The church must fight a battle on two fronts: the battle from within (institutionalization) and the battle from without (Church and State). This is not to suggest that every form of institution within the Church is bad or that all organization should be avoided. Nor is it to say that the Church should have no involvement with the State. It is only meant to point out that these relationships and dynamics must be intentionally managed and thoughtfully considered. If not, the Church, on one hand, could slip into a hyper-bureaucracy with no life or become an amorphous blob with no impact. On the other hand, the Church could become a separatist organization with no voice in society or a compromised religion which takes its direction from the president or king instead of God.
THE BATTLE FROM WITHIN
Serving versus Hierarchy
As the Church seeks to manage the tension of appropriate structure that both administers the Church in an orderly way and gives life to the people serving and being served there are two areas that require particular attention. The first of these is the delicate balance between church leadership through serving and church leadership through hierarchy. Jesus clearly instructs his disciples to lead as servants. In fact, he compares leadership in his Kingdom with leadership in the world. Leaders in the world, he explains, “lord it over” those they lead and “their great ones exercise great authority over them.” He goes on to instruct his disciples by saying, “But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Mk. 10:42-43, ESV). Jesus here seems to resist hierarchy and affirm servanthood.
Though the Early Church in general nor Paul in particular ever suggests that leaders should not serve, the New Testament writings do give evidence of the development of a leadership hierarchy fairly early in the life of the Church. Professor Hayim Lapin from the University of Maryland, in a 2006 presentation, notes the early appearance of offices in the emerging church of the New Testament. He points out that they acknowledge bishops, elders, and deacons (in some cases deaconess), and that these offices were a combination of spiritual authority (authority based on giftedness) and institutional authority (authority based on role) (Lapin, 2006).
After the Church becomes fully Roman in the 300’s, the hierarchy structure of the State begins to influence the Church. The State impacts religion and the forms begin to shape the view of leadership in the Church. I would argue that this is not due to Constantine’s conversion and subsequent endorsement of Christianity. Rather, I think it is due to the Church’s failure to manage the tension between leadership as serving and leadership as hierarchy. This is not to suggest that hierarchy is inherently bad. Hierarchy becomes a detrimental thing when it exists to serve those in the hierarchy versus serving those the hierarchy was intended to lead. When the hierarchy becomes self-serving, it misses the central command of Jesus regarding church leadership and as a result the church suffers. Again the corrective here is for the church to balance between serving and hierarchy so that the leadership structure exists to serve the church and advance its purposes in the world.
