Origins of the episcopal form of governance

[Mike Gridley]

I've been reading a bit lately on the origins of the episcopal form of church government.

It's not as though I've been doing a study or anything, in some cases I've "accidentally" happened accross things.

Anyhow, here's what I've learned:

Episcopacy as we have it today was a very early development but the Bible doesn't distinguish between the offices of presbyter and bishop.

Episcopacy didn't develop simultaneously in all places. It would appear that until the middle of the second century the Church in Rome, for example was governed by a group of presbyters rather than a single bishop. On the other hand Ignatius, who lived at the same time, was clearly the Bishop of Antioch.

The conclusion I draw from this is that Episcopacy is an expediency, a useful measure, not clearly mandated in Scripture for whcih some churches claim apostolic endorsement but the actual evidence of which is absent.

I am not sure I have a question here unless it's just to ask your thoughts on this and to ask, if this is correct, why is it believed that episcopacy is the approved and divinely endorsed method of Church Government?

It seems to me that it is an adiaphoron, but then, I still wear a modified set of Sola Scriptura glasses.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Mike

I'm an ex-Plymouth Brethren with no clergy at all who became Oriental Orthodox a while ago. So I come from a background which considered episcopacy wrong and not even adiaphora.

I think I'd want to suggest that in the first generation there was a transition taking place because the Church was still under the care and direction of the Apostles.

It seems significant to me that as the Church comes out of the Apostolic period it is episcopal, and it is episcopal around the world. If episcopacy was merely an option and not part of the structure of the Church then I think I would expect to find a great degree of variety of forms of government in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, even if episcopacy were then to dominate the government of the Church.

But I don't think we see that. We see in Asia Minor that all of the communities are episcopal in the Sub-Apostolic generation. In the West we see episcopacy in figures such as Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp. Certainly the history of the Church in Egypt is episcopal.

I would suggest that IF it were the case that there was a presbyterial council in Rome this could be due to the Apostolic ministry there, and could as easily represent an episcopal council as a presbyterian one.

Personally I think the Scriptures show us presbyters being established with oversight by Apostles, as well as episcopal figures such as Timothy being set apart to have responsibility themselves over a local Church.

Best wishes

Peter

[Mike Gridley]

Thanks for your response.

Couldn't it's prevalence by the third century be a result of it being an efficient form of government, paralleling the political organization of the Byzantine empire with its various bureaucratic offices, etc.? Not saying bishops were some kind of logothete, only that as the church grew and expanded beyond urban areas, the genius of episcopal government became even more obvious among the churches and was threrfore appropriated and implemented pretty quickly?

And couldn't it's genius and quality be a factor of the times? I mean, this polity is perfect for welding together communities experiencing various degrees of persecution at the hands of pagans, providing them with the stability of a multi-centralized pastoral care.

And if this is so...isn't it really an adiaphoron?

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Mike

I'm not sure. It is such a given through the entire history of the Church, from the time of St Ignatius of Antioch onwards, that I am not sure I could easily consider it adipahora.

I guess that I am thinking that the universal structure of the episcopate throughout all places and all peoples would make me doubt that it is probable that there is room for manouver.

If you look at the Methodist structure that is also surely functionally episcopal. And even the Salvation Army has a hierarchy that echoes the episcopate.

And St Ignatius does not seem to describe the bishop/priest/deacon model in a way that suggests he viewed it merely as a useful structure It seems to be, for him, and for the other sub-Apostolic bishops, to be a theologically derived structure.

What other structure are you thinking of? Congregationalism certainly does not seem to me to be a biblical/Traditional model. When I was a Plymouth Brother we had only the loosest ties to other Brethren communities but I now believe that was a defective structure. In almost any other structural model I can think of it would seem that an 'episcopate' develops naturally.

If you think of the New Churches, they all tend to develop a bishop figure even when a federation or communon of congregations is developed. I was myself, when working on starting a charismatic evangelical group, in touch with one of the 'Apostolic' leaders in the UK, and they had a functionally episcopal authority.

So I think that the episcopal model IS universal in the history of the Church, and I can't think of any examples where it isn't until the Protestant revolution of the 16th century or in some of the less traditional heretical groups.

Which non-episcopal examples do you think are important?

Best wishes

Peter

[Mike Gridley]

I guess I don't know that any particular form of governement is revealed in the Bible as normative.

I tend to think that a kind of presbygationalism was what we actually find there, but beyond descriptions of offices in the church we don't see much of a mandate.

So, I guess I'd say polity is an adiaphoron.

