What is the Biblical Form of Church Government?

[Tree of Life]

Church government, broadly speaking, is the visible structures by which the church is governed and exercises the authority of Jesus.

How does the Bible say that the church should be governed?

Here are the main candidates for this query:

1. Roman Catholic - The church is governed by bishops. Bishops are the successors to the apostles and are ordained men who are appointed or elected by clergy or the pope himself. The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is a first-among-equals and head bishop. He is the head of the church. All particular churches are governed by priest/pastors who are in fellowship with the bishops and the pope. This scheme is as "high church" as one can get because the authority of the church is very highly removed from the common people in the church.
   
   
2. Episcopal - This would be the Anglican church and other Episcopal churches like the Eastern Orthodox church. The church is governed by bishops who are elected or appointed by other clergy. But there is no "head bishop" and, thus, no pope. This is still very much "high church". All particular churches are governed by priests who are in fellowship with the bishops.
   
   
3. Congregational - The congregation governs itself. It makes all of its major decisions through voting. This is relatively "low church" because the power is in the hands of the people. These churches are usually totally independent.
   
   
4. Solo-Pastor Led - I don't think anyone really sets out to build a church this way but many churches often end up here. One guy calls all the shots and makes all the major decisions. These churches are usually totally independent.
   
   
5. No Government - Sometimes this is referred to as "waiting on the Spirit" or letting the Holy Spirit lead in the church. But I think this is too idealistic a way of thinking about this. In reality this often ends up meaning that the leadership is just very unclear. There are still leaders in the congregation, but why they get to be the leaders and where they get their authority from is unclear. I don't think there's really such a thing as "no government" churches.
   
   
6. Elder-led, independent - The church is governed by elders who are ordained - sometimes they are elected and other times they are appointed. The church is independent and so the highest level of authority under the Bible is the local board of elders.
   
   
7. Presbyterian - Clearly the correct choice. The church is governed by "presbyters" (elders) who are ordained men. These men are elected by congregations and approved by existing elders. Presbyters are in fellowship with one another in regional presbyteries and as a national church. All presbyters have equal authority and decisions are made jointly by voting. Presbyters are representatives of their congregations. This is a mix of high and low church because (1) the people have the power in that they vote their presbyters into office but (2) the power of the church is exercised through its lawfully ordained officers.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Loved the punchline at the end there. Clearly the correct choice, and it's your denomination. But a good question, number 5 works well if the "leaders" are those who serve the most, then it's biblical.

 

[Shempster]

It should resemble a communistic ideology.
1Cor 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

The form we have now with leaders who hold power over us and authority who ask for our wealth doesn't work well. It just creates pomposity and promotes the practices of the Nicolaitans which is about lording over and controlling others.


We are ONE people under ONE God with Jesus as the example of how it looks.
Much of the church today is a facsimile of any basic corporation or government.

​

 

[Tree of Life]

Loved the punchline at the end there. Clearly the correct choice, and it's your denomination. But a good question, number 5 works well if the "leaders" are those who serve the most, then it's biblical.

"No Government" and "Leaders" are mutually exclusive.

 

[Tree of Life]

It should resemble a communistic ideology.
1Cor 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.​

Why should the fact that worship is participatory mean that there is no government in the church?

The form we have now with leaders who hold power over us and authority who ask for our wealth doesn't work well. It just creates pomposity and promotes the practices of the Nicolaitans which is about lording over and controlling others.

What about passages of Scripture that talk about leaders in the church who deserve to earn a wage and who exercise authority?​

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Church government, broadly speaking, is the visible structures by which the church is governed and exercises the authority of Jesus.

How does the Bible say that the church should be governed?

Here are the main candidates for this query:

1. Roman Catholic - The church is governed by bishops. Bishops are the successors to the apostles and are ordained men who are appointed or elected by clergy or the pope himself. The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is a first-among-equals and head bishop. He is the head of the church. All particular churches are governed by priest/pastors who are in fellowship with the bishops and the pope. This scheme is as "high church" as one can get because the authority of the church is very highly removed from the common people in the church.
   
   
2. Episcopal - This would be the Anglican church and other Episcopal churches like the Eastern Orthodox church. The church is governed by bishops who are elected or appointed by other clergy. But there is no "head bishop" and, thus, no pope. This is still very much "high church". All particular churches are governed by priests who are in fellowship with the bishops.
   
