Theological Drift: How Did We Get Here?

            Without strong theological convictions, other influences will draw us away from biblical teaching. A look at church history in virtually any doctrine will provide evidence of this principle. This post will examine the history of the theology of church government including the early unanimity and two historical cases of theological drift on the matter of church polity.

            I like the word picture of drifting. The author of Hebrews warns his readers, “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Heb. 2:1, English Standard Version). Drifting happens subtly, not intentionally. Drifting happens while you are asleep or distracted. Drifting happens when you are a busy pastor trying to solve dozens of problems, visit someone in the hospital, officiate a wedding, write a sermon, prepare some Bible studies, tend to your family, organize a needed fundraiser, and calm upset members. Drifting doesn’t mean you are bad or lazy. It means you are normal. We have to keep intentionally directing our attention back to the Bible in faith exegetical study if we want to avoid drift.

Early Unanimity About Plurality of Elders

            The previous post looked at the biblical pattern for a theology of church governance. We found a remarkably clear picture, despite many arguing that the Bible is ambiguous.[1] Each local church had a plurality of elders as their leaders. This model continued in the time of the Apostolic Fathers. For instance, 1 Clement 44 presents elders and overseers as interchangeable terms, writing from Rome to the church in Corinth. Both Rome and Corinth were practicing what was seen in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5.[2] Dates for the Didache vary, but it also represents a time before the adoption of other church governance models, when churches were electing their own overseers. Chapter 15 points to a plurality of bishops being elected by each church. The earliest Christian communities were led by a group of men called elders and overseers, though they were not a separate clergy class. The elder-overseers did not represent a clergy-laity division in the New Testament nor in the period immediately after the New Testament.[3] Rediscovery of the early model of leadership by a group of elders influenced reformers like John Wycliff, John Calvin, and the Anabaptist reformers.[4] Some of the reformers tried to move back to the Bible with different measures of success. Another rediscovery of the biblical theology of church governance was the American Restoration Movement.[5]

