Leadership In The Early Church

Thinking maturely about the Christian faith
Search

// you’re reading...
Theology

Leadership In The Early Church

By Rowland Croucher and others ⋅ January 5, 2003 ⋅ Post a comment
Subject: Ecclesiastical governance
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 07:10:50 GMT
From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

G'day Greg and anyone else who has tuned in to this thread.

I have takenn some time out fro this discussion to  check some sources
and inform myself better abot these issues. I must concede that the
evidece for Bishops, Priests and Deacons as separate and virtually
universal orders of ministry is both stronger and earlier than I had
thought. But having said that, I was unable to find any academic
theologian or church historian who arged that these orders of ministry
were established by the Apoostles and have retained their essential
character without development to the present day (even in the Oriental
Orthodox part of the Church).

Although I consulted several sources, the one I found most useful is a
book by Kevin Giles, and Australian Anglican Priest, in 1989. The
title is "Patterns of ministry among the firt Christians", published
by Collin Dove. The book is the published verion of Kevin's PhD
thesis. It should be available in church bookstores and australian
university and college libraries, and I commend it to anyone who wants
to read more on this subject. Giles makes extensive use of sources
including the New Testament, 1 Clement, and the Didache (1st century),
Ignatius, Poolyccarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas,
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian (2d century), and Eusebius (3rd
century).

In respect of our discussions, Kevin states early in his book that
"In churches with an episcopal church order, it is traditionally
maintained that the threefold order of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons
stems directly from the apostles. ... Thi position can no longer be
honestly supported. ... The first references to it are found early in
the second century, and then in a form not known today." (p.27).

"In the Didache (15:1) as in Philippians ((15:1) we hear of Bishoops
and Deacons, but not of elders. These offices are to be elected by the
Church and are seen as the successors of the pprophets and teachers.
The episle designated 1 Clement is closer to the Pastorals. We find
here a council of elders and also mention of Bishops and deacons.
Clement makes the point that the apsotles "appointed their first
converts, testing them by the spirit, to be Bishops and Deacons" (1
Clement 42:4-5) ... It proobably was the apostles' practise to appoint
the leaders of the frst house-churches, and later these people came to
be known as  Bishops and Deacons." (p.41)
Giles argues elsewhere that the designation of  the leaders of the
housee churches as bishops and deacons makes more sense of Philippians
1:1 and the references i the pastoral epistles than does the notion
that thee titlesrefer to orders of ministry. It would also explaini
the way some other amongst the earliest sources, such as the Shepherd
of Hermas (Sim 9:27) seem to regard hospitality as the primary
characteristic of a good bishop.

Giles points out that the letters of Ignatius give us the first
mention of the three orders of ministry. Hee equates the Bishops with
God, the council of presbyters with the Apostles, and the diaconate
with the serving minisstry of Christ. (Mag 6:1, Trall 2:2-3, 3:1, Sm
8:2).
"Ignatius, in asserting the authorit of the bishop, never uses the
argument frm apostolc succession. He does not claim to be appointed by
an apostle, nor to be a successor to the apostles. The elders are the
successors, so far as he is concerned. The grounds for the authority
he [Ignatius] claims is propheic inspiration. (pp 46-7).
Giles also points out that the Ignatian letters are generally dated
late 1st century, but there are also suggestions that they may date to
the end of the 2ndcentury and be ascribed to Ignatius precisely to
validaate  the later forms of ministry that had developed. The Roman
Catholic theologian Eduard Schillebeeckx is one who promotes this
view. Another view against Ignatius as a reliable source is promoted
byBH Streeton, who argued that his immense ego and the stress of his
impending martyrdom caused Ignatius to write abot things the way he
wished them to be, rater than as they actually were.

