Ignatius and Community-Protecting Charisma
The Social Setting of the Ministry wants to emphasize the former, he can interpret his bonds in self-denigrating terms; but that status itself is sacred.
Thus he is "counted worthy"
(καταξιωθείς) to occupy it (Mag. 1:2). His future martyrdom rests solely in God's hands (Rom. 1:1; 9:2). Any authority he enjoys is derived from his circumstances, behind which he perceives God's activity.
Summary Ignatius' authority is best understood as charismatic. Placing him in a sectarian context helps to explain his authority. In particular, his marginality and his identification with the suffering of Christ placed him in an extraordinary position.
The paradoxical references to his worthiness are explicable in terms of a conferred or routinized form of charisma. We shall now show how Ignatius used his charismatic authority to strengthen existing institutions of leadership and protect the Asian churches from divisive influences.
Ignatius and Community-Protecting Charisma Having classified Ignatius' authority as charismatic, it is necessary to inquire further concerning the role of his charisma in the the Asian communities. What was his contribution to the life of the group? What does that contribution reveal about local institutional needs?
In order to determine Ignatius' particular role it is necessary to describe more precisely the social significance of the conflict within those communities. This provides the context within which to place Ignatius' authority. The divisions between docetists and other members are not clear. In Mag. 3:2-4:1 Ignatius provides some significant clues regarding the attitude toward the bishop of those swayed by docetic beliefs. In 3:2 he refers to obedience toward the bishop without hypocrisy and deception:
.. it is right to obey without hypocrisy; for the point is not that a man deceives this bishop who is visible, but that he tries to cheat him who is unseen; in such a matter the reckoning is not with flesh but with God who knows our secrets" (trans. Schoedel). What precisely he is referring to is indicated at the end of 4:1, where he alludes to members who do not act "in good conscience" because they do not meet "validly". Ignatius states
(4:1), "It is right, then, not only to be called Christians but also to be Christians; just as some certainly use the title 'bishop' but do everything apart from him."
On the basis of this description it seems that the members influenced by docetic teaching still regarded themselves as community members — they called themselves Christians,129 they recognized in some sense the bishop, but without participating in the common eucharist.
Ignatius called this "hypocrisy." An alternative interpretation is that the divisions were not as clear as he portrayed them. Possibly those with docetic sympathies did not regard meeting for a separate eucharist as undercutting the authority of the bishop and in other respects they followed local leaders.
According to Smyr. 7:1, docetists kept away from the common eucharist because of. their rejection of the physical suffering of Christ, not because they were opposed to the bishop's authority.
Ignatius
A setting similar to that behind Mag. 3-4 is implied in Ignatius' description of deception in Phld. 7:1-2. In v.2 he records that some members suspected him of exhorting the community to preserve unity because he had previous knowledge of church division. No, he did not have human knowledge of this: "For even if some desired to deceive me after the flesh the spirit is not deceived, for it is from God." We may infer from this description that, unbeknownst to him, some of his opponents, or at least those sympathetic to them, were present when he delivered his prophetic utterance. His description of an act of deception may reflect a state of affairs in which divisions were not clearly drawn; members who met for separate eucharists were not necessarily separatist in other aspects of community life, and in the case of the meeting with Ignatius fully involved themselves.130 Further the disrespect with which Philo and Rheus Agathopous were treated at Philadelphia (Phld. 11:1) may be interpreted as evidence that there the community was not divided explicitly.131 This interpretation of the degree of division receives some further support from the fact that the opponents joined with the rest of the community in their reverence of him (Smyr. 5:2). In certain aspects the docetists132 did not separate themselves, e.g., visiting Ignatius and following the bishop and the other ministers in affairs not having to do with the eucharist, but in other respects they did, e.g., celebrating their own eucharists and welcoming docetic teachers.
If this assessment is correct, what does this tell us about the challenges facing these churches? As we saw in Chapter Four, sects typically strive after totalitarian control of the lives of their members. The evidence listed above suggests that the totalitarian control over the actions of group members was being seriously threatened. Instead of maintaining a cohesive commonality of values and activities, the reception of docetic teaching resulted in the avoidance of the common meeting and division. Together with this arose a certain ambiguity among members: some recognized the authority of the bishop, presbyters, and deacons in some things, but not in everything; others followed them in all things.
