Following Ignatius
Ignatius of Antioch was one of the earliest Christian writers following the apostles. He died sometime around 110 AD in Rome. After being arrested in Antioch, he was led to Rome through Asia Minor. On the way, he wrote seven letters, six to churches and one to Polycarp.
Ignatius was very interested in the gospel. Ignatius’ gospel was a literal interpretation of the historical events and persons surrounding the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and continuing ministry of Jesus Christ. His desire was to see Christians living in harmony with the one gospel.
In order to exhort Christians toward harmony with the one gospel, Ignatius also encouraged them toward a three-part church leadership structure that included one bishop, multiple elders, and multiple deacons per city.
Evangelicals are proud of the fact that we follow Scripture and not traditions such as those espoused by Ignatius. But, do we follow Ignatius over Scripture? You can judge for yourself…
By being subject to the bishop and the elders, you might be sanctified concerning all things. (Ign. Eph. 2.2b)
Let us make every effort then not to oppose the bishop in order that we might submit ourselves to God. (Ign. Eph. 5.3b)
Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united with him, neither by himself nor by the apostles, in the same way you must do nothing without the biship and the elders. (Ign. Mag. 7.1a)
The one who does anything without the bishop, the elders, and the deacons, such a man is not clean in his conscience. (Ign. Trall. 7.2b)
Let that Eucharist be considered proper which is either by the bishop or by the one he permits. (Ign. Smyr. 8.1b)
It is not proper to baptize or to have a “love feast” without the bishop. (Ign. Smyr. 8.2b)
The one who honors the bishop is honored by God; the one who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves (worships?) the devil. (Ign. Smyr. 9.1b)
It is fitting for men and women who marry to make there union by the approval of the bishop. (Ign. Pol. 5.2b)
These are only a few of the passages. I left out passages where Ignatius said that same thing to different churches. So, according to Ignatius, believers should do nothing with the consent of the bishop and elders. In fact, those who do anything without their leaders obviously have impure motives (unclean conscience). No one should have a love feast (Eucharist, communion) or baptize without the bishop’s approval. No one should get married without the bishop’s approval. If believers stay within the bishop’s will, then they are sanctified. If they move outside the bishop’s will, then they are in trouble, actually going against God himself to serve the devil.
Change “bishop” to “senior pastor”, and I think this fits very closely with many modern teachings concerning church leadership. You can especially find these types of teachings under topic of spiritual “covering”. But, I don’t think you’ll find these in Scripture.
Are we willing to admit that in many of our leadership concepts and practices in the church we follow Ignatius more closely than we follow Scripture?
A good reputation among outsiders…
According to Paul, the church should recognize leaders based on several characteristics. One of those characteristics is a good reputation among those who are outside the church (1 Tim. 3:7). Recently, Phil at “Square No More“, took part in a pagan festival called Pagan Pride (see his post “A Christian Presenter at Pagan Pride?!“). In response to his presentation, Phil received a letter from a pagan couple. This is the text of that letter (which comes from his post called “A response to pagan pride“):
Pastor Phil,
I just wanted to thank you again for the kind and thoughtful discussion you moderated at pagan pride yesterday. I was so impressed that you managed to neither soft pedal or market away the true differences of belief involved or make those differences excessively confrontational. Usually interfaith dialog between any of the, let’s say, ‘Abrahamic’ faiths and other religions is either so diplomatic that it is dishonest about the true nature of their basic differences, or so focused on the differences that they appear as you aptly put it ‘mean and judgmental’ Somehow you managed to find a middle course between these extremes and I have seldom seen this done with such grace.
But but you also avoided two other mistakes (I believe) Christians commonly make in witnessing their faith. 1. You did not speak as if we non-christians had never heard this message before and 2. You did not speak to us non-christians as if we were in need of rescue. I know you likely believe we *are* in need of rescue, but that you were respectful enough to not explicitly condescend shows a good heartedness and sensitivity I am not used to encountering among evangelicals. This is important because this attitude conveys that you are aware that many non-christians are just as comfortable and assured of their beliefs as you are, and just as contented in their lives and full of spiritual hope as well. That is, we are as committed to our stuff as you are to yours. Too many Christians fail to recognize this and this tends to shut down discussion right from the start.
The sort of discussion we had yesterday is also encouraging in so far as the discourse between Christians and non-christians has become increasingly and dangerously polarized, toxic and political. That you have drawn such fire for even speaking with neo-pagans is yet another perplexing proof of it. It just seems so un-Christ-like to condemn you for ministering to neo-pagans, after all, that is exactly what Christ would have done. If there is to be any peace at all and if the political fiber of our Country and Constitution is to hold together we need to continually remind each other that whatever we may believe we are NOT enemies.
