Cultural Influences on the Development of Early Church Structures

Ecclesiology is the least studied branch of systematic theology. Millard Erickson states that, “No point in history of Christian thought has the doctrine of the church received the direct and complete attention which other doctrines have received” (1984, 1026). However, the implications of the study of the church are significant. Erickson suggests at least five:

1. The church is not to be conceived of primarily as a sociological phenomenon, but as a divinely established institution. Accordingly, its essence is to be determined not from an analysis of its activity, but from Scripture.
2. The church exists because of its relationship to the Triune God. It exists to carry out its Lord’s will by the power of the Holy Spirit.
3. The church is the continuation of the Lord’s presence and ministry in the world.
4. The church is to be a fellowship of regenerate believers who display the spiritual qualities of their Lord. Purity and devotion are to be emphasized.
5. While the church is a divine creation, it is made up of imperfect human beings. It will not reach perfect sanctification or glorification until its Lord’s return. (1984, 1049)

Missiologically, ecclesiology, together with other aspects of theology, has a significant role in engaging contemporary culture, wherever that might be. Missiologists and missionaries often ask questions about the forms that a church should adopt in order to be culturally indigenous. They correctly assume that culture can dictate the form while Scripture must dictate the function. However, there is often confusion that results in the form being equated with function. Form, then, is transplanted rather than contextualized. Thus, the observation of many missiologists: the church has not been contextualized (Cooper, forthcoming).

This paper examines the development of ecclesiology during the first seven centuries of the Christian era. As will be apparent, this development was heavily influenced by the culture of the period. There is a stark difference between the image of the church that we see in the New Testament and that of the patristic period. On the one hand, it is true that the New Testament does not provide us with a clear image for the form of the church. On the other hand, it is equally true that the New Testament does provide a clear image for the function of the church. The paper will conclude with four axioms that might be gained from this study and applied to contemporary contextual ecclesiology.

David Hesselgrave states that, “A careful study of representative church polities will reveal that historically they have tended to reflect the social structures of the times and places of their inception” (1980, 367). A look at the cultural influences that helped shape ecclesiology in the first seven centuries of Christianity will bear out Hesselgrave's observation. The three periods under consideration are the New Testament, Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers. There is obviously overlap between these periods, but they can be roughly defined as follows:

1. The New Testament period roughly falls between the years of 33 and 100 A.D. This was the time period that saw the inception of the church (Acts 2) after Christ’s ascension to heaven through the time of His apostles spreading the gospel.
2. The period of the Apostolic Fathers falls between 100 and 300 A.D. This period was characterized by the defense of Christianity against the Jews, Gnostics, Classical Pagans and the Roman Empire.
3. The period of the Church Fathers falls between 300 and 800 A.D. The early church developed four criteria in determining who can be considered a Father: (1) orthodoxy of doctrine, (2) holiness of life, (3) ecclesiastical approval, and (4) antiquity (Tsirpanlis 1991, 21). Generally it is held by both East and West that there are nine Fathers who deserve the title of Doctors of the church: from the East -- SS. Athanasius the Great (c. 295-373), Basil the Great (329-379), Gregory the Theologian (329-390), John Chrysostom (344-407), John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) and from the West -- SS. Ambrose (c. 333-397), Jerome (347-420), Augustine (354-430), Gregory the Great (540-604).

Influences in the New Testament Period (33-100 A.D.)

The Jewish culture of the day was instrumental in the development of the early church. Most scholars would agree that the New Testament church was formed according to the structures of the synagogue and not in some religious vacuum. The development of the synagogue has a long history. While there is no reference to a synagogue in the Old Testament some would argue that “meeting place” in Psalm 74:8 refers to a synagogue. Jewish tradition suggests that “little sanctuary” in Ezekiel 11:16 is a reference to synagogues of the exiled Jews. The synagogue emphasized what Jews could do anywhere: prayer, reading of the Torah, keeping the Sabbath day, circumcision, and observance of Old Testament food laws.

