than that, they are to interact with unbelievers via “speech [logos],” i.e., verbal communication. There speech should be both gracious and salty, that is, they must communicate in a way that manifests humility and goodwill on the one hand as well as boldness and honesty on the other.
The reader should not miss the parallel of thought between Paul’s portrayal of his mission (4:3-4) and Paul’s portrayal of the Colossians’ mission (4:5-6). In both cases, their mission entails interaction with unbelievers. In both cases, the believing parties are to pray for “open doors” (4:3) and be on the lookout for “opportunities” (4:5). And in both cases, the interaction involves more than “passive witness.” The Colossians’ duty to “answer each person” with “speech” that is both gracious and truthful (4:6) is essentially equivalent to Paul’s responsibility to “declare the mystery of Christ,” making it “clear, which is how [he] ought to speak” (4:3-4). Here, we have Ephesians 6:15-20 in the reverse. There, Paul exhorts the church to be prepared for evangelistic activity and then asks them to pray for his evangelistic efforts. Here, Paul solicits their prayers for his evangelistic outreach and then encourages the believers to remain alert for gospel opportunities.
1 Thessalonians 1:8
In this first letter to the congregation in Thessalonica, Paul praises the newly planted church because “from [them] the word of the Lord has sounded forth not only in Macedonia and Achaia but in every place.” Indeed, the apostle boasts, “Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything” (1:8). The Greek verb translated “sounded forth,” execheo, is only used here in the NT. In the LXX, it’s used for the clamorous noise of a crowd of people (Joel 4:14 [Eng. 3:14]). The apocryphal book Sirach employs it to denote the reverberating sound of a thunderclap (40:13). With a touch of metaphor, then, Paul is saying, “The proclamation from Thessalonica was set at high volume and went out with great force over a large area.” In addition to proclaiming the objective truths of the gospel, the Thessalonians had also shared their subjective experience, that is, their “faith in God” (cf. 1:9-10). “Having received the gospel,” notes F. F. Bruce, “the Thessalonian Christians had no thought of keeping it to themselves; by word and life they made it known to others. From the beginning they functioned as a missionary church.”
Despite the apparent evangelistic thrust of this text, some scholars attempt to reduce the “noise” from Thessalonica to a merely passive witness. According to W. P. Bowers, “the word of the Lord ringing out” refers simply to news of the Thessalonians’ conversion and godly lifestyle, which was edifying other believers. But the following considerations make this view untenable: first, the phrase “the word of the Lord” consistently refers to the objective truths of the gospel not to one’s personal testimony (Acts 8:25; 13:44, 48, 49; 15:35; 16:32; 19:10, 20). Indeed, Paul uses the phrase in his second letter to the Thessalonians when he asks them to pray for his own evangelistic labors: “Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you” (2 Thes. 3:1). Second, a godly lifestyle has no meaning apart from a propositional interpretation of that lifestyle. In other words, the mere fact that the Thessalonians stopped worshipping idols and turned to the living God could only have Christian significance if a “gospel explanation” accompanied that change. Third, as a result of the Thessalonians “noising the word abroad,” Paul could only say, “We need not say anything.” While Paul may be employing some hyperbole here, he does seem to imply that it was not merely the message of changed lives that went abroad but that of the gospel itself. Finally, preceding and following this verse, Paul commends the Thessalonians for becoming imitators not only of him and his missionary band (1:6) but also of the churches in Judea (2:14) in their willingness to endure rejection and suffering. But as Jo-Ann Grant rightly observes, “The equation of ‘imitation’ and suffering affliction ignores the fact that the Thessalonians were engaged in some activity that incurred the opposition of others.” What was that activity for which the missionaries and Judean churches suffered? It was not merely the assumption of a Christian lifestyle. Paul clearly alludes to it in 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16a:
For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they [the Judean churches] did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved (emphasis added).
In conclusion, we believe Paul commends these believers not only for their godly conduct but also for their evangelistic zeal. In the words of one commentator, “The evangelized become the evangelists.”
Hebrews 5:12-14
One of the main burdens of the author of Hebrews is to demonstrate how the New Covenant realities of Christ and the gospel fulfill the shadows of the Old Covenant. At one point, as he’s presenting Christ as the Great High Priest to whom all OT priests were but types, he pauses to admonish his audience for failing to grasp these gospel realities as they should have by now:
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of God’s revelation. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil [emphasis added] (Heb. 5:12-14).
The implication of this text seems to be that individual believers ought to strive for doctrinal and practical maturity not only for their own personal sanctification but also that they might communicate accurately the gospel for the benefit of others. There’s no indication in the immediate or larger context that the writer has narrowed his focus to ministerial aspirants or seminary students, as we might call them today. “He does not mean by this that they should all be ordained ministers,” says Richard Phillips, “but that they ought to be able to instruct others in the faith.” So he’s clearly referring to laypeople, and he’s referring to their need to grow in competence to instruct others in the gospel.
