Legitimation
The Social Setting of the Ministry Legitimation In order to increase the control of leaders and thereby insulate the communities from the influences of his opponents, it was necessary for Ignatius to show how the beliefs of the community committed them to support existing or latent authority structures. He focused his attention on the legitimation of institutions of leadership.
Scholars have not assessed accurately the relationship between Ignatius' formulations of beliefs and the development of authority structures in these churches. By directing their attention to ideas alone, many investigators have failed to recognise the function of ideas and beliefs in meeting specific needs.
Ernst Dassmann argues that theological conceptions of the monarchy of God were the sole determinants of monarchical episcopacy: belief in one God, the idea that the earthly order reflects the heavenly hierarchy, and beliefs about relations within the heavenly order resulted in monepiscopacy.183
One may criticize this position by questioning the degree to which Ignatius believed that earthly structures of leadership were reflections of a heavenly realm. More importantly, it is methodologically unsound because of the insufficiency of accounting for institutions by ideas alone. A fuller understanding of the role of ideas is facilitated by placing them in the context of the community's social structures and needs. Ignatius' letters imply that beliefs may have influenced the shape of institutions by reinforcing social impulses in house churches. Ideas alone cannot account adequately for the emergence of monepiscopacy, nor is their role understood accurately if separated from local social challenges.184 Neither can social arrangements alone explain it. Only by reference to an interaction between ideas and social structures will a more accurate picture emerge. Inasmuch as Ignatius used specific ideas to reinforce the authority of certain roles and those roles accorded well with local beliefs and ideals, he was engaged in the legitimation and construction of leadership institutions.
Berger and Luckmann's model of legitimation provides us with a useful heuristic device with which to analyse the kind of legitimation found in these letters. Their fourth level of legitimation, that of the symbolic universe, provides a useful way of assessing Ignatius' role in the structural development of the Asian churches and of explaining how he provided the support of the authority of local leaders necessary for protection and insulation from false teaching. According to Berger and Luckmann, the advent of heresy results in the development of a "systematic theoretical conceptualization of symbolic universes"; as a result of this theorizing new implications within the original symbolic universe are discovered and that universe is developed in new directions, both on the level of belief and of practical institutional arrangements.185
Chief among Ignatius' tactics to protect the churches from deviant belief was connecting community activities more closely to the oversight of a leading bishop. He reinforced episcopal authority by showing how the group's beliefs committed members to support local leaders. By connecting different ranks within the group's structures of leadership with different orders of authority which were contained in its symbolic universe, he helped to make those struc-
tures explicit and subjectively plausible. The hierarchical structure of the Graeco-Roman household was an important factor in determining the form that this process of legitimation took, The explication of beliefs about hierarchical relations between the group's defining symbols was relevant in view of certain hierarchical patterns already emerging from house-church structures of leadership.
As a charismatic in privileged contact with the group's awe-inspiring symbols, Ignatius was in a position to explicate the relations between the heavenly and earthly order (esp. Tral. 5:2). Since the appearance of Hans Schlier's seminal work it has been repeatedly asserted that Ignatius' conception of church and ministry rests on the belief that the earthly order is a reflection of the heavenly one.186 In 1938, Theodore Preiss followed Schliems lead by arguing that at the root of Ignatius' concern to be martyred was a gnostic conception of imitation.
Preiss rightly focused on unity as the centre of Ignatius thought; the term "union" (ε νωσις) and its cognates are a distinctive formulation Ignatius uses to express community ideals.1
But he argued incorrectly that Ignatius based his exhortations to be unified upon the conviction that the church was an earthly copy of heavenly unity. According to Preiss, "L'union est la qualité essentielle du monde spirituel"; indeed, "... Ignace ne se contente pas de rappeler que
Dieu est un, il va jusqu' à identifier l'unité a Dieu " 1 8 8 These statements are based on the apparent identification of unity with God in Trat. 11:2 and Eph.
14:1, and passages in which the root ενwith a genitive referring to either God or Christ occurs (e.g. Mag. i :2)€ Preiss interpreted the genitives which refer to God or Christ in the "unity" passages listed above as objective genitives. This led him to suggest, that unity in Ignatius' letters is a soteriological concept.189 Earlier this century Bauer argued that they should be understood as genitives of source — a position put forward most recently by Schoedel.190 Interpreted in this way, the genitives refer not to a goal to be reached in order to win salvation, but a state of affairs which is created by God; they express an ecclesiological rather than a soteriological concern. This interpretation fits better with Ignatius' general instructions that there be no meetings apart from the bishop. Unity with the bishop reflects a sacred state of affairs which follows from right belief; the divisions which his opponents create do not originate with God, they are the devil's handiwork (Eph. 13:1; 17:1; Trat.
8:1; Phld. 6:2; Smyr. 9:1; cf. Pol. Phil 7:1).
