Ordination, maybe not such a great idea.
Full disclosure: I was ordained 27 years ago. This may surprise you when you read what I write below.
Those of us who are aware of Christian history know that the year 313 AD was an eventful year for the Christian faith. What had originally seemed like an incredible victory for the Christians soon began to be viewed as a mixed blessing. Now, with nearly 1,700 years of hindsight, many view Feb. 3, 313AD as one of the darkest days in Christian history. So what happened in that day? On that day the new Roman emperor Constantine signed the Edict of Milan, which officially recognized and tolerated Christianity. Even more, it tolerated other religions, but did so because it chose to tolerate Christianity. In other words, Christianity was first among supposed equals. All other religions had to credit their toleration due to Christianity.
Obviously this seemed like good news to the Christians. But, given the historic context it went beyond good, it seemed like the miracle of miracles. Just seven years before the Christians were in the midst of the most severe persecution they had ever suffered in the Roman Empire; the Diocletian persecution under an emperor by that name. Any Christian found, both adults and children, were forced to sacrifice to the pagan gods on pain of death. Many chose death. Now, seven years later the Christians were being not only tolerated but considered the most important religion in the empire. A miracle right?
So what happened at the dramatic switch? Very quickly a number of things happened. Romans, who could see who the emperor was favoring were “becoming Christians” in droves. But these weren’t necessarily new disciples of Christ as much as converts in name only. Second, in order to handle the influx of “new Christians” the church asked the government to be able to use large buildings (instead of homes and apartments) for their meetings. To do this they were given access to the Roman courthouses, called basilicas. This reinforced their tie to the government. Third, leaders of the Christians, called at that time elders or bishops, were quickly organized into a copy of the Roman government’s hierarchical leadership structure. These leaders were even validated by copying the Roman ritual of being installed into official governmental office, called ordination. This concept of ordination was completely foreign to Christianity until the Church became associated with the Roman government.
Wow, this is all great right? The most experienced Christians must have been ecstatic? Not so much. Here’s what happened. Christian leaders, who had been informal leaders, recognized and respected for their Christian maturity, now became “officials” with an “office” and began to act like their government counterparts; as if they had power and control over those “below” them. Very rapidly their spiritual lives began to deteriorate. For more on this read Chapter 5: The Crumbling of a Viral Jesus Movement in my book Viral Jesus. The experienced Christians soon became disgusted by their own leadership. Some retreated to the desert to seek the holiness that was no longer being demonstrated by their leaders. These desert pilgrims became known to history as the Desert Fathers. This was the beginning of the monastic movement, which was a direct response to the degradation of Christian leadership.
One of these Desert Fathers was named Pachomius. Thomas Merton, a Catholic monk, writing of this response to the carnality and veniality of the new clergy wrote this about Pachomius. “Power of any sort was suspect, even that of the ordained clergy. Pachomius, like many other early monks, took a dim view of the priesthood, seeing ordination as ‘the beginning of the thought of love of command.’”[1]
So how long did this process take? Pachomius was about 21 years old at the signing of the Edict of Milan. And he died only 35 years after its signing. The total degradation of Christian leadership didn’t take long at all, well within one lifetime. And that degradation started when Christian leaders were given official positions, titles, power and command; this in contrast to merely being respected for maturity and holy living. In 1870 Lord Acton famously said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He was writing that comment about Pope Pius IX; but he wasn’t the first Christian to realize that giving official power to Christian leaders harms them and harms the Church. Pachomius could have told him that about 1,550 years earlier.
- Were you aware that monasticism was a response to the degradation of the Christian leadership after they became “clergy”?
- The hierarchicalization of the Church started before the Edict of Milan but was vague and sporadic before then. Are you surprised by how rapidly the leadership of the Church deteriorated after the Edict of Milan?
- Did you know that the idea of ordination comes from the pagan Roman government and was non-existent before the 4th Century? How do you feel about that?
- Do you think title, power and control are necessary for Christian leadership to function? If they don’t have these things, how can they lead?
Order Today!
