church government is it taboo to talk about?

[Smeadly]

I desire a local church government set up with Pauls teaching in mind but even approaching the subject is like wacking a nest of hornets and brings out dark spirits. Why is his way so hated among Christian leadership?

 

[PloverWing]

There are many forms of church government being practiced now, all with some support from the New Testament. Some churches are congregational, some have bishops, some have groups of elders, some have no ordained clergy at all. Are you unable to find a church that fits your understanding of Paul's teaching?

 

[David Lamb]

I desire a local church government set up with Pauls teaching in mind but even approaching the subject is like wacking a nest of hornets and brings out dark spirits. Why is his way so hated among Christian leadership?

I haven't come across any hatred of biblical teaching on church government among church leaders, though I suppose in denomination where the bible is not the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice, such a hatred would be more likely.

 

[Smeadly]

There are many forms of church government being practiced now, all with some support from the New Testament. Some churches are congregational, some have bishops, some have groups of elders, some have no ordained clergy at all. Are you unable to find a church that fits your understanding of Paul's teaching?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I believe a board of overseers ought to be made up of older men — fathers whose children are all in the faith and who honor them. As Scripture says, “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise) — Ephesians 6:2. That kind of honor isn’t just about childhood obedience; it’s lifelong respect, a recognition of a man’s integrity and how he’s led his household.


When such a man is asked to serve as an overseer, that’s what I believe Scripture calls double honor (1 Timothy 5:17). The first honor is earned in the home. The second comes when the congregation recognizes his faithfulness and asks him to help shepherd the church without pay. It’s not about status — it’s about proven character and the fruit of a well-ordered life.


I don’t believe overseers or ministers should come from seminaries, but from within the congregation — men already known and tested. They must be faithful, have children who are not unruly, be the husband of one wife, and live blamelessly.


And I see ministry being unpaid as essential. Paul said, “What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge…” and he warned against “filthy lucre.” He knew that seeking pay could lead to abusing the power of the gospel, and I believe that concern still holds true.


This isn’t just a personal view — it’s the biblical model I believe we’re called to follow if we want the church to remain faithful, grounded, and accountable. Your thoughts?

 

[JustaPewFiller]

.....And I see ministry being unpaid as essential. Paul said, “What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge…” and he warned against “filthy lucre.” He knew that seeking pay could lead to abusing the power of the gospel, and I believe that concern still holds true.....

Is this just for the overseers or the pastor / priest as well?

Asking as those in that position still need a place to live, food to eat, a way to pay bills etc. Are you proposing they be bi-vocational or another way?

I admit it is a touchy subject. I think the excesses of some of the mega-rich pastors are just shameful. But, I wouldn't want my pastor worrying if he could afford to to buy food, clothing, transportation, housing for himself and his family either.

As for why church government is a touchy subject. Well, it is just human nature, people tend not to want their apple carts upset. But, I wouldn't call it hatred..

 

[PloverWing]

This isn’t just a personal view — it’s the biblical model I believe we’re called to follow if we want the church to remain faithful, grounded, and accountable. Your thoughts?

I'd say that it's one model of church government that's consistent with the New Testament. It's a model that's followed in some house churches, I think.

Do you envision each congregation being organizationally separate from other congregations, or do you envision some kind of larger group (spanning a US state, or a nation, or a continent, for example) that the individual congregations would be affiliated with?

 

[Smeadly]

I'd say that it's one model of church government that's consistent with the New Testament. It's a model that's followed in some house churches, I think.

Do you envision each congregation being organizationally separate from other congregations, or do you envision some kind of larger group (spanning a US state, or a nation, or a continent, for example) that the individual congregations would be affiliated with?