If we are correct that terms of unity in these letters do not refer primarily to a mystical theology of union, but rather to church unity, the other evidence which Preiss adduces for his interpretation should be interpreted in another way. The identification of unity with God in Eph. 14:1 and Tral 11:2 should be interpreted in the light of the use of the relative pronoun with the verb είναι throughout the epistles. Ignatius is fond of these constructions. Many instances are relatively straight forward (Eph. 9:1; 14:1; 17:2; 18:1; 20:2; Mag. 8:2; 10:2;
Tral 11:1,2; Rom. 5:1; Phld. inscr.; Smyr. 5:3), but some are more difficult to construe (Mag. 7:1; 15; Tral 6:1; 8:1; J?om. 7:3). Among these latter passages we may place Trat. 11:2 and Eph. 14:1. A real difficulty arises if one attempts to interpret literally the identification apparently expressed in these passages; it is best to see their function not as the equation of two or more diverse realities but
The Social Setting of the Ministry as the creation of striking juxtapositions.191 It is unnecessary to postulate that Ignatius literally identifies unity and God. The striking identification of faith and love together as God in Eph. 14:1 is best understood as a highly compressed way of expressing what he states in Phld. 8:1: where these virtues are present
(especially when in the context of a united community), God is present.
Henry Chadwick argues in a slightly different way that for Ignatius the earthly ministry is a reflection of the heavenly hierarchy.192 Noting that Ignatius identifies God and silence (Eph. 19:1; Mag. 8:2; cf. Eph. 15) and that he associates the bishop with God (Eph. 5:3; Mag. 6:1; Tral. 3:1; Smyr. 8:1-2), Chadwick contends that the bishop's silence (Eph. 6:1; Phld. 1:1) imitates God's silence; behind these conceptions is a view that "the earthly church is nothing less than a microcosm in which the relationships of the heavenly hierarchy are to be found reflected."193
Chadwick is correct to note parallels in Ignatius' letters between earthly and heavenly powers, but there is not enough consistency in these to merit the conclusions which he draws from them. Even where Ignatius draws the most consistent parallels (between the bishop and the Father) he is sometimes inconsistent. In Tral. 2:1, Ignatius exhorts his readers to be subject to the bishop "as to Jesus Christ". This could perhaps be explained by Ignatius' high christology, which on occasion identifies God and Jesus, but for the parallelism to be consistent, it would have been necessary to identify the bishop with the Father alone.
Yet later in the same section (3:1) he urges the Trallians to respect the deacons
"as Jesus Christ", and follows with the more usual comparison between the bishop and presbyters and the Father and the Apostles (Mag. 6:1; Smyr. 8:1; cf.
Phld. 5:1). Further, the strict hierarchy which Chadwick and others argue reflects the heavenly state is not consistent on the lower levels of leadership;
Ignatius relates both the presbyters and the deacons to the "command of God" or "law of Jesus Christ" (Smyr. 8:1; Mag. 2). Although deacons are lower than presbyters, they are sometimes linked with a higher metaphysical rank (Mag.
6:1; Tral 3:1).
Admittedly, these difficulties should not detract from the significance of the parallelism which does appear between the community leaders and their counterparts. It reinforces the authority of the local authorities and is an instance ofjustification of authority and ethical behaviour.
There are a number of levels on which this justification occurs, But at the centre is an argument for being submissive to local authorities, rather than an interest in identifying ministers with a heavenly hierarchy. Generally, these parallels link structures of authority with the sacred defining symbols of the group.
When Ignatius stated that the local communities were to be subject to the bishop as to God the Father, or to the presbyters as to the apostles, or to the deacons as to Christ, he was increasing their authority by linking local institutions to what was regarded as central to human existence.19'*
This is perhaps clearest in the case of the bishop. Ignatius indicates in several passages that at the head of the community is God. In Pol. inscr. he states that Polycarp (as presumably the Smyrnaean church) "has for his bishop God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ". A similar conception appears in Rom. 9.1.
These references imply that God is the true ordering power of the community
Ignatius
and further that those who keep themselves apart from what Ignatius defines as the church (i.e., where the community leaders are present) do not belong to groups ultimately governed by God the Father or, more significantly for a sectarian Christian group, Jesus Christ. As the references to the devil listed above suggest, they are under the power of Satan.195
The bishop as head of the legitimate meeting, is God's representative. In Eph.
6:1, the image of a master and his representative is used to indicate the divinely conferred authority which the bishop receives. To yield to the bishop, which means primarily not to engage in divisive activities, is to yield to God's purposes. That purpose is primarily expressed in the assembly which believes in the physical incarnation. Thus, when in Mag. 3:1, Ignatius states that in yielding to Damas, the presbyters yield "not indeed to him, but to the Father of Jesus
Christ, the bishop of all," he is not identifying as metaphysical parallels a heavenly rank with an earthly one. He intends to state that the bishop represents a group which holds fast to correct beliefs and practices, and by submitting to him members are in fact submitting to God. As a representative of the purposes of God, the bishop is in contact with a certain awe-arousing centrality, which confers authority upon him.