In the synagogue the leaders of the congregation selected a ruler. He had the task of conducting the services and managing the properties. Often he used others to conduct worship, prayers, readings of the Law and the Prophets, and to give exhortations. Other members of the congregation were used to carry out menial duties, inflict corporal punishment and discipline members, as well as distribute alms. Elders were elected based on the desire of the congregation and they formed the local Sanhedrin. The chief elder was first among equals and probably selected by the elders.

Services in the synagogue began with prayers, shema, eulogies, and benedictions and continued with readings from the Law and Prophets and a sermon from the Prophets. They were held on Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays. The synagogue was the center for educating children in the Jewish faith and typically housed a library. It was also a center for judicial proceedings. The local Sanhedrin met and decided upon legal cases that were brought before it.

Jesus regularly attended and participated in the synagogue services and especially ministered throughout Galilee in the synagogues (Matt 4:23-24). The synagogue was at the height of its importance by His time. Hesselgrave sums up the implications of the synagogue for the church,

New Testament believers, therefore, had a model for church leadership and organization. It is not to be inferred that they followed this synagogue pattern rigidly, however. The point is that the early believers were aware of basic ways and means for conducting corporate spiritual life and business. (1980, 351)

It seems apparent that, in God’s providential wisdom, the New Testament church did not have to struggle through the development of a system that would facilitate the believers in worship of God. The Jewish culture of the day provided an applicable model for the church and ultimately this model was implemented wherever the community of Christ went. The similarities of the synagogue with the church are striking. It is evident from Acts 2:42, 6:1, and 14:23 that the church appointed elders and deacons, held services of prayer and provided for the daily needs of widows as did the synagogue.

The missionary activity of the New Testament was primarily centered on the formation of local bodies of believers that had recently converted to Christianity. Of the Apostle Paul’s thirteen epistles, nine were directed to local churches and four were directed to church leaders. Luke’s Acts of the Apostles records information regarding at least eight churches (Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia) that Paul and his colleagues planted and suggests that they might have planted more (Cyprus, Berea, Troas, Tyre). It is also clear that his disciples played a significant role in church planting (Colossae, Laodecia, Ptolemais, Crete, Rome). One might even assume based on Acts 19:10 that Paul’s disciples planted six of the seven churches of Asia Minor recorded in Revelation 2-3. Furthermore, the same assumption could be made about the churches of Macedonia based on 1 Thess 1:8.

Paul’s epistles suggest that there was a standard to which all churches were expected to conform (1 Cor 4:17, 11:16, 16:1; 1 Thess 2:14). Those standards seemed to be theological rather than ecclesiastical. Paul rarely, if ever, discusses the form of the church. Rather, his concentration is on the function of the church. Nevertheless, at times in his ministry the church appears in the form of a philosophical school rather than a Jewish synagogue. This would not be surprising given the Greek understanding of ekklesia as a body assembled in order to discuss civic matters. Paul’s use of the home was very similar to traveling sophists, as was his engagement of those in the marketplace with philosophers.

Influences in the Period of the Apostolic Fathers (100-300 A.D.)

The theology of the early church was formulated in an environment influenced not only by Plato and the Gnostics, but Buddha and Zoroaster (Frend 1984, 316). Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-202) had a great knowledge of Indian religions, a point often overlooked. Frend states, “The early third century saw strong links being made between the Roman Empire and India and these links affected thought as well as trade” (1984, 372). Mani, the author of Manicheism, suggested that Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Platonism and Gnosticism could be fused together into a single system of universal validity (Frend 1984, 317).

Some have suggested that the theological reflections of the early church were platonically based. However, further study of the second and third century Apostolic Fathers reveals their belief that Moses influenced Plato. Clement of Alexandria postulated, “What is Plato but Moses in Attic Greek?” Following the Jewish theologian Philo, he never doubted that Plato’s religious ideas found their basis in Moses. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) considered Plato and Aristotle pre-Christian Christians. Origen (A.D. 185-254) was most definitely a Christian Platonist. Plato profoundly influenced his ideas of eternal matter and the pre-existent soul. However, the Fifth Ecumenical Council ultimately anathematized Origen for Hellenism.

