Church government

Status
Not open for further replies.

TruelightUK

Tilter at religious windmills
Over the centuries, various branches of the Chruch have developed differing patterns for church government - Episcopal, congregational, presbyterian to name but three.

I'd say that many of the terms and titles we use today are taken well out of their original context - but what of the structures themselves? Is there a clear pattern in the New Testament for the organisation of the Church - ie local assemblies and/or the wider fellowship of believing congregations? Who should be 'in charge' - and how does this relate to ministry giftings?

Anthony
 

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"What is the Biblical precedent for this 'democratic' system - and how does this relate to gifts of leadership, elders, overseers etc.??? "

Well I've read a couple of papers on it. I'll have to see if I can dig them up. Well the first thing I would point to is that christ is the head the church is the body. IE in terms of authority its the head that makes the descsions and the body follows. No part of the body is more authoritative then the other. That place is reserved for Christ alone. Leaders are people that see were God is going and shows people.
 
Upvote 0

Christopher

Junior Member
Jan 29, 2002
30
0
Oklahoma
✟15,180.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The scripture bears out much concerning the government of the church in general or local.... The apostles day saw texpansion of the membership and development of the government but the governing principles remained the same... I don't believe that any denomintaion or the Catholic?orthodox churches operate according to the N.T patern of government - though I believe many have attempted to. I would describe the NT order as Theocratic, through the eccleisa and the authorized ministry and it's various positions and offices - thus creating a balance subject to the teaching of Christ ( scripture) and yet when sincerely followed not just balnacing ministry and cinference but creating the enviroment where the Spirit can truly direct the church.

maybe that makes since.. if not I can eloborate... look forward to doing that if you like.

BUT, the bibicla pattern is most definitly A Theocratic form of government through the agency of the Ecclesia and Ministry respectively.

Christopher
 
Upvote 0

TruelightUK

Tilter at religious windmills
Originally posted by Christopher
I would describe the NT order as Theocratic, through the eccleisa and the authorized ministry and it's various positions and offices - thus creating a balance ...where the Spirit can truly direct the church.
An excellent summary overview - like Louis says, a Body where Christ is the Head.

The difficulty comes when you try to translate the principle into practice!

I'd like to say that the various ministry gifts have an important role in this - set in the Church by christ to bring us to maturity - but I don't see them as directly related to church government per se. Thus I am suspicious of some present day interpretation of the Office of Apostle, for example, and also find the title 'Pastor' inappropriate for the overall leader - 'ruler' - of a local congregation.

What I see in the NT is the concept of Elders - some of whom teach the Word, but not all - in a local congregation, with a Bishop (or overseer) supervising or directing them (probably overseeing several local congregations - but not the massive areas of a modern diocese, allowing them to be personally involved in the lives of the congregation).

Anyone have any observations on this?

Anthony
 
  • Like
Reactions: HappyGiraffe
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"also find the title 'Pastor' inappropriate for the overall leader - 'ruler' - of a local congregation. "

Agreed. The leader isn't always the one that taught most of the time. This, I think, it a recent thing. Elders are there to guide the church and keep it in line. The pastors I know are very close to their elders and they even "preach" sometimes. The elders are there to keep the leadership of the church in check through constand communication to the spirit and the congragation.
 
Upvote 0

TruelightUK

Tilter at religious windmills
Originally posted by TruelightUK

What I see in the NT is the concept of Elders - some of whom teach the Word, but not all - in a local congregation, with a Bishop (or overseer) supervising or directing them (probably overseeing several local congregations - but not the massive areas of a modern diocese, allowing them to be personally involved in the lives of the congregation).

Actually, having studied this a little more, I beleive initially the office of 'Bishop' was actually more akin to what we would today call 'Team Vicar/Rector' or 'Senior Pastor' - or perhaps 'local superintendent' in the Methodist system.  Basically the presiding elder of the local congregation; perhaps overseeing assemblies meeting in more than one home in the same town, but definitely not as 'high' in the hierarchy, with so big an area to cover as the modernday use of the title normally implies - something which gradually crept in as the church spread and grew.  Though, actually, I believe some black-led pentecostal denominations do still use the term 'Bishop' in this kind of localised way.

