Christian Gatherings in the Second Century, Part 2 – Leadership Structures in Roman House Churches

What is the Church? Standardizing a Leadership Structure

            In beginning to piece together the motivations for institutionalization of Christianity in the second century, understanding ecclesiastical leadership structures is of great importance.  Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Pliny the Younger, and Justin Martyr all discuss the leadership of the churches in the second century, both in what they think it should be like and in how it actually functioned at the time. Despite some rather demanding claims by some of these authors, ecclesiastical leadership in the second century was hardly standardized, but was making definite moves toward that end.

Very Late 1^stCentury/Very Early 2^nd Century: Clement of Rome

            Clement of Rome was the fourth bishop of Rome, and Peter’s third successor. Clement writes a letter to the Christians in Corinth, on the occasion that they were ejecting appointed leaders from office. Clement writes to the Corinthian Christians, asking them to stop deposing their leaders. Due to the occasion for writing, Clement primarily addresses our area of interest regarding congregational leadership.

“There was nothing novel here because much earlier Scripture somewhere spoke of bishops and deacons, ‘I will establish their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.’…The apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should be no dispute concerning the ministry of the bishop…blessed are presbyters who have finished their journey and whose life has come to a fruitful and perfect end.”[1]

            At first glance, Clement’s comments seem rather bland and uninteresting to our discussion. Upon a second glance, though, particularly at verse 44, a seeming discrepancy arises: Clement refers to bishops and presbyters interchangeably. Whether or not there was anything that distinguished the two terms or offices in the earliest centuries, there is certainly no indication of difference by Clement. [2]Clement instead uses two terms for the same office, which, as we shall see shortly, is a strong testimony against Ignatius’ insistence that the three-level system of leadership is in place “throughout the whole world.” For our purposes, this is clear evidence that standardization in early Christian leadership had not yet occurred.[3]Instead, leaders would have been wealthier members of the church with homes large enough to accommodate the gatherings, a system commonly identified as patronage.[4]We will discuss this in more detail later.

Early 2^nd Century: Ignatius of Antioch

            Ignatius was either the second or third bishop of Antioch, depending on the source. On his way to stand trial in Rome, Ignatius wrote seven letters, conventionally dated to the beginning of the second century,[5]encouraging congregations and providing instruction for Christian life and congregational practice.[6]Most of Ignatius’ instruction centers on the form of leadership he sees as required in each home congregation.

Ignatius makes bold claims about the authority of the church: it lies solely in the hands of the bishop. In his final letter to the churches in Ephesus, Ignatius says that the bishops are to Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ is to the Father, and even goes so far as to equate the bishop with Jesus himself:

For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the thought of the Father, just as the bishops, appointed throughout the whole world, are in the thought of Jesus Christ… And so it is clear that we are to look upon the bishop as if he were the Lord himself.[7]

Such a comparison leaves little doubt as to the importance of the bishop in the mind of Ignatius. With these words, Ignatius conflates the office of bishop with the authority of God himself, and consequently inflates the importance of the letters he (the bishop of Antioch) is writing to the churches.

            In his final letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius addresses a congregation with an apparently-assigned young bishop, and commends them for their submission to him. He says their submission is wise, and once again equates the bishop with both Jesus and God:

It is fitting that you not take advantage of your bishop’s youthful age but, because of the power of God the Father, show him all respect. I know, in fact, that your holy presbyters have not taken advantage of his youthfulness, but like those who are wise in God, they yield to him, not to him but to the Father of Jesus Christ who is the bishop of all…I implore you, attempt to do everything in harmony with God and under the presidency of the bishop who takes the place of God, the presbyters taking the place of the council of the apostles, and the deacons, who are so dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ who before time was with the Father and who in these last days has appeared… Just as the Lord did nothing, whether by himself or by his apostles apart from the Father with whom he is one, so neither are you to do anything without the bishop and the presbyters. Do not try to convince yourselves that what you do on your own is acceptable.[8]

Two other points of interest arise in this letter: the description of the three-fold leadership structure of bishop, presbyters (elders), and deacons; and the command that the congregations not “do anything without the bishop and the presbyters.” First, regarding Ignatius’ tripartite leadership structure, this standardized structure appears throughout Ignatius’ writing, and is always defined as bishop (singular), presbyters (plural), and deacons (plural). Taking Ignatius’ writing alone, it would appear that a standardized leadership structure was already in place at the beginning of the second century. As we have seen from Clement’s writing, however, this is not the case. Next, regarding Ignatius’ orders about church practices in relation to the bishop and presbyters, this is an astounding and seemingly-unprecedented command. There is no evidence up to this point that such a rigid, authority-focused view of practice was in place. In fact, as we move to other primary sources from this time, it will become evident that such authority-focused practice was the norm even during the second century.