But I am willing to be wrong.

[M.C. Steenberg]

In a previous post, Mike wrote:


I guess I don't know that any particular form of governement is revealed in the Bible as normative. [...] So, I guess I'd say polity is an adiaphoron.

I think what this reveals, more than the question of particular offices in the Church (which are almost impossible to glean from the pages of scripture), is the deeper issue in one's reading, of just where one looks for such information. The scriptures say various things, don't say various things -- but then, they're not meant to be taken as the end-and-all of knowledge. I would recommend looking through the various threads on 'Scripture and tradition' that have taken place in this Community over the years (any of which can be rekindled, if interest strikes), for some good discussion on this issue.

But the basic point here is that attempting to find a kind of 'mandate' for ecclesial organisation, including episcopal offices, solely from the pages of scripture will always disappoint. But then, so will attempts to find clear 'support' for the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, sinful human nature, prayer with the saints, the sacraments, and any number of other things that are cardinal and central to Christianity. We require to know how to read what is in scripture, not simply to read it. And that 'how' is part of the living testimony of the Church -- which, for the present thread, has had episcopal structures in place from the very beginning, as is testified in our earliest post-Apostolic writers (Ignatius, Clement, etc.) who, let us keep in mind, were writing before there was a New Testament.

INXC, Matthew

[Mike Gridley]

I think what this reveals, more than the question of particular offices in the Church (which are almost impossible to glean from the pages of scripture), is the deeper issue in one's reading, of just where one looks for such information. The scriptures say various things, don't say various things -- but then, they're not meant to be taken as the end-and-all of knowledge. I would recommend looking through the various threads on 'Scripture and tradition' that have taken place in this Community over the years (any of which can be rekindled, if interest strikes), for some good discussion on this issue.

But the basic point here is that attempting to find a kind of 'mandate' for ecclesial organisation, including episcopal offices, solely from the pages of scripture will always disappoint. But then, so will attempts to find clear 'support' for the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, sinful human nature, prayer with the saints, the sacraments, and any number of other things that are cardinal and central to Christianity. We require to know how to read what is in scripture, not simply to read it. And that 'how' is part of the living testimony of the Church -- which, for the present thread, has had episcopal structures in place from the very beginning, as is testified in our earliest post-Apostolic writers (Ignatius, Clement, etc.) who, let us keep in mind, were writing before there was a New Testament.

I get all that. I am not really asking for a "clear biblical mandate" for episcopacy. As I've said, I tend to see it as an adiaphoron.

What I guess I am looking for is, on the one hand, recognition that my historical understanding of its development is more or less accurate; i.e. that it developed to fit a need.

This doesn't make it invalid, quite the contrary. It doesn't disqualify it at all.

I am not saying that, just because it's unknown to Scripture it should be rejected.

On the other hand, the followup question is, if it is a historical development (however excellent and useful it may be), what is the reason for its presentation as immutible and dogmatically requisite and the vehicle of "Apostolic Succession" since, it would seem that the Apostles were silent about it.

I understand that men who lived during the time when this was developing (and it looks like it was, pretty much universally in place by the third century), lived much closer to the time of the apostles and in some cases, were taught by men who were, in turn, taught and pastored by the apostles themselves.

But, where is the connection? Is it just posited or is there some evidence for it?

There are just so many presuppositions in play here if the argument is that the Church, as the divinely chosen agent of the paradosis, establishes practice with apostolic authority by virtue of this status.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I get all that. I am not really asking for a "clear biblical mandate" for episcopacy. As I've said, I tend to see it as an adiaphoron.

I've yet to see any evidence that, to my mind, would warrant reading the episcopacy as an adiaphoron. I would be interested to know what particular readings of history might lead you to this view?


What I guess I am looking for is, on the one hand, recognition that my historical understanding of its development is more or less accurate; i.e. that it developed to fit a need.

I would say, on the one hand, that I cannot think of an historical circumstance that would qualify considering the episcopal structure of the church as having developed along these lines, any more than any aspect of Christian life and thought did. And on the other hand, that the fact that all of the Church's life can, in some sense, be understood as 'developing to fit a need' (I would myself prefer to think of this as developing economically/pastorally), means that the category is in some sense inadequate. Nothing in the Church -- including fundamental issues such as how it expresses some of its most basic beliefs -- simply 'was'.


I am not saying that, just because it's unknown to Scripture it should be rejected. On the other hand, the followup question is, if it is a historical development (however excellent and useful it may be), what is the reason for its presentation as immutible and dogmatically requisite and the vehicle of "Apostolic Succession" since, it would seem that the Apostles were silent about it.

