Scriptural arguments Concerning Apostolic Authority
Introduction:
In general, the purpose of this blog is to briefly discuss and defend theological doctrines that I believe were held by early Christianity. Usually, I draw primarily from the New Testament and the writings of church fathers in the late first and early second centuries to back up my beliefs in these regards. Today, I would like to discuss a new theological topic that I have not yet covered in the posts: I wish to demonstrate that congregationalism did not exist at the time of the New Testament. While much more could be written on this topic than a short blog post, I wish for this post to illuminate my readers with a brief summary of why Christians historically held to the Episcopal (bishop-led church government).
Of course, whenever early Christianity is discussed, most Christians prioritize certain books of the New Testament over others (often depending on which book that they believe best benefits their views). For example, Calvinists prefer to prioritize Romans and Ephesians while many of them simply ignore passages from Hebrews that speak of contrary to their views. Even the Calvinists do examine Paul's Letter to the Hebrews has some of the most forced interpretations of its warnings to Christian believers that I've ever heard (and have discussed in prior posts). The same is true for many Baptists who emphasize a lack of examples of infant baptism in the New Testament yet never provide Biblical evidence of children being raised in Christian families until they either reach a certain or age or make a profession of faith before receiving baptism.
Scripture no doubt can seem at first glance to contradict itself. Look at Romans, for instance, and see in the third and fourth chapters how Abraham is accounted righteous for faith only. Likewise, then see how James seems to say the exact opposite. Over the years of Christians of different theological traditions have tried to reconcile the two. For Protestants, James does not contradict Sola fida as they argue that the book is only talking about a Christian being justified before other men, not a believer being justified before God as is the case in Romans. Likewise, Catholics have attempted to reconcile the two by emphasizing that Romans is addressing the false works of Judaism, which does not justify a man before God, while James is addressing the necessity of good works on the part of a Christian believer.
As with any other theological topic, the entire New Testament must be taken into consideration. It would be easy to mention just one verse or so that seems to benefit one of the three historic church governments: Episcopal: Presbyterian, or Congregational. However, that would be deceiving. In order to truly examine the debate here, various scriptural passages must be examined.
In this post, I will attempt to justify the Episcopal form of government through an appeal to scripture and early Christianity. After this, I will also address common Biblica passages used for congregationalism and why I do not believe that scripture supports that government. Since I will not be writing out the Biblical texts in the post, I encourage my readers to look up the references that I will be mentioning and examine my arguments by scripture.
What's at Stake?
You may ask yourself, why does it matter what church government a denomination is run by? It matters first and foremost because everything that we see as the pattern of the New Testament matters. Whether it's the function of baptism (Matthew 28) in the New Testament or that of foot washing (John 13: `1-15), everything observed in the early church should inspire contemporary parishes to learn from the writings of scripture as our source of final authority.
Hermeneutics and Problems with Exegesis
Whenever we discuss topics like what was the intention of the author and how did his/her use of a grammatical sentence contribute to a theological concept, we must take into account the first-century Judaism that the early believers lived in. Many of them, though certainly not all, were converts from Judaism to Christianity. Unfortunately, many today who hold to congregationalism ignore both the writings of Judaism and early Christianity. Their hermeneutics, I personally believe, when it comes to congregationalism, much like the Calvinists' approach to Paul's Letter to the Hebrews, is to ignore the thought of Judaism and early Christianity; instead, seeing the New Testament through the eyes of the Reformed churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Indeed, many who would claim that scripture is our final authority, continue to interpret it not as a first-century Jew would have done, but through the eyes of the Calvinist's Reformation (by me noting ''Calvinists Reformation'' I noting how many who hold these views exclude the interpretations of the Lutherans at the time of the Reformation, who were generally more moderate than their Calvimists contemporaries).
What methods do we use to interpret a text? Do we read scripture with assumptions about it that we've heard from the Westminster Standards? What exegesis should be used in approaching second-century texts? While these questions cannot be fully answered in this post, as with much of the rest of scripture, it all gets back to hermeneutics. Those who criticize liturgical Christians for interpreting scripture through first-century eyes only so the former group can interpret it through sixteenth-century perspectives do not make a convincing case for their argument. I argue that all of scripture must be understood through the lens of Judaism and early Christianity. When theological movements turn away from these, heresy is sure to follow.
So, before we began this present discussion, I hope that my readers will open their minds, not to prescriptions of Catholic or Protestant thought in the latter half of the second millennium. Instead, we should try to understand the first-century church through a Jewish and early Christian lens.
Church government in the Pauline Epistles
In 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, Paul describes what elders, bishops, and deacons should be. Many have argued that both elders and bishops are interchangeable in these passages while others have suggested that the two were distinct roles of authority. Indeed, in Phillippians 1: 1, Paul addressed a plurality of local bishops and deacons at the church of Philippi. Since Paul did not also mention elders, many have argued that there was no huge distinction between elders and deacons at the time of the New Testament's composition. Regardless, even if I were to accept that elders and bishops are interchangeable throughout the New Testament, I would argue that scripture is not only for the Episcopal form of government, but also, against congregationalism.
