BIBLICAL PATTERNS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT

For two days this past week I sat in a seminary classroom in Moscow to listen to a Russian Orthodox priest speak about the nuances of Orthodoxy and give his perspective on Evangelicalism. Apart from his preconceived ideas about Texans, his theological method was for the most part sound and gave me some insight into how many Russians think about the church government. Since the time the Christian Church was officially founded on the day of Pentecost, various modes of church government have emerged. These patterns of polity have tended to reflect secular political preference, and proponents have often interpreted Scripture accordingly. Biblical texts have produced three mainline patterns for consideration. However, some newer trends for church polity on international mission fields are beginning to emerge. I would suggest that a survey of these varied interpretations might lead to a principle-based model rather than a blind denominational adherence.

Historical Considerations
In the beginning, local churches were planted as very simple organizations. But as the church expanded throughout the Roman Empire, local organizations required some type of strong leadership. Although the church was united until the Great Schism of A.D. 1054, it continued to operate under a hierarchal structure until the blood shed in the sixteenth century. At that time the Great Reformation brought about a shift in thinking about hierarchy, and new patterns for polity surfaced. Church history can be divided into a pre-Reformation phase highlighted by Eastern hierarchies and a post-Reformation phase with elements of Western plurality and independence. Perhaps Postmodernists are already creating another phase, but it helps to think of a dichotomous modern Russian in these terms.

Formal Governmental Structures in the Church
These three structural patterns are called by various names throughout church history, but they can be most readily identified today as Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational. There are some similarities and many differences between the three. Each pattern has its own biblical defense for its choice of polity, but each one represents some form of accountability.

Episcopal Form of Government
Episcopal polity is a hierarchal structure with a careful separation of clergy and laity. Proponents of the Episcopal pattern believe this was the “the system of government handed down by the Apostles” (Ray R. Sutton, Captains and Courts: A Biblical Defense of Episcopal Government: 71). Some historians say that Ignatius (A.D. 50-120) and Irenaeus (A.D. 150) attest to “a three-tiered ecclesiastical hierarchy involving a monarchical episcopate” (Andreas J. Kostenberger, “The New Testament Pattern of Church Government,” a paper presented at the annual Sizemore Lectures at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Kansas City, Mo.: 5 October, 2005, page 3). Episcopalians say that “hierarchy is inescapable. If it is not established through an orderly system of designating captains through the government of the Church, Biblical and Ecclesiastical criteria, a hierarchy will be arrived at on the basis of other standards” (Sutton, 3). The largest group of support for Episcopal polity tends to come from parishioners still located in within a secular monarchy or other strong government leadership.

Advocates of a hierarchal polity derive their position from both Old and New Testaments as well as from church history itself. Episcopalians, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans take this hermeneutical approach from an Old Testament interpretation of Moses’ organizational method as per Jethro’s suggestions. Some have appealed to the Melchizedek model of pastoral and legal hierarchy for the church as well. This Exodus 18 interpretation leads to not only a hierarchy but a clear division between clergy and laity.

These adherents take the Greek work episkopos, meaning overseer, to be the foundational core for their biblical hermeneutic. They also use New Testament passages like the Acts 7:38 assembly in the wilderness to infer an Episcopal grouping model. They point to Mark 6 to argue that since Jesus organized the fish eaters into groups of fifties and hundreds, he must have intended for the church to also establish this pattern. So as they place a bishop over a diocese, an archbishop over bishops, and have synods to serve as advisory councils, Acts 15 becomes the proof text for a hierarchy of apostles, elders and deacons. Churches then become points of organized government where “a plurality of elders is mandated at the city level but not at the house phase” (Sutton, 71). Even the secondary apostle James of Gal 1:19 is a prototype of an Episcopal bishop under this model.

This pattern remained largely unchallenged in the East or the West until about the sixteenth century AD, but this is relatively an argument from absence of alternatives. During the time of the protestant reformation, the separation of clergy and laity was challenged, and new interpretations of those same passages surfaced. But some protestant branches, namely Methodists and Lutherans, still reflect this ecclesiology.

Presbyterian Form of Government
Presbyterianism was founded by John Knox in the early sixteenth century A.D. to share government among a plurality of leaders. Multiple lay elders that are elected by the congregation to represent them is reflected in the United States government as well. Although opponents of Presbyterianism argue that “lay elders, usually called ruling elders, do not at all fit the Biblical description” (Sutton, 74), Presbyterian ministers are usually teaching elders while the ruling is done on a corporate level by a session or council. The Greek word presbyteros, meaning older, is the basis for this pattern.

Presbyterians cite two sources of authority for their elder-led polity, namely the Pauline narratives and the constitution of the Presbyterian church. Proponents of eldership cite Acts 14:23 as Paul’s pattern for establishing the practice in Gentile congregations and Acts 15:6 as the Jewish implementation. Others cite I Cor 14:29 to express this Pauline preference for leadership plurality that is “safer than a solo leader yet more powerful than a committee” (Neil Cole, Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens, 102). “Since the elder structure of government was established by Paul among Gentile churches (Acts 14:23) and, most likely, by the Twelve among Jewish church (Acts 15:6; James 5:14), the New Testament writers assumed eldership to be a fixed, apostolic institution” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, 115-116). Therefore the Presbyterian constitution, and more specifically their Book of Order, is based upon an eldership interpretation of New Testament leadership. In short, they believe these passages initiative an “apostolic directive” (Strauch, 116).