2 Examples of Theological Drift in Church Leadership

1. Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius lived in the late first and early second century. He was the bishop at Antioch. In taking the role of the bishop, Ignatius highlights a significant change that was to take place in the church of the second century. Ignatius advocates what is commonly called a “monarchical bishop.” That is, Ignatius sees the figure of a single bishop over the presbyters. Ignatius’s influence in this change is almost universally recognized. Among those who see ambiguity in the New Testament and among those who see a clearer pattern, Ignatius is still an important person in the homogenization of the church with this episcopal form of church government.[6] Some argue that the needs of a growing church forced the abandonment of leadership by a group of elder-overseers who functioned as equals in favor of more hierarchical structure.[7] It has not escaped notice that Ignatius’s model bears a striking similarity to the secular governors of time. His solution “reflects his background in the city-states of Asia Minor and indeed Hellenistic Antioch in Syria.”[8] A gradual change would see the eventual primacy of the bishop of Rome. Eventually, the Pope in Rome would have ecclesiastic authority parallel to the Roman emperors. Of course, the Greco-Roman world may not have been the only influence or justification for the development of the monarchical episcopate.  Still, it should be noted that prominent in “Roman system was the collegiality of its magistracies, the top executive office, for example, being shared by two consuls. This pattern furnished background for political institutions in the municipalities, where a similar collegiality manifested itself in the election of duoviri (or quattuorviri) as chief civic officials. It would not be entirely surprising if this pattern should also have provided at least some of the psychological foundation for church organizational forms which may, in reality, have been fused from several elements.”[9] The same author notes how the pressures of heretical forms of Christianity may have led people like Ignatius to concentrate power to protect the church.[10] There is no need to accuse Ignatius of nefarious intentions or pride. He sought biblical justification for the changes he wanted to implement in order to protect the church from heresy. His three-tier model of a bishop over a board of elders, and a group of subordinate deacons is similar to the model of a single pastor over a board of elders, aided by some deacons used in many churches today. His model is not the New Testament model, however. It represents theological drift mixed with good intentions. Biblical support is forced. Although James Dunn does not accept the idea of a unified New Testament model, he comments, “It is with Ignatius that the idea of communities having a single ‘bishop’ comes to clear expression, as Ignatius insisted on the centrality of the bishop’s role as the supreme authority and focus of unity of each church. That he had to press the case so strongly suggests that what he was assuming and advocating was a not long or universally established pattern in the churches of Asia Minor”[11]
2. James O’Kelly and the Republican Methodists. James O’Kelly was a Methodist preacher around the time of the American Revolutionary War. For biographical information, click here.[12] O’Kelly disputed strongly with Francis Asbury, the Methodist bishop at the time over the appointment of itinerant preachers. O’Kelly found Asbury to be authoritarian and abusive. After meetings and letters between these two and others, O’Kelly eventually broke away with a number of other Methodist churches and ministers seeking freedom and American ideals. O’Kelly was significantly influenced by the principles that had also led to the American Revolution. The extent of the impact of political and cultural values can be seen easily in the name chosen for his break-away group. The group was called “Republican Methodists.” Of course, this has nothing to do with the modern Republican party. Rather, it was direct opposition to the episcopal form of church government in the Methodist church. Instead of bishops, O’Kelly’s group would have freedom. Ministers would be equals and would meet as representatives of the congregations they represented to vote on matters that concerned the group. Although O’Kelly cited the Bible to defend his views, it is broadly recognized that “O’Kelly’s values matched those of his native Virginia’s republican gentry. Like Patrick Henry, O’Kelly regarded metropolitan control of local affairs as despotism.”[13] Another article on O’Kelly puts it this way, “James O’Kelly was an individual profoundly affected by the democratic principles of the American Revolution and a man who attempted to implement those beliefs in his understanding of ecclesial administration.”[14] Specifically, O’Kelly believed in “the cause of liberty and individual autonomy.”[15] O’Kelly rightly opposed the unbiblical model of monarchical episcopacy. However, his theology of church government drifted to American cultural ideals rather than back to the Bible. It is reported that when O’Kelly contested the bishop’s assignment of circuits, “At one point in the debate, O’Kelly stood up with a New Testament in his hand and stated, ‘Brethren hearken unto me, put away all other books and forms and let this be the only criterion and that will satisfy me.’ O’Kelly thought that Christian ministers would surely agree to such a proposal. But one replied, ‘The Scripture is by no means a sufficient form of government. The Lord has left that business for his ministers to do suitable to times and places.’”[16] Theological drift is harder to detect when it aligns with our culture’s values and norms. Such was the case with O’Kelly. In short, “their congregational government reflected that of their new country, a republic.”[17] Like in the case of Ignatius, there is no need to question O’Kelly’s intentions in the matter. Nonetheless, the outcome was not a return to a biblical model for a theology of church governance.

Theological Drift Today

            Through two historic moves of theological drift, some primary features of the landscape of the church today are largely defined. One pull is toward concentration of authority in a clergy, whether they are bishops, priests, or senior pastors. A contrary pull is toward full democracy, with congregational votes and little to no authority structure, just as a portion of culture is pulled to libertarianism on the political scene. Another cultural influence can be seen emerging. Celebrity culture in our technological world is more influential than ever. Sports figures, pop music stars, and social media influencers now steer the culture in unprecedented ways. Within the church, celebrity influence is also very prevalent. Many churches emulate the fad of the day. Seeker-friendly church, emergent church, simple church, missional church. It could be John MacArthur, Rob Bell, Francis Chan, or Hillsong driving the theology of any given church. Your church must be successful, professional, growing, and attractive. Especially as churches move away from their traditional denominational structures, they are vulnerable to trends in ways that would not have been historically likely. Within my brotherhood, the Restoration Movement, autonomous churches are also vulnerable. There are many forces pulling in different directions. There are pressing needs calling for solutions.

