How can I become a pastor?

On the subject of the twofold vocation of the bishop, I find nothing whatever that is scriptural in Mr. Wolff's system. What is called inward or immediate vocation is not to be found in the Bible in the case of the bishop. The Bible supposes that a person may desire to be a bishop, but that is all. Where that desire exists, not a word is said about an inward vocation as a quality requisite for the charge. If a young man desired to be a minister, according to the present system (and it would be very difficult to find the least analogy between that and the choosing of bishops in the New Testament), the first thing which an evangelical friend of the young man would ask him is, "Do you feel yourself called of God to the ministry?" Not a trace of such an idea is in the epistle to Timothy: "If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work," and thereupon follow the requisite qualities, without a single word about inward vocation. It was a charge entrusted to persons who were qualified.

This does not imply that the work of the overseer cannot be done, or that there are not those fitted for the work in a day of breakdown. The work of overseers was never more needed than today, and those who are scripturally qualified for the work can in simplicity serve the Lord's people in their own locality; and it is well for us to recognise such, ever keeping in mind the exact force of the Apostle's words, when he says, “If any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work.” The Apostle does not speak of a man desiring “office” in order to hold a position or exercise authority, but of the desire to exercise this “good work”. The flesh likes office, and position, and authority, but it will shrink from “work”. When this is seen, we may have to admit that there are few that have the desire that the Apostle contemplates.

The apostle next points out to Timothy the qualities necessary for a bishop or a deacon, as well as for the wife of the latter. He supposes here that there were some who desired to undertake this work. It was a good work. To care for souls and have a vigilant eye upon the walk of believers; to watch over them in order that the members of Christ should answer to His love and lose no christian privilege; to do this by maintaining that happy order and that precious unity which were realised at that time, and to protect the flock of the Lord against the ravaging wolves that were seeking to invade it: this indeed was valuable work, and he on whose heart the Lord had thus laid the souls of His people might well desire to undertake it. The apostle felt this: it was a true and faithful saying; but certain qualities were needed to make any one fit for such a charge. Gifts are not included among them, unless the being "apt to teach" might be so considered; but even this is presented as a quality — the man must have aptness for it — not as a gift. Power to use such truth with others was very useful in fulfilling his charge, without saying at all that he taught publicly in the assembly. The essential thing was that which gave moral weight.

From the first verse it would appear that there were some at Ephesus who were aspiring to become bishops. The Apostle acknowledges that what they aimed at was a good work but he insists in this connection upon the all-importance of character. It is not that the bishop may have all the spiritual qualifications that he mentions, but that he must. Moreover, before he is appointed to take care of the church of God he must have proved his fitness for such a work by the way in which he has governed the far smaller and humbler sphere of his own household. He must not be a novice, one who though possibly well on in years is only a beginner in the things of God, else being lifted up with pride in his new-found importance he may fall into the very fault that caused the overthrow of Satan at the beginning. Diotrephes, who is spoken of in 3 John 9 and 10 would seem to be an illustration of what is meant.

It is a question of government in the assembly; and faithful is the saying: whoever is eager for oversight desires a good or honourable work. Moral qualities, not gifts, are the requisite; and also personal or relative circumstances of good report. Hence to be husband of one wife was sought as well as a character free from reproach. How many evangelists God has deigned to bless, who had once been shameless sinners in violence or in corruption! Not such could the overseer be. Again, if a man had more than one wife, he was (not to be then refused fellowship; for many a Jew or Gentile so situated might believe the gospel; but) ineligible to be a holy guardian of order according to God among the saints. Self-restraint and moderation and modesty or good order were sought in one set over the rest: else the appeal to others must be undermined by his own shortcomings. It was also of moment that active love should be proved in hospitality, as well as intelligence or aptitude to teach, if one were not necessarily a teacher. Yet sitting over wine, and the quarrelsome character it breeds, could not be tolerated for this work, but a gentle uncontentious spirit, free from the love of money, and used to rule well his household, with children subject in all gravity. For there too practical inconsistency would be fatal; and so much the more, as God's assembly needs far more care than one's own house.

As already stated, the qualifications for an overseer are given in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1: 6-9. They are clear enough and require no explanation here. Strong moral qualities are required as well as spiritual capacity for the work. But let us note in closing this subject that the apostle says, "If a man desire the office of a bishop (overseer), he desireth a good work" (I Tim. 3:1) . The work of overseer in God's Assembly is a good and most necessary work which should be desired by those duly qualified. Sometimes this good work is left undone in Assemblies which would indicate a lack of spiritual exercise and desire on the part of some whom the Holy Spirit would undoubtedly use. Thus perhaps some need to be exhorted to desire to do this good and needful work. This we find Peter doing in his first Epistle, chapter five. There he urges the elders to take the oversight of the flock willingly, setting an example for the others. A crown of glory from the Chief Shepherd will be the reward.