Christian Day was speaking with my wife after the discussion yesterday and told her how kind, generous and basically samaritan-like you and your people have been in the Salem community. And in this respect I think we have at least one common belief: argument and discussion is worthwhile and even fun, but it is far more important to persuade by one’s example of loving kindness.
The whole thing made Debbie and I feel great. We’ve been talking about it quite a lot. We will likely never share your congregation’s religious beliefs, but we hope you will consider us allies all the same.
Peace,
George Popham and Debbie Fields Popham
What kind of reputation do you have among outsiders? Do they recognize both your conviction and a lack of judgmental attitude on your part? Or do you come across as too diplomatic or judgmental? Or, do you even spend enough time among “outsiders” for them to know you?
If you decide to spend time among those outside the church, realize that it could get you in trouble with some who consider themselves righteous – it happened to Phil, and it happened to Jesus too.
The changing role of the "layman"
Everett Ferguson edited a book called Church, Ministry, and Organization in the Early Church Era (New York: Garland Publishing, 1993). The book is a collection of articles concerning early church leadership.
One chapter, “The Role of the Layman in the Ancient Church,” was originally a speech given by George Huntston Williams to “the working party gathered by the Department on the Laity of the World Council of Churches, New Haven, Connecticut, July 21, 1957”. In this article, Huntston discusses the changing role of the layman in the early church.
First, Huntston defines what he means by “laity”:
Our understanding of the laity will be shaped, not primarily in terms of ordination and the lack thereof, nor of theological education and the relative want thereof, but rather in terms of the Church gathered for worship, instruction, and deliberation (ekklesia) over against the equally important “church†diffused or scattered or seeded in the work-a-day world (diaspora) as leaven in the lump (not as wheat among tares!). On this view even the ordained cleric is, in a sense, in his action as husbandman and citizen a ‘laic.’ (pg 273-274)
Thus, Huntston is differentiating between those who remain in one place (“laity”), and those who are scattered and move around from place to place.
While I don’t use the term “laity” in its traditional sense, it is a valid scriptural term. The Greek word behind the English “laity” simply means “people”. It is the term used when the church is referred to as the “people of God”. Thus, as Huntston says, all Christians are “laity” in this sense.
How did the “role of the layman” change in the early church? Well, Huntston describes three different states (although I would assume there would be some overlap):
At three points is the position of the laity markedly different in the ante- and the post-Nicene epochs. In the very first days of the Church’s self-consciousness as a new people set apart, the whole of the Church as the laos tou theou [people of God] was seen over against the people of the old covenant, while the baptismal recruits were understood to have entered into a priestly kingdom, neither Jew nor Gentile, no longer in bondage to the world about them, yet servants of the King to come. Then, with the maturation of subapostolic Christianity, this historico-thoelogical conviction made room for the functional differentiation between the clerical officers of the priestly people of God and the unordained faithful in a process which was completed before the end of the persecutions and which was indeed abetted by them. The bishop had become an awesome monarch… Finally, with the conversion of Constantine and the Christianization of his office, Christianity in the period of the great councils found itself contrasting not clergy and laity as in the ante-Nicene period, but clergy and the chief of the laity, namely, the Christian emperor. (pg. 274-275)
According to Huntston, the role changed from a focus on the service (ministry) of all people of God, to a focus on the “ordained” people of God, to a focus on what he calls “the imperious royal-priestly claims of the Christianized head of state”.
I think other historians have made similar claims. The questions for us to consider are the following: Is this development normal and natural and should we continue developing the role and responsibilities of believers as times and customs dictate? If so, how do we determine how the roles of the people of God change? If not, how do we determine which “state” is preferred?
Leadership is not decision-making
When we study the idea of leadership in Scripture, we find that leadership in the church is not decision-making, and decision-making is not leadership. When we study the idea of leadership in today’s church, we find that leadership is primarily about decision-making.
Ready almost any book on ecclesiology or church leadership, and you’ll read about various forms of “church government” or “church polity”. You’ll read about the episcopal form, in which a bishop (or senior pastor) makes decisions for the church. You’ll also read about the presbyterian form, in which a group of people (elders, pastors, staff, or deacons) make decisions for the church. Finally, you’ll read about the congregational form, in which the church itself makes the decisions.
