David J. MontgomeryA searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. David J. Montgomery received his MDiv in May, 1995 from Regent College in Vancouver. He and his wife are returning to Belfast where he will begin his ministry in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

In my personal experience of Presbyterianism, lay ministry has always played a prominent role. In my home church the pastor preached, administered the sacraments, officiated at weddings and funerals and periodically visited the congregation. Needless to say, as a young boy, I remember very little of any of that, although I am sure it was done competently. What I do remember are my Sunday School classes, my learning to pray in a small group, my first tentative attempts to share my faith at an evangelistic mission, my first responsibilities on a youth committee, my first time in the pulpit to read the Scriptures, and later, my first sermon. In all of these instances lay people were responsible for guiding me, advising me, encouraging me, prodding me, giving me feedback and thereby helping me to discern my gifts. All those whose ministries I most remember: parents, youth leaders, teachers, student leaders, were lay people.

However, I was conscious of a tension. In spite of this lay emphasis in both experience and official polity, a culture seemed to exist which prevented this emphasis from reaching its logical conclusion.

Furthermore, when I began asking questions about distinctive features of Presbyterianism, I was told first of all that we were not a hierarchical Church. Instead of bishops and priests we had a plurality of elders, of whom the “minister” (teaching elder), was only one. Lay people had an equal role in the governance of the congregation and in the governance of the wider Church.

However, I was conscious of a tension. In spite of this lay emphasis in both experience and official polity, a culture seemed to exist which prevented this emphasis from reaching its logical conclusion. This manifested itself in three ways. First, unofficially, there was undoubtedly a superior status accorded, albeit subconsciously, to the  “minister.” His visits were “the real thing”; his sanctioning of a project made all the difference; his opinions were the most sought after; his prayers, even, were sometimes thought of as being more efficacious. Second, officially, there were some things only he could do: most notably the administration of the sacraments, although he, or one of his colleagues, also seemed to do over 90% of the preaching. Third, as I found out at an early age, whenever anyone showed a level of aptitude in biblical understanding or public speaking, or both, the question was immediately asked: “Do you not think you should consider going into the ‘ministry’?” The implicit understanding being that this was the prime area of Christian service and the only rightful place for such people.

About a decade ago I was faced with a dilemma. A desire to preach and teach had been added to my youthful and zealous desire to serve God in some capacity, but I was unwilling to perpetuate a two-tiered system of Christian ministry, a system which I believed was not scriptural, and which counteracted many of the good points of Presbyterianism which I had grown to appreciate. Here, I have sought to apply the theology of “lay liberation” to the to the realities of our denominational system which I have appreciated so much in the past, and which I continue to value.

I. Introduction

As Presbyterians we are people of the Book. We are also a people with a history. Our theological roots go back through generations: the successive Assemblies of the Church, the Westminster Divines, Calvin, and alongside him the other Reformers and Church Fathers. In seeking to live out the Christian life and find help in our various struggles, we would be foolish to ignore the insights of these teachers with whom God has blessed us, yet even the most prestigious of these is to be judged by Scripture. Similarly, in our church life we seek to order our ministry according to the subordinate standards which all office-bearers confess, yet these too in turn must be interpreted by, and answerable to, Scripture alone.

II. Scriptural Witness

In looking at the New Testament documents regarding the form of the early Christian Church, we are faced with two facts. First, there is clear evidence that structures of leadership were in place and were to be regarded as continuing leadership positions, or “offices.” The office of elder or overseer is mentioned with regard to Ephesus (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim.3:2), Philippi (Phil. 1:1) and Crete (Tit. 1:5). The case of the expanding church in Acts 14:23 and the reference to elders in James 5:14 and in the circular letter of Peter to the scattered churches (1 Pet.5:1), presupposes that, wherever the Church gathered, elders were in place. A separate office of “deacon” was also present in Philippi (Phil. 1:1) and Ephesus (1 Tim. 3:8ff), and the context suggests that these too were a regular feature in the churches. It is also evident that within this leadership body certain individuals exercised a specific ministry of preaching and teaching (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:ll; 1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 3:l). Timothy certainly seemed to be in this position in Ephesus (1 Tim. 6:2) and there were to be others to follow him in this task (2 Tim. 2:2).

… the sole purpose of any leadership body within the Church is to serve the whole people of God.