First, it could be argued equally as convincingly that there is ample evidence of an episcopal structure in scripture (should one wish to go this route); as also apostolic succession, given that one of the first things the apostles do collectively is elect a successor to Judas. But again, I think it historically inaccurate to say an episcopacy developed later, and was henceforth considered a dogmatic requisite. There is clear evidence that episcopal structures were current from the first days of the Christian community. Though they varied in form and structure for a few generations, I cannot see any evidence of a period in which they were not current and, by and large, the norm.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I think it is worthy of notice that the hierarchical structure of Church governance reflects or symbolizes or embodies the Orthodox understanding of intellectual hierarchies. Summarized: Reality has an ordered structure. The created order is iconic of the nature of God and the structure of the Trinity. The nature of this structure is inherently hierarchical, based on first principles. God Himself is ruled by his own nature and structure. He does not and cannot act against that nature or else He would be at war with himself. He does not act arbitrarily or whimsically. He has created for a certain purpose and cannot veer from that purpose. While His purpose is mysterious and inscrutable from an absolute or objective perspective, it is understandable and conforms to the laws of an ordered Reason. The ordered, rational creation is structured according to a hierarchy, not a hierarchy of needs or values (i.e. Maslow) but according to lower and higher spiritual powers and lower and higher material and intellectual structures, with the Mind of God at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, followed by the noetic faculty in man, followed by his logical reasoning powers, followed by the passions, followed by the lower realms of anamalic and vegetative and organic and non-organic structures, with the apeiron at the bottom of the chain (an Aristotelian term to be sure -- it means a kind of chaotic formlessness).

[Mike Gridley]

First, it could be argued equally as convincingly that there is ample evidence of an episcopal structure in scripture (should one wish to go this route); as also apostolic succession, given that one of the first things the apostles do collectively is elect a successor to Judas. But again, I think it historically inaccurate to say an episcopacy developed later, and was henceforth considered a dogmatic requisite. There is clear evidence that episcopal structures were current from the first days of the Christian community. Though they varied in form and structure for a few generations, I cannot see any evidence of a period in which they were not current and, by and large, the norm.

This is exactly what I mean. My presuppositions are entirely different.

When I read, for example, in Paul's letter to Titus that he left him (Titus) in Crete to "put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." (v. 5) and then, in the same breath as it were, hear him say, "For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. (vv. 7-8), am I wrong to understand the Apostle to be referring to the same office with the two terms presbyter and episcopos?

On the other hand, we see clearly that the Apostles established these elder/bishops and that evangelists (like Titus) did so as well and by the Apostles' authority, so there was certainly a kind of pyramidal scheme at work from the very beginning.

The scenario I am working with looks something like this:


Apostles established churches and appointed elders for those churches.

Apostles also chose men like Titus and Timothy to yoke with them in the work of planting churches.

These men, while not themselves of apostolic stature were nonetheless charged (at least in the Pauline example) with establishing not only churches but with establishing the oversight of these churches by men apt to teach and rule.


At this point I begin assuming things (and we all know how dangerous that can be), I assume that this model continued with these evangelist/church planters in turn choosing other evangelist/church planters who went about doing the same thing all these churches being thus taxonomically 'descended' from the original apostle.

It is reasonable to assume that each "generation" of subsequently planted church would not operate in a vacuum but that there would be some necessary submission to the planting church and so on back to the Apostle.

At some point, and it varies from region to region, one of these churches, most likely the oldest in a given family of churches, assumed the function of episcopacy as we understand it today, its elder now distinguishing himself from the elders of the descending churches both in prestige and in rule.

Since these older churches were, as often as not, located in urban centers, their prestige was enhanced by the fact.

It seems likely that the reality is not as seamless as this. There was, probably a great deal of fluidity on the edges, with churches of differing descents aligning themselves across diocesan lines and so on.

Eventually the model cemented itself and became so much a part of the fabric of a burgeoning Christian culture that it was never seriously questioned.

Where the step to "divine mandate" took place, I have no idea.

It's probably tendentious to blithely assume that it came about as men grew used to power and prestige, that they began to manufacture justifications for their estate. But, tendentious or no, given human nature and the effective situation of church office as a section of the civil service in the late Imperial era, it really needs, at least to be considered.

This then is my construct, invariably Protestant, Presbyterian and speculative.

