Church Government, Part 1

October, 2006

by: Jack Hughes

• The Church and Church Issues

How should churches govern themselves? This question has been in a subject of constant debate. Different denominations practice different models of church polity. During the two thousand years of the Church's existence three major views of church government have arisen, i.e., Episcopal, Congregational, and Presbyterian. It is important for every Christian to think through this issue because it determines how every church functions. Some churches recognize the office of deacon. Others the office of deacon and elder. Others add an additional office of bishop. Others deacon, elder, bishop, cardinal and pope! Which is the biblical model? Does it really make a difference? How do those who practice different kinds of church government justify their system from the Scriptures? In the next several Calvary Reviews we will investigate this interesting and important subject.

The Episcopalian form of Church Government

Just saying the word “episcopalian” is daunting. It is not a common word in most people’s vocabulary. You have probably heard of the Episcopal denomination which is a synonym for the Anglican Church of England. The Episcopal or Anglican Church was established by Henry VIII for less than pure motives. Henry VIII was the second king of the Tudor Dynasty (1491-1547). He was married six times. His first wife was Catherine of Aragon. Though pregnant seven times during her marriage to Henry, she failed to produce a male heir to the throne of England. When it became obvious she was not going to have any more children, Henry started to pursue another woman, Anne Boleyn. Anne was the sister of one of Henry’s adulterous mistresses, Mary Boleyn.

In order to acquire Anne as his wife, Henry needed a divorce from Catherine. Henry sought permission from Pope Clement VII but was refused as the Pope was under the thumb of Charles V, Emperor of Rome, king of Aragon, and Catherine’s nephew. Since the Pope would not annul Henry’s marriage or grant him a divorce, Henry decided to break away from the Roman Catholic Church and establish his own church, appointing himself its head. Hence, in the Episcopal or Anglican church of England, the Pope of Rome was replaced with the King of England. This allowed Henry to seize Roman Catholic land holdings and revenues while at the same time acquiring his coveted divorce from Catherine. With the help of men like Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer the Church of England was born.

The government of the Church of England remained similar to the government of the Church of Rome. Both denominations still practice the Episcopalian form of government. The word “Episcopalian” is derived from a Greek word that is usually translated “overseer” in the New Testament. The word is a compound Greek word made up of epi, which means on, upon, or over, and skopos which means to look at, watch, or see. Combined the word describes one who looks out over a congregation — an overseer. Some English translations translate the word “bishop.”

Those who favor the Episcopal form of church government believe that bishops or overseers (episkopos), hold a place of authority under God but over the elders of the local church. This makes the episcopal form of church government hierarchical. The bishop is seen as the chief minister, followed in authority by the presbyters or elders, followed by deacons, and finally the people in the congregation.

The Roman Catholic Church even believes in what is called “apostolic succession.” They believe that the office of apostle is still functioning in an unbroken succession passed down from the original apostles through the laying on of hands. They reference Acts 6:6 and I Tim. 4:14 as proof texts. Yet others who believe in the episcopal form of church government, like the Anglican church, do not believe in apostolic succession. They believe that when the apostles died, there was the need for an office below that of apostle but above that of the elders of the local church. Bishops or overseers, they teach, are to fulfill this office. They cite Timothy and Titus as examples of New Testament bishops and reference texts such as Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23 as New Testament examples of Bishops who oversaw local church elders.

Episcopalians also argue that early church history supports their form of church polity. The early church father Ignatius (110 AD), whose life overlapped that of the Apostle John, casually mentions single bishops ruling local churches. Episcopalians also believe James, the half brother of Jesus and the writer of the book of James, was a bishop. They cite passages like Gal. 1:19, 2:9; Acts 15:13, 12:17, 21:18 to show that James was appointed by the apostles and that he was the bishop who presided over the Church of Jerusalem. In addition to the writings of Ignatius, other early church leaders such as Irenaeus and Tertullian mention the office of Bishop. They wrote during the second century AD.

The most extreme example of the episcopal form of church government is the Roman Catholic Church. They not only believe in the office of bishop but also add the offices of pope and cardinal. The Roman Catholic Church believes the pope is the representative of Christ on earth. Under the pope are cardinals, and under cardinals, bishops and under bishops, priests. While the Anglican or Episcopal Church does not have as many intermediate offices between Christ and the elders of the local church, both denominations teach and practice the episcopal form of church government.

