Why the Church Needs Bishops

Photo by Mohamad Babayan on Unsplash

The October 19, 2020, edition of Firebrand features an article by David Watson titled, “Hopes for a Renewed Methodism.”  One of his hopes is for “bishops as shepherds of their people and defenders of the faith.” I share this desire and would like to show why by drawing on several scriptural and historical sources. For edifying the Body of Christ, for promoting vibrant Christian discipleship, for effective mission in the world, and (not unimportantly) for fruitful ecumenical relations, we need bishops. 

For many people awaiting the formation of a new Methodist connection, it will take some convincing to warm up to this idea. To many, bishops are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I don’t blame them. With due consideration, however, it turns out that bishops are much more important than we realize. 

Scriptural Touchpoints

We first need to frame the ministry of a bishop (Greek episkopos,“overseer”) within a proper understanding of the church. The church is God’s idea, constituted by the Spirit as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12). The church is the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19), the people of God (1 Pet. 2), a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, set apart to declare the mighty acts of the One who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. We are citizens of a heavenly kingdom.

Let me dwell on one key point. The Holy Spirit constitutes the church. Jesus promised his disciples the coming of the Spirit for this very purpose. This endowment is seen in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. And throughout the book of Acts, this is seen in scenarios where Gentiles were brought into the faith through the same outpouring of the Spirit. The Spirit of God energizes and superintends the church’s ministry. We cannot overstress that the very existence of the church is evidence of God’s work in human experience. 

The Spirit constitutes the church and the Spirit calls forth leaders to serve this mission. A glance at the scriptures – and it only takes a glance – shows a picture of leadership that sets the course for the emergence of the office of bishop. 

Mark 3:13-19 shows Jesus’ decision to gather and appoint twelve disciples as apostles, “to be with him, and to be sent out [apostellei] to proclaim the message.” In John 20:21-23, the resurrected Christ commissions those apostles (minus Judas) to go in his name, under the power of the Spirit, to release and to bind, that is, to continue the ministry of Christ. The New Testament shows that the apostles have Christ’s authority to exercise pastoral oversight of the churches. Obviously this shepherding authority was not meant for only the first generation of apostles, as Christ continues to exercise his lordship today. 

In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council exercises this oversight. So too does the apostle James in his conclusive action, suggesting the role that we find emerging a generation or two later as that of the bishop. Acts 15:6 says that the “apostles and elders” came together to deliberate about the matter and the remainder of the chapter shows us the outcome. James (acting like a bishop?) takes the lead in establishing the resulting pastoral guidance through the circular letter for Gentile believers. 

In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets all the saints there, along with “the bishops [episkopoi] and deacons.” Does “bishops” here mean basically the same thing as “elders” (presbuteroi)? Yes, I think so, but let’s not draw hasty conclusions. As Paul is on his way back to Jerusalem and the fateful final chapters of his ministry story, he addresses the Ephesian elders, “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopoi], to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son” (Acts 20:28). Finally, we have the locus classicus of scriptural teaching on the character qualifications of a bishop in 1 Timothy 3. Here again we find bishops placed alongside deacons. 

Do these scriptures negate my advocacy for the role of bishop as distinct from the elders? I don’t think so, yet I acknowledge that some church traditions have understood the ministry of oversight as falling to elders, not to someone in a distinct, hierarchical office. Still, when disagreements arise within the church; when influential teachers promote non-scriptural teachings; when people cannot agree and differences cannot be adequately resolved, who leads, teaches, and corrects? The elders, to be sure, but historically it also appears that certain leaders among the elders emerged as particularly gifted and recognized for the oversight role, as James in Acts 15 suggests. It does not negate or minimize the authority and function of elders and deacons, but does indicate an organic development we find in the church’s history.

Historical and Theological Extensions of the Scriptural Framework

We first take a brief look at three early bishops from the same generation, just after the apostolic period: Clement of Rome (ca. 35-99 AD), Polycarp of Smyrna, Asia Minor (ca. 69-155 AD), and Ignatius of Antioch in Syria (?-108-110 AD). Each wrote letters to churches in the tradition of the apostles. Each helps to reveal the sense of connection among churches through these bishops. We thus get a glimpse of the bishop’s place in the early church’s catholicity, symbolizing that unity and wholeness within the Body of Christ.

Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthian church, which was apparently (again) riddled with division. He wrote, very much like Paul, to promote harmony and concord through mutual respect and humility. The tone is pastoral throughout. In contrast, say, to a Renaissance pope threatening punishment, this letter appeals to the Corinthians’ consciences. According to tradition, Clement was martyred during the reign of Emperor Trajan. 

Polycarp, also martyred, was bishop of Smyrna. We have his letter to the Philippians, across the Aegean Sea to the northwest. Why did he write to them? According to the letter, they asked him, implying that his persona as a leader, his godliness, his commitment to the apostolic faith, and his courage in the face of martyrdom undoubtedly prompted this request.