Someone might object that not all laypeople are not sufficiently gifted or mature to instruct others in the faith. We, of course, grant that some are more gifted than others with the ability to preach and teach the gospel in a public setting on a regular basis. Hence, not all God’s people are called to be pastors who labor in word and doctrine (Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 5:17). But the author of Hebrews seems to have higher expectations for his audience than many modern Reformed leaders seem to have for their congregations! Certainly, there are many Aquilas (laymen) and Priscillas (laywomen) who can be sufficiently equipped to expound “the way of God more accurately” even to Apolloses (clergy) who are otherwise “competent in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24-26).
1 Peter 2:9; 3:15
According to 1 Peter 2:9, God has granted the church privileged status in order that she might carry out a particular function:
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
The function is to “proclaim” the praises (or excellencies) of our Redeemer. The Greek verb translated “you may proclaim” is exangello. The basic meaning is to report, announce, or declare. According to John Brown, “Christians, as the called of God, are intended to show forth the excellencies of God, both passively and actively.” John Calvin agrees and writes, “It behooves us to declare these excellencies not only by tongue, but also by our whole life.” The fact that Peter, in the larger context, addresses the church both in corporate (e.g., “a spiritual house”) and also in individual language (e.g., “living stones”) would seem to suggest that the privileged responsibility has both a corporate and individual dimension.
Some may confine the verbal proclamation to the setting of corporate worship. Even if Peter’s purview were that narrow, an evangelistic element would not be precluded (compare 1 Cor. 14:23-25). Nevertheless, the church’s calling in this world is certainly not limited to corporate worship on Sunday. It’s also possible that the verb Peter uses here connotes the idea of proclaiming abroad. D. Edmond Hiebert thinks so and sees “a message being proclaimed to those outside what has taken place within. It indicates,” argues Hiebert, “the evangelistic function of the church.” Noting allusions to various OT passages, Thomas Schreiner agrees and remarks,
Peter again probably alluded to Isa 43:21, for there we are told that God formed Israel for himself so that ‘they would recount my praises…. The declaration of the church includes both worship and evangelism, spreading the good news of God’s saving wonders to all peoples. They proclaim God’s praises for calling them ‘out of darkness into his wonderful light.’ This is a description of their conversion and employs the language of Genesis 1, where God utters the word and light becomes a reality (Gen. 1:3-5), pushing back the darkness.
If one doubts an “outside the church” application for 1 Peter 2:9, he’s forced to concede such an application in 1 Peter 3:15. There, the apostle Peter exhorts believers not only to live the gospel but also to speak the gospel:
But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.
The phrase “make a defense” translates the Greek word apologia. This is the term from which we derive the English word “apologetics.” But Peter’s not thinking primarily of a general apologetic for some kind of theistic worldview. They are to provide a reasoned defense “for hope that is in you,” which is a more specific reference to their gospel hope. And lest one is tempted to interpret the passage with the sense “don’t speak unless first asked,” allow me to highlight two realities that preclude such a nonsensical reading. First, the fact an unbeliever would ask a believer to provide an apologetic for the latter’s gospel hope assumes that some gospel witness has already been communicated. Folks don’t just walk up out of the blue and say, “Why do you believe your sins are forgiven and you’re going to heaven?” unless they’ve heard through us or others about the gospel we believe. Second, this whole epistle is written to Christians who are being persecuted for their faith. It assumes that they are sharing the gospel and that, as a result, they, like the apostles and other gospel heralds, may find themselves arraigned before unfriendly audiences where they must defend their gospel hope. So, far from encouraging a non-initiative approach to evangelism, this text assumes Spirit-filled boldness and active witness on the part of the believer.
These are some passages in the NT that seem to me to give some warrant for laying a measure of evangelistic responsibility at the feet of the saints. Of course, I think it’s also vital that we make appropriate qualifications. Not everyone is called to serve Christ as an ordained pastor or missionary. Nor does every Christian have the same measure of opportunities. Nor does every child of God possess the same level of doctrinal and practical maturity to effectively and accurately communicate the gospel. So the weight of responsibility upon each individual Christian will differ. Nevertheless, it does not appear wide the mark to conclude that the Scriptures give warrant for us in our confessions to affirm not only the church’s responsibility to preach the gospel in the context of corporate worship and to commission church planters and missionaries to take the gospel to the nations but also the individual believer’s responsibility to be salt and light (by life and lip) in the midst of a lost and perishing world. Robert Plummer nicely summarizes this conclusion in his magisterial study on the layperson’s responsibility vis-à-vis evangelism:
If we understand the New Testament documents as presenting us with the normative pattern for the church, then the modern church must be a missionary church. The church must not only take on the mantle of the apostolic mission in a general or abstract way; she must carry out the apostolic mission in concrete tasks…. The apostolic mission devolves upon each church as a whole—not upon any particular member of group. Each individual member within the church, then, will manifest missionary activity according to his or her particular gifting and life situation. All but the unrepeatable aspects of the apostles’ mission (e.g., eyewitness testimony and initial promulgation of authoritative revelation) devolve upon the church as a whole (emphasis his).