However, the second fact which emerges is that, beyond what we have already stated, the New Testament witness is unspecific. In fact there is a rather loose interchangeability of terms. It is more than likely that there was a large degree of structural flexibility, depending on the region in which the church was situated and the dominant culture of the area. It is interesting that in Corinth, arguably the most disorderly of the New Testament churches, Paul does not deal with the problem on a structural level (as could have been expected), but on a spiritual level, appealing to the orderliness which the Spirit brings. In fact, he affirms the diversity and freedom which is theirs through the spirit (1 Cor. 12:4ff; 14:33). Specific instructions relating, For example, to who should preach and who should administer the sacraments, is strangely lacking in the New Testament material. Rather the emphasis is on the giftedness of the body, the need to desire and develop those gifts for mutual edification (1 Cor. 12:31; Eph. 4:12; 2 Tim. l:6), and the importance of exercising them in an orderly manner (1 Cor. 14:40).

The fundamental principle in all of this which should not be forgotten, is the fact that the sole purpose of any leadership body within the Church is to serve the whole people of God. Service, not power, is the motivating factor. The Reformed churches have always rejoiced in the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9), and any structure which reintroduces a mediatorial element into Christian ministry is effectively returning the Church to the shadows of the Old Covenant and undermining the freedom of access won through Christ.

III. Ministry in the Reformed Tradition

1. Calvin

Calvin actually believed in four permanent offices: the minister of the Word, the ruling elder, the deacon, and the teacher or doctor whose responsibility it was to instruct in specific matters of doctrine and combat heresy. When Calvin expounds on the different offices mentioned in Ephesians 4 he does so in cautious language in marked contrast to his usual confidence and dogmatism. There are phrases such as: “this class I take to be…”; “this interpretation seems to me to be in agreement [with Paul]”; “there is, I believe, this difference…”; “unless my judgment deceives me ”1 With regard to the pastor or teaching elder, Calvin’s emphases are that he should be heard and honoured; that the office was essential for the well-being of the church; and that, since it is a gift from God, it should not be lightly esteemed.2 Based on Paul’s phrase “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1), Calvin asserts (without further elaboration) that “we may infer that in the office of the pastors also there are these two particular functions: to proclaim the gospel and to administer the sacraments.”3 It seems that this stems from Calvin’s determination to keep Word and sacrament together. The sacraments, he believes, should be subordinated to the Word which explains their purpose and states the promises attached to them. The sacraments derive their virtue from the Word as it has been understood, hence they should be preceded by a sermon.

With regard to the actual celebration, Calvin, although generally cautious of liturgy, published a book of forms and prayers appropriate for the sacrament in order to keep the service simple and as near as possible to the early Church practice as much as it can be discerned.4 The 1545 version sets forth how the “minister” prepares the bread and wine at the table and speaks the words of institution for the bread, but it is a deacon who recites the same words for the cup! On other forms of ritual Calvin was indifferent and used the ancient form only because he felt it was best.

Elsewhere, Calvin rails against the “horrible abuses, adulterations, pomp, ceremony and gesticulations” of the Roman Church.5 Similarly, in Baptism we are to lay aside “all theatrical pomp.”6 For Calvin, the hearing of the Word, and the visible signs of the sacrament which we see, feel, and taste, are the adequate means by which we grasp Christ and his significance for us.

We may therefore conclude that Calvin is not dogmatic about the details of church government. His main convictions are that it was plural, not hierarchical; and that certain individuals had specific ministries of the Word, but even these were accountable to the body. Calvin believes that these individuals must be called both by God and by the Church and that the two particular functions of those so called were to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. This arose out of his belief in the inseparability of the two, and his use of 1 Corinthians 4:l.

2. The Westminster Confession

The Westminster Confession and Catechisms are the subordinate standards of our Church. While not dealing directly with church government or office, the Confession does, when discussing the sacraments, limit their rightful administration to those who are “lawfully ordained.”7 Although the Confession as a whole is amply supplemented with scriptural proofs at almost every clause, here they are noticeably sparse. Reference is made only to 1 Corinthians 4:1 (as used by Calvin), and Hebrews 5:4 which clearly refers to the Old Testament office of High Priest which, the biblical author argues, has now been fulfilled totally in Christ. In the numerous commentaries and expositions written on the Westminster Confession the various commentators struggle noticeably at this point, recognizing the paradox inherent in this position.8 Therefore, nearly all begin with the disclaimer that this is not because any priestly authority is claimed for the administrator, but no further scriptural support is cited. Others justify it simply because it differs in practice from the Roman Catholic Church. Since the latter accept baptismal regeneration they allow laypeople to administer baptism in emergencies; therefore to avoid such superstition gaining access into the churches, and to keep the sacraments in the context of the Word and worship, their administration should be limited to “the highest legal officers of the Church.” The most recent edition of the Confession published by the Presbyterian Church (USA) refers to the “General Note,” which states simply:

