Why 'not many should aspire to be teachers'
Why 'not many should aspire to be teachers'
October 6, 2011
One of the things I find most helpful in Presbyterianism is the clear distinction it makes between members and office bearers. To be a member of a Presbyterian church, one need only confess with the mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in one's heart that God raised him from the dead (Rom. 10). In practice, this means that if you profess to believe Jesus is Lord and risen and you live a life that appears consistent with that testimony, you can be a member. of the church.
To be an office bearer, however - a minister or elder - one has to take a vow to uphold the teaching of the Bible as elaborated in the Westminster Standards. In other words, there is a lot more material that you need to believe, articulate and be prepared to defend in order to hold office. That seems consistent with Paul's vision of elder; and it is also consonant with the notion that elders are to bring the congregation to maturity. If the elders were only as mature and as informed as the average member, then congregational growth to maturity would be dramatically hindered.
Of course, this also means that ministers and elders are to be held to higher standards. For a congregant to make a silly and incorrect doctrinal statement in a conversation over coffee after the service is one thing; for a minister to make a public statement as a minister which is wrong is a far more serious matter. Public mistakes by ministers cannot be dealt with privately because the mistake is part of his public teaching role. People look to the minister for a lead; and when he falls dramatically short, the implications can be very significant for the church. I cannot deny election, for example, and expect a free pass. I will be held to my vows, and that publicly. In fact, I would probably be required to step down from my teaching position until such time as I was able to honour my vows with a good conscience.
This is why, in extreme cases, churches still have heresy trials. It is not because they are full of nasty, vindictive people; it is because unchecked heresy from the lips of leaders today becomes the received wisdom in the pews tomorrow. To allow such a thing to happen would show nothing but contempt and neglect for the spiritual well-being of the people. Further, given the fact that the minister is ordained/commissioned by the church, and not by himself or some other group, when he drops a heretical or heterodox brick, the church -- and only the church -- is competent to handle the matter.
It is also why Presbyterian churches have rigorous theological examinations before admitting someone to a ministerial teaching position. Believing you are called to ministry or simply finding one's preaching to be well-received is not enough. Competence to teach is a function of more than eloquence; it is also a function of knowledge, among a number of other things. If you do not know the basic categories of catechetical Christianity, you may still become a member (if you qualify under Rom. 10) but you will not be given any teaching responsibilities.
Incidentally, this is what makes a someone a confessional Christian. Not that they think simply that some confession or other has good things to say; or that confessions are a jolly good idea; but that they believe that a particular confession binds them to teach, maintain and defend particular doctrines. As one Australian minister said to me: do not call yourself or your church confessional if deviation from the confession to which you adhere routinely goes unchecked, for the adjective is then rendered meaningless. No ecclesiology, no confessional Christianity. It really is as simple as that.
The principle of higher standards for teachers is not unique to Presbyterianism. It is, after all, the implication of James 3:1 and 1 Tim. 5:17. All churches which seek to take the Bible seriously will take steps to ensure that this is the case; and all teachers should understand that they will be held to a higher standard than the person in the pew.
To be an office bearer, however - a minister or elder - one has to take a vow to uphold the teaching of the Bible as elaborated in the Westminster Standards. In other words, there is a lot more material that you need to believe, articulate and be prepared to defend in order to hold office. That seems consistent with Paul's vision of elder; and it is also consonant with the notion that elders are to bring the congregation to maturity. If the elders were only as mature and as informed as the average member, then congregational growth to maturity would be dramatically hindered.
Of course, this also means that ministers and elders are to be held to higher standards. For a congregant to make a silly and incorrect doctrinal statement in a conversation over coffee after the service is one thing; for a minister to make a public statement as a minister which is wrong is a far more serious matter. Public mistakes by ministers cannot be dealt with privately because the mistake is part of his public teaching role. People look to the minister for a lead; and when he falls dramatically short, the implications can be very significant for the church. I cannot deny election, for example, and expect a free pass. I will be held to my vows, and that publicly. In fact, I would probably be required to step down from my teaching position until such time as I was able to honour my vows with a good conscience.
This is why, in extreme cases, churches still have heresy trials. It is not because they are full of nasty, vindictive people; it is because unchecked heresy from the lips of leaders today becomes the received wisdom in the pews tomorrow. To allow such a thing to happen would show nothing but contempt and neglect for the spiritual well-being of the people. Further, given the fact that the minister is ordained/commissioned by the church, and not by himself or some other group, when he drops a heretical or heterodox brick, the church -- and only the church -- is competent to handle the matter.
It is also why Presbyterian churches have rigorous theological examinations before admitting someone to a ministerial teaching position. Believing you are called to ministry or simply finding one's preaching to be well-received is not enough. Competence to teach is a function of more than eloquence; it is also a function of knowledge, among a number of other things. If you do not know the basic categories of catechetical Christianity, you may still become a member (if you qualify under Rom. 10) but you will not be given any teaching responsibilities.
Incidentally, this is what makes a someone a confessional Christian. Not that they think simply that some confession or other has good things to say; or that confessions are a jolly good idea; but that they believe that a particular confession binds them to teach, maintain and defend particular doctrines. As one Australian minister said to me: do not call yourself or your church confessional if deviation from the confession to which you adhere routinely goes unchecked, for the adjective is then rendered meaningless. No ecclesiology, no confessional Christianity. It really is as simple as that.
The principle of higher standards for teachers is not unique to Presbyterianism. It is, after all, the implication of James 3:1 and 1 Tim. 5:17. All churches which seek to take the Bible seriously will take steps to ensure that this is the case; and all teachers should understand that they will be held to a higher standard than the person in the pew.