But, when we search Scripture to determine who should make decisions for the church, we come up short. Scripture does not deal with the concept of making decisions for the church. Yes, we find church leadership in the church: elders, bishops, pastors, deacons, teachers, etc. But, these are not mentioned in the context of making decisions. However, we do find that decisions are made in Scripture.
In Acts 6, the people come to the apostles with a problem. Some of the widows are not receiving food, while others are receiving food. The apostles did not make decisions for the people. Instead, the apostles tell the people to take care of the situation. The apostles lead by suggesting characteristics of those who should serve these widows, but they do not make the decision for the people.
In Acts 15, a major question is brought before the apostles: should Gentile Christians become Jews – i.e. should they be circumcised and required to keep the law. The decision that would be made at this time would affect the church for all ages. Who made the decisions? The apostles? Yes, they were part of the decision-making process. The elders? Yes, they were part of the decision-making process. Others? Yes, even Barnabas and Paul were allowed to take part even though they were part of the church in Antioch. In fact, it seems that the entire church took part in the decision-making process. But, certainly the entire church would not have been considered leaders.
In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul writes to the church in Corinth about a “brother” who was living an immoral life. The church was doing nothing about this situation, and Paul admonished them for it. Paul told them what he thought they should do about this situation, but who was responsible for making the decision to actually do it? Apparently, Paul left that up to the church.
In each case, the “leaders” involved guided and taught and admonished and exhorted, but they did not make decisions for other people. In fact, in 3 John, we see an example of a “leader” who does make decisions for people, and John speaks of him (Diotrephes) negatively.
So, if leadership is not about decision-making in Scripture, then what is leadership? Leadership is service – serving people. Service should be the start of the discussion about church leadership, and service should be the end of the discussion about church leadership. Teaching is about service. Sherpherding is about service. Overseeing (watching out for) is about service. Leadership is about service. Those who do not serve are not leaders in the scriptural sense.
When we see discussions about church government (polity) and its different forms, we should recognize that these questions and forms and structures arose after the New Testament was written. For example, it is from Ignatius that we learn that the bishop should make decisions for the church and that the church should do nothing without the approval of the bishop.
Now, this does not mean that scriptural leaders (servants) do not have influence concerning decisions. They do and they should. Assuming that we have recognized leaders because of their spiritual maturity and their service to others (and this is a HUGE assumption that is often not true), then we should ask for their opinions, and we should often follow what they say (Heb. 13:17). Leaders, on the other hand, must recognize that we can selfishly use our influence to get our own way – even when the outcome doesn’t really matter.
Since they are more spiritually mature (we’re assuming, remember), then leaders should be the first to give up their rights for the rights of others. Leaders should be the first to consider others as more important than themselves and, therefore, to consider the opinion of others as more important than their own opinion. When leaders are concerned about a decision, then they influence that decision through service, teaching, admonishment, exhortation, but not by attempting to exercising authority – that authority belongs only to the one head of the church. Leaders must be willing to serve all, and allow Christ to control the decision-making.
But, that’s not what we find today. Instead, when people talk about leadership in the church, they talk about decision-making. Perhaps, we need to stop trying to make decisions, and start serving. If a decision has to be made (and make sure that it actually HAS to be made), then offer your opinion, teach, admonish, exhort, etc. Then, allow the ones affected by the decision to make that decision.
To do that, of course, we’ll have to find leaders who are willing to serve only.
Scripture… As We Live It #20
Here is the 20th installment of “Scripture… As We Live It“:
I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out congratulating him for being such a good leader, by making decisions and exercising his rightful authority as a leader of the church. (3 John 9-10 re-mix)
What kind of leader?
I enjoy reading Brant Hansen’s blog “Letters from Kamp Krusty“, primarily because I love satire. His latest post, “LeaderMan vs. Servant Leader“, is an excellent comparison of different types of leaders.
In his post, Brant compares “LeaderMan” to a “Servant Leader”. “LeaderMan” represents the person who leads from position. “Servant Leader” represents the person who leads from relationship. Here are some of the ways that Brant compares and contrasts these two leaders:
LeaderMan: You almost feel you know his family, because he’s your Leader
Servant Leader: You allow him to influence you, because you know his family
———-
LeaderMan: Loves the idea of the Gospel, and the idea of The Church
Servant Leader: Loves God and the actual individual people God brings across his path
———-
LeaderMan: A great speaker, but self-described as, “Not really a people person.”
