The origins of hierarchy

Like all institutions, the Church of England embeds structures of power, whose origins lie deep in its traditions. But are these structures, and the assumptions based on them, faithful to the gospel that we profess? In this post, I explore the origins of ‘monarchical episcopacy’, the pattern of hierarchical leadership embodied in the Church’s structures and enshrined in its laws. Do our structures of power reflect and demonstrate the character of God’s rule, or are they sadly misguided? Should we accept our traditions without question, or examine and critique them in the light of Scripture?

Around the year 107 A.D. Ignatius, bishop of the Syrian city of Antioch, was arrested by the Roman authorities and sent to Rome to suffer death in the arena. During the journey, the party halted for a time in Smyrna on the west coast of Asia Minor, and whilst staying there, Ignatius received delegations of well-wishers from the neighbouring churches of Ephesus, Magnesia-on-the-Meander and Tralles. In response, he wrote letters of thanks and appreciation to these churches. Later in his journey, while waiting for a ship at Troas, he wrote letters to the Christians in Rome, to the congregations who had hosted him on the journey in Philadelphia and Smyrna and to Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna.

The letters are notable for two features. One is the way Ignatius embraces his coming martyrdom, seeing it as the fulfilment of the life of a disciple, and, especially in the letter to Rome, seeking to dissuade the Christians there from doing anything to secure his acquittal. The second is the way he urges complete loyalty to the bishops and clergy (quotations are taken from Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968):

Now that Jesus Christ has given such glory to you, it is only right that you should give glory to him; and this, if sanctification is to be yours in full measure, means uniting in a common act of submission and acknowledging the authority of your bishops and clergy. (Ephesians 2)

And since it is written that God opposes the proud, let us take care to show no disloyalty to the bishop, so as to be loyal servants of God. (Ephesians 6)

Let the bishop preside in the place of God and his clergy in the place of the apostolic conclave … (Magnesians 6)

In the same way as the Lord was wholly one with the Father and never acted independently of him … so you yourselves must never act independently of your bishops and clergy. (Magnesians 7)

Be as submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to his Father and as the apostles were to Christ and his Father; so that there may be complete unity … (Magnesians 13)

See that you hold aloof from all disunion and misguided teaching; and where your bishop is, there follow him like sheep. (Philadelphians 2)

Make sure that no step affecting the church is ever taken without the bishop’s sanction. (Smyrnaeans 8)

My heart warms to men who are obedient to their bishops, clergy and deacons, and I pray for a place in heaven at their side. (Polycarp 6)

It is readily apparent that, where the churches accepted this teaching, the effect would be to infantilise the Christian believers. Ignatius’ idea of the relationship between clergy and congregations appears to be dependence, like that of children on their parents. They are to voice no opinions and take no action without the agreement and sanction of the bishops.

The reason for this stance, as is apparent from the excerpts from the letters to the Magnesians and Philadelphians, is a concern for unity. The churches in Asia Minor were facing the challenge of heresies of two kinds. One emanated from Jewish believers who wished to urge on the churches a closer adherence to the tenets of Judaism. The other reflected Greek thinking that saw God as pure spirit and denied the reality of Jesus’ incarnation. The original apostles had by this time died, and there was as yet no agreement about the canon of the New Testament, no authoritative standard of teaching to which he could appeal. Ignatius’ response was to exalt the bishop as the standard of orthodoxy and lay down the rule that all genuine Christians should submit to his decisions and make themselves dependent on his leadership.

By taking such a position, however, Ignatius is departing from the teaching of the apostles as we have it in the New Testament. Shortly before Ignatius’ martyrdom, the writer of the letters of John had faced the same challenge in the shape of false teachers denying the reality of Jesus’ incarnation. The first epistle begins with a recollection of, ‘What we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life’ (1 John 1:1). Later he declares, ‘By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God’ (1 John 4:2-3).

John is equally concerned to secure unity and protect the church from heresy. But his approach is entirely different from that of Ignatius. Rather, the epistle sets out a number of signs by which believers can test the teaching they are being offered and assure themselves as to whether they are living within the truth:

• They should pay attention to the tradition they received when they first became Christians (1 John 2:24; 2 John 9).
• Genuine Christians avoid sin and, when they are aware of sin, bring it to God in confession (1 John 1:5 – 2:2).
• Christians avoid the love of the world (1 John 2:15-17). They allow their desires to be moulded by the kingdom of God rather than the things of this world and in this way grow in their ability to discern the truth.
• They rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit (1 John 3:24; 4:13). As John writes, ‘You have been anointed by the Holy One and all of you have knowledge’ (1 John 2:20). At the same period, the writer of the Gospel of John would record Jesus’ promise of the Spirit of truth, who would guide them into all truth (John 16:13). In contrast, there are scarcely any references to the Holy Spirit in Ignatius’ letters. Instead, he envisages the bishops and clergy as the mouthpiece of the Father and the Son.
• Above all, genuine Christians are known by the quality of their love for one another (1 John 2:7-11; 3:11-24; 4:7-21; 2 John 4-6). This is a test that they are to apply to those who claim to be teachers (3:10) and to themselves (4:17-18).

