Leadership in the Ancient Church
Over the past two hundred years it has not been uncommon for some historians of the Ancient Church to argue that formal leadership simply did not exist in the early decades of the church’s existence. Rather, they have maintained, things were quite fluid in the decades immediately after the resurrection of Christ and Pentecost. It was a period of charismatic leadership, when people who gave leadership to the church were regarded as leaders not so much due to any official recognition on the part of churches but because of their personal giftedness or because of the force of their personalities. Only with the passage of time did the church begin to have clearly designated offices of leadership like elders or bishops, and this marks a growing institutionalization of the church. From a fairly open fellowship of the Spirit in which all were equal, the church became more rigid and hierarchical.
The only problem with this model is that the evidence of the New Testament clearly presents us with a different picture. As we look at the following texts, it will be immediately clear that leadership, ever vital to any group of people, was present from the very origins of the Church:
a. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, for instance, which, apart from possibly James’ letter, is the earliest book in the New Testament, Paul states that the “one who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches” (ESV).
b. Again, in 1 Thessalonians 5:12, also a very early text, Paul encourages his readers: “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you” (ESV).
c. And in Philippians 1:1, Paul and Timothy, greet not only “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi,” but also the “overseersand deacons” (ESV).
The key question for the early Christians was not whether to have leaders or not, but what kind of leaders? Leadership was a given. The key question was: What model of leadership was to be promoted?
This entry was posted on Saturday, June 26th, 2010 at 7:59 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
June 28th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Broadening this out beyond the issue of church leadership there is a tendency to “create the early church in our own image” and to paint a picture of the early decades of the Christian church in terms of informal housegroups, gathering in homes with no formal service or structure “led by the Spirit”. One is left to imagine the apostolic church strumming the chords of an early Christian chorus etc. Even Michael Green is guilty of this distortion. There is absolutely no historical evidence for such a church. While it may seem to be ‘liberating’ and ‘getting away from human traditions’ to make such suggestions in reality it is just as subjective and just as culture-bound as the opposite extreme, namely reading back into the apostolic church all aspects of traditional church practice. That’s why we need church history!
June 28th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Well said Russell. Thanks.