church government

[lmnop9876]

which form of church government do you think is most Scriptural or best for the Church? episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational/independent?
or a combination?

 

[JimfromOhio]

Let's see.... I grew up mostly as a "Baptist" (many different local churches) and I experienced Congregational and combination of church Government.

I like Presbyterian government better because there is more "spiritual accountibility" between elders, pastors and members which I didn't see much of spiritual accountibility in other type of Church governments. I even experienced some local churches move to legalism which scared me. I was a member of "Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches" and I realized that they also practice similar Presbyterian type of Government. I saw alot of spiritual accountibility there which impressed me. I have learned "Calvism through Grace Brethren Church" when they were using many "Reformed" theology books (i.e. Boice, Sproul) during my "studying days".

 

[Imblessed]

I choose congressional before I read the proper question! Congregational is how our church does it, but I can see how it could be destructive in the wrong hands. At least in the presbyterian system there is some accountability between churches. You know, for the most part, what you are getting when you go to a presbyterian church.

exceptions to every rule, naturally.

I've noticed the growing differences between non-denominational churches. You cannot assume that going from one non-denominational/community church to another you will get the same teaching, or even remotely the same teaching. I think that's a result of the congregational government, for the most part.

 

[Knight]

Congregational.

But I'm a deacon so I'm biased...

 

[Elderone]

Presbyterian....

 

[lmnop9876]

c'mon episcopalians

 

[ClementofRome]

Well, I am not going to vote because I am torn between the 3 obvious choices. I see good in all three systems and I see bad in all three systems. The Presbyterian system could be called the "most biblical," but the way the Presbyterian systems works itself out today is more episcopal in structure than the NT church.

Today's Episcopal systems (since I am UMC, both of my parents are retired UMC pastors, and I can speak to this)....there is certainly accountability found within the system, but unfortunately at the highest levels liberalism and political correctness prevails, so true accountabillity takes place at the local levels between pastors and District Superintendents. The Methodist intinerency system is sometimes nutty, but it is better than it ever has been because the Bishops and DS's take the individual pastors' and churches desires into account more fully. Our local church is run VERY much like a PCA church that I belonged too a number of years ago. Additionally, the early church went Episcopal our of necessity VERY early (certainly by the middle-end of the 1st century AD).

As for congretational, I understand the system well and see some good things in not being connectional, but the dangers seem to outweigh the advantages in many cases with lack of accountability.

 

[Proeliator]

I voted congregational, becausethe PCUSA is a good indicator of how a congregation could have issues with what they were told to allow. Not to sayt that all PCUSA churches are bad, just the denomination allows things that its members dont agree with.

 

[ClementofRome]

I voted congregational, becausethe PCUSA is a good indicator of how a congregation could have issues with what they were told to allow. Not to sayt that all PCUSA churches are bad, just the denomination allows things that its members dont agree with.

It is an interesting point Shad. I am disturbed that the mainline denomonations, regardless of polity, are all falling (have fallen?) to liberalism and political correctness.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

It is an interesting point Shad. I am disturbed that the mainline denomonations, regardless of polity, are all falling (have fallen?) to liberalism and political correctness.

It is easy to see how each and every form has worked poorly when godless men rule in them. There are liberal (non-biblical) denominations from each of the three types mentioned.

The congregational SBC came close to going that way, but they were able to turn the tide in the 70's and 80's. I believe the practical reason was due to the conservatism of their reginal base (The Southern states of the USA) more than their form of church polity. I think some Northern Baptist denominations and the congregational United Church of Christ went liberal before Southern mainline churches.

Personally, I think the early church was a mixture of presbyterian and episcopal forms of polity. But it quickly morphed into fairly structured episcopal system.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[HiredGoon]

I voted congregational, becausethe PCUSA is a good indicator of how a congregation could have issues with what they were told to allow. Not to sayt that all PCUSA churches are bad, just the denomination allows things that its members dont agree with.

Historically I believe the Presbyterians held out longer against liberalism and other heterodox views than the Congregationalists in New England. The New England Congregationalists were being infected with Arminianism, Unitarianism, and Universalism by the second half of the 18th century, some even earlier. On the other hand the Presbyterians in the North did not fall to similar views until the late 19th, early 20th century. I believe the reasons for this are in part related to the differences in the two forms of government. Both forms of government can fall to heterodoxy, but I believe in Presbyterianism, ideally there's a greater chance of correcting heterodoxy.