Objections to Episcopalianism

The major problem with the episcopal form of church government stems from a failure to understand the biblical use and meaning of the term bishop or overseer (episkopos in the Greek). The entire episcopal system rests on the misunderstanding of this word. The Scriptures teach that the terms overseer or bishop (episkopos), pastor or shepherd (poimen), and elder (presbuteros) are all terms that describe the same, not different offices. If it can be proven that an overseer (or bishop) is another designation for office of elder, then the entire episcopal system crumbles.

First, we will consider Luke’s single use of the word overseer in the Book of Acts. In Acts 20:17 we learn that when Paul was passing through Asia minor he stopped at a town south of Ephesus called Miletus. While at Miletus he called for the elders of the Church of Ephesus to come and see him. When the elders arrived he reminded them of his previous ministry and encouraged them to fulfill their responsibility as elders. Then in Acts 20:28 Paul tells the Ephesian elders, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Here Paul is speaking to the elders and he tells them that God has already made them overseers to shepherd God’s flock. This teaches us that elders are overseers and pastors.

As we move through the New Testament the next occurrence of the word overseer or bishop is found in Phil. 1:1. Paul begins the book of Philippians, “Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons.” Here Paul mentions only two offices, overseers and deacons. If the office of elder was a third office he would have surely included them as well, but he does not. Instead Paul only mentions the two offices in the Church as that is all there are. The terms are used synonymously of the same office but emphasizes different functions. The term elder emphasize their spiritual maturity while the term overseer emphasizes function.

Next we come to I Tim. 3:2 where Paul is telling Timothy about the qualifications of an overseer. Paul says in I Tim. 3:2, “An overseer, then, must be…” and goes on to describe the necessary qualifications of an overseer. Paul never uses the word elder in this text. However, we have a parallel text in Tit. 1:5-9 which does use the word elder and which teaches us that Paul uses the terms overseer and elder interchangeably.

Paul wrote to Titus telling him the necessary qualifications for an elder. When the qualifications for elder and overseer are compared, they are virtually identical. They are identical because they are one and the same office. This becomes clear as Paul says in Tit. 1:5, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” So we know from vs. 5 that Paul is speaking of the qualification of elders. Two verses later, in vs. 7, Paul is still speaking of the qualification of elders and says, “For an overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, …” and goes on to give the rest of the qualifications for an elder/overseer. So we see that both Luke, in the Book of Acts, and Paul, in the books of I Timothy and Titus, teach us that the term overseer and elder are used interchangeably and speak of the same office.

The only other place the word overseer is found in the New Testament in relation to church leaders is in I Pet. 5:2 where the verb form of the word is used. Peter says in I Pet. 5:1-2, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness.” Here again, as in Acts 20 and Tit. 1, elders are being addressed and are exhorted to give oversight i.e., function as overseers and also as shepherds i.e., pastors in the local church. A simple word study reveals that there are two offices in the Church, elder and deacon and that sometimes elders are called overseers and other times they are called shepherds.

In addition to the strong evidence found in the word studies above, the idea of apostolic succession is not found in the New Testament. If one examines the supposed proof texts in Acts 6:6 and I Tim. 4:14, they will discover that there is no mention of passing on apostolic power or authority. The word bishop is also not found in either of these texts. In the end, it becomes obvious that the episcopal form of government cannot be supported from Scripture.

Thirdly, there is scriptural evidence that Timothy and Titus were among a plurality of elders in their churches. There is no doubt that they were the traveling companions of Paul and it is clear that Paul mentions them by name when writing to them and the local churches they pastored. Yet this does not prove they held an office above the elders of the local church. In fact Paul tells Titus to appoint “elders” in Tit. 1:5 and in Acts 20 Paul asks for the “elders” of the Church of Ephesus to come visit him in Miletus. The New Testament teaches a plurality of elders/overseers. Never is the power to oversee the local church or a group of local churches vested in one person. One only needs to look up every occurrence of the word elder and when used in reference to the elders of the Church it is always plural except in four instances: once when Paul speaks of receiving an accusation against a single elder among the plurality (I Tim. 5:17, 19), once when Peter calls himself a fellow elder which implies that he is one among a group (I Pet. 5:1), and twice when John refers to himself as an elder (II Jn. 1; III Jn. 1). In every other instance the word elder is always plural, (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17-18; 22:5; I Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5; James 5:14; I Pet. 5:1, 5).

This leaves the uninspired statements of the early church fathers as the strongest argument for the episcopal form of church government. While reading the early church fathers can be helpful, everything they say must be pounded out on the hammer and anvil of Scripture. When this is done the episcopal form of church government is weighed in the balances and found wanting. In our next Calvary Review we will examine congregational church government.