The Government of the Church
There is no argument that the church was ordained by God as a work of Christ by the Holy Spirit. That the church has endured countless internal and external persecution is a testament to its being anointed as part of God’s chosen work on this earth. However much the church is vital, though, the fact remains that we in the church have been left without a clear, unarguable set of governing principles which would organize this oft motley collection of people. In short though we have been told to organize we have not been told exactly how, which has led to many within the church to seek to rectify this lamentable state. Over the course of history there have been certain models which can be roughly grouped into three different types of governing organization. It is the goal of this paper to briefly present these three views and then to add a few thoughts of my own, informed by my tradition, about the government of the Church.
The first broad category of government which has been formed in the course of church history is commonly called the hierarchical or Episcopal model. Essentially, this model has as its base the idea of authority being vested in a few leaders, whose authority is then dispersed throughout the church. These figures of authority are most commonly referred to as bishops. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Church exemplify this type of church government model. The idea behind this model is that the authority of Christ was initially passed directly to his Apostles, who upon their deaths passed on the leadership of the various churches to other hand picked leaders, who then passed it on, with this line of succession continuing until this day. The authority of the various bishops then derives from the Apostles themselves. These bishops hold the key to the church, with no activity being able to be called part of the church if not in fellowship with the local bishop.
The second model of government spreads out the total authority a little more broadly. In the representative or Presbyterian model each local community has representatives who assemble to govern the church of the various regions. There are varying levels of representation with the General Assembly being a broad representative ruling body for the Church as a whole. This style of government is best represented by the Presbyterian Church, in all of its various manifestations. The leadership of the church is ultimately derived from the people with the church, who then choose certain leaders to then exercise authority over the church as a whole. The work of Christ is through the people, though represented by the certain leaders who the people choose to govern the body. Thus although there is a hierarchy within the structure, this hierarchy is not based on inherent position but on the people who choose this hierarchy.
In the Independent model, there is not a similar model of an overarching government for the various congregations. Rather, each congregation is allowed to be essentially self-governing, with the individuals in those congregations able to choose the specifics of church structure and leadership as it relates to their own context. Though there are certainly “associations”, such as the various Baptist denominations, there is not necessarily a governing board with absolute authority. Those within the congregations are assumed to be able and willing to make their own decisions in regards to faith and ministry apart from any type of broader governmental structure. The government of these churches derives from the people of the church, rather than the church being derived from the authority of the leadership.
In looking at the earliest Christian documents we can be assured of one thing, that there is not any prescribed model which has been commanded for us to follow. Rather, the early writings tend to point to the fact that much of what has developed in the area of church government was as much a response to a certain crisis or need as it was a symbol or official dictate of the earliest leaders. Basically, there is no single model represented, while we can find evidence for multiple models being allowed to exist in different areas depending mostly on the issues and needs of each individual community. My own Baptist tradition has many difficulties but has itself arisen from the difficulties which are found in the other models. The question of hierarchical leadership concerns what one is to do if the person appointed as a leader is clearly not leading in a way which was commanded by Christ and his Apostles. Though at times this may be a fine line, there have certainly been points in history during which those anointed as Christ’s special servants served only themselves. To follow this kind of leadership is to reposition oneself as a servant of Christ to a servant of a certain model or person.
However, there is clearly a need for defined leadership roles, and a place for those who are specially trained to serve as leaders within the church setting. Indeed the question often is not necessarily about different models but on the scope of each model. Certainly an independent church such as Willowcreek in Illinois is hierarchical not democratic, with Bill Hybels acting essentially in the role of Bishop for a community of 20,000 or more people. Yet, the fact remains that this may not in my mind be the best model. Certainly a church which is run by one or a few will take the shape of the emphases of the one or the few, rather than taking the shape of the whole.. The church is indeed a body, and to function at its utmost requires that each individual not only be allowed to attend but also allowed to take part in influencing the direction and emphases of each local community, being fluid rather than static in its various ministries so as to best relate Christ to the world around it. Thus, while I appreciate the value of defined leadership, this leadership must at all times be responsive not only to its individual concerns and focus, but must also be aware of how each community is shaped and gifted by the Holy Spirit. Thus, it seems that only in a model which allows for strong congregational input can effectively be shaped in this way. There is, however, a great need for churches to find unity not in how they are in governed here on earth, but rather to find their unity in the common confession of Jesus as Lord. If this concept is encouraged, we can learn to relate to those who may differ in how they wish to operate in this world but do not differ in how they wish to live in the next.
