The Succession of Bishops - Part 3

I have argued thus far that it is not tenable to hold that the concept of a succession of bishops is a fourth century corruption of an earlier congregational model. Clearly, the ideas that there were bishops and that those bishops held their office as a result of a “passing along” of authority from the previous bishop existed in the first century and was firmly in place by the end of the second. It is also clear that this succession was seen as a key to the unity, authority and doctrinal fidelity of the entire Christian church very early in church history.

I have also argued that there are aspects of the selection and retention of bishops that do not fit a purely authoritarian model. It is suggested by more than one of the early fathers that the selection of bishops is done by the “suffrage” or at least with the consent of the people and that there was the possibility of removing those bishops who strayed from their responsibilities either in doctrine or morals.

It is not difficult to see why there is a difference of opinion regarding church government. Those who accept apostolic succession argue strongly for the authority of the bishops. Those who see no such authority explicit in scripture can find support for their views even in the church fathers.



But there is a confusion of terms that leads to some of the difference of opinion and practice. In the New Testament, the term “presbyter” is often used, and is translated “elder” in most Protestant Bibles. A second term, “episkopos” is also used and is usually translated “overseer” in Protestant Bibles. In actual usage in the New Testament, the terms seem to be interchangeable, referring to those who governed the affairs of the church, usually as part of a council of “elders” or “overseers”.

But very shortly after the death of the apostles, the “Episcopal” office came to be understood as that of a “bishop” or overseer, who generally held pre-eminence in a particular city. The practice had precedent in Paul’s commissioning of Timothy and Titus in the Pastoral Epistles. The “presbyters” managed local congregations within the city. The biblical term “deacon”, literally translated “servant” assisted the elders or “presbyters” in the ministry within the churches. Hence a three-fold office of bishop, presbyter and deacon very quickly became the norm in the early church.

Herein lies the problem. This threefold office is not explicit in scripture, partly because of lack of definitions. But the threefold office developed so early in the history of the church, that Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches assume it to be a natural and intended and inevitable extension of the biblical pattern.

To add to the confusion, the term presbyter came to be translated “priest”, a term generally reserved in the New Testament for Christ alone, (though the whole church is said to be a “royal priesthood” in 1 Peter 2:9). Thus, as church history progressed, instead of the presbyter holding an office designed to oversee the affairs of the church and to guard the deposit of faith, the office of “priest” suggested a similar function to that of the High Priestly office of the Old Testament. And in Protestant thinking, this three-fold office and the implication of the term “priest” has the unfortunate side effect of insulating leadership from scrutiny.

It seems to me both sides have lost sight, to some degree, of the original intent of scripture and the understanding of it in the early church. Deacons in the book of Acts, were chosen by the people, but then commissioned by the Apostles with the laying on of hands. Authority was neither “top down” or “bottom up”. It was both. In church planting situations, Paul appointed Timothy and commanded him to appoint elders (presbyters) in the churches. He told Timothy not to neglect his spiritual gift, granted by the laying on of hands by not only Paul, but many elders, and urged Timothy not to be hasty in laying hands on anyone else, commissioning them for leadership. He listed clear and unmistakable qualifications for church leadership.

The early church recognized the office of deacon, and the office of presbyter and adapted to a changing and growing church. Having a structure where a particular bishop in each city oversaw the churches in the city was a natural consequence of growth and a necessary organizational adaptation. Such an arrangement is not explicit in scripture, but is not beyond it either. The practice of allowing consent in the selection of leaders was not foreign to the early church, and the practice of passing along authority in a linear succession by the laying on of hands was considered normative. And the requirements for the office as described in the Pastoral Epistles were certainly more closely followed than they have been in my lifetime.

So the traditional view of a succession of authority is reasonable in light of scripture and early church history, but an expectation of consent in selection and the possibility of recourse if someone should stray is also reasonable. Pure democracy or local church autonomy is not the early church pattern. Neither is absolute authority without accountability.