I'm going to close out this week's topic by looking back to the history of the church -- the very early church -- to gain a bit more perspective on ordination.I'm currently writing a little book reflecting on the Didache and its use for us today (the image at left is the 10th century manuscript, lost for 800 years, and rediscovered in 1873). If you're unfamiliar, the Didache is a manual of Christian living from the second half of the first century -- contemporaneous with the letter of Paul and the synoptic Gospels. The Didache is basically broken into four parts:
- the moral teaching drawn from a Jewish document known as the "Two Ways" (chaps. 1-6);
- a liturgical treatise (chaps. 7-10);
- a church organization treatise (chaps. 11-15);
- and an apocalyptic section (chap. 16)
I hope to make our contemporary translation, which will be chapter two of the book, available online under a Creative Commons license. In the meantime, there are lots of public domain translations available online, most of which use King James type language.
Of most interest to this discussion are the middle two sections.
First, the context of the document. The Didache seems to have been a manual, used by a Nazarene synagogue (that is, a synagogue that had converted to Jesus-following-Judaism) of Hellenized Jews on the Syrian border -- maybe in the rural outskirts of Antioch. The opening, 
"There Are Two Ways," was an older Jewish document that was amended and used by several early Christian communities, for it's also echoed in the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. The middle two sections may be a bit older, and some material possibly originated in the Dicache community, and the apocalypse is also reflective of other early documents.
In the liturgical section of the Didache, there are chapters that deal with baptism (do it in flowing water, if possible) and on the Eucharist (in a setting that's dramatically different from Paul's setting of the Lord's Supper). But, what's notable for our purposes is that there is no talk of specific persons administering the sacraments to the congregation. (Neither does Paul imply that, for that matter.) Regarding baptism, the Didache is quite specific about the how, and it gives not a mention of the who. The former seemed very important to the community, the latter completely unimportant.
The Didache speaks of the Eucharist more like the daily agape meal, shared by all followers of the Way, than the weekly, monthly, or quarterly communion, parsed our by a clergyperson, to which most os us are accustomed. Again, there is no direction as to who can and who cannot say the prescribed blessings and prayers.
In the following section, dealing with the organization of the ekklesia, the Didache has much to say about how to test the genuineness of wandering prophets and teachers -- it has to do with how long they stay, if they ask for money, and if they know a trade by which they can support themselves. The final section even begins,
At first blush, this might look like a gathering storm of hierarchy. But in fact, the hierarchical episcopacy -- i.e., one bishop per region -- was not established until a few years later when Ignatius of Antioch established the episcopacy as a way to fight false teaching. Ignatius also added elder/priest (presbuterion) to the list of leadership in the church, and he commanded loyalty to these leaders in a way that the Didache does not.
In the end -- and I realize that my own theological presuppositions color my judgment here -- the Didache is notably silent on the office of "priest." No one person is set apart by the community to perform baptisms or pass out communion. Teachers, prophets, bishops, and deacons are all mentioned, but the roles thereof are left undefined.
"There Are Two Ways," was an older Jewish document that was amended and used by several early Christian communities, for it's also echoed in the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. The middle two sections may be a bit older, and some material possibly originated in the Dicache community, and the apocalypse is also reflective of other early documents.In the liturgical section of the Didache, there are chapters that deal with baptism (do it in flowing water, if possible) and on the Eucharist (in a setting that's dramatically different from Paul's setting of the Lord's Supper). But, what's notable for our purposes is that there is no talk of specific persons administering the sacraments to the congregation. (Neither does Paul imply that, for that matter.) Regarding baptism, the Didache is quite specific about the how, and it gives not a mention of the who. The former seemed very important to the community, the latter completely unimportant.
The Didache speaks of the Eucharist more like the daily agape meal, shared by all followers of the Way, than the weekly, monthly, or quarterly communion, parsed our by a clergyperson, to which most os us are accustomed. Again, there is no direction as to who can and who cannot say the prescribed blessings and prayers.
In the following section, dealing with the organization of the ekklesia, the Didache has much to say about how to test the genuineness of wandering prophets and teachers -- it has to do with how long they stay, if they ask for money, and if they know a trade by which they can support themselves. The final section even begins,
"Appoint bishops (episkopi) for yourselves, as well as deacons (diakonia), worthy of the Lord, of meek disposition, unattached to money, truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers."
At first blush, this might look like a gathering storm of hierarchy. But in fact, the hierarchical episcopacy -- i.e., one bishop per region -- was not established until a few years later when Ignatius of Antioch established the episcopacy as a way to fight false teaching. Ignatius also added elder/priest (presbuterion) to the list of leadership in the church, and he commanded loyalty to these leaders in a way that the Didache does not.In the end -- and I realize that my own theological presuppositions color my judgment here -- the Didache is notably silent on the office of "priest." No one person is set apart by the community to perform baptisms or pass out communion. Teachers, prophets, bishops, and deacons are all mentioned, but the roles thereof are left undefined.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Gee, Chad, I've reread my post, and I can't find the word "normative" anywhere. Nor can I find the concept. Instead, I wrote that we can look to the Didache and the early church for "perspective."
You're wiggling, Tony. You are appealing to the Didache as a norm for our thought about the Church. That's precisely what it means to look to something for "perspective." You are implying that the Didache is in some sense normative, or ought to be. Otherwise, who cares what it says about ordination? Why worry over it? And why would you write a book about it? If there's not ordination in the Didache, and if we don't think it is normative in any way, then its content is unbinding and insignificant for Christians. It might as well be the Qur'an. But you don't really think that. You think it represents an early Church, and that therefore it ought to be in some sense normative for the Church today. Be consistent.
Also, who are all these "scholars" who say there isn't ordination in the Didache? Could you point us to the monographs you've worked through? Since you're writing a book on this, I suppose you have a pretty hefty bibliography. Did any of the Jesuits like de Lubac or Danielou cover this ground? I suppose you'll be producing your findings at NAPS or SBL, right?
Chad,
You asked Tony: "whether or not [he] believes God is still in the business of calling pastors, teachers, evangelists and prophets? Does the Holy Spirt still gift whom the Spirit wills? If the given reality is that God sets some apart for particular vocations than how do we live faithfully into that reality?"
Let me try and answer this one.
First, a problem I see with interpreting this is our baggage of institutional, systematic ecclesiology. Your question implies that these gifts are 'vocations'. Within the larger context of the New Testament, I think that a better approach to this passage of scripture would be to say that these gifts from the Holy Spirit may never even be recognized by the body. Jesus says that the least will be lifted up.
For example, the elderly lady who never says a word publicly and yet ministers to others by her simple encouraging remarks in private may in fact be the Holy Spirits gift of a 'pastor' to the body. She may never be recognized by men but still be God's gift to the body.
Likewise, the gangly teenager who is reject by his peers but whom is not afraid to share his faith in powerful encounters one on one, may be the Spirit's gift of an evangelist.
My point is that we read this passage (and many others) with our organized, institutional mindset and see 'vocation' were the text itself never says this.
(Of course, I may be completely wrong as I am only a 'fisherman' who has never attended a bible school let alone a seminary).
Barry,
Thank you for being (I think) the first and only to address what I think is a rather important question as it relates to this topic.
While I agree with you that these gifts can certainly present themselves in non-vocational means that is not to say that this is always the case. But you are right to point out that I do believe there are some who are called into a particular *vocation* that fills certain offices.
By virtue of our baptism we are ALL priests. We are all ministers. But within these ranks of the baptized God has seen fit to call some to be shepherds of the baptized because God desires a "kingdom of priests." From the beginning it was obvious that the church required certain leadership. The first move the apostles made after Jesus ascended was to replace Judas. In Acts 6 the apostles determined that they needed to devote themselves to prayer and study and teaching while others tended to the widows. And of course there is the dramatic call of Saul to be a an instrument of the church to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. It is difficult to read the entire story from Gen to Rev. and not get come away with the sense that God calls individual men and women into a particular vocation to serve God's people. This is not a relationship OVER or GREATER than any other person in the church but is merely descriptive of what the relationship in the community of the baptized is. In other words, it is never meant to be a hierarchy nor about power.
Paul is quite clear with his rhetorical questions: Are all pastors? Are all prophets? Are all evangelists? Are all teachers? The obvious answer to his questions is, "no." Not all are. Some are. In every generation God has seen fit to call such people for the benefit of the Church. When I hear a member of my youth come to me because they are disturbed day and night by a call to be a pastor and that they are having dreams and even swear they hear an audible voice (a similar call story to my own), I rejoice because it is one more confirmation that God has not and will not abandon God's Church.
grace and peace,
Chad
Chad,
What do you say about the idea that Jesus spoke against the idea of having positions of an 'office' in Matthew 23:8-12. I have read and I have come to believe that Jesus was directly targeting the Jewish idea of having an 'office' ministry?
I have no problem with leadership or the idea that there are some who may function differently. But even with the older lady and gangly teenager examples that I gave, I could say with Paul, "Are all pastors? Are all prophets? Are all evangelists? Are all teachers?"
I do have a problem with the seeming disregard for the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 23:8-12). And I do not think he was worried about labels "teacher, pastor, ..." but with the idea of holding a position or office.
A bit late, but I think what sets people off is this specific wording:
"At first blush, this might look like a gathering storm of hierarchy. But in fact, the hierarchical episcopacy -- i.e., one bishop per region -- was not established until a few years later when Ignatius of Antioch established the episcopacy as a way to fight false teaching."
There's no reasonable basis given the extant evidence to suggest that Ignatius "established the episcopacy". That's, frankly, counter-factual. The episcopacy seems to clearly have been of Apostolic origin. Christianity had spread rapidly enough at that point that broadly normative practices would have been very hard to introduce at a later stage.
In any case, the Eucharist was always seen as an offering of the people. This is why, in Eastern services, for example, the bread and wine is brought forward from the people to this day. Many of the later "safe guards" were introduced to stem abuses of the consecrated offerings. That much is known with some high probability of being correct. But that seems to be orthogonal from the point you are trying to suggest as fact, ie, that no hierarchical authority presided over the Eucharistic offering at all. That seems highly unlikely, though at best we will have to make educated guesses either way. From that perspective, what if any implications this has for contemporary praxis is unclear to me.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.