The Presbyterian “representative form of government puts significant responsibility on all members of the church” (see Jack Rogers, How Presbyterians Make Decisions). Accordingly, they tend to ordain not only clergy, but also elders, deacons and other ministers as representatives for the entire body. When the decisions of this representative body are met with opposition from the main group, there is an appeals process. However, their overall understanding of the presbyteros of the New Testament is a ruling authority that must be obeyed (see G. D. Henderson, ed., The Scots Confesssion of 1560, 62).

Congregational Form of Government
The Reformation was not only noted for its shift in power from clergy to laity, but another political form emerged that removed any division between clergy and laity altogether (at least in theory). Within a congregational or independent body of believers, leadership was shared throughout the whole local church largely based upon a linguistic interchange of the titles overseer and elder. Although Episcopalians may interpret the Pastoral Epistles to render a hierarchy between tiers, “closer scrutiny reveals that the Pastorals do not in fact conform to this model but rather display a synonymous usage of the terms” (Kostenberger, 3). Many Baptists as congregationalists believe that overseers and elders are one and the same office, and since there is no hierarchal ruling distinction, the entire congregation participates in church government. The offices of pastor and deacon are service positions, not necessarily ruling authorities. In essence, congregationalism is closer to pure democracy than the other two biblical patterns.

Congregationalists refute the claim that “any body larger than a local congregation ever made decisions for a New Testament congregation” (John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, 146). Instead, they view the council in Acts 15 as a council of peers making recommendations. If the local autonomy of a unified body is the hallmark of congregationalism, then Jesus becomes the “Monarch, and the church is His consensus-based parliament (with elders as predetermined tie breakers)” (Steve Atkerson, Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical House Church Life, 75).

Accordingly, Congregationalists tend to create small groups where greater application of biblical truth can be explored. “In these groups, people not only discuss biblical texts and listen to their leader’s interesting explanations, but they apply biblical insights to the questions the participants have about everyday life issues” (Christian A. Schwarz, Color Your World with Natural Church Development: Experiencing All that God Has Designed You to Be, 116). They usually call for higher accountability among average church members, because Congregationalists believe that “the gap between the clergy and laity is still too great” (Charles Brock, Indigenous Church Planting: A Practical Journey, 65). Therefore, until the advent of the mega-church during the last century, the vast majority of congregational churches maintained relatively small membership rosters.

Non-traditional Missiological Trends
Some newer non-traditional models are beginning to emerge throughout the world. Departing from the hermeneutical principles that the Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational adherents have used, some groups have treated the Acts 15 passage and Paul’s instructions to Titus and Timothy as descriptive rather than prescriptive. Postmodern groups like the Jesus Freaks International movement of Germany, the Pannkakskyrkan church of Sweden, and some emerging churches like Ecclesia of Houston have redefined titles like overseer, elder, pastor and deacon, and interestingly they are experiencing tremendous membership growth. These more radical groups are within the protestant line of church and believe in biblical authority, but they claim to have contextualized church polity to reflect the more anarchistic spirit of the culture within which they minister. Should missiological trends like these continue, mainline denominations may have to provide more relevant answers to the differences between church leadership structures.

Conclusion
Perhaps there is no one set biblical pattern for church polity. Instead, a correct biblical exegesis of certain terms may reveal a set of principles for local church government. Perhaps terms like overseer and older one are best understood within the context of existing secular government models. But the things that can never diminish are visionary leadership and group accountability with someone somewhere taking the helm and steering the ship. If you provide your church group with “visionary leadership, skills, passion, and co-laborers, but fail to reinforce accountability, the team will experience mixed results, some good and some bad” (David Garrison, Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World, 293). History has shown many cases of both kinds of results, and it wouldn't hurt knowing the full spectrum of preferences when discussing the relationship between, say, Eastern Orthodoxy and western Evangelicalism.

Some Good Resources for further reading:

Appleton, Joann. “Models of Missional Engagement in Europe.” Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the European Church Planting Network. Vilamoura, Portugal, March 3, 2008.

Atkerson, Steve. Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical House Church Life. Atlanta: NTRF, 2005.

Bahnsen, Greg L. “Church Government Briefly Considered.” Ordained Servant 4, no. 1 (January 1995): 9-10.

Brock, Charles. Indigeous Church Planting: A Practical Journey. Neosho, Mo.: Church Growth International, 1994.

Cole, Neil. Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.

Gardner, Robert G. “National Primitive Baptists in Georgia.” Viewpoints 20 (2006): 81-106.

Garrison, David. Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World. Midlothian, Va.: Wigtake, 2004.

Guenther, Bruce L., and Doug Heidebrecht. “The Elusive Biblical Model of Leadership.” Direction Journal 28, no. 2 (Fall 1999). Cited 6 November 2008.

Henderson, G. D., ed. The Scots Confession of 1560. Translated by James Bulloch. Edinburgh, Scotland: Saint Andrews Press, 2007.

Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Kostenberger, Andreas J. “The New Testament Pattern of Church Government.” Paper presented at the annual Sizemore Lectures at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Kansas City, Mo., October 6, 2005.

Rogers, Jack. “How Presbyterians Make Decisions,” Presbyterians Today (April 2003). No pages. Cited 8 December 2008.

Schwarz, Christian A. Color Your World with Natural Church Development: Experiencing All that God Has Designed You to Be. St. Charles, Ill.: ChurchSmart, 2005.

Strauch, Alexander. Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership. Littleton, Colo.: Lewis and Roth, 1995.