… welcoms you. Biblical Models of Leadership Church Government Models and their consequences in practice Max Schläpfer in cooperation with Dr. Markus

… welcoms you

Biblical Models of Leadership

Church Government Models and their consequences in practice

Max Schläpfer in cooperation with Dr. Markus Koch


The big question

Is there a uniform biblical doctrine regarding how the church should be governed? This theological question has to be answered from the Bible’s point of view.

It must not be left to secular experts (economists, lawyers, MBAs, entrepreneurs, trustees, etc.) who will structure the church according to their secular background while pastors


Clarification of the question:

It is an important question, because as as Millard J. Erickson mentions:

“The question of church government is in the final analysis a question of where authority resides within the church and who is to exercise it”

MILLARD J. ERICKSON, Christian Theology, 2nd Ed., Grand Rapids, 2002, p. 1080.


What does the Bible say about models of Church Government?

Compared to the biblical doctrines of man’s sinfulness and justification by faith, the instructions of the Bible concerning church government have a more descriptive character than a normative regulatory one. The only truly normative regulations are found in the list of basic qualifications for elders and deacons by Paul (1 Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).


We Can State with GILBERT W. KIRBY:(Article "Church, the", in: Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible”, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, p. 854.)

The NT does not lay down precise rules either as to the form of ministry or of government of the Church. Over the centuries several different theories of church government have emerged, each of which claims some scriptural basis.


The four major systems of Church Government

What we have said so far, has to be stated more precisely: In church history, the development of church government was not restricted to the various theories thereof. Basic theological premises led to four major systems of church government that we should be aware of.


The Theological Concept of Order

Each of these systems is based on the theological concept of order that the representatives of the respective systems found in the Bible. This concept of order is the key biblical thought that contains a permanent valid biblical truth.


Our Task

It is part of our task as leaders of movements to uncover the key biblical thought of every concept and to develop the best possible church government model for our situation by taking into consideration the existing sociological, political and cultural context.


Assumption

In his all-surpassing intelligence the Holy Spirit purposely did not prescribe a certain church government model.

This allows contextualization in very diverse conditions.


No dogma but completion

It is wrong to regard our existing respective type of church government as dogma and then turn against others. Rather, we should listen to the essential biblical truth that is present in each of these models.

Remember:

God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble (1 Pet 5:5).


Again: GILBERT W. KIRBY:(Article "Church, the", in: Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, p. 855)

None of the present day systems of church government can claim to have solely scriptural justification, although there are elements in the NT which gave rise to each of them. It is significant that in the course of history God has been pleased to give His blessing on more than one form of Christian order.


The four major systems of Church Government

•Non-Governmental (the church is led directly through the Holy Spirit)•Congregational (the church is led by the congregation)•Presbyterian (the church is lead by a group of elders)•Episcopal (the church is led by bishops)


Different degrees of structure

We will begin our study with the less structured models and continue on to the more strongly structured approaches.

Taking into consideration growth cycles, we can say, that smaller churches tend to adopt a less structured form while larger churches need more structure.


From a perspective of growth

From the perspective of growth, it would be wrong to define one model of church government for churches of all sizes.

A good knowledge of the following types of church government models however, will prove to be helpful.


Non-governmental Church Government (1)(The church is led directly through the Holy Spirit)

The representatives of this model not only declare all organization of the visible church as unnecessary but sometimes even as sinful. Consequently, these groups try to eliminate leadership structures wherever possible. They emphasise the inner work of the Holy Spirit who directly influences and leads the believer without the

necessity of an organisation or institution.


Non-governmental (2)

Quakers for examples, stress the concept of the “inner light”. There is no actual church membership. The local meetings do have something like an overseer or elder for reasons of organisation but without leadership functions. Decisions are not made by the unity of the Spirit.


Non-govermental (3)

The Plymouth Brethren believe that the church on earth exists only as an invisible church, which consists of all true believers. Therefore, an organization with specific administrators of office is not necessary. The presidency of the Holy Spirit is the all moving power.