The work of the overseer is learned from Paul's statement in Acts 20:28: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God , which He hath purchased with His own blood." The Holy Spirit called them into this work, for He is the great administrator in the church. Each local church had not one overseer or bishop, but a number of them, showing that the authority was not vested in one person only (Phil. 1:1). If anyone desired the office of an overseer, he desired a good work. It is a good work to exercise loving and patient care over souls which are beloved of God, and so dear to Him, who purchased them by His own blood. Such a desire would be the result of the Spirit of God, who laid the work of an overseer upon the heart. Paul then gives Timothy the qualities which a bishop or overseer must have. He must be blameless, that is as to his moral character irreproachable, with nothing whatever against him. "He must be the husband of one wife." This has been explained as excluding all who had been married twice. This is incorrect. It may refer to those who were as pagans married to more than one woman, for polygamy was practiced among the heathen in that day, as it is still. Converted to Christianity these pagans were in an unhappy condition, and on account of it could not exercise oversight in a local church.

On the other hand this inspired qualification of an overseer or bishop is a complete and crushing refutation of the celibacy of the Romish priesthood. He also must be vigilant, sober, of a good behavior (modest), given to hospitality and apt to teach (2 Tim. 2:24). ("Apt to teach" has also been translated "ready to learn.") Among the other qualifications we point out especially the one "not greedy of filthy lucre," that is, he must not be a lover of money. This is mentioned several times in the epistles to Timothy and to Titus. And Peter in exhorting the elders also writes, "Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind" (1 Peter 5:2). The Holy Spirit anticipated the corruption of church office and ministry through the love of money. He is also to rule well his own house and have his children in subjection, "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God ?"

Even at Rome we learn from the first chapter of the Epistle that Paul longed to see those there, that he might communicate some spiritual gift to them, in order to their strengthening. Still more would this be called for in the far less frequented island where Titus was left. There would be things wanting which the short stay of the apostle could not suffice to complete. Further, there was the need of elders to be appointed, which was regularly, and sometimes long, subsequent to the gathering of the saints. It is implied that several cities, perhaps many, had assemblies in them, and that elders were later appointed in each. Bp. Ellicott is quite right in questioning the statement of Jer. Taylor, "one in one city, many in many" (Episc. § 15). It is a strange, as well as certainly a precarious, statement from an Episcopalian, though natural enough to one of dissenting ideas. There is nothing here to limit eldership to one person in each city; there may have been several. This would of course be modified by circumstances; but we know from elsewhere in the New Testament that plurality of elders in any given assembly was the rule, and so no doubt it was at Crete. Church order, though flexible, had a common principle and character. "For this cause," says the apostle to the Corinthians, "have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved child and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you to remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:17: compare 1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Cor. 14:33-37).

It should be observed, as a consideration of the greatest moment, that the apostle does not specify a particular gift as requisite for these local charges. Scripture takes marked care to guard from that dangerous confusion, which was soon to characterise Christendom, and to form the separation of clergy from laity, which is in fact a return to Judaism, and a denial in both principle and practice of the distinctive fulness of privilege for the church. It is not that a gift and a charge might not be combined in the same individual; but they are in themselves, and for most who have but one or the other, altogether different. The gift was one given by Christ to the church and from the greatest to the least, apart from all intervention of man. This can no more cease to be than Christ can abnegate His grace and living functions as the Head of the body. The charge of "elders" or "bishops" required not only fitness but also choice or appointment by competent authority defined by scripture.

Verse 5 shows that Titus had been left in Crete by Paul, with the purpose in mind of establishing in an orderly way the assemblies there. There was evident need of this in the infant state of things existing, especially so since the New Testament was not in their hands. Paul had given commission to Titus to appoint elders in each city. Apostles were entitled to do this, and it may be that Timothy also was given this responsibility (1 Tim. 3:1-7), though this is not directly stated. There is in Scripture however no provision made for the continuance of such appointments, and we are shut up to considering this only as a means of establishing the church in its prime state. Of course, even though now there is no authority for appointing elders, yet men who have such qualifications as seen here and in 1 Timothy should be recognized by the saints for their wisdom and experience, so that order may easily be maintained without official appointment.

Should not persons be "trained for the ministry" Certainly; but by whom? Certainly not by the church; for, as we shall see presently, the church is to be edified by the ministers — "for the perfecting of the saints … for the edifying of the body of Christ." The Lord, and not man, fits His chosen vessel, and in His own time He puts the grace (or gift) in him and sends him forth. Hence Paul says, "When it pleased GOD, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood" (Gal. 1:15-16). Here it is evident that this great apostle was not only not trained by men, but positively avoided men. GOD had separated him, and called him to preach. This was enough; his qualification was complete; he did not even go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him. Indeed, we know from the Acts of the Apostles, that he preached in Damascus three years (Acts 9:22, with Gal. 1:18) before he went to Jerusalem. Whom the Lord fits is fully qualified, and hence the church sins in attempting to add to what He does, and in refusing to own what, being from the Lord, must be perfect.