The Order of the Church in the Apostolic Era, pt. 1
In online polemical circles, oftentimes one category that is automatically conceded to the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and even the Anglicans: ecclesiology. In its most cautious articulation, the argument is that the apostolic fathers, especially St. Ignatius, taught the necessity of Christian bishops for the true church. However, after listening to Gavin Ortlund try to poke some holes in the common narrative, I decided to actually look at the primary sources from the Apostolic Fathers—namely Clement and Ignatius—with some startling results. From this, we should be able to determine their conception of the Church, which will help us to evaluate the claims that folks tend to make in these regards. What’s more, it also will allow us to analyze our own practice to see how it relates and how it differs. This is the first installment, in which I will discuss the ecclesiology of Clement of Rome, and my second (and presumably final) will involve the oft-discussed Ignatius.
Clement of Rome
In the only extant work of his that we have, one of Clement’s goals is to end a schism that arose among the church of Corinth. In this context, we actually can get a great sense of Clement’s view of the church order.
One of the more common arguments that I have heard in favor of a threefold office view (bishop-pastor/presbyter/priest-deacon) is that the Old Testament had a similar model, with their high priest, priests, and Levites, with the rest of the Israelites equivalent to Christian laymen. Clement actually addresses this exact passage when he begins his discussion of order in the Church:
“For to the high priest the proper services have been given, and to the priests the proper office has been assigned, and upon the Levites the proper ministries have been imposed. The layman is bound by the layman’s rules.” 1 Clement 40.5
In my mind, this sounds like he’s preparing to talk about the threefold office, as it is often called, especially because immediately after he encourages the Corinthians to be “not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry” (41.1). However, he actually goes a very different direction. He never explicitly connects the threefold office of the Old Testament to that of the New, instead talking about how we ought to keep the order that God has ordained. He begins the next chapter by giving a different hierarchy:
“The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ.” 42.1-2a
This clearly doesn’t match up with the Mosaic priesthood, as it would mean God is like the high priest, Christ the priests, and the apostles the Levites. This would be very strange. From here, he then moves onto another hierarchy, but it, once again, is not the threefold office of bishop-presbyter-deacon, but it is as follows:
“So preaching both in the country and in the towns, they appointed their first fruits, when they had tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for the future believers. And this was no new thing they did, for indeed something had been written about bishops and deacons many years ago; for somewhere [Is. 60:17 LXX] thus says the scripture: ‘I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.’” 42:4-5
Here we see something astounding: no mention is given to the presbyters, only the bishops and the deacons, so it seems he only has these two offices in mind. To drive the point home, he even quotes the Old Testament, which testifies to a twofold office. What's more, he actually uses the words "presbyter" and "bishop" interchangeably. This is best seen in 44.4-5, where Clement describes the deposition of folks from the "bishop's" office even when they lead their congregation in purity, and after this, he immediately says "Blessed are those presbyters who have gone on ahead, who took their departure at a mature and fruitful age..." Here, we see him clearly using the two without distinction, as he even had a rhetorical motive for using that synonym. The word "presbyter" literally means "elder," so he uses that synonymous term because he's referring to those who have died and the term highlights their age.
This opens up something very significant: he doesn’t mean “bishop” in the same way that we use the word today. In the common understanding of the threefold order, priests manage congregations, deacons help them with such, and bishops manage the various congregations in a given area over which they have jurisdiction. This, however, was seemingly not the idea of bishops that Clement had in mind. We don’t get an amazingly clear picture of it, but we do see two broad roles associated with it. The first is in the above passage about the Apostles calling the bishops and deacons. The Apostles preach the gospel in their own time, but the bishops are there “for the future believers.” This purpose is exposited much more clearly later on in chapter 44:
“Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop's office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the leaders mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. These, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well-spoken of by all-these we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry.” 1 Clement 44:1-3
Please pardon the long quote, but all of the context was necessary, because this is one of the more difficult passages to parse through. This same text, if taken out of context, can easily be used in favor of apostolic succession, especially the first underlined passage. When taken out of context, that sentence can be read as saying that the Apostles, foreseeing future schisms, made the apostolic office permanent by appointing their own successors who would then take their place, a claim which is identical to the Roman and Eastern one. However, this would require some real linguistic gymnastics to make plausible. The first question is whose "offices" are given a "permanent character." In context, it would seemingly have to be the office of bishop, not apostle, because immediately before the statement, Clement says that the apostles "appointed the leaders," and what's more, the first sentence even describes the "bishop's office," which means the immediate context points to the "offices" as referring to that of the bishop. Then the nexx question is about the following statement ("that is...ministry"). If this is about the apostles, this is seemingly a very out-of-pocket statement, but read in context, he's clearly further describing the self-perpetuating nature of the bishopric.
With all that said, this quote is also very relevant for our view of the doctrine of the ministry, a topic that is very intertwined with this one. In the second underlined section, Clement answers the question of how the bishop's office actually is passed on. Notice that there actually is a process and that it involves either being appointed by an apostle, which is obviously not possible now, or by "other reputable men with the consent of the whole church." It's interesting to note that he does not actually prescribe apostolic succession--the laying on of hands from one to another in an unbroken chain going back to the apostles--as the source of authority for one's ordination. Rather, he simply requires that the appointment be by "reputable" (or "scrutinized") men and to have the Church backing them. In this way, we avoid the pitfalls of Rome, but we don't fall into the evangelical issue of folks simply appointing themselves pastor and starting a church. Instead, we retain the order of an orderly God with the freedom of a God who understands human corruption.
The final point I want to make is that the preaching of the gospel is not the only thing he thinks rightfully belongs to the bishopric.
"For it will be no small sin for us if we depose from the bishop's office those who have offered the gifts blamelessly and in holiness." 44.4
This part of the text is rather obscure, but the language of "offering gifts" in the early church is very common when talking about the eucharist. During the time of the service in which we now pass around the offering plate, peole would bring produce to the altar as a eucharistic sacrifice, and some of the bread and wine which was offered would then be used for the communion service. Thus, it is possible that the "gifts" which he, as priest, was offering are those eucharistic sacrifices, in which case, we see Clement describing both word and sacrament as the roles of the priest. Lest I overstate my case, it's also possible that he simply is referring to the priestly office as mediator, praying on behalf of the congregation and "offering spiritual sacrifices," as the scriptures talk about. In any case, the sacramental role of priest is much more apparent in Ignatius' letters than in Clement's.
Comments