84 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now
By J. Robert Nelson

"While the New Testament has much to tell us about the ministry which is both descriptive for its time and normative for all times, it simply does not give the specific and incontrovertible answers to our restless questionings about ordination, succession, sacramental administration, the ministry of women, and the like. Even a most conservative, or literalistic, reading of the New Testament does not make possible a simple restorationism, as though the church needed only common reason, good faith, and the leading of the Holy Spirit to discover the perennially valid patterns of ministry and order."

INASMUCH as many have undertaken to make consistent sense of the New Testament ideas of ministry, with the usual failures and frustrations, it seemed good to me nevertheless to try once more, most excellent Henophilus, to draw together the prevailing interpretations of this important but fugitive mystery.

Manifestly the ministry is a mystery. The fact that it has persisted through nineteen centuries of the history of the church, despite all kinds of distortion, corruption, misappropriation, attack, defection, and infidelity, is a token of its strangely insuppressible and indefinable character. It has survived the first century of formlessness and the second century of evident but inexplicable formation, It has survived the fourth century threat of the Donatists to make its efficacy depend upon the moral character of the person, as well as the prelatical corruptions of the thirteenth century and later. The Protestant insistence in the sixteenth century that the validity of word and sacraments was independent of a priestly ordination did

85 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

not terminate the ministry. Nor has the recovery of the full and primal meaning of the laity, with even the current threat of "creeping laocracy," and the clamor of some Christians to abolish the set apart, ordained ministry, served to blot out the mystery of the ministry.

By "mystery" of the ministry we mean quite literally what the New Testament Greek means by mysterion: that eternal, inscrutable purpose of God for the redemption of man. Nor need we translate mysterion as the Latins did, for the ministry is more than the Roman soldier's sacramentum, or oath of fealty and duty, while it is surely less than the dominical sacrament of baptism or eucharist. The mysterion of ministry, again, is seen in its being a part of God's plan for his people and ultimately for the redemption of the world. To treat of the ministry without taking into account its inherent relation to God's saving work in history would be to reduce the discussion to the trivial terms of office-holding and division of labor.

I

The study of ministry today is inescapably ecumenical. This is not because the ecumenical movement may be the current vogue, nor even because of the alternating fascination and frustration felt in discussion of apostolic succession, unifying the diverse ministries in the merging of denominations, etc. Rather, the churches of all traditions which engage in the ecumenical confrontation are seen to have virtually the same problems calling for clarification. So far as the parochial and pastoral concerns of the ordained minister or priest are concerned, the practical problems of the Orthodox priest are essentially the same as those of a Baptist preacher. And even when they delve deeper than the level of practical problems (which are by no means to be minimized in importance), they encounter the same theological questions about the authentication and character of the ministry. Therefore a strictly denominational or confessional study of the meaning and mystery of ministry today would be of limited value at best. This does not mean that the separate denominations have nothing of distinct value to contribute to an ecumenical understanding of the ministry. The ecumenical dimension of ministry is not above and apart from the beliefs, traditions and practices of the many denominations, anymore than "the ecumenical church" is above and apart from them, In other words, it is both legitimate,

86 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

and to be hoped that each tradition can make a contribution worthy of the attention of all the others. And yet we must be candid enough to recognize the existence of contrary and contradictory views of the ministry within the total Christian community. And we would be deceiving ourselves and betraying the proper course of the ecumenical movement if we thought that the "final solution" of the question of ministry were simply the synthesis or amalgamation of all prevaling concepts of it. This is manifestly impossible.

It is also manifest that most of the efforts made by separate churches during the past half-ccntury to resolve the disagreements over the meaning of ministry have been unsuccessful. It would seem almost as though some demonic power were causing each study of the ministry in the ecumenical context to slide into the same deep rut of futility and frustration. But, to change the figure, the mountainous labors of recent decades have brought forth a mole hill of positive ecumenical understanding; and this mole hill, relatively small as it may seem, is still to be welcomed and prized and built upon. For it is a token of the tolerably satisfying and workable resolution of the difficulty of divided ministries which God may yet grant us.