Coser notes that in sectarian groups where a totalitarian control is exerted on members to conform to established beliefs and practices, any dissent is likely to result in great social turmoil.133 He distinguishes between the impact made on the internal life of sects by renegades, heretics, and "dissenters."154 Renegades, or apostates, provide the least problems because by shifting their loyalty to the out-group, their response is easily identifiable as a denial of the in-group's legitimacy. But in the case of heretics and dissenters the challenge is more profound.
Whereas the [apostate] deserts the group in order to go over to the enemy, the heretic presents a more insidious danger: by upholding the group's central values and goals, he threatens to split it into factions that will differ as to the means for implementing its goal. Unlike the apostate, the heretic claims to uphold the group's values and interests, only proposing different means to this end or variant interpretations of the official creed. . . . The heretic proposes alternatives where the group wants no alternatives to exist. . . . in this respect, the heretic calls forth all the more hostility in that he still has much in common with his former fellow-members in sharing their goals.135
In the case of dissenters the confusion and threat to the sectarian group are even greater.
The Social Setting of the Ministry the dissenter creates even more confusion than the heretic who has left the group, for he claims belongingness. In small, struggling and close groups, the dissenter who still claims belongingness threatens to break up the group from within, for he does not represent to it the clear-cut danger of the heretic or apostate, against whom the group may find it easier to act concertedly. The dissenter is unpredictable and creates confusion: will he go over to the enemy? Or does he intend to set up a rival group? Or does he intend to change the group's course of action? I lis fellow-members can be sure only that he is 'up to something'. By attacking the unanimity of group feelings he obtrudes an element of personal choice into a structure which is based on unanimity of choice.136
Coser observes that in sectarian groups expression of dissent is not permitted and results usually in either expulsion of or withdrawal by the dissenter.
It is difficult to know whether to classify the activities of Ignatius' opponents as indicative of heresy or dissension. In this period notions of heresy and orthodoxy were in a process of development — a process to which Ignatius was probably a significant contributor. But it is plausible that the conflict had a character similar to "dissent." The situation in the churches was probably more ambiguous than Ignatius was willing to acknowledge. If we are correct that his opponents acknowledged the authority of the bishop, except in the matter of eucharistic practice, and that they were present with the rest of the community when it visited with Ignatius, it is likely that they threatened the well-being of the group in a way similar to the dissenter. If, however, they had entirely broken away, they may more appropriately be designated as heretical. Where there were groups which had not broken off from the community, but remained within it
(such as seems to have been the case in Philadelphia), professing similar beliefs and perhaps holding the same values, such members would have represented an even greater challenge to the self-identity of the group.137 If they met separately for their own eucharist but otherwise involved themselves in the life of the community, their presence would have brought confusion; it would not have been immediately clear whether they were separatist or not, whether their intention was to establish a rival group in competition with the one associated with the bishop's eucharist, or whether they intended to supplant the beliefs of the group with new interpretations.138
Berger and Luckmann note that the problem of heresy (and, we may add, dissension) is often "the first impetus for the systematic theoretical conceptualization of symbolic universes."139 In meeting the challenge which an alternative interpretation presents, community leaders find the need to reflect on the symbolic universe they are defending, and, in doing so, discover new meanings within it, which lead to its expansion and development. Coser remarks similarly where he describes the positive ways in-group conflict contributes to the building of a community threatened by heretics or dissension: a weakening of the group is not a necessary result of such [in-group] struggles. On the contrary, the perception of this inside 'danger' on the part of the remaining group members makes for their 'pulling together,' for an increase in their awareness of the issues at stake, and for an increase in participation; in short, the danger signal brings about the mobilization of all group
defenses. Just because the struggle concentrates the group's energies for purposes of self-defense, it ties the members more closely to each other and pro- !4fï motes group integration.
In the Asian communities, conflict provided an impetus to identify the norms, beliefs, and values which helped to ensure harmonious community life.
As we will see below, conflict resulted in institution-building efforts as internal divisions were made more explicit and as community life was more firmly attached to structures of leadership.