Non-govermental (4)

Non-denominational Pentecostals and small Pentecostal churches within Pentecostal associations believe that a deep confidence in the direct work of the Holy Spirit makes a structural organisation largely unnecessary. This assumption is generally combined with a very intense doctrine of holiness and the emphasis on a sensitivity toward the work of the Holy Spirit. This can even lead to the point, that this direct work of the Holy Spirit is considered the primary source of God’s revelation and not the Holy Scripture.


Non-govermental (5)

The Biblical key thought:The right biblical key thought expressed by this model is the priesthood of all believers. All believers are able - without institutional or organizational intermediate structures - to be in direct contact with God. This is clearly expressed in many Scripture passages and is an indisputable key biblical thought (Rom 5:1-5; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 4:14-16). There is no need for another human mediator. All believers stand directly before God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. All believers are also directly able to discern God’s will.


Non-govermental (6)

The biblical limits to this model:

As an exegesis of 1 Corinthians shows, individual believers in Corinth thought that their direct relationship to Christ exempted them from needing human leadership structures (1 Cor 1:12). Paul corrected this extreme position by demonstrating the value of order and clear leadership structures.


Non-govermental (7)


Paul also corrects the extreme emphasis on the spontaneous work of the Spirit by referring to the value of order:

So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.(1 Cor 14:39-40)


Non-govermental (8)


Acts 6 also indicates that the necessity of assigning responsibilities to designated people for specific ministries already arose in the first phase of church development. The Holy Spirit endorsed this decision by the following testimony of his work:

And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem…(Acts 6:7).


Non-govermental (9)

Conclusion 1:

In light of this model, every more highly structured church government model must ask itself: Does our structure and organisation hinder or obscure the biblical key thought of the general priesthood of all believers? To what extent do we still trust every individual believer to stand directly before God and receive impulses of the Holy Spirit?


Non-govermental (10)

Conclusion 2:

Very small or pioneer churches must ask themselves if they do enough emphasise the value of order as Paul did. If the church does not receive teaching in an early stage, the believers will later resist organisation and structure. This would mean that growth will be strongly hindered. In the worst case the church will stagnate in a “Corinthian chaos” or even fall apart.


Congregational Church Government (1) (The church is lead by the congregation)

As the name says, the authority in the congregational model is on the level of the local congregation. The two fundamental concepts of congregationalism are autonomy and democracy.


Congregational (2)

In church history we discover, that the Baptists and most of the Lutheran groups were mainly the original Congregationalists.

But there was always also quite a large number of Pentecostal churches, that were organised this way.


Congregational (3)

Autonomy means that the local church is run independently and is capable of self-organisation.

There is no external authority that can interfere with the church’s policy.


Congregational (4)

The consequence of this autonomy is that every church appoints its own pastor and sets up its own financial budget. The church can purchase and own real estate. Although it can seek advice from other churches or associations, it is not obliged to follow the advice given. The decisions of the church do not need to be ratified and approved by another authority.


Congregational (5)

Democracy means that every member of the local church has equal rights in decisions. It is the individual member of the church that has and practices authority.

Authority is not the privilege of a chosen group of persons or a specific individual. Neither the oligarchical (presbyterian) nor the monarchical (episcopal) structure is permitted to take over the role of the individual.


Congregational (6)

The Biblical key thought:

The key thought in this system is very close to the already mentioned “general priesthood of all believers”. While the general priesthood places a main emphasis on the “direct access to God”, the emphasis here lies in that “every individual is of utmost importance for the body of Christ” (compare Rom 12:1; 1 Cor 12). The diversity of gifts must lead to the consequence that decisions and authority rest on broad support.


Congregational (7)


It is assumed in Acts that there is a general and a broad consensus in the church (Acts 4:32, 15:22). The whole church was involved in the selection process of the leadership (Acts 6). A very special feeling of community and an awareness of ownership arises when all members of a church are involved in the decision process


Congregational (8)


When regarding the NT as a whole, it is obvious that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23) and that Paul instructed Titus to do the same (Titus 1:5). Apparently, important impulses came from a level above the local church. Also, the apostles did not merely offer non binding doctrinal advice when writing to the churches but actually commanded authoritatively


Congregational (9)


Although the apostles greatly respected the local self-organisation and were very restrained regarding financial issues, this did not mean absolute church autonomy. Churches were by no means autonomous in doctrinal and theological questions but received impulses in these areas from a higher level.