 

Anthony
 
Upvote 0

mellymell

Active Member
Nov 26, 2002
103
1
45
Saint Louis, MO
Visit site
✟15,263.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
IMHO, I believe that church organization rightly flows allows with biblical precedent when done as such (and these are listed in order of authority):

Christ - the Supreme monarch and dictator, the absolute ruler of the church

Apostles - the messengers of Christ sent to establish and maintain order and structure in the houses of God

Pastors - the shepherds of a flock, the chief authority of the local church (the Senior Elder)

Elders/Bishops (used interchangeably in Scripture) - the ruling body of the church in all matters of ministry and business
-- That's it for the authoritative offices, the remaining ministry offices are respected as people of God, but are not actually AUTHORITATIVE in the house
-- evangelist, teacher, prophet (authoritative in the OT, not in the NT), deacon, and the general minister

But, that's just me, and how my particular church is organized... BTW, we are interdenominational.
 
Upvote 0
I'm no expert on this by any means but it is a topic that interests me greatly. I grew up in the Lutheran Church and currently attend an Anglican church. Botyh these traditions have an almost military chain of command form of government that is not very biblical. I think a majot point that gets lost in most discussions of church government of leadership is what "leadership" is supposed to look like in the church. It is not a worldly system of leadership at all. This is why a wordly chain of command hierarchy is incompatible with church government. There is a great web site (I can't post any links to outside sites yet so I'm not sure how I will do this) called New Testament Restoration Foundation (ntrf.org) that has some really great info on the NT church. They specifically have a two part audio presentation on NT Church Government. Well worth checking out.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Tuelight,

I found this in a passage on Nicolaitanism from a link Lamb'slove gave on my Nicolaitanes string:

"With the man-made doctrine of the elevation of bishops to a place not accorded them in Scripture, the next step was the handing out of graded titles that built up into a religious hierarchy; for soon there were archbishops over bishops and cardinals over the archbishops and by the time of Boniface the third there was a pope over all, a Pontiff. "
To answer your 1st post, I'd say Jesus is "in charge", and ministry giftings relate to that fact in one of two ways - agreement or not.

To think we can formulate that relationship into an administrative hierarchy with procedural protocols, I think you're vainly imagining it.

Here's another exerpt:
"He has placed His church in the care of God- ordained, Spirit-filled, Word-living men who lead the people through feeding them the Word. He has not separated the people into classes so that the masses are led by a holy priesthood. It is true that the leadership must be holy, but then so must be the whole congregation. Further, there is no place in the Word where priests or ministers or such mediate between God and the people, nor is there a place where they are separated in their worship of the Lord. God wants all to love and serve Him together. Nicolaitanism destroys those precepts and instead separates the ministers from the people and makes the leaders overlords instead of servants. Now this doctrine actually started as a deed in the first age. It appears that the problem lay in two words: "elders" (presbyters) and "overseers" (bishops). Though Scripture shows that there are several elders in each church, some began (Ignatius among them) to teach that the idea of a bishop was one of preeminence or authority and control over the elders. Now the truth of the matter is the word "elder" signifies who the person is, while the word "bishop" signifies the office of the same man. The elder is the man. Bishop is the office of the man. "Elder" always has and always will refer simply to a man's chronological age in the Lord. He is an elder, not because he is elected or ordained, etc., but because he IS OLDER. He is more seasoned, trained, not a novice, reliable because of experience and long standing proof of his Christian experience. But no, the bishops did not stick to the epistles of Paul, but rather they went to Paul's account of the time he called the elders from Ephesus to Miletus in Acts 20. In verse 17 the record states, "elders" were called and then in verse 28 they are called overseers (bishops). And these bishops, (no doubt political minded and anxious for power) insisted that Paul had given the meaning that "overseers" were more than the local elder with official capacity only in his own church. To them a bishop was now one with extended authority over many local leaders. Such a concept was neither Scriptural nor historical, yet even a man of the stature of Polycarp leaned toward such organization. Thus, that which started as a deed in the first age was made a literal doctrine and so it is today. Bishops still claim power to control men and deal with them as they desire, placing them where they so will in the ministry. This denies the leadership of the Holy Ghost Who said, "Separate Me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them." This is anti-Word and anti-Christ. Matthew 20:25-28, "But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." Matthew 23:8- 9, "But be not ye called Rabbi: for One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for One is your Father, Which is in heaven."

-Cool, huh?
here's the link:
http://www.nathan.co.za/doctrine.asp
 
Upvote 0

dignitized

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2005
24,843
759
✟29,618.00
to think that God works outside of ORDER is foolishness.

Look at the OT. God spoke to MOSES who in turn gave the Message to Aaron who disseminated that information to the people. God did NOT speak to all of Israel, but instead spoke to ONE trusting in that ONE whom HE has anointed to function as His mouthpiece. Does this mean that God spoke ONLY to Moses? NO. But as Scriptures tell us, God does nothing that he does not FIRST tell His prophets. If you reject that God uses men singled out for the ministry and imbued with His authority and His anointing, why is it that so often in the scripture is it recorded God saying to people "Go and tell so-and-so thus says the Lord?"
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You mean funny "ha-ha"? (Just kidding)
Again, the point needs no historical verification other than what is intrinsic to the text.
Yes indeed I agree that to think God's work is without order would be foolhardy. -BTW, what's your point? I couldn't find that in my post - did I say that?
God DID speak to all of Isreal, & not just figuratively speaking, thru his prophets. There was that little incident at Mt Sinai you might recall. Freaked 'em all right out. They asked Him to stop doin' that. Broke my heart 1st time I heard about it. Now it just makes me angry if I dwell on it.
Anyway, yeah, no history books here, but the guy DOES bother to reference scripture here & there. Any of THAT spark yer fancy?
;D
 
Upvote 0

dignitized

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2005
24,843
759
✟29,618.00
rick: It was not God speaking to Israel it was MOSES speaking to Israel on behalf of GOD. Didn't you read my posts? I pointed out that God would speak to Moses and then Moses would speak to Aaron then Aaron would speak to the people all that just to get what he could have just as easily have said to them directly! God worked through ORDER giving the message to his prophet who then gave it to the priests who then gave it to the people - the same ecclesiastical order that exists today. Bishop to priest to people. :)

God bless.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wow! You're right. I went to Exodus, & sure enough tho He said he wanted Isreal to hear, He WAS talking to Moses. Man, I gotta get over those Pentacostal bible studies!
Maybe I hallucinated reading your posts, too.
And I do agree with order, but hasn't the order changed?
I mean, Bishop-priest-laity leaves God out completely according to the 1st model(God-Moses-Isrealites), but Jesus has done away with the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood class along with blood sacrifice & tithing.
We are now to be brothers, & a nation of kings & priests(both), individually, right?
 
Upvote 0

dignitized

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2005
24,843
759
✟29,618.00
OT: God - Moses - Aaron - People

NT: God - Bishops - Priest - people

They match up when you include all of the steps in both instances.

God bless

PS: Jesus didn't do away with anything in the priesthood he took the office of High priest HIMSELF so how can you say the Aaronic priesthood is gone if Christ himself is the head of it? And lets not forget that there are ***2*** priesthood’s in the OT - the priesthood of Aaron and the priesthood of Melchizedek.

and who said Tithing was done away with?
 
Upvote 0

HappyGiraffe

Active Member
Oct 19, 2003
142
3
38
Visit site
✟7,788.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Greetings. I have just been having a conversation about this on another thread.

http://christianforum.com/t15133read.php?p=1168126

I have after a result of this started quite a large study on the issue, preparing a study along this lines:


  • Old Testament Elders and Overseers
  • NT Elders, Bishops Deacons
  • Plural or Singular
  • Historical Development
I will post it in, or PM people that have shown an interest once its done.


First Moses was extremely different, he was a prophet.
Second are you saying that there would then have to be lots of "Moses'" to replace him once he died, as you would with a Bishop or that he was a once off, otherwise you have no position to suggest that you should replace Bishops. Joshua certianily was not the same position as Moses,Read the last part of Deut. 34 to see that. I believe Moses represented Jesus in the Old Testament, he did his role ie. meditating God's Will. Also see Deut 18:18.