How did Ignatius use his charismatic authority to meet the challenges engendered by dissent? Weber emphasized the revolutionary qualities of the charismatic leader; according to his ideal type, the charismatic is destructive, radical, and innovatory of the old order.141 Weber has been criticized for emphasizing too strongly these aspects of charisma. Friedrich argues that this understanding of charisma is too general, and that it does not distinguish sufficiently between various manifestations of charisma. According to Friedrich, not all charismatic authorities initiate new orders, some use their leadership to preserve and maintain an existing one; not all charismatics are necessarily revolutionaries.
Friedrich introduces helpful distinctions which avoid some of the confusion entailed by Weber's type. He distinguishes between initiating, maintaining, and protecting charismatic leadership.142 His distinctions are perhaps too firm, but they provide a heuristic set of categories with which to explicate the way charisma can be exercised by leaders in different settings. In particular, his conception of the protecting type of charismatic leadership helps us to clarify Ignatius' use of authority. Friedrich defines the use of charisma for protection as follows:
Protecting leadership provides security for the following, more particularly security against bodily, physical destruction, but also security for a particular way of life, a culture and its values, beliefs and interests.143
We are interested here, of course, in the form of protection which involves security for a group's values and beliefs, since it is on this level that Ignatius attempted to insulate his audience from alien influences. Friedrich goes on to argue that in the protecting type of leadership acclaim is elicited by the following who "willingly grant whatever is required to have their leader continue those activities which provide the desired security."144
Now, while it seems to be the case, as we shall see below, that Ignatius is involved in a community-protecting exercise of leadership, it must also be recognized that his authority was relatively short-lived. Since, as a prisoner on his way to execution, he was able to be in contact with the Asia Minor churches for only a short time, the security arrangements which Ignatius formulated to protect the community from the influence of harmful beliefs had necessarily to be connected not with his person, but with more permanent structures. It was in the already existing leadership that Ignatius found this more permanent means of community protection. His protecting leadership can be seen most clearly, therefore, where he exhorts his audience to be obedient to the established leaders in these churches.
But there is also an aspect of initiating to Ignatius' charismatic authority.
Friedrich writes, .. initiating leadership transcends the established system of
The Social Setting of the Ministry values as it proposes to conquer or to invent new values/'145 Ignatius was not a figure like Paul, engaged in community-founding activity, but he did provide a justification, which probably did not exist before his arrival in these communities, for established patterns of leadership. Moreover, this justification probably contributed to the emergence of monepiscopacy as a normative institutional form and as the preeminent agency of social control.
Using Friedrich's terminology, we may describe Ignatius' charismatic leadership as protecting and innovating. He used his position to protect the community from docetic influences by identifying norms which limited the likely success of his opponents, and by making explicit the obligations toward existing institutional structures. In these ways he helped to define more precisely local divisions communities and thereby provided a set of criteria by which to assess which activités were permissible.
Ignatius' efforts to solve the problems created by dissenting Christians resulted in the development of norms and the explication of ideals which were calculated to restore harmony and provide protection from those with unacceptable beliefs. His activity was institution building. We may describe him as an entrepreneur*46 who was able to offer solutions to local problems through the identification of the values, beliefs, and collective ideals which committed the community to rejection of dissenting opinions and practices.
In the following sub-sections we shall attempt to identify Ignatius' community-protecting strategies by discussing his insulating tactics, his identification of the beliefs of the group, and his exhortations to remain in unity with community leaders.
Insulating Tactics Ignatius' attempts to lessen the influence of false teaching are easily identifiable.
On the most general level, Ignatius was more concerned with the insulation of those potentially in contact with his opponents, than with the refutation of false teachers. We noted in Chapter Four that insulation is a means contemporary sects use to protect themselves from influences deemed dangerous to their identity. We may see a similar tactic employed here.
He exhorts his Smyrnaean readers not to have any contact with the docetists.
"It is right to refrain from such men and not even to speak about them in private or in public.... Flee from divisions as the beginning of evils." (Smyr. 7:2)
A similar admonition appears in Smyr. 4:1, where he again urges his readers not to receive (παραδέχεσθαι) docetists, probably into their homes,147 nor to meet with them. In 5:3 his concern that his readers have no contact with his opponents is expressed by his refusal even to mention their names. Thus Ignatius' advice to the Smyrnaeans was to shun those who propagated docetic beliefs.
