Here are some quotes of well-known Bible teachers concerning their own “calling to ministry”:
Lying face down on the field one night with his face on the ground, young Adrian prayed, “Lord, I want you to use me.” When he felt that this was not humbling himself enough, he dug a hole in the dirt, put his nose in it, and prayed again, “Lord, I want you to use me!” ~ Adrian Rogers
When I was eighteen, the Lord threw me out of a car traveling seventy miles an hour. I landed on my backside and slid 110 yards on the pavement. By the grace of God I wasn’t killed. As I stood up on that highway, having never lost consciousness, I committed my life to serving Christ. I told Him I would no longer resist what He wanted me to do, which was to preach His Word. ~ John MacArthur
Does anyone see what’s wrong with these testimonies? They have nothing whatsoever to do with NT teachings and everything to do with subjective experience (anecdotal evidence) or even the self-abasement Paul criticized in Col. 2:18 (not even Paul relied on experiences: see 2 Cor. 12:1-5). There is nothing like this in the pages of scripture to qualify as someone having been gifted to pastor (guard, nurture on the behalf of Another).
While it is true that humility is a Christian virtue that all should strive for, and that those being considered for leadership must exhibit, God does not take such outward shows of piety as proof of humility. Humility is shown daily in one’s life, both inside and outside of the Christian community. People of other religions take great pains (sometimes literally) to prove they are “more humble than thou”, but this is not what God wants. He wants a selfless heart, a servant, an obedient child. I’m not saying Rogers did not have these things, but that his lying face down in the dirt is not only no proof of humility, but also certainly not a “call to ministry”.
Likewise for MacArthur: many people have had changed lives after surviving an accident, and they’re obviously not all Christians. Perhaps this was what it took for God to get his attention, but again, it is not a unique experience, and not something upon which one should necessarily conclude they are “called to ministry”.
Biblically, all believers are “called to ministry”. We are all priests (1 Peter 2:9), all “preachers” (Mt. 28:19), all servants (Acts 2:18, Rev. 1:1), all “called” (Eph. 4:1, 2 Thes. 1:11, Heb. 3:1, 2 Peter 1:10). And it must be emphasized that “calling” as used in these passages is not at all the same as the “calling” of tradition and the wrong model of “church”. When some argue for a special “calling to ministry” they equivocate on “calling”, turning what God does for all believers into a special, mystical experience reserved for those God allegedly picks for something like a CEO position in a “church”.
In Eph. 4:11-12 we see a list of spiritual gifts, and in that list we see both “pastors” and “teachers”, as well as others. But if pastors are “called”, then so are teachers and prophets. Yet no one ever hears of one with the gift of prophecy or teaching (see also Rom. 12:4-8, 1 Cor. 12:1-11, 1 Peter 4:10) giving a testimony to their “calling” in the same way “pastors” say they are called. No, God’s “calling” is made evident in a person’s life in very practical and visible ways. I think we’d all naturally do what the Spirit has gifted us to do, were it not for interference from control freaks and usurpers who try to put themselves between God and “laity”.
So since scripture puts us all on the same plane, gifted by the same Spirit for each other’s benefit, and since the community of believers is a Body and not a business, then it follows that there is no such thing as “the pastorate” or “the pulpit” or any other such “offices” in a chain of command. There are only teachers with students who are expected to graduate someday, at which time the teacher-student relationship becomes one between peers; it is not permanent.
Yet that same MacArthur has written passionately in defense of this imaginary office and hierarchy. While I still have some respect for MacArthur as a Bible teacher, I have profound differences with him on many of his teachings. But if the Bereans were considered noble for challenging Paul, then I am sure Dr. MacA. wouldn’t mind similar scrutiny or consider it brash. Let me break down his article a bit.
First of all, let’s see the literal Greek of 1 Tim. 3:1-2:
faithful the saying if anyone (pas, not aner or andres) supervision is craving ideal work they are desiring; must then the supervisor irreprehensible to be...
Contrast that with this one:
It is a trustworthy statement; if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach,...
Note that the word “office” is not in the Greek at all, and is not implied by the context. Neither is any Greek word for “male” found there (we will deal with the phrase “of one woman husband” shortly).
Paul is writing to Timothy, who is never designated with the title “pastor” (for that matter, not one person is ever addressed as such in the entire NT). Timothy was an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5) who was also charged with “reading, encouraging (paraklesei), instruction, and training”. These may overlap the duties Paul is talking about regarding supervisors, but Paul never calls him a “pastor”. So it’s really a misnomer for this letter to be called a “pastoral epistle”; the word “pastor” is never seen in it once.
The concept of “offices” has to be inferred; we only see mention of gifts of varying kinds of service. What Paul is calling a noble aspiration is that someone would be willing to stoop to the lowest position of servitude to the Body, such that they take responsibility for keeping it free of error and living a life that can be considered a model of ultimate Christian behavior (Heb. 13:7). These were not to be authoritarians or bosses, but role models and guardians of truth, who were to be honored and learned from. Jesus’ command, “Not so among you” (Mt. 20:25-27), was given to all disciples; God is still not “a respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).
The office of church leadership--specifically a pastor or an elder--is limited to men. The conclusion is supported by Paul’s use of the masculine gender in the context.
Dr. MacA has made an elementary grammatical blunder here. Grammatical gender is not indicative of biological gender; every language except modern English keeps them separate, and no first-year student of Greek would pass a test with this claim. And again, not only is it the word “anyone” instead of “men” or “males”, there is no word or phrase having to do with an office or title.
The phrase following, “of one wife the husband”, was seen even on the graves of women in the first century. It was an idiom meaning “a faithful spouse”. There was no point in telling women of the day that they were to be faithful, since it was presumed already, while men were expected to have any number of female consorts. If Paul is intending here to specify males, he would be overstating the obvious.
Even if we brush off the historical evidence, a reasonable explanation is that Timothy has a particular individual in mind, who happens to be a male. Then it would be natural for Paul to refer to this person in male terms. He is known to shift from plural to singular in the middle of a topic, and when he does it seems to indicate that an individual is in view, whose name Paul either doesn’t know or does not wish to identify publicly.
In the interest of keeping this post short, I’ll just say that Dr. MacA makes many more such blunders in the statements following. I highly recommend the resources at CBE for challenges to the common proof-texts given here. Suffice it to say that he seems to go out of his way to pursue this rabbit-trail of “roles” when the topic is qualifications for “pastors”.
In his discussion of the “desire” to this alleged “office”, he seems to ignore the fact that this is just one area of service among many. All who serve must do so from the purest motives; the only difference is that those who are to serve as examples must have first been already proven to have reached spiritual maturity (1 Tim. 3:10 ref. “deacons”). The context here is not emphasizing the desire but the service.
It’s a great responsibility to serve as the pastor.
No one doubts the responsibility, but again, there is no “the pastor”. There were to be a group of elders in each assembly (Titus 1:5); no mention is ever made of one person in charge.
The position includes preaching, teaching, caring for, and discipling everyone the Lord places under him.
There is no “position”, and no “underlings”. There are students and the immature, but no one who has desired to serve can have anyone “under” them. Respect, yes; obedience as under a boss, no.
One should not pursue the pastorate lightly.
Again, “the pastorate” is an invented term, and no service of any kind should be taken lightly.
The pastor must understand the responsibility of ruling,
I about fell off my chair when I read that! After all he said about humility, to throw in the word “rule” is completely out of place. And the idea of “ruling benevolently” is doubletalk. You either rule or serve.
The highest calling a man can have on earth is to preach the Word of God.
All believers are to preach the word of God. The idea of a sole lecturer ruling over a passive audience is not anywhere near the sort of “preaching” the NT is talking about.
The call to church leadership is a serious, limited, compelling, responsible, worthy, demanding, and holy calling.
All of us are called to salvation, called to serve, called to spread the gospel. But the “calling to the pastorate” is a contrived and unbiblical notion of some mystical event that only happens with regard to one spiritual gift which has been turned into a kind of CEO position over the Body-- as if the Body has two Heads!
Through the whole article, I have the impression of someone trying to keep others from prying his hands off the wheel, from taking away his self-proclaimed privileges. He seems proud of his humble position (!) and in other articles has fought zealously for male entitlement. But the heart of a servant does not vie for preeminence (3 John 1:9) or cling jealously to rights (see Phil. 2:5-11). It does not seek power or control over others, even if it is allegedly sought for benevolent reasons. It does not consider itself as a better “part of the body” than others (see 1 Cor. 12:12-27).
By claiming a mystical “calling” that accompanies no other gift or believer, those who call themselves “Pastors” of a “Pulpit” and think others are under their rule are usurping the place of Christ and ignoring His example of true humility. Paul does tell us to desire the greater gifts (1 Cor. 14:1, 1 Tim. 3:1), but note that the gift of prophecy is right up there with “oversight”. And if anyone is quick to equate this gift of prophecy with the traditional concept of “preaching” done from a “pulpit”, then they’d have to admit that females are not excluded from this activity (Acts 2:17, 21:9).
No, there is no Pastorate, no Pulpit, no special mystical “calling” for only one spiritual gift. There are only servants whose lives exemplify the ideal Christian life, who have proved their grasp of scripture and can defend the faith from all falsehood, people whose examples we should follow and whose advice and teaching is known to be wise and faithful. And when we have learned and walked the walk, we too can then be such leaders.
That’s a healthy, growing Body.