I agree that the joining together of the church with the government was not ultimately in the church’s best interest. but it is important to understand that the laying on of hands was an ordination in itself. as early as acts chapter 6 we see this setting apart for formal ministry. yes, it was servant leadership. but these early deacons we’re clerly set apart as having authority to carry out a very specific ministry.
reading your article one could come to think that only maturity mattered an d not the setting apart by the community 4 leadership.
certainly titles and institutional authority can be abused. but please do not throw out the biblical role of ordination because of pagan influence.
Thanks for this post. You have summarised the situation very succinctly. I have found this very helpful!
I call this the disease of Empire. The disease of Empire still affects our faith today. I am writing a series on Nations, Empires and the Kingdom of God on my own blog if you want to check it out.
I have not found ordination beyond the Apostles in the NT. I do not see it commanded for the early church and its’ leadership. I may be wrong, bit it appears to be missing from the texts.
I am not surprised that it is practiced today because of the error of the clergy-laity separation, something else that is false. There is no separation. The elders of the early church were men who had gifts, they understood it to be a gift and not an office.
Anyway, that is the least of the institutional church’s problems.
Mike
The following is what my friend Jana wrote as a response to me posting this on facebook. Her OT reference does not stand, because we are all now priests. But her NT verse is a good point. What is your response to this? Thanks
“Ordination in the Christian Church took place long before 313. There was a long history of ordination with in the Jewish tradition. Starting from Aaron and his sons. This is most likely where Christianity borrowed from for the tradition of ordination. Leviticus 8 and 9 describes a very detailed account of the ordination ceremony and priesthood. Also the first verse of Philippians references bishops which comes from the word that is translated as overseers. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-c. 117) who was a disciple of the Apostle John had much to say concerning offices of the church including this: “The bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness after the council of the apostles, with the deacons who are also most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ.” “
John,
Thanks for sharing this. A number of subjects have been brought up here and all of them are addressed in my book Viral Jesus. But I’ll tackle them all briefly here.
1.) It is true that priests were consecrated in the Old Testament (which can also be translated “old covenant”). That is the core of the problem with your friend Jana’s argument. We live in the new covenant. We are no longer under the law of the old covenant. One of the key issues of the new covenant is that we are all priests with only one High Priest. So we don’t need a special class of Christians as we did in the old covenant. The point of priests (and their Protestant counterparts ministers/pastors) is that there is a special class of religious people who do the work of ministry. In the new covenant there is no need for this special class since we are all priests. There is nothing to ordain them to. We are all already set apart for the ministry. That’s exactly why you don’t see the word ordination or the act in the New Testament. It is contrary to our new arrangement/contract/covenant with God.
2.) Bishops (from the Greek word episcopos) was one of two names used for elders the other was presbuteros (elder). There was no ceremony for them. They were acknowledged a word poorly translated in Titus 1:5 as “appointed.” These were more mature Christians who were respected for their spiritual maturity (hence “elder). They looked out for (watched over) less mature Christians. They were not a special class, they were just a few steps out ahead of others and respected for it. To turn them into a special class (clergy) is to violate the new covenant. We read the word “bishop” and put it through our our own grid which has been distorted by over 1,700 years of human tradition and assume it is talking about some special person in an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Not true. That’s one of the reasons I wrote my book. We have a hard time distinguishing between what the Bible actually says and our acquired traditions. Those foolish traditions impeded the spread of the Kingdom and slow down and stop viral movements of the Spirit. Clergy is one of the chief brakes on the Great Commission.
3.) Good old Ignatius of Antioch. I start the Preface of Viral Jesus talking about Ignatius. He was a very serious Christian who gave his life durring the persecutions of Trajan. And he personally started some of the traditions that have done the most damage to the Church of anyone in history. This is one great example. Where did Ignatius get this stuff? He pulled it out of thin air. In reality he was copying the leadership structure around him from Roman society. Paul warned us about succumbing to the foundational principles of the world (Gal 4:3, Gal 4:9, Col. 2:8 and Col. 2:20. Again, I develop this in detail in my book.
Here’s what it all boils down to. We tend to not distinguish between traditions and what the Bible was actually saying in its own historical context. So we read stuff back into the scriptures. The end result is the now 2,000 years later Christianity has become incrusted with a bunch of traditions like barnacles on a boat. Those barnacles slow us down to the point we aren’t doing what God desperately wants us to do. Our addiction to a non-New Testament idea (clergy) is just one of those barnacles. What we have ended up with is Christendom, not really Christianity. While this may not hinder us from having a relationship with Jesus, it certainly impairs us from being fully, lovingly obedient to our Lord.
