Abstract
The heavenly title ‘I Am That I Am’ (Ex 3:14) signifies God’s self-existence and transcendence, which are essential to biblical theology and Christ’s ‘I am’ declarations in the Gospel of John. Modern pastors increasingly employ the phrase and other divine names for self-identification, dangerously overstepping theological boundaries. This pastoral appropriation creates substantial theological dilemmas: it endangers Christ’s singular mediatorial function, cultivates unbiblical spiritual hierarchies, blurs the Creator-creature distinction, and facilitates spiritual abuse by allowing leaders to claim divine authority without accountability. This article analyses the pastoral appropriation of divine titles via the Reformation’s Solus Christus premise, defining the boundaries of pastoral identity and recognising possible consequences. The study examines biblical passages regarding God’s self-revelation and pastoral functions, Reformation writings related to Solus Christus and ecclesiastical authority, and modern sermons that exemplify pastoral divine self-alignment. Exegetical research uncovers significant theological disparities between pastoral divine terminology and Reformed doctrines. ‘I Am That I Am’ refers solely to Yahweh. Reformation theology, which includes Luther’s concept of the priesthood of all believers and Calvin’s view of the ministerial office, rejected clerical claims of ontological distinctiveness. The contemporary pastoral association with the divine undermines Solus Christus and establishes an unbiblical hierarchy, reviving tendencies that reformers condemned. This technique conceals Christ’s sufficiency and may tether consciences to human rather than divine authority. Authentic Reformation healing upholds Christ’s exclusive mediation while seeing pastoral authority as functional and derived.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The manner in which pastors utilise names for God significantly diverges from the teachings of the Reformation, reflecting a misinterpretation of God’s self-revelation and the appropriate duty of a pastor as delineated in the Bible and theology. This practice reinstates hierarchical inclinations that Reformers criticised, obscures the sufficiency of Christ and may bind consciences to human rather than divine authority. Genuine Reformation recovery maintains Christ’s exclusive mediation while recognising pastoral authority as both functional and derived. This research examines contemporary church leadership through the lens of Reformation principles, elucidating disputes regarding ecclesiastical power and demonstrating the influence of theological shifts on the church’s vitality.
Keywords: divine names; pastoral authority; reformed theology; Christology; theological anthropology; biblical theology; Solus Christus; reformation theology.
Introduction
When Moses encountered the burning bush, he experienced not just a miraculous phenomenon but also the most profound revelation of divine identity in Scripture. God’s proclamation, ‘I Am That I Am’ (Ex 3:14), established not just a name but also the essential demarcation between the Creator and the created. This sacred revelation depicts God as the entirely self-sufficient entity, reliant on nothing external, the origin of all existence, yet remaining separate from all that is. Throughout biblical history, individuals who transgressed this threshold encountered prompt retribution.
In modern Christianity, especially among specific evangelical and Pentecostal groups, a concerning trend has arisen. Certain pastors are progressively adopting divine names, asserting exceptional revelatory authority or positioning themselves as singularly anointed intermediaries between God and their congregations. Some expressly utilise ‘I Am’ terminology, some assert they are ‘the voice of God’ for their generation and yet others convey their statements as possessing divine authority akin to Scripture.
This approach prompts significant theological enquiries that require meticulous scriptural scrutiny. Does pastoral ministry provide any degree of involvement in divine identity? What is the connection between these assertions and Christ’s singular function as the sole mediator between God and humanity? What are the theological and practical consequences when human leaders assume divine prerogatives?
This work examines these enquiries through a meticulous analysis of the Bible and theology, concentrating on the nature of God’s self-revelation, the essence of authentic pastoral ministry and the boundaries that safeguard both divine majesty and human dignity. The objective is not just to criticise flawed practices but also to define a biblically based comprehension of pastoral identity that respects both divine grandeur and rightful ministerial authority.
The divine ‘I Am’: God’s self-revelation and its boundaries
The uniqueness of divine self-existence
Exodus 3:14 serves as the theological core of biblical revelation. When Moses enquires about God’s name, the reply is not simply an identification but an ontological revelation: ‘I Am That I Am’ (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה). This expression depicts God as the being whose existence is uncaused, self-sufficient and ultimate.
