Our primary purpose in this section is to emphasize that the effect of professionalism is counter-productive. First, when applied to the first century, it would have hindered the role of shepherds whom God has given to equip the saints for service. Second, it would hamper the participation of other members in the body, both then and now. They would become muted spectators or passive supporters of preachers. It’s similar to the star football or basketball player who just made a great play. The sidelines are patting him on the backside while the fans are standing in the bleachers, clapping their hands, whistling, and shouting in jubilation, “Did you see that? Wow, is he good!” Excitement is high, high fives are exchanged, and fans have something to talk about until the next game when they expect to be “wowed” again. The principal of a working body suggests one of sharing and contributing. There are no fans in the bleachers. That is as out of place as having a cheering squad on a battlefield. The principle application of 1 Corinthians 14 is not the application of spiritual gifts, but the principle of individuals contributing to the edification of the saints. Either way, it suggests a need to eliminate the work of professional hirelings (prolific ‘tongue speakers’ by comparison). Consider Paul’s instructions,
Paul begins, “Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.” He offers the reason for this preference, writing, “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.” On the other hand, the one who prophesied spoke to people for their edification, encouragement, and consolation. So, the one who spoke in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the saints. He continues, “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that all may be built up. (1 Cor. 14:1-5, ESV).
Like the tongue speakers, today’s preachers may be doing less to edify than they realize. Yet, their gift is exclusively chosen as the best way and, consequently, shuts others out. Therefore, the application of the unity of a working body is squelched as only a chosen few are allowed to function in the body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12-14).
Third, they may be enablers by doing for others what is their burden to do. Since the preacher works for the church of which members are a part, he works for them. He can do their studying for them as his study comes out in a twenty-five minute three-point speech. He can be their representative as he preaches on the radio for them, visits for them, teaches for them, or does personal evangelism for them. In an institutional church, the players think that this arrangement is “building up of the body.” This is such a twisted view of growth. It sounds like a parent who gives a spoiled child everything his heart desires – buys anything they want and often at the precise time they want it, does their homework for them, makes all the decisions for them, gives them preferential treatment concerning where they want to go to eat or go on vacation, covers for them when they leave their school gym clothes at home or failed to do an assignment, lets them stay up too late at night, etc. They think they are a loving parent because of what they do for their children. The church organization thinks the same thing as they provide one service after another for their membership. What’s even more amazing is that both the preachers/elders and the parents do it in the name of love and are oblivious to the damage they are causing. This pathological dependency on the clergy has created a weak, ignorant people who blindly follow where their preachers lead them. Preachers are addicted to preaching sermons and the people are addicted to hearing them. As this weakened, sick cycle worsens, their identity is lost in the work of the few. The practice of a church made up of the chosen few becomes a reality, while the people become lifeless members of an organization who now have little to offer in edification. Churches are filled with forty-year members who know very little more than they did their first year. This is called by some “the local church.” Practically, the majority of members judge their acceptance by God based on what their church is or is not doing. After all, they are the supporters of the church programs.
The expediency of the one man preacher/pastor tradition is questionable if, in fact, teaching is its purpose. In every audience, some are not even listening while others are hearing what they want to hear. The opportunity to confirm or verify what has been said by engaging one another is not an option. We have witnessed on several occasions people who, while shaking hands with the preacher and commenting on the lesson, clearly missed the entire point of the lesson or understood the preacher to take a view to which he was opposing. People tend to remember an illustration or a story but can’t discern what the story illustrates. This mirrors the sermon’s true father, the rhetoric of Greco-Roman culture immersed in abstraction. This is not to say the public preaching is to be terminated altogether. As we have seen in the pattern of public teaching, there may be opportunities to stand at Mars Hill and address an audience. Norrington summarizes well when he explains that rhetoric “involves forms designed to entertain and display genius rather than instruct or develop talents in others.”[1] In the end, while it claims to equip the saints, it worsens the impoverished soul because they have only attended a pep rally but do not know the first thing about running the plays after leaving the huddle.
[1] Norington, To Preach or Not, 23.