Im just a guy, I have 9 married kids, 30 gk's and we go to a church that does not do it this way. A calvary chapel moses model church government) I have studied this topic for decades and fasted days on end to get it right (more probably better said I have it righter than I had it) anyway if overseers were the grandpas (according to scriptural qualifications and released if their kids go haywire) all with at least several adult children and all of their children were christian and unaccused, those guys could manage the church easily. lets say that represents the 7 largest families so at 2 kids each there is 14 young adult children and their spouses. Not to mention the unqalifed but still sold out..... Since there is enough overseers to assign the teaching if they can't or wont dont you think there is enough talent to do it without pay? If I pay a guy he is hired, and if he is hired how is he not a hireling? Use the money saved to pay hireling salaries to reach and serve and bless the lost!

 

[PloverWing]

I hadn't heard of the Moses model of church government before you mentioned it. I've now googled it, and it seems to be a form of government that places a lot of authority and responsibility in the hands of one senior pastor.

I've heard of Calvary Chapel before, but I'm not really familiar with how the congregations work. Is there some kind of board of elders/overseers/lay leaders, or is everything in the hands of the pastor? If so, have you had opportunity to serve on that board of elders? Did you find it a rewarding experience, or did you feel like you weren't allowed to do enough things in the church?

 

[Smeadly]

I've been attending Calvary Chapel for about 16 years, keeping my involvement minimal and advising my children to do the same. The pastor appoints men to assist him and calls them elders. I take issue with this title because all fathers are elders. These appointed men are more like hybrid bishops, with advisory authority only. Ideally, they should function as a board, mutually dismissing each other if any of their children go astray or they get weird. They should also be the ones who appoint teaching and preaching staff from within the congregation or their own ranks. I take issue with the ministers having any authority and should not be involved in the overseers decision making. (“in my kingdom it shall not be so”) What I mean is that is what I see in scripture.

In my property management business, I direct managers clearly—if they don't follow instructions, they're out. This direct approach is there in Calvary Chapel’s authority structure but is vested in the pastor instead of the board of overseers.




If an "elder" (or hybrid bishop) raises an issue with the pastor and simply says "stop it,” the pastor can dismiss and replace him, leading to a cautious environment. I find that restrictive in that if I were on the board of overseers I don’t have time to tiptoe around baby mens feelings my time is too valuable they can either shape up or ship out!




Their system is unequal, though the ministry is friendly, it keeps leaders in an untouchable position. A minister by definition is a servant, (deakokos) He is suppose to be subject to the bishop (episkopos) not the other way around and true authority is vested in permission of the congregation.



The only option for a layman (a natural elder as per Scripture) dissatisfied with the situation is to leave.

To my “pastor’s” credit, he has selected some of the best from the congregation, but their appointment lacks congregation input or authority.


Except for "children's church," the congregation has no say or involvement in other matters. The system functions well with a good pastor, which we have, but can be unsettling with a less capable ones. ( Google calvary chapel problems with replacing a pastor)

Our pastor is retiring after 32 years and has appointed a new successor, which seems abrupt to me. The new guy is young and I knew him as a teen, I great kid and a good boy, but a boy and now granted full authority over the whole thing. I sense shipwreck knowing my children cannot possible step into my shoes and run my business with tearing it up, so one kid is probably going to have a tough time stepping into a 1000 member congregation built by a man over 32 years without having a mental breakdown. Watching this may be interesting but heartbreaking like watching the titanic sink!



Observing past events, anyone who becomes "important" often drifts away quietly so I warned the “pastor” of the probable outcome but stepped back after the warning. The whole thing is built on presumption of the meaning of “Elder” and that is such a steeped tradition it cannot be moved.

Regarding my involvement, I prefer to delegate tasks that others can do just as well or better—I'm both lazy and busy. I believe in the church's authority to call men to service. Unless there's a decision to change the governance structure, I wouldn't accept any request to be an “elder” even if offered, I have way better things to do than to dance on eggshells for a title.



Our church provides valuable community service many community members come and are saved, We have 25 or so baptisms maybe twice a year. It's the largest in our 50k metro area, with over 1,000 attendees on Sundays. It's a hybrid bible model just like everyone else’s some good and some bad, and while it functions, it's not without its quirks.