II

The New Testament is both the starting point and the continuing point of reference for the study of the meaning of ministry. Most Christians can agree on this as a true but rather platitudinous statement. But it is important to have properly focused vision with respect to the New Testament teaching and pattern. We must expect neither too much nor too little from it. While the New Testament has much to tell us about the ministry which is both descriptive for its time and normative for all times, it simply does not give the specific and incontrovertible answers to our restless questionings about ordination, succession, sacramental administration, the ministry of women, and the like. Even a most conservative, or literalistic, reading of the New Testament does not make possible a simple restorationism, as though the church needed only common reason, good faith, and the leading of the Holy Spirit to discover the perennially valid pattern of ministry and order. The sectarian results of such uncritical biblicism are well known-and not only among the various types of fundamentalism! The dogmatic absolutizing of contrary views, all bolstered by biblical citations, are

87 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

familiar enough: the episcopal, the presbyterial, and the wholly non-Ministerial. The conclusion reached by a group of French theologians seems quite demonstrable:

"It is therefore not sufficient to trace the origin of the different special ministries in the church to one of the permanent or temporary institutions mentioned in the writings of the apostles, or to justify them merely on that basis. These ministries must also be defined and related to the nature of the church itself, which is inseparable from its royal priesthood, its service, its prophetic purpose, and hence also in terms of the needs of the ministry of the laity."¹

The obvious fact is that virtually all Christians who look to the Bible for the description and authentication of the ministry approach it with ideas and beliefs which arc seldom acknowledged as preconceived. To clear the mind of all presuppositions and thus to study the New Testament without bias is scarcely possible. Reviewing these preconceptions, the Danish scholar, Olof Linton, distinguishes four possible views of the New Testament's teaching on the general ministry of the whole membership and the particular or special ministry of the appointed few.² These are:

1. There is a special ministry but not general ministry-the strictly sacerdotal view, which seems to be held implicitly by some.
2. There is a special ministry but also a general ministry-probably the most widely held view.
3. There is no special ministry but a ministry common to all which may be called the strict "laicism."
4. There is no special ministry and no general ministry-literal anarchy" in the sense of a pure and egalitarian fellowship.

Each of these four possibilities depends at least as much upon implicit doctrines of the nature of the church and of Jesus Christ and the Spirit as upon specific New Testament material concerning the ministry. Thus in our discussion of the ministry we are constantly being driven back to questions of ecclesiology and Christology (a point well recognized in the circles of the Faith and Order movement, but often ignored in some interdenominatioinal studies).

Does this mean, then, that we can hope for no illumunatioin in the New Testament? Or that the New Testament teaching is so diverse as to assure us of nothing but relativism? Or that nothing can be

¹ World Council of Churches, Department on the Laity, Documents, VII (October, 1958), p. 26.
² Ibid., p. 19.

88 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

said about ministry until a full-blown doctrine of ecclesiology and Christology has been expounded? By no means!

Here there is an analogy for the ministry to be drawn from the study of baptism, which has been quite lively in recent years. If we took to the New Testament for unequivocal, indisputable definitions of the meaning of baptism and of the one right mode of administering the rite, we are certain to be disappointed. But we cannot honestly say that the New Testament shows indifference to the meaning and the mode of baptism. Rather, we must note that the main clue to an adequate understanding of baptism is found in the saving work of Jesus Christ, whose baptism was a self-giving in suffering and death for the sake of mankind. Exploring the New Testament, we can learn very much about baptism, but not quite enough to know for sure how to resolve, for example, the differences between the Christians who condone infant baptism and those who do not. In other words, the New Testament material has to be considered in the light of traditional church practice, theological reflection, and the contemporary scene. So also with the ministry.

III

What does it mean to assert that the ministry depends upon the work of Jesus Christ? Wholly inadequate-almost to the point of falsehood-is the common sense notion that Jesus was the good and noble precursor of a new religious movement in history, the essence of which is to be found in the adherents' imitation of their master's way of life. According to such a humanistic evaluation of Christianity, the ministry would consist of persons capable of leading others by example and exhortation in the emulation of Jesus.

We must not, of course, either minimize or dismiss the earthly life of Jesus as the pattern of the church's ministry. His obedience, selflessness, and constant love for all persons surely set the example for disciples of all times. And there is nothing wrong with one's endeavoring to practice the imitatio Christi, as St. Paul actually commended. ("And you became imitators of us and of the Lord," I Thess. 1:6.) Indeed, as Eduard Schweizer and others have pointed out, "There is scarcely any designation of the ministry which was not also occasionally attributed to Jesus himself."³ These include "serv-

³ Gemeinde und Gemeindeordnung im Neuen Testament, 1959, p. 172. (English translation Church Order in the New Testament, 1961.)

