Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Matthew 20:25-28
From here:
Men like Spurgeon didn’t come out and mingle with the congregation to show how real they were while they preached. They stood in a position of authority by virtue of his God-given office as under-shepherd.
Its a real shame that Jesus couldn’t have lived up to Ingrid’s standards. Why its amazing anyone paid any attention to him at all what with not having a pulpit at all, and going out and mingling with the crowds.
At some point we need to realize that the scripture’s admonitions to servanthood, and humility is at odds with the way western Christianity has viewed ministry. I wonder if Jesus, Paul, Peter, James etc. would even recognize a preacher dressed in a suit and tie, preaching down to a congregation from a pulpit as Christianity. Humility, servanthood, and our culture’s trappings of power don’t go together.
34 Comments(+Add)
It is interesting to think that in Jesus’ time, the teacher in a lot of cases would have been sitting down, while the students stood. I don’t understand where people get the idea that pastors need to be treated like Darth Vader or something.
Spurgeon was a Baptist who regularly preached against what Ingrid believes about baptism and communion. So today the preacher is carried into the auditorium on a seated throne, held up by six eunuchs, with everyone standing as in a court of law, and one deacon hollars, “Here ye, here ye, the mouthpiece of God, Pastor C. H. Spurgeon is about to speak. Listen in subjection and like Moses, look away from the brightness of his face!”.
Whitefield and Wesley preached amid horse dung but the indoor preacher must be held above the congregation? The idolatry of man strikes again. Paul says he is the chief of sinners and the least of the apostles, I wonder what he would have thought about the exaltation of the preacher’s wooden pulpit?
He would have said, “For I did not come to you preaching in the wisdom of a glorified lecturn, I came with the Word and the demonstration of God’s Spirit.” Anointed servants can preach in a cattle stall while stinking of cows and God’s Spirit will still be just as powerful. That type of pulpit is the local church version of the TV preacher.
Spurgeon also drank and smoked. Talk about mingling with the congregation.
Just to make clear, I don’t believe that Spurgeon held that same attitude about himself that the watchdoggies hold about him now.
I think Spurgeon would probably quite upset with how some of the things he said are used now. It is quite funny to me to see them treat Spurgeon quotes like Scripture. They also take them out of context like they do Scripture.
Actually, if you look at the structure of a synagogue ’service’ prior to the the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, there was no specific “Rabbi” in charge of the service. There are some disputes/discrepancies over exactly what these services looked like, though there is enough evidence to suggest the following:
There was a Hazan (basically the custodian of the synagogue who cared for the building and, in particular, the Torah scroll(s) and Torah closet.
The Hazan also was in charge of keeping track of the lectionary, which kept track of which sections of scripture were to be read each week so that all of the scriptures would be ‘digested’ by the community over a 3-year period (traditionally, the first lectionary was developed during the Babylonian captivity, though the earliest lectionary we have a physical portion of is from the 300’s).
Every member of the community who was an adult (12 for girls, 13 for boys) and who could read would be scheduled, by the Hazan, to do the readings on a Sabbath (a portion from the Torah and a portion from the Haftorah (primarily the books of the prophets in the Christian “Old” Testament)).
In the service, the selected individual would stand, along with the community, while the scripture was being read (because you always stand for God’s Word). Then, the individual would give a short (less than 3-5 minutes, it is believed) d’rash, a story of how God had applied the just-read text to their life during the past week. During this time, everyone sat (because these were not God’s words).
After their d’rash, the person would then ask if anyone had questions for them. These would typically not be deep theological questions, but rather questions relating to the d’rash and how God’s Word best applied to it and their life. If nobody asked any questions, they could pose one of their own “You might ask me…” and answer it. After this, the “preaching” portion of the service would be done.
The story of Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth supports this service ’structure’, as well. He was a member of that community, the end of his haftorah reading is recorded, along with his d’rash and posing/answering his own question. Granted, it was not the answer they wanted (there’s a long story behind this, but basically the answer was ‘you think you’ve got it made because of who you are, but God will curse that pride by acting through someone else’).
Sounds like the Brethren have it similar?
I attend a church that just recentley stopped using our pulpit, it’s still there and everything and we use it on special occasions, but I can’t tell you how much things have improved since we stepped down from the pulpits. You’d think ti would be a little thing, but it turned out to be a huge step forward for our congregation and how we receive sermons.
Before with the Pulpit we had much too much of a consumer culture about our sermons, we came, we listened and took it at that. But when we chucked the pulpit we’ve seen an increase in people interacting with what was said after (so much so that we’ve added interactive parts of the sermon to allow these insights to be shared with the whole congregation)
Before I think people would get it into their head “well there’s the pastor, I’ll just take his word for it” and now that we’ve gotten rid of it it’s a much more subtle reminder that “hey there is our pastor standing with us challanging us to think this through with him”
Kevin,
We did the same thing at my church and found the same thing.
Robes, candles, holy days, an altar, pulpit, litergy, and all the rest. Old Testament nastalgia. Beggarly elements.
To echo Kevins sentiment…
When I first came to my church the Student Ministries department would always sit above or sit in a prominent position to talk. We often would wonder why the students would not interact (talk) when questions were asked.
One of our students leaders shared that we should sit with the students, among them, when we are leading. It’s made a huge difference. Students not only respond but they also contribute their perspectives. The learning enviorment is so much broader and deeper now.
Ezra obviously got it all wrong. (Neh 8, esp. v5)
Keith,
I don’t see the pulpit worship going on here that I see from Ingrid.
Ingrid says “It is both an honor and a terrible responsibility to be a shepherd, but it is an office apart. To whom much is given, much is required. They are leaders, not just peers.”
And of course if they don’t meet those high standards God will let the women of the congregation know so they can tell him.
Keith,
Look what Nehemiah says then in verse 10.
Sounds very purpose-driven-like to me. Perhaps Ingrid should look into this Nehemiah guy. I mean, encouraging people to drink from the pulpit and all.
Phil: I guess I don’t understand your comment. I’ve read Nehemiah 8 many times. I understand the chapter to be connected to the warnings/encouragment they have heard in the reading of “the Book.” (Side note: IMO, one of the best commentaries on the Neh 8 is Steve Lawson’s “Famine in the Land”) I don’t see “purpose-driven” anywhere (thank goodness). Are you being sarcastic?
Tim: Since I don’t read Mrs. Schlueter’s comments with the goal of FINDING something negative, I’m having a hard time seeing “pulpit worship.” I read the article and agreed with her words: “What a serious matter it is for a man to ascend into a pulpit and minister the Word of God to a congregation.”
Virtually everything that came out of the Babylonian captivity is garbage and occultic, including the synagogues, talmudic rabbicanalism, and kabbalah.
This was not what the original Hebrews practiced.
Jesus came at the pre-appointed time in history for several reasons. What He did “for the sake of righteousness” should not be seen as an endorsement of such practices. We do not have to meet in any prescribed manner. Jesus called people back to Torah, not talmudic teachings.
If you believe that a meeting should be conducted this way then why isn’t anyone doing it?
Why are men like Bell, Warren and and Pagitt preaching from a platform?
This seems like a complete waste of time.
Keith,
Of course I was being sarcastic, but I was just illustrating a point. If we are going to point to Scripture to back up things like pulpits, we might as well go all the way. Since that passage advocates having a speaker raised up above the congregation, should we also celebrate the Jewish feast because of that?
Also, I was pointing out that verse because Ingrid likes to point out that pastors should be giving their congregations dire warnings and calling them to repentance, rather than calling them to celebrate. Of course in this passage, Nehemiah tells them to quit mourning and start partying. That’s all I was implying with my purpose driven comment.
Chris,
You wrote:
Understanding how it was done in the first century is not the same as advocating that we should do the same. In this case, it was just to illustrate that a “pulpit” and the trappings Ingrid is so fond of are not sacrosanct, are rather ‘new’, and should not be held in regard as somehow sacred.
While I disagree with your statement –
- as there are key Christian concepts like discipleship which came from this background, and Jesus’ criticisms were not aimed at these forms – I am not advocating a return to first-century synagogue…
And my point is not the physical pulpit, but a “high” view of the Word.
The thing I dislike about conversations such as these is someone says something, trying to make a point (usually obvious) and someone else will jump on the “we might as well go all the way” bandwagon in interpreting every word or phrase. That being the case, I guess I must believe the thunderstorm brewing outside my window is the direct result of God blowing His nose! (e.g. Ex 15:8; 2Sam 22:16; Ps 18:15)
Nothing’s simple, is it?
To suggest that the physical construction and location of the pulpit is somehow emblematic of the preachers office is not well thought out. If we indeed desired to offer a visual tool that accurately elevated God’s Word then the Bible should be high on a pedestal while the preacher should be on his face.
But since we now worship in Spirit and truth without the encumbrances of outward furniture enhancement it is, as Keith suggests, useless. Don’t do it.
Keith,
I don’t believe things have to be complicated, I just think that when Christian start picking and choosing things from the Old Testament and making them binding today, they become complicated.
I have no problems with pulpits, in general. It’s what the person says who’s behind the pulpit that matters. I’ve heard trash come preachers behind pulpits and from churches without. I don’t see any correlation between having a pulpit and having a high view of Scripture.
Jesus is the final authority… all are under him…
Jim Jones was a “man” who “stood in a position of authority by virtue of his God-given office as under-shepherd.” yet let it go to his head and many died.
