A 05 - Church Officers

Ryder PLHC: 05 Church Officers CHURCH OFFICERS The Arabian Nights tell us of the fortunate possessor of a magic carpet who, when seated on his treasure, had only to wish to be carried anywhere in space he desired. Historians might long to be owners of a similar mat to carry them backwards and forwards throughout the past centuries. A visit to the mission field is the magic carpet which transports one back to the times of primitive Christianity. PROF. LINDSAY, D.D., The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries.

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and they wrote thus by them. Acts 15:22. THE great question which presents itself to the student of early church organisation is this: Are we to conceive of the Christian ministry as originating by devolution from above, or by evolution from below?

It is by following the history of the ministry in its earlier stages, and at each step of the process endeavouring to deter mine which of the two theories fits the facts most satisfactorily, that we can attempt the solution of the problem.

We shall find that there are elements of truth in both, and we must try to discover what these elements are, and how they are to be considered. However, when we speak of devolution and of evolution, as applied to the ministry, we may mean one of two things. We may have in our minds either (a) the commission to minister given to the holders of that office, or (b) we may be thinking not so much of the holders of the office as of the offices themselves as they emerge in history.

Bishop Lightfoot, in his sketch of the growth of the Christian ministry, refers mainly to the latter. The question whether the Church did or did not create a new form of ministry seems to be a question of historical fact which can be answered as such. If it can, it ought to be answered independently of any further principle which may be involved in it. The problem has been stated thus: Must true ministerial character be in all cases conferred from above? or, may it some times, and with equal validity, be evolved from below? Is uninterrupted transmission from those who had the power to transmit a real essential? Or can the Church originate, at any point, a new ministry whose commission should exceed or transcend what had been ministerially received?

What is meant by evolution in such a connection as that before us? What a Christian means by evolution is only a particular method, and, as it would seem, the usual method of the divine working. Behind it, in it, and through it there is always the Providence of God shaping the course of human events in accordance with His sovereign will. "He that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep " (Psalms 121:4). If the God of Israel, watching over His people, slumbered not nor slept, neither can we suppose that the author of the New Testament slumbered or slept. The New Covenant was to be conveyed throughout the world. We can see His direction in every step which led to its successful advancement. The process of revelation is an illustration of other parts of the divine working. In revelation of truth the Spirit of God was immediately present. Yet God’s revelation of Himself is made to us through men. These men prophets, apostles, evangelists, poets did not lose any of their attributes as men by becoming vehicles of truth. They wrote down naturally what they thought. Their thoughts have personal qualities, with which the divine action upon them did not interfere. Yet the result is not what would have been attained by any unassisted natural process. The preaching of St. Paul was a genuine human product and the expression of the mind of the apostle, but it was not therefore in any way less the word of God speaking through him. Thus he says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: " For this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that, when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe."

Precisely in the same way we may be prepared to find the forms of Christian ministry growing out of human minds, the creation of successive experiences, yet all the time carrying out a divine plan in a divinely appointed way. It is in this sense that we speak of evolution in the growth of the Christian ministry.

We will begin with the case of the apostles. Is it the case that the twelve apostles received a formal commission of authority for government from Christ Himself?

We too often think that the title "apostle" was far more freely given to the Twelve than it really is in the Gospels, and that they were from the first invested with powers of which there is no trace. The name was given to them with a very special meaning. Our Lord appointed twelve whom He also called apostles that they might be with Him, and that He might send them forth (ina apostellh autouj) to preach, and to have authority (exousian) to cast out demons. The word "apostle" seems to have its proper sense of "missioner." They were fitted for their mission by their nearness to the person of Jesus. In their Master’s life this mission was small and limited. It was not until the moment of our Lord’s Ascension that there was unfolded to them the greater commission to go and make disciples of all nations.

There is nothing in the Gospels which might not be accounted for by the providential outgrowth. The three great passages usually described as giving the Apostolic Commission we will discuss separately.