A Final Word About Words
Before bringing this essay to a close, I must add a word about what I perceive to be an irresponsible handling of terminology by those who would begrudge the laity of the privilege and task of evangelism. As noted in the introduction, Reformed theologian R. Scott Clark argues, “There’s not a lot of evidence in the NT that unordained Christians did much ‘evangelism.’” How then does someone like Clark wiggle around the NT evidence just presented? The answer lies, I believe, in Clark’s use of the term “evangelism,” which, you’ll note, he places in quotation marks in the citation above. I suspect that Clark, like some other Reformed folk I’ve heard or read, thinks “evangelism” is a technical term that belongs solely to the province of the clergy. Many think the same about the Greek vocabulary for “preaching.” Such terms as the verb kerusso and the noun kerugma refer exclusively, in the minds of some, to preaching a sermon from a pulpit. Consequently, Reformed theologians like Clark will with one hand deny “evangelism” to the laity but will with the other hand allow lay “witness.” “It’s probably better,” argues Clark, “to speak about lay witness to THE faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) as summarized in the Apostles’ Creed and explained by the Reformed churches in the confessions. God’s unordained people should also be able to give witness to THEIR (his or her) personal faith” (emphasis his). The same line of reasoning and preference for “witness” over “evangelism” was reiterated several times on the Puritan Board thread I referenced earlier.
This line of reasoning is fallacious for the following reasons: first, as noted in the “Defining Terms” section above, a concept may be present thought the technical vocabulary be absent. Even if the technical terms for “evangelism” were not predicated of laity in the NT, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the laity never did what the terminology conveys or were forbidden from such. What in the world is wrong with a layperson “announcing the good news about Jesus Christ”?! Honestly, there’s not a universe of difference between that and “wielding the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17), or “speaking boldly the word without fear” (Phil. 1:14), or “sounding forth the word” (1 Thes. 1:8), or “being prepared to make a defense for one’s gospel hope” (1 Pet. 3:15). Gimmie a break! Second, there are passages in which the terms for “evangelism” (euangelizomai, euangelion) are in all likelihood predicated of non-clergy (Acts 8:4; 11:20; Eph. 6:15; Phil. 1:12, 14). Third, the word “witness” hardly avoids the clerical overtones that Clark and other Reformed folks want to keep out of the reach of the laity. As noted above, the apostle John’s preferred verb for communicating the good news about the person and work of Christ was martureo, meaning “to bear witness.” Throughout John’s Gospel this term is employed to denote the official witness that the OT Scripture writers bore of Christ (5:39), that John the Baptist bore of Christ (1:15, 32, 34; 3:26; 5:33), that Jesus bore of himself and the truth (1:8; 3:11; 3:32; 4:44; 5:31, 36; 7:7; 8:13-14, 18; 10:25; 18:37), that the Father bore of Christ (5:32, 37; 8:18), that the Spirit would bear of Christ (15:26), and that Christ’s chosen apostles were to bear of him (1:34; 15:27; 19:35; 21:24). If there were ever a role that might be too lofty for laypeople, it would be “bearing witness”! Of course, the apostle John wasn’t so penurious with his vocabulary as some clericalists today. He was willing to describe a crowd of people flocking to Jesus on the basis of a Samaritan woman’s “testimony [marturouses]” (4:39). And John will use the Greek noun martus to designate those “martyrs,” whether clergy or laity, who seal their verbal testimony with their own blood (Rev. 17:6). Similarly, Mark could employ the Greek verb Paul used for “preaching” (kerusso) to describe, on the one hand, Jesus’ official proclamation of the gospel (Mark 1:14) and, on the other hand, the enthusiastic testimonies of a leper now healed, a demoniac now freed, and a deaf-dumb man now hearing and speaking (Mark 1:45; 5:20; 7:32). If the Scripture writers could use gospel vocabulary to predicate both clerical and non-clerical activity, why can’t we? Finally, Clark’s particular version of lay-witness smells a tad like the kind of sacerdotalism that led to great biblical illiteracy among the laity and, as a result, to the “Dark Ages.” The ordinary layperson may “witness to THE faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) as summarized in the Apostles’ Creed and explained by the Reformed churches in the confessions” (emphasis his). I find it strangely un-Protestant that a non-ordained Christian is allowed to regurgitate the church magisterium’s doctrine but not permitted to open his Bible and proclaim the gospel.