This helped to establish boundaries between groups holding different beliefs, thereby facilitating the removal of ambiguity engendered by dissent in the church. By exhorting members to separate themselves, in effect he expelled his opponents from the group. He exhorts the other communities in similar ways.
The Ephesians are to "shun" the docetic teachers "as wild beasts" (Eph. 7:1; cf.
9:1; 16:2; 17:1); the Magnesians are urged "not to fall into the snare of vain doctrine" (Mag. 11:1); the Trallians are to "guard against" those who "mingle Jesus
Ignatius
Christ with themselves" (Tral. 6:2-7:1), they are to be "deaf" when anyone speaks to them "apart from Jesus Christ" (9:1), and he instructs them to "fly from these wicked offshoots" (11:1). He urges the Philadelphians to "flee from division and wrong doctrine" (2:1; cf. 6:2). Further, he repeats the plant imagery used in Tral
11:1 when he instructs, "Abstain from evil plants, which Jesus Christ does not cultivate, because they are not the planting of the Father
And, like the Trallians, they are not to listen to his opponents (6:1).
This paraenesis is evidence of the mobilization of group resources to limit the effect of false teaching. A probable consequence of the "flight" which he advised would have been that already existing divisions became greater. The endeavour to protect the community probably helped to limit the influence of teachers who held differing beliefs. But where Ignatius' protective measures were enacted, they may also have polarized members. He did not seek to make internal boundaries impenetrable — in some cases he still hoped for the repentance of dissenters (e.g. Smyr. 4:1), but it seems probable that if his advice was followed, there must have arisen profound divisions.148 Increased internal definition of this sort focused the attention of members on potentially divisive activities. This in turn could have resulted in increased unity among those attempting to insulate themselves from false teaching.
Protection Through Definition of Belief A second means of protecting the group was the definition of beliefs. Charismatic leaders are typically believed to be in close contact with the realities which define and govern human action. As one believed to be in proximity to the group's defining or awe-inspiring symbols it seems probable that Ignatius was regarded as a mediator of sacred truths. Not only when he boasted of his abilities to describe transcendent realities (Tral 5), or presented the cosmic history of salvation (Eph. 19) did he demonstrate this ability; he also showed it when he presented basic group beliefs. These statements are more than credal utterances; issuing from a charismatic mediator of divine truth, it may be supposed that their force was great.
Ignatius presents several short statements of belief (Eph. 7:2; 18:2; Mag. 11; Tral 9; Smyr. 1; Pol 3:2). The fullest one appears in Smyr. 1:1-2, where he writes that Jesus is truly of the family of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin, baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled in him, truly nailed for us in the flesh under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch — from the fruit of which are we, from his divinely blessed passion. . . .
Zahn argued that this statement indicates that Ignatius possessed a definitive baptismal creed.149 Later scholars, calling this interpretation into question, argue for a slower development of credal formulation, Kelly contends against Zahn that credal statements developed slowly in the context of the demands and events of daily church life, such as "the day-to-day polemic of the Church, whether against heretics within or pagan foes without."150 Campenhausen also states this and argues that Ignatius was the first writer to use semi-credal state-
The Social Setting of the Ministry ments as a means of refutation of opponents. Ignatius' statements represent a transition from simple confession of Christ to formulated statements of belief, encapsulated in short phrases.151 He, however, does not admit fully enough of the possible influence of traditional elements.152 Ignatius probably used already existing semi-credal material, but employed it in a novel way for polemical purposes, interpolating it with anti-docetic statements in order to meet challenges facing the Asia Minor churches.
The anti-docetic phraseology in the statements listed above is commonly recognized. Several of these appear in the passage cited from Smyrnaeans.