It was inevitable that those who stood nearest to the person of the Lord, who were able to tell more than any one else about Him, should take the lead. The function of the apostles was that of witnesses to Christ and His Resurrection. The deference paid to them was natural and spontaneous, and this is shown by the fact that Peter and John, who possessed natural ascendancy of character, came to the front, while the rest seem to remain in the back ground. St. James, the Lord’s brother, was probably not one of the Twelve, and his position, though outside the apostolic circle, supports the view that it was not any fixed hierarchic authority which gave the apostles their status. The result of the Conference at Jerusalem led to action taken by the apostles and the elders, "with the whole church." The apostles act as leaders, but these resolutions go forth with the authority of the church as a whole. The letter is addressed to the Gentile Christians of Antioch by the apostles and presbyters. The apostles (the missioners of Christ), the presbyters (the elders of a church anxious to solve a difficulty), jointly write in their representative capacity. Behind them they have the assembly of the whole church. It is interesting to note that the rules laid down in this letter (though the direction of the Holy Spirit is claimed for them) rapidly fell into desuetude and were dropped. In this way they supply a warning that the Providence of God works more by the active teaching of history than by any process of formal authentication. In the church of Antioch we hear much of prophets, nothing of apostles. It is the " disciples " who send Paul and Barnabas to the churches of Judea. When Paul and Barnabas are sent to at tend the Conference, the word used is etaxan, without subject expressed. The letter in reply is addressed to "the brethren in Antioch." In the following verses “brethren” is used in connection with to plhqoj as a description of the church. There is no doubt that at this time the apostles did not enter into the organisation of the church of Antioch.

There remain the three great passages St. Matthew 16:19; St. Matthew 18:18; St. John 20:22. In the first instance the recipient is without doubt St. Peter in his single person, as a representative of the disciples. In the second passage the disciples may mean the Twelve, but may also mean a greater number than the Twelve. In the third passage it is not clear who were addressed. If we take the narrative of St. Luke to supplement that in St. John, those present are "the Eleven" and "those that were with them " that is, the nucleus of the church in Jerusalem. The two wayfarers from Emmaus were added to the number just before the appearance of our Lord. In Acts i. we read of a company assembling in the Upper Room. If the place of meeting were the same on both occasions, there would be an additional presumption that the gathering was not confined to the Twelve. On the whole, a calm consideration will lead to the conclusion that it is more probable than not that others besides the Twelve were included in the commission conferred. Even if the apostles had a certain prerogative, it was less as a personal right than as being representatives of the whole body of the Church. In Ephesians 2:20 it is said that the Church is built on the apostles and prophets. The fact that the New Testament prophets are mentioned takes away from the exceptional position assigned to the apostles. In the Didache, as in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11, the word "apostles" is used in a wider sense and is not confined to the Twelve. In Matthew 19:28 it is said that the twelve apostles shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. In Revelation 21:14 the wall of the City is described as having twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. The sacred number twelve was deeply fixed among the religious associations of Israel. St. Paul, in Acts 26:7, speaks of Israel as "our twelve tribes." St. James addresses his Epistles to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. As the Jews looked back to the Twelve Patriarchs as the origin of their race, the Christians gratefully referred to the Twelve as the first human teachers of their religion. These expressions imply grateful honour and a certain dignity but there is nothing to show that this dignity included a direct com mission to govern. St. Paul cannot be quite strictly incorporated in the number of the original apostles. The three places where he speaks of his apostleship all seem to have the missionary character strongly impressed upon them. The seal of his apostleship to which he points consists in the converts he has made. The Judean apostles accepted the actual success of his missionary labours as the proof of his apostleship. It was his being the spiritual founder of his churches, and his ascendancy of character, that gave him the authority which he exercised, and not so much his succession to any express prerogative given to the Twelve. In 2 Corinthians 8:23 delegates from the churches were called "apostles of the churches," translated in the R.V. "messengers of the churches." This leads us to the consideration of the wider use of the word "apostle."