            In his letter to the Trallians, Ignatius again proposes the tri-level authority structure, and once again states that any action taken without such a structure is forbidden.

And so it is necessary – as is your present practice – to do nothing without the bishop. Also submit yourselves to the presbyterate as if to the apostles… Likewise, let all respect the deacons as we would Jesus Christ; also the bishop who is the image of the Father, and the presbyters like God’s council and like the assembly of the apostles; without these we cannot speak of the Church.[9]

Without this episcopal leadership structure, Ignatius says there can be no church at all. This has interesting implications regarding Ignatius’ view of the Church. Regardless of where congregations gather, they are not recognized as legitimate congregations without the oversight and direct operation of the bishop. Rather than enabling the Church to expand, such a view and requirement serves rather to restrict the growth of the Church, centralizing its authority to the now-elite bishops.

            In his final letter to the Smyrnians, Ignatius repeats his tripartite leadership structure, again equating them with Jesus, the apostles, and now God’s law. Ignatius repeats his command to do nothing without the bishop’s oversight, and takes his requirement a step further: that wherever the bishop appears, the congregation is to follow appear.

All of you are to follow the bishop just as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and you are to follow the presbyterate as you would the apostles; regarding the deacons, respect them as you would God’s law. Let no one do anything apart from the bishop which pertains to the Church. May there be only one legitimate Eucharist, namely, that done under the bishop or whomever the bishop has committed it. Wherever the bishop appears, there the people are to be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic Church. Without the bishop’s permission it is not allowed to baptize or to hold an agape, but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God.[10]

Again, these commands say much about how Ignatius views the Church and his understanding of its function. The Church, according to Ignatius, exists only where the bishop appears. In fact, wherever the bishop appears, the people are told to assemble. Such an instruction goes beyond merely giving oversight to the group; the group, in Ignatius’ view, serves the bishop. In addition, several functions of each congregation, including baptism, the Eucharist, and the communal feast/agape, are put under the direct control of the bishop. Also, in a letter to Polycarp of Smyrna, an individual in the same congregation to which the previous instructions were sent, Ignatius includes one more rite now under the direction of the bishop:

It is also proper that men and women who marry do so with the consent of the bishop so that their marriage takes place according to the Lord and not according to passion.[11]

In addition to such strict guidelines surrounding the episcopal hierarchy, Ignatius mentions several practices that fall under the jurisdiction of the bishop: the Eucharist, baptism, the “agape,” and marriage. Whereas, in the previous century, the Eucharist and/or agape feasts were functions of the home congregations, now they are under the direct control of the bishop. In addition, the practice of baptism has been removed from the hands of the people and placed in those of the bishop. What were once normal social functions involving people of common faith now become controlled, authority-centered rites that are overseen by a three-level hierarchy. Hanz Conzelmann defends Ignatius, stating that the different levels of the hierarchy of episcopal leadership are “most closely bound up with soteriology, the doctrine of the Spirit, the doctrine of the sacraments, and the idea of the church, and is justified thereby,”[12]but upon examination of Ignatius’ letters, this is not the case. Rather, the work of the Spirit, the sacraments, and the idea of the church are restricted to these offices, rather than having their source in them.

Ignatius, then, serves as the earliest and loudest voice promoting this tri-level hierarchical leadership of bishop, presbyters, and deacons. So, does the fact that Ignatius is the first proponent of such a system mean that it was, by the turn of the second century, new? On the contrary, Robinson purports that, due to the fact that Ignatius’ letters do not contain instructions for these offices or define their roles, the congregations are in fact already accustomed to them and understand their function. Instead, “Ignatius is defining the church (those submitting to the bishop and presbytery); he is not defining the bishop, nor does it seem necessary for him to do so.”[13]Not everyone agrees, however. Bradshaw views Ignatius’ repeated insistence on obedience to the bishop as an indication that such an episcopal leadership structure was not universally and unquestioningly accepted.[14]Whatever the case about its novelty or acceptance, Ignatius believes this tripartite leadership structure to be the absolute rule and definition for the church. There is no room for any group that does not submit to the authority of the bishop.[15]His word, however, is hardly the final one on the subject.

