With the death of the apostles and the destruction of Jerusalem at the end of the age, the people of God began to drift toward the organizational patterns of the surrounding culture. Part of this influence came from Judaism and the Synagogues, but the most damaging influence came from Roman imperialism. We believe these two influenced the existence of the “church” as we know it today and it offers a clear contrast from the unique simple pattern developed by the apostles. Again, this change should not be surprising, given the warnings that end the revelation of Scripture. At the very least, whatever pattern that emerges after the apostles should be carefully tested.”[1]
God’s people had been given everything that pertains to life and godliness (2Peter 1:2), including the teachings of Christ and the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles and each saint through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. But, with the passing of the apostles and the gifts of the Spirit, various doctrines and opinions of men arose that threatened the uniformity of doctrine in the church. The early church fathers felt compelled to hold everything together as they thought best. Someone had to seize control to verify the truth and condemn the error as heretical. Such an effort evolved into an organization that was positioned among the people as the source of authority. This was then and is today known as “the church,” the defenders of orthodoxy. To ensure uniformity of doctrine and practice, they elevated themselves as having the answers and the only ones qualified to call the shots. We can understand the motivation to establish their authority and that the fear of religious chaos was the driving force for this development. As a result, the authority of the Bishops appeared to be a priority of Ignatius. Each geographical area was placed under the power of a leading bishop who had complete power. According to Ignatius, the local churches could not have any religious service without a bishop being present.[2]
The effect of this “church formation” is that the people are no longer just the class of redeemed people, but now they become the organization or institution upon which the ekklesia is made to feel dependent. If this organization is to exist, it must position itself as providing a need/blessing to people, who would then feel a dependency on it and support its existence. This practice is patterned after the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament, a practice that should have ended with the fulfillment of the law. To be sure, many of the false teachings are patterned after a physical order that has been fulfilled by the spiritual realities accomplished in Christ’s rule. One can understand how easy this transformation of power can be made due to the natural status of education and wealth. To persuade a general populace who are uneducated to listen and follow the rule of bishops, all one has to do is point to the qualification of bishops who were not only educated, but were thought to be acquainted with the apostles and their tradition. These men claimed personal knowledge of the apostles and were trained by them. They would be able to convince the people that they continue the apostles’ rule (apostolic succession). The accepted view is that the church or organization of bishops had vested authority to establish and maintain the doctrine of Christ (orthodoxy). If they had the power to establish church doctrine, they also had the authority to reject any opposing view as heretical and excommunicate such proponents of error as ‘heretics.’” This reminds us of Diotrephes who loved to have the preeminence and is said to have become a judge concerning who should be a part of their membership.