Servant Leader: Makes himself a people person
———-
LeaderMan: Helps you find where God is leading you in his organization
Servant Leader: Helps you find where God is leading you
———-
LeaderMan: Gets together with you to talk about his vision
Servant Leader: Just gets together with you
———-
LeaderMan: A visionary who knows what the future looks like
Servant Leader: Knows what your kitchen looks like
———-
LeaderMan: Resents “sheep stealing”
Servant Leader: Doesn’t get the “stealing” part, since he doesn’t own anyone to begin with
———-
LeaderMan: Invests time in you, if you are “key people”
Servant Leader: Wastes time with you
———-
LeaderMan: Leads because of official position
Servant Leader: Leads in spite of position
These are just a few of Brant’s comparisons and contrasts. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with the term “leader”; it is not a pejorative term in Scripture. Similarly, in Scripture, the terms “servant” and “leader” are intricately woven together. Scripture does not know of a leader who is not a servant.
Also, no one falls into one extreme or the other. But, I think lists like these are beneficial in helping us determine how we generally lead people.
Clergy bias in NT translations
Is there a clergy bias in our NT translations? That’s one question that Suzanne at “Better Bibles Blog” considers in her post “The Apostle Titus” where she consideres the Greek term ἀπόστολος (apostolos) in 2 Corinthians 8:23 –
As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker for your benefit. And as for our brothers, they are messengers (ἀπόστολοι – apostoloi) of the churches, the glory of Christ. (2 Corinthians 8:23 ESV)
None of the English translations that I checked (except for Young’s Literal Translation), translates ἀπόστολος (apostolos) as “apostle”. Of course, “messenger” is a valid translation, as is “representative” – which would probably tell us what the original authors means by the term “apostle”.
This is how Suzanne concludes her short post:
Bill now wants to know, “In short: is there a clergy-bias in our NT translation? And more importantly, when will it end?”
IMO there is bias regarding the use of words like “those who rule” “bishop” “church” and so on, so yes there could well be bias here.
I agree with Suzanne. There is a clergy bias in our NT translations. Do you agree? If so, what do we do about it?
Polycarp to Presbyters
In the last few years, as I’ve been studying the history of the church, I have become very interested in the writings of the apostolic fathers – those Christians who lived and wrote soon after the death of the apostles. When they wrote about the church, they often diverged in their opinions – especially when it comes to church leadership.
Sometime around 110 AD, Ignatius was being taken from Antioch to Rome to be executed. On the way, he wrote seven letters – six letters to churches and one to Polycarp, who he addressed as the bishop of the church in Antioch. A few years later, Polycarp wrote a letter to the church in Phillipi.
In his letters, Ignatius focused on the authority of the bishops and the presbyters. But, Polycarp focused on another aspect of the life of Christian leaders. This is what he wrote to the Christians in Phillipi:
And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those who have been misled, being concerned about all the sick, and not neglecting a widow, an orphan, or a poor person, but always “providing for that which is good in the sight of God and man;” abstaining from all anger, partiality, and unrighteous judgment; staying far away from all covetousness, not hastily believing anything against anyone, not being abrupt in judgment, knowing that we are all debtors to sin. (Pol., Phil., 6.1)
As an elder, I think it is interesting to see this exhortation from Polycarp. Of course, this is powerful because it aligns with what Scripture says about elders, as well as all followers of Jesus Christ. May we all take Polycarps exhortation seriously, and exhort one another to live in a way (like this) that brings glory to God.
And he gave… (Ephesians 4:11)
From talking with several people, reading many books on the subject, and perusing blog posts about leadership, I think I have a view of Ephesians 4:11 that is a minority view. As a reminder, Ephesians 4:11 says:
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers… (Ephesians 4:11 ESV)
I’ve written about this passage previously in several blog posts, including “Ephesians 4:11 and the Five-Fold Ministry” (and the associate series on Ephesians 4:7-16, which continues to be one of my most read series) and “Spiritual Gifts – Ephesians 4:11” (and the associated series on spiritual gifts).
As we begin to think about this verse again, we should start by reading it in its context:
But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Ephesians 4:7-16 ESV)
In this passage, verses 7-10 point out that Jesus has gifted all of his followers according to his grace. Similarly, verses 13-16 point out that all of Jesus’ followers have the same goal – maturity in Christ – and all must exercise their gifts in order for the body to build itself up in love. Thus, except for verses 11-12, it appears that this passage is about the gifted of the entire body of Christ.
