One of the best ways to define anything is to describe its features or characteristics as we have described “the ekklesia.” The institutional concept of the church has the following marks of identity:
- Official Positions of Authority
Invariably, someone will say to me, “You have to have a local church or nothing gets done.” Or, they will say, “you have to have someone to make the final call.” To avoid anarchy and confusion in a functioning organization, someone does need to be in that capacity. That is not debated, here. But, Jesus makes it clear that his kingdom would not be run like the Gentiles who exercise authority over each other (Matthew 20:25-28). If so, then perhaps we should not be looking at the church as a governing body arranged as men form organizations. There is no need to have someone calling the shots if there’s no institution. It is agreed that there must be some recognized position of authority if we reject God’s government and follow man’s guidelines that demand by its very nature that someone calls the shots. Facilitating the various work of any organization must be overseen by those in authority. But, perhaps we should re-think the interaction of God’s people in any city.
According to the Stanford Encyclopaedia, institutions have a “structure or mechanism of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of individuals within a given community…. Institutions are identified with a social purpose, transcending individuals and intentions by mediating the rules that govern cooperative living behavior”[1] Also, someone must see to it that the rules of the organization are followed. In other words, when you redefine the use of ekklesia in a local context, you do have to have someone to call the shots and make decisions for the group. But, Jesus taught that this kind of leadership is not going to make up his kingdom. So, where did it come from? I suggest to you that is had its origins after 70 AD and future generations after the apostles’ work.
- Institutional Staff
The accountability and responsibility of individuals in the organization are well defined and structured for greater cohesiveness and effectiveness. Included in organizations is the specialization and division of labor based on each one’s aptitude and qualifications. Today, special training and education are required to be given a job. The education/training and experience combine to allow the greatest potential for a high paying job. Employees are hired to work for the organization in some capacity. It has become a foregone conclusion that churches must be equipped with preachers/pastors. This is an offensive accusation as many would deny working for anyone but the Lord. Still, the presence of an agreement, and/or contract outlining the expected guidelines, pay, and vacation has all the markings of an employee/employer relationship. Members of the organization have the perception that the preacher/pastor is their preacher hired by the church of which they are a part. Many have introduced others as “my preacher” or “our preacher.”
Human wisdom is the replacement of the spiritual soul caretakers to administrators of ritual and ceremony as in Catholicism or other clergy type people who are the educational staff, faculty and public relations specialists. Rather than depending on the “gifts” God gave the saints (Ephesians 4:11-13) to equip each other, we send our youth to a seminary of our choice to receive specialized training in the faith of our choice. The arrangement is defended by comparing it to the need for a well-trained professional in any field of work. When they come out of training, they are qualified. At some point, they become the “experts” like the scribes and lawyers of Jesus’ day. Therefore, they have authority due to training in the ways of their religious affiliates. I have known many such “experts” who, when given a position with a church organization, are defensive and visibly disturbed when anyone in a Bible class challenges their confident assertions. It’s equal to challenging their authority and undermining their position as a competent teacher. Sadly, in some memberships who do not have a thought of their own, it is easy for the same arrogant teacher to pass themselves off as having all the answers. Further, a majority of people are content with the arrangement because they can now hire a person “equipped” (cf. Ephesians 4:12) to preach for them. They can’t “have church” without it. The effect of this abuse is that, if they are faithful members of the local church, their work is fulfilled through him. Referring to such a man as “our preacher” is very important if their lives are the measure of his work. He preaches for the church, visits for the church, and evangelizes for the church. After all, he’s been hired by the church so that the work of the church is the measure of what that man is doing. It is exactly for this reason that when things are not progressing and the pulse of the congregation is weak, guess who is responsible? The solution is to fire one and hire another. At some point, we have changed the simple plan of God that all of God’s children can receive exactly what they need to equip themselves through the written Word (2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:3), and that brethren can share that hope and faith to provoke one another unto love and good works.
Not only is the hireling a replacement of God’s pattern, but its human origin also explains the failures in the “pastor system”. Today’s sermon limits the participants to those with the ability of speech and/or oratory. That there is a place for this form of teaching is not denied, but it has become such a central part of public worship assemblies that it occupies more time, requires a paid professional speaker, and is the measure of a local church organization’s success. Yet, the men of God in the Bible who publically preached responded to specific events and imminent needs. These sermons were not regular scheduled speeches like some are envisioning but were extemporaneous responses to an urgent need. (Deuteronomy 1:1, 5:1; 27:1,9; Joshua 23:1 – 24:15; Isa, Jer. Ezek., Daniel, Amos, Hagai, Zechariah). Even the Synagogue preaching, though very orderly, was not a scheduled sermon offered by a professional hired to deliver a speech. The leader would appoint someone to speak, but the evidence points to them having no prior knowledge that they would be asked. Further, others would be given an opportunity to speak, also. Interruptions, which are now taboo during a sermon, were also common, then. The earliest record we have of regular sermonizing is found in the late second century in the second letter of Clement. Seeing that it was not so common until the fourth century, it is certain that it did not originate from the Lord, or His apostles. The distinguished sophists were the inventors of rhetoric (the art of persuasive speaking) and they expected payment for their grand orations. They also wore special clothing, used a fixed residence to present regular sermons to the same audience. Others would travel great distances to deliver their orations for a good sum of money. To the Greek mind, winning an argument was a greater virtue than instilling truth. The art involved the use of emotional appeals, appearances, and clever associations but the content of their message was more abstract than practical applications for living. By the time the Romans inherited this obsession with rhetoric, a regular form of entertainment after dinner was given by a professional orator.[2] They were given the same status that our culture gives movie stars and professional athletes. Why is this important to mention? From these former philosophers and orators emerged Christian theologians known to us as the “Church Fathers.” The clergy had already replaced the gathering of saints for mutual edification for the “liturgical service.” Here is another root from which Catholicism grew. The idea of trained professionals hired for pay moved into the fully institutionalized church from the Greek culture, not Judaism. The rabbis did not charge any fee for their teaching.[3] The style of communication was Greco-Roman rhetoric that was not only a show of skill that entertained audiences, it excluded all but the trained to speak. In fact, the same term used by Greek orators for their sermons was also used by third-century theologians, whose work is seen in their “homilies.”
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions
[2] Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages, 40.
[3] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 220.