There were also those that rejected any association with Greek philosophy. Irenaeus (A.D. 115-200) totally rejected Plato as a philosophical base for Christianity. For him the basis of Christianity formed solely upon Scripture, tradition and the power of the Holy Spirit. Frend notes that his theological formulations were sought from the Bible rather than Greek philosophy (1984, 244). Along with Irenaeus was Tertullian (c. A. D. 116-230) who stated, “What is there in common between Athens and Jerusalem? What between the Academy and the church? What between heretics and Christians?”

All in all, the Apostolic Fathers fought for theological orthodoxy and maintained the faith passed down to them. These theological arguments, however, had little impact on the formation of the church. That is not to say that the church did not continue to develop. On the contrary, the church’s structure and organization made profound strides that would impact the future of ecclesiology.

The primary influence during this period was not so much cultural as it was circumstantial. One such circumstance occurred at the end of the New Testament period. Around A.D. 95 Clement of Rome wrote to the church at Corinth in regards to a division that had taken place. The church ousted their elders and Clement responds to this “shameful in the extreme” (1 Clement 47:6) act with the first suggestion of “apostolic succession.” We will discuss this further below. Needless to say, the influential letter from the bishop of Rome written to confront a particular circumstance profoundly influenced the formation of the second century church.

By the second century the circumstances surrounding the issue of authority in the church gave rise to further development of ecclesiastical hierarchy. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. A.D. 117) used the argument of apostolic succession to appeal to authority against the Docetists and Judaizers (Chadwick 1993 [1967], 46). Similarly, Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180) used this argument against the Gnostics (Against Heresies) as did Tertullian (ca. A.D. 200) against heretics (Prescriptions of the Heretics).

Another circumstance that influenced the church was a series of persecutions that challenged the faith of many. While Nero’s persecution in A.D. 64 marked a significant point in Christian history, it was primarily locally centered. However, Trajan’s persecution (A.D. 117) was regional (Bythania) while Decius’ (A.D. 250) as well as Diocletian’s (A.D. 303-305) were empire wide. Cyprian of Carthage (ca. A.D. 248), wanting to ensure his authority over the church while in hiding, stated that to forsake the bishop was to forsake the church (Chadwick 1993 [1967], 119). This series of persecutions gave rise to many Christians denying their faith and the ensuing Donatist controversy. The Donatist controversy led to further development of sacramental theology and raised the issue of their validity if administered by a priest who denied his faith.

The circumstances of the period of the Apostolic Fathers set the stage for ecclesiastical development over the next several centuries. The church of this time became more hierarchical with the bishop exercising great influence and authority over the church. While the church continued to grow in the midst of difficult circumstances, the stage was set for a greater gulf between clergy and laity. However, it must be remembered that the circumstances of this period necessitated the form of the church.

Influences in the Period of the Church Fathers (300-700 A.D.)

The Fathers were the witnesses of the Apostolic Tradition that was passed on from generation to generation. They transmitted, rather than delivered, what they had learned from the Apostolic Tradition. It was their authentic preservation of the message of the Apostles that warranted belief. George Florovsky states, “Fathers were those who transmitted and propagated the right doctrine, the teaching of the apostles; they were guides and masters in Christian instruction and catechesis” (1995, 122).

The Fathers are an extension of the Apostles and so, when Maximus the Confessor writes, “. . . conforming to what has been reverently determined by the divinely inspired fathers of the catholic [read universal] church and the five ecumenical councils” we see the full force of their authority (Clendenin 1994, 115). Yet, they were not original or polemical thinkers. They did not devise new doctrines. In the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, “They theologized in the manner of the Apostles, not Aristotle” (Hom. 23:13). They were the “spiritual guides or masters, the teachers, those holding a high office in the community of those ‘born again’” (Chryssavigis 1988, 276).

By far the most profound influence on the period of the Church Fathers was the Christianization of the Roman Empire in A.D. 323. After Constantine’s dramatic conversion in A.D. 312, the future of Christianity was secure. Less than a year later the Edict of Milan was issued and assured Christians and Pagans freedom of worship. It was at this time that Christianity flourished unabated while, in spite of the edict, the table turned against the Pagans. As Frend states, “Conforming Christianity was replacing conforming paganism as the mark of an educated provincial” (1984, 563). Constantine’s actions of legalizing the church bolstered the authority of the clergy. The clergy would now be exempted from certain taxes and civic duties in order to concentrate fully on the responsibilities of their office. Bishops sat as judges in civil suits and were given authority equal to law (Walker, et al. 1985, 184).

