Reasons for an Unscriptural Structure for the Church
Anyone reading Bill Bennett’s 2016 book, Tried by Fire (see the article on the front page, "Why Is Baptism Omitted?") could easily come away confused because of the conflicting descriptions and comments he makes regarding the organization of the church. For example, he correctly writes that at the end of the first century there was "a loose association of congregations that were not yet under the authority of the church at Rome" (20).
Why say that? This statement is a tipoff that later he will argue for the supremacy of Rome—that God sent Peter and Paul there for a reason. Most of what Bennett writes is from a Catholic perspective rather than a Christian one. Nothing in the New Testament indicates that any city would have spiritual dominance over any other city. That "loose association" of congregations to which Bennett refers is the system that Jesus originated, in which all churches are autonomous. And that is the way they should have remained!
He makes an admission, perhaps even a concession, which is accurate. He points out that those congregations "were usually led by a council of elders (in Greek: presbyteroi) or overseers (episcopoi)" (20). We would probably not call the eldership a council, which carries with it certain connotations not in the Bible, but he is correct that they were a presbytery—a group of elders. The plural is significant. There was not just one leader over the church; it was always two or more. Acts 14:23 describes Paul appointing elders in every church. Paul left Titus in Crete in order to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5).
However, Bennett omitted one piece of information—that elders and bishops (overseers) were also synonymous with pastors. In 1 Peter 5:1-4 all three Greek words are used of the same men leading the church. The same three words are also found in Acts 20:17, 28. The pastors (or shepherds) are the presbyters (or elders) or the overseers (or bishops). Bennett did not point out that the bishops and the pastors are the elders. He will fall into the same error that others make by referring to the bishop or the pastor when the New Testament never does. When he does so, he is not doing it by any New Testament authority. No command uses those words in that way, nor can any example or implication of such usage be found. This of "the pastor" or "the bishop" are still mentioned today in the same faulty manner.
The author allows for the possibility that these leaders may have been "chosen by the congregation according to the standards prescribed in the New Testament" (20). This sentence is completed with the number 8, in that same position. It is explained in the "Notes" at the back of the book, where it says: "See, for instance, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1" (413). Wow! Does anyone realize what this means?
The significance is that Bennett knows what the New Testament teaches regarding leadership in the church. He knows that in some cases elders were appointed by the apostles or an evangelist under the authority of an apostle—or that congregations selected their own. He is not confused about the way the Scriptures present this subject. He cites the same two passages that we would to find the qualifications of elders. We could have unity among those who follow the Bible if we would just stick to these facts.
"Throwing It All Away"
In 1986, the rock group Genesis released a song about the difficulty in a couple’s relationship. She was willing to throw it all away. Bill Bennett and many others are willing to do that with Biblical authority. In citing the Scriptures about the qualifications for elders, Bennet reveals that he knows what the Scriptures teach, but like so many others he does not care. Consider his words on the subject. After referencing the way God organized the church, in the very next line he writes:
In time, however, the eldership model (still practiced in many Protestant churches today) gained less popularity, and each city, often containing multiple churches, came under the authority of a single leader called a bishop (also from Greek episcopos, from which our English word episcopal comes, and one can hear clearly the transformation from ePISCOPal in Greek to BISHOP in English) (20).
Isn’t that sentence a mouthful? We know the way God designed leadership in the church because the Scriptures explain it. What changed? Did God give a different revelation? Did He change His mind on the way things ought to operate? No. The eldership model which God originated became less popular. Is that the standard that God gave His people in order to determine what to teach or practice—popularity? Seriously? Was it not the most popular idea in the days of Moses and Joshua to return to Egypt instead of continuing to the Promised Land? Isn’t sin more popular than righteousness? Hmm.
Where is the verse in which God commands His people to decide doctrinal or moral issues on the basis of popularity? Is that what Paul charged Timothy—to take heed to himself and popular doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16)? Did he command him to preach the word in season and out of season—or only when it was popular (2 Tim. 4:2)? Did Jude urge brethren to contend for the faith as long as it was popular (Jude 3)? Such is absurd. In the very text that discusses overseers (bishops), Paul warns the shepherds (pastors) that wolves would enter in, not sparing the flock. Even from their own selves would men arise to draw away disciples after themselves (Acts 20:28-32).
