I recently read “The Pastor Has No Clothes”, by Jon Zens. I have to say right off that “The Pastor Has No Clothes” seems to me to be deliberately padded to add more pages so that it would be more acceptable as a book. It contains a few old and new essays by Zens that articulates pretty much the same story from slightly different angles and it also includes Zens response to excerpts in Eugene Peterson’s “The Pastor: A Memoir“, and a few other appendixes. The book is only 161 pages so the book is brief and literally could be your in-brief reading some morning.

Having said that, it does not take a long book to make the points that Zens makes. Basically those points are that the early Church was nothing like the pastor-centered churches and church building focused churches that are evident today. The book tries to make the case that Christendom needs to get back to the early Church model found in the New Testament.

Zens makes the point that the early Church was a body of believers, each with their own gifts and all taking part for the benefit of the Ekklesia as they were gifted by God. Zens of course is correct about that and few would dispute it. What they may dispute is his assertions that the Ekklesia has departed from New Testament teaching by having a head pastor and formal worship service.

I looked for some criticism of the book on the Internet but I could not find much of anything and that led me to decide to write my own brief perspectives on Zens views.

A major point in the book is that every time an overseer or elder is used to address an assembly in the New Testament it is used in the the plural. Therefore, Zens believes that one elder ruling over other elders is not a biblical concept. Zens claims that there is no head pastor or pastoral office running the local Ekklesia in the New Testament so there should not be any today either.

I know, most church pastors reading this are now already turning blue but just take a deep breath and stay with me here.

I think Zens idea that we should all have a gift and a ministry is correct but I also think he takes his pastor has no clothes concept too far. From what is said in the book, Zens gives me the impression that he thinks head pastors or clergy think otherwise. However, I do not know any leaders in Bible based churches that would dispute the priesthood of all believers or dispute that all members should all take part in some Christ centered ministry. If Zens thinks that there are church leaders that think otherwise he probably has some apostate church in mind, but she is not teachable anyway.

Obviously most church leaders would dispute Zens claim that there should not be any head pastor running the local Church. I will come up with a few perspectives of my own but I am sure many could add other issues.

My first perspective is that we do not live in the days of the early Church and the little history of the early Church given in the New Testament about the gatherings of the early Church does not necessarily make it the model to be used by the local Church today. Keep in mind that the very early Church did not have most of the New Testament instructions available to them so instruction also had to come through prophets, traveling evangelists and Holy Spirit gifted people.

I wish Jon Zens would have quoted and disputed the teaching of someone of the stature of John MacArthur or Chuck Smith to make his arguments against the need of a head pastor. I think if he had, Zens might have received a strong biblical argument in response from these Christian leaders why it is that they teach that a head pastor is necessary in local churches. He is not going to get that response by trying to make his case by quoting Eugene Peterson and giving a response to him. In my opinion, Peterson being a neo-Evangelical is more likely to now agree with Zens.

I always like to hear both sides of an argument and I do not think a good argument for those claiming the need for a head pastor was given in this book. Zens does include some excerpts from people claiming the need for a head pastor but they are mostly people that I never heard of. It just seemed to me that Zens responses to self-selected excerpts was kind of like stacking the deck to insure that you win the hand, or in this case the argument.

Another perspective of mine is that Zens Christ-Centered Ekklesia model is mostly based on the model as he interprets 1 Corinthians 14:26.

26   How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Zens seems to take the view that Paul was telling members to actually have a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation, interpretation, but if I remember John MacArthur teaching in “The Charismatics” correctly, MacArthur believes that Paul was actually chastising or mocking the assembly there for having excesses and for being disorderly.

I guess whatever view you wish to take on that passage depends on your theological position. Therefore, Zens runs against the grain of the theology of some by using this passage as the Church model for today. That would be especially true with those that believe the sign gifts ceased with the Canon.

I am not saying that MacArthur’s view on this passage is correct or that some gifts ceased with the Canon. However, the fact remains that many Christians believe that the sign gifts did cease, which just points out the need for a debate against Zens views from someone of the stature and influence of a John MacArthur or a Chuck Smith. MacArthur believes the sign gifts ceased and Smith believes that they remain, but both of these highly respected pastor/teachers teach that the local Church needs a head pastor.

