The title of bishop is used to designate a person who is charged with oversight of a local congregation (pastor) and/or multiple congregations. The term “bishop” (episkopos) is used in the New Testament only six times. Five of these occurrences are Pauline and speak to oversight of the church (Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1ff; and Titus 1:7). The fourth occurrence is Petrine and speaks to the ministry of Christ as he who is “Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25). In his farewell address to the church elders at Ephesus, the Apostle Paul exhorted, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 2:28). Here Paul offers a paradigm for understanding the ministry of bishop in the apostolic church.
First, the bishop is appointed by Holy Spirit. There is no suggestion here of an ontological order of ministry, but it does suggest a functionally hierarchical office. In the apostolic church all believers were being filled with Holy Spirit. There is no qualitative distinction in Spirit baptism between Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. Nor is there a qualitative distinction in Spirit baptism between deacon and bishop. However, being “placed” or “appointed” by Holy Spirit implies a qualitative distinction in terms of ministry leadership. The question now before us is, “How were bishops appointed by the Holy Spirit?” The answer may be discerned by examining the selection of various leaders in the Acts of the Apostles: the selection of Matthias as apostle; the selection of the seven; the selection of Barnabas and Saul as apostles; and the selection of Judas and Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 1:21-26; 6:1-6; 13:1-3; 15:22). The need for leadership is assumed and is prompted by various events in the life of the church. There are elements common to the leadership selection process in these situations. The church is gathered together in prayer and worship. The leader(s) are chosen from within and affirmed by the gathered church. In each case, the chosen leader(s) had a demonstrated history of faithfulness and charismatic leadership. The chosen leaders possessed certain qualitative distinctions that prompted the gathered church to set them forth in ministry. The gathered church was of “one mind.” There was a consensus – unity – prevalent within the gathered church in the presence of Holy Spirit (Acts 15:22, 28). Finally, in two of these occasions the selection process was confirmed with the sacramental act of the laying on of hands, which could suggest that this was a common practice.
Second, the bishop is to “guard… the church of God.” The church is under attack by “savage wolves,” that is, pseudo-apostles, false teachers, and antichrists. These “savage wolves” will practice deceit, proclaim “a different gospel,” “introduce destructive heresies” and deny that “Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 20:29; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:18-24). The bishop is to faithfully preach and teach “sound doctrine,” and offers a ready defense of the Faith (1 Timothy 3:1-2; 4:6; 6:1-4; Titus 1:5-9; 2:1-10). Those who seek to serve as bishop must demonstrate the qualities of one faithful to Christ, to family, the church, and “have a good reputation with those outside the church” (1 Timothy 3:1-7). As the guardian of the faith, the bishop is canon. That is, the faithful life and the faithful teaching of the bishop becomes the standard by which Christian faith and life are to be measured.
Third, the bishop is to “shepherd the church of God.” The motif of leader as shepherd is prevalent throughout the ancient world and a favorite in the Holy Scriptures (Psalm 23; John 10:11-12; 21:15-17). Following the biblical model of shepherd, the bishop offers guidance, care, nourishment, and protection to the church. And, in extreme cases, the bishop, following the example of Christ, may suffer persecution and become a martyr for the cause of Christ. There is an implied functional relationship between the words “bishop” and “shepherd.” This suggests an apostolic consensus that the shepherding ministry of bishop is to reflect, and even represent, Christ who is the “Chief Shepherd” of the church” (Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 5:4). Speaking as “a fellow elder,” the Apostle Peter charged the elders of the “alien” and “scattered” church to “…shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1-3). Peter is writing as the rock upon which the church is built (Matthew 16:18). The model of leadership that he offers is that of the Lord Jesus. Just as Jesus was moved with compassion because the multitudes were “distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36); Peter is moved with compassion because the church is scattered and sojourning through an alien land. The shepherd/bishops are to exercise oversight “according to the will of God.” As we have seen, the will of God is discerned by the prayerful church gathered together in the presence of Holy Spirit. As the bishops exercise oversight, they are acting in the interest of Christ for the benefit of Christ’s church. Peter insists, with Paul, that the shepherd/bishops must not be motivated by personal financial gain. The shepherd/bishops are to exercise authority without being authoritarian. That is, they are to follow the example of Christ as servants.
