Part II

Genuine "apostolic" bishoprics are achieved only by real spiritual sacrifice, suffering, and self-denial.

I recall a ministry that was developed in African missions among the Asiatic Indian people by Rev. J. F. Rowlands. His lifelong ministry led about fifty thousand Indians to Christ. Over a period of about fifty years, Dr. Rowlands and his brother developed a purely "Asiatic Indian Church," which was directed and led by Indian leadership.

Dr. Rowlands' ministry among the Indian people of Southern Africa was purely "apostolic" from its beginning and throughout its gradual development and growth. The pastoral staff who led and directed the purely "Indian" congregations demonstrated the "apostolic" characteristics of Dr. Rowlands' ministry among them. It was a true "bishopric" which Dr. Rowlands exercised among the purely "Indian" racial group in Southern Africa. It is in this context that Luke used the Greek word "bishopric" which Judas lost in his rejection and betrayal of Jesus.

Consequently, it is obviously Scriptural for certain Christian ministers to claim the status of a "bishop," or a ministry that is truly a "bishopric" if the nature and development of their ministry is truly similar in nature and development to that of Pastor J. F. Rowlands among the Asiatic people of Southern Africa. Such ministry is genuinely "apostolic" and according to its use in the New Testament as a "bishopric," or the ministry of a "bishop." Apart from this sole and unique New Testament reference, we have very little New Testament grounds for making specific claims of possessing this specific ministry. There is absolutely no grounds for an ordinary "pastorship" to claim to be a "bishopric" scripturally. Since Luke's reference to the word "bishopric" is the only reference that we have, we have no interpretative right to use the term in reference to any other type of ministry. He used the word "bishopric" in sole reference to the ministry of Christ's apostles. There are many places in the church world-wide where real "apostolic" ministry can be Biblically designated as a true "bishopric." However, if we are going to stand upon what we absolutely "know" about its sole scriptural reference, we must conclude that it referred to what is generally known as an "apostolic" and unique type of that specific kind of ministry.

As we seek to properly interpret the meaning of "bishopric" as Luke used it, we have no interpretative right to broaden its meaning beyond its sole Biblical usage. Luke's reference to the active ministry of a bishop applies exclusively to the apostolic ministry of Christ's apostles, and all others who possessed that organizational and apostolic type of pioneer outreach over the centuries. These facts are the reasons why over the centuries of Church history the term "bishop" is one that does not apply to all preachers or Christian ministers. There is absolutely no valid argument that gives general credence to the use of the term "bishop" for everyone in pastoral ministry! Let us remember--if we are going to use Biblical terms, we must be BIBLICAL!

The Greek/English New Testament in its reference to the Greek word for “Bishop,” which is episkopeen, referred to it as “office” rather than a divine calling (note Acts 1:20) in the Greek/English Interlineal New Testament. In the Christian Church down through the ages all “office” holders were appointed by the leadership of the body of believers to specific positions of service. The other words that were used to translate its meaning were such terms as “overseer”, or “shepherd”, meaning “caretaker”, “supervisor” or “director”. Such positions in the local churches of New Testament times were “appointments” by each local church, and never the response or reaction to a divine call from God. Each local church has a right to appoint local leadership in areas where such leadership is called for. Pastor J. F. Rowlands was called by God to work among the Asiatic Indians of South Africa. Since that call was so obviously to the South African church he was APPOINTED as their missionary to the Asiatic Indians in Southern Africa. Before his death in 1980 he led more than fifty thousand Indians to Christ! We must also remember that every one of Christ’s apostles was appointed by Him to their apostleship! If a “calling” was involved as identifying a ministry, it was recognized as such and the responsible body of believers accepted it and officially approved or appointed the individual to the “office” or “position” to which God had called him.

I am convinced that it is the scriptural text and not denominational or local Christian leadership that must govern the use of the term "bishop." It seems that over the years the desire to be called a "bishop" rises and falls due to interests that may not always be either scriptural or spiritual. The Christian ministry has always been plagued by notoriety-seekers. Whenever this is the motivation for adding titles to God's call, the reasons are always selfish and spiritually questionable. If ministers really understand that the term "bishop" truly means an apostolic-type ministry, perhaps the terms would not be so sought-after because apostolic ministry manifests personal sacrifice and self-denial. Neither one of these graces has been strongly evident in those who are mere "title-seekers." Genuine "apostolic" bishoprics are achieved only by real spiritual sacrifice, suffering, and self-denial. This status in ministry is never self-designated! It is achieved only by the general and spiritual recognition that it gains gradually and generally among other observant believers. On those occasions in my ministry when I have been asked about sought-after titles, I have asked directly WHY they are being sought. In at least 75% of the cases, the response to my question was not spiritually satisfactory to me! If and when any man of God seeks new and imagined higher titles to attach to his ministry, he usually needs to be referred to Proverbs 27:2, which gives this good advice: "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips." The only notoriety that a man of God should appreciate is the unsolicited voluntary praise of other godly people!
† Back to top

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. M. G. McLuhan, past IMF President, and his wife Merle, have been in Christian service for many years. Their first 16 years found them in pastoral and radio ministry in Western Canada, and in Bible College service culminating in the Presidency of Northwest Bible College in the Dakotas. The next 16 years found them in missionary and Bible College work in Central Africa. For the next 16 years, they were back in the U.S. promoting missions and service as Associate Pastor at Mount Paran Church in Atlanta, GA (8,000 members). They just concluded their fourth 16 years of service with memories of teaching in Europe, Siberia, Singapore, Australia and the U.S. while serving eight years as President of IMF. Dr. McLuhan has recently written and published a book for pastors called A Higher Road to Ministry. It is available in Christian book stores.