Can Baptists have bishops? (Part one)
In my earlier posts on the Evangelical Baptist Church of Georgia, I stated, essentially, that I take no theological or ecclesiological exception to the appointment of a presiding bishop as an office of spiritual oversight. Certainly this should raise up howls of protests from many of my fellow Baptists. The charge may be that I am doubling back on the gains of the Reformation by calling for the re-institution of hierarchy and the promotion of “spiritual masters” (to use Bill Underwood's phrasing) who will dictate matters of faith and practice to the quivering, docile masses. It may be claimed that such an office of personal oversight violates the clear two-fold office scheme of Scripture, subverts the autonomy (I prefer the term “competence) of the local congregation under the authority and rule of Christ, and so distances a communion from Baptist heritage that the very name cannot be rightfully claimed anymore. But are any of these claims feasible? Allow me to review certain lines of evidence:
1. Scripture
Biblical scholars have known for decades that the New Testament does not present an unambiguous, clear, and unitary ecclesiology that must be merely re-presented for succeeding generations to slavishly copy. Instead, as we will be learning in detail all throughout one of my courses this semester, the portraits of church and ministry stand in tension with one another through their great diversity. The great Catholic scholar Raymond Brown wrote the slim volume The Churches the Apostles Left Behind in an effort to capture the various images or models of the church promoted by different canonical writings. Is the church primarily a structure that passes down sound doctrine (Pastorals), a charismatic fellowship guided mostly by the workings of the Holy Spirit (Luke/Acts), or what? The remarkable (but I think not overwhelming) diversity of the biblical witness thus throws up a big question mark against any attempt to promote a univocal, normative teaching on church structure and authority. Should the church be governed congregationally, so that every member has an equal voice in decisions? Then a key text is I Corinthians 14:26. Or is the “biblical pattern” the entrusting of authority to a representative body of respected elders? You find your evidence in 1 Timothy 5:17.
Perhaps the great caveat thrown at my appeal to diversity is the apparent fact, acknowledged across the board by everyone from Baptists to Catholics, is the synonymous usage of the terms “bishop” and “elder” throughout the New Testament documents. Never does any text indicate that the bishop is an authority or leader who serves beyond the local congregation. The development of the three-fold pattern is just that: a development that solidifies sometime upon the close of the New Testament period. However, there are certain prefigurations of that pattern within the canon. Certainly, the apostles acted as translocal ministers as they planted churches, wrote letters, and visited the scattered Christian communities. Of course just noting that salient fact opens up a can of worms concerning succession in the apostolic office that I do not intend to touch. However, apostles were apparently not the only ones to whom the New Testament witnesses as offering broad oversight. In one instance, Titus 1:5, the recipient is charged by “Paul” with finishing the task of appointing elders in every town on the island of Crete. Leaving aside the question of authorship for this epistle, this nevertheless remains as a canonical witness to a ministry of personal oversight over a region. Titus' duty was to select and install congregational leaders. While the title may not be applied here, this is nevertheless a clear example, in at least one instance, of a kind of leadership that was later exclusively denoted as the office of “bishop.”
2. Baptist History and Heritage
Baptists have not been without ministers of translocal jurisdiction. The General Baptists of England, one of the two earliest Baptist associations formed in the 17th century, apparently held to a three-fold pattern of messengers, elders and deacons (Orthodox Creed, 1679, article XXXI). The messengers ordained elders (pastors) in the churches to which they had been given charge. One such messenger was Thomas Grantham, a prolific writer who wrote various treatises in defense of “the Baptized Churches.” His magnum opus is the hefty volume Christianismus Primitivus, in which he defends the theology and practice of the Baptist churches by appeal both to Scripture and Early Church Fathers. Concerning the office of messenger, he writes:
Touching the Office of Messengers or Apostles, as a perpetual Ministry to the Church....
That though it is most certain there were several things proper and peculiar to the First and Chief Apostles, not to be pretended at all by their Successors the subordinate Messengers; yet it is also true, that many things pertaining to their Office as Itinerant Ministers, are of perpetual duration in the Church with respect to that Holy Function, and consequently to descend to those who were to succeed them as Travelling Ministers, to plant Churches, and to settle those in order who are as Sheep without a Shepherd, etc. For this Office is as firmly settled in the Church, as any other, and therefore the Abrogation of this is in effect to abolish them all (Book II, Section III, Paragraph 2).
Grantham goes on to say that a peculiar obligation of messengers that is not readily accepted by pastors of churches is the ministry of proclaiming the gospel of Christ to all the world and baptizing converts.
Since his time, while Baptists have argued that episcopacy is not a biblical office, they have elected and appointed all kinds of officials who have served in positions also not outlined in Scripture but seen as conducive to the good order of the Church. Here in America, regional associations typically have an ordained minister serve as a Director of Missions to ensure cooperation between churches in ministry and service to the community. The business of the state and national conventions requires certain leadership for day-to-day operation, and so Baptists have elected ministers to serve as presidents for one-year terms and executive directors as more permanent overseers of the various denominational agencies and programs. Meanwhile, the American Baptist Churches, USA and the Baptist Union of Great Britain both employ “regional ministers” who provide pastoral support for ministers, lay training for congregation, and other theologically informed, spiritually-minded, ecclesially-focused tasks of essentially episcopal oversight. And yet, except for scattered Independent Baptists and others who have probably been more influenced by the Restorationist movement or American individualism than Baptist tradition, none of these offices have been seen as an assault on local church autonomy. Is there, then, any legitimate theological concern with an office known as “bishop”? Despite the direction my post has taken, I believe there is, but I believe there is much ecumenical promise for answering the problematic consequences of the bishopric. But I've already said much today, so I'll save the question of a Baptist appropriation of episcopacy for another time.
Labels: Baptists
Post a Comment