Church polity has been a divisive issue, to say the least, throughout Church history. Should individual congregations govern themselves independently? Should regional groups of elders oversee the Church? Is the Episcopate a divinely ordained and indispensable means of unity for the Church of Jesus Christ? How should clergy be selected, trained, etc.? How do we determine jurisdiction?
Wars have been fought and heads lost over over these and similar questions.
I myself am a bit of an ecclesiastical mut. Having attended a presbyterian church, a quasi-presbyterian church, and an elder-led, non-denominational church, I am currently serving as a deacon in an Anglican church, which features an Episcopal form of church government. I am no expert, but over the years I have learned a few things about how church government actually works out in real life. I won't attempt a thorough treatment of this subject, but here are a few thoughts on church polity.
Firstly, all forms of church government have pros and cons. How do you balance accountability, shepherding, and lay engagement? The different forms of church government are all trying to solve that riddle. They all do some things better than others, while suffering from their own weaknesses.
Presbyterian churches balance power between local, regional, and national leaders who are well-trained, encouraging accountability, but the local congregant may feel disconnected from the power structure. Congregational churches give voice to ordinary Christians, but they are susceptible to the woes of pure democracy. Episcopal churches have layers of structure and accountability, but this has often led to clericalism and formalism.
All of these are, of course, in theory. In reality, structures are only as good as the sinners operating them. Any system can be manipulated, ignored, or loopholed. No system can stop sinners from sinning.
Secondly, the Bible does not offer a detailed form of church government. Some would argue with me here, but I would simply ask them to point to any such thing in Scripture. The Bible, both Old Testament and New, gives us several principles for church polity that we apply in our own context. It clearly gives us a number of offices, some which appear to be more or less permanent, and others which seem to be more or less contextual. It offers us standards of behavior and character and describes the functions of church leaders, but it certainly doesn't give us a book of church order.
Historically speaking, some form of Presbyterianism seems to be the most purely New Testament form of church government, but it likely expressed itself in various ways from the beginning. In many places it evolved organically into Episcopacy almost immediately (due to the Roman civil polity of the day), but even that process was not as parallel as many would like you to believe (to this day, the episcopal churches all function a little bit differently).
Thirdly, the three basic forms of church government (Presbyterian, Congregational, and Episcopal) are often found in various combinations. Many Congregational churches have elders (or equivalent). Many Episcopal and Presbyterian churches offer congregants some sort of voice, while some Congregational and Episcopal groups (think CREC) have de facto bishops. The ACNA, my spiritual home, is Episcopal, but it often seems like no one has told that to the individual pastors and their local churches (to quote Mr. Glass, that last part was a joke). As I said above, all denominations, provinces, and churches are trying to strike a balance. I don't think anyone can quite lay claim to finding the perfect system.
Fourthly, elders should be older. The older I get, the more obvious this seems. At 36 I am finally realizing how dumb I used to be! The word presbyter literally refers to older men, who, of course, have generally overseen governments, households, businesses, etc. throughout history. For instance, members of the Sanhedrin had to be at least 40.
This is a general principle, of course. The Bible makes it clear that youth is not to be despised (1Timothy 4:12), and Biblical and Church history are full of God choosing to use young people to chastise His people and disrupt the norm. Above all, the Body needs all kinds of people. It needs youthful zeal as much as it needs experienced wisdom. It needs the older and wiser need to guide the ambitious and energetic.
Furthermore...
Fifthly, elders aren't supposed to do everything. The skeleton provides structure for the body, but it is dead without the organs, entrails, etc. Even so, the structure (institution) of the Church is not the Church. Overseers oversee, which implies that they are overseeing someone or something (groundbreaking stuff, I know). Like managers in a business (a bit of a crass analogy), they are there to make sure everything gets done, but they don't actually do everything. Church leaders are called to equip the saints for ministry, encouraging them to use the gifts God has given. The people are doing the ministry; the leaders are equipping and overseeing them as they go about it.
Who can do what (preaching, administering the sacraments, etc.) is a conversation for another day, but I think many people who struggle with the idea of older men running the Church are falsely equating overseeing the church with doing everything. Without going too much further down this road, I'll simply say that more laymen should be more involved with the liturgy and operation of the local church. Good leaders will emphatically amen that sentence! The people are, after all, the Church.
On that note...
Sixthly, the Bible does not envision the Presbyterate as a career. This is, of course, not to say that it is wrong to have full-time, paid elders or pastors. Paul deals with this specific question in 1 Timothy, affirming the propriety of paying those who labor for the Lord. That being said, there is a significant difference between financially supporting those who are dedicating their lives to the Church instead of pursuing secular careers and the clerical system that developed in the Church. The Bible does not envision clergy as an external, disconnected order of professionals who are specially tasked with making sure the lay folk don't mess everything up.
Paul told Titus to appoint elders in every town. Titus, whom we often call an Evangelist, was supposed to choose men (one would assume with the consent or input of those being governed) from among the local churches to oversee the local churches. These men were members of those local churches. They knew the people and the needs of those local churches. They were men chosen to serve a function, not aliens somehow ontologically distinct from the average Christian. They were not professionals who obtained their certifications and found the highest bidder for their services. Would a presbyter from Ephesus have moved to Corinth upon hearing that they had a lucrative opening? I don't think so.
On that note...
Seventh, I think the Bible college/seminary system is broken. Church leaders should, of course, be trained. They should be thoroughly vetted and should know a thing or two. However, for centuries the Church has conflated the procurement of an education with preparation for the ministry (the Reformers made a big deal about this).
Different traditions have different ways of raising up leaders. I am not going to argue that any of these is illegitimate per se, but it is vital to remember that the Biblical standards for church leaders are primarily moral, not academic. The Apostles were looking for men who knew and loved the truth, demonstrated self-constraint, and ran their households well. These were men who had life experience and commanded their brothers' respect because of their proven track record.
We should also have a conversation about the current state of education more broadly, but we'll have to save that for another time. I will simply say that Christian education, however, wherever, and whenever it occurs, needs to set itself apart from the modern system of getting a piece of paper that says you're qualified to apply for a specific set of jobs. It will be interesting to see what innovations occur (indeed, already are occurring!) in how churches educate their up-and-coming leaders. I think the brick-and-mortar model will become untenable, both financially and pragmatically, in the face of current economic factors and advances in technology. The current system favors a certain class and type of people, or, to say it another way, eliminates an entire subset of the population who are otherwise eager and qualified.
In conclusion, let me bring together these thoughts into something like a vision of church polity that can be expressed in a variety of contexts. Local churches would be run by qualified, vetted presbyters (preferably plural). These local churches would have connections to the broader catholic Church for mutual support and accountability. Young men would be raised up in congregations by local and regional leaders. They would be life-long learners who learn by doing, living and serving in real communities. These folks would be supported financially so they can dedicate themselves to their service to the Church, but they would also understand that the life they are choosing is one of sacrifice. The people would assiduously serve in liturgy and administration, both locally and regionally. The Body would cooperate, well-organized and well-led.
Comments
Post a Comment