89 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

ant," "deacon," "apostle...... prophet," "teacher," "bishop," and "pastor." These familiar names are not titles of office so much as designations of function. Each refers to a mode of exemplifying or putting into effect the Gospel of God's love and forgiveness. More over, when viewed in the perspective of the saving work of Jesus Christ-including Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection, as well as the forming of the Christian church-these names illustrate how Christ himself as living Lord continues to operate in history. He is not dead, but lives eternally; and his life after the days of his flesh is known to us by the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit.

This interpretation of the ministry as the dynamic working of Christ through the Holy Spirit is epitomized in a statement from the report of the section on ministry at the Montreal Conference on Faith and Order, 1963:

"This ministry of Jesus Christ in His Church is made effective by the action of the Holy Spirit promised by the Lord to His people. To serve Christ in His Church means to wait always upon the Spirit of power, holiness and love. It is in this waiting upon the Spirit that the ministers of the Church preach the word, administer the sacraments, watch in prayer, lead God's people, engage in deeds of brotherly help. In dependence upon the same Spirit the whole Church shares the responsibility for this stewardship of the riches of Christ."

To some this may sound like a reading back into the New Testament the theological ideas of the church (and, to be sure, the New Testament is not devoid of these). But this is a statement which is not only consistent with but expressive of the insights of the Fourth Gospel (chs. 14-17, 20), Paul's letters (e.g. Rom. 6, 15; I Cor. 12; II Cor. 4-5; Gal 2; Col. 1), I Pet. 2, and elsewhere. In every case the initiative of witness or service is taken by the risen Christ who works through the man of faith for the upbuilding of the community through love and the ministration to all who are in need.

Our discourse about the meaning of Christ's ministry through the church need not be confined to generalizations about service, suffering, and witness. We can be more specific as we look to the records of Jesus' own ministry and find in it the pattern for the ministry which he continues to exercise. "All discussion about the ministry," declared Paul Minear in an unpublished address, "should begin with the Gospel accounts of his ministry, and with the recognition that

90 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

God has given to him as living Lord all power in heaven and on earth." And what were the chief aspects of Jesus' ministry which remain perennially in need of being exercised? They Were the following five:

1. His proclaiming the coming of the reign of God, which is to be established for men, or given to them, by God's own action.
2. His forgiving sins and healing diseases as the sign of the inbreaking of God's reign in history.
3. His rigorous discipline of prayer to the Father, based upon a faith in the efficacy of prayer Which he authenticated to his disciples.
4. His teaching and exemplifying radical, indiscriminate love conjoined with a sure sense of divine righteousness.
5. His effecting the reconciliation of mankind to God through his suffering and death upon the cross. ⁴

Would We not be justified in asserting that the ministry Which is faithful and true is to be found where these five dominical actions are being continued or appropriated, and that it is lacking where they are ignored by Christians who use their freedom to oppose the work of Christ?

IV

Even when Christians agree that the ministry must be seen in relation to both Jesus Christ and the church, they are not of one mind concerning the nature of this relationship. Recent New Testament scholarship has not eventuated in wide consensus on this, except to the extent of acknowledging that primacy belongs to Christ over both church and ministry. Three conceptions can be noted, and even diagrammed, as follows.

The first holds that Jesus Christ in both earthly ministry and risen lordship first constituted the special ministry of the apostles, and then the church derived from them. Thus:

Jesus Christ

apostolic ministry

church

The second view is that the church as community of the faithful was convoked by the Holy Spirit following the resurrection of Jesus,

⁴ I have discussed these points in the article, "As He Is So Are We in the World," Religion in Life, XXXII (Spring, 1963).

91 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

and that Christ as Lord of the church then called various members to particular kinds of ministry, expressing the essential ministry of the whole church. Thus:

<TAG> 65040921

Thirdly, a "triangular" conception of the relationship, which is rather difficult to reconcile with either a hierarchical or a charismatic idea of the church, discerns Christ as being related by the Spirit directly to the whole church and at the same time indirectly by the ministers. Thus:

<TAG> 65040922

Which of these best expresses the New Testament picture? Or are these three conceptions really complementary rather than mutually contradictory? Certainly there is biblical warrant for each, and the important thing is how each is to be interpreted for the life of the church today.