Third Jesus is the New Testament's Jesus. To see evidence of this I have pasted in from Smith's Bible Dictionary.

Old Testament New Testament
God God


1 Moses- Sent by 1 Jesus- Sent by
God God


2Joshua took over 2 Apostles took over

3Elders appointed 3 Elders appointed

4Rejection of God's Will 4 Rejection of God's Will
Kings Clergy

Conclusion: You have made false analogies and haven't looked at the scriptural context of who Moses/Jesus represent. What we can learn from this that looking at your position is that you have placed Bishops in the place of Jesus. Surely thats blasphemy, wouldnt' you agree ??

As the author of the Law he is contrasted with Christ, the Author of the Gospel: "The law was given by Moses" (#Joh i:17). The ambiguity and transitory nature of his glory is set against the permanence and clearness of Christianity (#2Co iii:13-18), and his mediatorial character ("the law in the hand of a mediator") against the unbroken communication of God in Christ (#Ga iii:19). His "service" of God is contrasted with Christ’s sonship (#Heb iii:5, 6). But he is also spoken of as a likeness of Christ; and, as this is a point of view which has been almost lost in the Church, compared with the more familiar comparisons of Christ to Adam, David, Joshua, and yet has as firm a basis in fact as any of them, it may be well to draw about in detail.



1. Moses is, as it would seem, the only character of the O. T. to whom Christ expressly likens Himself, "Moses wrote of me" (#Joh v:46). It is uncertain to what passage our Lord alludes, but the general opinion seems to be the true one—that it is the remarkable prediction in (#De xviii:15, 18, 19)—"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, from thy brethren, like unto me: unto him ye shall hearken. ... I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." This passage is also expressly quoted by Stephen (#Ac vii:37), [and by Peter, (#Ac iii:22)], and it is probably in allusion to it, that at the Transfiguration, in the presence of Moses and Elijah, the words were uttered, "Hear ye Him."



It suggests three main points of likeness:—



(a.) Christ was, like Moses, the great Prophet of the people—the last, as Moses was the first. In greatness of position, none came between them. Only Samuel and Elijah could by any possibility be thought to fill the place of Moses, and they only in a very secondary degree. Christ alone appears, like Moses, as the Revealer of a new name of God—of a new religious society on earth. The Israelites "were baptized unto Moses" (#1Co x:2). The Christians were baptized unto Christ. There is no other name in the Bible that could be used in like manner.



(b.) Christ, like Moses, is a Lawgiver: "Him shall ye hear." His whole appearance as a Teacher, differing in much beside, has this in common with Moses, unlike the other prophets, that He lays down a code, a law, for his followers. The Sermon on the Mount almost inevitably suggests the parallel of Moses on Mount Sinai.



(c.) Christ, like Moses, was a Prophet out of the midst of the nation—"from their brethren." As Moses was the entire representative of his people, feeling for them more than for himself, absorbed in their interests, hopes, and fears, so, with reverence be it said, was Christ. The last and greatest of the Jewish prophets, He was not only a Jew by descent, but that Jewish descent is insisted upon as an integral part of his appearance. Two of the Gospels open with his genealogy. "Of the Israelites came Christ after the flesh" (#Ro ix:5). He wept and lamented over his country. He confined himself during his life to their needs. He was not sent "but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (#Mt xv:24). It is true that his absorption into the Jewish nationality was but the symbol of his absorption into the far wider and deeper interests of all humanity. But it is only by understanding the one that we are able to understand the other; and the life of Moses is the best means of enabling us to understand them both.



2. In (#Heb iii:1-19, xii:24-29, Ac vii:37), Christ is described, though more obscurely, as the Moses of the new dispensation—as the Apostle, or Messenger, or Mediator, of God to the people—as the Controller and Leader of the flock or household of God. No other person in the O. T. could have furnished this parallel. In both, the revelation was communicated partly through the life, partly through the teaching; but in both the Prophet was incessantly united with the Guide, the Ruler, the Shepherd.