In closing, I want to restate the purpose of this three-part essay. I am concerned about a tendency in some Reformed circles. This “tendency” is often expressed in an overemphasis on the importance of the ministry of the ordained man and an underemphasis on the importance of the ministry of the layman. Certain Reformed leaders and scholars seem inclined to define the life and ministry of a local church more narrowly in terms of what happens in the pulpit on Sundays rather than more broadly in terms of what happens in the pulpit, pew, and outside the church all seven days of the week. Healthy church life and ministry is construed mainly in terms of “the preached Word and sacraments” rather than holistically, in terms that give proper place to lay-ministry and lay-evangelism (see Part 1). While in no way denying the unique role of the pastoral office or the reality of varied levels of gift, I have attempted to show that the activities of ministry and evangelism are not the sole province of the ordained man. My hope is that Christian pastors and leaders will strive to equip their flock with the knowledge, skill, and motivation to serve the body and to share the gospel. My prayer is that the non-ordained saints will understand that their role extends beyond singing hymns, listening to sermons, and keeping out of trouble. Jesus may not have authorized them to serve the church as pastors. But he has authorized them to be more than “pew-potatoes.” They can serve and share the gospel in keeping with their level of gift and maturity. This is the proper due of the people in the pew.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on April 20, 2009
In Part 1 of this series, I expressed my concern about a tendency in some Reformed circles. This “tendency” is often expressed in an overemphasis on the importance of the ministry of the ordained man and an underemphasis on the importance of the ministry of the layman. I tried to provide some examples of Reformed leaders and scholars who seem inclined to define the life and ministry of a local church more narrowly in terms of what happens in the pulpit on Sundays rather than more broadly in terms of what happens in the pulpit, pew, and outside the church all seven days of the week. Healthy church life and ministry is construed mainly in terms of “the preached Word and sacraments” rather than holistically, in terms that give proper place to lay-ministry and lay-evangelism.
Defining Terms
Defending lay-ministry will constitute the burden of this segment of our study. In Part 3, we’ll take up the subject of lay-evangelism. Before I launch into a defense of lay-ministry, I’ll need to define some terms. By “ministry” I have in view the basic idea conveyed by the Greek word diakonia, namely, the rendering of assistance, help, and/or service to others. For example, Paul requests that Timothy “get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry [eis diakonian]” (2 Tim. 4:11). The reader is not informed of the particular nature of the service Paul desired of Mark. But the basic idea of attending to Paul’s needs is in view. The verbal form, diakoneo, is used Matthew 20:28 where Jesus declares, “The Son of Man came not to be served [diakonethenai] but to serve [diakonesai], and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Note how grammatical and contextual considerations circumscribe the nature of this “ministry” or “service.” In the example just cited, Jesus’ “ministry” consisted in his redemptive work on behalf of sinners. Elsewhere, the Scriptures speak of “the ministry to the saints [tes diakonias eis tous hagious]” (2 Cor. 9:1), meaning financial assistance that some Christians voluntarily offer to others (cf. 2 Cor. 9:12). In Acts 6:1, we read of “the daily ministration [te diakonia te kathemerine]” (KJV), a reference to the regular provision of food to needy saints. The apostles direct the congregation to assign certain individuals to administrate this service-oriented task so that they, that is, the apostles, may give themselves to prayer and “the ministry of the word [te diakonia tou logou]” (Acts 6:4). Here, the genitive “of the word” defines the nature of the service: the apostles were to assist and help the congregation by means of teaching and preaching God’s word.
Not surprisingly, the noun diakonia was also used to denote a specific commissioned task. Acts 1:25 speaks of “this ministry and apostleship [tes diakonias tautes kai apostoles],” a hendiadys meaning “apostolic ministry” (NIV). Accordingly, the role of apostles and their helpers is often spoken of as a “ministry” (Acts 1:17; 1:25; 20:24; 21:19; Rom. 11:13; 2 Cor. 4:1; 6:3; Col. 4:17; 2 Tim. 4:5). This special task-oriented meaning of “ministry” was also assigned to men who served the church not as official teachers or church planters but as official “servants” or diakonoi, often translated “deacons” (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 10, 12, 13) whose task resembled that of the men selected in Acts 6 to tend to the “daily ministration.” To summarize, “ministry” refers to some form of assistance, help, and/or service, the nature of which is defined by the context. The fact that the nature of this service took different forms reminds the reader that the actual terminology (diakonia, diakoneo) need not be employed in order for the concept to be present. Preaching the word, feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, etc., are all forms of “ministry.” Obviously, within the context of the NT, the term is primarily used for service rendered by believers to others in need on behalf of Christ and his church. Finally, as noted above, “the ministry” of some took on a specialized and/or official nature. Hence, an apostle could speak of his task as “the ministry that [he had] received from the Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:24). Similarly, certain individuals within the church were set aside as “servants,” that is, “deacons,” to assist the church leaders in caring for the temporal needs of others (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13).
