Against Church Hierarchy

...you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Matthew 23: 9-11

Jesus lived in controversy with the rulers of the synagogue and temple. He’d likely be just as opposed to church hierarchy as it has developed and persisted through history. The book Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola and George Barna describes how the informal religion of Jesus became a bureaucracy.

In 380 CE, the emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Christianity, specifically Nicene Christianity, the official religion of the Roman Empire. A religion growing rapidly in small groups was thereafter under the control of the Roman Empire. Funding that had previously gone to various pagan religions began to be dispersed to the Christian church. Opportunities arose for ambitious people to use the church to gain power and use the church for political ends.

The distinction between clergy and laity is unknown in the New Testament. As is evident in the quoted passage above, Jesus explicitly rejects it. In the churches Paul discusses, all church members participated in worship and in decision making. After a hierarchy was established, which resembled the imperial Roman hierarchy, a lot of things changed. Possibly the most significant and pervasive change was the transformation of worship from a participatory format to that of a theatrical performance by the clergy. Of course, with this came the establishment of hierarchical prerogatives.

There is much more for discussion in Pagan Christianity and its follow-up Reimagining Church. I've often noticed that controversies in the church turn as much on how decisions are made, about music, liturgy, or polity, as on the results. These books put our disputes and discussions in a new light.

It comes as something of a shock that the church may have gotten administration wrong since the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE. When Paul wrote to the Corinthian church about problem of disorder in worship, he addressed his letter to the whole church, not to the elders. All of Paul’s epistles are address to church members not administrators.

The order that Paul recommended to solve disorder was not that of bureaucracy, that is to say a hierarchy. He didn’t specify that worship should be mainly teaching and ministry by the elders. He did say that things should be done decently and in order, because the situation he wanted to remedy was outrageous by any standard. People were all talking at the same time, over one another, and some people were getting drunk.

The order he called for maintained participation by all members of the church, one at a time, each with a contribution. Anybody who wanted to speak, or prophesy, was allowed to voice their perspective. This would also allow people to raise questions. How would that go over during a sermon in a church of any denomination now?

The order that Paul discusses is the analogy of the body, all members of which have equal value and purpose. When Paul discusses elders and deacons, the qualifications are not ordination or election. Rather deacons are appointed to serve humble needs. Elders must have demonstrated ability to manage their own families. They should not be polygamous. Their children should not be disobedient or disrespectful.

I can remember one situation in all the churches where I’ve been a member, when an elder resigned because his son had repeatedly misbehaved in the way teens often misbehave. He’d been drunk and disorderly several times and his father disqualified himself as an elder. I can also remember “preachers’ kids” who were hell raisers who repeatedly embarrassed their ministerial parents, but this had little effect on the parents’ roles in the church.

Unfortunately, power tends to corrupt. Even more unfortunately, the leadership in our churches often resembles the misused authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees. I’ve been mainly involved in Lutheran, Catholic, and Episcopal churches for now more than seventy years. I can joke about it, because I’ve been baptized twice and confirmed three times. For some years in high school and college I attended Churches of Christ in the Campbell tradition.

The Episcopal church has been torn by lawsuits and controversies. Officially the discussion is supposed to resolve based on scripture, tradition, and reason. In practice it comes down to ideology currently in vogue among the hierarchy. Thirty years ago, when the Episcopal and Lutheran churches attempted to merge, the effort foundered on disputes among their hierarchies. The people accepted open communion between the churches, but the hierarchies never resolved the question of which of them was closer to apostolic succession.

The only passage in the Gospels I can find that supports authoritative ministry, even by the apostles, is when Jesus says to Peter, “I give you the keys of the kingdom, power to bind and to loose, to forgive or not forgive”. This, of course, is the passage that the Catholic Church cites to support the Pope at the head of an elaborate hierarchy. But, when the dispute arose about Gentile observance of Jewish laws, Paul says he had to oppose Peter because he was simply wrong. It resolved in favor of Paul’s rational argument, not authority.

Viola and Barna discuss the historical development of church hierarchy church and services' devolution to spectator events. They cite many examples of how church polity has come to resemble that of Imperial Rome. The Reformation was an attempt to wrest control from the hierarchy, but Luther and Calvin changed only doctrinal points while maintaining control in their own hierarchies. Christians were expected to continue to sit and listen to them preach. The distinction between clergy and laity persisted.

In the churches Viola and Barna cite as good examples, scripture, tradition, and reason, have prominence, but the defining factor is that everybody can contribute to worship services and participate in making decisions. When people converse together about their lived experiences following Jesus, Jesus himself is revealed by his presence in the community. I think many of us have known him in this way from time to time in our conversations with others of the faith.