Development of Church Organizations and Other Doctrines

Well, there were changes in the wind, however.

The Rise of the “Bishopric”

In the New Testament, we know that we have given for us God’s plan for the organization of the church, that each congregation is to be organized with elders—a plurality of qualified men who are serving the church, who are the shepherds of the flock, and so on. In the 2^nd Century, there begins to be able to be seen a division, a separation, between what would be called one who was a “bishop” and one who was an elder.

Now, again, we know that, according to New Testament Scripture, those two are the same office. However, it began to be separated. Each church came to have one “bishop,” and then several elders, or presbyters. This process, whereby one bishop [elder] was elevated above the others, was a gradual one, and it did not occur everywhere at the same time. As we said earlier, thanks to the autonomy of the congregations of the church (that was part of the wisdom, obviously, why God made it that way) not all congregations were affected simultaneously—some, perhaps, not at all. The presence of a strong “bishop,” this one central figure, over each congregation seemed at the time to be the best defense against persecution, against heresy, and, apparently, there were few who saw any danger in this departure from the simplicity of the New Testament plan.

At the same time bishops [elders] were being elevated, the relationship between and among congregations had been very loose, very informal, during the New Testament period, but during this time, it begins to take on a bit more definite, and eventually even a more rigid, form and relationship. Churches, for example, in the larger cities, in the more important cities, carried on aggressive evangelistic programs in that day. And this resulted, then, in people being converted, sometimes people from outlying regions being converted, and small congregations being established in these outlying, smaller areas, or rural areas. And so, it seemed quite proper that the larger church in the metropolitan area should maintain some kind of supervision, some kind of watch-care, over these newer congregations—you know, just to keep an eye on them; just to protect them; just to make sure that they were doing all right. Well, gradually this oversight fell to the “bishops” in the larger churches, and in the course of time, these smaller churches no longer had “bishops.” Their chief officers were “only” elders.

Well, in the 2^nd Century, “bishops” and, perhaps, other church leaders began meeting together for “consultation” and “common activity.” At first, the pronouncements of these gatherings (which were, by the way, called “Synods”) were not authoritative. It was not something that was expected, not something that was required, not something that was considered mandatory. But gradually, they became more and more generally accepted and they carried more weight.

Originally, these consultations were convened to deal with serious problems, common problems that were facing various congregations. For example, one of the first ones that we know anything about, that there is any historical documentation about, was held in Asia Minor in AD 160. And this was specifically to meet the problem of Montanism—you remember we talked about that problem, that internal problem called Montanism. They held one of these gatherings of “bishops” and church leaders to attempt to deal with this problem.

But after the passage of many years, these meetings that started out as “consultations” became official, and their pronouncements became binding. Thus, gradually and without any apparent conscious intent, leaders of the early church forged an ecclesiastical organization that eventually becameauthoritative. This organization began to bear the resemblance to the government organization, that is, the government of Rome, as far as how it was organized, with various departments and heads of departments, and also how it was organized on a regional basis, divided into sub-divisions, and the like.

Well, to strengthen the hands of the “bishops”, the doctrine of “Apostolic Succession” gradually developed. This doctrine affirms that the “bishops’” authority has been transmitted in a direct line from the apostles. And they were looked upon, then, as being direct successors of the apostles, and as such, they had the right to exercise many of the prerogatives of the apostles in setting things in order, in defending the church, in directing the activities of the church, and so on. Eventually, many came to believe that ordination to any church office must come through this line of succession, and that any other ministry—anything that fell outside of this area—was not valid.

Well, can we see something that is beginning to develop? Obviously we can, can’t we? We can begin to see the rise here, the beginnings, of the Roman Catholic church, the “bishopric,” the eventual establishing of “cardinals”, which would eventually lead to the establishing of the “papacy.” So, this is how it began; this is where it came from; this is the direction that it is going.