   
3. Congregational - The congregation governs itself. It makes all of its major decisions through voting. This is relatively "low church" because the power is in the hands of the people. These churches are usually totally independent.
   
   
4. Solo-Pastor Led - I don't think anyone really sets out to build a church this way but many churches often end up here. One guy calls all the shots and makes all the major decisions. These churches are usually totally independent.
   
   
5. No Government - Sometimes this is referred to as "waiting on the Spirit" or letting the Holy Spirit lead in the church. But I think this is too idealistic a way of thinking about this. In reality this often ends up meaning that the leadership is just very unclear. There are still leaders in the congregation, but why they get to be the leaders and where they get their authority from is unclear. I don't think there's really such a thing as "no government" churches.
   
   
6. Elder-led, independent - The church is governed by elders who are ordained - sometimes they are elected and other times they are appointed. The church is independent and so the highest level of authority under the Bible is the local board of elders.
   
   
7. Presbyterian - Clearly the correct choice. The church is governed by "presbyters" (elders) who are ordained men. These men are elected by congregations and approved by existing elders. Presbyters are in fellowship with one another in regional presbyteries and as a national church. All presbyters have equal authority and decisions are made jointly by voting. Presbyters are representatives of their congregations. This is a mix of high and low church because (1) the people have the power in that they vote their presbyters into office but (2) the power of the church is exercised through its lawfully ordained officers.

They all are Biblical.

 

[Tree of Life]

They all are Biblical.

Is one more biblical?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Each one having a psalm indicates praise given to Christ as our wisdom and for the power to live with Him in His resurrected life. Teachings are from those given the gift of teaching and revelations from those who have the gift of prophesy to teach and minister to the body. Same with Christ centered tongues and interpretations. Anything not Christ centered just brings in confusion like it did in the Corinthian church. So not sure which format includes all the gifts in operation but that would be the example of the earliest church government. That's in following the leading of Christ not to Lord one over the other, which is the Nicolation way of Revelations.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What about passages of Scripture that talk about leaders in the church who deserve to earn a wage and who exercise authority?​

Oxen should not be muzzled either as they deserve to be fed while they work for others. But I think the better question is why are the widows and fatherless not fed as the first gvmnt indicated instead of extracting their wages from those they should be supplying?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Early Church started with the 12 Apostles governing it. Then the Church grew too big for them to govern it and be able to give themselves to prayer and ministry of the Word, so a team of deacons were appointed to run the practical side of the Church. As the Church grew and spread into the towns and cities, elders and deacons were appointed to run each congregation. Paul specifies the duties of elders and deacons in his book to Timothy and Titus. The Early Church had bishops who had oversight over several churches in a region. It was into the third century AD that "senior elders" started to emerge who took leadership of the other elders. What evolved from that was the priest and the ordained minister.

I believe that elder-run churches, along with a team of deacons, is the New Testament style of church government and would cause the least problems in a church. John had problems with a guy in a church who "loved the pre-eminence" and was throwing his weight around as if he owned the church. It is sad that we have many "senior elders", pastors, priests and ministers who are the same, causing conflict, disillusionment, and suffering among normal congregation members. This gives rise to spiritual abuse, which is a silent epidemic among our churches.

But then, when the minister of a church is a genuine man or woman of God who loves the Lord and the people, that person can be a power for good in a church. But no one person can be the five-fold ministries, and a team of elders exercising pastoral, evangelistic, teaching, and prophetic roles in churches are, in my opinion, closer to the Biblical standard than anything else.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Is one more biblical?

Some have more biblical support than others. There are certainly "non-biblical" views on polity. However, you will not find "the biblical view". The examples found in the bible are just that, examples. These examples are options to choose and no single option should be considered normative for all churches in all times. I tend to favor a Presbyterian model over congregations. But that is merely my preference.

 

[Tree of Life]

Each one having a psalm indicates praise given to Christ as our wisdom and for the power to live with Him in His resurrected life. Teachings are from those given the gift of teaching and revelations from those who have the gift of prophesy to teach and minister to the body. Same with Christ centered tongues and interpretations. Anything not Christ centered just brings in confusion like it did in the Corinthian church. So not sure which format includes all the gifts in operation but that would be the example of the earliest church government. That's in following the leading of Christ not to Lord one over the other, which is the Nicolation way of Revelations.

