Denominations from the Protestant reformation have inherited a mindset from the Mother of all churches that God is pleased with the formation of local church organizations composed of bishops or an equivalent rank who rule over the people. Some traditions make the clergy/laity distinction more pronounced than others. Yet, the effect is the same – the separation of the church leadership from the people. The rule of Christ in His church is not the measure of rank and status among kings and underlings. Every disciple is equal in rank, have access to the same gospel message, and are accountable as steward in the same body. Though it is true that more is required from those to whom much is given (cf. Luke 12:48), we do not divide ourselves in rank and order of authority. The Hebrew writer explains that the new covenant would not be the same character as the old covenant. He quotes Jeremiah’s prophecy in verse 10 and 11 of chapter 8:
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, And every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’: For all shall know me, From the least to the greatest of them.”
In institutionalism, the people (who, by definition, should be the “called out”) become members of the church organization as passive recipients. They are the supporters, not the players. They go to church to receive the blessings. The pastor/preacher preaches to them and the leadership expects the people to be there or suffer the consequences (in some cases, their membership). As opposed to this practice, the Scriptures teach that those in the kingdom of Christ are the people who reign as kings and priests unto our God. We are accountable for ourselves to study, apply its teachings and grow thereby.
Today’s preachers of the Protestant world often carry this same presence of authority and the membership expects him/her to have the answers, also. When any layperson challenges the teaching of a local pastor, they immediately feel under attack because it causes others to doubt their ability and authority. Rather than view them as mere men, we have elevated them to positions of authority that God never gave them. It is common to see the preacher on the defensive to establish his position of authority when his views are publicly challenged. Not believing he can afford to lose his position, he may start applying some Greek words to intimidate the objector and convince the audience into accepting his conclusions. This sounds very similar to Paul’s description of men who lead others from the faith. It is another form of enforcing one’s view as an official of the church organization and comes very close to Diotrephes, who loved to have the preeminence.
While this is only a summary of the historical background from which the institutional church began, we propose that viewing the church as an institution has its roots in the apostasy that led to the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Ultimately a “universal bishop” or “pope” was designated (Boniface III) in 606 A.D., establishing the beginning of the Catholic Church as we know it.
Some would make similar general conclusions of church history as laid out here, but not see the problem with its development. Again, let’s review the biblical pattern. First, the “church,” is never referred to in the Scriptures as an authoritative body of bishops who define true doctrine and to which people must go to receive the truth and approval of God. The church is the translation of a Greek word that arguably describes an institution/organization that is not found in the Scriptures. The Greek word is ekklesia and these are God’s people who have mature men among them, who live an exemplary life of discipleship and lead by teaching and example (1 Peter 5:2-3). There is a huge difference between elected officials who elevate themselves over others by “calling all the shots” in an organization and men who gain the confidence of other Christians because of their work and labor of love. Bishops are overseers of souls, motivated from a love for souls. They are not in positions of authority where they dictate their understanding of all revelation to be accepted by all others. Instead, they have been entrusted with the spiritual oversight of souls and therefore, work among saints, over whom they admonish in the Lord (1 Thess. 5:12). Two other passages explain the concept of their labor and rule. First, 1 Timothy 5:17 tells us they labor in the word and in teaching. Hebrews 13:7 describes their “rule” as men who speak the word of God. As already stated, the faith has been delivered. These men are teaching what is already revealed. Second, 1 Peter 5:2 explains that they are not lords but are examples to the flock.
By the time of Ignatius, the bishops occupied an official rule that is not found in Scripture. How can we move from this Biblical description to a body of decision-makers that call the shots in “the church?” The only way to get to this point is to erect an institution that requires that kind of power. This “visible church” gives such men of authority validation and a place to wield the control. Whatever the Bishops taught became the orthodox view of the organization. The institutional church with its hierarchy was well established and has been passed down from generation to generation. To this day, people depend on “going to church” for their spiritual life. All blessings trickled down to them from the local church.