What am asking is this:

1. Do you agree?

2. If not, why not?

3. If so, when did episcopacy come to be understood to be the divinely appointed polity for the church, and why, now that the world is so very much different, can it not be exchanged for other, perhaps more practical forms?

(Yes, I realize that the relative practicality of polities is another issue.)

[M.C. Steenberg]

am I wrong to understand the Apostle to be referring to the same office with the two terms presbyter and episcopos?

Here and elsewhere, there is clear evidence that the distinction(s) between episcopos and presbyter were fluid in certain regions and time periods (cf., for example, the writing of Clement of Rome; as also the correspondence concerning the office(s) held by St Irenaeus of Lyons). This is not to say that 'presbyter/bishop' vs. 'presbyter and bishop' is an earlier structure, that later turned into the latter. Ignatius of Antioch, essentially Clement's contemporary, clearly has in mind a much firmer distinction between the two titles.


On the other hand, we see clearly that the Apostles established these elder/bishops and that evangelists (like Titus) did so as well and by the Apostles' authority, so there was certainly a kind of pyramidal scheme at work from the very beginning.

Though - and this harks back to comments I was making earlier in this thread - there's little to be gained from trying to ascertain a dominant clerical structure simply by reading the New Testament. Even within its pages there is evidence of varying traditions in this regard; but in any case, the New Testament is hardly a sufficient sourcebook for understand how the Christian Church organised itself in those early years (or any other).


The scenario I am working with looks something like this:

Apostles established churches and appointed elders for those churches.
Apostles also chose men like Titus and Timothy to yoke with them in the work of planting churches.
These men, while not themselves of apostolic stature were nonetheless charged (at least in the Pauline example) with establishing not only churches but with establishing the oversight of these churches by men apt to teach and rule.

What you've listed here is essentially a Pauline missionary structure (though it is worth noting that Paul did also appoint bishops). But Paul is far from the standard; if anything his example is somewhat unique (though in some senses mirrored by Mark and Andrew). Peter settles rather quickly in Rome; James settles in Jerusalem, etc. And there is clear testimony from early Christian sources that the individuals elected to succeed these figures in their local episcopal offices were seen as 'of apostolic stature', inasmuch as their office was seen as the carrying forward of the episcopal office of the apostles themselves (which is why, in much iconographic representation, these early apostles are presented in the liturgical dress of bishops).


At this point I begin assuming things (and we all know how dangerous that can be), I assume that this model continued with these evangelist/church planters in turn choosing other evangelist/church planters who went about doing the same thing all these churches being thus taxonomically 'descended' from the original apostle.

It is reasonable to assume that each "generation" of subsequently planted church would not operate in a vacuum but that there would be some necessary submission to the planting church and so on back to the Apostle.

I can't think of any concrete historical information to back up this particular reading - though clearly the connection to founding pastors was apparent. But most of our early testimony as to church structures was local -- i.e., the physically-centred community with a bishop at its head (in some regions the interchangeability of bishop/presbyter remained for some time) and his assistants (normally the presbyters and deacons, sometimes solely deacons), etc.


At some point, and it varies from region to region, one of these churches, most likely the oldest in a given family of churches, assumed the function of episcopacy as we understand it today, its elder now distinguishing himself from the elders of the descending churches both in prestige and in rule.

Again, I cannot think of any concrete historical evidence for this being a normal pattern in early ecclesial development. There is the Didache, which does speak of itineracy meeting stable organisations; but its model isn't precisely what you describe.


This then is my construct, invariably Protestant, Presbyterian and speculative.

What am asking is this:

1. Do you agree?
2. If not, why not?

As to part 1: Not terribly, no. :-) As to part 2: This reading seems based on an attempt to re-create a plausible historical schema from, basically, texts from the New Testament -- primarily Paul's epistles, with reference to the Acts of the Apostles. To a certain rehorical degree, this seems to me like attempting to form a picture of why the American government exists in the manner it does, by ruminating on personal correspondence between Jefferson and his cohorts. Yes, it's related, but it's not the same thing.

The bible is not a suitable end-all sourcebook for understand the ecclesial structure of the Church. It doesn't purport in any place to be so, and so far as I am aware, the Church never attempted to regard it as such until very recently.


3. If so, when did episcopacy come to be understood to be the divinely appointed polity for the church, and why, now that the world is so very much different, can it not be exchanged for other, perhaps more practical forms?

Of course, something here will depend on what one means by 'divinely appointed'; but if we can take that to mean part of the living structure of the Church as guided by God and following the mandates of Christ, I think the answer would be very firmly 'From the beginning'. As I say, I cannot, with historian's spectacles affixed to my head, think of a period when it was not considered as such.