By A.D. 323 the entire Roman Empire was united under Constantine’s reign with his defeat of Licinius (emperor of the East). The center of the Roman Empire then moved to Byzantium, what Constantine called the New Rome (Constantinople, modern day Istanbul). Less than two years later Constantine would preside over the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in order to combat the disunity in the Eastern Church that threatened the united empire. He would proclaim himself “bishop, ordained by God to oversee those outside the church” and paved the way for what is today called the “state-church” (Shelley 1998, 40). Later, he would proclaim himself as the thirteenth apostle and be entombed surrounded by twelve sepulchers symbolically representing the twelve apostles.

Constantine, following previous emperors who dedicated buildings to pagan gods, embarked upon a massive and spectacular building campaign to honor the God who gave him victory at the Milvian Bridge. These basilicas were immense and costly. The church of St. John Lateran in Rome is but one example of the great expense of building a church according to imperial standards,

Around 500 pounds weight of it [gold] were needed at a cost of some 36,000 solidi. This sum, which might be translated into approximately £60 million today, could have fed about 12,000 poor for a year (according to calculations from Dominic Janes’ God and Gold in Late Antiquity). Another 22,200 solidi worth of silver (3,700 lbs.) was required for light fittings and another 400 pounds of gold for fifty gold vessels. (Freeman 2001, 16)

These basilicas looked more like the great audience halls of emperors than the house churches of the previous centuries. Horrified by the change of Christianity, Jerome would write, “Parchments are dyed purple, gold is melted into lettering, manuscripts are dressed up in jewels, while Christ lies at the door naked and dying” (Ep. 22, 32). By the end of the fourth century the church would accept its newfound wealth.

Naturally, priestly vestments came in line with the ornate churches. In fact, frescos of the time depicted priestly garb as elaborate as the emperor’s. The priestly office became an important position not only in the church, but also in the community. Constantine’s conversion impacted the forms of the church for centuries. In fact, many of these forms still exist in the churches of the East.

It seems apparent that what the Church Fathers propagated in relation to ecclesiastical forms was tied to culture. Understandably, it is easy to see that since the culture of the Roman Empire continued through the first millennium the church did not have to adapt or adjust its forms. In fact, the church became the creator of new forms and it is said that once the form was practiced in the great church of Hagia Sophia it meant “a final sanction and ultimately, a quasi-guarantee of universal acceptance” (Meyendorff 1979, 116). The influence this church had upon Christendom has been traced to Italy, Syria, Macedonia, Armenia, and Ukraine (Meyendorff 1979, 115-117).

Cyprian of Carthage wrote to a group of bishops in 251 regarding unity in the church after the persecutions of Decius,

And the church forms a unity, however far she spreads and multiples by the progeny of her fecundity; just as the sun’s rays are many, yet the light is one, and a tree’s branches are many, yet the strength deriving from its sturdy root is one. So too, though many streams flow from a single spring, though its multiplicity seems scattered abroad by the copiousness of its welling waters, yet their oneness abides by reason of their starting point. Cut off one of the sun’s rays - the unity of that body permits no [such] division of its light; break off a branch from the tree, it can bud no more; dam off a stream from its source, it dries up below the cut. So too our Lord’s church is radiant with light and pours her rays over the whole world; but it is one and the same light which is spread everywhere, and the unity of her body suffers no division. She spreads her branches in generous growth over all the earth, she extends her abundant streams ever further; yet one is the head-spring, one the source, one the mother who is prolific in her offspring, generation after generation: of her womb are we born, of her milk are we fed, of her Spirit our souls draw their life breath. (The Unity of the Church)

Unity in the struggling church was of prime importance to the early Christian leaders. This unity would ultimately be preserved in the clergy. As the church dealt with potentially divisive theological issues as well as persecutions the role of the clergy became increasingly prominent and important. According to J.N.D. Kelley, Tertullian argued that “there can be no difference between clergy and laity, since authority belongs to those who possess the Spirit, and not to bishops as such” (1978 [1960], 200). However, in spite of his argument, the authority of the clergy grew to the point where Cyprian would write that to forsake the bishop is to forsake the church.