Dane,
I don’t think it is accurate to turn the choosing of deacons to free up the apostles from waiting tables into ordination. Right now my friends and I are planning a church planting conference. We realized that we would need a project coordinator so that things went smoothly, there wasn’t confusion and some details don’t get overlooked. That doesn’t make our project manager a special set apart Christian with special power and control over others. We too will probably pray over her and bless her in her task of service. She is a modern deaconess. But she isn’t ordained. She doesn’t need to be. Nor was Timothy set apart from other Christians into a special class in I Tim. 4:14. Prophetically the brothers, in praying for Timothy, recognized a gift that God had already given and they blessed it. This “laying on of hands” was common in the early Church. We should do it more now, which my friends do, particularly when we pray for someone, bless them or recognize a special ministry that they have been called to. But it doesn’t set them apart as a different class of Christian and it isn’t ordination. It has become a special ritual in the modern church associated with ordination, so when we see it in the New Testament we assume that is what is going on. It’s not. That is just reading our own non-biblical traditions back into the scriptures. For more detail on this see my response to John Mark.
So, I am not throwing the baby out with the bath water. To turn an organically structured Church with Jesus as its Lord and High Priest and all of us as a nation of priest into a human institution is to abuse the new covenant. It is also making “lords” out of brothers. We only have one Lord, and his name is Jesus. We have become so accustomed to the foundational principles of the world being exercised in the Church that we not only are comfortable with what should shock and offend us, we think these things actually help us. We can’t even imagine the Church being able to function without special human leaders. It is worldly and huge strategic mistake. That’s why I wrote Viral Jesus.
Ross, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the deacons. I should have left that alone and used elders as the example. I also agree that God doesnt intend a clergy-laity divide. There is not a special class of superior Christians who have the inside track to God and who are Jesus substitutes. I get you.
But you do seem to be in denial about the unmistakably clear NT evidences of setting apart for leadership in local congregations. The laying on of hands was used not only to affirm a role that God was giving or calling to, but to insure that everyone in the church also recognized it. I cannot agree with the way you seem to fail to acknowledge that God very clearly even in the New Testament gives a special authority to lead and equip to some individuals in the church (that is NOT given to all.) If you don’t like the term “Ordination” or “clergy”, fine. That’s cool.
“For God gave some as apostles, some a prophets, some as evangelists….to prepare God’s people for the work of the ministry.” These “some” people have a unique calling to assist the Lord Jesus in bringing His kids into maturity. They are not to Lord it over them. They are not to do all the ministry themselves. But they have a peculiar calling that requires that they be acknowledged in a more formal way.
In Revelation the letters to the churches were sent to their “angels”. There is almost universal agreement that this was indicating certain men who were given charge for the oversight of those congregations.
“Paul and Barnabas appointed for them elders in every church…” Acts 14:3
The word “appoint” means to “vote by stretching out the hand.” These first elders were certainly organically grown. But they were additionally acknowledged in front of everyone, through the laying on of hands as an obvious “vote” or show of approval from those who initially came and started the churches. These elder/pastors/overseers would give an account to God for the flock some day.
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.” Heb 13:17
Ross, do you acknowledge that some men in the church will give an account to God for how they gave oversight and leadership to God’s people? Seems like you don’t want to admit this? I could be totally wrong here. If you agree, then you and I have little to debate about. I’m all for it being organic and servant-based and all that. Just like Jesus. And not as a substitute for Jesus.
It is sad that so many people have been “set apart” for leadership in churches by man…and not God. This has created a system of abuse and error. No doubt about it. Many carry an ordination by men and have no real relationship with Christ the Head. Counterfeits and misfits do not mean there is not a legitimate role of formal leadership in the church, under Christ.
Again, it just seems like you are saying that nobody has a formal responsibility for spiritual oversight of anyone in the church. This is not biblical. But this may not be what you are saying.