This desire to have one’s own followers is what gave way to one-man rule in a congregation. Soon a single leader, using a Scriptural term in an unscriptural way, became a bishop. He not only controlled one congregation but eventually several in a city. Paul never appointed one man over a city or a region—he appointed elders in all the churches. Bennett describes what happened, and it is apparent he has no problem with it. Let’s just throw away God’s design and replace it with what’s popular.
Justification
That would be bad enough, but Bennett offers a defense for replacing God’s formula with this unauthorized system of organization. His first rationale was that one-man rule became more popular. Now he adds three more explanations in the following sentence:
There were a few reasons for this change: many came to believe that a single bishop more clearly represented the unity of the church, could be an unencumbered source of authority, and also served as an unmistakable figurehead (20).
Since Bennett sets forth these reasons and does not take issue with them, he apparently agrees with them. So, what about them? Does a single bishop represent more clearly the unity of the church? Perhaps in some narrowly-defined sense that might be the case, but overall the answer is no. Jesus represents the unity of the church. He is the Head. The church is only unified if it gives heed to Him. Jesus prayed for unity (John 17:20-21), and that unity must be based upon truth (John 17:17). When the church began, they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42), which they received from the Holy Spirit.
They were united. Truth does not change with respect to church organization (or any other New Testament teaching). Paul, an apostle of the Lord, declared the way in which Jesus, the Head of the church, desired to have church organization. Peter was himself an elder (1 Peter 5:1-4). Even though he was an apostle, he submitted to the pattern for elders. Has Bennett considered how presumptuous it is to change what Jesus authorized—especially when He said, "All authority is given unto Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18)? In essence, reasons are being given to explain how a manmade plan is better than Deity’s.
Does it matter what people "came to believe"? People have come to believe that Peter was the first pope when no such thing ever occurred. People have come to believe that sprinkling is baptism when it is not defined that way in the Scriptures. People have come to believe that man is born a sinner despite the fact that Jesus pronounced little ones as innocent—"of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). What people come to believe is irrelevant. The question must always be, "What is the truth, as God revealed it?" Whether or not having elders (bishops, pastors) is fashionable among some people, it is God’s will.
Furthermore, unity is not always good, as Bennett demonstrates throughout his book. He writes at length of the controversy surrounding Arianism. This is the error that Jesus was a created being (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain today). Arius did not believe that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father. One could rightly say that "many came to believe" that Arius was correct, and disunity prevailed at various times over his teachings. Bennett’s own assessment is: "The church was scarred" (117). So, if the single bishop was Arius, then there might have been unity behind him, but it was unity in error—not in the truth.
This illustrates the folly of having one man over several churches instead of being organized the way God designed it. The choice is: 1) everyone following one bishop (whether he is right or wrong) versus 2) independent congregations who can each make up their own minds. If one congregation goes awry in an area, at least all of the others need not follow in their apostate ways.
Also related to all that has already been said is a bishop being an unencumbered source of authority. Again, that only would have any value if the bishop were always correct. While it is true that elderships are not always correct, either, at least the problem stays within that one congregation. When a bishop is wrong, it affects several churches, as evidenced by the Arian error. What Bennett and many others also fail to realize is that the authority is in the Scriptures—not human beings.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Authority resides in Scriptures—not in men. The Scriptures have always provided a, "Thus saith the Lord." The only authority men have is to uphold what the Scriptures teach. Paul praised brethren in the first century because, when they "received the word of God," which they had heard from Paul, they "welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God\…" (1 Thess. 2:13). It is only "the implanted word, which is able to save your souls" (James 1:21).
Lest someone make the old argument that we need a professional "clergy" to understand the Bible, we should remind ourselves that Paul, in writing to the church in Ephesus, said when they read what he wrote, they would understand his knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:4). We do not need to depend on someone else’s opinion; we can read it for ourselves.
The last point Bennett made was that a single bishop "served as an unmistakable figurehead." Did it not occur to him that if Jesus wanted an unmistakable figurehead, He would have devised such a position and appointed someone to hold it? What value is such a person? What if it is discovered that he molested young boys? Does the church need a corrupt and immoral figurehead? Church leadership roles were given to perform a function (e.g., feed the flock). Preachers preach the Word; shepherds tend the sheep. No role exists for a figurehead. We only end up in such absurdities when we depart from the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: