In recent years my interest in early Christian history has not waned, but the time I have to devote to the area has diminished. Unfortunately, an important work that I am just starting to explore is Alistair Stewart’s book on the development of the threefold office of ministry and the monarchical episcopacy. Much has remained the same, but my understanding and position has been refined substantively since my post at Called to Communion. There are a number of things that I would re-state, refine, and emphasize that I did not. Stewart’s book, written in 2014, is an interesting middle ground between my old, immature position, and the position emphasized in Bryan, Ray, & Barrett’s response.
While I still need to work through the details, I found a few quotes from Stewart’s postscript interesting and worth reflection.
First, Stewart makes an important point about historical conclusions broadly considered,
“As a historian, I am uncomfortable drawing out theological lessons from the history that I present, for the conclusions of a historian must be partial and provisional, based as they are on fragmentary evidence” (353).
Stewart goes on to explain how all historical study is provisional. What is assumed as true one day can be proven untrue in another. Protestants and Catholics have both been guilty of using historical evidence to advocate for theological positions that upon greater examination disappear. I think it is very important to acknowledge this fact about historical knowledge. It is always and ever fragmentary. History and theology are related (as we will see in a moment), but they are distinct disciplines.
Second, Stewart is particularly keen to criticize those confident that the church was organized by a group of presbyters. Stewart rejects this claim and much of his 400 page book serves to demonstrate his argument. At the same time, Stewart also argues that Catholics encounter problems for claiming a jure divino episcopacy:
“Indeed, in any discussion between episcopal and non-episcopal Christian communities the matter of episcopate and apostolic succession is prominent, and historians are called as witnesses. If my conclusions are correct, there is little comfort for those who maintain that the ministry of the church was originally presbyteral (with the corollary that is should therefore remain so), but likewise none for those who maintain that episcopacy as it is now recognized is fundamental to the church and had been in place from the beginning” (354).
Third, Stewart’s conclusions also address the issue of Apostolic Succession
“I may say that the doctrine of apostolic succession emerged in the latter part of the second century, but this did not mean that the episkopoi who were seen as representative of that succession themselves were episcopally ordained even then…Any confident assertion about any true biblical model of ministry, or indeed any narrative of the originally collective leadership of congregations giving rise to ‘monarchical episcopacy’ within those congregations, is to be consigned to the dustbin of exegetical history.”
Of course, these are Stewart’s conclusions, and not argument’s themselves. But I highlight his statements for a few reasons:
- While Stewart’s central thesis is that presbyter and bishop are not synonymous (they are rather perionyms)–as Bryan, Barrett, & Ray did–Stewart rejects that this favors an early monarchical episcopacy. Consequently, even if one rejects synonymous nature of episkopos and presbuteros, the historical evidence still speaks against a monarchical episcopate. (On the merits of Stewart’s thesis about presbuteros and episkopos, David DeVore offers a helpful overview and critique in the Review of Biblical Literature).
- Stewart’s argument cuts against jure divino presbyterians *and* jure divino episcopalians. From the outset I have tried to avoid saying that Jesus founded the church upon a presbyterian governmental structure. Sometimes, Reformed Protestants try to make this argument, but it lacks necessary nuance. There may be prudential or theological reasons for preferring one polity over another, but those are prudential questions. A simplistic appeal to the “biblical” model of church government overlooks the complexity and variability of a transition from the apostolic to the post-apostolic church.
- While some of the particulars of my 2014 article have developed, I still think my broader conclusions are correct and undermine the traditionalist Catholic narrative of apostolic succession (See VIII. c. The Roman Catholic is in the same epistemological position as the Protestant). Stewart’s assessment clearly concurs with my earlier assessment. And, as many Roman Catholic scholars argue, Stewart claims that just because apostolic succession is not a first or early second century phenomenon, one may argue for its valid providential development and necessity.
- I sympathize with Bryan, Barrett, and Ray that Stewart’s position on development undermines Catholic teaching. For example, Vatican I (Session 4 Chapter 1) states “If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.” Notwithstanding the tension, many historical scholars do maintain their Catholic faith while rejecting traditionalist narratives.
- It’s unclear to me why they maintain their communion in the RCC, but they do seem to be sincere and thoughtful members of the communion. Thus, my arguments are not that one cannot retain faith in the RCC, but rather, the arguments of CtC fail. Just as in arguments about God’s existence, just because offers a bad argument for God’s existence, that doesn’t mean he does not exist.
Ha Kalon Humas 