Who is a Minister?

by George S. Spink

When I announced my decision to leave the city church which I had served for ten years, many considered this act as “giving up the ministry.” It did not matter to these people that I would be teaching the eternal truths of Christianity to young college students. What was uppermost in their minds was the all-too-narrow concept of the Christian ministry as being solely centered in the pastor congregation relationship. I begin with this incident in order to point to the need for Christians to expand their concept of the term Christian “ministry.” The tendency of the American mind to pigeonhole or label concepts as if they have only one mode of interpretation applies to the average churchman in his church relationships as well as other sectors of American life. Far too many understand the expression “Christian ministry” as referring to the professionally trained clergyman and nothing else.

If one were to ask “Who is a minister?”, in general the answer would involve the idea of anyone who is trained and authorized to carry out the spiritual functions of a church, conduct worship, administer sacraments, preach and pastor a local congregation. It must be admitted that this idea is basically Christian and can be traced to the early church.[1] However, to limit the meaning of Christian ministry to this concept is to miss the larger concept of “ministry” also set forth in the New Testament. The Greek word for “ministry” is diakonia. It is significant that this term was in New Testament times the most favored way of referring not only to specific church workers but also to all those who professed to be followers of Christ rendering service in his name.[2] It is in this latter sense that Protestantism historically has used the expression “priesthood of all believers.”[3] The New Testament refers to every believer in the generalized sense of his ministry under the terms saint, priest, and king. “All Christians,” says Luther, “are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office alone. As St. Paul says, we are all one body, though each member does its own work, to serve the others. This is because we have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel and faith these alone make spiritual and Christian people.”[4] This generalized idea of the ministry, apart from ordination to specific office in the church, places on every Christian a sacred responsibility to co-operate in the government and administration of the church; it also places on every Christian the responsibility of being useful to his fellow man according to his special gift.[5] A minister in this sense is, then, one who is obligated as a Christian to serve Christ by showing love, not only to his neighbor within the church, but also in the world at large whenever the opportunity arises. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, it was the lawyer who sought to justify his narrow view of religious obligation by asking “Who is my neighbor?”, thus making his responsibilities under God center about himself and those he sought to define as neighbor.[6] But in the final analysis Jesus turns the question around placing the responsibility on the lawyer and his obligations to his fellow man; i.e., “to whom am I a neighbor?”[7]

This wider concept of a Christian as a minister to his neighbor reappeared again as an emphasis at the time of the Protestant Reformation. This was particularly true in writings that treated Christian vocation. It was a natural result of the abolishment of the medieval Catholic distinction between special religious merit and dignity attached to the role of the clergy, and the inferior—though altogether necessary—function of ordinary lay Christians in the world. The Reformers taught that all vocations rank the same with God. None are more sacred, or more secular than others, no matter how they are esteemed by men. While it was admitted that some vocations are socially more influential than others because of leadership positions, the difference between monk or magistrate and taylor or garbage collector is an “official” distinction only, implying no real difference in merit or dignity before God. Therefore, no individual, whatever his work may be, has any necessity for forsaking the responsibilities of his Christian ministry in that work to go off on a crusade or to enter a monastery out of bad conscience about what he is now doing and under the illusion that he can be more Christian in his activities somewhere else. John Calvin in writing on the Christian as minister in regard to vocation declared, “The Lord commands every one of us, in all the actions of life to regard his vocation … He has appointed to all their particular duties in different spheres of life … Every individual’s line of life … is, as it were, a post assigned him by the Lord, that he may not wander about in uncertainty all his days.”[8] It is significant, therefore, that the early stages of the Reformation expressed a clear understanding of the place and responsibility of the average Christian.

A return to a study of the Primitive Church by the Reformers lead to a wholesome attitude of the concept of ministry. It was stressed that originally in the New Testament the term “laity” meant all of the people in the early Christian ministry; however, by the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the Protestant church began to stress a professionalized ministry through ordination. It is significant that during this same period evangelical Pietism arose within the structures of the reformation churches. This movement insisted on a return to the concept of every Christian as a minister as taught in the New Testament and emphasized by the early Reformers. Evangelical Pietism sought to restore the idea of “office” in regard to the ordained ministry in contrast to the medieval concept of “merit.” Unfortunately, the latter assumption won out and the rift widened so much so that even today the ordinary church member in most denominations seems still to miss the important fact that the nonministering Christian was nonexistent in the early Christian movement.[9]

Attempts are now being made by many Christian movements to recover the idea of the Christian as a minister in all walks of life. The enthusiasm with which some successful attempts at its recovery have been received indicate the distance which Christianity has travelled from the idea of the ministering Christian apparent in the records of the Primitive Church.[10] This assumption of the functions, which belong to the body of Christ as a whole, by the ordained minister has led historically to a two fold detriment of the lay ministry movement in the Christian church. In the first place, it tends to paralyze the activity of the ordinary members of the church, impeding their spiritual growth. Secondly, when the concept of lay ministry is restored in some form, it is overshadowed by our cultural concept of professional ministry. In this latter case many of the lay ministers tend to abandon the advantages of their lay vocation and status, either by joining the ranks of the paid servants of the church or by assimilating, perhaps unconsciously, the manners and traditions of the professional ministry. This naturally kills creative imagination and often leads to inert stereotypes.[11]