At several points the Confession of Faith is more specific in its statements than the Scriptures. These statements are inferences drawn from the Scriptures or from statements based on the Scriptures, or from the experience and observation of the Church.9

3. Later Interpretations and Applications

In the years since, and particularly in the days of interdenominational polemics, several have sought to expound on the particular role of the minister of Word and sacrament. The not-so-invisible opponents have been variously the Independents and the Episcopalians. In reality, however, by making diverse attempts to justify theologically a rigid division of responsibility and function within the eldership, Presbyterianism, as it developed historically, was in great danger of forgetting the equal dignity accorded to the office of ruling elder, and was becoming functionally hierarchical. Occasionally one finds in the literature statements which virtually give a mediatorial role to the pastor-teacher.10

The significance of all of this lies in the way in which what began in Calvin as a preferred methodology for church government became over time almost an absolute in the minds of its practitioners. In addition, out of respect for their tradition, and a valid and strong belief that the Presbyterian way was the most practical and abuse-free system, these advocates attempted to back up their preferences through Scripture and an exegesis which often stretched the meaning of texts and differed markedly from that of Calvin.

One example from the 20th century will suffice to conclude this part of the discussion. A common little booklet often given to prospective Presbyterian students is Edmund Clowney’s Called to the Ministry. Clowney helpfully discusses the issue against the background of the call of every Christian, but he also uses Paul’s lists of Christian character traits as a type of inventory for the omnicompetent pastor, rather than emphasizing their applicability to all believers. When it comes to discussing the sacraments, Clowney adds nothing new to the discussion. Again we see the statement of the limitation, the disclaimer, and the affirmation that Word and sacrament must go together.

The minister at the Lord’s table or the baptismal font continues to be a minister of the Word. For this reason he administers the sacraments: not because he has a claim to a separate priesthood, but because the sacraments seal the Word and are observed as part of the proclamation of the Word to men.11

So, whether writing pastorally or polemically, Presbyterian writers since the Confession have upheld the distinctiveness of the office of teaching elder and their unique role in preaching the Word and administering the sacraments.

IV. Evaluation

1. Looking under the surface

It is my conviction that the difference between elders who teach and elders who rule, while valid, has been overplayed and made too rigid by its institutionalization into a separate permanent office of ministry. Similarly, this rigid distinction has been strengthened by making the administration of the sacraments, unjustifiably in my view, an exclusive function of this office. Nevertheless, earlier in this article I emphasized the importance of trying to understand the rationale for the current position. I now suggest that, beginning with Calvin and continuing through the various Presbyterian polemicists and apologists of the following centuries, several major and valid concerns can be discerned.

First, there was a desire for order. Calvin’s fear was of “noisy and troublesome men,”12 and he believed that a reasonably well-defined structure was the best way to prevent this from happening.

Added to this was a concern for teachability. Like many of the polemicists who would follow him, Calvin saw “unauthorised” preaching in his day to be the equivalent of arrogant and presumptive insubordination to the church authorities that God has already ordained. Such preachers were not displaying the humble and teachable spirit becoming in a minister of the gospel.

Connected with this was another concern, namely, that preachers needed a humble spirit and were not to “rashly thrust themselves forward by their own judgment.”13 The whole Church has a pivotal role in confirming someone’s call to ministry. Insofar as Calvin mentions an inner call, it is to emphasize that God is the initiator of all ministry, and to guard against the arrogant self-appointed preachers mentioned above.

Although our polity does not limit the number of teaching elders in a congregation, the presupposition is that all preachers will probably be ordained “ministers” …

A further concern is the Word and sacrament be kept together. This prevents the sacrament from degenerating into magical superstitious rituals, and preserves their true status as a seal and confirmation of the Word and promises of God.

A desire for order; the promotion of a humble, respectful and teachable spirit; the concern to keep Word and sacrament together: these were the admirable and valid concerns of our Presbyterian ancestors. These are the concerns which lie behind the justifications of the office of “Word and Sacrament.”

