If God is opposed to highly developed organization, he nonetheless certainly let a lot of it happen in his Church! History teaches us that, for a movement to survive beyond the first or second generation, increased complexity of organization seems a necessity. What Say You?
After its early years with a relatively loose structure, the Church of Jesus Christ became more and more complex in its organization. Is this an unfortunate result of the human tendency to over-organize and to produce hierarchical structures, or is it the Holy Spirit's guidance for a church with a world-wide mission? I believe it was the latter. In any event, a major activity of early Christianity was the matter of getting organized.
Among the factors leading toward increased organization were the challenge of false teachings and the need to establish doctrinal authority and to clarify who the Church's Lord is. Also, large numbers of pagans were converting to Christianity, and many of these people had low levels of education and were inexperienced in the kind of leadership that the church required. The need for unity in worship and in Christian living was becoming increasingly recognized. Meanwhile, the Church's struggles with Montanism had left many Christians skeptical of ultra-spontaneous, "charismatic" leadership. In short, the Holy Spirit was seen as working for order and stability in an increasingly chaotic world. The more the structure of the once-great Roman Empire eroded, the more pressing was the need for order within the Church of Jesus Christ.
In my opinion it is a misreading of scripture to think that the New Testament had little use for structure. St. Paul, in line with traditional Jewish views of synagogue organization, instructed Titus to appoint elders "in every town" (Titus 1:5). When Paul talks about "gifts" in Ephesians 4:11-16, he lists not individual endowments, but offices in the church.The Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy & Titus) evidence much concern for leadership in the Church, and Paul and Barnabas themselves appointed leaders in the churches of Asia Minor (Acts 14:23). The word for "bishop," which in Greek literally means "overseer," appears over and over again. But did this refer to a formal office, or merely a function that someone assumed. Perhaps at first what we might today call the "pastor" of a church is what the New Testament calls "overseer." There is no easily-recognized and constantly-followed pattern of organization in the New Testament. However, it appears that, at least by the end of the first century, there were three offices: bishops, elders, and deacons.
Early in Church history, and with increasing force, the position of bishop became what we know it to be today the overseer of several congregations. Quite early came an incredibly strong view of the office. In a letter from Ignatius himself a bishop of Antioch in Syria, and who was soon to be martyred, the view of this man toward bishops around A.D. 110 is clearly spelled out. He writes: "Shun divisions as the beginning of evils. Do your all to follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery (elders) as the apostles, and to the deacons pay respect." Also, a man named Clement of Rome, writing in the last decade of the first century, speaks of the necessity of "apostolic succession." This is a very important concept, meaning that ordained leaders had been ordained by other leaders (bishops), who in turn could ultimately trace their own ordainers back to the apostles. Also, clergy in general became increasingly distinguished from lay members of the Church. By the beginning of the third century the distinction had become quite obvious.
Another very significant development was the elevation of the Bishop of Rome. Although, in much theorizing, bishops were equal to each other, bishops of large cities tended to gain in prominence over other bishops. The bishop of Rome eventually developed much of the aura of his city's once-proud leadership of the Roman Empire and became known as the "pope" (from the local word for "father"). Rome was the only city west of Greece to which the Apostle Paul sent a letter, and Paul and Peter were reported to have been martyred there. Just a few of the countless other factors in the rise of the Roman bishop's authority were: the leadership of Roman Christians in early developments of canon and creed; much landed wealth given by well-to-do donors; a man named Irenaus, who, in what is now southern France, wrote c.185 about the primacy of the Roman leader and the need to obey him; and the claims of Pope Leo I. This pope, who served A.D. 440-461, asserted that Peter's leadership among the apostles had been passed to his successors, the bishops of Rome. Leo persuaded the Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Valentinian III, to give him control over the Western Church (Italy, Spain, North Africa and Southern Gaul) by decree in A.D. 445. Valentinian decreed that papal decisions would have the force of law.
With these and many other developments, something was forming which became known as the catholic church. It was beginning to call itself that by the end of the second century. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch c. A.D. 110, first used the word, in the sense of "universal." He said, "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." But the word has a history, and it came increasingly to be used of those who kept the historic Christian faith after encountering Gnosticism,, Marcionism, and Montanism in the mid-second century. Congregations were now much more closely tied together with one another and (in opposition to false teaching) bishops, canon and creed were firmly established. Whereas many Gnostics had claimed continuity with a secret teaching handed down orally from Jesus Catholic Christians took their stand on apostolic succession. This implied the passing along of true faith from Jesus through the apostles and bishops-the very faith embodied in canon and creeds. After the sifting process in the encounter with heretics, "catholic" became almost a synonym of "orthodox." Finally one of the spin offs of greater unity and centralized authority is the increased ability to defend against false teachings and to maintain the faith
under much stress. My continuing questions : Many people today frown on "organized religion" and the organized Church." What defense would you make against such attacks? as well as how do you think the Holy Spirit wants the Church to be organized today?