 

[PloverWing]

I see. Your church seems to place an extraordinary amount of power in the hands of one single pastor. (And he chooses his successor as well? That's a new one to me.)

My church tradition has more checks and balances built into the system than yours does. Our vestry (our version of a board of elders) is made up of people who are elected by the congregation and who serve 3-year terms, then end their terms so someone else can take a turn. Our pastors are hired by the congregations; there's no limit on term of service, but typically pastors move on to another congregation after 10 years or so, so that everyone remembers that the church is bigger than just one particular pastor. The pastor does make many decisions in the church (especially regarding what happens on Sunday mornings), but there are some church-related decisions that require a majority vote from the vestry or congregation or both.

It sounds like your church does good things and nurtures your spiritual growth, but that it also has a form of government that makes you uncomfortable. It also (unfortunately) sounds like there's not much opportunity for reform from within the church, since the pastor evidently doesn't take advice from the elders or lay members. So your options are probably to stay and cope with the uncomfortable system, or leave and seek a church with a different structure. There are tradeoffs there, and it's something you'll have to decide for yourself.

This did catch my eye, though:

I've been attending Calvary Chapel for about 16 years, keeping my involvement minimal and advising my children to do the same.

If you're keeping your involvement minimal, why do you stay? Are you happy with minimal involvement, or would you rather be in a place where you could exercise your ministry more fully?

For myself, one reason I attend church is because there are ministries I can do in cooperation with other Christians that I can't do all by myself. If the church isn't a place where I work with other Christians to do the work of God in the world, I'm not sure why I'd even be there.

Would you be able to do God's work better if you were in a place where you didn't have to keep your involvement minimal?

 

[Smeadly]

You ask good honest hard seeking question, I go there because it is spoon fed easy, and there are lots of others going. I guess I like it! The prophets prophesy falsely, the priest bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so? I know that is a horrible thing to say, but have no idea how to fix it! I would rather The church stepped up and protected that Kid I watched grow up, than me have a fit and leave! I'll be there as much as possible to do what I can. Jacob told his brother Esau to go on so he could go slow and let his family keep up. If you find a church that does not do it right but sort of does...... As far as ministry, with 50 souls in my immediate family (children and grandchildren), If I did an exemplary job I would think I arrived, I probably don't have much need to go out to others too much, I certainly do not want to.

 

[PloverWing]

It sounds like you have your hands full, as the patriarch of a large family!

I hope you're able to guide this young pastor in his new ministry.

 

[9Rock9]

Part of it is that everyone has their own opinions about how the church should be run. Some bake it into their identity to the point that it's in their name, like Episcopalians and Presbyterians.

Baptists are also like this in ther the autonomy of the local church is one of our essentials, although we wouldn't call ourselves Congregationalists outside of the context of ecclesiology, though a Congregationalist denomination also exists.

I think the moral character of the church leaders, and the things they are teaching are more important than how the church is organized.

 

[stevevw]

I desire a local church government set up with Pauls teaching in mind but even approaching the subject is like wacking a nest of hornets and brings out dark spirits. Why is his way so hated among Christian leadership?

I believe it is the very reason why we will see a rising up of bold and couragous Christian leaders and Christians in the future and maybe even beginning now. Or been in the process for some time.

If you think about it Christianity was born in a time where it was hated. Yet the leaders and everyday Christians were willing to live like Christ and die for Christ.

I think as the world and especially the west have moved away from God they have become like Rome as a pagan Empire. Thus once again Christianity is becoming hated.

So as a result the Christ church will likewise evolve as a response to meet this world. Christians will be called to stand on their faith more and more. They will be made seperate from the world and against the world more and more. But bold Christians will respond in the way Paul, Timothy, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and many everyday Christians who gave their life not just in death but in their labor asa sacrifice for Christ.

I have been reading Pauls teachings and we can derive many ways in which an Overseer and church should be modelled. But I also find the letters from Clement who was a disciple of Peter and Ignatius a disciple of John are very insightful. Because here we see how the church evolved after the disciples. We see the first generation of how Christians lived and practiced their faith.