In order to ascertain whether Christ authorizes laypeople to engage in the kinds of ministry outlined above, we must now define “layperson.” Few English translations of the Bible employ the terms “layman,” lay person,” or “laity.” I found a few instances in the NAS or ESV where these terms are used to translate the Hebrew zar, which normally means “stranger” or “foreigner” but which can refer, in certain contexts, to anyone outside the priesthood or Levitical order (Exod. 30:33; Lev. 22:10, 12; Num. 1:51). This usage corresponds to the common meaning behind the English terminology. Broadly, it can refer to anyone outside a given profession or guild. One without medical training is a “layman” vis-à-vis the medical field. Traditionally, though, the term is commonly used to distinguish the non-clergy, i.e., the “ordinary” church member, from the clergy, i.e., the bishop, pastor, or elder. As we noted above, the NT does identify a class of individuals who are set aside or commissioned for the task of “the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). Nevertheless, we should not view the two groups, the laity and the clergy, as two juxtaposed entities within the church. Rather, we should view the clergy as a kind of subgroup. That is, all believers are called to be followers of Jesus Christ and active members in his church. From this larger group of disciples, those endowed with extraordinary gifts of utterance and administrative capacity and who exhibit mature Christian character are qualified to serve the more specialized task of the public teaching and managing of the flock. To them is granted an “official” or better, office-related, “ministry” not extended to the others.
Lay-Ministry by Deed
Do the “others,” that is, the laypeople have a ministry in the church? As we’ve already seen in our limited survey of the “ministry” vocabulary, non-clergy are included. For example, the act of believers offering financial or material assistance to other needy believers is termed “the ministry [tes diakonias] to the saints” (2 Cor. 9:1; cf. 9:12). Other examples of financial or material aid extended by saints to saints and even to those outside the church might also qualify as “ministry” though the precise terminology is not used (see Matt. 25:36; Luke 8:1-3; Acts 2:44-45; 4:23-37; 9:36, 39; 10:31; Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 8:1-9, 15; 16:1-3; Gal. 6:6-10; 1 Tim. 5:11; 6:18; James 2:14-17; 1 John 3:16-17). The provision of food to the hungry is called “ministry [diakonia]” (Acts 6:1), and this is a role laypeople may fulfill (Matt. 15:32-38; 25:35, 37, 40; Mark 8:2-9; Rom. 12:20; James 2:14-17). Indeed, it is not just the pastor’s duty (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:8) but also the layman’s privilege to “show hospitality” (Matt. 25:35; Rom. 12:13; 1 Tim. 5:10; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9), which is a form of ministry. Notable is the reference to certain women who accompanied Jesus during his earthly ministry and “ministered to him [diekonoun auto]” in various ways (Mark 15:40-41; cf. Luke 7:36; 8:1-3; 10:40; John 12:2-3). Moreover, the example of the Good Samaritan providing medical assistance to a wounded man (Luke 10:30-37) certainly devolves upon every believer and can be appropriately termed “ministry.” Many of the acts of kindness referenced above qualify as “good works” (see John 10:32), which in turn is a virtue concerning which the laity are frequently enjoined and commended (Matt. 5:16; Acts 9:36; 2 Cor. 9:8-9; Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:17-18; Tit. 2:14; 3:8, 14; Heb. 10:24).
Lay-Ministry by Word
Is lay-ministry limited to deed? May laypeople also minister to one another and to those outside the church via word? One passage that may shed light on this question is 1 Peter 4:10-11 where we read,
As each has received a gift, use it to serve [diakonountes] one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks [lalei], as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves [diakonei], as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
The reader should note the juxtaposition of speaking with serving, both of which are described as “gifts” for service or ministry [diakonountes] to the saints. Some commentators believe Peter is making special reference to office bearers. The “one who speaks” is the pastor-teacher; the “one who serves” is probably the deacon. But there’s no indication in the context that Peter’s limiting his remarks to church officers. Accordingly, The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith uses this passage as a proof text to support “lay-preaching” (26.11). Commenting on the Confession, Sam Waldron notes,
The prohibition of preaching by non-ministers is usually associated with an unbiblical distinction between ministers and elders. There is, however, no precept forbidding any Christian to preach the gospel as he may have opportunity. There are examples of Christians preaching the Word who were not ordained elders (Acts 8:5; 11:19-21; 1 Peter 4:10). There are precepts and principles which require him to avoid pride and to submit to the church and its overseers in the estimate and exercise of his gifts (Rom. 12:3; Heb. 13:17).