Dane,
I could argue this point by point. I do much of that in Viral Jesus. I’m not going to bother here because it becomes argumentative and doesn’t edify anyone. While I believe God calls people to ministry, often based on their giftedness I will deny that we have a two tier system that you are describing here. Everyone is gifted and everyone is called, but the gifts are different as are the callings. All is coordinated by Jesus the Lord. What you are treating like they were some sort of “office” are just descriptions of spiritual gifts and the calling that goes with it. If you want to call that denial go ahead.
However this copying of human leadership patterns with power, control, authority, privilege and status given to some and not others has wreaked havoc in the Church and doesn’t make us any more effective. In fact, as I clearly argue in the book, it makes us much less effective. I was “ordained.” I’ve had many more titles and positions that fingers on my hands. None of it made me more effective. None of it made other people I was trying to “serve” through “servant leadership” more effective. In fact, the power got in the way of relationship and the ministry no matter how we all tried to avoid it. But I can tell you one thing from experience. Every single ministry situation I’ve experienced where there was hierarchical leadership positions there was conflict, and a lot of it; most of it not involving me at all. I’ve yet to meet experienced Christians who don’t have leadership abuse stories. The problem is the non-biblical system, not just the people.
When I stepped out of hierarchical structures six years ago I also stepped out of ministry conflict. Yet I’m just as involved with ministry as I ever was and just as involved with others in ministry. So I’ve lived this from both sides being “over” people and being “under” people (note the quotation marks, I’m not over anyone and willing under Christ Jesus my Lord). I’ve seen the horrible damage stepping away from the Lordship of Jesus and putting men between others and God does. And I’ve come to realize it is a clear violation of the new covenant and the lordship of Jesus Christ. What I participated in innocently was not innocent.
My question to you would be, why would this be so important to you? Frankly, you don’t have all that much biblical evidence on your side. You have a few verses poorly translated into English and no evidence of this hierarchical leadership structures being lived out in the Church until much later. But you do have I Cor. 12: 12-31 which clearly gives us an organic structure for the Church not an institutional/ hierarchical one. And you have the only instance of a church meeting being described by Paul where everyone is involved but only the Holy Spirit leads in I Cor. 14:26-33.
So, from my perspective I’m not in denial. You, of course, can think what you choose. Instead I’ve actually gone back and looked at this grammatically, theologically, hermeneutically , historically and culturally; in great depth. That’s what the book is about. I’ve paid close attention to the historical results of what this has done to the Church. Like a Berean, I checked to see if all that I was taught in school, and absorbed by example was really true. It was not only found wanting, it was found to be destructive. So, instead of just doing what has always been done and repeating what I’d always heard, I chose to live what I was actually seeing in the Bible. When I did, my ministry exploded in effectiveness and as I said before, I stepped out of ministry conflict, to my relief. I can say from experience that stepping out of the Christendom system is like a lobster stepping out of it’s old useless shell when it molts. Ministry becomes a joy and a lot of fun, not an effort.
Ross,
I am a bit disturbed by your simple dismissal of “good old Ignatius of Antioch” in one of the above responses. I have to ask if you have any accredited training in ancient church history. You do realize that many people spend their whole lives studying the ancient church? The scholarship demonstrated in your post and in your book suggests that you might lack formal training in history, the kind that requires pier review and familiarity with the relevant historiography. If one looks at the stuff you write, and compares it with even the simple entries in the Catholic encyclopeia, for example, they can see the difference between someone playing around and serious treatments of the topic. The thesis presented above concerning 313 and Constantine is easily dismissed with the opening of a popular book on church history. The fact that your assertion here was dismantled almost immediately in these comments, demontrated by the fact you are not defending it anymore, seems to show this. Further, it represents opinions that have been rejected long ago by serious scholars of church history. Please let us know what formal training you have in church history to demonstrate that you know and understand the historiography and are speaking from a place of wisdom and experience. For example, do you have any articles published in professional, pier-reviewed journals that we can read?