One can see in the first pattern a stereotyped image of the hierarchical church, based upon the direct commission of Jesus given to the apostles, the transfer of this commission to other apostolic men, and the maintenance by consecration and tactual succession of the true episcopal ministry through the centuries. We shall note below both the biblical suggestions and the inherent problems of this theory. But here it should be indicated that such a stereotype is not the only image to be drawn from this first diagram. One of the most original and helpful studies of the question is the book, The Pioneer Ministry, by Anthony T. Hanson. This book, including much careful exegesis, was written by an Anglican whose personal views have been conditioned by participation in the early experience of the Church of South India. Enjoying the latitude of understanding of the ministry which obtains within the Anglican Communion, Hanson sees the right and normative pattern in the teaching of St. Paul as follows: "The pattern is Christ-the ministry-the church, and the task of the ministry is, not to undertake some specialist activity from

92 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

which the rest of the faithful are excluded, but to pioneer in doing that which the whole church must do, And the ministry itself is no originator, but receives its task from Christ. The ordained ministers only exercise the ministry which Christ himself has first exercised, and which he continues to exercise through them, and through their activity in the whole church also."⁵

According to Hanson's theory, then, the special or ordained ministry comes between Christ and the church community at large, not as a hierarchical priesthood and government, but as the faithful vanguard, the band of pioneers, giving leadership to all Christians in the exercise of their total ministry. The ministry is charged to represent Christ to the church in order that the church may represent Christ to the world. But this ministry is mainly that of preaching the Gospel and exemplifying the life of Christ, rather than that of administering sacraments. The sacraments were not entrusted to certain men, a priesthood, in other words, but to the local congregation itself.⁶

It is to the credit of Hanson's presentation that he attaches a positive and significant importance to the early formation of a special ministry, recognizing the uniqueness and primacy of the apostles, without condoning at all the eventual rise of a priestly hierarchy.

The second pattern of Christ-church-ministry is the one which has been discerned, favored, and defended by Protestants of various traditions. It has been used as a defense against priestly, episcopal, and hierarchical doctrines of ministry; but it would be unjust to imply that this pattern was devised simply for defensive or polemical reasons. It is indeed the way in which many responsible New Testament scholars have seen the matter in the faith and experience of the primitive church. They see the Christian community taking form after Pentecost as the result of the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This is the historical body which is charged to bear the good news of God's work in Christ and through its corporate service and witness to care for persons and keep alive the hope of salvation and the final consummation of the reign of God. The New Testament church is thus seen as a free fellowship of the Spirit, in which rank and station are excluded as legitimate concepts, and in which the sole operating authority is that

⁵ P. 72.
⁶ P. 85f.

93 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

of the living Christ himself. Such ministries as there are exist simply as diversities of function for the well-being of the community and the furtherance of its mission. Thus the ekklesia as constituted by Christ is prior to every form or notion of ministry. And the development of the settled ministries by the end of the first century is judged to have been a calamitous turning in the wrong direction-virtually a "fall"-for the church. This is the interpretation which has been almost vehemently propounded by Emil Brunner in his book, The Misunderstanding of the Church, 1951, though softened more recently in the third volume of his Dogmatics, 1962.

Naturally this pattern commends itself to members of so-called "free churches" in which congregational autonomy, voluntarism, and spontaneity have been emphasized and all ministerial authority minimized. And there is much material in the New Testament to support it. But the chief difficulty may lie with the understanding of the character and role of the apostles. Did the apostles have importance only as media or channels for conveying the meaning of the revelation in Jesus Christ, having been "eye-witnesses" to the Lord and recipients of the power of the Spirit? Or were they commissioned by Jesus Christ to be the foundation and nucleus of the nascent church as well as the progenitors of the persons within the church who became special ministers? No consensus among New Testament scholars can be recorded with regard to interpreting the meaning of the apostles for the church; but there is clear evidence of a trend, independent of denominational allegiance, in favor of recognizing the unique circle of apostles as indispensable links between Jesus Christ and the historical church.

A third way of designating Christ's relationship to the church is the triangular diagram, suggested by the Dutch theologian, Hendrik Berkhof,⁷ and similarly by the late British scholar, T. W. Manson.⁸ The living Lord Jesus Christ is absolutely prior in both time and authority to the church and its ministry. Christ sent both the apostles to bear witness to him and the Holy Spirit to empower persons hearing that witness to have faith and become the church. Thus at all times Christ maintains his connection with the church in two ways. His relation of love, judgment, and sustaining power is main-

⁷ World Council of Churches, Department on the Laity, Documents, VII (October, 1958), p. 29.
⁸ The Church's Ministry, 1948, p. 30.