The NT scholar D. Edmond Hiebert also reads Peter’s remarks as inclusive of gifted laymen and extends the purview beyond the stated meetings of the church:
No limitations concerning the speaker are indicated; the one speaking is not necessarily an official, but may be an individual member…. Although primarily speaking in the assembly is in view, the verb is broad enough to include speaking outside a church meeting, such as ministering to the sick, or even private conversation.
This more inclusive reading of 1 Peter 4:10-11 finds corroboration in other NT texts. Take, for example, Paul’s instruction to the church in Rome. In chapter 12, the apostle exhorts each church member to soberly assess the graces and gifts with which God has endowed him (v. 3). He then identifies several kinds of gifts, some ministry oriented (service, giving, acts of mercy) and some communication oriented (prophecy, teaching, exhortation). There’s no hint in the context that the communicative gifts are limited to office-bearers. In fact, Paul goes on to assure his readers in the same epistle, “I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another” (15:14). Saints instructing or admonishing other saints. Elsewhere, Paul addresses the church’s corporate worship in 1 Corinthians 14:26 and writes, “What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.” Once again, nothing in the context constrains the reader to identify the communicators of biblical truth here as office-bearers. Individual members of the congregation were permitted to address the congregation via song, teaching, revelation, or a foreign language prophecy accompanied by an interpretation. While the revelatory modes of communication have ceased, that doesn’t mean the principle standing behind the text has evaporated. The principle of multiple participation (including the laity) for mutual edification should still regulate worship services today. Isn’t this also the burden of Colossians 3:16? “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” Not just clergy but laypeople “teaching and admonishing” laypeople! And these are not the only passages supporting lay-ministry via word (1 Thess. 5:11, 14; Tit. 2:3-4; Heb. 3:13; 10:24-25).
Of course, I’m familiar with the argument that lay-people are not sufficiently equipped to minister God’s word to others. In favor of limiting the preaching of God’s word to the ordained man, Darryl Hart and John Muether note that people look to experts when they need a service. “How many automobile owners,” they query,
would take their vehicle to a repair shop in which dentists and bakers performed the tune-ups and replaced the timing belts? The obvious answer is that today’s Christians tolerate a high degree of hierarchical expertise when it comes to any number of society’s functions, but refuse to do so when it comes to religious matters.
Good point. For this reason, those responsible for the bulk of public ministry in a church should be qualified pastor and teachers who are set aside to “labor in word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17; cf. Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1:9). But the illustration used by Hart and Muether breaks down at one important level: it assumes the dentists and bakers have had little or no training in auto-mechanics. The same cannot be said of many laypeople who have for many years attended churches where the Scriptures have been faithfully expounded. Indeed, some Reformed ministers boast that their people know more Bible than the average evangelical preacher in town. If that’s so, shouldn’t we pastors long to see our sheep develop the ability to articulate their biblical knowledge to others? Granted, issues of spiritual maturity and communicative ability have to be considered. But such considerations did not stop the author of Hebrews from longing and laboring to the end that those to whom he wrote might become “teachers” (5:12-14), not as office-bearers but simply as laypeople entrusted with the treasure of gospel truth.
Equipping the Saints for Ministry
That brings us to the all-important passage in Ephesians 4. Verses 11 and 12 are the point of focus:
And [Christ] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.
As translated in the ESV, the preaching and teaching gift of office bearers has a proximate aim followed by two consequent aims. The proximate aim, which is introduced by the Greek preposition pros, is “to equip the saints.” The two consequent goals, introduced by the Greek preposition eis, are to be the result of equipped saints: “the work of ministry [ergon diakonias],” which in turn will result in “building up the body of Christ [oikodomen tou somatos tou Christou].” The syntactical relationship of the phrases in verses 11 and 12 can be diagramed as follows:
This interpretation of the syntax, with slight variations, is supported in the punctuation of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland NT Greek text, the 4th edition of the United Bible Societies’ NT Greek text, nearly all modern English translations (RSV, NAS, NAB, NIV, NET, NRSV, NLT, ESV, CSB), and most commentaries.
Despite the strong support for this reading, some scholars favor the older interpretation reflected in the Authorized Version, which renders the three prepositional clauses in verse 12 as strictly coordinate and relates them to the task of office-bearers. In this case, the “work of ministry” belongs not to the saints but to the pastors and teachers. Arguments for this “clerical” reading include the following: (1) the Greek word translated “to equip” in the ESV (katartismos) is better rendered “to perfect” or “to constitute”; (2) the prepositions pros and eis are sometimes used synonymously and coordinately (Rom. 15:2; Philemon 5); (3) when used in juxtaposition with “work” (ergos), the term “ministry” (diakonia) refers “to the more specific work of ministering the Word of God” (2 Tim. 4:5); (4) the NT elsewhere distinguishes “the task of ministering the Word of God from other, more general duties that all Christians share.”