God Bless You and This Ministry!
After its early years with a relatively loose structure, the Church of Jesus Christ became more and more complex in its organization. Is this an unfortunate result of the human tendency to over-organize and to produce hierarchical structures, or is it the Holy Spirit's guidance for a church with a world-wide mission? I believe it was the latter. In any event, a major activity of early Christianity was the matter of getting organized.
Among the factors leading toward increased organization were the challenge of false teachings and the need to establish doctrinal authority and to clarify who the Church's Lord is. Also, large numbers of pagans were converting to Christianity, and many of these people had low levels of education and were inexperienced in the kind of leadership that the church required. The need for unity in worship and in Christian living was becoming increasingly recognized. Meanwhile, the Church's struggles with Montanism had left many Christians skeptical of ultra-spontaneous, "charismatic" leadership. In short, the Holy Spirit was seen as working for order and stability in an increasingly chaotic world. The more the structure of the once-great Roman Empire eroded, the more pressing was the need for order within the Church of Jesus Christ.
In my opinion it is a misreading of scripture to think that the New Testament had little use for structure. St. Paul, in line with traditional Jewish views of synagogue organization, instructed Titus to appoint elders "in every town" (Titus 1:5). When Paul talks about "gifts" in Ephesians 4:11-16, he lists not individual endowments, but offices in the church.The Pastoral Epistles (I & II Timothy & Titus) evidence much concern for leadership in the Church, and Paul and Barnabas themselves appointed leaders in the churches of Asia Minor (Acts 14:23). The word for "bishop," which in Greek literally means "overseer," appears over and over again. But did this refer to a formal office, or merely a function that someone assumed. Perhaps at first what we might today call the "pastor" of a church is what the New Testament calls "overseer." There is no easily-recognized and constantly-followed pattern of organization in the New Testament. However, it appears that, at least by the end of the first century, there were three offices: bishops, elders, and deacons.
Early in Church history, and with increasing force, the position of bishop became what we know it to be today the overseer of several congregations. Quite early came an incredibly strong view of the office. In a letter from Ignatius himself a bishop of Antioch in Syria, and who was soon to be martyred, the view of this man toward bishops around A.D. 110 is clearly spelled out. He writes: "Shun divisions as the beginning of evils. Do your all to follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery (elders) as the apostles, and to the deacons pay respect." Also, a man named Clement of Rome, writing in the last decade of the first century, speaks of the necessity of "apostolic succession." This is a very important concept, meaning that ordained leaders had been ordained by other leaders (bishops), who in turn could ultimately trace their own ordainers back to the apostles. Also, clergy in general became increasingly distinguished from lay members of the Church. By the beginning of the third century the distinction had become quite obvious.
Another very significant development was the elevation of the Bishop of Rome. Although, in much theorizing, bishops were equal to each other, bishops of large cities tended to gain in prominence over other bishops. The bishop of Rome eventually developed much of the aura of his city's once-proud leadership of the Roman Empire and became known as the "pope" (from the local word for "father"). Rome was the only city west of Greece to which the Apostle Paul sent a letter, and Paul and Peter were reported to have been martyred there. Just a few of the countless other factors in the rise of the Roman bishop's authority were: the leadership of Roman Christians in early developments of canon and creed; much landed wealth given by well-to-do donors; a man named Irenaus, who, in what is now southern France, wrote c.185 about the primacy of the Roman leader and the need to obey him; and the claims of Pope Leo I. This pope, who served A.D. 440-461, asserted that Peter's leadership among the apostles had been passed to his successors, the bishops of Rome. Leo persuaded the Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Valentinian III, to give him control over the Western Church (Italy, Spain, North Africa and Southern Gaul) by decree in A.D. 445. Valentinian decreed that papal decisions would have the force of law.
With these and many other developments, something was forming which became known as the catholic church. It was beginning to call itself that by the end of the second century. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch c. A.D. 110, first used the word, in the sense of "universal." He said, "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." But the word has a history, and it came increasingly to be used of those who kept the historic Christian faith after encountering Gnosticism,, Marcionism, and Montanism in the mid-second century. Congregations were now much more closely tied together with one another and (in opposition to false teaching) bishops, canon and creed were firmly established. Whereas many Gnostics had claimed continuity with a secret teaching handed down orally from Jesus Catholic Christians took their stand on apostolic succession. This implied the passing along of true faith from Jesus through the apostles and bishops-the very faith embodied in canon and creeds. After the sifting process in the encounter with heretics, "catholic" became almost a synonym of "orthodox." Finally one of the spin offs of greater unity and centralized authority is the increased ability to defend against false teachings and to maintain the faith
under much stress. My continuing questions : Many people today frown on "organized religion" and the organized Church." What defense would you make against such attacks? as well as how do you think the Holy Spirit wants the Church to be organized today?
God Bless You and This Ministry!
No comments:
Post a Comment