1) The Corinthian passage is about public worship, not about church government.
2) Where do you get the idea that the teaching of the Nicolatians has anything to do with church government?

 

[Tree of Life]

The Early Church started with the 12 Apostles governing it. Then the Church grew too big for them to govern it and be able to give themselves to prayer and ministry of the Word, so a team of deacons were appointed to run the practical side of the Church. As the Church grew and spread into the towns and cities, elders and deacons were appointed to run each congregation. Paul specifies the duties of elders and deacons in his book to Timothy and Titus. The Early Church had bishops who had oversight over several churches in a region. It was into the third century AD that "senior elders" started to emerge who took leadership of the other elders. What evolved from that was the priest and the ordained minister.

I believe that elder-run churches, along with a team of deacons, is the New Testament style of church government and would cause the least problems in a church. John had problems with a guy in a church who "loved the pre-eminence" and was throwing his weight around as if he owned the church. It is sad that we have many "senior elders", pastors, priests and ministers who are the same, causing conflict, disillusionment, and suffering among normal congregation members. This gives rise to spiritual abuse, which is a silent epidemic among our churches.

But then, when the minister of a church is a genuine man or woman of God who loves the Lord and the people, that person can be a power for good in a church. But no one person can be the five-fold ministries, and a team of elders exercising pastoral, evangelistic, teaching, and prophetic roles in churches are, in my opinion, closer to the Biblical standard than anything else.

Are these elder-run churches that you describe independent or do they have a relationship with each other?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The emergence of a professionally trained Christian minister or priest in divinity and theology came about because of the heresies that were infecting the church. Without educated leaders, anyone could get up and spout whatever they believed, and this was bringing confusion and disorder into the Church. But having a leader in charge, trained in sound Biblical doctrine gave congregations with assurance that they were being led in the right way. The strength of it was that it brought stability to the Church. Of course, the facility was abused over the Church's history, but the principle behind it was sound, and having trained ministers and pastors did not stop revival happening, nor did they hinder the revival's progress.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Scripture mentions bishops, presbyters, and deacons. But does not spell out ecclesiastical polity for us. As for how the ancient Church organized itself we need to look to available historical sources--for that we can look at the earliest fathers, such as St. Ignatius who describes both bishops, presbyters, and deacons as pastoring the Church.

"See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 8

Thus the three-fold division of bishop, presbyter, and deacon was already well established in Ignatius' time, who had personally learned from the apostles and was appointed bishop by the apostles--thus his historic witness is invaluable to understanding the early ecclesiastical structure of the Christian Church in the apostolic and sub-apostolic era.

As a Lutheran I wouldn't say the historic episcopate is dogmatically necessary; but it is historically true and is of apostolic pedigree. Without a clear word from Scripture on the matter, I think we should take the historical position seriously--though I would not go so far as to speak of it as a dogmatic necessity, as that would be over-extending what we can say I believe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[revanneosl]

Your question assumes that there is one and only one Biblical form of church government. This is not true.

About 7 years ago this same conversation came up here and this is what I posted.

When one looks at the New Testament witness with an eye toward understanding how they organized themselves, one is confronted by a bewildering array of offices and no clear depiction of a single organizational structure.

I Corinthians lists Prophets, Teachers, Workers of miracles, Healers, Helpers, Administrators and those who speak in tongues,

Ephesians lists Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers.

Both Philippians and I Timothy speak of the Overseers and Servants, which have often been understood as Bishops and Deacons,

Titus, James I Peter, II and III John and I Timothy (again!) speak of the Elders.

Widows as a perhaps distinct role in the life of the church are mentioned in Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, and I & II Peter.