We may rebut these arguments by noting the following: first, while the Greek noun katartismos and its corresponding verb kartidzo may denote the idea of “completeness” or “restoration,” they may also denote the idea of bringing something or someone to a state of adequacy to fulfill a purpose. For example, Jesus declares, “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained [katertismenos] will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40). The author of Hebrews prays that God might “equip [katartisai] [his readers] with everything good that [they] may do his will” (13:20-21). So even when the term is used to refer to the ideas of “completeness,” “wholeness,” “restoration,” there is often a functional aim in view. Hence, the disciples were “mending [katartidzontos] their nets” (Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19) in order to restore them to a state of functionality (cf. Gal. 6:1). Accordingly, we don’t deny that Christ has given the pastor and teacher to bring the saints to a state of “completeness” or “maturity.” We demur, however, with the idea that the Christian’s maturity is an end in itself in Ephesians 4:12. We believe, rather, that he’s being conformed to the image of Christ through the ministry of the pastor and teacher so that he might walk in his Master’s steps—who came not to be served but to serve!
Second, we don’t deny that the prepositions pros and eis are sometimes used synonymously and coordinately. But there are also times when the contiguous use of pros and eis is neither synonymous nor coordinate. There are, in fact, other occasions when Paul employs pros as indicating the proximate goal and eis as the ultimate goal. In Romans 3:26, Paul highlights both a proximate and an ultimate goal of the atonement: “It was to the proximate end [pros] of demonstrating his righteousness at the present time, unto the ultimate end that [eis] he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (author’s translation; cf. Rom. 10:1; Heb. 2:17). Of course, one shouldn’t rest too much weight on the shift from one preposition to another. Taken in isolation from the context, the prepositions in Ephesians 4:12 might be synonymous and coordinate. But that leads us to inquire whether the context favors one reading over the other.
I believe the context does. Ephesians 4:11-12 is part of a larger pericope. The gift of clergy (v. 11) is but part of a larger gift addressed in verse 7: “but grace was given to each one of us [heni de hekasto hemon] according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” In keeping with his other discussions about spiritual gifts, Paul makes clear that Christ through his Spirit has endowed each believer with the grace to fulfill his or her role in the body (see Rom. 12:3; 1 Cor. 12:7). We should expect, therefore, that the subsequent context would highlight not simply the gifts of a clerical few but the gifts of all God’s people, which contribute to the edification process. And we are not disappointed. The pericope ends with verses 15 and 16:
Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love (emphasis added).
So the “building up of the body” referenced in verse 12 is here accomplished “when each part is working properly.” Notably, the phrase “working properly” translates the Greek noun energeia, which is related to the noun translated “work” (ergon) in verse 12. These facts together with the implications of verse 7 force Andrew Lincoln, a defender of the “clerical view,” to concede “an active role for all believers” though he insists that “the work of ministry” in verse 12 belongs to the clergy. In other words, much as some of the clergy-proponents would like the saints to “sit still,” Paul won’t have it! No matter how one slices the exegetical pie, the saints get a piece of the “action” and that action, whether “speaking the truth in love” or “mak[ing] the body grow,” may be appropriately termed “ministry.”
That brings us, thirdly, to the argument that the contiguous use of “work” (ergos) and “ministry” (diakonia) must refer “to the more specific work of ministering the Word of God.” Three rejoinders are in order. To begin with, the premise itself is tenuous. The fact that these two precise nouns are only used one other place and there refer to the clerical ministry (2 Tim. 4:5) can only be suggestive, not determinative. We have just noted that the term related to “work” in verse 12 is used in verse 16 and tied to the term “building” (oikodome) found in both verses. So if verse 16 speaks of the church being built via the energy of every member, why can’t verse 12 entail a similar idea, that is, church built via the work of every member? What is more, the “work” and “ministry” family of terms do occur in a context where it is the people of God as a whole, not just clergy in view. The author of Hebrews comforts his persecuted audience with the following thought: “for God is not unjust so as to overlook your work [tou ergou humon] and the love that you have shown for his name in serving [diakonesantes] the saints, as you still do” (6:10). Finally, the reader should note that in almost every circumstance where “ministry” refers specifically to an office-related work, it occurs as a definite noun, with an article, possessive pronoun, demonstrative pronoun, or a combination (see Acts 1:17; 1:25; 20:24; 21:19; Rom. 11:13; 2 Cor. 4:1; 6:3; Col. 4:17; 2 Tim. 4:5;). So unlike 2 Timothy 4:5, where Paul exhorts Timothy to engage in “the ministry [ten diakonian],” here, in Ephesians 4:12, Paul leaves both nouns anarthrous or indefinite, “work of ministry [ergou diakonias].” These considerations conspire to favor a non-clerical reading of ministry in 4:12.