94 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

tained directly by the Holy Spirit, and yet indirectly by the human mediation of the apostolic ministry.

V

Thus far we have used the word "ministry" in an undefined, imprecise, and inclusive sense. Some Christians would be content to leave such use of the word unchallenged and unchanged. After all, scarcely any would longer contend against the statement that the ministry is the responsibility of the whole church, of all the people who belong to Christ. That this conviction concerning the ministry of the laity as the people of God has recently been strengthened and widely grasped is surely to be welcomed. That the conviction, however, has already become a rather ineffectual platitude, honored in statement but ignored in practice, is much to be regretted.

Even to Christians who lack a knowledge of Greek it is well known that the word most often employed by New Testament writers for what is generally translated ministry is diakonia, and the word for minister is diakonos. The transliterated words "diaconate" and "deacon" are thus the most appropriate terms for conveying the essential biblical sense of ministry. Our familiarity with this word, however, obscures from us the fact that it was a most unusual term to be chosen for this singular Christian meaning. John Knox points out that in contemporary usage a diakonos was simply a "waiter" at tables and says that some have seriously supposed that the distinctive name for Christian ministry arose because of the need for waiting at the common meals of the faithful.⁹ (Accordingly the office of an early bishop would have been that of a head-waiter!) Whatever the first cause for the word's being chosen, it clearly had reference not only to the function of the Christian in humble service but ultimately to the pattern of life of the Lord who was regarded as the suffering servant of God.

Moreover, Eduard Schweizer provides the important information that the Greek word diakonia was one which, though used consistently throughout the New Testament for the ministry, had no previous biblical or religious connotation. Indeed, the word had no implicit reference at all to worth or position in a religious context, not even in the Septuagint.¹⁰ The consecration of this word for such

⁹ " The Ministry in the Primitive Church" in The Ministry in Historical Perspective, edited by H. R. Niebuhr and D. D. Williams, 1956, p. 1.
¹⁰ Op. cit., p. 159.

95 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

a primal designation of the character of the Christian life and the regular function of the whole church must have been, then, a deliberate choice.

When something which is true comes to be regarded as a truism, there is loss of value and power. So with the common understanding of the church's ministry as "service." We need to be reminded that diakonia is a pregnant and forceful concept which belongs to the very definition of the church. As Linton writes of Christians:

"You cannot be promoted from beinc, a Christian unto anything else, you cannot be promoted to be a 'minister.' The ministry in the Church is-what the New Testament word for ministry means-a 'diakonia,' a service unto the brethren. The ministers have not to be 'kyrioi' but 'douloi,' not 'lords' but 'slaves.' The first is the last and the last is the first."¹¹

Does this recognition of the diakonia of the laity as the whole people of God mean that it is unimportant, or even illegitimate, to distinguish among kinds of service? Some writers today are affirming this radical idea. They call for the virtual abolition of all special or set-apart ministries by allowing them to be swallowed up in the ministry of the whole body. Does the New Testament warrant this extreme judgment? No, it does not. For even the apostolic epistles describe distinctions of responsibility, authority, and function within the whole ministry.

To be sure, there is no clear line in the New Testament community between the "clergy" and the "laity," as these words have come to be used. But the question is not settled merely by observing, as is frequently done, that all Christians in the New Testament time were laymen. It is equally true to say that all members were priests! Nevertheless there were distinctions of a kind. What were they? In the usual usage of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Churches there is a sharp distinction drawn between the priest and the people. Tradition has reinforced this distinction with complex interpretations of sacramental administration, teaching authority, and the indelible character conferred upon a man by ordination. It is almost impossible to conceive of churches in these traditions without their doctrines of priesthood. But it is scarcely more possible for many objective scholars to find any basis or justification for this separation of priests and laymen in the New Testament.

¹¹ Op. cit., p. 21.

96 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

There is confusion, of course, with respect to the meaning of the word "priest" itself. If, as its etymology implies, it were like "presbyter" there would be no problem, because presbyters (elders) were common in the New Testament community. But we know that from the time of Tertullian the name "priest" in the sense of the Latin sacerdos and Greek hiereus has been applied to the ordained ministry. It is dubious whether a recovery and reasscrtion of the New Testament conception of priesthood at so late a time as the present can modify significantly what centuries of tradition have done with the doctrine of priesthood. However strong the biblical evidence may be, the original meaning and reference of priesthood is too different from present usage to allow hope that it may become regnant once more.