The bishop is a sacramental presence, that is, a mediator of grace. The presence of the bishop is qualitatively distinct because the bishop is appointed by Holy Spirit, and affirmed by the gathered church. As the bishop faithfully shepherds the “flock of God,” the bishop reflects the compassion of the “Chief Shepherd” and is a sacramental symbol of Christ’s presence. The Spirit-filled, gathered church is a sacramental presence in the world. The bishop serves within the context of the sacramental community. This does not suggest that the bishop is the exclusive mediator of grace within the church. But it does suggest that the ministry of the bishop is functionally hierarchical, qualitatively distinct in the apostolic church.
The Bishop in the Post-Apostolic Church
The influence of the bishop grew with the passing of the original apostles so that the bishops came to be viewed as the successors of the apostles. The term “bishop” became narrowly defined. Ignatius, the second century bishop of Antioch, understood the primary task of the bishop in terms of preserving the unity of the church. Therefore, to be in fellowship with the bishop was to be in fellowship with Christ and His church and submission to the bishop, as to Christ, was encouraged. The role of the bishop as a mediator of grace was not questioned. The role of the bishop in the ministry and worship of the church was so important that Ignatius wrote, “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop(Ignatius to the Ephesians 5, 6, 8). By the end of the third century the office of the bishop was officially recognized by the Roman government and was organized according to a territorial structure, normally with the seat of the bishop in a larger city. In years to come, the bishops would define Christian orthodoxy in terms of the Holy Trinity and the nature of Christ, establish the canon, and guide the mission of the church throughout and beyond the Roman Empire.
In summary, the bishop was one who was called by the Spirit and recognized by the church to guide the worship and ministry of the church and to represent the Christian church before the state as well as the various church councils. The bishops were the church’s teachers and theologians, charged with establishing the orthodox doctrines of the church and defending those doctrines against pagans and heretics. In fulfilling their charge, the bishops were to preserve the unity of the church.
Bishop in the Church of God
The founding leaders of the Church of God believed the outpouring of Holy Spirit to be the restoration of “the real Bible Church.” They testified that the Church of God is “the real Bible Church” and as such had its origins in the day of Pentecost. Peter moderated the “first church business conference” (Acts 1:15-26); and James moderated the first general assembly (Acts 15). Proper church government will reflect “apostolic order” and “uniform interpretation” so that all will be of “one mind in teaching and practice.” The government of the church is executive and judicial. The church is to rightly judge the Scriptures and faithfully execute the mission of Christ. The church is the visible and literal presence of God’s government on the earth. The rule of the church, through the power of the Spirit, in this present age anticipates the rule of the righteous in Christ’s millennial kingdom. For these early Pentecostals, a revelation of the “real Bible Church” was essential to their spirituality. Membership in “the Bible Church” was a significant event in the Pentecostal way of salvation. The church of the New Testament was to reflect proper ecclesiastical order, unity of fellowship and mission, a common confession, and the power of Holy Spirit. Because these early Pentecostals viewed themselves as “the real Bible Church” the nomenclature of ministerial offices must reflect the Bible (the King James Version). The title “bishop” was used freely to refer to the highest rank of ordained ministry from the earliest days of the Church of God. The Church of God must reflect the “divine order” of the apostolic church; therefore, early adherents believed that the ministerial offices were essential, even ontologically necessary. By 1922, the recognized “officers” of the Church of God were the Apostles (represented in Holy Scripture), bishops, evangelist, and deacons. Even though Spirit baptism was recognized as a gift for all believers, the orders of ministry were recognized as functionally hierarchical and qualitatively distinct within the Church of God. The term bishop was used by the Church of God until the General Assembly of 1948 in which the term was replaced with the title ordained minister. The term was reclaimed for use by the Church of God at the International General Assembly in 2000. The title of Ordained Bishop was adopted for those who hold the highest credentialed rank of ministry. Further, the General Assembly gave the title of “Presiding Bishop” to the General Overseer and “Administrative Bishop” to the State Overseer.
A Missionary Leader
Kennon Callahan has written that there are four central leadership tasks that are essential in the work of a missionary leader (Effective Church Leadership, 1990). A missionary leader is defined as one who is leading the church in its mission into the world, as opposed to one whose leadership efforts are focused toward maintenance within the existing institutional church. It is in this context that the understanding and ministry of the bishop must be defined. Although administration is a role of the bishop, it is not the role of the bishop. Much of the daily business administration of the institutional church does not require ordained clergy. However, the essential mission of the church – worship, discipleship, and evangelism – does indeed require leadership gifts that have been entrusted to those who have been called into specialized ministry (Ephesians 4:11-13).