This raises the question of relationships. What is to be the function of the “ordained” minister in regard to the lay minister? How is the ordained minister to view the goal of his ministry in relation to the lay Christian in the Church? Certainly it can be asserted in view of what has been said that one of the major functions of the ordained minister must be to discourage the traditional lay view of the ministry as belonging totally to the ordained clergyman, i.e., “let the preacher do it.” This idea arising out of the clericalism of the past afflicted almost all congregations and has been a betrayal of the basic meaning of the Christian ministry. Therefore, it is not surprising that far too many Christians do not see themselves as duty bound to a role of Christian “ministry.”[12]

Many young people who might have been challenged to more meaningful lives of Christian ministries see little or no association between what they are doing or preparing to do in life and a call to be committed to the Christian ministry. What is needed is a greater emphasis on the Christian as a responsible minister in the world. Many young people need to be encouraged to serve Christ through the community by envisioning their ministry in terms of daily occupation. Certainly it can be pointed out that there are always more opportunities of giving effective service in one’s career than would be likely to come if one were in the full-time service of a local church preoccupied with worship or “services.” Thus there is obviously a need of a flexible strategy within the Christian camp as we face a world of rapid change. Without doubt, the concept of the ministry in the world on the part of every Christian must be stressed if the witness of Christianity is to be effective as the “light of the world” and the “salt of the earth.” However, in the light of what has just been said, realism suggests that a professional clergy serving a neighborhood through its local church remains indispensable.

The fact that there is a large number of able and sincere ordained men fulfilling their functions as pastors is one of the most hopeful factors in our present situation. If we can add to them increasing numbers of Christians who see all of life as a Christian vocation, our time may be one that contributes to future accomplishment and hope. The role of the ordained minister, in strengthening the generalized concept of the lay minister, will be successful only insofar as he can help to inspire the Christian laity to make religious life creative in service to God and neighbor. In this way the Christian community can purge itself of the idolatry of individualism and return to the primitive concept of the witnessing community. Gibbon in tracing the root cause of the rapid spread of Christianity in the hostile environment of the Roman Empire declares it to be the contagious ministry of all the Christians. He places primary emphasis on the fact that “it became the most sacred duty of a new convert to diffuse among his friends and relations the inestimable blessing which he had received.”[13] John R. Mott in referring to the general effectiveness of one’s consciousness of his ministry in the early church wrote, “Wherever the Christian disciples scattered, the evidences multiplied of Christianity as a leaven working quietly for the conversion of one household after another. It is this commending by life and word the reality and wonder-working of the Living Lord on the part of the rank and file of His disciples within the sphere of their daily calling that best explains the penetration of Roman society with the world conquering Gospel.”[14]

It is this generalized concept of the ministry that must be recovered through stressing the “cooperative ministry” of the church, i.e., both professional ministers and non-professional ministers as Christians working towards a goal of greater involvement in the affairs of the twentieth century. The major success of Christianity in the first century arose from the influence of a cooperative ministry within the church confronting the world.[15] A great part of our failure as twentieth century Christians has been to allow the sharing idea of the ministry giving rise to the witnessing community, to be dormant when the need has been apparent. Our downfall at this point has been to allow the Christian community to assume that it is a structure where few speak and the many simply listen. The result of this posture has been that the primary Christian observance of most people is that of listening to sermons or lessons with very little strategy to “go and do likewise.”

Further, we must overcome the twentieth century idea of “laissez faire” Christianity. While the Christian experience must begin with the individual it is by no means saying that it is individualistic. “Laissez faire” doctrine producing individualism is one of the most subtle illusions than can invade the Christian community. It pictures man as not only the one who must decide moral issues on his own, but also as the source of the criteria by which all ideas of Christian “ministeries” are to be judged. Contrasted with this doctrine of individualism is the other subtle illusion that affects the ministry of the Christian within the church, viz. “collectivism.” This illusion subordinates the individual to the group in such a way as to make him important only for the sake of the group. Some groups within the Christian camp operating under this illusion stress their differences from other Christians to such an extent that any Christian ministry involving another group is looked upon as betrayal. The evil results of both these illusions have been manifest in Christian history.

