Let’s Stop the Rancor Over Rank

The subject of ministerial "rank" is an ideological issue that separates some Sabbath-keeping church organizations today. The United Church of God considers all ministers as elders. The Global Church of God has retained the rank structure of the Worldwide Church of God. As the title of this article suggests, this is currently a hot topic. One that is highly debated. Everyone, it seems, has the answer. The pages of In Transition, and Servants’ News, are replete with varying versions and viewpoints. Ministerial "rank," one specific aspect of the larger topic of church government, has risen to the top of the chart of hits. "Hits" in this case meaning, not popular songs, but subjects for which some are taking "hits" from other well-meaning Christians.

Despite how deeply entrenched this concept of "rank" may be established in our church legacy, can we lay aside the emotional boxing gloves, and take a fresh look at the subject in the light of the scriptural record? Let’s look at it from three vantage points: conceptually, contextually, and historically.

Jesus Christ’s Teaching on "Authority"

Conceptually, the "rank" concept is rooted in a hierarchical approach to "church authority." The higher the rank, the greater the "authority." Administratively, "raise in rank," often goes with the territory of promotion. Ordination to a higher rank suggests a greater level or degree of authority. But what scriptural backing can be found for this concept? Where, for that matter, is any example of an individual being "raised in rank?"

The disciples argued over "rank" on more than one occasion (Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46-48; 22:24-30). Jesus low-keys the whole issue of authority and greatness in response to Salome’s request for top ranking of her sons (Matthew 20:20-28) and the disciples’ argument over which of them was "the greatest" (Luke 22:24-30). Jesus defines "greatness" in terms of service, not rank (Matthew 20:25-28; Luke 22:25-30). Service focuses on others; "greatness" focuses on self. The proverbial "way of give versus the way of get" in the words of Herbert W. Armstrong.

The Greek word for "serve" (diakoneo) is a cousin to "diakonos," which means "servant" but is also translated "deacon" and "minister." Some refer to deacons and elders as "the ordained," as if they were some privileged class. Jesus condemned the heavy-handed Gentile approach toward authority and the lofty title of "benefactor" that accompanied it (Luke 22:25). Rather, He told His disciples to emphasize service and "be as the younger." The latter phrase, as explained by The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, means, "One should not seek the veneration given aged people in ancient Near Eastern society but be content with the lower place younger people had." This approach underlies Jesus’ instruction to avoid lofty titles that rightly belong to Him alone (Matthew 23:8-12). It is called humility. Something the Pharisees (whose attitudes He condemns) seemed to know nothing about (Luke 18:9-14). Humility and service define true greatness, not titles or "rank."

By the same token, the practice of "raising in rank" to reward or otherwise indicate spiritual growth and progress of a minister, is also contrary to Jesus’ admonitions to His disciples.

Paul and Ministerial "Rank"

Some claim the apostle Paul established a hierarchical order of apostles, evangelists, pastors, elders, and deacons. I Corinthians 12:28-29 and Ephesians 4:11 allegedly list ministerial ranks in descending order of authority. The passage in I Corinthians even uses the words "first," "second," and "third." But do these imply levels of importance?

First let’s look at the context of the entire chapter. Paul explains how the Church is like a harmoniously functioning body, in which every member is important. He specifically debunks the idea that one part is more important than another (I Cor. 12:15-25). Attaching the meaning of degrees of importance to the concluding verses of the chapter would contradict the whole point Paul is making. The Corinthians were already guilty of putting ministers on a pedestal (I Corinthians 1:12-13, 3:3-4, 4:1, 6).

The subject of both I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 is "spiritual gifts" (I Corinthians 12:1, 4; Ephesians 4:7, 8, 11). The attitude of many Corinthian members toward spiritual gifts was self-serving and carnal as I Corinthians 14 clearly shows. "Speaking in tongues" was a particularly coveted gift. Whether or not these carnal Corinthians had the genuine gift of "tongues" is another matter. But their attitude toward spiritual gifts is relevant to the subject we are considering.