Obviously as long as these issues are not addressed by people with the most influence in the Church, Zens view will remain a minority view held mostly by some home churches. Most pastors are not going to give up their leadership position when they believe they were called by God into the pastoral ministry. So, are we to believe that they are wrong? Try telling your pastor that and see how it flies.

Another perspective is that Zens seems to paint the picture that spiritual gifts are no longer being used in most churches because they have head pastors hindering the gifts of other members and also a structured service hindering the gifts of the members. I am sure that most Church leaders would disagree that this actually happens to be the case in reality.

Many churches do have multiple elders and there are small groups in many churches where people can use their God given gifts for the benefit of the rest of the body. Also keep in mind that in most local churches people form groups of friendships and even though their gathering together might be very informal and social, the Body of Christ with its God given gifts are still present. I do not think Christians meeting together have to turn their fellowship together into a religious event for them to be ministering their God given spiritual gifts to each other.

My point is that the Body ministry is happening in spite of formal worship and pastor-centered churches; at least it is happening in the low churches. Perhaps it is hindered in the old main-stream high churches with the strong clergy/laity divide among Sunday only Christians. I would agree with Zens that these churches need to change. In fact, if they do not change they will continue the on-going loss of most of their true Christians.

A further perspective is that Zens can believe that the Holy Spirit moved men to create a Canon of books that are God inspired but Zens view seems to leave little room for the Holy Spirit moving through men of faith to take the Church in the direction that God wants it to go over the Church age.

So are we to believe that for almost two thousand years that the Holy Spirit has been allowing the Church to do it all wrong? Has the Holy Spirit been hindered in His people by clergy and formal religious services for almost two thousand years? Maybe in the Harlot but not in the true Church!

Actually, the Holy Spirit has been working in the true Church in spite of the clergy and church buildings. If the Holy Spirit has been working since Pentecost in the Church, is it then really necessary to get back to whatever we think the first century Church was doing to be a Christ-centered Ekklesia? The Holy Spirit is obviously still working through some of our local churches in spite of head pastor-centered churches with structured gatherings and established church buildings.

I think it might even be reasonable to believe that the early Church laid the foundation for the spiritual temple and then we got the blueprint for the spiritual temple with the Canon and now the Holy Spirit continues to build on His Temple as He wills. Who says that there is only one model for the Church anyway? The letters to the seven churches in Revelation paint the picture that each of these local churches were and are quite different. The dozens of different denominations and viewpoints in Christendom today should tell us that God works differently in local churches unless one wants to think that the Holy Spirit is being hindered everywhere but in some home churches that use Zens early Church model.

Zens also does not like the format that most churches have today where the main focus is on the teaching of one man behind the pulpit where there is no input from the other members in the Body of Christ. Okay, I am not totally thrilled with how church is done in the main service on Sundays either, but Zens omits the fact that most churches have Sunday schools and that they have other small groups through the week that are interactive. It also makes some sense to me that when the God inspired Canon came into common use that teaching on it from the most knowledgeable teacher in the congregation would and should become a major part of the meeting.

The New Testament makes it clear that those elders spending their time teaching should be supported in their material needs by the others. Thus paid pastor/teachers is biblical and in the real world experience we know that there will be people that lead and people that follow. There will also be leaders of the leaders. Ancient Israel displayed that example with the leaders over the thousands, the hundreds, the fifties and the tens. This concept was given because it was a common sense way to govern. I just do not see how in the real world that leaders within a local assembly all become equal in authority without causing divisional factions and anarchy.

The Bible clearly says that God appointed shepherds and teachers in the Church to help bring the Church to maturity Eph 4:11-16. From the little I know about sheep I think that a flock has a head Shepherd as well as under-shepherds. Zens’ argument would be that Jesus is the Head Shepherd so all pastors (elders) are under-shepherds on the same level. Perhaps, but local flocks of sheep can be owned by one person and still have a head shepherd over each flock responsible for that flock.

Even the Bible teaches a hierarchy. We know angels have a hierarchy. There are the 24 elders around the throne. The Apostles will rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. There is clearly a saintly hierarchy taught in the kingdom of Heaven (Mt 5:19, Rev 4:4, etc.) and there clearly was a hierarchy within Israel and Israel was at least somewhat a model of heavenly things. I am sure you can find many examples of God working through a hierarchy in the Bible and creation so I guess I am not sold that an individual should not also be in charge of a local Church.