Without equivocation Massey H. Shepherd declares: "In no instance . . . does any NT writer ascribe the title of priest to any individual member or order of ministry in the church."¹² Although the word hiereus is used more than eighty times in the New Testament, its chief reference is to the Jewish priests of the line of Levi. Of course, the name is also applied to Jesus Christ in Hebrews, chapter 7. Important as this title is for our comprehension of the meaning of atonement, it appears only in Hebrews as an explicit title (although similar interpretations of Christ's sacrifice are found in Paul's letters). In any case, the conclusion is clear: the Priest is Jesus Christ, who is both the sacrificer and the sacrificed victim.

The other familiar application of priesthood is made in I Pet. 2: 9, where the whole community of faith is described as "a royal priesthood," a clear reference to the Hebrew tradition of a "kingdom of priests" in Ex. 19: 6. There is an echo of this in Rev. 5: 10 and 20: 6. And that is all the New Testament tells us about priesthood! But upon this frail foundation have been built two massive theological structures: the doctrine of ministry as a clerical priesthood, and the doctrine of the priesthood of every faithful Christian.

In a small but illuminating Study, T. W. Manson demonstrated why "there was no room for a regular priesthood, as priesthood was understood at that time"¹³ in the New Testament community. The reason is that hiereus could mean only the Levitical priest, who inherited his status and function even as a Brahmin priest in India does.

¹² Article "Priests and Levites" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. III, p. 890.
¹³ Ministry and Priesthood: Christ's and Ours, 1958, p. 44.

97 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

In neither of the listings of special ministries, I Cor. 12 and Eph. 4, is the name "priest" included. "In a word," wrote Manson, "While all believers are priests, all believers are not ministers."¹⁴ Therefore the implication drawn from the New Testament by Manson is that there still ought to be in the churches a clear distinction between priesthood and ministry. Only the latter can be thought of as a special office or function in the economy of the churches.

On this same line of thought, Hans-Ruedi Weber agrees that it was a development contrary to the New Testament when the early church set up a special order of priests. However, he rightly points out that even Paul interpreted his ministry as a "priestly service of the gospel of God" (Rom. 15: 16) in presenting believers to Christ.¹⁵ This is properly consistent with the traditional understanding of the ministry (especially by Calvin) as the historical implementation of the three-fold ministry of Jesus Christ himself-prophetic, priestly, and royal. But does a theological interpretation of ministry which is derived from the New Testament provide warrant for a priestly order any more than for a prophetic order or a kingly order? One cannot seriously remain neutral towards this question; and the evidence supports the negative answer.

Having discussed the meaning of diakonia as the general term for the ministry as well as hiereus as a dubious one, we must consider the place of the charismatic gifts in the ministry of the whole church. There is a kind of romantic, enthusiastic view of the charismata in the New Testament community which can be quite misleading. Paul's important exposition of the matter in I Cor. 12 can be lifted from context and interpreted in such wise as to make of the church an idealized community of perfect love in which every member spontaneously uses his spiritual gift for the -well-being and upbuilding of all. This picture contrasts with the actual state of the congregation in Corinth, which Paul so sharply reprimands, and which clearly needs leadership and pastoral direction. It contrasts with virtually every other Christian congregation which ever has existed.

But the charismatic ministry cannot be allowed to stand in sheer contrast to every so-called "institutional" ministry in the New Testament. This is at best a dubious distinction, and at the worst a false one. As John Knox observes, "The ministry was in every part

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 69.
¹⁵ World Council of Churches, Department on the Laity, Bulletin, 9 (JuIy, 1960), p. 11.

98 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

charismatic; and if by 'institutional' one can mean 'contributing to the growth and orderly functioning of the church,' it was also in every part institutional."¹⁶ The gifts of the Holy Spirit may indeed be indispensable to the life of the church, and they are given with such diversity as to maintain the church in its mission, service, and unity, But the gifts are not to be thought of in such a "discarnate" way as to keep them separate from the institutional ordering of the church's life. Nor should the word "institutional" be thought of in a pejorative sense, for it applies quite properly and necessarily to the Christian community as a social and historical entity.