"Truly" (άληθώς) is a favourite anti-docetic adverb which Ignatius uses to emphasize the physical incarnation (cf. also Mag. 11; Tral. 9); the inclusion of a reference to Pilate, as indeed Herod, also functions ground the incarnation firmly in history (cf. also Mag. 11; Tral 9);153 references to Christ being of the family or seed of David and to Mary have a similar purpose (cf. also Eph. 7:2;
18:2; Tral 9:1).154 But alongside these more obvious examples there are other terms and phrases which he freely used to stress the reality of Jesus' incarnation, such as the reference in Smyr. 2 to Jesus' "divinely blessed passion". Similarly, in Eph. 7:2 his description of Jesus as "first passible and then impassible" emphasizes the physical passion by appearing as the last in a series of antitheses, as does the order of these adjectives introduced by the word πρώτος.
155 In Mag. 11 there is a reference to the πάθος, as indeed the γέννησις and άνάστασις ofjesus. One may find similar concerns in less typical descriptions:
Christ as σαρκικός, έν άνθρώπψ, έν θανάτψ in Eph. 7:2; the reference to Christ as one who "both ate and drank" in Tral 9:1; the statement of Jesus'
"blood" in Smyr. 1.
The appearance of these statements in often polemical contexts implies that they were intended as regulative statements.156 In Tral 9:1, for example, Ignatius urges his readers to be "deaf" to anyone who speaks "apart from Jesus
Christ" and then proceeds to list a series of beliefs which he regards as true; we may interpret this as a formulation to determine who such persons might be.
Through this definition of belief he hopes to curtail the reception of false teaching. In Eph. 7:1, Ignatius cautions the Ephesians to be on their guard for his opponents, and then (v.2) includes a statement of belief. This provided a means of following his advice and of limiting the potential "deception" which Ignatius believed his opponents to practise (8:1). Such statements helped to sharpen the boundaries of groups contending for allegiance and thereby served to protect members from the ambiguities which threatened the solidarity of the community.
Ignatius' far-reaching contribution was the initiation of a formal criterion to assess orthodox belief. Through his handling of his disputants, dissension began to be regarded in a more formal sense as heresy.157 Here for the first time the terms έτεροδοξειν (Smyr. 6:2) and έτεροδοξία (Mag. 8:1) begin to describe doctrinal error. This is probably true also of the term έτεροδιδασκαλείν (Pol
3:1), although it finds similar application in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 1:3;
6:3).158 Also, Ignatius' letters mark the first appearance in Christian literature of the term α ϊ ρ ε σ ι ς as a pejorative description of a teaching (Eph. 6:2; Trat.
6:1).159 Hermas employs this term in a way similar to more primitive Christian
Ignatius
usage (cf. Sim. 9:23.5); αΐρεσις for him refers pejoratively to factions, but there is no connection to doctrine. For Ignatius, however, αΐρεσις refers to divisions based on points of a doctrinal nature.160 His semi-credal statements provided a standard with which to measure the acceptability of teaching which was introduced into the community. His protective leadership may be seen here also as innovatory. By weaving together traditions into polemical definitions of belief, he contributed to the creation of formal norms of belief. His investment of the term αϊρεσις with doctrinal meaning as well as his use of the terms έτεροδοξία, έτεροδοξείν, and έτεροδιδασκαλειν to describe his opponents, provided a second means of neutralizing the danger of dissenting factions.
Protection Through Unity With Leaders The community-protecting tactic Ignatius employed was to place all aspects of community life under local supervision. Ignatius' emphasis on the authority of the bishop is what he is famous for, but scholars have not adequately addressed the degree to which Ignatius1 conception represents a departure from structures which existed before him. In order to understand this more fully, we shall first tentatively reconstruct leadership structures before his arrival. Then we shall portray his picture of community leadership as an innovation derived from the house church.
Opinions have been diverse concerning the form of community leadership which existed before Ignatius' sojourn in Asia Minor. Some have interpreted
Ignatius' letters as evidence that he was not introducing anything new: monarchical episcopacy was an already established institution.161 Others have suggested that Ignatius' description of monarchical bishops reveals more about his ideals than reality; Ignatius was virtually a creator of monepiscopacy.162 Both of these reconstructions do not take sufficiently into account the evidence of institutional leadership in Asia Minor before Ignatius' arrival there. Ignatius' contribution to local leadership patterns was to mould already existing institutions into tighter organizational units and to make explicit already existent authority relations.