For much of the church's history, indeed from the fifth century until the middle of the nineteenth, the church's scholars were at pains to reconcile these diverse depictions of leadership in the apostolic church in order to discern and prescribe the single acceptable form of polity for the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

The pioneering work of J. B. Lightfoot, however began to bring those efforts to an end, and it is now the scholarly consensus among historians that a diversity of ecclesiastical offices and organizational structures characterized the earliest christian communities. (Longenecker, Community Formation in the Early Church and in the Church Today. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002, xi-xvii)

In fact, recent studies of the writings of the patristic fathers have demonstrated that patristic writers were well aware of the diversity of offices and organizational structures in the apostolic church, and of their own era's discontinuity with apostolic practice(s). Further, in at least some of their writings, most notably those of Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Theodore of Mopsuestia, it is obvious that they did not find this early pluralism nor their own discontinuity with apostolic practice(s) to be a source of anxiety. (Dehandschutter, "Primum enim omnes docebant: Awareness of Discontinuity in the Early Church: The Case of Ecclesiastical Office", The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae: Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language, vol. 70, A. Hilhorst, ed. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004, 226-227.)

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Scripture mentions bishops, presbyters, and deacons. But does not spell out ecclesiastical polity for us. As for how the ancient Church organized itself we need to look to available historical sources--for that we can look at the earliest fathers, such as St. Ignatius who describes both bishops, presbyters, and deacons as pastoring the Church.

"See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 8

Thus the three-fold division of bishop, presbyter, and deacon was already well established in Ignatius' time, who had personally learned from the apostles and was appointed bishop by the apostles--thus his historic witness is invaluable to understanding the early ecclesiastical structure of the Christian Church in the apostolic and sub-apostolic era.

As a Lutheran I wouldn't say the historic episcopate is dogmatically necessary; but it is historically true and is of apostolic pedigree. Without a clear word from Scripture on the matter, I think we should take the historical position seriously--though I would not go so far as to speak of it as a dogmatic necessity, as that would be over-extending what we can say I believe.

-CryptoLutheran

I think that it was Augustine who wrote that many procedural things were added to the organisation of the Church to ensure that it continue to run decently and in order. Much of this is not specified in the New Testament but in Augustine's opinion, these things were necessary for the Church to function in an orthodox and stable manner. He believed that God would be happy about these things and they would not hinder the continued work of the Holy Spirit in the churches.

Luther had no beef with the RCC as a whole and would have stayed with the church if he could have. It was not his decision to leave the church. It was forced on him and that is how the Lutheran Church was born. He tried to reform the inappropriate practices of the church, but the desire of the Pope to use the money from the relics and indulgences to build the Basilica of St Peter was greater and so Luther was rejected and treated as a disobedient heretic.

I think that aspects of church government as not a crucial as some people try to make out. If the hearts of the leaders are right with God, then He is not hindered in His working with them. This is why the Holy Spirit can work effectively in a RCC, Anglican, Baptist, or Presbyterian church just the same as in any Pentecostal or Charismatic church. It has all to do with the heart of those leading those churches. A spirit-filled Anglican with a good heart can do a mighty work for God, while a Pentecostal leader whose heart is not right can be a dismal failure.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

1) The Corinthian passage is about public worship, not about church government.
2) Where do you get the idea that the teaching of the Nicolatians has anything to do with church government?

Church gvmnt from your definition seems to be administration which is also a gift. But administration is not who defines the church actively.

 

[revanneosl]

The church has organized itself in a myriad of different ways as it encountered different historical situations and different cultures. We have, at our best, a pragmatic (rather than a dogmatic) approach.

 

[Tree of Life]

Scripture mentions bishops, presbyters, and deacons. But does not spell out ecclesiastical polity for us. As for how the ancient Church organized itself we need to look to available historical sources--for that we can look at the earliest fathers, such as St. Ignatius who describes both bishops, presbyters, and deacons as pastoring the Church.

Episkopos and presbyter appear to be interchangeable terms ala Acts 20:17 and Acts 20:28.

"See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 8

This is an interesting quote from Ignatius but it can be read in different ways depending on the assumptions you bring into it. For example, read from a presbyterian perspective this could refer to a bishop as a leading pastor of a church and a presbytery as a geographic region of pastor/elders.

As a Lutheran I wouldn't say the historic episcopate is dogmatically necessary; but it is historically true and is of apostolic pedigree. Without a clear word from Scripture on the matter, I think we should take the historical position seriously--though I would not go so far as to speak of it as a dogmatic necessity, as that would be over-extending what we can say I believe.

-CryptoLutheran

Are Lutherans episcopal?