VI

If the church does not have a special priestly class, if all members in virtue of their faith and baptism are responsible for a kind of corporate priesthood, and if the charismatic aspects must be conjoined to the institutional-if all these be so, can we speak legitimately of an "order-of ministry in the New Testament or find authorization for ordination? Numerous works of scholarship have been published during the past eighty years, either with the intention of substantiating ordination by New Testament evidence or disallowing it by the same. Canon Streeter's famous epigram respecting disputes over the nature of the orders and ministry in the primitive community, that "all have won and all receive prizes," makes the matter seem frightfully relativistic. But can it really be claimed that any scholar or party has "won"? Not to everyone's satisfaction, to be sure. And yet it must be admitted negatively that the weakest case of all can be made for the existence of clearly defined offices of a clerical or hierarchical character.

It is in this issue that we are most tempted to read back into the Bible the meanings of words and deeds which arc well known to us today and which seem to be mentioned in the New Testament: for example, bishops, elders, or the laying on of hands. To illustrate the difficulty, note that in some current plans for church union, such as those in North India/Pakistan and also Ceylon (Lanka), there are proposals to bring together the ministries of the uniting churches into one commonly recognized ministry. This is to be effected by means of a ceremony of supplication to God along with the mutual laying on of hands as a sign of recognition and commissioning to

¹⁶ Op. cit., P. 10.

99 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

wider service. Considerable opposition to this plan has been expressed on account of the rite of laying on of hands. For Anglicans as well as Methodists and others, this is an act associated with ordination. Therefore it seems inevitable to some of them that an act of "re-ordination" will have taken place. For when they read of this action in the New Testament, especially in I Tim. 4: 14 and 5: 22, they are sure that it refers always to ordination, and in the present understanding of ordination. Such an assumption cannot bear critical scrutiny, of course. In New Testament practice there were several meanings of this ancient Jewish rite of laying on hands: just giving a blessing, healing, commissioning for special tasks, reconciling the penitent ones, as well as the setting apart of special ministers.¹⁷ And yet there are very many Christians today who have absolutized the one meaning of the laying on of hands having to do with ordination, and this is a meaning not easily proven at that.

Were there ministerial "offices" in the New Testament or just varieties of ministerial function and service? Once again, the experts disagree. The Swedish scholar, Harald Riesenfeld, asserts that as early as the time Jesus appointed disciples to set forth on the mission of witness to the kingdom of God, he was investing them with a certain status and task, derived from but subordinate to his own. "There is no doubt that an office or ministry is in question here."¹⁸

But there Z's doubt, retorts John Knox as spokesman of a different school. "For Paul there were teachers and prophets, but hardly the offices of teacher and prophet. More obviously the healers, speakers in tongues, miracle workers were not 'officials' of the church. Even the 'bishops' and 'deacons' of Phil. 1: I are not to be thought of as officials."¹⁹ But Knox admits that this time of the church's freedom from any official positions of ministry was limited to the first generation or so. This first phase ended when the "helpers" and "administrators" became identified with the positions designated "deacon" (diakonos) and "overseer" (episkopos), Therefore the scholarly tug-of-war over the presence of offices in the New Testament is probably confined roughly to the first fifty years of the church's history.

¹⁷ Cf. Massey H. Shepherd, Article "Laying on of Hands" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 11, p. 521.
¹⁸ "The Ministry in the New Testament" in The Root of the Vine, edited by Anton Fridrichsen, 1953, p. 112.
¹⁹ Op. cit., p. 18.

100 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

On one definite ministerial position of the primitive church there is a remarkable convergence towards agreement on the part of contemporary scholars, although significant differences remain. We refer to the apostles and the apostolate. A certain Protestant prejudice against the concept of limited apostleship has been removed since many have realized that a positive estimate of the apostles does not necessarily entail support of a theory of apostolic succession. And some Catholic and Anglican writers have felt free to think of the uniqueness and primacy of the apostles without pressing the matter of episcopal succession.

What is first recognized is the symbolic meaning of the Twelve who were appointed by Jesus during his ministry. The number chosen was not accidental, of course, but pointed back to the Israel of the old covenant and forward to the Israel of the last days. The Twelve whom Jesus selected to be with him constituted an attestation of Jesus' own role as the redeemer of Israel and thus the reconciler and savior of the human race.