Fourth, Gordon marshals six lines of NT evidence supporting a distinction between the clergy and laity. While the data Gordon assembles might serve a different discussion, they’re irrelevant to the interpretation of Ephesians 4:11-12. All sides acknowledge that the text distinguishes between clergy and laity. The point of debate is what tasks are assigned to whom. Do the clergy (v. 11) do all the work envisioned in verse 12? Or do they (v. 11) “equip” the saints to join them in the task of building the church (v. 12)? The fact that other NT data distinguish between clergy and laity misses the crux of the debate and is, therefore, a classic example of non sequitur reasoning. I find it passing strange that Gordon expends such energy in gathering NT evidence in favor of a distinction between clergy and laity but virtually ignores the NT evidence I’ve summarized above in support of lay-ministry, which is by no means exhaustive. More surprising, Gordon even suggests that those of us who don’t accept his reading are motivated by an “egalitarian, anti-authoritarian, populist Zeitgeist [“the spirit of the time”]. I would like to think we’re being prompted by ein Beröageist [“a Berean spirit”] in our reading of Scripture.
Ministers All?
R. Scott Clark raises and answers that question negatively. “The ‘every member ministry’ model hangs by a very thin biblical reed. It depends upon how one reads Eph 4:11-12.” According to Clark, “we have extensive revelation about the special offices and precious little about so-called ‘every member’ ministry.” This doesn’t mean Clark construes the laity’s role as purely passive. It means, “strictly speaking, ministry is what ministers do.” He concludes, “Not everyone in the congregation is a ‘minister’ and frankly, that should be a relief.”
Some may think this is just a debate about semantics. After all, men like Clark would probably approve of laypeople engaging in deeds of kindness and exchanging mutual exhortation. He’s willing to permit laypeople to bear “witness to the faith” (what’s revealed in the Word and the Reformed symbols) and “witness to their faith” though he’s uncomfortable with calling that “evangelism.” On the other hand, pastors like myself distinguish between clergy and laity and acknowledge that not all laypeople are sufficiently gifted to teach the word publicly at the level and frequency of a trained pastor and teacher. We’re even willing to allow that the English term “ministry,” like the corresponding Greek word, may have a more technical meaning that denotes a specially assigned task or vocation and a less technical meaning that denotes a more general function of service assigned to all God’s people. Indeed, we’ll even speak of “the centrality of preaching,” thinking of the pulpit “ministry” as the hub around which the spokes and wheel of church “ministry,” i.e., all other kingdom endeavor carried out by both clergy AND laity, turns. Hence, we’re not denying or denigrating the strategic place of what Charles Bridges in his pastoral theology calls The Christian Ministry. We’re simply trying to make room, in light of the biblical data, for “The Christian’s Ministry” too.
But that’s just the point. It is about semantics, but it’s about more than mere semantics. The Bible itself refers to lay-activity offered to others on behalf of Christ as “ministry.” Paul commends to the church in Rome a laywoman by the name of Phoebe as “a minister [diakonon] of the church at Cenchreae” (Rom. 16:1). It’s doubtful she was an office-bearer. But Paul wasn’t as linguistically stingy as some of our modern Reformed friends seem to be. I suggest that we follow Paul and be no more precise than the Bible in its use of terminology. Moreover, the point of debate is one of “tendency.” In my reading of these writers, I see a tendency to overemphasize the importance of the ordained man’s ministry and to underemphasize the importance of the layman’s ministry. When I read Michael Horton disparaging churches that have “ministries” to reach the world for Christ other than the preached word and the sacraments, and when I read Berkhof argue that “strictly speaking, only the Word and the sacraments can be regarded as means of grace, that is, as objective channels which Christ has instituted in the Church, and to which He ordinarily binds Himself in the communication of His grace,” I detect a kind of clerical myopia. The solution is to open our eyes to all the NT teaches regarding ministry. In doing so, we’ll not become “levellers”; we’ll maintain a biblical distinction between the clergy and laity. But we’ll also recognize that Jesus authorizes all his people to be ministers: “If anyone would be first,” says Christ, “he must be last of all and servant [diakonos] of all” (Mark 9:35). As Jesus assumed the role of a “servant,” so must all who would follow in his steps. And as we serve one another and the world around us, we’ll be engaged in what the Bible calls “ministry.”
“Ministers All?” Yes! It’s just that plain and simple.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