I hardly think this book will be proven to be one of the most important books of the 21st century like Frank Viola said on his endorsement on the back cover. If the Church is to become like Zens believes that is likely to come as the results of persecution rather than through a book teaching of anyone.  Zens positions have been known in the 20th century and it has not changed thinking much in our churches. Neither will his new book in the 21st century. Even if Zens is 100 percent correct, this book will not gain enough traction to change what he thinks is a clergy centered Church to a Christ-centered Ekklesia. The only way I see anything like Zens envisions is if the Church has to go underground and that happening won’t be a result of this book.

No doubt that Zens is correct that the clergy laity concept does not come from the Bible. We are all a nation of priests and everyone in Christ should have a ministry. We definitely need to get away from the concept of churches being a spectator sport and I definitely think more town hall type meetings in the Church should be highly encouraged rather than having everything head pastor focused for local church direction.

If Zens were really mainly talking about the high churches in old mainline denomination in his book I agree with him that they have become very unbalanced. They have a very strong formal clergy/laity separation. That is contrary to true Christianity. True Christians are increasingly departing from these churches for good reason, the Holy Spirit is working to bring them out.

I am sure I sound very critical of the book but actually I think this is a good book for Christians to know. I do highly recommend that Christians and especially church leaders read “The Pastor Has No Clothes”.

Zens actually asked near the end of his book for feedback from those that can give a counter argument to his views from scripture. So I do hope that Church leaders that believe in the need for a head pastor will do exactly that.

The Church obviously has gotten too pastor focused. The book brings up important issues like we are all priests of God and each of us should have a Christian ministry. The book certainly also fosters thinking and self-examination and that is very healthy. So read it and consider how you can make the congregation where you’re a leader into more of a full body ministry.

My criticism is that I really do not want to throw out the head pastor just because Zens thinks he has no clothes. I have to admit though that some pastors often seem to be a suit short. 😛 They are just humans like everyone else. I hope you realize that and do not put them on some pedestal that even they know they cannot stand on for long unless they are truly crackers. Give them the honor that elders deserve but do not make them your idols.

I will wrap up my perspective of this book by making some brief statements of my own about things discussed in this book and additional issues that I have discerned that are views of my own.

I think God never intended for the Church to become so head pastor focused. The Body has many parts everyone has a role. The Church is a holy priesthood; our high priest is Jesus not a pastor.

The office of a head church pastor too often attracts and promotes narcissists and pulpit bullies.

The office of a head church pastor often places the direction of the church mostly in the hands of one person who may or may not be walking in the will of God.

Too many head pastors tend to want to build their own empires or legacy.

Churches and pastors are afraid to try anything different or seek out what God is saying to their congregation. Many pastors just want to copy what is working elsewhere. I think if Willow Creek church served pretzels and beer many other churches would soon start doing the same thing.

Churches are often performance, success and numbers oriented rather than Christ or Body oriented.

Leaders in the local churches need to be chosen by the congregation, not the pastor. That also goes for the music ministry.

The local church should decide the major issues and the tools that they use for Christian ministry and not the head pastor.

The more formal the worship service the more it seems the Holy Spirit is bound in the service.

Head Pastors sometimes need to be corrected by the congregation.

Ordination for life into a ruling class (clergy) because of education or election is not a biblical concept. Christians are all priests of God

We should not be electing or hiring elders (pastors) just because they got a degree in a Bible college or seminary or because they were the leader in some other church. Elders should be proven people well known within the local Church. Local church members should be put into positions of leadership by the other members of the local Church.

Pastors and teachers should be teaching the counsel of God not secular concepts coming from humanism.

Churches should not be state corporations and its “business meetings” should not reflect that they are conducting some corporate business meeting.

There needs to be much more interaction in most churches so people are given the opportunity to use their God given spiritual gifts.

I do not believe that God ever intended for Christian meetings to become so ritualistic, structured and formal.

The communion service practiced in most churches is hardly what Jesus had in mind when he told believers to observe this ordinance.

I do not believe that Christians really have to meet on Sunday morning and I don’t think that all assembling together should have predetermined time restraints and set formal agendas.

I would be very supportive of regular town hall type meetings in the churches where all have an opportunity to share.

I think small home groups gatherings are almost essential for Christians and they should not be formally structured like some home version of a church service (i.e. starting with prayer requests, 3 songs out of a hymnal and a Bible study. Why not just have an open time of fellowship together and go wherever the Holy Spirit takes this assembly of Christians?