The Diffusion of Ecclesiastical Authority

Sociological Dimensions of Leadership in the Book of Acts

Darin H. Land

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2008
• Print ISBN:
  9781556355752
  9781498250634
• eBook ISBN:
  9781630877156
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

The Diffusion of Ecclesiastical Authority explores the leadership of the church in Acts from a sociological perspective. Two primary models emerge from a sociologically informed investigation of first-century Greco-Roman and Jewish religious leadership: "manager-leader" and "innovator-leader." An examination of seven passages in Acts reveals that the leaders of the early church, although initially conforming to cultural expectations, are best described as innovator-leaders whose counter-cultural actions resulted in the empowerment of new leaders and the advancement of the gospel. Through the use of fictive kinship language, the voluntary sharing of authority, the fostering of a sense of mutual dependence on God as the common patron, and the redefinition of what is honorable, the leaders in Acts consistently enabled others to share authority in the church.

1

Introduction

The New Testament book of Acts provides the most comprehensive history of the early church that has come down to us from antiquity. As such, it is one of the most important documents available to scholars who would try to reconstruct the development of the church as it progressed from a marginal Jewish reform movement to a multi-ethnic, geographically expansive religion in its own right. Yet since the Tendenzkritik of F. C. Baur in the nineteenth century, scholars have recognized Acts as a theologically motivated document. What has not been as widely acknowledged, however, is that theological Tendenz and historical accuracy need not be mutually exclusive. This realization recovers Acts as a source for understanding and tracing the growth and development of the primitive Christian church.

Since Acts is an historical source, historical questions of Acts are legitimate. One such question revolves around the development of ecclesiastical authority as the church spread outward from its center in Jerusalem. The church in Acts, of course, is depicted as starting in Jerusalem with authority vested in the Twelve Apostles. Yet later in the account, the Twelve virtually disappear from the scene. Just as the church had grown throughout the Mediterranean region, so also leadership of the church had become more dispersed. A certain tension exists, however, between the depiction of autonomous local authorities and a strong, centralized authority in Jerusalem. For example, the church in Antioch commissioned Paul, yet he still seems to have submitted to James and the elders in Jerusalem. Thus the question that focuses the present investigation is, “What is the nature and extent of the dispersal and diffusion of authority in the primitive church during the time period depicted in the book of Acts?”

At this point, a word about “diffusion” is in order. For this study, diffusion will take on two distinct aspects. In the first place, diffusion will refer to a geographical process. More importantly, diffusion will also refer to the degree of centralization or decentralization of ecclesiastical authority. We will be interested, then, in the extent to which apparent diffusion of authority was actualized in practice. For example, it is possible that, despite mention in Acts of church leaders outside Jerusalem, in reality these leaders were devoid of real authority, or perhaps wielded only relative authority.

Importance of the Question

The question of the diffusion of ecclesiastical authority is an important one for a number of reasons, both with respect to New Testament (NT) studies and in regard to the church today. It is important for NT studies, first, because it will provide a deeper understanding of Acts. For example, the study will clarify the nature of ecclesiastical authority as understood by the author of Acts. Since the debate regarding the extent to which Acts is a tendentious writing involves issues of religious authority—for example, was the author trying to subvert or bolster ecclesiastical authority—a focus on ecclesiastical authority will provide insight into the discussion regarding the aims of Acts.

A second way that the topic contributes to NT studies is by casting new light on the long-standing debate over the polity of the primitive church. Contemporary proponents of particular ecclesiastical polities sometimes seek to validate their positions by producing evidence from scripture, which they view as normative. While our aim is not to argue for a particular political structure based on the NT, we will nevertheless be shedding some light on polity as it existed in the primitive church. This study brings two distinctive perspectives to the question. First, the study’s cultural sensitivity suggests the possibility of diverse patterns of polity within the primitive church. It contributes to a growing awareness that polity can be locale-specific. Second, the study promotes a sensitivity to precedents for ecclesiastical authority. Borrowing an insight from the history of religions school, we assert that the polity of the primitive church was birthed out of and developed with reference to the authority structures of Jewish and Greco-Roman religions. Yet, as we shall see, ecclesiastical authority in the early church was implemented in ways that were more counter-cultural than is sometimes recognized.

