Denny Burk, leaning heavily on the excellent work of Jonathan Leeman, has written this piece defining some of the keywords at the centre of discussions within the Southern Baptist Convention on the people to whom the word ‘pastor’ can rightly be applied. Let me say two things at the outset. First, I agree with the aims and purpose of what Burk wrote – I am onboard with and sympathetic to his argument in principle here. Second, I am in line with his definition of terms for the most part. I note this simply to say that, on the particular question he is addressing, we are very much on the same team.

But there is one matter with which I disagree. As I disagree with him on this matter, it also affects my understanding of his definition of the term as it pertains to Baptist polity. I am a complementarian in his corner, sympathetic to his aims and purpose in writing, in agreement with the overwhelming majority of what he wrote. But I do not agree with him about the term office.

First, I want to take specific issue with what Burk says here:

When we say that the Bible describes “pastor” as an office, we mean that it is a recognized role of authority within a local church.

Any church arguing that pastor is a gift not an office is fundamentally distorting what the Bible says a pastor is. A pastor holds an office of authority and has been granted the right to lead the entire congregation.

This is particularly awkward for me. In my recent book Independent Eldership, this is precisely the argument I make. In fact, not only do I make it, but I suggest it is quite important a matter for a plural, co-equal elder-led, member-ruled congregational model of church polity i.e. A properly Baptist form of church polity.

As I point out there:

The word office is never used in the New Testament to describe any function in the local church. Clifford Pond points out, ‘It does appear in the Authorised Version in three places, but an examination of these texts will show that they import an idea that was not in Paul’s mind.’ These three verses are Romans 11:13, 12:4 and 1 Timothy 3:1. We only have to look them up in any other translation to see that the word office is not used…

…Only in 1 Timothy 3:1 do some other translations use the phrase office of overseer (see the ESV for example). However, the English wording office of overseer is a translation of the single Greek word episkopē (overseer). This imports a view of offices that is not reflected in the text of the original language. The CSB more helpfully translates the verse in this way: ‘This saying is trustworthy: “If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble work.”’ This rightly avoids importing the word office where it does not exist. The New Testament knows nothing of people in the local church holding office.

Now, I do not go on to use this as an argument against complementarianism. Indeed, I have an entire chapter in the book on the issue of complementarianism and its significance as it pertains to church leadership. Rather, as I go on to say in the chapter on eldership as a gift:

If we recognise that eldership is not an office but a ministry function of those gifted by God to do it, we have to see the sovereignty of God at work in this. Just as nobody can appoint a Head of the Church – but must recognise Christ as the only one who can undertake that ministry – so it is not the church’s job to create elders, but to recognise those gifted by God for the task. In the list of biblical qualifications for eldership in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3, it is notable that there is only one discernible skill or ability among them. What we are looking for when it comes to elders is not so much people with great talents but men of particular character. Such character is a matter of spiritual growth effected by the Holy Spirit, and not primarily a question of special abilities. That is to say, God gifts his church with suitable elders and the church recognises such men.

This is important because Burk states in his post:

When people make the argument that women can be associate pastors, they are essentially saying that there are some pastors that don’t have to meet all of the qualifications for pastors. They are saying that associate pastors need not be the husband of one wife nor good managers of their households.

That is why having female pastors – even in associate positions – is a massive problem for baptist Christians. If the husband-of-one-wife qualification and the managing-the-household qualification can be set aside, what other qualifications can be set aside? If associate pastors don’t have to meet those qualifications, then why must senior pastors meet those qualifications?

Burk makes an argument specifically against those who argue ‘pastor’ is not an office. He insists:

A pastor holds an office of authority and has been granted the right to lead the entire congregation.

The pastor doesn’t have unlimited power to do whatever he wants. He has been authorized to use his power to lead, protect, and provide for the congregation. God defines the pastor’s authority and his jurisdiction in Scripture. God also gives authority to congregations to recognize and appoint those who will fill the office according to qualifications God has defined.

His first sentence here, if we take out the phrase ‘an office’, I have no quibbles. Similarly, the following paragraph I agree with entirely, excepting the phrase ‘the office’ in the final sentence. But when we compare this to the previous quoted section (beginning ‘when people make the argument…’) there is nothing here that demands office.

Burke’s fundamental point holds. He (rightly) wants to insist that if the term ‘pastor’ can be applied to those that scripture says do not qualify, this causes a problem for any other of the qualifcations demanded for the church to recognise such a person. But this simply rules certain people out of being recognised in that function by the church. It does not necessitate office.

As I comment in my book, ‘Jesus distributes gifts to his church and it is for the church to recognise the gifts he has given and appoint people to fulfil appropriate ministry functions that make best use of them.’ As Burk rightly says, ‘Congregations don’t have a right to set aside pastoral qualifications just so women can serve in the office. It’s a direct contradiction of Scripture. The arbitrary application of qualifications to some pastors and not others will inevitably lead to an erosion of biblical authority and eventually to female pastors and ultimately to unqualified male pastors.’ I absolutely agree and note only that the question of whether ‘pastor’ is an office or not, then, is a red herring here. One can take any view on this question – that it is or is not an office – and yet still cannot get away from the biblical qualifications that rule out female elders.

It bears saying at this point, our use of ‘gift’ language is often quite selective and poorly applied. We often think of the word ‘gift’ in terms of special talents and abilities. As I have argued here, here and here (among other places) that gifting is more about ministries, functions and roles. When we speak about ‘pastor’ as a gift, then, we are speaking about it in the same way as Paul calls his apostleship a gift and the way in which he speaks in Ephesian 4:11ff about a whole load of functions as ‘gifts’. Those who want to use ‘gift’ as ‘special talent’ and then jumping from that to permitting anyone with it to be a pastor are taking what Burk refers to as those with the ‘power’ and seeking to vest it with an unrelated authority.

Burk rightly says:

Even if women have certain leadership gifts or abilities (power), that is not the same thing as having the authority to exercise those gifts over the entire congregation. God defines who is given that authority, and He authorizes congregations to follow His instructions in recognizing pastors. Congregations do not have the right to ignore God’s authorization.

As I note in a later chapter in my book that pertains to complementarianism:

Scripture calls men alone to the role of eldership in the local church. Specifically, 1 Timothy 2:12 says, ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man’. Given the fundamental word-ministry and authority that comes with being an elder, a straightforward reading excludes women from this ministry function of church life. Nor can we dismiss this as a mere cultural concern because Paul roots his instruction in the created order not in cultural issues or particular problems in the church to which he is writing (cf. 2:13–14). It is also hard to escape the continual use of masculine pronouns running throughout the eldership qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9 which point to male-only eldership. If it is merely a local, cultural matter for the church in Ephesus where Timothy is based, it begs the question why these same instructions are given to Titus five hundred miles away in Crete. A plain reading of Scripture is that eldership is to be male only.

This is really the heart of the issue. We can recognise that many women will have pastoral ability (as Burk denotes it, ‘the power’). We can even say – as with every spiritual gift and ability that we might seek to use for God’s glory – that ability can and should be exercised in the church. But the reason why women are not to be appointed as elder-pastors is not that ‘pastor’ is an office in the church (I don’t think it is), nor because they don’t have pastoral ability (many do and should be permitted to exercise it), it is because God says in his word that teaching (which is inherent to both eldership and pastoral function) and authority (inherent to eldership) are not to be exercised by women over men in the church gathering. The excercise of their pastoral ability must be in roles other than eldership because we are not permitted to set aside the qualifications that way.

I am quite happy with women exercising their pastoral abilities under the oversight of the elders in suitable roles in the church, such as pastoring other women. I am, nevertheless, quite sympathetic to the SBC desire to avoid applying the word ‘pastor’ to such roles when it is so closely associated with eldership and is liable to do more to confuse biblical order than serve it. In the end, it begs the question why we must use the term pastor for such functions when ‘women’s worker’ (who will inevitably do pastoral work) or ‘youth worker’ (who will likewise do pastoral work) are much more clearly demarked from the teaching and authoritative role of elders? If the sole reason is to vest such roles with the authority of eldership, then the SBC are absolutely right to reject it in this way. If there is some other reason, why would we want to open up this potential confusion when other terms are clearer?

But none of this rests on ‘pastor’ being an office. I suspect it is a red herring in these discussions.