In regard to Deacons, the first person of whom that title is used is
of Phoebe (Romans 16:1). There is no clear distinction in the NT, or
even in the early church, between male and female deacons. Even
Chrysostom, in hiis homily on  1 Timothy 3:8ff, says with reference to
verse 11: "Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but
it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to
interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the
office of Deacon.." (see more on this homily below).
Giles differs from Chrysostom, in that he does not think that the
people described as diakonoi/h  in the NT were members of an order of
Deacons, but rqather those who performed  the functions of service in
the church. In a sense, all Christians were diakonoi/h. Philippians
1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8-13 are the only places where somethinig
resembling an order could be described, but even there the references
make more sense if they refer to roles within the house churches
rather than universal orders of ministry.

With reference to elders/presbuteroi, Giles has the following to say:
Only once in the literature surveyed do we find mention of elders
'preaching and teaching' (1 Timothy 5:17). Nowhere in the early period
is presiding at the Euchrist associated with the work of elders. In
the didache it is allowed that prophets may assuume this honour
(10:7), and in the Ignatian writings it is held that it is normally
the Bishhop's privelege (Phil 4:1, Sm 8:2, Eph 13:1). Later, when the
Eucharist  comes to be seen as a sacrificial offering and the
president as a priests, it is the Bishop who is first spoken of in
sacerdotal terms. Not until the fourth century do elders come to be
seen as Priests who preside over the Eucharist. (page 96).

Some further relevant quote from patristic sources:

Chrysostom seems too support the argument that there was  little, if
any, distinction between the roles of Bishops and Presbyters in the
early church.
John Chrysostom, Homily XI on 1 Timothy 3:8ff
Discoursing of Bishops, and having described their character, and the
qualities which they ought to possess, and having passed over the
order of Presbyters, he proceeds to that of Deacons. The reason of
this omission was, that between Presbyters and Bishops there was no
great difference. Both had undertaken the office of Teachers and
Presidents in the Church, and what he has said concerning Bishops is
applicable to Presbyters. For they are only superior in having the
power of ordination, and seem to have no other advantage over
Presbyters.

Clement of Rome seems to argue _against_ ordination.
Clement of Rome Book 6 chapter XIII
Those, then, also now, who have exercised themselves in the Lord's
commandments, and lived perfectly and gnostically according to the
Gospel, may be enrolled in the chosen body of the apostles. Such an
one is in reality a presbyter of the Church, and a true minister
(deacon) of the will of God, if he do and teach what is the Lord's;
not as being ordained by men, nor regarded righteous because a
presbyter, but enrolled in the presbyterate because righteous.

Tertullian is the first writer to speak of Presbyters in sacerdoal
terms, but he does so from a standpoint that presbyters are caled out
from amongst a priesthood of all believers. He specifically argues
against different rules about chastity and remarriage for Priests and
lay people.
Tertullian "Exhortation to chastity" chapter 7
There is a caution in Leviticus: "My priests shall not pluralize
marriages." I may affirm even that that is plural which is not once
for all. That which is not unity is number. In short, after unity
begins number. Unity, moreover, is everything which is once for all.
But for Christ was reserved, as in all other points so in this also,
the "fulfilling of the law." Thence, therefore, among us the prescript
is more fully and more carefully laid down, that they who are chosen
into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage; which rule is
so rigidly observed, that I remember some removed from their office
for digamy. But you will say, "Then all others may (marry more than
once), whom he excepts." Vain shall we be if we think that what is not
lawful for priests is lawful for laics. Are not even we laics priests?
It is written: "A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father,
hath He made us." It is the authority of the Church, and the honour
which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order,
which has established the difference between the Order and the laity.
Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical
Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But
where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each
individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons
with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the
Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says.39
Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in
cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of
a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the fight of a priest.

In conclusion, although I have learnt some new things and had an
useful look at some of the paatristic sources on this subject, I am
not convinced that the church in the second and third centuries
universally knew Bishops, Priests and deacons with the same order as
we have today.

I am convinced that in theology, as in all human endeavours, humanity
is moving forward, not backward, and so I have no oproblem in
principle with recognising that the church took several hundred years,
even under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to develop and universally
accept the optimum model of ecclesiastical governance.

cheers

N+