In the eyes of the primitive Christian community, however, the Twelve were recognized as apostles not only because they had been with Jesus on intimate terms but, more important, because they were the primal witnesses to the Lord's resurrection and had been "sent" by him to testify to the reality of the resurrection and imminence of the reign of God. The eleven faithful disciples, plus Matthias as replacement for Judas, and James the Lord's brother, were from the first acknowledged in Jerusalem as the authoritative pillars of the church, They were representatives of what Jean-Louis Leuba has called the "institutional" continuity with Jesus Christ in the church.²⁰ But their number was not closed, so long as the criteria of apostleship were the two experiences of having seen the risen Lord and having been commissioned by him. Thus the valid claim made by Paul, and perhaps by Barnabas and a very few others, to be true apostles represents what Leuba terms the "event" of Christ's singling out still other men to be his apostles.

Apostleship was neither an office nor a function to which early Christians could aspire; and so it is not synonymous with any other position in the church then or now. No one else could meet the two-fold criteria, once it was evident that Christ himself did not

²⁰ L'Institution et l'Événement, 1950. (English Translation: New Testament Pattern, 1953.)

101 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

choose to grant this to others. But apostleship as representative of Jesus Christ was the very nucleus of the church at its center, from which the Gospel and the church have radiated to all parts of the earth in all the subsequent years.

The significance of the apostles for the subsequent ministry of the church has been well summarized by a group of Australian theologians engaged in church union study.²¹ They suggest three cardinal points.

1. "The unrepeatable character of the apostles." They were not just the first group of men starting the chain of historic succession, but sharers in and bearers of the once-for-all revelation. It was their preaching and teaching which were the basis of the kerygma and didache of the church, of the New Testament canon, and of eventual rules or confessions of faith.

2. "Continuing apostolic functions of the ministry" were derived from the distinctive work of the apostles rather than from either calculated or haphazard specifications of such work. These include the perennially needed tasks of mission and evangelism, pastoral care and nurture, and the exercise of discipline. Note, however, that sacramental administration was the responsibility of other members of the churches, such as those anonymous ones in Corinth to whom Paul directed his critical letter.

3. "The continuing apostolic nature of the whole church" is determined by the faith in Jesus Christ first proclaimed and attested by the apostles. When we speak of the necessary apostolicity of the church today, therefore, we have reference not only to its essentially missionary character, but especially to the congruity of the church's present faith and witness to that of the apostles.

The appointment by God of ministries in the church was in accord with diversities of gifts and functions for the upbuilding of the Body of Christ (I Cor. 12: 28; 14: 4-5). The apostles were "first" in both time and importance. But after them came those whose special ministries have always been variously required in the churches: prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors, workers of miracles and healers, administrators, and speakers in tongues. But none can justly assert that these were "orders" of permanent ministry.

Such claim has historically been reserved for three other names of offices" to be found in the New Testament. These are deacon,

²¹ The Church: its Nature, Function and Ordering, 1963, p. 31,

102 - Styles Of Service In the New Testament and Now

presbyter (elder), and episkopos (bishop). And these are the titles, of course, which have been perpetuated as the "three-fold ministry of the undivided church" (in which presbytcros equals priest).

However, the New Testament itself scarcely provides unequivocal warrant for this usage. There is simply no clear definition given.

It has long been held by many scholars that no distinction was made between the latter two names. As the so-called "magisterial dictum" of Bishop Lightfoot declared, "In the language of the New Testament the same officer in the church is called indifferently 'bishop' (episkopos) and 'elder' or 'presbyter' (presbyteros)."

This estimate has been revised by recent scholars, such as Günther Bornkamm in his article on presbytcros in Kittel's Wocrterbuch, and Eduard Schweizer. They note that Paul did not refer to elders in his letters, but to deacons and bishops; whereas elders were prominently mentioned in Acts and Revelation. So it may have been that elders belonged to the Jerusalem church usage, following synagogue tradition, while deacons and overseers (bishops) were recognized increasingly in the hellenistic churches. In any case, we must deal in theories rather than certainties here, and candidly recognize the diversity and flexibility of the New Testament pattern.

Incidentally, it can hardly be gainsaid that women played prominent roles in the organization of the New Testament church. But did they hold "offices" of ministry? Again there is uncertainty.

VII

We must conclude inconclusively. Does this mean the New Testament is no help to us in grappling with the contemporary problems of divided ministries as well as distorted and restricted ministries? Not at all. We can neither find clear-cut patterns to follow, nor can we conclude that the church had, and has, no need for special ministries. But we can see in the New Testament how the first generation of Christians recognized the diversities of ministry as a gift of God for the upbuilding, ordering, and extending of the church. And this same recognition must govern our thinking about ministry today.