Clement mentions in his writings 8 new testament books by 95AD. So we know Peter, Paul, John and James's teachings were cental at the time.

I respect these church fathers like the disciples. Just as Paul did to Timothy, Barnabas, Silas and Titus and as Peter and John did for Clement and Ignatius and others. From them we can learn a lot about what Paul taught and how we should order Christs church.

 

[Smeadly]

what crackks me up is the role of elders has been stolen by the clergy and even clement warned us it was happening then" just a few filthy lucre loving men destroying the natural government and authority of elders. (not an office but a person with youngers)

 

[David Lamb]

what crackks me up is the role of elders has been stolen by the clergy and even clement warned us it was happening then" just a few filthy lucre loving men destroying the natural government and authority of elders. (not an office but a person with youngers)

Have I understood you correctly? Are you saying that there is not such thing as the position/office of "elder" in the local church, and that it just refers to members who are older in years? If so, why would Paul write to Titus:

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you — ” (Tit 1:5 NKJV)

If elders were just the older church members, why did they need to be appointed?

 

[Smeadly]

Have I understood you correctly? Are you saying that there is not such thing as the position/office of "elder" in the local church, and that it just refers to members who are older in years? If so, why would Paul write to Titus:

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you — ” (Tit 1:5 NKJV)

If elders were just the older church members, why did they need to be appointed?

That is a really great question and it along with another reference to 'elders" has an equally elegant answer.... I would be delighted to explain any you want to pull and post that has just as good a reason to only mean older people with youngers.

First of all look to the next verse to find the context,

v5 Appoint elders v 7 for the bishop.....

So the bishop or bishops are appointed out of a pool of elders. If I were to say to you "appoint men to be the leaders of the boys club" Did the appointment make them men or did it make men leaders? The same with these verses, did the appointment make the unnamed group of people elders, or did the appointment of certain qualified elders to become bishops? By the way an elder is one because nature puts him over his family, though he is a skunk and sinner his children are what make him an elder, Paul said look among the people and use his list of qualifications to find those elders that are saintly, rule their house well, and a number of moral qualifications to the appointment of bishops.

 

[David Lamb]

That is a really great question and it along with another reference to 'elders" has an equally elegant answer.... I would be delighted to explain any you want to pull and post that has just as good a reason to only mean older people with youngers.

First of all look to the next verse to find the context,

v5 Appoint elders v 7 for the bishop.....

So the bishop or bishops are appointed out of a pool of elders. If I were to say to you "appoint men to be the leaders of the boys club" Did the appointment make them men or did it make men leaders? The same with these verses, did the appointment make the unnamed group of people elders, or did the appointment of certain qualified elders to become bishops? By the way an elder is one because nature puts him over his family, though he is a skunk and sinner his children are what make him an elder, Paul said look among the people and use his list of qualifications to find those elders that are saintly, rule their house well, and a number of moral qualifications to the appointment of bishops.

OK so here is Titus 1:5-7:

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you — if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,” (Tit 1:5-7 NKJV)

Nothing there to say that a bishop is to be appointed out of a pool of elders. No, the elders were appointed , as elders. No mention of looking at a pool of older men and appointing some of them as bishops. The word in the original Greek is "presbuteros". The Greek NT Lexicon I use has this entry, which shows that although it can mean an older person, it also has other meanings:

4245 πρεσβύτερος presbuteros [pres-boo’-ter-os]

comparative of presbus (elderly); adj; TDNT-6:651,931; [{ See TDNT 659 }]

AV-elder 64, old man 1, eldest 1, elder woman 1; 67

1) elder, of age,
1a) the elder of two people
1b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior

2) a term of rank or office
2a) among the Jews
2a1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2a2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
2b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies; (or churches) the NT uses the term bishop, overseers, 1985 pastors, 4166 elders, and presbyters 4245 interchangeably [{Ac 20:17,28 Eph 4:11 Tit 1:5,7 1Pe 5:1-4 etc. }]
2c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

 

[Smeadly]

When I look at the word cheirotoneo—which means “to appoint” or “to choose”—in Titus 1:5, I notice that the case and usage suggest Paul is telling Titus to do something to elders, not to make someone who isn’t already an elder into one. In other words, the appointment is an action performed on those who are already recognized as elders in some way, rather than creating elders out of unnamed individuals.