In contrast to both these illusions, the idea of a Christian “cooperative ministry” abandons the false dichotomy of the individual and the group, generated by strict clericalism in favor of an organismic understanding of the Christian community. The individual Christian acting in the general sense of the term “minister” relates to the rest of the individuals in the group, each carrying on his particular ministry, but at the same time inescapably interdependent one part on the other. Moreover, just as a living organism is more than the sum of its parts, so a group of persons is more than the sum of the individuals who constitute it. Paul makes clear use of the organic image of a cooperative ministry in Romans chapter twelve where he describes the church as the “body of Christ.” It is in this sense that the task of each member according to his ability, is to use his talents to promote the reconciliation of divergent elements within human personality and among human beings. In this sense each member of the Christian community is expressing a corporate Christian ministry.[16] Furthermore, in this same sense, the Christian as a minister in the general sense must be inspired to see his task as similar to that which Jesus was fulfilling, i.e., to reconcile the world to God.[17] It is in this sense of a “sharing ministry” within and without the local church that Francis Schaeffer calls for a compassionate Christianity that is truly universal, relevant to all segments of society and all societies of the world. He writes, “The early Christian church cut across all lines which divided men—Jew and Greek, Greek and barbarian, male and female;… The observable and practical love in our days certainly should also without reservation cut across all such lines as language, nationalities, national frontiers, younger or older, colors of skin, education and economic levels … cultural differentiation, and the more traditional and less traditional forms of worship.”[18]

What is implicit in the foregoing discussion should now be stated explicitly. First, if the Christian “ministry” as witness is to meet the challenge of the crisis of our time, there must be a greater emphasis placed on the generalized concept of every Christian as a minister according to his capabilities in and outside the Christian community. This involves getting the Christian to see his total life as sharing in the great ministry of reconciliation as set forth in the New Testament. Secondly, the generalized concept of the ministry must not be understood as a denial of a place for professional training for the ministry. Without competent evangelical leadership the generalized concept of the ministry would soon degenerate into sectarianism and all the evils associated with it. The major role of the trained minister in the latter part of this twentieth century must be to see that the Gospel is expressed primarily through the medium of discipleship as expressed in lay ministries. This means that there must be a return to the emphasis on Christian vocation as expressed by the major leaders in the Reformation. In the third place, each Christian congregation must return to the concept of the “cooperative ministry” as set forth by Paul in his writings on the Church.[19] The idea of total responsibility for the Christian community residing in the pastor or trained ministry must be scrapped. Without each Christian engaged in some form of ministry for the upbuilding of his fellow-Christian, whether trained clergy or layman, the whole corporate witness of the church is tragically weakened. In the fourth place, the whole idea of Christian service must be understood in terms of opportunity when it arises. No segment of life, secular or sacred, must be viewed as of higher priority than any other. All barriers erected by man and his self-centered institutions must be surmounted when in the name of religion they seek to inhibit the practice of Christian love through various Christian ministries. Thus Christians are bound by Jesus’ example, as set forth in the Gospels, of sticking as close as possible to human need in their ministries. This gives us no opportunity for confining the Christian ministry to professionals. It is only in this type of freedom from self-centered traditions, that new and imaginative forms of Christian ministries, under the Spirit, can arise within the context of each situation. Who is a minister? The Christian who is at hand when an opportunity arises, be he professional or lay-Christian. He is one who has come to realize that in the ministry of reconciliation through vocation, human need and man-made regulations are never to be compared except to the infinite advantage of the former.

Notes

1. Niebuhr and Williams, The Ministry in Historical Perspective (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), p. 4.
2. Cf. Jn. 12:26; Lk. 22:24; Mt. 22:13; 23:11; Mk. 9:35; et. el.
3. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1910, second ed.), VII, pp. 24 6.
4. Ibid., p. 26.
5. Cf. Rom. 12:5–21; Eph. 4:8–13.
6. The lawyer’s question seeks to explain the meaning of neighbor as object of one’s love; however, the emphasis of the story is not on the man who fell among robbers, but on the Samaritan who showed practical mercy to him. It illustrates neighbor as subject engaged in ministry, rather than object receiving ministration. Cf. B.T.D. Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: University Press, 1937), p. 182.
7. Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946), p. 19.
8. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated from the Latin by John Allen (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949), III, x, 6, p. 790.
9. Cf. the classic work on this subject by Bishop J. B. Lightfoot, On the Christian Ministry (London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd. 1878), This important work is bound with Lightfoot’s commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. “The only priests under the Gospel,” he writes, “designated as such in the New Testament, are the saints, the members of the Christian brotherhood.”
10. Cf. Man’s Disorder And God’s Design, The Amsterdam Assembly Series, “The Church’s Witness to God’s Design” (New York: Harper and Brothers, n.d.), II, pp. 118-20.
11. Ibid.
12. John R. Mott, Liberating the Lay Forces of Christianity (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1932), p. 84.
13. Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London: Methuen and Company, 1896), II, p. 7.
14. John R. Mott, Op. Cit., p. 2f.
15. Cf. Rom., 12:3–21.
16. Louis W. Hodges and Harmon L. Smith, The Christian and His Decisions (New York: Abingdon Press, 1969), pp. 20-22.
17. Cf. II Cor., 5:19.
18. Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century (Downer’s Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), pp. 105-6.
19. Cf. Rom. 12 and 14.