“I think the baptists are avoiding the word bishop lest it be confused with some hierarchical churches. In other words, politics.”
Perhaps. The Baptists largely formed in England, but England or the Continent, they were persecuted for not submitting to the state-approved church.
However, it also avoids some of the baggage that goes with the meaning of the English word ‘Bishop’. The primary dictionary meaning of Bishop is “a person who supervises a number of local churches or a diocese, being in the Greek, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other churches a member of the highest order of the ministry”. (dictionary.com)
For Baptists, such a person doesn’t exist. The CONGREGATION has an overseer, or elders, or bishop - but that role is strictly limited to the individual congregation. No one supervises multiple congregations for Baptists. Each congregation is completely independent. The SBC is a group of like-minded congregations, but the President of the SBC has no authority over any congregation save his own.
Many Baptist refuse to be part of any organization. Others, like the SBC, join together to provide financial support to seminaries and missionaries - but we have no bishops, in the typical English meaning of the word. So we don’t use it.
I think the scripture supports either approach. The church I was part of in the Philippines may have come closest to how the NT church was organized. Clark Field Baptist Church had started over 50 other churches. We had ZERO authority over any of them, but if they had questions, they would often ask us about it. The pastor of Clark Field didn’t rule over anyone, but the other congregations respected him. That is about as close as I’ve seen of a Baptist church with a ‘bishop’.
I totally understand that, given the autonomous makeup of Baptist assemblies.
No one supervises multiple congregations for Baptists
Here is the rub, I think. What authority, if any, does the SBC have and what purpose does it serve if not to exercise some sort of control over "like-minded" congregations?
The church I was part of in the Philippines may have come closest to how the NT church was organized
Except that the NT churches were subject to apostolic authority. Most of Paul's epistles are basically "meddling" in other churches' business, telling them what to do, what not to do, and even giving them commandments of his own.
I think reducing Christian assemblies to unsupervised sovereign bodies is not indicative of how the NT Church was organized. The autonomy existed between the apostles, as there was no lording over them, but there was no inherent autonomy in the individual congregations collectively speaking. I think the Bible is very clear that not everyone can interpret, or prophesy, or teach, etc.
Again, thanks for the input.