2. Discerning the Real Problems

Keeping these concerns very much in the front of our minds, what weaknesses can we discern in our present policy? I think there are at least three.

a) Founded on Weak Exegesis

First, and most important, there is insufficient scriptural evidence for an office which has exclusive rights on the administration of the sacraments and on the majority of the preaching. The New Testament gives no indication that there was only one, or even two preachers/ teachers for each congregation. Although our polity does not limit the number of teaching elders in a congregation, the presupposition is that all preachers will probably be ordained “ministers,” and our practice usually means that the majority of congregations have just one or at most two resident “professionals.” Furthermore, none of the Reformed commentaries on the Confession of Faith have succeeded in coming up with a convincing scriptural basis for limiting the administration of the sacraments to teaching elders. The only two verses quoted in favour of this practice are 1 Corinthians 4:1 and Hebrews 5:4. In many ways it would have been better if no verses at all had been quoted, since this is really bordering on an abuse of Scripture. All the rules of normal exegesis lead one to accept with the vast majority of commentators that, in 1 Corinthians 4 “the mysteries of God” refers to “the revelation of the gospel, now known through the Spirit and especially entrusted to the apostles to proclaim.”14 Furthermore, Paul specifically says a couple of chapters earlier that he was not sent to baptize but to preach. Gordon Fee is adamant: “The suggestion of some that it means ‘dispenser of the sacraments’ is so far removed from both the literary and historical context as not to need refutation.”15

Similarly, in Hebrews 5:4 the context is clearly that of the High Priest and the author’s argument is that just as the High Priest is not self-appointed but called by God, so too Jesus was called by the Father to this High Priestly ministry. There is nothing to suggest that church officers are mentioned here. The “honour” is that of the High Priest and here we have one of the more obvious instances of discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.

b) Unnecessarily and Unhelpfully Exclusive

As we saw above, the task of administering the sacraments was originally restricted to the teaching elder out of a desire to keep Word and sacrament together. Since the teaching role was limited to authorized “minister” the role of “Minister of Word and Sacrament” evolved. Preaching is no longer limited in our churches to authorized personnel; the preacher needs only the permission of the teaching elder. Why then is sacramental administration still restricted? After all, since sacramental discipline is the responsibility of the whole session, what is so special about the actual administration? If Calvin truly did have a deacon participating in the administration the exclusivist position is further weakened. Ironically, in our attempt to be different from the Roman Church we have become more like them. In restricting this ministry we wanted to make the point that unlike the Roman Catholics, we did not believe that sacraments were necessary for salvation; therefore no-one needed to be able to administer them in an emergency; therefore the task will be restricted to authorized “ministers.” However, in spite of the pleas and disclaimers of the Confession’s commentators, this cannot give anything but the impression that some special significance, mediatorial or sacerdotal, rests in the one who is administering them. Calvin was anxious that in our celebration of the sacraments we keep them as simple as possible and “lay aside all theatrical pomp.” What better way to achieve this than by occasionally allowing the congregation to be led in their celebration by another elder or deacon?

c) Professionalism Perpetuated

However, the issue of the sacraments is merely symptomatic of a larger problem. It is simply one example of how our church has gradually accorded to one person a special professional status. While training is necessary, and a degree of certification is practically helpful, there are also serious dangers. Klaus Bockmuehl says:

The result of this is that there is less lay participation in the work of the churches. The local church often is a one-man show, run by the pastor… whereas the laity has long been accustomed to play the role of the audience.16

This acquiescence of the laity in their own stagnation has resulted in a self-inflicted inferiority complex whereby, with no scriptural justification, and running contrary to all that they are called to be in Christ, they look to one vicarious human representative to do their ministry for them and satisfy their spiritual obligations. W.H. Willimon makes a most perceptive observation:

When people talk about pastors they cannot resist searching for some peculiar, special attribute that belongs only to pastors and thus legitimates their existence: wounded healer, living reminder, clown, empathetic listener, chief goal setter, resident dreamer, guru, celibate, prayer expert, male, straight-A seminarian, or other individualistic, natural, or acquired trait that somehow makes a priest “special”. This compulsion for speciality implies that the church’s need for leadership, service, and edification is not special enough; that the church’s authorization needs something else added for it to be holy.17

Herein lies the ultimate irony. As I discovered in my own struggle with personal ministry decisions, it is ultimately up to those within these leadership positions to take the initiative and lay aside some of their inherited ecclesiastically-sanctioned rights in order to model a true theology of the People of God and help that body as a whole discover its corporate ministry. That would be true leadership.