As previously mentioned, Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthian church in A.D. 95 to bridle what became a divisive issue. In fact, Clement named the issue a schism (1 Clement 46:9). The Corinthian church “unlawfully” deposed its leaders and appointed others in their place. It is apparent that some of these leaders were appointed directly by an apostle (presumably Paul). His letter, as mentioned, gives the first indication of “apostolic succession” that would later be defined clearer. Clement distinguished two offices in the church: bishop and deacon. These offices were by appointment and for life (1 Clement 44:2). When one of the leaders died another was appointed by those with “proper standing” and with the whole consent of the church. Presumably those with “proper standing” meant the current leaders who had been appointed by the apostles or by other leaders who had similarly been appointed. This was not done at Corinth. The church usurped the authority of the leaders and disregarded their apostolic appointment.

Clement clearly shows a sharp boundary between clergy and laity. The clergy were clearly authenticated by their apostolic heritage. He shows us the accreditation of the offices of bishop and deacon by God due to their relationship to the apostles. Those who opposed the offices were in rebellion against God. Deacons would ultimately evolve to simply be an office that served the bishop rather than the church. Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 160-235) wrote,

When the deacon is ordained, this is the reason why the bishop alone shall lay his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood but to serve the bishop and to carry out the bishop’s commands. (The Apostolic Tradition)

It was not long before the bishop would be singled out as the single most important office in the church. Ignatius of Antioch followed Clement in asserting the authority of the bishop. Writing to churches in Asia Minor, he was concerned with heresy and division and saw the bishop as the solution. Almost echoing Clement, Ignatius asserted that each church must adhere to the authority of the bishop. For the bishop was God’s representative and exercised God’s authority. He writes,

Let the bishop preside in God’s place, and the presbyters take the place of the apostolic council, and let the deacons (my special favorites) be entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ who was with the Father from eternity and appeared at the end [of the world]. (To the Magnesians)

Ignatius propagated the sole authority of the bishop that later became known as the “monarchial episcopate.” The bishop was to be followed as Christ followed the Father. He gave approval to every aspect of ministry in the church and Ignatius stated that “whatever he [the bishop] approves pleases God as well” (To the Smyrneas). The sacrament of the Eucharist was raised to prominence in the duties of the bishop. Only he, or someone he appointed could administer the Eucharist.

The monarchial episcopate evolved over time to a diocesan episcopate by A.D. 185. The bishop of a diocese was administrator of all city bishops. By the fourth century we have the metropolitan episcopate, who was located in a large city, presiding over the diocese and cities. In the fifth century we see the initiation of the patriarchal episcopate. The patriarchal bishop had authority over the churches in his particular precinct. By the time of the council of Chalcedon there were only five patriarchal bishops who represented the five major centers of Christian activity: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. All presumably had equal authority with Rome given prominence as the seat of the Apostle Peter.

Christians of the first two centuries generally met in the homes of its wealthier members (Lydia, Philemon for instance). By the third century buildings were either constructed or converted for meeting places of worship. The first documented building in literature dates to A.D. 201, but the first actually discovered by archaeologists was constructed some fifty years later (Ehrman 1999, 317). Christians gathered in these places of worship much like the Jews gathered in the synagogues or disciples gathered in the rented homes of philosophers. They stressed the reading and teaching of Scripture, prayer, confession, and exhortation, singing psalms and hymns and collecting alms. However, they were distinct from the Jews in that they met on a different day (Sunday), had a different locus of worship (Christ) and authority (New Testament). They were also distinct in the rituals they practiced (baptism, Eucharist, agape feast).

Over time, these rituals were added to and developed. Regarding baptism, Kelley states that, “It was always held to convey the remission of sins, but the earlier Pauline conception of it as the application of Christ’s atoning death to the believer seems to have faded” (1978 [1960], 194). It ultimately came to mean the conveyance of the Holy Spirit to the believer. It was looked upon as the seal of the Son of God and came to be understood as replacing circumcision. The Didache gave specific instructions that baptism was to be performed in cold running water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Eucharist was considered a sacrifice in fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy (1:10) that the Lord would reject Old Testament sacrifices for a “pure offering” made to Him (Kelley 1978 [1960], 196). The Didache considered the elements of bread and wine as holy. Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin considered the elements to be the actual body and blood of Christ. Ignatius and Irenaeus used the argument for the actual body and blood to engage Docetism and Gnosticism, which denied the humanity of Christ. Justin stated that, “The food Eucharistized through the word of prayer that is from him . . . is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate” (First Apology).