Now, I actually do not have issue with Ingrid’s comment other than it seems a bit out of balance, but that is her preference to put a man on a pedestal…
I have been to a few churches like that and the real issue is that the “pastor” sometimes cannot be honest about who he is… he cannot show weakness or if he “sins” cannot let anyone know for fear of losing his “position”… and that is the out of balance of not “mingling”… a pastor/teacher is nto some Hindi holy man that sits on a mountain teaching truth and wisdom… he is a man “gifted” of God and can fall… to place on one pedesatal of power and authority and not have the balance of also giving them room to be a “man”… sets them up for horrific failure… I have seen it up close a few times.
Be Blessed,
iggy
I find that as I meet more and more people, that it’s not a matter of what the Bible says as being complicated, but the disposition of the reader that makes a Biblical passage complicated. You’re always going to run into people that think certain passages are black and white, clear as the day, it can’t be more simple than that, blah blah blah. On the flip side, there are always going to be people (like me) who analyze everything to death – be it Biblical passages or the calorie count in a Little Debbie snack o’ deliciousness.
Does our approach to God’s Word (as long as it carries respect) make us inferior to anyone else’s? Humanity inherently sees things differently, no matter what that “thing” is. Find one thing in the entire world that every human being agrees on and I’ll sell you my soul.
To answer the question: no, nothing is truly simple.
“Men like Spurgeon didn’t come out and mingle with the congregation to show how real they were while they preached. They stood in a position of authority by virtue of his God-given office as under-shepherd.”
The Shepherding & Submission Movement (or today’s New Apostolic Reformation a la Peter Wagner & Assoc.) teaches the exact same thing. They even used the same term: “under-shepherds” — the idea was that high & anointed men of God could not mix with the rank-and-file because that would lower their positional authority.
The whole concept of delegated (under-shepherd) authority is based largely on Watchman Nee’s “Submission & Authority”, including the idea that the pastor/under-shepherd must be aloof from those he leads, for fear of losing power over them.
Funny how the idea that pastors are “above” their congregations in a high and lofty position sounds so, well… Roman Catholic.
Keith,
How can you not see pulpit worship? The entire article is about how the presence of a pulpit in church leads to … well, in her opinion good things.
Yeah… and you should see the size of the pulpit in her house church!
iggy
I knew a pastor who had a Plexiglas pulpit…
so he could be more transparent to his congregation…
iggy
Tim: Based on previous posts/threads, I’m going to assume yours is a retorical question, subtitled: “Keith, why are you so blind and obtuse?”
My answer: I’m not looking for the same things you and others are, that’s how.
Keith,
this is another example to me of a “man” based faith.
You have Ingrid promoting a “man” having authority and that he takes that authority from God and we are to bow to his authority…
This is not a biblical model. Jesus is the center and heart of a church, not man or a pulpit or a sermon… in fact I have heard many a “biblical” expository sermon that was very unbiblical as it was only to prove their “doctrine” and not to understand what was being stated in the text itself.
So we have sermons from men in pulpit teaching men to tithe and come to church and Sunday school… and wear suits… and they can “repent” (which is then turned into a work) and get saved from going to hell and go to heaven…
It turns the focus from Jesus saving us to the sermon saving me… and me getting saved from going to hell and me going to heaven… it is an animal the feeds on itself and does not mature.
If one’s focus is Jesus and that He will teach you… and the sermon is not about proving a “doctrine” but about Jesus as all scripture is about, then men are not drawn to some man in authority, but God draws men to Jesus… then we lead them to New Life in Christ Jesus… It is not about “us” or “me” it is about Jesus.
I have gone to churches where I was assumed the new guy and not saved… and week after week the pastor would pray that “someone (me as I would look up and see him looking at me) needed to come forward” and publicly acknowledge Jesus… this was a simple Baptist church… and since I had already accepted Jesus in another church I did not go forward as I was not lead of God to do so… but the pastor was so focused on me…
The difference was that the other church was focused on Jesus and they kept pushing Jesus… the baptist (nothing against him at all) was focused on me and getting me saved and getting me to be a member of his church… it was all about men and me…
So, this is the most common accusations against emerging folk and we seem to not focus on ourselves that way. In fact we also criticized as others do the wrong focus of churches… adn that is why man of us left the church to find Jesus… we did not see Him in the “man-based” and “man focused” churches.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Matt:
Spurgeon neither drank nor smoked. That was his evil twin brother “Skippy”.
Keith,
Quit being so blind and obtuse.
BTW, you’re sounding quite postmodern these days.
Teddy Roosevelt advocated the “Bully Pulpit.”
I think that can be used in many fun, humorous, double-entendre, sarcastic ways in relation to the topic at hand and the original posts referenced.
Best Pulpit Ever: The preacher in the 1930 or 40 version of Moby Dick with Gergory Peck. They had built a ship’s bow in the church. The lecturn rested on a carved eagle. The sermon outtake was actually very good if I remember correctly.