V. Conclusions

It could be argued that, as Presbyterians we have the most liberating polity of all, in that a church member, if called to the eldership, can have an equal part not only in the government of the local congregation but, through Presbytery, Synod and Assembly, in the government of the wider church. However, in tension with this parity of representation, a culture has developed and expectations have arisen which actively mitigate against the corporate eldership being the true leaders and ministers in the church. We have not had time to examine in detail the reasons for this, but my feeling is that they are more sociological than theological, and even Calvin’s methodology is likely to have been influenced by the demographics of developing urban Geneva more than we like to admit. Nevertheless, we have tried to show how one development – the perpetuation of a special unique and exclusive ministry of “Word and Sacrament” – has contributed to this debilitating process.

A biblical “lay ministry,” with its corporate and community dimensions, is vital in preserving this delicate balance.

In many ways the traditional Presbyterian minister is an enigma. Expected to function sometimes as both priest and professional, he or she is uncomfortable in his or her Protestant non-conformity with both of these; yet is conscious that he or she does have a calling and responsibility that is important and vital to the church. How can he or she reconcile this tension? I would suggest that the minister ceases to see his or her uniqueness in terms of ministerial functions, and begins to see it in terms of how God has gifted him or her. Allowing others to preach and administer is just one way of saying: “although I have been gifted to preach and will often lead you in participation in the sacraments, I am not the only one who can do these; nor does the significance of my ministry depend upon my doing them.” Part of his or her leadership responsibility should also be to ensure that the justifiable concerns which led many of our forebears to defend the traditional office, are not being ignored. There must be order in the church; those who preach and administer do so under the guidance and supervision of the elders. There must be a humble and teachable spirit within the church; no-one thrusting themselves forward or refusing a rebuke given in love is worthy of the responsibility. Sacrament and Word should not be separated; the one is the seal of the other. All these can be safeguarded without restricting body-life through superfluous and unnecessary legislation. The teaching elder has a vital supervisory role in all of this.

Postscript

So where does this leave me? I am on the verge of being accepted as a minister of “Word and Sacrament.” I prefer to see myself as one whom God has gifted, and is continuing to gift, in just one area of ministry. I see myself as being called by God, through the Church, to serve amongst my fellow-believers in Ireland. Regardless of what others’ view of that calling may be, I perceive it as an equipping opportunity; not as a chance to give a demonstration of omnipotence. In our Presbyterian system we have the plurality which avoids the potential power abuses of a more hierarchical system, and we have the connectionality which can prevent the equally hazardous dangers of self-autonomy, isolationism, or anarchy. A biblical “lay ministry,” with its corporate and community dimensions, is vital in preserving this delicate balance. Otherwise we will inevitably magnetize towards clericalism or individualism. May God grant us the grace to “equip the saints.”

Endnotes

  1. Institutes IV.iii.4,9.
  2. See Ibid. IV.iii.1,2.
  3. Ibid. IV.iii.8.
  4. “La meniere d’administre les Sacremens selon la coustum de Feglise ancienne.” See R.S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. p.243.
  5. Inst. IV.xiv.20.
  6. Ibid. IV.xv.19.
  7. Westminster Confession of Faith. XXVII.4; XXVIII.2.
  8. See G.I. Williamson, G.I. The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1964, p.204; A.A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding The Westminster Confession, London: Banner of Truth, 1961, p.335. R.Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Inverness: Christian Focus Publications, 1974, p.282.
  9. The Book of Confessions. Louisville: PCUSA, 1991. General note after text of Westminster Confession.
  10. C. Bridges The Christian Ministry: with an Inquiry into the Causes of its Inefficiency, London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1961, pp.2-7. Bridges was admittedly an Anglican, but his book would be read widely within Presbyterian circles.
  11. Clowney. p.58.
  12. Inst. IV.iii.10.
  13. Qtd. Wallace, op.cit. p.l 17.
  14. G. Fee, First Corinthians, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, p. 160. See also L. Morris, First Corinthians, London: Tyndale, 1960. “The sphere of the preachers’ responsibility is God’s revelation” (p.74). The eminent Presbyterian commentator Charles Hodge agrees. See C. Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1978. pp.64-5.
  15. Fee, op.cit. p.160 n.11.
  16. K. Bockmuehl, “Recovering Vocation Today”, Crux, 24.3, 1988, p.33.
  17. W.H. Willimon, “The Spiritual Formation of the Pastor: Call and Community”, Quarterly Review, Vol. 3.2. (1983), p.34.