INTRODUCTION
The
word ‘polity’ deals with the organizational of structure of the church. When we
talk about the church we must keep in mind two things:
i. A
church is basically an organism – a living body. Anything that has life is a
living organism. The church of Christ is made up of many people & cultures.
As there is life in every single cell of the human body, every member of the
church has life. The church also is compared to a building.
ii. The
church is also an organisation – for an organism to function there has to be an
organisation. An organisation without organism is useless.
Purpose of Organisation
It
is for the effective functioning of the church. Our Lord is God of order. (1
Cor. 13:14). When the life of the church started in Jerusalem, the basic
governance was given by the Apostles with the power of the Holy Spirit. There
were no elders, no councils, no delegates, etc. It was just the apostles and
believers.
“We as
believers are not perfect but our position in Christ is perfect.”
“If it does not matter, who gets the credit, how
much can be done for the Lord?”
The Office of the Elder
The
main meaning of the word Apostles were to witness. The term was used for
Apostle Paul even though he didn’t witness. In 2 of his letters – 2 Corinthians
& Galatians, he had to defend his Apostleship. He was called &
separated. Hebrews 4 says Jesus was the first Apostle. This term was also used
to Barnabas & Silas.
There
is also another term Apostolic Succession. The Catholics believe in the
infallibility of the Pope. Probably this is one office which has come into the
church and still remains today. The office of the Bishop and the other offices
came out of the office of the elder. The earliest reference is found in Acts
11:13. In Acts 14:23 also we see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in the
church.
How
the office of the elder did came into being? We see the references in the New
Testament (Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5, 7). But it was to help the
church grow that they became guardians of the church.
Office of the Bishop
There
is a difference between the Office of the Bishop and the Office of the Elder.
The Bishop has more of an overseeing responsibility. When a community is
governed by a committee or a board or a council. There is always a tendency for
one person to be a leader. This was true of the early church also. And the
person who usually spoke out was the Bishop. The church required authoritative
people amidst the heresies of the church. And it is in that context that the
office of the Bishop came up.
Metropolitan Bishop
A Metropolitan Bishop is charge of a province.
Metropolitan Bishop is the head of the entire churches in one Roman province.
And from that Metropolitan Bishop there Church Patriarchs. There were five
major cities – five major Patriachates. Antioch, Romem Constantinople,
Alexandria & Jerusalem. The Metropolitan Bishop in those cities were also known
as Patriarchs (First Fathers). The Patriarch of Rome was the head of the
Churches in West.
The Office of the Deacon (under the supervision of
the apostles)
The
Deacons’ office was to help the elder in the administering the material affairs
of the church. In the time of the Apostolic fathers, deacons position was
ranked third.
Development
of Episcopacy in the First Five centuries of the Church
i. 2nd
Century – Elders and Bishops were differentiated. Every congregation was
governed by Bishops.
ii. Late
2nd century – There came about Diocesan bishops. A Bishop will now
oversee a group of congregations in a geographical area.
iii. 3rd
Century – Priesthood and sacrifice began to come about. Elders and presbyters
came to be called as sacrificing priests – they can conduct Lord’s Supper. The
primary of the Roman Bishop was asserted.
iv. Early
4th Century – The Metropolitan Bishop or Archbishops gained
supremacy over the country bishops.
v. Late
4th Century – The office of the Patriarchs began to come up –
Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople & Jerusalem (East) and Rome (West).
Among the five, the Roman patriarch (later known as Pope) became the highest
and next the Patriarch of Constantinople.
vi. Middle
of 5th century – the Bishop of Rome – Leo I claimed supremacy over
all other Bishops on account of apostolic succession of Peter.
This
whole system put together is known as Episcopal system of the Church.
NOTE:
Episcopal churches require ordination.
Major Ancient Church Doctrinal
Controversies and the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church
The
controversies that got the church divided can be grouped into three:
1)
Theological
Controversies – dealt with the Father & the Son, Holy Spirit & the Son
– ie. the relationship with the trinity.
2)
Christological
Controversies – dealt with the virtue of Christ, the will of Christ & the
work of Christ.
3)
Anthropological
Controversies – dealt with human nature, human sin & human salvation.
These
three controversies compelled the church to call for councils to settle them.
These councils were ecumenical in nature. (Ecumenical – not the council of one
church but different churches together). It started from 325 AD to 787 AD – 7 councils of the Church. It is from
these councils that we get the major dogmas & doctrines of the Church. In
all these Councils, there is a winning party and a losing party. The winning
party called themselves as the Orthodox Church (Orthodox meaning true faith or
correct faith).
“The beginning
of wisdom in History is doubt.”
The
losing party were called as lesser churches. The losing parties consisted of
Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Churches, Nestorian Churches.
The
so-called winning party were known as the Roman Catholic. Western Churches in
Rome were more of practical in nature. Their government was more hierarchical
structure. Eastern churches were more philosophical (Constantinople, Antioch,
Alexandria & Jerusalem). They tried to understand Christianity through
Greek philosophy and became more stagnant.