INXC, Matthew

[Mike Gridley]

Matthew,

Thanks very much for your patience and your responses.

I will consider them carefully.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I think it is worthy of notice that the hierarchical structure of Church governance reflects or symbolizes or embodies the Orthodox understanding of intellectual hierarchies. Summarized: Reality has an ordered structure. The created order is iconic of the nature of God and the structure of the Trinity. The nature of this structure is inherently hierarchical, based on first principles. God Himself is ruled by his own nature and structure. He does not and cannot act against that nature or else He would be at war with himself. He does not act arbitrarily or whimsically. He has created for a certain purpose and cannot veer from that purpose. While His purpose is mysterious and inscrutable from an absolute or objective perspective, it is understandable and conforms to the laws of an ordered Reason. The ordered, rational creation is structured according to a hierarchy, not a hierarchy of needs or values (i.e. Maslow) but according to lower and higher spiritual powers and lower and higher material and intellectual structures, with the Mind of God at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, followed by the noetic faculty in man, followed by his logical reasoning powers, followed by the passions, followed by the lower realms of anamalic and vegetative and organic and non-organic structures, with the apeiron at the bottom of the chain (an Aristotelian term to be sure -- it means a kind of chaotic formlessness).

This is a remarkable posting.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

As a second conversation - on whether or not God 'had' to create - has emerged from this discussion and is quite distinct, I've created a new thread for it: Does God have to create? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3062) in the Doctrine & Theology area, and moved all the relevant posts from this thread to that. Do please carry forward with that interesting discussion there, and we shall use the present thread for continuing discussion on the nature of episcopal governance in the Church.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Remarkable for its stupidity?

[M.C. Steenberg]

This is a remarkable posting.


Remarkable for its stupidity?

Ah, dual meanings. :) No, it's a remarkable post for turning a commonly-raised issue (the history of the episcopacy) away from its standard questions (e.g. when did what we know as the episcopacy arise?), and poses a whole set of different issues of the matter. E.g.:


I think it is worthy of notice that the hierarchical structure of Church governance reflects or symbolizes or embodies the Orthodox understanding of intellectual hierarchies. Summarized: Reality has an ordered structure. The created order is iconic of the nature of God and the structure of the Trinity. The nature of this structure is inherently hierarchical, based on first principles.

The tendency is to think of the Church's hierarchy in solely governmental or administrative terms, and thus to analyse it is purely historical terms of administrative development. But the point in your comment that stands out to me is the iconic reality of episcopal hierarchy: its imaging in the Church's life (effectively or fully imaging only with the other orders of the clerical ranks) the hierarchical structure of created and divine reality. This is in fact a point made already by Ignatius in the second century. The administrative duties of the bishops, presbyters, deacons is part of these offices; but the whole is something that includes also the living symbolism of divine reality of which the Church is a part, gathered round and together with her clergy.

INXC, Matthew

[Mike Gridley]

Remarkable for its stupidity?

Be assured, sir, that I will not burden you with my stupidity any longer.

God bless.

[Scott Pierson]

Be assured, sir, that I will not burden you with my stupidity any longer.

I dont think he was talking about your post. Matthew Steenberg was calling Owen Jones post "remarkable" and he (Owen) was saying "remarkable for its stupidity?" about his own post not yours. At least thats what I got out of it.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I dont think he was talking about your post. Matthew Steenberg was calling Owen Jones post "remarkable" and he (Owen) was saying "remarkable for its stupidity?" about his own post not yours. At least thats what I got out of it.I agree. It is easy to get lost in the threads sometimes. This was more or less a "private" exchange between Owen and Matthew and was not referring to Mike.

[Mike Gridley]

Yes, I realized that as soon as I read through the thread again. Unfortunately, by then I'd already submitted my petulance.

Which only goes to show that if Owen had been referring to me, evidently he'd have been right.

[Warren Bensinger]

Excuse me for butting in but looking at the posts that have been submitted,
is it possible to look at what was the norm in the O.T. including the years Jesus intermingled with the leaders of the temple, especially St. John and his fathers position, and see that what the Apostles used as the plan for the way to run our church was layed out by Moses earlier.
IOW preists were used at the time so they didn't have to prescribe them because everyone excepted them. Just like Liturgy was used by the Jew's and so it was continued by the "new cult" of Christians.
If I've messed this whole thing up, please forgive me and delete this.
I just try to make things as uncomplicated as possible for my limited mind.
w.
t.s.