There is thus a clear contrast between Ignatius, writing in the sub-apostolic period, and John, whose writings were accepted into the New Testament. On the one hand, no mention of the Holy Spirit or of tests of character and entire reliance on a form of authority likely to disempower the church. On the other, no mention whatever of hierarchical authority and the expectation that every believer has the resources to distinguish between truth and error. Neither of these approaches is foolproof. Christians who had accepted the teaching of the apostles could be and often were led astray by false teaching, as the New Testament makes clear. But bishops could also be led astray and in the later Arian controversy often took their entire churches with them.

The important point is that John’s approach lines up with everything else we read in the New Testament. The apostle Paul was the founder of many churches and even reminds his friend Philemon at one point that he owes Paul, ‘even your own self’ (Philemon 19). But Paul never seeks to exercise hierarchical authority in his letters. He urges, exhorts, encourages and recommends, but never commands. Even in his correspondence with the Corinthians, who had flouted his authority and mired themselves in errors leading to disunity, he appeals on the basis of his life of suffering rather than his authority as their father in Christ. Writing to church elders, the apostle Peter exhorts rather than commands, warning them not to lord it over the Christians in their charge, and immediately urging all his readers to clothe themselves with humility (1 Peter 5:1-6).

This attitude to authority pervades the New Testament, and the reason is not far to seek. It is found in the words of Jesus:

A dispute arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather, the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serve? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.’ (Luke 22:24-27)

In Mark’s Gospel, this saying comes in response to the request of James and John to be allocated the leading places in the kingdom of God (Mark 10:35-45). In both passages, Jesus’ response is to point to the way hierarchical authority is exercised in the nations of the world. In Mark, the focus is on tyrannical rule. Luke is rather more subtle and includes a reference to the way the great men of Rome built up their authority by exercising patronage. In both passages, Jesus’ instruction is crystal clear: ‘Not so with you.’ In the kingdom of God, there is no place for hierarchical authority. Instead, the authority of position is to be exercised in the mode of a servant. Later, the Gospel of John would dramatize the words that Luke places at the Last Supper with the account of Jesus taking the place of a servant to wash his disciples’ feet, thereby symbolising the way in which he was shortly to give his life for them.

The mission to which the church is called requires leaders who will equip and empower the ministry of the whole church, enabling each member of God’s chosen and beloved people to discover their gifts and discern the places God is calling them to serve. This does not mean calling on the time and energy, gifts and financial resources of the church to fulfil a vision laid down by the leadership. It means enabling each Christian to discover and grow into the person God has called them to become, in the faith that out of this process of enabling will emerge the vision God is giving the church. Church leaders thereby acknowledge the leadership of Jesus, active by his Holy Spirit, and through their service to his body, the church, seek to accomplish his purpose.

Sadly, the early centuries of the church saw this vision of leadership give place to that of Ignatius and others. A report on the ministry of bishops called Faithful Improvisation?, published in 2015, traces a process by which the bishops took over the role of travelling apostles, the idea of the local church came to be redefined as the church within the province of a particular bishop, deacons became the bishop’s personal staff, and the role of presbyters became increasingly hierarchical:

At the same time, we find a process of centralisation of ministries within the local church. The episcopate gradually drew into itself the striking variety of ministry tasks found in the Pauline churches. Ministry tasks that had once (in those churches) been undertaken by a variety of church members came to be regarded as the preserve of a growing clerical elite. Eventually a concept of local monarchia began to emerge, which in time marginalised all other forms of spiritual authority within the bishop’s provincial – prophetic, ascetic and patronal authority (including the authority of women). This was all part of a process of clericalization which drew an increasingly strong distinction between ‘laity’ and ‘clergy’ (terms that are hardly applicable in the NT period). Here we see the beginnings of, ‘a clear trajectory that renders the laity ever more passive and gives ever higher standing to the clergy’.

(Loveday Alexander and Mike Higton (eds) Faithful Improvisation? London: Church House Publishing, 2016, p.59, citing Karen Jo Torsjesen, ‘Clergy and Laity’ in Susan A. Harvey and David G. Hunter (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, Oxford: oxford University Press, 2008, p.401.)

Thus, within the first few centuries of the church, the assumption became firmly established that the bishops were to be the apex of a hierarchy, exercising monarchical rule in their dioceses, despite the clear contradiction between this assumption and the teaching of Jesus.