Dear Randy,
It is obvious even from your email address that you are interested in history. Yes, I am well aware that many people devote their whole life to church history. Neither my blog nor my book is an historical blog or book but rather ones that touch on history and include history. What you suggest as a requirement for my blog and book would be appropriate for someone actually writing strictly history, “articles published in professional, pier-reviewed journals.” But in a genre such as mine what is important is that the history stated be accurate. I’ll stand by their historical accuracy. Your comment implies that you have read my book. I suspect that is not true. If you had, you would know that in my introduction I quote Ignatius of Antioch directly from his Epistle to the Romans. For my source I used Fathers of the Church: The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm) . Which, by the way, is a Catholic source, and a good one.
Concerning Catholic historical scholarship. You are quite correct that Catholic historical scholarship is often the best source for any facts on the early church fathers or the desert fathers. If one is looking for facts such as dates, locations or actual source writings they are peerless. But history, I’m sure you are well aware, is more than mere facts, it is also interpretation and analysis. In my opinion, Catholics often have a consistent flaw in their historical interpretation. Since they doctrinally hold church tradition on equal footing with Scripture, they tend to read back their tradition into history, in other words, historical revisionism. A case in point would be holding Peter as the first pope. This has no real connection with history. It is Catholic doctrine and tradition being propped up with a few isolated historical facts. Not that Protestants are any more innocent in this regard. At least the Catholics are honest about it. They admit that they hold tradition on the same level as the Bible. Protestants do the same thing but don’t admit it. That does not mean that Catholic historical sources are worthless or even of lesser quality. It just means one has to be aware of the tendencies and biases of those sources and take it into account. So I respect Catholic scholarship, but keep in mind its tendencies. And I’m aware that one could level the same criticism at me. I’ve tried to be as historically accurate as is possible, but one could still disagree with my interpretation and analysis.
My point in my blog post was that ordination was not a biblical practice but a much later historical one. It was a practice borrowed from Roman government. It is often justified by Old Testament practices in the Jewish priesthood, but that isn’t its real historical source in the Church. Ordination is not found in the New Testament. The closest one can get to the concept of ordination in the New Testament is the practice of laying on of hands. To turn that in to “ordination” is historical revisionism. It is to give that practice a meaning it did not contain in its historical context.
In my book I speak highly of Ignatius of Antioch as far as zeal and commitment. I also point out that his comments in the Epistle to the Romans was the first historical reference we have to the beginnings of hierarchical leadership structure in Church history. In other words, he’s just like everyone else, quite human; a mix of admirable and problematic traits.
I believe these historical assertions, 1.) ordination not an actual biblical practice and 2.) Ignatius of Antioch being the first historical mention of leadership hierarchy, will stand up as historically accurate; so I won’t apologize for them. If my flippant remark about “good old Ignatius of Antioch” offends you then I will apologize. I actually have great respect for him. While I believe he introduced ideas that have harmed the Church, clergy and hierarchy; he was a fearless and zealous Christian who obviously loved his Lord. For that he is to be greatly respected and admired.
I appreciate the “lively” discussion that resulted from your post. Debating and discussing important topics can help each of learn from each other and open our eyes to different perspectives and points of view. I would caution (and I know this will be no surprise to anyone posting here) to be aware of the spirit of the discussion. It can become a finger-pointing session and the focus is taken off Jesus and the point to begin with.
I understand the different points from the various people posting, in my opinion the direction of the discussion has turned towards proving each other wrong. That may have been the direction in the beginning as well, however, it is more blatant in the recent posts. I do not think that misinformation should be neglected or that we should shy away from working out matters of faith, as long as it is done in the right spirit.
Too many times we attack our brother and try to prove him wrong instead of coming alongside him and helping to build him up in his faith. Unfortunately I see this happen in the church all too often. Our teaching needs to be correct and we need to stand firm in our faith, I would hope we stand firm in areas of attack and know when the discussion does not warrant a fight.
Thank you for the information and for the contributions each of you made to my betterment. I learned from the information provided and improved my knowledge of church history. Thank you also for sharing your perspectives, knowledge and wisdom in these areas!
Thank you Jim for your thoughtful words. This indeed has become a post where I have gotten rather hostile responses. I’ve evidently touched a raw nerve. In fact I’ve gotten four angry posts from just one person and another which I suspect is just him using a different email and name. So, because the feedback has become so hostile and vitriolic, I’m closing off further comment on this particular post.