The verbal form ‘I Am’ (אֶהְיֶה) originates from the root היה [to be], emphasising active, dynamic existence rather than static being. God’s self-existence is active and the origin of all reality. As Yahweh, he is the originator of all existence while remaining completely autonomous from it. This word signifies God’s total transcendence and his unequivocal distinction from all created existence.
This sacred name is never bestowed upon any being in Scripture. Even the most esteemed human characters, such as Moses, David and the apostles, get their authority from divine commissioning while preserving their status as creatures. Moses serves as God’s emissary but never attains equality with him. The prophets proclaim ‘Thus says the Lord’ specifically because they convey God’s message, not their own divine utterance.
The creator-creature distinction serves as a foundational concept in theology
The ‘I Am’ revelation delineates the creator-creature dichotomy, signifying the fundamental ontological disparity between God and all other entities that exist. This divergence is not solely functional (God performs different actions than creatures) but is also vital (God is essentially unique from creatures).
Three aspects of this distinction demand attention
God exists a se (from himself) alone. All beings exist ab alio, originating from God’s creative act (Oliver & Oliver 2019:1). Even the most potent created entities, angels and humans fashioned in God’s likeness are entirely reliant on their Creator for existence. Acts 17:24–25:
The Creator of the universe and all therein, being sovereign over heaven and earth, does not reside in edifices constructed by humans, nor is he dependent on human service, as if he needs anything, for he himself bestows life, breath, and all things onto humanity.
Only God possesses omniscient knowledge and the prerogative to disclose the ultimate truth. Beings may receive and convey divine revelation; however, they cannot originate it. When individuals assert divine revelatory authority, they appropriate a privilege that is exclusively God’s. Deuteronomy 29:29:
The concealed matters are the domain of the Lord our God, whereas the disclosed matters are ours and our descendants eternally, so that we may adhere to all the stipulations of this law.
Only God possesses the authority to demand full obedience and veneration. Entities may wield delegated authority, yet they remain answerable to their Creator (Croft & Butler 2015). When human leaders assert divine status or absolute authority, they transgress the essential order of creation. As stated in Deuteronomy 6:13–14, ‘You shall revere the Lord your God. You shall serve him, and by his name you shall take an oath. You must not pursue other deities, the deities of the surrounding nations.’
Biblical consequences of violating divine boundaries
Scripture continually illustrates the disastrous consequences when beings seek to transgress these limits. The motif originates in Eden, where the serpent’s enticement revolves around the assurance ‘you shall be like God’ (Gn 3:5). This aspiration to surpass mortal constraints propels the tale of human insurrection throughout Scripture.
The Tower of Babel symbolises corporate human aspiration to ‘establish a reputation for ourselves’ in a godlike manner (Gn 11:4). King Nebuchadnezzar proclaimed, ‘Is this not the magnificent Babylon, which I have constructed with my formidable strength as a royal abode and for the exaltation of my grandeur?’ (Dn 4:30). This declaration immediately preceded his divine judgement. Herod Agrippa’s acquiescence to the crowd’s adulation as heavenly utterance leads to his being ‘struck down by an angel of the Lord’ (Ac 12:23).
These narratives delineate a constant biblical principle. God zealously protects his divine prerogatives and reacts resolutely when beings endeavour to usurp them. The matter is not solely theological but profoundly practical; the created order relies on preserved distinctions between Creator and creation.
Christ’s ‘I Am’ declarations: The unique divine-human identity
The Johannine ‘I Am’ sayings in context
The Gospel of John illustrates a significant evolution in divine self-disclosure through Jesus’ ‘I Am’ statements. These assertions plainly link Jesus to the Yahweh of Exodus, illustrating how divine identity can be genuinely expressed in human nature through the incarnation.
Jesus’ definitive ‘I Am’ declaration in John 8:58, ‘Before Abraham was, I am’, exemplifies this most clearly. The Jewish leaders’ prompt reaction of attempting to stone him illustrates their recognition of Jesus’ assertion of divine identity. The present tense ‘I am’ [ἐγώ εἰμι] reflects the divine name from Exodus 3:14, affirming a life that is above chronological constraints.