The church continued to grow in its structure and organization. As we have seen, much of the maturation of the church was due to circumstances that it confronted, whether social or theological. Nonetheless, the church provided a framework where Christians could gather in celebration of the Lord’s work in their lives. Unity was preserved by the clergy and the church grew from roughly 7,500 at the start of the second century to over six million by the beginning of the fourth (Wright 1998). At least four axioms can be drawn from this study and related to contextualized ecclesiology.

Axiom One

Cultural and circumstantial influences played a profound role in defining the ecclesiology of the first few centuries of the church. We traced the cultural influence of the synagogue as well as that of the Christianization of the empire. We looked at circumstance that influenced the second and third century church. It is apparent that cultural forms were implemented and were to one degree or another successful. Ralph Winter relates the implications of Jewish synagogue cultural issues for church planters today. What he writes can apply to the succeeding centuries.

In fact, the profound missiological implication of all this is that the New Testament is trying to show us how to borrow effective patterns; it is trying to free all future missionaries from the need to follow the precise forms of the Jewish synagogue and Jewish missionary band, and yet to allow them to choose comparable indigenous structures in the countless new situations across history and around the world—structures which will correspond faithfully to the function of patterns Paul employed, if not their form! (1981, 180)

Axiom Two

The preservation of unity in the church is one of the more significant issues in the development of ecclesiology. Unity must be theologically and biblically based. The study showed that the biblical notion of the priesthood of all believers was ultimately sacrificed for the sake of unity. The office of bishop developed to the point where they were no longer answerable to the congregation, but rather to the metropolitan bishop. The deaconate developed from an office that served the church to one that served the bishop. While the Apostle Paul gives us the idea to spare no expense to preserve unity (Eph 4:3), he did not intend to include the compromising the responsibilities shared by all believers.

Axiom Three

The church must guard against clerical hegemony. The office of bishop ultimately became the most powerful office in a city. Their influence was felt not only in religious matters, but also in social and political matters. The very fact that they were reprimanded for accepting gifts for penance or from those desiring to be ordained for personal profit demonstrated their power over a congregation and in a city. Scripture indicates that leaders are responsible to the congregation (1 Tim 5:19-20). They are to be tested to see if they are worthy of the office they hold (1 Tim 3:10).

Axiom Four

The form of the church acted as a bridge between culture and Christianity. While there were distinct functional differences, the forms, be it synagogue form, household or philosophical school, helped prevent unnecessary barriers and welcomed people as they were attending something familiar and acceptable. However, as is seen in the form of the church after the Christianization of the empire, acceptable cultural forms can be taken too far. The elaborate structures and ritual artifacts tended to separate people from the church. The individual was not accustomed to attending functions in a structure that resembled an emperor’s audience hall. So, naturally barriers were being erected as opposed to bridges being built.

It is apparent that the New Testament churches took on cultural forms that were familiar to the people at that time in order to implement its functions. We can speculate about the reasons why they took on cultural forms. The reasons that might include convenience rather than creativity in order to build a bridge from one culture to another and therefore easily assimilate new believers into the life of the church without major cultural barriers. However, one thing seems clear: there was freedom and diversity in the early church that allowed for the employment of acceptable cultural forms. During the patristic period the forms of the church became inseparable from the functions. In fact, one might argue that the forms were equated with the functions resulting in an ecclesiology that was defined as much, if not more, by culture rather than by Scripture.

This study has examined some of the cultural influences in the development of ecclesiology. It is evident from the paper that culture played a significant role in the church’s developing structure. This indicates that the church was concerned not simply with the form that church took, but the preservation of the function of the church as it encountered various cultural challenges. The implication for contemporary ecclesiology is that cultural challenges may continue to influence the form of the church, but not at the expense of its function.