First of all, in Titus 1: 5-9, elders are selected by Titus due to Paul's instruction. The local churches did not appoint elders nor do local Christians self-profess themselves to be pastors. In fact, Titus clearly exemplifies the function of a bishop to us through his spiritual exercise over local pastors and local churches. Furthermore, for those who say that the episcopal form of government was only for the apostles, neither Timothy nor Titus were part of the original apostles. Indeed, they were Gentile Christians who were not Jews holding onto any form of past hierarchy (such as the Pharisees).
Those who support congregationalism are holding to a form of government that did not exist at the time of the New Testament. It was simply unknown to early Christians. Its advocates (some of who claim that the New Testament is not binding on what a church government should be) cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they believe that the episcopal examples from Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 were just for the first century, then they would have to believe the same about the Lord's Table (1 Corinthians 11) and Baptism (Acts 2). In general, everything practiced in the New Testament concerning the function of the church should be what Christians today aspire to.
It's quite striking that there is never a case in the New Testament of someone professing to be an elder who did not first become ordained, or in the case of Paul and the apostles, either walked with Christ or received some sort of divine revelation. Actually, it's quite ironic how some cessationists will use the case of Paul for themselves to not need ordination considering his direct calling by Christ, when everything else that the blessed apostle received by a divine vision, many of the cessationists portray to be unique to him and the first century Christians. Indeed, everyone after Paul must have been ordained to be an elder in the New Testament, for the only examples given of pastors in the New Testament after Pentecost (and excluding Paul's divine vision) are those who were ordained (Titus 1). While scripture never says that every elder was ordained, should we not look to the examples that scripture has given rather than assume contrary to the examples that it has provided? Would it not make more sense to say that if elders were ordained in Titus 1 that this was the common practice of the church when church leaders received ordination by the laying on of hands (2 Timothy 1: 6, Acts 8: 17). Likewise, Matthias received his authority from that of the apostles (Acts 1: 26).
Documents outside the New Testament
Interestingly, the Didache never mentions the role of an elder or presbyter. Indeed, it only mentions bishops and deacons, leading some to conclude that there were only local pastors at the time of the first century. This was the same for the writings of Clement of Rome. Early second-century father, Ignatius of Antioch, however, saw bishop and elder as distinct in his Epistle to the Symnaeans. Likewise, later second-century writers such as Tertullian of Carthage and Irenaeus of Lyons understood the early church to practice an episcopal form of government; the latter two having made a distinction between bishop and presbyter. Since the earlier writers do not make a diction of terms, some have suggested that the Presbyterian form of government preceded that of the Episcopal form (though I've already demonstrated an episcopal form of government having been used in Titus 1).
In general, I believe that a strong Biblical case can be made for both the Episcopal and Presbyterian forms of government, but not that of Congregationalism. Titus 1 benefits the former as it shows how elders received their authority from a higher apostolic authority (Titus). However, other scriptural passages are closer to the Presbyterian form of government. Among them are Acts 15, 1 Peter 5: 1, and 2 John 1: 1-13.
The case of Acts 15
Acts 15 provides us with not simply a strong argument for Presbyterianism, but also, against congregationalism. In fact, I consider Acts 15 to be one of the main texts against the Congregational form of government.
In this chapter, the Judaizers were claiming that the first-century Christians were still under the legal ways of Judaism. Because of this, the church authorities responded to the Council of Jerusalem and rejected this imposition. Ultimately, the council of Jerusalem was not settled by the autonomy of a local church nor of a local state convention but through the overseers (apostles) and elders of the church.
The one reason that I believe Acts 15 better benefits the Presbyterian form of government more than the Episcopal is that the council was not settled by the apostles alone, but also, by the elders. However, much like the rest of the New Testament, Acts 15 nowhere hints at the concept (as Congregationalists believe) that every church is up to its elder's authority. Collectively, much like the Episcopal and Presbyterian forms of government, the Council of Jerusalem represented church authorities from different regions. Indeed, Peter, an elder from the church in Rome began the council.
The Case of 1 Peter 5: 1
In 1 Peter 5: 1, Peter, traditionally regarded as the ''prince of the apostles'' labels himself as merely an ''elder.'' Claiming then, that he was pope seems a far-fetched understanding from his own writings. Indeed, Peter did not even claim to exercise any particular authority than a local bishop, which in this case, favors a Presbyterian understanding of government.
The Case of 2 John 1: 1-3
Peter was not alone in describing himself as an ''elder.'' The author of 2 John said the same of himself. If John the Apostle were the author of this book, that's two apostles who did not consider themselves above other pastors!
A Compromise of Episcopal and Presbyterian forms of Government
With some scripture benefiting the Episcopal form of government and other passages supporting that of the Presbyterian system, could it be that the function of the New Testament Church was a combination of both? I think so.
Unlike the Anglican Church in North America which is led exclusively by bishops (as is the Catholic Church), the Church of England allows for some authority outside of its bishops, shared principally by the priests and deacons as well*1. For this reason, with current liberalism pushed aside, I believe that the Church of England has always had one of the most Biblical forms of church government. However, I also believe the same about the Presbyterians.