Early 2^nd Century: Pliny the Younger

In Pliny’s letter to the emperor Trajan, we have a unique voice on record regarding second century Christian leadership. Pliny was a Roman senator sent to Asia Minor to help reform the local government. Pliny speaks of Christians as an outsider to their beliefs and practices, offering an uncommon view to ancient Christian practices in the second century. The following is an excerpt from a letter to the emperor asking for advice on how to deal with members of a “secret sect” – Christianity.[16]

They also declare that the substance of their guilt and error amounted to no more than this: they customarily gathered before dawn on a fixed day to sing in alternation a hymn to Christ as if to a god, and they bound themselves by an oath, not in a criminal conspiracy, but to refrain from robbery, theft, or adultery, from breaking their word, from reneging on a deposit. After this they usually dispersed, reassembling later on in order to take food of a common and harmless kind. And so I believed that it was all the more necessary to seek the truth from two female slaves, who are called ‘ministers,’ doing so by means of torture. I found nothing except a degenerate, excessive superstition.[17]

            Here Pliny offers some interesting insight into early second century practice. Perhaps of most interest is the status of the persons Pliny is interrogating. He identifies them as female slaves, and then notes that they are called “ministers.” The term “ministers” was common in the first century, used to describe persons who are active in the early house churches, so it is no surprise that it is used at the beginning of the second century. What is of note is that the bearers of this description are female slaves – a clear upset of the prevailing social order of male supremacy and the status of slaves in the Roman Empire.[18]Certainly in comparison with either Clement’s dual hierarchy of bishops/presbyters and deacons or Ignatius’ tri-level hierarchy of bishop, presbyters, and deacons, a snapshot of female slaves as leaders is shocking. Most certainly not viewed as authoritative appointees in the same way as the bishops likely were, these women leaders were viewed as authoritative enough by the Roman senator to be able to provide accurate information about the form and function of the secret sect, likely due to their extreme insider position and knowledge.  Pliny’s account offers major conflicting data regarding a standardized leadership structure in the early second century. It may have been in practice somewhere, but it wasn’t in practice everywhere.

155 C.E.: Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr was a second century Christian apologist. He was a teacher of philosophy who converted to Christianity in C.E. 130. After his conversion, he established a school of Christian philosophy and was eventually beheaded for refusing to participate in Roman sacrifice. He was a prolific writer, with his Apologycontaining 68 chapters.[19]Several passages of the Apology are of interest to second century Christian leadership, and are excerpted below:

But after we have washed those who have believed and have joined us, we bring them to where those who are called brethren have assembled. In this way we may offer prayer in common both for ourselves and for those who have received illumination and for people everywhere…When the prayers have concluded, we greet one another with a kiss. Then bread and a cup containing water and wine are brought to him who presides over the assembly. He takes these and then gives praise…And after the presider has celebrated the thanksgiving and all the people have given their consent, those whom we call deacons give to each of those present a portion of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water and take the same to those who are absent.”

“And on the day that is called Sunday all who live in the cities or in rural areas gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read for as long as time allows…the president verbally instructs and exhorts us…Then all stand up together and offer prayers…bread is brought forward together with the wine and water…all share in the Eucharist…those who are well-to-do and willing give as they choose…the collection is then deposited with the presider who uses it on behalf of orphans, widows, and those who are needy…But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly since this day is the first day on which God, changing darkness and matter, created the world; it was on this very day that Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.”[20]

In these passages there is no note of the tri-level structure of leadership so insisted on by Ignatius. Instead, Justin mentions that a president or presider instructs the assembly from their sacred writings. Paul Bradshaw notes that two problems arise in interpreting Justin Martyr’s accounts of second century church practice: 1) this may be an account of a specific group’s practice, or it may be a generic type of model that many congregations followed, and 2) since Justin’s audience is not Christian, we have no idea how much information he left out simply because his audience wouldn’t have cared or understood the information.[21]This identification of a “president,” then, is prone to interpretation issues. While deacons are clearly addressed, it is completely possible that the home congregations Justin observed had no functioning bishops and/or presbyters. It is also possible that Justin simply did not use either of these terms as they might not have made sense to his non-Christian audience.

            Some may agree with this later interpretation as a way of making sense of seemingly conflicting information. However, in discussing this passage from Justin Martyr, Peter Lampe says that to equate the presider of the liturgy with a monarchical Roman bishop “would be to read into the passage things that are not there.”[22]He continues by saying that this group of Justin’s conducts its own worship services, with no indication that there is any form of hierarchical structure supervising each group. Instead, each group has its own officers, including a presider, a lector, and deacons.[23]This seems consistent with Pliny the Younger and Clement of Rome’s attestation to varying styles of leadership and practice within second century house churches. At this point in the church’s development, it makes more sense to refer to them as “churches” instead of “the church.”