3. The details of their lives are sometimes, though not often, compared. Stephen (#Ac vii:24-28, 35) dwells, evidently with this view, on the likeness of Moses in striving to act as a peacemaker, and misunderstood and rejected on that very account. The death of Moses, especially as related by Josephus (ut supra), immediately suggests the Ascension of Christ; and the retardation of the rise of the Christian Church, till after its Founder was withdrawn, gives a moral as well as a material resemblance. But this, though dwelt upon in the services of the Church, has not been expressly laid down in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
TruelightUK said:
Actually, having studied this a little more, I beleive initially the office of 'Bishop' was actually more akin to what we would today call 'Team Vicar/Rector' or 'Senior Pastor' - or perhaps 'local superintendent' in the Methodist system.  Basically the presiding elder of the local congregation; perhaps overseeing assemblies meeting in more than one home in the same town, but definitely not as 'high' in the hierarchy, with so big an area to cover as the modernday use of the title normally implies - something which gradually crept in as the church spread and grew.  Though, actually, I believe some black-led pentecostal denominations do still use the term 'Bishop' in this kind of localised way.

 

Anthony
You're not far from precisely right, Anthony. A lot of what follows is intelligent reading into the Pastoral Epistles and post-New Testament ante-Nicene writings, in much the way that if a Baptist friend said "the Deacons voted to...." you could conclude that there are people with the title Deacon, that they meet together as a body and take votes, even though the context is not Baptist ecclesiology but some charitable act they decided to take.

As a matter of practical necessity, any church trying to live out the Gospel commands needs leadership (under Christ) -- a human being who can make the practical day-to-day decisions and guide the decisions and counsels of the body. It needs wise and experienced folks who will counsel with the leader and exercise their share of leadership, both in worship and in church councils. And it needs people who will lend practical service to others as their gift.

In the cities where they preached and made converts, Paul and the other apostles seem to have set aside groups of senior men, presumably with wisdom and experience, as presbuterioi (elders), and making the natural leader of them responsible for episkopé (oversight over church affairs), and either the apostles or the elders set aside diakonoi to provide practical help in the name of the church, originally to its members and then reaching out to the community. My namesake saint was converted by the aged John the Beloved Disciple in his own youth, and lived to a ripe old age, becoming Episkopos of Smyrna. It will be noted that nearly all the apostolic evangelization was done in relatively large cities.

The city churches themselves then reached out to the small towns and surrounding countryside, establishing satellite churches in a loose organization owing allegiance to the metropolitan church and its leadership.

As time passed, the authority to speak formally to and on behalf of the church came to be concentrated in the presbyter with episkopé, who became the episcopos or bishop, over his home church and the satellite churches in the nearby communities and countryside. Borrowing the Roman civil term for an adminstrative division, this became his diocese, with his seat (see) in the large home city. The episcopoi of the five large cities where apostles had settled (Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Ephesus, the last moved to Constantinoiple as the one grew and the other declined) became the patriarchs of the church.

In the West, power came to be concentrated in the sole Western patriarchate, which had always been given a primacy of respect and honor among the five. In both West and East, authority was centered in the bishops, though the East tended to share it with presbyters and laymen, and with monastics as some felt the call to celibacy and a life of special service and devotion. Without this corrective, monarchial Popes and bishops tended to exercise undue autocracy, and the Reformation reacted against this, setting bishops, councils of presbyters, and local congregations as ultimate authorities in the various fragments into which the Western Church split.

As an Episcopalian, I hold to the transmission of authority in direct succession by oaths and the laying on of hands from Christ to the apostles and down through the bishops to my own leadership today I can trace my own "spiritual ancestry" back from the Rt. Rev. Ned Cole Jr. who confirmed me through the Presiding Bishop who ordained him back to Polycarp, John, and Christ, in a direct succession through laying on of hands.

I can however respect a presbyterian who refers back to the collegial authority of the presbyters of the New Testament church. And I am certainly comfortable with the structure of the Orthodox church(es) -- if sometimes a bit confused by their terminology of exarchs, archimandrates, and related vocabulary. I confess to being a bit less comfortable with congregationalism, which seems to me to have no discipline over the individual pastor, who is as capable as any of us of getting crazy ideas or focusing too strongly on some one aspect of the faith to the point of ignoring others equally important.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.