            Without firm theological convictions on any number of issues, churches are subject to theological drift. A theology of church government is especially vulnerable in some ways. For local leadership to have influence over their congregants, there is enormous pressure to imitate successful church leaders rather than remain faithful to a biblical church model. When one wants to know how to govern a church, do they go to the Bible or to Thom Rainer? Is Tim Keller or the New Testament the standard for church government? As fine as those servants of Christ may be, they cannot and should not replace a commitment to follow the Scriptures as much as possible. What cultural influences could be causing you and me to theologically drift?[18]

Conclusions on Theological Drift

            Many pastors serve nobly. Nothing I am saying here should be taken as an attack. Rather, it is a call – a call back to the Bible. It is time to pay attention to where we are and where the New Testament wants us to be. We have been adrift in the sea of ideas for too long. Many of us have not paid attention to the church polity we have. We inherited it from somewhere and tweaked it towards what we needed to pragmatically get the job done. This is a call to stop drifting, set a course toward biblical eldership, and start rowing toward the goal with intentionality.

I don’t believe any doctrine of the Holy Scripture should be neglected or defined out of existence. Yet this is precisely what many churches have done to the doctrine of eldership. Even among churches that claim to practice eldership, the elders have been reduced to temporary church board members, which is quite contrary to the New Testament, apostolic model of pastoral eldership. Although such churches may have an eldership, it is not a biblical eldership.

Literally tens of thousands of churches worldwide practice some form of eldership because they believe it to be a biblical teaching. Unfortunately, because the advocates of eldership have been so terribly delinquent in adequately articulating this doctrine, there is a great deal of confusion and unbiblical thinking surrounding the topic among most elder-led churches. There are persistent, crippling misconceptions about eldership that hinder churches from practicing authentic biblical eldership. This subject is too important to the local church to be bogged down in such confusion. – Alexander Strauch[19]

---

[1] “The New Testament recognizes a variety of roles and offices, but it does not reflect ‘a single pattern of ministry which might serve as a blueprint or continuing norm for all future ministry in the Church,’ according to ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry,’ an important ecumenical document of the World Council of Churches (1982: 24).” Michael Jinkins, “Religious Leadership,” in Wiley-Blackwell Companions to Religion: The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology, ed. Bonnie J. Miller-Mclemore, first (Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), section: Biblical Perspectives on Leadership, paragraph two.

[2] Valeriy A. Alikin, The Earliest History of the Christian Gathering: Origin, Development and Content of the Christian Gathering in the First to Third Centuries, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, v. 102 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 72.

[3] Muhammad Wolfgang G. A. Schmidt, ed., “And on This Rock I Will Build My Church,” A New Edition of Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church:” From the Beginnings to the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Hamburg: Disserta Verlag, 2017), 426.

[4] Jeff Brown, Corporate Decision-Making in the Church of the New Testament (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2014), 9.

[5] Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership (Littleton, Colo.: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995), 11.

[6] Andrew Selby, “Bishops, Elders, and Deacons in the Philippian Church: Evidence of Plurality from Paul and Polycarp,” Perspectives on Religious Studies 39, no. 2 (2012): 81. The author notes the changes brought by Ignatius, though Polycarp is still using the model advocated by Paul, a plurality of elders as overseers of the church.

[7] Allen Brent, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (London: T & T Clark, 2009), 28.

[8] Ibid., 31.

[9] Kenneth A. Strand, “The Rise of the Monarchical Episcopate,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 4, no. 1 (1966): 83.

[10] Ibid., 84-85.

[11] James D. G. Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Christianity in the Making), vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2016), 814.

[12] P. J. Kernodle, Lives of Christian Ministers (Richmond: Central Publishing Company, n.d.), https://webfiles.acu.edu/departments/Library/HR/restmov_nov11/www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/pkernodle/lcm/LCM00A.HTM.

[13] John Ellis, “Pragmatic Radicals and Idealistic Conservatives: Methodist Liminality in the Revolutionary World,” Fides et Historia 48, no. 1 (2016): 1.

[14] Austin F. Eggers, “The Impact of the American Revolution on James O’Kelly’s Understanding of Ecclesial Governance in the Methodist Episcopal Church,” Journal of Religious History 46, no. 1 (March 2022): 80.

[15] Ibid.

[16] James B. North, Union in Truth: An Interpretive History of the Restoration Movement (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing, 1994), chapter 1, paragraph nine, Kindle.

[17] Ibid., paragraph ten.

[18] Wilkens and Sanford, Hidden Worldviews.

[19] Strauch, Biblical Eldership, 10.