Congregational (10)


The letter which was sent to all churches by the Apostle Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29) is very interesting in this regard. It contains clear conduct guidelines named “necessary things” (Acts 15:28). When Paul and Barnabas brought this letter to Antioch the church gladly received the instructions. The autonomy of the church was obviously subject to restrictions in the area of biblical theological instruction.


Congregational (11)


The mentioned appointment of elders and the emphasis throughout the NT on a plurality of elders that were entrusted with leadership duties clearly shows that the principle of democracy was not understood to be absolute.


Congregational (12)


The leadership impulses did not come from the assembled congregation but rather from the appointed elders. However, the feedback from the church was intensive, and no appointed elder could do his ministry without the trust of the church (Acts 6:3, 1 Tim 3:10)


Congregational (13)


From a biblical point of view, the congregational government of a church, in which the assembled congregation makes democratic decisions concerning all aspects of church government must be regarded as “extreme”. Essential elements of leadership, which play an important role in the NT are thereby ignored.


Congregational (14)

Democracy in Switzerland:

It is not difficult to imagine that extreme congregational views tend to be very popular in Switzerland.


Congregational (15)

Democracy in Switzerland :

For many Swiss, Switzerland is the epitome of democracy and it is not unusual to find believers who would like church structures to mirror Swiss democracy.


Congregational (16)

Conclusion 1:

In light of this model, every more highly structured church government model must ask itself:

Is the local church’s autonomy taken into sufficient consideration? Is there a broad organisational and financial autonomy like in the NT churches? Is there sufficient “democratic” feedback? Are important financial decisions made by the church? Are the members of church leadership backed by the confidence of the congregation?


Congregational (17)

Conclusion 2:

Congregationally organized churches must ask themselves if they overemphasise the autonomy of the individual church. From a biblical point of view impulses and correction from a higher level are needed. The NT churches openly accepted correction in key doctrinal issues.


Congregational (17)

Conclusion 2:

Likewise, churches with an exaggerated sense of democracy must ask themselves if this will not hinder the development of the church. Once members are used to having their say in everything, it will be very difficult to change this structure in the future. If this structure is connected to idealised notions of “Swiss democracy”, the stagnation of the church is certain.


Presbyterian Church Government (1)(The church is lead by a group of elders)

Presbyterianism is founded on the belief that a local church should be governed by a team of elders (gr. Presbyteros).


Presbyterian (2)

Paul admonishes the Thessalonians to respect those who ”are over you in the Lord and admonish you” (1 Thess 5:12).Similarly, he tells the elders of the church in Ephesus to keep watch over themselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers, to be shepherds of the church of God (Acts 20:28). And the writer of Hebrews clearly tells his readers to obey their leaders and to submit to their authority because they keep watch over them (Heb 13:17).


Presbyterian (3)

In church history the reformed churches of Calvinistic character developed Presbyterian systems. American Presbyterianism strongly influenced the Pentecostal movement.


Presbyterian (4)


The Biblical key thought expressed here is already found in the Jewish synagogue. An ordered leadership structure implies the existence of a management body without which a group cannot function.


Presbyterian (5)


The leaders that are appointed must act for the group (representation). The leaders are responsible towards the whole church, but they have their own God-given authority.


Presbyterian (6)


Although the preeminent advantage of this model lies in the fact that it clearly emphasises the biblical principle of representation, there are also significant dangers involved. The sole concentration of authority in the team of elders is not supported by the Bible.


Presbyterian (7)


There are many Scripture references that suggest an intensive feedback of authority to the whole local congregation (e.g. Acts 6:3, 13:1, 14:27, 15:4). If the Presbyterian model disconnects itself from the local congregation, it risks an abuse of power and a loss of reality.


Presbyterian (8)


Church history has shown that the system tends to disconnect itself from the local church and to produce a complicated superstructure for example:

Assembly of the local congregationThe Council of elders (appointed over the local assembly)

The Presbytery (appointed over several local churches)The General Assembly (as an assembly of presbyters)In each of these committees, lay persons that are not elders have no voting rights.