Ignatius of Antioch, on his way to martyrdom, wrote several letters to various churches, including one to the Smyrnaeans, the church of Polycarp, which implies a bishop-to-bishop connection. Again, Ignatius does not boss people around or lord authority over them. Like Clement and Polycarp, he writes as a pastor encouraging faithfulness to the Gospel. Ignatius is the first bishop known to advocate for a mono-episcopate. In a nutshell, he sees the bishop standing in the apostolic tradition with the responsibility of guarding the whole flock against doctrinal error. 

What do these historical examples have in common? They show that, very early in the church’s life, certain leaders emerged under pressures--external pressures of social marginalization and the possibility of physical violence, as well as internal challenges through errant teachings and party factions--as the principal overseers in their areas. Remember that no central church buildings existed. Meeting mainly in homes, congregations probably averaged around twenty to forty persons. The elders spread out across these gatherings and came together to deal with oversight questions. A person to convene and oversee the elders makes good sense in this context. 

Moving to a later phase of the church’s history, we find another important reason for the value of retaining the office of bishop today. Claudia Rapp’s fine book, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (2005) details the critical role that bishops played in shaping culture during the years 300 to 600 AD. The church was crucial in shaping western culture amidst the ruins of a fallen Roman empire. Many aspects of what we call civil society, such as education, were held together and made better through the church. Bishops led this process. 

Rapp focuses on episcopal authority from three angles: pragmatic, spiritual, and ascetic. Spiritual authority comes from the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Ascetic authority comes from practicing the spiritual disciplines. “Ascetic” comes from the Greek askesis, referring to athletic training. Pragmatic authority deals with leadership skills and responsibilities. Bishops in the days of Rapp’s study were not just managing churches. They provided civic leadership, often stepping in to very public controversies, a point that we should not ignore as irrelevant.

I emphasize that two of the three of these domains of authority have to do with the personal formation of the bishop himself. (The gender specific pronoun refers to those historical realities.)  The personal qualities of the bishops, shaped as they were through the church’s beliefs and practices, proved their qualifications for the office. Those same qualities of holiness of heart and life produced social and cultural capital--the public respect--needed to serve well in a multi-dimensional leadership role.

There is also plenty to criticize in the bishops Rapp describes. Obviously, bishops were and are subject to the same problems all of us face under the corrosive power of sin. One nevertheless can see just how needed bishops were. 

Rapp’s work helps Christian disciples understand the influence bishops exercised that came from a combination of factors – personal commitment to doctrinal truth, disciplined life under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and notable leadership gifts.  They apply today. We need godly, Spirit-filled leaders who can teach and guard the faith once delivered to the saints for the same reason the church hundreds of years ago needed them. 

To Serve the Present Age

I close with a few practical considerations for a new Methodist connection. First, bishops should be chosen for no other reason other than apostolic mission, which is the New Testament witness to Christ crucified, risen, exalted to the right hand of the Father, and reigning as Lord of all. We must not deviate from this mission. The office of bishop now suffers from bureaucratic bloat and theological confusion, not to mention open error. There is a sort of chicken-and-egg challenge here. To nurture the right kind of environment that produces good leaders, the church needs good leaders. 

Second, every episcopal candidate must undergo evaluation in four basic categories, three of which Rapp described: (a) Does the candidate reveal the character of Christ? Does holiness of heart and life consistently show in his or her exercise of ministry? Here we note the need for a candidate’s habit of class or band or small group involvement. (b) Does the candidate have a proven track record of effectively teaching and guarding the faith? Are people growing into godly, knowledgeable, maturing students of Jesus?  to maturity in Christ? (c) Does the candidate demonstrate that he or she can hold people accountable to the faith with gentleness and humility coupled with firmness? This quality requires moral courage. (d) Does the candidate command the honest respect of people in the community beyond the church? 

No one should be considered a candidate for bishop without meeting these criteria. In one mostly overlooked and misunderstood way, the reason why shows.  According to various studies (e.g. Pew Research), around 40% of American young adults claim no religious identity, a percentage still growing. We are beginning to see the same trend in other parts of the world outside the secularized West. Twenty-first century bishops must make good catechesis priority number one. 

Don’t Repeat the Problem

I felt motivated to write this essay because of pronounced ambivalence about bishops, often stemming from abuse by officeholders. One could easily conclude that the office cannot be rehabilitated. I worry that this view suffers from the very pragmatism that got us into trouble in the first place. Let us not lurch from one sort of problem to another. 

Let’s look again at scriptural, theological, and historical evidence for the office of bishop. Such an approach reveals its crucial missional function. When inhabited by people meeting the criteria such as I suggested, bishops serve a most indispensable role in the church. We need bishops, good ones, godly ones, Spirit-filled and gifted ones, now more than ever. 

Stephen Rankin is a member of the North Texas Annual Conference and founding director of Spiritual Maturity Project.