"I'm finding it useful in areas like this where there is such a strong disagreement on interpretation to look at what the Apostles actually did. If they believed the interpretation was meant to set up an autocratic hierarchal structure they would have personally picked the Bishops for churches they helped found and declared these Bishops the final authority. Instead, what the Apostles did was assist the various congregations in selecting their own leaders based on the charismatic gifts they possessed and the churches made decisions as a group, or through the elders (plural) that the congregation had selected."
I think if you each take a look at the letters of +Ignatius of Antioch and the Letter of +Polycarp, all available on line, you'll find that the office of bishop, "episkopos" in Greek, was indeed established by the Apostles. Polycarp's letter was written in Greek and there is no doubt about his meaning. The letters of +Ignatius may have originally been written in Aramaic, though that's unlikely. The oldest extant versions are in Greek and the focus on the "episkopos" as standing in the place of Christ within The Church is quite clear. +Ignatius' theology of ecclesiology was that the fullness of The Church was found in a single diocese which was defined as the bishop, surrounded by his clergy and monastics and laity centered on the Eucharist. As he said, there you will find the "catholic (universal) Church". And this is from a man who suceeded +Peter as bishop of Antioch and was a disciple of +John. In fact, +John was still alive and in communication with +Ignatius when he wrote the foregoing.
WF, your description of an "episcopal election" from the early church is pretty much spot on. That practice, by the way, exists to this day in great measure in the Church of Cyprus.
You speak of the hierachal structure of The Church as being autocratic. Certainly it became that way in many places, especially in the West where, on account of any of a number of factors, the Church became a very top down, pyramidal affair with the Pope at the top of the pyramid. In the East, we had and still have in places, autocratic hierarchs. But its harder for them to get away with it in the East. The ecclesiology described by +Ignatius presupposes a "syndeesmos" or synergy among the hierarchs, clergy and laity wherein each has a role but all must work together. Unlike in the West, where a Pope or a council of hierarchs can finally and absolutely order the faithful clergy and laity to do or not do or believe something, in the East it can't work that way. The people have to assent to any proclamation and if they don't, well the rule goes out the window. A prime example of this was the False Union of Florence when Orthodox hierarchs in the 15 th century met in what the Latins call the 8th Ecumenical Council with Latin hierarchs and decided upon a reunion of the Orthodox and Latin Churches. The laity and lower clergy absolutely refused their consent and the union collapsed This system is the rule to this day and a hierarch who tries to abrogate this can and often does loose his position.
Contrary to scripure it did.
The distinction being they were not Apostles. I have not found in Scripture any example of Apostles appointing Bishops. I am beginning to read some of the writings of early Christians and find it fascinating.
The ecclesiology described by +Ignatius presupposes a "syndeesmos" or synergy among the hierarchs, clergy and laity wherein each has a role but all must work together.
The EO who are much closer to this model are much closer to the structure of the earliest Christian communities, IMO.