Summarizing Second Century Leadership

Ignatius gives the earliest and most clearly defined reference to the three-part episcopal structure.[24]He apparently assumes this system is universally understood, although perhaps not universally practiced by every home congregation. On the other hand, Pliny refers to two “ministers” he is interrogating, indicating that women may have had a large role in the life of the early second century churches. In support of this, Osiek, MacDonald, and Tulloch note that Ignatius’ letters mention several prominent women who likely provided patronage for him and would likely be hosts of house churches.[25]While this may have been the case in Ignatius’ congregations, his focus is nonetheless on the primacy of the bishop. Clement and Justin speak of varied styles of leadership, ranging from Clement’s dual model of bishops/presbyters and deacons to Justin’s account of a presider and deacons. Clement speaks as one with authority addressing those he believes under his influence or control, with clear instructions as to how the congregation in Corinth is to submit to their leaders’ authority. Justin, though, simply reports what he sees taking place. When these four accounts are seen side by side, it is evident that even by the middle of the second century a universal rule of congregational order and authority has not been enforced, if it has even been created.

It is interesting to note that each of these sources discuss some kind of role or leadership function. On the less-authoritarian end would be Pliny’s mention of “ministers” and Justin Martyr’s description of a presider and deacons. Neither Pliny nor Justin appear to be in positions of Christian leadership, so perhaps their de-emphasis on title and authority reflects their station. Moving up toward more authoritarian models is Clement, with his dual structure of bishop(s)/presbyter(s) and deacons, followed by the most authoritarian structure of Ignatius’ trinity of bishop, presbyters, and deacons. Both of these men serve as bishops, which could contribute to their interest in leadership and in increasing its/their own authority. Wright notes, then, that at the beginning of the second century, there were at least two different authoritarian views of ecclesiastical leadership. Clement bases the authority of the presbyters/bishops on apostolic succession and supports a college of bishops. Ignatius, on the other hand, repeatedly and emphatically teaches that power should rest in the hands of one single bishop. His basis of enforcing this model is the spiritual authority of the bishop himself, rather than apostolic succession.[26]So, while Ignatius is clearly the most demanding in terms of authoritarian leadership, we have snapshots of congregations where such a structure has not yet been implemented.

Next, we will look at records of second century congregational practices as a measuring rod of the level of institutionalization that was present at the time.

Christian Gatherings in the Second Century:

Part 1 – Introduction and Background 

Part 2 – Leadership Structures in Roman House Churches

Part 3 – Congregational Practices in Roman House Churches

Part 4 – Dedicated Buildings for Roman House Churches
Part 5 – Conclusions

---

[1] Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, vv 42, & 44, as quoted by Johnson, 44.

[2] Robert Roy Wright, The Church’s First Thousand Years (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960), 41. [2]Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 199, supports this view.

[3] Bradshaw, 198-199.

[4] Bradshaw, 194.

[5] Bradshaw, 200.

[6] Lawrence J Johnson, Worship in the Early Church: An Anthology of Historical Sources(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009), 46.

[7] Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, vv. 3 & 6, as quoted by Johnson, 48.

[8] Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians, vv. 3, 6, &7, as quoted by Johnson, 49-50.

[9] Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians, vv. 2 & 3, as quoted by Johnson, 50.

[10] Ignatius of Antioch, To the Smyrnians, vs 8, as quoted by Johnson, 51.

[11] Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp of Smyrna, vs 5, as quoted by Johnson, 51.

[12] Conzelmann, 116.

[13] Thomas A. Robinson, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), 101-102.

[14] Bradshaw, 200.

[15] Vincent P. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989), 130-131.

[16] Johnson, 83.

[17] Pliny the Younger, Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan the Emperor, as quoted by Johnson, 84-85.

[18] For helpful discussion on male social supremacy and the role of slaves in the Roman Empire, see The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity by Peter Brown and Slavery in Early Christianity by Jennifer Glancy.

[19] Johnson, 65-66.

[20] Justin Martyr, Apology 1, vv. 65 & 67, as quoted by Johnson, 68-69.

[21] Bradshaw, 98-99.

[22] Lampe, 365.

[23] Lampe, 377.

[24] Robinson, 99. Bradshaw, 200, says almost exactly the same thing.

[25] Carolyn Osiek, Margaret Y. MacDonald, and Janet H. Tulloch, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 214.

[26] Wright, 42.