The qualified ‘I Am’ statements (‘I am the bread of life’, ‘I am the good shepherd’, etc.) disclose divine nature and purpose while asserting a unique claim to divine identity. Significantly, these proclamations are exclusive to Jesus in the New Testament. No apostle, prophet or ecclesiastical leader ever claims such words for themselves.
The incarnation and divine identity
The incarnation signifies the one authentic manifestation of divine identity inside human nature. Jesus possesses divine prerogatives, as he is genuinely God incarnate, rather than a human asserting deity. This theological principle has significant ramifications for comprehending pastoral ministry:
Christ’s dual divine-human nature establishes him as the singular mediator between God and humanity (Tm 1 2:5). His capacity to articulate as God and perform on behalf of humanity arises from his ontological nature as both divine and human. No other individual can assert this status.
In the incarnation, divine identity is not conferred upon human nature but rather unified with it. Jesus’ humanity persists authentically despite being conjoined with his divine essence (Date & Tuggy 2023:1). This maintains the separation between Creator and creature even within the person of Christ.
Christ’s function as mediator precludes all other claims to mediation. He alone can reconcile the divine and human realms, as he uniquely embodies both natures. Any human assertion of a mediatorial position inherently contends with Christ’s singular mission.
Implications for pastoral claims to divine status
Christ’s singular divine essence delineates distinct parameters for all other missions. The apostles, notwithstanding their remarkable vocation and supernatural abilities, continually dismiss any implication of divine status (Patterson 2025:39). Upon the crowds at Lystra attempting to venerate Paul and Barnabas as deities, their reaction is prompt and resolute, ‘We also are men, of like nature with you’ (Ac 14:15).
Peter’s response to Cornelius’ adoration illustrates the apostolic comprehension of appropriate limits: ‘Stand up; I too am a man’ (Ac 10:26). Even angels decline homage, directing it solely to God (Rv 22:9). If apostles and angels uphold these restrictions, how much more should modern pastors acknowledge the constraints of their vocation?
The New Testament model is clear. The authentic ministry functions through the transfer of divine authority rather than the usurpation of divine identity. Ministers convey God’s message, rather than speaking as God (Willard 2024:10). They exercise the authority of Christ, rather than their own divine authority. They function as under-shepherds to the Chief Shepherd, rather than as independent shepherds.
New Testament models of pastoral identity and authority
The apostolic pattern of derived authority
The New Testament offers explicit examples for comprehending authentic pastoral authority as demonstrated by the apostles (Smit 2017:87–88). Notwithstanding their remarkable vocation and distinctive position in ecclesiastical history, the apostles always portray themselves as servants and emissaries rather than divine entities.
In 2 Corinthians 4:5, Paul’s self-identification delineates the essential focus: ‘For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake’.
This assertion elucidates three essential facets of apostolic ministry. The message emphasises Christ, rather than the messenger; Christ assumes the role of Lord, not the minister, and ministers fulfil the function of slaves, not masters. Matthew 28:18–20 illustrates the operation of authority within authentic ministry through the apostolic commission. Jesus proclaims, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been conferred upon me’, thereafter commissioning the apostles to ‘hence proceed’. Authority resides with Christ; the apostles’ function is under delegation. They perform baptisms ‘in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’, rather than in their own names. Authority is representative, not intrinsic.
Peter’s instructions to elders
Initially, Peter 5:1–4 offers the most explicit New Testament direction regarding pastoral identity and power. Peter refers to ‘the seniors among you’ as ‘a fellow elder’, thus promoting equality rather than hierarchy among pastors. His directives delineate the appropriate limits of pastoral authority:
Pastors shepherd the congregation that belongs to God, not to themselves. The possessive relationship extends from God to the church, with pastors acting as stewards rather than proprietors. Ministry should be conducted ‘voluntarily, as God desires’, rather than through coercion or for self-interest. This omits the coercive power frequently associated with assertions of divine status. Elders should not ‘exercise authority over those entrusted to them but serve as exemplars to the congregation’. Leadership functions through ethical persuasion and selfless service, rather than by assertions of divine authority or unique spiritual standing. All pastoral ministry is ultimately answerable to ‘the great Shepherd’, who will ‘appear’ to assess and reward diligent service. This maintains Christ’s supreme authority over all ministerial endeavours.