Finally, the present study advances the field of NT research by exploring certain aspects of primitive church history. In particular, the study will clarify the relationship between the authority of Jerusalem and other centers of early Christianity. By focusing on the diffusion of authority, we will necessarily encounter mechanisms that drove that diffusion. These very mechanisms, in turn, illuminate the relationships in question.

Secondary Literature

By way of introduction to our topic, we will begin with a brief overview of related studies. For the sake of clarity, the secondary literature that will occupy our attention is divided into two sections. The first section deals with monographs on ecclesiastical office, ranging from J. B. Lightfoot’s nineteenth century dissertation on Christian ministry to James Tunstead Burtchaell’s treatment of the early relationship between synagogue and church ministries. The second section reviews a number of sociologically informed studies. Only one source, a doctoral dissertation by Randall Clark Webber, employs a thoroughgoing sociological methodology. The others demonstrate a sensitivity to sociological concerns by utilizing descriptive categories such as group identity and boundary markers.

The following pages make no pretense at being exhaustive. The sentiment that Eduard Schweizer expressed already in 1960 is apropos:

A flood of literature has been published on our subject. It is no longer possible completely to master the whole of it, and I can only hope that I have not overlooked something that proves to be the most important of all.1

Therefore, we here aim only at sketching the contours of the discussion by offering a glimpse into some of the influential or distinctive contributions.

Monographs on Ecclesiastical Authority

J. B. Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry

Lightfoot begins his discussion of the Christian ministry by affirming the priesthood of all believers. In a memorable turn of phrase he says, “This then is the Christian ideal; a holy season extending the whole year round—a temple confined only by the limits of the habitable world—a priesthood coextensive with the human race.”2 He goes on to argue that practical realities required certain believers to take on specialized functions. The three-tiered ministry developed from these functions. Originally, the Apostles governed the church. As the church grew, the Apostles necessarily designated certain of their duties, beginning with the least specialized. Thus the diaconate was the first ministry to be formed (as recorded in Acts 6), followed by the presbytery and then the episcopate. The lack of any historical record for the founding of the presbytery is expected because it was modeled on the leadership of the Jewish synagogue. The episcopate is the result of the specialization of the presbytery, which Lightfoot views as a progressive development. This development passed through specific stages but progressed more slowly in the Greco-Roman environment and more rapidly where Jewish influences were more strongly felt. Lightfoot concludes his study with an historical examination of the development of the sacerdotal conception of the episcopacy, which he insists is absent from the NT.

Adolf von Harnack, The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries

Harnack’s investigation into church order opens with an examination of the evidence regarding the structure of the primitive Jerusalem community. In addition to the Twelve, leaders of the primitive community included apostles, teachers, and prophets. The Seven were a group of leaders opposed to the Twelve, and the emergence of James and the elders represents a constitutional change in the Jerusalem church. In the Gentile church, Christian communities were governed primarily by the membership as a whole under the limited influence of charismatic individuals. Yet a division existed between older church members, who held leadership positions, and younger members. The group of leaders quickly resolved into deacons, elders, and bishops. All presbyters were originally bishops, but as it became clear that the college of presbyters would need a president, there was a natural progression toward the monepiscopacy. The process was one of gradual development, a continuum from primus inter pares to monarchical bishop. By the end of the second century, a distinction between clergy and laity was being made, and by the third century all salient features of the Christian constitution were present except for the Christian emperor. For Harnack, the development of church structure was primarily the result of the actualization of its own inner genius, not conscious assimilation from Judaism or paganism.

Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament

Schweizer’s study of church order is divided into two parts, an examination of the primary sources and a systematic appraisal in terms of pre-determined categories. In the first part, Schweizer denies that Jesus intended the church, although the post-Easter community required adherence to the teaching of Jesus. Schweizer also doubts that the disciples actually became leaders in the church. Instead, the church lives under a new order led, not by the Twelve or the Seven (whom Schweizer insists were not deacons as Acts pictured them), but by individuals who exercised a self-justifying authority. In Matthew, the church is a corpus mixtum, an organization made up both of believers and unbelievers who will be distinguished only at the consummation; Matthew reflects no hierarchy in the primitive church. For Luke, the church is a tertium genus, a third way that is neither Jew nor Gentile, in which church order develops as the church matures. The Pastoral Epistles reveal a more settled church, where the authority of officers is based on effective modeling, and not on ordination alone. According to the Pauline conception, the church is Israel, and Jerusalem is still the most important center. Church order results only from the gifting of the Holy Spirit. In 1 Peter, Schweizer finds no dichotomy between the clergy and the laity, even though there is an increased recognition of the ordered ministry. In Hebrews, the church is anti-institutional. The Johannine corpus emphasizes individualism, and church order does not exist, despite the use of the term “elder.” From this overview of the NT, Schweizer concludes that different churches had different self-conceptions, as well as different organizational structures. A similar result emerges from a study of early extra-biblical sources.

After having examined the literary evidence from the NT and other early Christian works, Schweizer offers a systematic reconstruction of church order in the early church. The NT conceptions occupy the middle ground between two extremes: a theologizing, utopian, ecstatic view and a historicizing, clerical view. Within this range, the choice of terminology in the NT for “service” indicates that Jesus is the only priest. The priesthood of all believers is meant in the sense that Jesus shares his priesthood with the church as a whole. There are differences of individual calling, but all giftedness is by grace. In the NT, all church activity is charism, whether charismatic or natural. Church order is a manifestation of the Spirit, who directed the church’s movement away from the patterns of Jewish ministries. The NT exhibits a tension between all believers as empowered by the Spirit and ordination as special empowerment. Office, then, became increasingly emphasized, but there was still no apostolic succession in the NT.

Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries

For Campenhausen, authority in the early church starts with Jesus as revealed in his resurrection. Jesus’ authority in the church was mediated first through apostles, whose authority was of a personal nature. The notion that the apostles were either petty office-holders or power-hungry stake-claimers is foreign to their time period. The apostle of whom we know the most is Paul. His authority derived directly from the fact that he was a personal, commissioned representative of Christ. While he was eager to gain the approval of the leaders in Jerusalem, the relationship was not one of ecclesiastical, hierarchical constraints but of fraternal deference. Paul’s authority, then, derived from his personal relationship both with Christ and with his congregations, not from any office. In the Pauline congregations, prophecy and teaching were also important. Where apostles were itinerant, the prophets and teachers were attached to local congregations; neither comprised office-holders. There was no hierarchy, even though some received higher honor. Spiritual gifts brought order but not fixed offices. Yet this type of spiritual authority was unsustainable and soon gave way to official authority structures. The book of 1 Peter, with its emphasis on elders, is based on a different understanding of authority. The elder system probably originated among Jewish Christians as a natural extension of the synagogue structure and spread quickly even into the Pauline churches. Bishops and deacons originated in Gentile-Christian circles. Paul and sources dependent on him know only bishops and deacons; Acts, 1 Peter, James, and Revelation know only elders. Luke deliberately tries to fuse the system of elders with that of bishops in Paul’s farewell speech to the Ephesian elders.

In time, leaders became office-holders who guaranteed the tradition. The first writer to use official categories was Luke. He traces the origins of office back to apostolic times, stressing the role of the Spirit and public ordination. Around 180 ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Modeling Religious Leadership
• Chapter 3: Authority in Greco-Roman Religions
• Chapter 4: Authority in Second Temple Judaism
• Chapter 5: Authority in the Jerusalem Church
• Chapter 6: Authority in the Diaspora Church
• Chapter 7: The Diffusion of Authority in Acts
• Bibliography