Any reconstruction of patterns of leadership in these churches before Ignatius' arrival is tentative; it requires hypothesizing what may have been true in one situation on the basis of what we know about another. Still, it is useful to make the attempt to measure Ignatius' picture of leadership against earlier patterns because such a comparison facilitates the identification of his contribution to existing institutional structures.
The earliest clue comes from New Testament Ephesians.163 Our discussion of the New Testament evidence of the ministry showed that the reference to ποιμένες in Eph. 4:11 is probably to be taken as a reference to έπίσκοποί. Acts
20:17fF. contains another reference to Ephesian leaders — this time presbyterbishops (w. 17, 28). Given the association of πρεσβύτεροι and επίσκοποι in other roughly contemporary literature, it seems probable that our earliest reference to the leadership of the Ephesian community reflects a similar pattern. But if there was a common meeting from an early date, it is unlikely that all presbyter-bishops enjoyed the same amount of authority, even if titles were the same. If there was in Ephesus a common meeting from an early date of the kind
The Social Setting of the Ministry hinted at in New Testament Rom. 16:23, it is reasonable to suppose that its host would have had a distinctive role in the community and that such a role could have contained the seeds for further institutional growth. Evidence from 3 John supports this supposition.
Other evidence may be gleaned from the Johannine literature. John, the author of the Apocalypse, has been seen as a monarchical bishop, but he describes himself as a prophet, not a bishop (Rev. 1:3; 10:11; 19:10;
22:7,9,10,18,19). Again, the references to the angels of the churches in Rev.
2:1,8,12,18 and 3:1,7,14 have been interpreted as descriptions of monarchical bishops. This, if true, would be significant, since two of the seven churches are
Ephesus and Smyrna and because the document probably antedates Ignatius' letters. But there are problems with this interpretation: there is no unambiguous evidence for episcopal authority in Revelation and it may be asked how an individual could be held responsible for the character of a church. Better interpretations are that the angels are either personifications of the churches or their angelic guardians.164
3 John sheds more light on one possible pattern of organization before Ignatius. We have already argued that the action of Diotrephes is of a house-church host attempting to protect the church meeting in his home from missionaries whom he feared were bringing false teaching. Scholars have attempted to see in the conflict between Diotrephes and the Elder a dispute between two different types of ministry.165
Streeter theorized that the Elder was a metropolitan and Diotrephes was a monarchical bishop.166 We have already argued against the latter contention.167
The former is also unconvincing: if such an institution had developed toward the end of the first century, it is very odd that there is no hint of its existence in Ignatius' letters. Ignatius hoped, as we shall see, to insulate certain Asia Minor churches from false teaching by connecting community activities with formal leaders. The absence, therefore, of any mention of a metropolitan (a potential agent of great social control), would be extremely puzzling, especially in his letter to the Ephesians, were Streeter's view correct. The revised view, that the presbyter was a monarchical bishop is also unconvincing.168 The title πρεσβύτερος is too enigmatic to permit a connection it with any one community. It is better interpreted as a more general title unconnected with any one community.169 Thus, attempts to find evidence of monarchical episcopacy in this literature fail.
Nonetheless 3 John contains valuable information concerning the potential power of a single leader in the early church. Lieu, attempting to place the dispute between Diotrephes and the Elder in a general social context, interprets
Diotrephes' action as representative of a movement toward a single authority similar to that described by Ignatius.170 If this interpretation is correct, we may see in Diotrephes' attempts to preserve the community from false teaching the kind of action which Ignatius wished bishops to carry out, even though in the former case without a formal monepiscopal position of the type he envisioned.171
The case of Diotrephes illustrates that the absence of certain formal distinctions later drawn by Ignatius does not exclude the possibility of such differentia-
Ignatius
tion existing de facto. Further, the power of Diotrephes, which probably arose from his position as a host of the church, points to the way the household could have contributed to the emergence of monepiscopacy; such an influence wouîd illustrate once again the way secular facilities affected the development of early
Christian sects.172 We must, therefore, be careful not to assume that Ignatius was the creator of a new system of authority. On the other hand, the earlier evidence does not allow us to make the other claim that monepiscopacy of the formal kind Ignatius describes had always existed in these communities. Ignatius had an uphill struggle in his efforts to ensure the kind of social control he wanted bishops to practise. His letters point to a position somewhere between these two extremes and are best interpreted to support a view which regards monepiscopacy as an emerging phenomenon.