Peter’s directives delineate the parameters for pastoral power while preserving its legitimacy (Youvan 2024b:4). Pastors possess genuine authority conferred by Christ’s commission; nonetheless, this authority functions within stringent theological boundaries that safeguard divine prerogatives.
Paul’s understanding of ministerial office
Paul’s works demonstrate a nuanced comprehension of ministerial authority, preserving both its legitimacy and its constraints. In 1 Corinthians 4:1, the apostles are characterised as ‘stewards of the mysteries of God’. The term ‘steward’ refers to a household manager who wields considerable authority while remaining answerable to the household owner (Jasir, Khan & Barghathi 2023:282).
A stewardship model with important implications
Stewards wield genuine authority within their domain of responsibility. Paul possesses apostolic power and anticipates compliance with his directives (1 Cor 14:37).
The authority of stewardship originates from the owner’s mandate, rather than from the steward’s intrinsic attributes. Paul’s authority derives from his missionary vocation, rather than from any personal divine standing. Stewards are obligated to report to their master. Paul recognises that ‘it is the Lord who judges me’ (1 Cor 4:4), remaining cognisant of his responsibility to divine authority. Apostolic authority functions within the parameters of service. Paul consistently designates himself as a ‘servant’ of Christ, underscoring servitude over autonomous authority (Naseri 2023:70–80).
Contemporary violations: When pastors cross divine boundaries
Direct appropriation of divine names
Modern Christianity has observed a growing number of pastors directly claiming divine titles and privileges for themselves (Brown 2023). These transgressions are categorised, each signifying a significant deviation from biblical ministry standards. The most flagrant instances involve preachers overtly asserting the divine appellation ‘I Am’ for themselves. A notable megachurch preacher asserted in a disseminated sermon series:
When I say, ‘I am God’, then I feel faith well up within my soul. And I see it well up in you, and I see the sick healed, and the blind see, and the dead raised […] You want to know how I feel? I never feel so good as when I say I am God. (Matthews 2008)
This assertion openly claims the divine authority of healing and depicts the pastor’s words as having creative potency.
These examples illustrate a basic misunderstanding regarding the essence of pastoral authority. Biblical service entails the proclamation of God’s word rather than embodying it. The differentiation is essential: Moses proclaimed, ‘Thus saith the Lord’, while preserving his human identity; these modern instances blur the line between divine utterance and human declaration.
Claims to revelatory authority
A second group encompasses pastors asserting continuous revelatory authority that places their statements alongside or superior to Scripture. Amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, a pastor claimed to have received direct divine revelation. He recounted that on a Friday night at 21:24, while he and his wife were listening to recorded messages, ‘suddenly, the word of the Lord came to me.’ He stated that he immediately recorded the message: ‘This disease called COVID-19 will be over much sooner than you think’ (Copeland 2020). The implied claim is that this pastor receives direct divine revelation regarding future events with authority akin to biblical prophecy.
Such claims create several theological problems. When pastors assert their statements as direct divine revelation, they create rival authorities alongside biblical revelation. This subverts the Reformation tenet of sola scriptura and engenders ambiguity regarding the origin of supreme spiritual power. Modern prophetic assertions frequently lack verifiable standards for validation, in contrast to biblical prophecy, which was substantiated through fulfilment and miraculous events. Congregants must unequivocally trust the pastor’s claim of divine connection. Assertions of direct divine revelation shield clergy from scrutiny or admonition. If their utterances possess divine authority, to doubt them is to question God himself.
Assertions of special anointing
A third category pertains to assertions of unique spiritual anointing that elevate pastors above other believers. A notable ministry asserts that its leader has a new anointing coupled with an insight into the revelation of God’s word, which is impacting the hearts of individuals globally (MacDonald 2021:70). Although not overtly asserting divinity, such terminology implies a distinct spiritual standing that surpasses conventional ministerial vocation. The theological issue resides in the suggestion that specific ministers have superior spiritual access or authority compared to all believers. This dual spiritual hierarchy mirrors pre-Reformation clericalism and contradicts the New Testament doctrine that all believers are priests.