The first central leadership task of the missionary leader is to “help persons rediscover power in their own lives and destinies” (Callahan, 91). Because of bureaucratization and centralization in human society (and in the church), there is an increasing sense of powerlessness which breeds apathy and anger. People begin to feel as if they are disenfranchised, that is, they are insignificant in the matters of the world around them. This leads to inactivity, and in the church, it leads to schism, and ultimately to decline and even apostasy. The challenge of missionary leadership is to empower. Lamar Vest has written, “Empowerment is an alternative to negative politics and bureaucracy” (Charting the Course, 2006). Bishop Vest has set forth a vision of empowerment which requires a leadership paradigm shift that defines leadership in terms of mission rather than position. There is another effect of this paradigm shift that is significant in empowering the missionary church. The decline of the institutional bureaucracy will force the demise of an institutional, homogeneous church which was defined by a small group of homogeneous leaders. It may be that from the decline of the institutional, homogeneous church there may rise a church that celebrates the diversity of the church as the people of God. In this paradigm, the church is local and universal, national and international, large and small, traditional and contemporary. There will not be “a model church,” but a church of many models. The emphasis must not be on the definition of the model, but upon the defining the mission. Any model that facilitates the mission of worship, discipleship, and evangelism is a model that must be celebrated.
The second central leadership task of the missionary leader is “to construct new communities of reconciliation, wholeness, caring, and justice in the name of Christ” (Callahan, 110ff). The emerging postmodern society celebrates cultural diversity to the point of societal fracture. This societal fracturing is as large as the fall of the Soviet Empire and it affects the most basic fabric of human society – the family. Nothing is as it was. It is as if the whole world is experiencing the pain and suffering of a great exile, and everyone wants to go home. Walter Brueggemann has written that in the midst of exile “…the poet sings his people to homecoming… the gospel is that we may go home” (Hopeful Imagination, 130). The task of the missionary leader is to form from a group of hopeless exiles a new community that brings estranged people together, that seeks to heal the fractures, and seeks to address injustices. In short, this new community is a place where a misfit fits. To use the words of Peter, “…for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God…” (1 Peter 2:10).
The third central leadership task of the missionary leader is “to create a new theological direction and specific, shared purposes (Callahan, 114ff). Callahan refers to this as the search for meaning. This does not mean that the theological truths which have been proclaimed by the church through the ages are now untrue or irrelevant. However, it does mean that the church must articulate the timeless truths of the gospel in a manner that is relevant to the present age. Further, the purposes of the church must move beyond programs designed to stabilize a declining institution, and instead focus on means and methods of effectively fulfilling the mission.
The fourth central leadership task of the missionary leader is “to launch and lead intentional missional teams to meet specific, concrete human hurts and hopes…” (Callahan, 124, ff). In truth, life is more than church, and salvation is more than forgiveness of sin. Our churches are full of people who have given their hearts to Christ, but are still hurting from years of abuse, or suffering the emotional pains of divorce and abandonment. The task of the missionary church and the missionary leader is to proclaim abundant life in Christ, which begins with the forgiveness of sin, and then continues in a life of sanctification, that is, being transformed by the power of the Spirit. That means the church, as the people of the Spirit, must demonstrate the fullness of the Spirit in a community that provides for the healing of humanity.
The Bishop as a Missionary Leader
If the bishop is to be an effective leader in a missionary church, then the church must provide the proper theological and missional understanding of the office which moves beyond such terms as executive, administrative, or jurisdictional. Each of these terms implies institutional maintenance. The primary role of the bishop must be defined in terms of the ministry objectives – worship, discipleship, and evangelism – of the missionary church. The leaders of the first century church were not satisfied to offer as qualification for an office of leadership in the church only a subjective statement such as “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (Acts 6:3). They defined in an objective manner what it meant to be “full of the Spirit and of wisdom.” Such objective qualifications included personal, familial, and ministerial integrity that is to be demonstrated before the church and the world (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:7). Because of our emphasis on the priesthood of the believer, we tend to view the church as an egalitarian society. According to the Minutes, every ordained bishop has the right and authority to serve as district bishop, administrative bishop, executive bishop, and/or presiding bishop. However, if the leadership role of the bishop is to be effective in a missionary church, then we must readily admit that not every ordained bishop is qualified to serve as a bishop of bishops. A church polity based upon simple egalitarianism and subjective qualifications guarantees leadership by the lowest common denominator. Further, egalitarianism and subjectivity encourages the perception of a culture of political manipulation and distrust. We should insist upon an understanding of the ministry of bishop and the necessary qualifications for the office that is objective and acknowledges the integrity demanded by the office.
