The adjective “pastoral” is an interesting one. What do we mean when we call a man “pastoral”? Most often today, “pastoral” seems to mean nice, soft, gentle, and most of all, winsome. But biblically, that’s not how pastors are described.
It is true that pastors are called to be gentle and not quarrelsome. But it’s very obvious from the apostles’ ministry in Acts and from the pastoral epistles that a man who is nice and sweet all the time will make a very bad pastor. Pastors should be gentle when dealing with broken sinners in need of comfort. Pastors should be gentle when dealing with hurting sheep who are suffering. But pastors also have to be bold and courageous. They have to confront and run off the wolves who would devour the flock. They have to attack sins that threaten the wellbeing of those under their care. They have to be bold, direct, and fearless. True pastoral ministry might set off a riot, spark persecution, or get you thrown in jail. It might mean flipping tables, like Jesus did. It might mean speaking with courage to Caesar, or Caesar’s representatives, like Paul did.
Since the 19th century, we have developed the stereotype of the pastor as an effeminate man who poses no danger to anyone. He’s soft and sweet. He’s tender and gentle all the time. One reason men largely checked out of church is because pastors often failed to command the respect of other men. Pastors were more comfortable in the company of the church ladies, and catered their ministry to them. Modern preaching is often very tentative, full of self-doubt and apologies for what the Bible teaches, rather than bold and unflinching proclamation of the truth. Modern pastors have been too scared and cowardly to carry out church discipline, often with disastrous results.
Maybe it would help if we kept in mind that the pastoral office is rooted in the old covenant priesthood — and priests were chosen because they were willing to kill the right people.
How did the tribe of Levi become the priestly tribe? How did the line of Phinehas confirm its standing as the High Priestly line? Two well known stories give the answer. In Exodus 32, in the golden calf incident, Moses asked the camp of Israel, “Who is on the Lord’s side?” The Levites gathered to Moses, and Moses told them to use their swords to kill the idolaters. Driven by a holy zeal, the Levites fought to exterminate idolatry from the nation. The sons of Levi obeyed Moses, and piled up about 3000 dead bodies that day (Ex. 32:28). In the language of Psalm 110 (a priestly psalm), we could say they made the enemies of the Lord into a footstool; they shattered and executed them in a day of righteous wrath. Moses considers their warfare against idolatry as a kind of priestly ordination. Moses says, “Today, you have been ordained for the service of the Lord.” Because they put the Lord’s honor above son and brother, they were blessed by the Lord (Ex. 32:29). Holy war and holy office went together.
A similar story occurs with Phinehas in Numbers 25, with a similar result. Phinehas is the grandson of Aaron, the first high priest of Israel. Just like Exodus 32, Israel is once again committing idolatry. This time, idolatry is combined with sexual immorality (spiritual adultery and physical adultery often go together). God sends a plague in judgment, killing 24,000. One Israelite man was so audacious in his sin that he took a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses. When Phinehas saw this intrusion of wickedness into the camp of the saints, he did not stand by and watch passively (like Adam in Eden watching his bride get attacked and seduced by the serpent). Instead he sprang into action, piercing both the man and his pagan mistress with his spear. This ended the plague and led to a great reward for Phinehas (cf. Psalm 106:28ff). Because Phinehas was filled with holy zeal for the Lord (shown in his willingness to execute idolaters/adulterers in an act of holy war), the Lord establishes his line as the high priestly line. The Lord said, “Behold I give him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel” (Num. 25:12-13).
In the old covenant, Levites carried swords. Obviously, these swords were used to cut up sacrificial animals, but they could be used as weapons against any unholy invaders who trespassed into the Lord’s tabernacle or temple. Priests, like Adam in the Garden, were guardians, and sometimes guarding entailed violence. The mission of the priesthood has always had a military/martial component. Priests must fight for the Lord and for the sake of the Lord’s people. In the old covenant, Phinehas was the model priest precisely because he was a holy warrior.
Keep in mind priests not only ministered at the tabernacle/temple; they were also teachers and rulers in the local synagogues. The same spirit of warfare seen in the Levites ministry in Exodus was to characterize their ministry in the synagogue. They were to use the sword of God’s word to attack and root out idolatry and immorality in the lives of their people. This is the template that (with various redemptive-historical transformations) carries over as the model for new covenant ministry.
When we think of the adjective “pastoral” we should first and foremost think of a holy warrior — a man who wages holy war against the demonic principalities and powers, a man who wages war on the sins found in his congregation and in his culture, and man who teaches those under his care to do the same.
This is further reinforced by the what we know of actual pastoral work in the ancient word. Before the term “pastor” described an ecclesiastical office focused on the ministry of word, sacrament, and discipline, it described someone who guarded and kept sheep. But think of David’s pastoral work — it involved killing a lion and bear who came after his flock. Shepherds were the cowboys of the ancient world — rough and tumble men, used to doing hard labor in the hot sun, often doing the dirty and dangerous work most others didn’t want to do. And it was work that sometimes required courage and even violence. In David’s case, God thought caring for sheep was the perfect preparation for ruling a nation. And we could view that same kind of work as the kind of curriculum that would also prepare a man for ruling a congregation.
We should keep all this in mind when we consider how we identify and train men for the pastorate today. Too often, the way the adjective “pastoral” gets used today, it describes a man who is operating with a masculinity deficit. “He’s kind of a soft young man. He’s a bit effeminate. Maybe he should consider being a pastor.” That’s a great way to to kill the church. It ought not to be this way. We need to look for a different kind of man to fill this office.
Being “pastoral” needs to be more than the ministerial equivalent of a doctor having a good bedside manner. Next time you hear a pastor preach a really courageous sermon — a sermon that you know took guts to preach — tell him afterwards that that was “very pastoral” of him. Next time your pastor gets attacked by people for being boldly biblical on some controversial issue, remind him he’s being truly “pastoral.” Next time your pastor announces to the congregation a sentence of excommunication, carrying out the spiritual death penalty according to the biblical pattern, thank him afterwards for being so “pastoral.”
TPC Pastor's Page 