The restoration of clerical hierarchy
These modern techniques successfully reinstate the hierarchical spiritual structure that the Reformation contested. Mediaeval Catholicism conferred upon priests a mediatorial role, establishing them as crucial intermediaries between God and the laity (Swanson 2016:4). Although modern Protestant translations employ varied terminology, the practical outcome is analogous: pastors assume the role of essential mediators instead of servant-leaders. When pastors assert divine authority or exclusive revelatory access, they undermine Christ’s position as the singular mediator between God and humanity (Osei-Acheampong 2024:168). Even if not overtly meant, such assertions effectively undermine Christ’s sufficiency. Adherents instructed to regard their pastor’s pronouncements as divine communication become reliant on human authority instead of cultivating a direct relationship with God through Scripture and prayer. Assertions of divine status or absolute authority foster an environment conducive to spiritual abuse (Isaac 2024:5). When pastors are unassailable and without reproach, the well-being of the church deteriorates, and individual believers may endure manipulation or coercion.
Theological analysis: The violation of biblical boundaries
The compromise of divine transcendence
When pastors assume heavenly titles or assert divine prerogatives, they profoundly undermine the biblical idea of divine transcendence. God’s transcendence encompasses not only his geographical separation from creation but also his ontological distinction from all created reality (Libby 2024:61). This dichotomy is crucial to Christian theology, as it upholds both divine majesty and human dignity.
The theological problem operates on multiple levels
Divine transcendence signifies that God’s essence is fundamentally distinct from that of created beings (Youvan 2024a:5). When individuals assert a divine identity, they either unjustly raise themselves to a divine rank or erroneously diminish God to a human level. Both options distort an accurate comprehension of God and humans. God’s transcendence encompasses his omniscience and authoritative revelation (Libby 2024:61). When pastors assert, they communicate with divine power; they appropriate the divine prerogative of ultimate truth pronouncement. This conduct generates conflicting sources of revelation and diminishes trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. Divine transcendence necessitates divine initiative in salvation (Johnson 2025:23). If humans can attain divine status by spiritual progression or a unique vocation, the need for divine grace and Christ’s redemptive work is called into question.
The undermining of Christ’s unique mediation
The most significant theological implication of pastoral divine claims is their effect on Christology, particularly on Christ’s singular role as mediator between God and humanity (Isetti, De Rachewiltz & Pechlaner 2025). Initially, Timothy 2:5 states, ‘For there is one God, and one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus’. This phrase underscores the singularity of Christ’s mediation (one mediator) and its foundation in his divine-human character. When pastors assert divine authority or position themselves as essential intermediaries between God and their congregants, they inherently rival Christ’s mediatorial role. Pastors who declare themselves ‘the voice of God’ for their era or contend that their utterances generate spiritual reality establish themselves as concurrent mediators alongside Christ. This contravenes the biblical tenet of Christ’s singular mediation. Congregants instructed to obtain divine truth chiefly through their pastor’s unique revelation may cultivate a reliance on human mediation instead of direct communion with God through Christ. Although pastors may not overtly assert parity with Christ, their assumption of divine prerogatives might undermine the recognition of Christ’s exclusive act by implying that divine mediation persists through human intermediaries.
The corruption of biblical anthropology
Pastoral assertions of divine status also distort the biblical comprehension of human nature and vocation (Louw 2020:4). Scripture depicts humans as fashioned in the image of God (Gn 1:27) yet preserving a distinct separation from divine essence. This image-bearing endows humans with distinct dignity and duty while maintaining their place as creatures.
The theological anthropology of scripture includes several key elements
Human value is derived from being made in the likeness of God, rather than from attaining divine status (Kent 2017:73). Efforts to surpass inherent constraints eventually diminish rather than elevate human dignity. Humans are designed for a relationship with God as creatures to Creator, rather than as equals to equals. Pastoral assertions of divine status pervert this essential link and may result in idolatrous veneration of human leaders. All individuals are answerable to heavenly authority. Assertions of divine status exclude pastors from standard accountability frameworks, perhaps leading to moral compromise or misconduct (Delgado 2019).
The ecclesiological consequences
The practice of pastoral divine appropriation significantly impacts church life and structure (Isetti et al. 2025). Biblical ecclesiology depicts the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27), with Christ serving as the head (Eph 1:22–23). All members, including leaders, operate as components of a cohesive entity rather than as autonomous authorities. When pastors claim divine status, several ecclesiological problems emerge. The church’s authority must derive from Christ through Scripture and leadership guided by the Spirit. Divine pastoral assertions create rival centres of authority that can supersede scriptural and communal judgement. Authentic worship is exclusively dedicated towards God. When pastors accept heavenly reverence or portray themselves as objects of particular devotion, corporate worship is tainted, and the glory of God is diminished. Biblical church discipline necessitates reciprocal accountability among congregants (Mt 18:15–20). Pastors asserting supernatural status evade discipline and accountability, jeopardising the church’s integrity and purity.
A Reformed response: Preserving divine transcendence and legitimate authority
The Reformation’s theological correctives
The 16th century Protestant Reformation tackled numerous concerns analogous to those represented by modern pastoral divine appropriation (Frame 2023:6). The theological insights of the Reformers offer significant advice for tackling contemporary issues while preserving authentic pastoral authority. This sacred name is never bestowed upon any being in Scripture, preserving the absolute distinction between divine and created beings (McGrath 2018:2). The Reformation tenet that Scripture alone constitutes the supreme religious authority directly challenges assertions of continuous divine revelation (Barrett 2016:33). Although God may offer counsel and enlightenment through multiple avenues, Scripture is the exclusive infallible source of divine truth. Pastoral instruction should be assessed according to biblical criteria rather than accepted solely on assertions of unique revelatory insight. The doctrine that Christ is the one mediator between God and humanity negates all rival mediatorial assertions (Barrett 2016:201). This does not negate authentic pastoral authority but situates it within Christ’s expansive mediatorial function rather than as a separate divine manifestation.
Luther’s (2011) theory asserts that all Christians possess equal access to God through Christ, hence abolishing the elevated clerical status that distinguishes certain believers from others. Pastors fulfil functional leadership tasks within the faith community instead of holding ontologically separate positions.
Calvin’s understanding of ministerial office
John Calvin’s theology offers valuable insights for comprehending genuine pastoral authority within appropriate theological parameters. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin differentiates between the authority of the pastoral position and the individual who holds that function (Calvin Institutes 4.3.1, 1960:1053–1054). Ministers function as conduits through which Christ exerts his authority inside the church. Authority is in Christ and is exercised through ministerial service although it does not transfer to the individual minister. Pastoral power derives from divine vocation and scriptural injunction, rather than from the pastor’s intrinsic attributes or spiritual accomplishments (Calvin, Institutes 4.3.1, 1960:1016–1017). This preserves the separation between Creator and created while legitimising the ministerial function.
Ministers are answerable to divine authority and ecclesiastical supervision. Assertions of divine status or absolute authority undermine accountability and jeopardise the well-being of the church. Pastors embody Christ’s power to the church although they do not become Christ or partake in his divine essence (Calvin, Institutes 4.3.1, 1960:1030–1031). The differentiation between representation and identification is essential for delineating appropriate boundaries.
Constructive guidelines for pastoral authority
Based on biblical teachings and Reformation ideas, numerous principles arise for the use of legitimate pastoral authority while upholding appropriate theological boundaries: Clergymen possess the authority to declare and implement God’s word as disclosed in Scripture. This authority is genuine and substantial, functioning through the diligent exposition and application of biblical truth rather than assertions of fresh revelation. In accordance with the principles outlined in 1 Peter 5:1–4, pastors wield rightful power in nurturing and guiding their congregations. This authority functions through servant leadership and ethical exemplification rather than coercion or assertions of exceptional position.
In traditions that acknowledge pastoral authority over sacraments, such authority functions through divine institutions and ecclesiastical commissions rather than through individual divine status (Slater 2019). Ministers offer sacraments in the name of Christ, not in their own. Pastors may implement church discipline as an aspect of their pastoral duties although they must do so in accordance with biblical norms and within suitable accountability frameworks (Chivasa 2017). Assertions of divine authority might undermine disciplinary procedures and result in exploitation.
Practical safeguards against divine appropriation
Churches can adopt many pragmatic strategies to avert the pastoral usurpation of divine prerogatives while preserving robust ministerial authority: Churches ought to formulate explicit doctrinal declarations about divine transcendence, the singular mediation of Christ and the constraints of pastoral authority. These boundaries should be consistently instructed and enforced. Effective accountability mechanisms must guarantee that pastoral authority functions within defined boundaries. This may encompass elder boards, denominational supervision or other frameworks capable of addressing theological or practical issues. Congregational education in biblical theology and ecclesiastical history can assist Christians in identifying erroneous pastoral assertions and responding appropriately. An understanding of Reformation ideals offers a distinctly beneficial viewpoint. Church worship needs to continuously focus on God rather than on human leaders. Practices that promote clergy to undue prominence should be eschewed or rectified.
Conclusion
The assumption of divine names and prerogatives by modern pastors signifies a significant deviation from biblical Christianity and Reformation theology. Such acts transgress essential theological limits, undermine Christ’s exclusive mediation and re-establish the hierarchical clericalism that devout Christians have traditionally resisted.
The solution lies not in completely relinquishing pastoral authority, but in situating it within appropriate theological frameworks that uphold both divine transcendence and valid ministerial function. The biblical paradigm depicts pastors as servant-leaders who wield genuine authority through divine calling and biblical mandate while upholding their human status and accountability to heavenly authority.
The theological insights of the Reformation offer significant advice for tackling modern issues. The doctrines of sola scriptura, solus Christus and the priesthood of all believers delineate explicit limits that avert pastoral overreach while preserving robust church leadership. Calvin’s conception of ministerial office as instrumental, derived, accountable and representative provides a constructive framework for pastoral power that respects both divine majesty and human dignity.
Ultimately, the concern is not about the authority of pastors; Scripture delineates valid ministry tasks and obligations. The inquiry is whether pastoral power functions within suitable theological limits that uphold God’s transcendence, respect Christ’s singular mediation and foster congregational well-being.
When pastors renounce unwarranted assertions of divine status and accept their vocation as servant-leaders under Christ’s authority, they exemplify the Reformation ideal of ministerial office that serves rather than dominates, represents rather than supplants and directs attention beyond itself to the divine truth it proclaims. This ministry acknowledges both the calling of God and the individuals served, fostering an environment conducive to genuine spiritual development and biblical communal life.
The contemporary church’s vitality is largely contingent upon reinstating this biblical equilibrium. As cultural pressures persist in undermining established authority structures and religious assertions vie for public attention, the inclination towards pastoral overreach may intensify. The church may preserve a true ministry that respects divine transcendence and offers effective spiritual direction solely via a steadfast dedication to biblical theology and reformation principles.
The ramifications are substantial. Clerics who conflate human and divine identities not only violate religious principles but also jeopardise the well-being of those they are meant to serve. In contrast, when pastoral ministry functions within appropriate biblical boundaries, it transforms into a potent vehicle of divine grace that edifies Christians and honours the God whose authority it embodies without asserting ownership.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author declares that no financial or personal relationships inappropriately influenced the writing of this article.
Author’s contribution
N.M. is the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Barrett, M., 2016, God’s word alone – The authority of Scripture: What the reformers taught… and why it still matters, Zondervan Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Brown, R.E., 2023, Critical meaning of the Bible, The: How a modern reading of the Bible challenges Christians, the church, and the churches, Paulist Press, New York, NY.
Calvin, J., 1960, Institutes of the Christian religion: Institutio religionis christianae…, J.T. MacNeill (ed.), Westminster Press, Translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia, PA.