In order to gain a fuller understanding of that emergence, it is necessary to place this development in its proper context. Ignatius' intentions in asserting the authority of the bishop can only be determined by reference to the more general situation. His support of local leaders is a further means of erecting boundaries to protect the community from the influences of his opponents.
He urges his audience to be subject (ύποτάσσεσθαι) to the community leaders (Eph. 2.2; Mag. 2.1; 13.2; Tral. 2.1-2; 13,2; Pol. 6.1; cf. 2.1); to obey or respect them (Eph. 6.1; 20.2; Mag. 3.1,2; Tral. 3.1; Phld. 7.1); to be in harmony or in union with them (Eph. 4.1; 5.1; Mag. 6.1,2; 7.2; Tral. 12.2; Phld. inscr.;
8.1). A similar pattern appears where Ignatius defines a valid meeting as one in which the community leaders are present. Nothing can be called a church without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons (Tral. 3.1). The connection of the true church with the bishop also occurs where he exhorts members to follow the bishop as sheep their shepherd (Phld. 2.1). He similarly defines the true church where he states that anyone in the sanctuary is pure and connects impurity with acting apart from church leaders (Tral. 7.2; cf. Eph. 5.2-3). More particularly, and in contrast to the earlier evidence, Ignatius draws a distinction between bishops and presbyters. It is primarily the bishop whom he identifies as the person to control all aspects of community life. His emphasis upon the authority of the bishop may be seen where he singles out the bishop alone for special reference (e.g. Eph. 3:2-4:1; 6:1; Phld. 1:1-2; Smyr 9:1). He is above the presbyters and deacons (Mag. 3:1; Tral 12:2; cf. Eph. 4:1; Mag. 2); he summons councils
(Pol 7:2)173 and has responsibility over funds for widows (Pol 4:1). But more importantly, Ignatius permits no meetings174 to occur apart from (ανευ) the bishop or without (χωρίς) his permission (Phld. 7:2; Smyr. 8:1-2; Pol. 4:1).
Similar uses of χωρίς and ανευ appear in non-Christian literature to assert political and administrative authority.175 Ignatius' application of these terms implies that he places all aspects of community life under stricter episcopal supervision. Ignatius wants the bishop to decide where and by whom the eucharist may be celebrated (Smyr. 8:1-2); he alone can authorize baptisms and agape meals; he even determines the frequency of meetings (Pol
4:2).
But two qualifications are necessary, for there is evidence that Ignatius' ideals did not always harmonize with the realities oflife. First, there is some indication that his portrait of episcopal control gave more authority to bishops than they were accustomed to. A hint that Ignatius was trying to regulate community
The Social Setting of the Ministry activities more firmly than normal is where he urges Polycarp, "Become more diligent than you are" (Pol. 3:2). The anti-docetic christological antitheses which follow imply that he is to attend to the prevention of divisions.176 The division in Smyrna probably involved an official who used his position to establish alternative meetings. Ignatius' instruction, therefore, that only a eucharist celebrated by the bishop or his appointee is valid (Smyr. 8:1) may be indicative of a situation in which Polycarp did not have the episcopal control implied elsewhere. Schoedel correctly infers that "the office of bishop did not mean as much in Smyrna as Ignatius would like to have thought" 1' 7 Ignatius portrays alternative meetings as a rejection of the bishop's authority, but perhaps he ascribed a degree of community leadership to the bishop which had not hitherto existed, A further indication appears (again in Smyr. 8:2) where he places agape meals under the direct supervision of the bishop. The practical difficulties of controlling the behaviour of hosts who welcomed docetic teachers into their homes and conducted such meetings would have been compounded by the legitimacy of the householder's authority to welcome guests as he wished. If we are correct that presbyters welcomed smaller groups into their homes, even if they did not receive false teachers, the forces contributing to a decentralization of authority must have been great. Ignatius' attempts to enhance a centralized form of control are especially significant in a situation where such stresses and strains could destroy or at least seriously divide local communities organised on this basis.