Paul lists "varieties of tongues" dead last on the list of "spiritual gifts" in chapter 12. Naturally, one would assume this to mean least important. Time for a little grammar lesson. The words "first," "second," and "third" are not adjectives, but adverbs (technically adverbial adjectives). Adjectives modify nouns. Adverbs modify verbs. If these words were adjectives, they could indicate degrees of importance or rank. However, being adverbs, they relate to the verb "appointed" in verse 28. That word means "to place in order" (as one does when laying bricks in a foundation). This verb expresses the divine origin of church organization. The adverbs describe how or more precisely when God placed these spiritual gifts. God first called and trained His disciples who became apostles (men with a special commission from God). Secondly, He raised up prophets (who convey divinely inspired messages). Thirdly, He provided teachers for those who responded to the gospel. "After that" (clearly a reference to time order), God provided members with a wide variety of spiritual gifts necessary for the edification of the body (verse 28, cf. Romans 12:3-8). So Paul explains in I Corinthians 3:10, "I (an apostle) have laid the foundation, and another builds on it." Time order again!

Paul’s description of spiritual gifts in Ephesians 4 varies somewhat from the list in I Corinthians 12. "Evangelists" are included after prophets. This suggests that Paul had no rigid hierarchical structure in mind. The terms he used are not "ministerial ranks" but "job descriptions" and requirements for a successful church. God gave "spiritual gifts" to His people to fill those needs. Many are overlapping. The apostle Peter was also an elder (I Peter 5:1). Elders were also "pastors" (or more accurately, "shepherds" — I Peter 5:1-2) and overseers (Acts 20:17, 28 — "episkopos," the same word sometimes translated "bishop"). The term "elder" is the main New Testament term for what we today call a "minister." Its legacy dates back to Old Testament Israel (Numbers 11:16; Deuteronomy 27:1) as a title of seniority in governmental matters. The term "minister" ("diakonos" in Greek) literally means "servant." The same word is sometimes rendered "deacon" (I Timothy 3:8, 12). This leads to the unfortunate and unscriptural conclusion that "ministers" deal with "spiritual" matters, whereas "deacons" handle "physical" matters. The Bible makes no such distinction. "Minister" and "deacon" are humanly devised titles. A "diakonos" is simply a servant. No title is intended. So I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 do not offer a list of ministerial titles, arranged in hierarchical rank. Rather they describe spiritual gifts for the edification of the Church. God established them in a logical and chronological order.

What is the greatest (most important) spiritual gift? Not apostleship, but love (I Corinthians 12:31-13:13). Not everyone is called to be an apostle or prophet or teacher. Not all have been given the ability to work miracles or heal or speak in tongues (I Cor. 12:29-30). But love is a gift that is available to all as a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22), resulting from the process of spiritual growth (II Peter 1:2-7). Love, expressed in humble service, not "rank" defines true greatness. Jesus said so. So did Paul.

King James Terminology

The problem of "rank" is compounded by misleading rendering of key biblical words by translators, even in the greatly revered King James version. Or should I say especially in the King James version? This so-called "authorized version" was the product of a group of translators commissioned by King James I, of England. It is heavily influenced by the strict, authoritarian posture of the Church of England. Take the time to read the "epistle dedicatory" at the beginning of most King James Bibles. Written by the translators to "The Most High and Mighty Prince James" (I think the point is already made), it reflects the theological presuppositions that color the rendering of the text. Humble, non-assuming, but colorful and descriptive terms such as "gospel preacher," "shepherd," and "overseer" are rendered as "evangelist," "pastor," and "bishop." The political nature of these terms has spawned many a lofty, authoritarian, structure that God never intended for His little flock. King James terminology has clouded the true message of church government outlined in the original text of the New Testament, which God inspired in the Greek language. Much has been lost in translation but can be rediscovered with a little digging.

Our Catholic and Protestant Heritage

The Catholic church elevated the "bishop" at Rome to the position of the papacy, claiming infallibility of this alleged "vicar (one in place of) Christ." The Protestant Reformation was launched largely over the matter of governmental abuse. Yet many Protestant churches retained a very rank-conscious hierarchical structure. Again, the Church of England is a prime example. Freedom from the shackles of its oppressive, authoritarian rule was the underlying motive of the "pilgrims" who founded the United States as we know it today. But unfortunately, everyone is a product of his environment. Old habits die hard. Just as early Protestantism retained much of the rigid authoritarianism of Roman Catholicism, so the Puritans were not able to remove the leaven of strict legalism of the Church of England.

The Bible simply does not spell out a definite structure of church government. So we are left to reason it out as best we can from the principles of the scriptural record. Our thinking is also affected greatly by the religious environment out of which we have come. Again, old habits die hard. We must see where we have put new wine in old wineskins. We have "learned from the school of hard knocks" that something was "bad wrong" with a form of church government that left us where we are today — alienated from the fellowship of fellow members as a result of doctrinal apostasy that we (even we ministers) were helpless to stamp out of the church organization of which we were once a part. It has been said, "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."