In
the Eastern churches, the Churches were more under the Emperor. But in the
West, the Emperors became very weak and it is in this situation the Pope
stepped in and became more powerful than the Emperor. Even the Emperor was
consecrated by the Pope.
I. THEOLOGICAL
CONTROVERSIES
a.
The relationship of the
Father to the Son
Even before the 4th century, there was an issue regarding the Son & the Father. One of the Church Fathers, Tertulian dealt with it. He insisted on the unity of essence in the three personalities of the trinity. The question is – Are there 3 different personalities or is there unity? But this question was brought again in the early part of the 4th century. In the year 318-319 AD. Alexander – the Bishop of Alexandria preached to his presbyters on the theme of the great mystery of trinity of unity. One of his presbyters – Arius, an ascetic scholar, a popular preacher attacked the sermon spoke by the speaker. He said the Bishop failed to uphold the distinction/differences of the 3 persons in the Godhead. Arius never wanted to say there are 3 Gods. That would make him a polytheist. At the same time, Arius wanted to distinguish the three. So, Arius developed his own doctrine of trinity. In that process, he did some great damage to the person of Christ. Arius did not believe in giving the same importance of Father to the Son. The Son is made up of a different essence – hetero ousious (different essence). The Father is superior and Son is subordinate. In spite of the fact that he was condemned by the Bishop, the ideas of Arius became popular and many were influenced by him. And therefore, the emperor thought of calling a Synod at Nicea in Antioch.
300 Bishops constituted the Council – Only 10 from the West and 290 from the East. The Emperor presided over the Council. For the first time, the Church found itself led by a political leader.
Three views were presented at the Council
Even before the 4th century, there was an issue regarding the Son & the Father. One of the Church Fathers, Tertulian dealt with it. He insisted on the unity of essence in the three personalities of the trinity. The question is – Are there 3 different personalities or is there unity? But this question was brought again in the early part of the 4th century. In the year 318-319 AD. Alexander – the Bishop of Alexandria preached to his presbyters on the theme of the great mystery of trinity of unity. One of his presbyters – Arius, an ascetic scholar, a popular preacher attacked the sermon spoke by the speaker. He said the Bishop failed to uphold the distinction/differences of the 3 persons in the Godhead. Arius never wanted to say there are 3 Gods. That would make him a polytheist. At the same time, Arius wanted to distinguish the three. So, Arius developed his own doctrine of trinity. In that process, he did some great damage to the person of Christ. Arius did not believe in giving the same importance of Father to the Son. The Son is made up of a different essence – hetero ousious (different essence). The Father is superior and Son is subordinate. In spite of the fact that he was condemned by the Bishop, the ideas of Arius became popular and many were influenced by him. And therefore, the emperor thought of calling a Synod at Nicea in Antioch.
300 Bishops constituted the Council – Only 10 from the West and 290 from the East. The Emperor presided over the Council. For the first time, the Church found itself led by a political leader.
Three views were presented at the Council
i. Arius
put forth his view – Christ is of a different substance. Christ did not exist
from eternity like the Father. Christ is created by the Father. Therefore,
Christ is inferior to the Father. He was not co-equal with the Father, nor
co-eternal or co-substantial with the Father. For Arius, Christ is divine not
deity. Christ is Mighty God not Almighty God.
ii. Athanatius
– the champion of the Orthodox view (295-373). He was educated in Alexandria. ‘The Incarnation’ – famous book authored
by him.
1.
He said Christ existed
from all eternity.
2.
Christ is the same
essence as that of the Father. (Homo
ousious)
3.
Christ had a different personality.
Athanasius further argued that if Christ is any less than the deity (Father),
He cannot be our Saviour.
iii. Eusebius
of Caesarea – scholar and a Church historian. He led the largest party in the
Council. He wanted to avoid controversies. He presented a compromised view.
Taking the best from both the groups, he presented the third view:
1.
Christ was not created
he was begotten of the Father (sometime in eternity) before time in eternity.
2.
Christ was of a like
substance of the Father.
The Council was more interested in Eusebius’ views.
b.
Relationship between
Father and Holy Spirit
The Bishop of Constantinople – Macedonius (341-360)
The Bishop of Constantinople – Macedonius (341-360)
He started teaching a doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Holy Spirit a minister and servant like the angels. Holy Spirit just a teacher,
subordinate both to the Father and Son. In other words, there is a hierarchy:
Father à Son à
Holy Spirit. It is this controversy, which led to a Council of Constantinople
in 381 AD condemned the teachings of Macedonius.
In the Eastern Churches, they taught that Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. This was known as the Filioque controversy. In the Western Churches they taught that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Council of Toleds (589 AD) came up with the view that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
In the Eastern Churches, they taught that Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. This was known as the Filioque controversy. In the Western Churches they taught that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Council of Toleds (589 AD) came up with the view that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
II. CHRISTOLOGICAL
CONTROVERSY
a.