Possibly meetings such as agape meals customarily occurred without the knowledge of the bishop and Ignatius is attempting here to establish stricter regulations concerning activities such as these.
A second qualification centres on the relationship of the επίσκοπος to other leaders. Ignatius increases the control of the bishop over community affairs, but he also associates the bishop very closely with the presbyters and deacons (Eph.
2:1,2; 20:2; Mag. 6:1,2; 13:1; Tral 3:1; 13:2; Phld. inscr.; 4; 7:1; 8:1; Smyr. 12:2;
Pol. 6:1) and thereby treats all leaders as a unified whole. In most of these references Ignatius urges subjection to the leaders generally, not to the bishop alone.
Streeter exaggerates when he writes that the importance of the bishop had become an obsession to Ignatius.178 Ignatius strengthened the authority of the episcopate, but with a view to strengthening the authority of all leaders, not one in isolation from the others. Even in this strengthened position, the bishop is less a "monarchical" bishop, in the later sense of the term,179 than a president of a body of eiders or "monepiskopos" who acts together with them and the deacons in the leadership of the community.180
A close connection between the bishop and presbyters is further suggested by the form of Polycarp's greeting to the Philippians, where he writes "Polycarp and the Elders with him to the Church of God sojourning in Philippi" (Phil. mscr. ).181 It is sometimes suggested that the ambiguity of this salutation was purposely formulated by Polycarp with a view to a more primitive church order in Philippi, since in his letter there is no mention of a single bishop (Pol. Phil. 5:3;
5:2; 6:1).182 This is possibile, but a better explanation is that his position was very close to that of the presbyters. Although in an important sense distinct from them, he was united so closely as to present himself virtually as a fellow elder.
Ignatius
Still, Ignatius' use of επίσκοπος as a singular term of reference is unique. He could identify an individual around whom the local church was to unite. He would not have connected community activities so closely with such figures had there not already existed such persons identifiable and commonly accepted by members. It is reasonable to suppose that this usage arose from a situation in which a dominant presbyter-bishop led a number of presbyter-bishops. This explains the close connection Ignatius makes between the bishop and his presbyters, as well as the intimations of a less centralized form of leadership than
Ignatius1 ideal picture might otherwise lead one to suppose. His contribution was not wholly new, but a novel way of naming what was already in existence.
In a situation where the common meeting probably took place in the home of the έπίσκοπος or leading presbyter-bishop, it is reasonable to suppose that, like
Diotrephes, such a figure would have had a dominant role in community life.
Ignatius' conception of community leadership in which such a dominant member was at the head is best understood as reinforcing social impulses inherent in a situation in which the hierarchically ordered Graeco-Roman household was adopted as a means of church organization. He used already existing currents within the community for its protection. His understanding of the church led by a single bishop may be seen as both arising from and reinforcing, as well as bringing to more definitive expression, certain social forces already present in house churches governed by hosts.
Interpreted as a means of sect consolidation, the practical effect of Ignatius' support of the bishop was to define local divisions more precisely. By presenting the separation of members from the common assembly as a rejection of the authority of formal institutions of leadership, he was able to show how their behaviour failed to accord with group beliefs and ideals. This enabled him to promote a heightened consciousness of community divisions among his audience. Further, through increasing social control by the bishop, he helped to protect members from the influence of divergent beliefs. Ignatius' conception of the church is not merely where two or three are gathered, but where the bishop or one whom he appoints presides (Tral. 3:1; Smyr, 8:1-2); by linking the legitimacy of meetings with such more formal agencies, he provided an institutional means to control the reception and propagation of false teaching. Through him institutions of leadership were more formally distinguished within the community and made part of the church's self-definition.
Summary Ignatius' charismatic authority was protective and innovatory. He exercised his authority to protect these communities from the influence of divergent beliefs and thereby increased community definition and structure. Insulation, the definition of belief, and the circumscription of community activities to the control of the bishop helped to neutralize the danger presented by internal dissent. In the final case, he gave formal expression to structures of authority inherent in the house-church organization of these communities. He thereby helped to make a certain pattern of community life normative and to contribute to the control ofbetiefwithin the local churchcs.