Dr. Lightfoot suspected that there was a wider use of this word than was usually conceived. The discovery of the Didache proved his suspicion true. There the wandering apostle takes precedence of the officers of the local church. This wider use makes it ambiguous who are meant when the word "apostles" is mentioned. If it includes St. Paul, does it also include St. Barnabas and St. James, the Lord’s brother? If it includes these, does it not include the class of wandering apostles referred to in the Didache? If it includes the whole class, why were any called apostles beyond those who received the two commissions given by our Lord before and after His Resurrection? The name "apostle" was given to some persons after our Lord’s Ascension. This title brings into serious difficulties the exclusive claim of authority which is made for the Twelve. There is no doubt that, as apostles are classed with prophets, it was spiritual gifts and not succession or dele gated powers that gave them their position as fit persons for the work of missioners. In the appointment of the Seven we see the principles of evolution and devolution.

Dr. Sanday says: "May I say that the view which I am taking of the origin of the Christian ministry as a whole may be regarded as modelled upon this passage." The appointment of the Seven arises out of what might be called ordinary natural causes, yet they may be none the less carrying out a larger divine purpose. The Twelve, moved by higher expediency, took the initiative. Some parts of the formal appointment are discharged by them. It does not appear whether they claimed this as a right, or whether it was spontaneously left to them by the Church. The Church as a whole also takes an active part. It gives a willing consent to the proposal. It selects the candidates, examines their qualifications, and presents them for laying on of hands. If practical questions were handled in the same spirit, we should see how difficulties would be solved without formal constitution or established rule, on the one side by spontaneous deference and good feeling, and on the other side by the enlistment of willing service and practical judgment. A word must here be said about the much disputed phrase "laying on of hands."

It is used at the ordinations in the New Testament as a solemn setting apart for office. But it has been often pointed out that it was used on other occasions. It accompanied any act of blessing. We read of it when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh. We read of it when our Lord took the little children in His arms, "laying His hands on them." Ananias laid his hands on St. Paul when he restored his sight. St. Paul laid his hands on Publius when he healed him. The most curious case is when the prophets and teachers laid their hands on Paul and Barnabas, when they were sent out on their new work of carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles. According to later theories surely we should have expected that this would have been done by some of the Twelve. This is the only formal ordination of St. Paul which is mentioned. In the case of so eminent a man, who laid his hands on many presbyters, we should have expected apostolical succession to show itself here. May we say that the act of the prophets and teachers was the accompaniment of a prayer for charismatic gifts by the direction of the Holy Spirit?

Contrasted with this is the case of the early Confirmation by the apostles in Samaria. Philip the evangelist did not himself lay hands upon his Samaritan converts, but waited for the coming of Peter and John. This case of St. Paul shows that the rite of laying on of hands was not reserved solely for apostles, not even in the case of so eminent a man as St. Paul. In the case of Timothy the exhortation runs: " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with (meta) the laying on of the hands of the presbytery " (1 Timothy 4:14). Alford explains that either at the first conversion of Timotheus, or at his ordination to the ministry (most probably the latter), the Holy Spirit spake by means of a prophet. The case of Paul and Barnabas is precisely analogous. The gift in their case was directed by the Spirit no doubt by the lips of a prophet, and " the prophets and teachers " laid their hands on them. In the case of Timothy also this was accompanied by the laying on of the hands of the body of elders who belonged to the congregation in which he was ordained. Among those present was St. Paul. "I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through (dia) the laying on of my hands" (2 Timothy 1:6). The apostle was probably chief in the ordination and the presbyters were his assistants, as is the case with bishops in the present day.

St. Paul uses the word dia ("by means of") in the case of his own action as well as meta ("accompanied with") in the case of the action of the presbyters and justly, for the laying on of hands was the effective sign of Timothy’s being set apart. It would make the case still more interesting if St. Paul himself could be considered not only the pre siding officer, but the prophet through whom Timothy was marked out for special service. We may remark that the act did not denote the transmission of a power from one who had it to one who had it not, for this would not apply either to the case of Ananias or to the prophets and teachers at Antioch sending Paul and Barnabas on a mission. It was rather a symbolical act, appropriate to the invoking of blessing from on high, making more solemn the prayer which it accompanied.

St. Augustine saw that the prayer was the essential thing: "For none of His disciples gave the Holy Ghost. They prayed indeed that He might come upon those on whom they laid their hands; they did not give Him themselves. A custom which the Church in case of its officers retains to this day" (De Trin. xv. 26-46). The case of the office of presbyter is instructive. In this case the standing office of the Jewish synagogue was transferred to the Christian Church.