Chivasa, N., 2017, ‘Handling of pastoral misconduct and discipline: Evidence from the Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe church’, HTS Theological Studies 73(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i3.4518
Copeland, K., 2020, Quotes. Zedekiah list, viewed 12 April 2025, from https://www.kcm.org/[specific-page.
Croft, B. & Butler, B., 2015, Oversee God’s people: Shepherding the flock through administration and delegation, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Date, C.M. & Tuggy, D., 2023, Is Jesus human and not divine?: A debate, Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR.
Delgado, F., 2019, Believers but not followers: The unstoppable misconduct and neglect of Christians outside ministries duties, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA.
Frame, J.M., 2023, On theology: Explorations and controversies, Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA.
Isaac, E., 2024, ‘Understanding spiritual abuse: Incentives to preserve spiritual power & reducing abusive experiences’, Doctoral dissertation, Florida International University.
Isetti, G., De Rachewiltz, M. & Pechlaner, H., 2025, ‘The new normal in pastoral care: The enduring legacy of media appropriation in the post-pandemic Roman Catholic Church’, Religions 16(1), 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16010090
Jasir, M., Khan, N.U. & Barghathi, Y., 2023, ‘Stewardship theory of corporate governance and succession planning in family businesses of UAE: Views of the owners’, Qualitative Research in Financial Markets 15(2), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-08-2021-0135
Johnson, Jr, A.J., 2025, ‘Faith alone is essential for salvation’, International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM) 13(3), 23–60. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v13i03.th01
Kent, B., 2017, ‘In the image of God: Human dignity after the fall’, in R. Debes (ed.), Dignity: A history, pp. 73–98, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Libby, M.S., 2024, ‘The nature of beauty and its objective manifestation serve as evidence of the God described in the Bible’, Master’s thesis, Liberty University.
Louw, D.J., 2020, ‘Divine designation in the use of the Bible: The quest for an “all-powerful God” (the omnipotence of God) in a pastoral ministry of human empowerment’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76(4), a5961. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v76i4.5961
Luther, M., 2011, The freedom of a Christian, viewed 15 April 2025, from Lulu.com.
MacDonald, S., 2021, ‘Spirit-anointing and New Testament church leadership: Are our church leaders uniquely anointed’, Themelios 46(1), 70–78.
Matthews, D., 2008, ‘Jim Jones’ followers enthralled by his skills as a speaker’, CNN, 13 November, viewed 18 April 2025, from https://prezi.com/7m9dmqhxvwt5/jonestown-massacre-powerpoint/.
McGrath, A.E. (ed.), 2018, Theology: The basic readings, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Naseri, C., 2023, ‘The authority of service and the solidarity of service in Luke 22: 24–27’, Cogito-Multidisciplinary Research Journal 4, 79–98.
Oliver, E. & Oliver, W.H., 2019, ‘God as one’, HTS Theological Studies 75(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i1.4959
Osei-Acheampong, D.T., 2024, ‘A priestly Christology: A Biblical-theological investigation of Christ’s priesthood’, E-Journal of Religious and Theological Studies 10(5), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.38159/erats.20241055
Patterson, A.L., 2025, The impact of modern-day apostles on church leadership, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA.
Slater, J., 2019, ‘The Catholic church in need of de-clericalisation and moral doctrinal agency: Towards an ethically accountable hierarchical leadership’, HTS Theological Studies 75(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i4.5446
Smit, P.B., 2017, ‘Authority in the New Testament and the New Testament’s authority’, Ecclesiology 13(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1163/17455316-01301006
Swanson, R.N., 2016, ‘Apostolic successors: Priests and priesthood, bishops, and episcopacy in medieval western Europe’, in G. Peters & C.C. Anderson (eds.), A companion to priesthood and holy orders in the middle ages, pp. 4–42, Brill, Leiden, Boston.
Willard, D., 2024, Hearing God: Developing a conversational relationship with God, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Youvan, D.C., 2024a, Beyond boundaries: Understanding God as both transcendent and immanent in creation, ResearchGate, Berlin.
Youvan, D.C., 2024b, Discerning the papacy: A biblical and historical examination of Peter’s authority in the early church, ResearchGate, Berlin.
| 
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