The bishop as an effective missionary leader must be one who has demonstrated the ability to effectively articulate the message of the church. In effect, the bishop must be a capable theologian, or in Paul’s words, the bishop must be “skillful in teaching” (1 Timothy 3:2 Greek – didaktikos). This implies that the bishop has dedicated oneself to the study of the Scriptures, as well as the history and traditions of the church. This does not imply that a bishop must have formal seminary training, but it does suggest that one who serves as a bishop must have an education that is adequate to the task. The bishop must be more than knowledgeable, the bishop must be skillful in teaching, that is, the bishop must be able to communicate the knowledge he has received. It is also significant that Paul sets forth skillful teaching, rather than preaching (euaggelizo) as a qualification. Whereas, preaching is the proclamation of the gospel unto repentance, teaching is the training of the converted. If the bishop is to be a missionary leader who can “create new theological direction and specific, shared purposes” the bishop must be conversant with theological principles. If the bishop is to be a missionary leader who can effectively represent the church before the world, then the bishop must be able to effectively explain and defend the message of the gospel in a society that is moving toward a theological pluralism in which everything is truth. If the bishop is to be instrumental in the creation of the church as a new community of reconciliation, care, and justice, the bishop must be able to effectively address issues of reconciliation and justice before the church and the world. The teaching ministry of the bishop may be best utilized in the mentoring ministers and pastors through the ministerial development programs of the Church of God. This can be done through regular mentoring sessions on regional level through direct involvement with the ministerial develop programs offered by the Church of God School of Ministry. Further, the bishop can be helpful in encouraging ministers to continue their education at Church of God colleges and seminaries. The teaching ministry of the bishop includes theological dialogue in church conferences and councils. Throughout the history of the church, such councils have been called in order to search the scriptures and clarify the teaching of the church. It is here that the training (or lack thereof) of the bishop becomes significant. If the bishops are inadequately educated in matters of theology and polity, then the representation of local congregations is diminished because the discussion of these vital matters is left to a small number of formally trained theologians who serve in the church’s institutions. If the Church of God is to experience a leadership paradigm shift, then the church’s theology must be well articulated and demonstrated by local, district, and regional bishops.
The bishop as an effective missionary leader must be one whose ministry acts to preserve the unity of the church. This is more than a theological principle; it is a missional and relational objective that is vital to the integrity of the fellowship of the church. The bishop is charged with the spiritual oversight of congregations, pastors, and other ministers. This requires that the bishop be a person whose vision of the church reaches well beyond one’s own congregation, one’s own methodology, and one’s own view of the model church. The bishop must recognize and affirm the diversity of the churches and pastors under the bishop’s care. To be effective in maintaining the unity of the church, the bishop must excel in conflict resolution. This will have an empowering effect upon those pastors who are inclined to withdraw from active fellowship.
Finally, the Pentecostal bishop is a sacramental presence because the bishop embodies the Spirit of grace. The life and ministry of the bishop is to faithfully reflect the sacramental presence of Christ. When the people of God are in distress, suffering, sick, or dying, they want their bishop – the person charged with the care of souls. In my thirty years of serving as the bishop of a local church, many have come to my office to “confess.” As they shared their failures with me, I have often quoted, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Then, after we have prayed for forgiveness, I have often declared, “Your sins are forgiven.” I am not suggesting that the bishop has the authority to absolve the sinner, but that bishops have the authority to declare forgiveness. At that moment, the bishop becomes the sacramental presence of Christ to the sinner. Many times I have prayed with a dying saint. As we prayed together, I invoked the presence of Holy Spirit, and proclaim our hope in the resurrection. Many dying saints have found comfort and hope in the words and prayers of their bishop. In this regard, the bishop is a mediator of grace.
As the bishop faithfully proclaims the apostolic truth of the gospel to the world, the bishop is a mediator of grace. As the bishop offers support for justice and righteousness in society, leads the church in feeding the poor, or providing care for the diseased, the bishop is the sacramental presence of Christ in the world. Churches need oversight. Churches need bishops with ears to hear the call of God; eyes to see the world through the eyes of Christ; hands to touch the broken-hearted; and hearts that are moved with compassion. The bishops of the church must forever keep the mission of Christ before the faithful.
