Finding Church (Part 3):Duane W.H. Arnold, PhD
As we have considered “Finding Church” in the apostolic and post-apostolic era we have found emerging communities of faith that we can recognize. Even in the churches described by Justin Martyr in the year AD 155, there were doubtless those who had either heard one or the other of the apostles, or, at the very least, knew someone who had been taught by them. By this time, no doubt, copies of the Gospels and the apostolic letters were being circulated, but the oral tradition of early Christianity remained strong. There also can be little doubt that those who were participating in those services described by the writer of the Didache and Justin Martyr believed that they had apostolic sanction for their manner and mode of worship. The similarities in the manner and mode of worship across geographical distances and varying cultural norms indicates that there was, in some sense, a common worship that one might encounter as a believer, whether in Antioch, or Damascus, or Rome. Again, all of this is to say that based upon the evidence, we have a pretty good idea of what the Church looked like in this early period.
Yet, there is more evidence as to the “Church beyond the Church”. That is, it is apparent from the early writings that, “Church” did not end at the church door. Justin Martyr tells us that when the Eucharist was celebrated, at it’s conclusion “those who are called ‘deacons’ are given the bread and the wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving (eucharistias) was pronounced, and they carry away a portion to those who were not present…” In other words, the Eucharist was considered central enough to the worship and devotional life of believers that consecrated bread and wine was taken to those who, for whatever reason, could not be present owing to age, illness, infirmity or, even those in prison. To be “Church” was to be a participant in the Eucharist and to be a participant in the Eucharist was to be “Church”. In the apostolic and post-apostolic era, we can come to no other possible conclusion.
There was, however, even more evidence of the “Church beyond the Church” and it has to do with money. At the conclusion of the service, after the deacons had been dismissed, Justin describes what next took place. “And then those who have the means, and are so disposed, give as much as they will; and what is collected is deposited with the one who presides, who himself supports and cares for the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are prisoners, and the foreigners [read here, “immigrants”] who are sojourning among us and in a word takes care of all who are in need.”
Now, there are things we know from this period and there are things that we don’t know. For instance, we know that there were those who were “clergy” in our understanding of the word. Ignatius of Antioch refers to bishops (episkopos), while elsewhere we find presbyters, elders and, by the end of the second century, priests (sacerdos). Most church historians believe that initially (as in Ignatius) there was an overseer (episkopos) appointed by the Apostles for local churches founded on their various missionary journeys. We have glimpses of this in the Pauline letters. As the churches grew and multiplied the bishops appointed presbyters to partake of their ministry of oversight and to preside at the Eucharist in yet other local assemblies. All of this takes place at a very early date and is referenced in numerous writings. Yet, we do not know how such clergy were supported. While we understand that, ‘the laborer is worthy of his hire” it seems likely that many, if not most, clergy in the early period were bi-vocational or “worker priests”. Again, however, we have no certain evidence apart from warnings in the Didache about itinerant preachers who overstay their welcome!
What we can be certain of, is that the early Church took seriously the demands of Christian charity toward the “least of these”. In the future, we will be discussing the sort of physical structures in which early Christians worshipped. For now it is perhaps enough to say that often these were buildings that early believers “re-purposed” for worship and that most often the building or home was given as a gift by a member of the local church. The money collected at the end of the Eucharist in Justin, therefore, was not for a salary or a building program. Rather it was a direct fulfillment of Matthew 25 and the other gospel imperatives. Indeed, we know that in the later letters of the emperor Julian the Apostate (fourth century) he complains at length that the Christians were known for not only taking care of their own (that is, fellow believers) but instead taking care of all who were in need, even those who were their enemies and persecutors. This sort of giving was a practical and well known hallmark of the Church for centuries. Moreover, while it was, in some sense, the responsibility of all believers, the clergy bore special responsibility for the exercise of practical care for those in need. Additionally, the specific categories of those in need remain with us today.
In seeking to find Church, I think we find it not only in its worship, structure and order. We also find it in its values.
Duane W.H. Arnold, PhD
The Project
I watched a few “church”services yesterday…the early church would not have recognized what they were doing…
Michael,
Either not recognized what they were doing, or recognized very clearly what they were doing and recoiled in disbelief…
One of the things I noted was that while the early church seemed to have concern for every member (as you noted above with the deacons taking the Eucharist to homes)there was no way that could happen in these megachurches with the ratio of members to staff.
I wonder how many deacons were in these early churches and how they decided how many were necessary.
Michael
A very good question to which we don’t have a definitive answer. Owing to the tradition of seven deacons in Acts (described as either deacons or doing the work of a deacon) some have speculated that this was copied… but for how large a church? In the pre-Constantinian era, individual churches appear to have been relatively small (25-200) judging by the archaeology. So, it’s really a guessing game…
Fascinating! Thanks, Dr. Duane, for this.
bob1
It’s a pleasure. Thanks for following the series!
Thanks Duane, didn’t think it was possible to be anymore depressed right now after reading what used to happen in the church, and what I’ll probably never see.
I’m just joking, but not really.
If anyone else is going to comment a platitude to me or somehow make me the villain, I’ve heard it all.
I only read about three posters here anyway.
UnCCed
I hear you. It sometimes feels like something precious has been stolen…
Duane,
Excellent series of articles. And for something humorous, I present this:
https://babylonbee.com/news/archaeologists-finally-discover-holy-grail-confirm-it-was-actually-just-tiny-plastic-cup
I don’t think the early church would recognize my church services. We are so far apart, I can’t right now imagine a road back.
I can only ask of our services, are they honoring Christ? Are they urging believers to Christian love and faithfulness? If our forms and methods are wrong, I pray the grace of God will cover it or lead us in the necessary change. Revelation 3:20 has haunted my imagination for a while now,as I imagine that church singing their songs and reading their scriptures, yet all the while Jesus was locked outside knocking to get in. Anything but that.
Right now, individual congregations are dividing over masks, american politics, and conspiracy theories. Uniting on the nature and practice of the Eucharist seems a distant dream.
A few questions.
1) If I’m looking back at the first Christians, who were born and raised in Judaism, I would presume that their initial model for gathering, leadership, and the “order of service” would have leaned heavily on what they already knew, which was Synagogue, as opposed to starting from scratch in a vacuum. It’s not like they said, “Well, we aren’t Jews anymore, we’re Christians, so we need something totally different.” Do we have anything reliable that goes back that far, pre-gentile, to support or reject that notion?
2) I’m glad you noted that the title “priest” was introduced late second century. Do we know why? I’m hypothesizing here. Were the titles of episkopos, presbyter, elder, even pastor, unfamiliar “Christian” religious terms to the broader gentile world as the church spread by the end of the second century? Did the church adopt a more secular and more familiar title of priest for reasons of contextualization? Again, guessing, I’m thinking the early church did not use that term because they already had a concept of that in the Jewish Temple and it misrepresented what the leadership was supposed to do or be, since Jesus was/is the High Priest. So I’m wondering if the adoption of the title “priest” was one of convenience. I, personally, don’t care for the title, let alone being called or calling someone “father.” Heck, I hated being called Pastor when I was one.
Josh
“I don’t think the early church would recognize my church services. We are so far apart, I can’t right now imagine a road back.”
I think that a big part of Christian ministry, both now and in the years to come, will involve imagining that road back. I don’t think I’ll see it in my life time, but you might…
Corby
1) By around AD 80, the Church was already predominantly gentile. The idea of a synagogue with a set service is also a post-Temple construct after the time of the Bar-Kobah revolt. The reading of Scripture and commenting upon the text (such as we see in the Gospels) was likely the main thing taken from synagogues of the second Temple period.
2) ” I’m hypothesizing here.” Yes you are. “Priest” was not “introduced” late second century. That is when we see it being used frequently in the literature, meaning that it was known and used earlier. Knowing the abhorrence that the early Church writers had for the surrounding religious culture, I find the “contextual” idea less than convincing. The term itself, in the Latin, has to do with one set apart to be concerned with holy matters. It was used not to exalt a person, but to reference what they did…
Duane,
So “priest” was a job description then. Well the Greek word “episkopos” basically describes what the person does “looking (watching?) over” or “looking (watching?) upon.” Which of course developed into the old English word bisceop or biscop. From where we get the word bishop.
CM
Exactly… part of the problem is that we tend to look at these issues (even words) through our own modern “lens”…
Duane,
Was some variant of episkopos used in the various Greek or Roman military works/histories/manuals in setting up the encampments or patrols perhaps? Records of city, seaport, watchmen, etc perhaps?
Logically a similar word would make sense in those writings.
Of course there are modern English words that use skopos. For example:
Periscope
Telescope
Microscope
All the original Greek words would describe the function of each particular instrument.
CM
In Lampe’s ‘Patristic Greek Lexicon’, there are over two full pages of uses of the word. In secular Greek usage it referred to any sort of oversight that was inclusive of responsibility. Variants were used for the “over-seeing” eyes of the gods. Interestingly, after adoption by Christians (it’s used five times in the NT, always in regard to an individual with oversight in the Church) the word took on the particular meaning we know today with hundreds of references in the first two centuries of the Christian era…
Duane,
Thanks for the added details. I figured there were other uses of the term in secular Greek society.