Then, when I read verse 7, Paul suddenly talks about bishops (episkopos). If “elders” and “bishops” meant exactly the same thing, this shift wouldn’t make much sense. The fact that Paul uses two different terms suggests to me that there is some kind of distinction between them. Maybe “elders” refers to older, respected men in the community, and “bishops” are those among them who are specifically appointed to oversee the church.


I want to be clear that, for myself, I do not see “elder” (presbuteros) as meaning an appointed office in the New Testament—unless there are explicit qualifiers, like “elders of the church.” From my perspective, the word simply refers to older, men, not to a formal church position.


That said, I do recognize that the dictionary definition you referenced includes both meanings. While I personally hold to the natural, descriptive sense of the word, I’m not trying to force anyone to abandon their understanding if they see it differently. I think it’s important for each of us to follow the context and our conscience as we study these passages.


For me, the context of Titus 1, especially with the shift from “elders” to “bishops,” supports my view. But I respect that others may read it differently, and I’m open to continued discussion as we each seek to understand the text as faithfully as possible.


So, putting it all together:

• The verb cheirotoneo shows that the appointment is done to elders, not that it creates elders.
• The use of both “elders” and “bishops” in the passage indicates they are not identical terms.
• This supports my understanding that “elder” doesn’t automatically mean an appointed office unless the text qualifies it as such.

That’s why I believe the text distinguishes between being an elder by age or status and being appointed to a specific leadership office like bishop. If you would like rate the possibility I am right compared to you are right or post another set to look at and we can look it them.

 

[David Lamb]

When I look at the word cheirotoneo—which means “to appoint” or “to choose”—in Titus 1:5, I notice that the case and usage suggest Paul is telling Titus to do something to elders, not to make someone who isn’t already an elder into one. In other words, the appointment is an action performed on those who are already recognized as elders in some way, rather than creating elders out of unnamed individuals.


Then, when I read verse 7, Paul suddenly talks about bishops (episkopos). If “elders” and “bishops” meant exactly the same thing, this shift wouldn’t make much sense. The fact that Paul uses two different terms suggests to me that there is some kind of distinction between them. Maybe “elders” refers to older, respected men in the community, and “bishops” are those among them who are specifically appointed to oversee the church.


I want to be clear that, for myself, I do not see “elder” (presbuteros) as meaning an appointed office in the New Testament—unless there are explicit qualifiers, like “elders of the church.” From my perspective, the word simply refers to older, men, not to a formal church position.


That said, I do recognize that the dictionary definition you referenced includes both meanings. While I personally hold to the natural, descriptive sense of the word, I’m not trying to force anyone to abandon their understanding if they see it differently. I think it’s important for each of us to follow the context and our conscience as we study these passages.


For me, the context of Titus 1, especially with the shift from “elders” to “bishops,” supports my view. But I respect that others may read it differently, and I’m open to continued discussion as we each seek to understand the text as faithfully as possible.


So, putting it all together:

• The verb cheirotoneo shows that the appointment is done to elders, not that it creates elders.
• The use of both “elders” and “bishops” in the passage indicates they are not identical terms.
• This supports my understanding that “elder” doesn’t automatically mean an appointed office unless the text qualifies it as such.

That’s why I believe the text distinguishes between being an elder by age or status and being appointed to a specific leadership office like bishop. If you would like rate the possibility I am right compared to you are right or post another set to look at and we can look it them.

I think it is clear we are not going to agree on this, so rather than keep repeating the same (or similar) arguments back and forth to each other, I think I will leave it there. Thanks for the discussion.