Presbyterian (9)


Quote: WAYNE GRUDEM

Thus the system is very hard to turn around when it begins to go wrong since the lay persons who are not elders have no vote in the session or the presbytery or the general assembly, and the governing structure of the church is more removed from them than in other church government structures.


Presbyterian (10)


If the general priesthood of all believers, the church autonomy and a “moderate democracy” is not upheld in such a system. The decisions are quickly delegated to the General Assembly that is far removed from the local congregation. A General Assembly which consists of pastors and lay persons (as delegates of the churches) is a better reflection of the body of Christ than a pure council of elders.


Presbyterian (11)

Conclusion 1:

All other church government models must ask themselves if they appreciate enough the biblical value of a team of elders governing a local congregation. Only the presbyterian kind of structure allows the general priesthood of all believers, church autonomy and democratic elements to be put into practice. If this representative structure is weak or missing altogether, there can be no growth.


Presbyterian (12)

Conclusion 2:

Churches with a strong emphasis on a governing team or board of elders must ask themselves whether sufficient congregational security measures have been implemented. This could lead to an increase of the number of non-elders in the board or to an improvement of church awareness concerning important decisions. Care should be taken to promote committees with non-elder professionals that can contribute experience and

know-how.


Episcopal Church Government (1) (The church is lead by bishops)

According to Episcopalism the authority in the Church is concentrated in the bishop (gr. episkopos). There are various degrees of Episcopal structures, whereby the number of bishop levels vary


Episcopal (2)

The Methodist movement e.g. has a simple structure with only one level of bishops. The Anglican and Episcopal churches have a more developed system, while the Roman-Catholic church has the most differential Episcopal system. The Pope as Pontifex Maximus (greatest priest) and Episcopus Romanus (Bishop of Rome) rules the church through archbishops who rule over the bishops who rule over the simple priests.


Episcopal (3)

The bishop and the authority concentrated in him are the key to the Episcopal system. The role of the bishop is to exercise the power and authority God has given him. His authority exceeds the authority of other ministries in the church. As God’s representative on this earth the bishop has spiritual authority over more than one congregation.


Episcopal (4)

There are four essential elements of authority which are concentrated in the ministry of the bishop:

1. The authority to ordain priests2. The authority to place priests3. The authority to safeguard the doctrine4. The authority of disciplinary power over priests and congregations


Episcopal (5)


Probably protestant and non-denominational theology has not studied the key biblical thought of Episcopalism enough. The discussion ended with the rejection of Roman Catholicism. Yet, the very successful Methodist movement developed Episcopal structures precisely because there is an essential key biblical truth within them.


Episcopal (6)


The main thought is: There is a level above the local congregation. Regardless of how much “congregationalism” is seen in the appointing of deacons in Acts 6, the fact is: They presented the deacons to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them! (Acts 6:6).


Episcopal (7)


It is obvious that the apostles appointed leaders and entrusted them with authority from their own higher position: After they had appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust (Acts 14:23).


Episcopal (8)


As shown clearly in the pastoral epistles, the impulses from the apostolic level dealt with pastoral placement: Paul says that this was the reason he left Titus in Crete (Titus 1:5).


Episcopal (9)


The apostolic level is even clearer in the area of safeguarding the doctrine. The apostles give impulses that steer the churches away from false doctrines.

This fact we see explicitly in Galatians and Colossians.


Episcopal (10)


The apostolic level also becomes clear in the area of disciplinary power. Paul’s sharp disciplinary rebuke in 1 and 2 Corinthians implies the existence of a recognised level above the congregation.


Episcopal (11)


The lasting merit of Episcopalism is the clear emphasis on the elements of authority that lie outside of the local congregation. These biblical thoughts cannot be given up.


Episcopal (12)


From an exegetical point of view, there is no doubt that the Greek term episkopos (overseer), from which the term bishop is derived, is a synonym for the term presbyteros (elder). When Paul called the elders of the church in Ephesus, he exhorted them: Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopos) (Acts 20:28).