Track Record of Ministerial "Rank"

Another proverb warns, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our recent church history is replete with examples of abuse and brutality perpetrated by carnal, Hitlerian, so-called "ministers" under the guise of "church authority." We are speaking of the exception rather than the rule. But one occurrence is too many. Granted, carnality is the culprit in such cases. But were it not for a misguided concept of authority and a wrong system of hierarchical rank, this abuse could have been nipped in the bud before so many members were hurt.

Ministerial titles based on "rank" have also caused considerable confusion in the minds of many members. Here is a scenario that I have personally experienced:

"Are you a pastor?"

"No, I’m only a preaching elder."

"I thought you pastored a church."

"Yeah, I am a church pastor, but my rank is preaching elder."

"Oh . . . ."

So we had pastors who weren’t "pastors." We have also had ministers who evangelized but weren’t "evangelists." On the other hand, there were "pastors" who never pastored and "evangelists" that never evangelized. We had "preaching elders" who didn’t preach and "local elders" who did. Then there were the "local, local elders." Remember? Whenever I was asked, "Are you a local, local elder?" my standard reply was, "No, no, I’m not not."

This whole scenario is reminiscent of the famous comedy routine, "Who’s on first?". My purpose is not to ridicule or put down anyone. But we must realize the folly of the system and seek correction where we have been wrong. Hopefully, we can laugh at some of our past mistakes. But more importantly, we must learn from them. Some things are never funny, only tragic.

Meeting the Challenge Together

The United Church of God is taking a lot of heat for seeking to build a form of church government that is much different from what many of us experienced in the past. We are indeed blazing a new trail, traveling through "uncharted waters." We don’t claim to have all the answers. But I believe we are headed in the right direction. We would appreciate the prayers and support of all of God’s people. We are not "leaving God out of the picture" by the concept of ministerial and member participation. On the contrary, we are looking to God to lead us all into "spiritual consensus" after the manner of Acts 15. (By the way, we read of "the apostles and elders" being gathered together. No mention is made of "evangelists," "pastors" and "preaching elders.") We could easily make a case for those who favor a hierarchical system of rulership of one man or a group of men as "leaving God out of the picture." The question is, how does God work in His Church through the Holy Spirit? Do we have faith in Christ as the Head of the Church and Savior of the Body? Do we believe that spiritual unity is the product of the presence of the Holy Spirit in all believers (Ephesians 4:3; I Corinthians 12:13). Or must we enforce a power-based uniformity and call it "unity"? Mr. Armstrong confessed to a younger minister in 1975 that in retrospect, he felt that the concept of church government he wrote about in 1939 would have worked; but he was afraid he would have lost control. Quite an admission! Perhaps he would have lost control. We will never know. The Church was probably not ready for the responsibilities of participatory, representative government in those earlier years. But hopefully God has determined that some of us are spiritually mature enough to build a new order and make it work. "New" to us, but very old — as old as the New Testament itself.

Jesus obviously did not tell His apostles exactly how to structure the church. They had to use their converted minds to apply the principles Christ taught them. Their thinking was influenced by their religious upbringing in the Jewish synagogue, which was rooted in the Old Testament and modified by the Hellenistic culture of the Roman Empire. We cannot assume that their way was perfect, either. God is more interested in substance than in form. The "substance" of the Church is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. But the human element is still there. And Satan, the arch-enemy of the Church is ever present. So there must be an organized structure with checks and balances to lessen the danger of corruption. As one of Murphy’s Laws recommends, "Trust everyone, but cut the cards."

Speaking of trust, this is one of the most important foundation stones of church government. With all we have been through, much trust has been shattered. We are all hurting. We must concentrate on putting away anger, mistrust, accusing, imputing motives and spreading rumors (Ephesians 4:29-31) and let God "renew a right spirit in us." A spirit of trust and cooperation. A willingness to learn from each other instead of defending our own position. An attitude of humility and service and sincere desire to share understanding. A determination to discuss differences in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Emphasizing the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3) instead of warring over differences.

Some will undoubtedly cling to the old paradigms of religious hierarchy. We must all respect their right to worship God according to their understanding and convictions. And they must not judge and criticize those whose understanding of this challenging subject differs from theirs. No one has all the answers, or even knows all the questions. We all have a lot to learn. Hopefully, we can learn together. But if we cannot agree, let us at least treat each other as Christians — with Godly love and true humility. Love, not "rank" or even church government itself, is the mark of a true Christian. Jesus said, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).