If the Episcoapy is understood with the bishops having full authority, then I believe that this is simply unbiblical and dangerous. With every church government, checks, and balances are needed to keep authority being away from those who will use and abuse it (such as the papacy has done). This is another concern that I have with congregationalism as it has planted many cults that see themselves and those in their congregations as independent from the rest of Christendom. While good and bad movements can befall any of these three, the Presbyterian form of government seems to play safe, without some of the problems that go with the other two.
Further Sources:
Objections to the Episcopal form of Government
One of the main Biblical cases presented against the episcopacy is in 1 Corinthians 5: 13. In this passage, Paul pleads with the Corinth church to exercise spiritual discipline. Many opponents against the episcopacy point to this passage as evidence that church discipline was not up to the aspects of a bishop-like office, but to the local church.
In the case of 1 Corinthians 5: 13, I do not think that this proves anything against the Episcopal form of government. History records Paul having been a bishop at the church in Rome, not Corinth. In other words, Paul may not have had authority over the Conth church as it was possibly outside his jurisdiction. Unlike the case of Titus 1 where Paul is having Titus ordain new elders in every church, those in Corinth already had church authority. Whereas tradition records Titus having been a bishop in Crete, neither scripture nor tradition claims that Titus was a leader in the Corinth church. For this reason, I think that the two situations are incomparable as Titus had no authority under Paul or from himself to go unto the Corinthians and force them to excommunicate someone.
Secondly, Paul never claims (that I'm aware of) that he had no authority over the Corinth church. Many Congregationalists simply assume that he had no such authority over the local church. Even though he encourages them to punish the wicked, does that mean he had no authority to do this myself? In whichever of the two ways that I've discussed one gets around this passage, I do not believe it supports the autonomy of every local church.
Some will use Acts 6: 6 and Acts 14: 23 as objections against the Episcopal form of government. Indeed, in both of these passages, the local churches choose for themselves elders to lead them. Does this mean that the early churches were congregationally led? I think not.
First, Acts 6: 6 tells us that the designated church offers were ''set before the apostles.'' If the ancient churches did not need authorities outside their congregations for the promotion of such men, then why is the apostles' recognition of the new church leaders even mentioned? Could it be, that the local churches sometimes chose their pastors, with the consent of apostolic authority? This seems to me, a logical explanation of both passages. If my position is accurate, these passages do not conflict with the Episcopal form of government, and in fact, do not support a congregational form of government.
However, let us assume for argument's sake that no apostolic authority was needed to consecrate or recognize local church officers as legitimate. If this is the case, this certainly would not speak against the Presbyterian structure of government as Presbyterianism allows local churches to choose their pastors. It would also not prove congregationalism. It would simply say at most, that congregationalist and Presbyterians both of this aspect of church government right.
As previously explained, I believe that congregationalism is unreconcilable with Acts 15. The fact that the Jerusalem council was decided by apostles and elders from different churches also shows that the early church did not understand itself as led by autonomous local churches.
Presbyterianism and Saint Jerome
Interestingly enough, Jerome of Rome considered the ancient church to have been led by elders. According to him, the function of bishops came later. If Jerome is accurate, this is a strong argument against the traditionally accepted doctrine known as ''Apostolic Succession.''
Some who favor the episcopacy may argue that it took time for the church to function as an Episcopal system. Whether or not this is true, I do believe the arguments for apostolic succession are weak, especially in the light of not only Jerome's view, but Catholic historians like Klaus Shatz who believes that the ancient church of the first century was led by a plurality of elders (as is the case with Presbrteiranism).
Where Did Congregationalism Come from?
So if congregationalism did not exist in the first century, where did it come from? A brief study of history will enlighten us about its roots.
Throughout the history of Christendom, Christian churches were led by bishops since at least the late second century. This continued to be the case through the entire Middle Ages and up to the Protestant Reformation.
At the time of the Protestant Reformation, most bishops throughout Europe stayed in communion with Rome. There were generally only exceptions to this within the Anglican and some Lutheran circles.
John Calvin's writings served as the basis for a Presbyterian government. Some, however, have also argued that he supported congregationalism as well.
In the late sixteenth century, many Puritan Congrgationlits began to break away from the Church of England. They became known for their hatred of the episcopacy. So in short, it took fifteen hundred years for the church to come up with the right form of government. To me, this seems an absurd explanation.
There are strong examples of church fathers who believed the ancient church to have had a Presbyterian form of government. This was the case for both Jerome of Rome and John Chrysostom. However, such a case for congregationalism is simply lacking.
Conclusion
Scripture and early Christian history alike support both the Episcopal and Presbyterian forms of government, depending on what parts of the New Testament one is focusing their arguments on. However, I strongly believe that congregationalism is the most contrary to the scripture of the historic three forms of church government. Indeed, not only is congregationalism lacking scriptural support but even more, it is lacking the concept that pastors can be self-proclaimed or recognized as authorities without some sort of recognition in the church (which some Congregationalists now believe). Those who claim that God has just called them to ministry need without the need to be ordained first, have set themselves up with a different standard for ministry than the pattern of the New Testament.
Comments
Post a Comment