Relationship between natures
of Christ
Did Christ have one will or two wills? Is Christ divine?
Apollinarius – Bishop of Laodicia: He suggested that Christ had two natures – body & soul. In Christ the Logos took the place of human spirit by saying this he wanted to keep the two natures together. However, in doing so, he stressed the deity of Christ but minimised the humanity of Christ. He made Christ semi-divine and semi-human. Christ is not completely human. God is a deity without body. His views were also condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Nestorius – Patriarch at Constantinople in 428 disliked the use of the term theotokos (God – bearer) as a name for the Virgin Mary. The doctrine of Nestorianism.
Christ was in effect only a perfect man morally linked to a deity. He was a God-bearer rather than a God-man. This was condemned at Ephesus in 431. Nestorius emphasised that Mary is not theotokos but Christotokos (Christ-bearer). Mary is only the human bearer of Christ. In Christ, the divine and the human nature was combined in a mechanical union rather than an organic union. He said Christ is a perfect man who was morally linked to deity. Christ is God-bearer rather than God-man. The Council at Ephesus condemned the views of Nestorius in 431. However, the teachings of Nestorius continued.
Did Christ have one will or two wills? Is Christ divine?
Apollinarius – Bishop of Laodicia: He suggested that Christ had two natures – body & soul. In Christ the Logos took the place of human spirit by saying this he wanted to keep the two natures together. However, in doing so, he stressed the deity of Christ but minimised the humanity of Christ. He made Christ semi-divine and semi-human. Christ is not completely human. God is a deity without body. His views were also condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Nestorius – Patriarch at Constantinople in 428 disliked the use of the term theotokos (God – bearer) as a name for the Virgin Mary. The doctrine of Nestorianism.
Christ was in effect only a perfect man morally linked to a deity. He was a God-bearer rather than a God-man. This was condemned at Ephesus in 431. Nestorius emphasised that Mary is not theotokos but Christotokos (Christ-bearer). Mary is only the human bearer of Christ. In Christ, the divine and the human nature was combined in a mechanical union rather than an organic union. He said Christ is a perfect man who was morally linked to deity. Christ is God-bearer rather than God-man. The Council at Ephesus condemned the views of Nestorius in 431. However, the teachings of Nestorius continued.
b.
Eutychianism from
Eutyches, a monk of Constantinople. After the incarnation, the two natures of
Christ – the divine and the human fused into one nature – the DIVINE NATURE. In
other words, Jesus lost the human nature and it was divine nature.
The Council of Chaldcedon in 451 condemned his views. The same Council formulated a Christology, the Council held the view that Christ was complete in God-head and complete in manhood. Truly God and truly man, having two natures, without confusion, without change, without division and without separation. This two natures were brought together harmoniously in one person.
This were some of the Christological issues that the Eastern Church had to deal with. The Eastern Church, having to deal with all the controversies became so stagnant and did not make much contribution to the mainstream of Christianity.
The Council of Chaldcedon in 451 condemned his views. The same Council formulated a Christology, the Council held the view that Christ was complete in God-head and complete in manhood. Truly God and truly man, having two natures, without confusion, without change, without division and without separation. This two natures were brought together harmoniously in one person.
This were some of the Christological issues that the Eastern Church had to deal with. The Eastern Church, having to deal with all the controversies became so stagnant and did not make much contribution to the mainstream of Christianity.
III. ANTHROPOLOGICAL ISSUES
a.
Doctrine of Man
(particularly man’s salvation)
One of the major questions was, “What is the will of man?”, “Is salvation something totally different from God?” or “Does man play a part?”. The starting point of this controversy was by a person called Pelagius – a British monk and a theologian who lived around 400 AD.
Pelagius believed that each human being is created free as Adam was free and each man and woman has the power to choose between good and evil. Each soul is a separate creation of God and therefore uncontaminated by the sin of Adam. Then the question arises, “How do you explain the universality of sin?” It is because of the weakness of the human flesh (and not because of the original sin). We do not inherit the original sin of Adam. Our each individual can co-operate with God in the process of salvation, in the process of attaining holiness and in that process we can make use of some aids like Bible, reason and the example of Christ can help us.
One of the major questions was, “What is the will of man?”, “Is salvation something totally different from God?” or “Does man play a part?”. The starting point of this controversy was by a person called Pelagius – a British monk and a theologian who lived around 400 AD.
Pelagius believed that each human being is created free as Adam was free and each man and woman has the power to choose between good and evil. Each soul is a separate creation of God and therefore uncontaminated by the sin of Adam. Then the question arises, “How do you explain the universality of sin?” It is because of the weakness of the human flesh (and not because of the original sin). We do not inherit the original sin of Adam. Our each individual can co-operate with God in the process of salvation, in the process of attaining holiness and in that process we can make use of some aids like Bible, reason and the example of Christ can help us.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)