[To those who hold the three-office view] Why only the teaching elder is called 'pastor'?

[ChrisJuloya]

I had a discussion with a friend where we talked about the two-office and three office view. He said that he has no problem with the three-office view and agrees that it is practically helpful. But his question is, why are elders not called 'pastors' where they are in fact to 'pastor'. He shared a comment to a post on purely presbyterian about the difference between elders and pastors where the comment says,

"I am less concerned about the preaching/teaching and ruling distinctions, and more concerned that calling teaching elders “pastors” appropriates all of the scriptural shepherding metaphor to teaching elders alone.

If you ask folks in your congregations, 'Who is your pastor?' will they identify their closest ruling elder? Or will they identify the teaching elder who preaches most Sundays? And yet, I don’t see how Scripture makes a distinction between ruling and teaching elders in their obligations to shepherd. Truly, both are pastors. But because our colloquial language supports teaching elders as “pastors,” people gravitate to them for their shepherding needs. Speaking with a ruling elder seems sub-par; they must speak with the “pastor.” Etc.

If we were to rectify this, we would either identify all elders as pastors (teaching and ruling pastors?), or else identify all men as elders – and abandon the word “pastor” altogether. Given the prominence of the shepherding metaphor in Scripture, in both OT and NT, I think it would be preferable to keep the word “pastor,” but only use it with parity – if the preacher is going to refer to “Pastor Jim,” another teaching elder, he should also refer to “Pastor Bob,” a ruling elder.

My concern is not at the level of recognition. My concern is who the congregation expects to shepherd them (in all the varied ways that word implies), and what ruling elders expect from themselves."

This is a good comment and I would like to know your thoughts and how you would answer the question.

Thanks!

 

[Grant]

I don’t see any issue calling an RE an under-shepherd. That said, I prefer to call the the TE a minister, because he administers the sacraments. The word pastor can carry that same connotation. Also just because an RE is not officially called a “pastor” in no way means he never has any shared duties as an under-shepherd. Vice-versa a TE is often called on to make some “ruling” decisions without have the official title of RE. So it appears the “title” designates the “primary” function of the role. TEs & REs are both under-shepherds and play a vital role in the spiritual nurture of the body. Titles or proper naming will not effectively change that for a layman. What will change that is being under the care of an RE who does their job according to their BCO and vows. It want take long for a family under the care of a faithful RE to realize he is a shepherd to their souls.


In the secular world I was for a season a General Manager. However I still from time to time had to get my hands dirty and stock shelves, receive trucks, and mop. However my employees still knew and respected my title because I did my duty as a servant leader.

Also note that the Westminster Directory for Church Government distinguishes between the title Pastor and Elder.

P.S. So I think this articles “issue” is a little silly. Simply have good teaching on church government and hold officers accountable to their vows. Seems like Splitting hairs to have concern on who calls who what in this case..

 

[TylerRay]

I had a discussion with a friend where we talked about the two-office and three office view. He said that he has no problem with the three-office view and agrees that it is practically helpful. But his question is, why are elders not called 'pastors' where they are in fact to 'pastor'. He shared a comment to a post on purely presbyterian about the difference between elders and pastors where the comment says,

"I am less concerned about the preaching/teaching and ruling distinctions, and more concerned that calling teaching elders “pastors” appropriates all of the scriptural shepherding metaphor to teaching elders alone.

If you ask folks in your congregations, 'Who is your pastor?' will they identify their closest ruling elder? Or will they identify the teaching elder who preaches most Sundays? And yet, I don’t see how Scripture makes a distinction between ruling and teaching elders in their obligations to shepherd. Truly, both are pastors. But because our colloquial language supports teaching elders as “pastors,” people gravitate to them for their shepherding needs. Speaking with a ruling elder seems sub-par; they must speak with the “pastor.” Etc.

If we were to rectify this, we would either identify all elders as pastors (teaching and ruling pastors?), or else identify all men as elders – and abandon the word “pastor” altogether. Given the prominence of the shepherding metaphor in Scripture, in both OT and NT, I think it would be preferable to keep the word “pastor,” but only use it with parity – if the preacher is going to refer to “Pastor Jim,” another teaching elder, he should also refer to “Pastor Bob,” a ruling elder.

My concern is not at the level of recognition. My concern is who the congregation expects to shepherd them (in all the varied ways that word implies), and what ruling elders expect from themselves."

This is a good comment and I would like to know your thoughts and how you would answer the question.

Thanks!

First of all, there is not one three-office view. Different three-office folks would probably have different opinions.

In my view (I hold a four-office view), the elder is certainly a "pastor," in the broad sense of the term. By convention, however, the title is reserved for Ministers of the Word, who usually take the lead role in shepherding the people.

Regarding your concern about "who the congregation expects to shepherd them, and what ruling elders expect from themselves," if a RE doesn't understand himself to be a shepherd, he doesn't understand his office; that's what he's there for. Regarding the congregation, they should be instructed in the preaching of the Word as to the roles of the officers of the church. I think changing the conventional use of the term "pastor" would just confuse people; it wouldn't be a pastorally wise thing to do.

 

[ChrisJuloya]

I don’t see any issue calling an RE an under-shepherd. That said, I prefer to call the the TE a minister, because he administers the sacraments. The word pastor can carry that same connotation. Also just because an RE is not officially called a “pastor” in no way means he never has any shared duties as an under-shepherd. Vice-versa a TE is often called on to make some “ruling” decisions without have the official title of RE. So it appears the “title” designates the “primary” function of the role. TEs & REs are both under-shepherds and play a vital role in the spiritual nurture of the body. Titles or proper naming will not effectively change that for a layman. What will change that is being under the care of an RE who does their job according to their BCO and vows. It want take long for a family under the care of a faithful RE to realize he is a shepherd to their souls.


In the secular world I was for a season a General Manager. However I still from time to time had to get my hands dirty and stock shelves, receive trucks, and mop. However my employees still knew and respected my title because I did my duty as a servant leader.

Also note that the Westminster Directory for Church Government distinguishes between the title Pastor and Elder.

P.S. So I think this articles “issue” is a little silly. Simply have good teaching on church government and hold officers accountable to their vows. Seems like Splitting hairs to have concern on who calls who what in this case..

Yeah. My friend said that his issue was shallow since he just wanted to know why only a minister is commonly called a pastor and not the intricacies of the two-office, three-office distinction. But he does make a point as to why only the minister/TE is called the pastor while the REs also pastor. But I do agree with @TylerRay that it is necessary that the elders consciously know and live out their role as a shepherd/pastor to the flock and the congregation to also know this.

To give context, he is from a non-denominational church who has become calvinistic in soteriology, growing in reformed theology, and is airing out his frustrations with the church leadership who on the one hand called small group leaders as 'pastors' while the actual 'elders' do not 'pastor'.

 

[Grant]

Yeah. My friend said that his issue was shallow since he just wanted to know why only a minister is commonly called a pastor and not the intricacies of the two-office, three-office distinction. But he does make a point as to why only the minister/TE is called the pastor while the REs also pastor. But I do agree with @TylerRay that it is necessary that the elders consciously know and live out their role as a shepherd/pastor to the flock and the congregation to also know this.

To give context, he is from a non-denominational church who has become calvinistic in soteriology, growing in reformed theology, and is airing out his frustrations with the church leadership who on the one hand called small group leaders as 'pastors' while the actual 'elders' do not 'pastor'.

I see. I was a member of an SBC that “converted” to the reformed doctrines of Grace. We then transitioned from Deacon led to Elder led/Deacon served. It was not always easy and some silly things still exist. There will be growing pains, so just encourage him to be patient. That same congregation has slowly continued to give more and more attention to historic confessions and shows signs of continuing to reform, which has been my prayer.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Have any three office Presbyterians ever just used the term “Bishop” for a teaching elder? It’s biblical and is rarely if ever used in the Reformed world? (I’m a two office guy so I’m just curious.)

 

[Zach]

Have any three office Presbyterians ever just used the term “Bishop” for a teaching elder? It’s biblical and is rarely if ever used in the Reformed world? (I’m a two office guy so I’m just curious.)

If you're asking whether or not they referred to the Pastor or Minister as only Bishop (and not as the Pastor or Minister) I don't know for certain but I'm not aware of any examples. But I do know that there are those who argue that ἐπίσκοπος only refers to the office of Minister of the Word or Pastor and is not identical to πρεσβύτερος and does not include the Ruling Elders.

I found Richard Gamble's essay "Presbyterianism and the Ancient Church" in Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church a helpful introduction to some of these issues and, if I understand him correctly, he argues that the evidence suggests presbyters were also pastors.

 

[Von]

This article by Iain Murray might be of some interest to you.

THE PROBLEM OF THE ELDERSHIP AND ITS WIDER IMPLICATIONS​

 

[ChrisJuloya]

This article by Iain Murray might be of some interest to you.

THE PROBLEM OF THE ELDERSHIP AND ITS WIDER IMPLICATIONS​

This is good! Thanks for this.