However, verses 11-12 – and especially verse 11 – is usually interpreted to mean that only certain gifted individuals are given for the equipping of the body for works of service. That is, Jesus specifically gives apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers to do a work that none others within the body can and a work that none other are supposed to do – equipping. This view leads to seeing these four (or five, depending on interpretation) types of gifted individuals as being “specially” gifted within the body. Sometimes, these four (or five) are even called “offices” in the church.
In this post, I’m going to suggest an alternate view – a view that I think better aligns with the context of this passage and with other teachings in Scripture about spiritual gifts and gifted individuals.
Instead of reading the four (or five) gifted individuals as a special type of gifting and the only ones who are called to “equip” the church, I read this list as a sample of listed individuals. Paul could have used any gifted individual in his list in Ephesians 4:11, because all gifted followers of Jesus are necessary for equipping and edifying the body of Christ. Thus, the following phrase would have been just as correct:
And he gave the servants, the healers, the givers, the tongues speakers and interpreters, to equip the saints for the work of ministry…
While this sounds strange to our ears – being accustomed to hearing the other gifts as special offices in the church – it seems completely in line with scriptural teaching about spiritual gifts.
For example, notice 1 Corinthians 12:28:
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:28 ESV)
First, Paul easily shifts from gifted individuals (apostles, prophets, teachers) to the gifts themselves (miracles, healing, helping, administrating, tongues). Paul easily makes this same shift in Romans 12:6-8, listing both gifts (prophecy, service) and gifted individuals (the one who teaches, the one who exhorts, the one who gives, the one who leads, the one who does acts of mercy).
Second, notice that Paul’s ordered list in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (above) does not include the same “necessary offices” as the list in Ephesians 4:11. Specifically, Paul does not mention evangelists (or the gift of evangelism) or pastors (or the gifts of shepherding) to the Corinthians at all. This seems strange if Paul thought these were two of the necessary spiritual gifts for the church to be equipped for service.
Also, consider the follow passage from 1 Corinthians 12:22-25:
On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Corinthians 12:22-25 ESV)
Here, instead of arguing that some “gifted officer” are necessary to equip the body, Paul does just the opposite. He says that those members of the body that seem weaker (less gifted?) are actually indispensable. Again, as in Ephesians 4:7-10 and 13-16, Paul emphasizes the importance for the entire body of Christ to work together to build itself up. Even more interesting, Paul says that God himself has given greater honor to those members of the body that seem to lack it. Could it be that in interpreting Ephesians 4:11 as a list of “offices” that we are honoring the wrong people – at least, not the ones that God honors?
Taking all of this evidence together, I believe that Ephesians 4:11 was not intended as a list of specially gifted individuals who alone can equip the church for service. Instead, I believe that Ephesians 4:11 represents a sample of gifted individuals, much like we see in Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, and 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, none of which include all of the gifts because they are all meant as samples of spiritual gifts.
Just as Jesus gives apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers to the church to equip us for works of service, he also gives servants, helpers, givers, exhorters, healers, tongues speakers, and tongues interpreters (and ALL believers) to the church to equip us for works of service. The church is equipped for works of service and the church is built up toward maturity in Christ when every member of the church exercises the gifts given by Jesus through the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all.
Not what NT words mean for us
Yesterday, in our first Hermeneutics seminar, Dr. Köstenberger read the following passage from Adolf Schlatter’s The History of the Christ:
It is the historical objective that should govern our conceptual work exclusively and completely, stretching our perceptive faculties to the limit. We turn away decisively from ourselves and our time to what was found in the men through whom the church came into being. Our main interest should be the thought as it was conceived by them and the truth that was valid for them. We want to see and obtain a thorough grasp of what happened historically and existed in another time. This is the internal disposition upon which the success of the work depends, the commitment which must consistently be renewed as the work proceeds. (Note that at this point we are not studying what the New Testament words mean for us, how they influence our own thoughts and actions, and whether or not and why they achieve over us the compelling authority of truth. At the proper time, however, this question will be very important.) (pg. 18)
Schlatter wrote this in 1909. He says that before we begin to interpret Scripture for ourselves, we must attempt to understand what it meant for the ones who wrote Scripture. We should not begin by asking what these words mean for us, but what they meant for them.
What words? Well, what about words like church, elder, worship, ministry, deacon, fellowship. There are many, many books that tell us how to define these words today – how to be an effective church today – how to be a good elder today – how to worship today – what ministry looks like today – what a deacon does today – how to have fellowship today – but, what about then? Can we really live as the church that Scripture describes without understanding what these terms – and many others – meant then?