Episcopal (13)


There is no basis for the office of bishop in the NT. The apostolic succession, the unbroken transmission of Peter’s authority to later bishops, is equally unfounded. Godly authority is not passed on by a human chain of successors. Paul uses this very argument to point out that he was appointed an apostle directly by the Lord without a human mediator (Gal 1:15-17).


Episcopal (14)


From a biblical point of view, there is, therefore, no office of bishop concentrated in one individual person. There is, however, a level of authority above the local congregation that should provide important impulses for the blessing of the church.


Episcopal (15)

Conclusion 1:

Local congregations must take care to receive supracongregational impulses. These impulses are particularly important regarding ordination, placement of ministries, the safeguarding of the doctrine and the voluntary submission under supracongregational disciplinary power.


Summary (1)

We have seen:

Each of these systems is based on a theological concept of order that the representatives of the respective systems found in the Bible. This concept of order is the respective key biblical thought that contains a valid and eternal biblical truth.


Summary (2)

We have also seen:

Each of these has its biblical limits.

Our duty now is to carve out this key biblical thought and to develop the best possible biblical model of governance by taking into consideration the existing sociological, political and cultural context.


Summary (3)

Authority must be exercised in wisdom. In Proverbs 8:15-17 Solomon says of wisdom:

By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just: by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly. I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.


A look at the Pentecostal movements in Europe (1)

•The Pentecostal churches in Europe function differently concerning this biblical models of leadership

•Can we say, that the churches in northern Europe are closer to the congregational model, those in central Europe closer to the presbyterian model those in the east and south closer to a episcopal model? If so, What might be the reasons?


A look at the Pentecostal Denominations in Europe (2)

The various international Pentecostal denominations in Europe have different models.

•What can be said concerning the Assemblies of God?•What can we say concerning the church of God?•What can we say concerning ELIM?•What can we say about other big national movements like Sweden, Germany, Russia etc.?


A look at our own national denomination/movement

•Which leadership model is prevalent in your denomination?•What strengths do you experience in it?•Which weaknesses do you see?•How might the leadership model influence growth and development?•Is there a necessity to adapt the model, why?


A case study

During a meeting of pastors within the circle of the Evangelical Alliance you meet Marc N. who tells you the following:

For a number of years, Marc N. is the Pastor of a small church of about 40 members. The core group of this church originally split from a rather conservative evangelical church


Case Study (cont.)

Through a dynamic house cell work and the ministry of Marc N. the church grew considerably. The meetings in private houses are more and more becoming a problem and the church would like to rent a public place. Now they found a suitable infrastructure which would also provide enough room for the children‘s ministry.


Case Study (cont.)

The landlord however does not want to rent the place to Marc N. or another private person of the church, because for him the income of a private person does not guarantee enough security. He therefore has suggested to Marc to establish an association so that the lease can be made with the association. Peter H., who, as on of the hosts for the small church opens his home for meetings and works in a bank, recommended Marc to call for a founding assembly.


Case Study (cont.)

Marc N. however is quite uncertain about this idea. Two weeks ago he was in a seminar by Dr. John D. who has suggested to him to come under his apostolic network. According to Dr. John D., the church is not a democracy but a theocracy. He furthermore affirmed, that from his point of view the reason for the week church growth in this country lies in the fact of lacking apostolic leadership.


Case Study (cont.)

In the seminar there were lively discussions especially because an experienced Pastor contradicted Dr. John D., saying that the Bible did not support a one man leadership model even if such a person carried the title of an apostle. In the long term a church could only grow, if a team of elders carries the responsibility. .


Case Study (cont.)

Marc N. would like not to enter in this discussion at all. Until now the church grew and developed wonderfully, nearly like a family. The Lord blessed the work, there was much freedom and many manifestations of the Spirit. He would prefer to continue like this, but he realizes, that something had to change in order for the church to continue to grow.


Case Study (cont.)

Marc N. is asking you, what you would do in his place.

What would you recommend? Which are the next steps? How could Marc N. go on ahead?


Thank you for your attention

Documents

… welcoms you. Biblical Models of Leadership Church Government Models and their consequences in practice Max Schläpfer in cooperation with Dr. Markus