In the case of the presbyters and deacons the case is more complex, but ultimately the parallels with sacred symbols function in a similar way. Perhaps most difficult is the connection Ignatius makes between the presbyters and the apostles (Mag. 6:1; Tral. 2:2; Phld. 5:1; Smyr. 8:1). A possible interpretation is that the presbyters are reflections of a heavenly council of apostles seated around the throne of God in heaven (cf. Rev. 4:4). But the image in John's Apocalypse is open to other interpretations, and Ignatius probably did not intend this. He generally conceives of the apostles as great heros of the past. In Rom. 4:3, he contrasts himself with Peter and Paul; again, in Phld. 9:1 the order: Abraham,
Isaac, prophets, apostles, church probably indicates the temporal sequence of salvation history. Further, he refers to the historical subjection of the apostles to Christ (Mag. 13:2; cf. 7:1),196 Ignatius' connection of the apostles with the presbyters is best interpreted as designed to strengthen their authority by associating them with awe-inspiring historical figures. Respect for presbyters is to be on the same level as respect for the apostles. The office of deacon is also connected with what is awe-arousing merely by paralleling it with Christ (Tral. 3:1), or, perhaps more appropriately to their appointed tasks, with the service (διάκονια) of Christ (Mag. 6:1). Like bishops and presbyters, they also are directly associated with the will of God by their association with the "law of Jesus Christ" (Mag. 2) or the "command of God" (Smyr. 8:1). Ignatius' purpose is not to portray a hierarchy parallel with heavenly authorities, but to strengthen local institutions of leadership. By connecting them with sacred symbols of authority it follows that members must abstain from meeting in their absence.
The way in which we have explained these connections is truer to the flexible and not always consistent way in which Ignatius develops them, than accounts like Chadwick's which lay more stress on the church hierarchy as the reflection of a heavenly hierarchy.
As in the case of 1 Clement and the Shepherd, so too in the Ignatian epistles there is a link between the group's symbolic universe or, to use Clifford Geertz'
The Social Setting of the Ministry conception, world-view and its ethos.197 Ignatius shows how the practices he urges them to follow are implied by their beliefs. Here we are interested primarily in the way he justifies submission to local institutions of leadership.
Central to his instructions is the exhortation to be submissive. The argument that Ignatius had a conception of parallel hierarchies between heaven and earth obscures what was his primary intention in associating leaders with the group's defining symbols. The term ύποτάσσεσθαι (Eph. 2.2; 5.3; Mag. 2.1; 13.2; Tral.
2.1,2; 13.2; Pol. 6.1; cf. Pol. 2.1) captures Ignatius' concern in presenting these associations. An ethos of submission follows directly from his explication of belief. The association of Christ's submission to the Father with that of believers to the bishop clearly shows that Ignatius wished primarily to emphasize submission in creating such parallels.198 In Mag. 13:2 the submission of Christ (and the apostles) to the Father is the pattern to be followed in the church; similarly the Smyrnaean s are exhorted to "follow (ακολουθεί v) the bishop, as Jesus
Christ follows the Father" (Smyr. 8:1); again, in Eph. 5:1 union with the bishop is compared with the union of Christ with the Father.
Geertz' notion of cultural symbols as "models of" and "models for" reality helps us to understand Ignatius' use of Christ's submission as a guide for a proper moral attitude towards leadership.199 For the majority of members,
Christ's life, death, and resurrection were community-defining symbols with tremendous social meaning. It was the symbol of Christ which communicated to them what was "really real." The social relations or patterns of leadership which already existed probably affected the way Ignatius explicated these symbols. His explication, in turn, helped to bring social conditions into accord with the groups' central beliefs.
In response to local challenges, Ignatius showed that particular beliefs associated with Christ and God the Father had certain moral implications; by describing the relationship of Jesus to God the Father in terms of submission or of union, he drew attention to a symbol of obedience and unity which he could then employ as a model to mould behaviour in the institutional realm. An ethos of submission followed from a belief about relations between the group's sacred symbols. Ignatius relates the whole ethos of living "in Christ", a phrase appearing some twenty-five times, or according to the Lord (Eph. 8:1; Trat. 2:1; Phld.
3:2; 4:1) to church unity and submission to the bishop. As a charismatic in close contact with the the "really real," Ignatius explicated the interrelationships which were believed to exist between the group's defining symbols, their relevance for the institutional order, and their consequent ethos. He thus showed how group beliefs committed members to support leadership institutions, and legitimated the authority of leaders. It is plausible that this contributed to making these structures subjectively more meaningful to his readers, thus integrating more firmly group members otherwise disposed to follow diverse beliefs and practices.
Summary A central aspect of Ignatius' attempts to bring the Asian communities under the control of their leaders was the legitimation of their authority. The need for such legitimation arose from the challenges presented by deviant belief. By