It might have happened that a whole synagogue or the majority of the congregation came over to Christianity. It would naturally retain its constitution. If one holding the office of Jewish elder was converted he would not cease to be regarded as a presbyter because he became a Christian. We read of Paul and Barnabas appointing elders (xeirotonhsantej presbuterouj) in the churches of Lycaonia and Pisidia. Newly founded Gentile communities were arranged upon the Jewish plan at least as regards the presiding officers. With regard to the remaining order of episkopoi or bishops, probably if we could trace the order of events we should find that each stage of the history grew out of the last by a natural process.

We know that during the period referred to in St. Paul’s speech at Miletus, the Epistle to the Philippians, the Pastoral Epistles, the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and the Shepherd of Hernias, there were a number of episkopoi in each church. The terms episkopoi and presbuteroi were applied to the same persons. On the other hand, we know that at the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius, i.e. about A.D. 110, there was already established a monarchical episcopate in the later sense. Many at tempts have been made to account for this change. The most probable theory is that of Hort and Loofs, that episkopoi was primarily not so much the name of an office as a descriptive term. This accounts for the fact that two words are used to describe the same minister. Thus presbuteroi would be the name of the office, and episkopoj tells us that the duty of the presbyter was to oversee. The words episkopein, episkopoj, episkoph are used far more commonly in early inscriptions and literature in a general sense than as designations of a particular office.

Quite distinct from this is the question why the plural episkopoi, representing a college of presbyters, was replaced by the singular episkopoj, with rights superior to the rest.

Different explanations have been given, but they do not mutually exclude each other. Perhaps all these causes and others not yet discovered were at work.

1. Harnack and Loofs believe the title was given to the presbyter who took the lead in worship, especially in the Eucharist.

2. Ramsay believes the position naturally was taken by the presbyter whose duty it was to correspond with other churches, as in the case of St. Clement of Rome: "Clement shall send to the foreign cities, for this is his duty" (Hernias, Vision ii. 4).

Rothe believes the title naturally was given to the successors of the president of the Council at Jerusalem; others that the episkopoj was the apostolic delegate. One thing, however, seems certain, that the apostle and the prophet seem to owe their position to marked charismatic gifts, whereas the bishop, teacher, and deacon were local officers for administration. Possibly if we had lived in those days, from A.D. 70 to A.D. 110, we should have seen the episcopate growing up around us. It did not drop from the sky. It was not instituted by a voice from heaven. Due to special causes, like the appointment of the Seven, it was none the less a divine ordinance. The Bible may not have been directly dictated to its human authors, and yet be essentially the Word of God.

We must remember the important part assigned to spiritual gifts in the New Testament and in the Didache. These gifts were often communicated through other than the authorised channels. Not only St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, but the nameless author of the Epistle to the Hebrews spoke in the Spirit, and their words are read as Spirit-inspired to the present day. In the Old Testament Elisha succeeded Elijah but the succession of prophets was not always observed. The prophet Amos said to King Amaziah, "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdsman and a dresser of sycomores: and the Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go and prophesy unto My people Israel." Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel the very greatest prophets were called in this way. The point is that God does not confine Himself to only one way of working. He sends His Spirit through the regularly de fined channels, and also through new channels as occasion requires. Often His greatest working has been of this unprecedented kind.

It may be said that we run the risk of allowing a claim to inspiration because the claim is made. We must be on our guard against this danger. Yet we cannot deny that God in the past has been pleased to act in this manner. He has done so also in more recent times. We shall know the successful servants of God by their fruits. The case of the Society of Friends has often been quoted. Apparently they do not acknowledge what seem essentials of a living church. They dispense with the Sacraments; they have no regular ministry; they have no visible organisation. Yet in spite of all this they have upheld a high and consistent standard of Christian practice. They have made strenuous efforts to abolish slavery, war, and the barbarous conditions of prisons. They have, in pro portion to their numbers, done more than any other party to advance practical Christian principles around them. This may be an anomaly. But room must be left for many such paradoxes. Men are led to believe that the enabling power of those who desire to work for God must come from God Himself.