Church Leadership and Structure

With the recent thoughts about flawed systems in church, I thought I’d consolidate a couple of posts on authority structures in todays churches. There are, basically, three forms of church government:

• episcopal
• presbyterian
• congregational

That said, some groups have somewhat hybridized these governmental forms, with the Vineyard movement (for example) operating with a mostly presbyterian system with a small streak of episcopal thrown in for good measure.

Episcopal Church Structure

The episcopal form of church government is headed by bishops who preside over dioceses that contain a number of parishes, each of which contain churches that are lead by the parish clergy. This structure sees authority as communicated in a downward direction from arch-bishop, through bishop to priest to congregational member.

The Episcopal, the Roman Catholic, the United Methodist, and the Eastern Orthodox churches follow the episcopal form of church government.

Presbyterian Church Structure

The presbyterian structure is a graded system of church government lead by presbyters or elders. The presbytery consists of ministers and elders from a district, and the synod or assembly of ministers and elders represent a wider area, or the whole country. The congregation is responsible to the presbytery and the presbytery to the synod.

The Presbyterian church of America follows the presbyterian church form of government.

Congregational Church Structure

Congregational churches are generally self-governing. Each congregation has its own pastor and church officers. No church has authority over any other church, each is (theoretically) a pure democracy. Pure congregationalism sees authority as flowing upward from the people, the congregation voting on major decisions with church leadership implementing the democratically decided will of the majority.

Congregationalists and Baptists follow the congregational form of church government.

It’s been several days of thinking on “If a man is told not to exercise his spiritual gifts, he is to obey God rather than humans, even those in authority… but a woman is told she must obey her husband rather than God, or is even told that she really does not have her spiritual gift. When does a man ever have the right to trump God?” as I’ve tried to get down to the bottom of the problem.

At first glance my reaction is to agree with how utterly dead wrong the church is to make such as assertion but it behoves me to think through the associated reasioning as to why it’s wrong. As I am progressing through VLI I’m increasingly aware of having influence with people. How I exert that influence will either perpetuate or change the system, so I have to ask myself, am I perpetuating a flawed system or am I seeking to change a system in a way that’s unhealthy?

Telling a woman “she must obey her husband rather than God or “even that she really does not have her spiritual gift” is plainly wrong! The question I am asking is whether this is wrong in isolation or whether it’s merely the logical outgrowth of a fundamentally flawed system. I really question a system that asserts a man should “obey God rather than humans, even those in authority” - given that it encourages a rugged individualism that seems to run counter to the teaching of mutual submission & Paul’s teaching on the body; it fans the fires of arrogance and pride inherent in sinful man.

Paul asserts that at the cross there is no slave or free, Jew or Gentile or male or female - were are all sinful human beings, loved by an infinite Saviour. Spiritual gifts are from the very same God who communicated this truth to Paul, so it follows that giftsa re available to all. It seems similarly logical that the rules of fair use of spiritual gifts would be applicable to all, irrespective of gender? I’m a firm believer in the Reformation principle of “The priesthood of all believers” which logically requires the exercise of spiritual gifts of all believers, both men and women. Whereas we used to be in submission to Rome / the priest prior to the Reformation, today we are all called to be in submission to the Body of Christ and other priests (that is, other believers).

More thinking: “If a man is told not to exercise his spiritual gifts, he is to obey God rather than humans, even those in authority”

Why would someone, anyone, be told not to exercise their gifts? 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 lay out ground-rules: do everything out od a deep love for the rest of the body of Christ, do it for the edification of the greater body of believers and practice things in an orderly fashion. Whether I particularly agree with my leadership or not, I really must have the principles of these chapters in my mind. Would ignoring the presciption against using my gifts cause harm to the body, would it stir dissention or cause confusion? What are my own motives - do I have a problem with pride and want to be seen to practice something visibly among people?

If a man is told “he is to obey God rather than humans, even those in authority” it fuels a very independent mindset, placing the individual above the corporate body in importance. World cultures vary greatly, Asian communities (for instance) might vary the corporate far greater than the individual. Western culture tends to weigh more in favour of the individual. Question is, what was the apostle Paul’s cultural angle? What was his intention in writing passages of the New Testament? I think we have an indication from the book of Corinthians, given the fact that he addresses the issue of dissention and division within the body again and again, dealing with it prominently up front before he digs into the weighty matters that follow; get a right picture of our relationships within the body, our interconnectedness, and the attitudes causing misuse of gifts could well change.

Perhaps it’s time to challenge the cultural assumptions of our day, to remind that man that God is a God of order and relationship, remind his that God has a plan and the time might not be yet for exercising his gift. Perhaps the root of the problem may be the assumption that a man should alow his own will to triumph over that of the wider community of faith?

Sehlat wrote a fascinating and informative post recently talking about women’s rights. I found it thought provoking and wanted to process a few of the ideas here in my blog, in the spirit of inter-blog conversation:

What about the church? We’re not even completely free there. Even though Jesus Christ elevated women in a culture which held women down, and even though Paul valued and encouraged his female co-workers, too much of the church has forgotten the message of freedom in Christ and unity of all believers, and has embraced in its place the results of the Fall.

• If a man is told not to exercise his spiritual gifts, he is to obey God rather than humans, even those in authority… but a woman is told she must obey her husband rather than God, or is even told that she really does not have her spiritual gift. When does a man ever have the right to trump God?
• Pornography is the secret sin of the church. As many as half of the men at some Promise Keepers rallies have confessed to using pornography. As a result, many Christian women are secretly suffering the shame of knowing their husbands are “turning to other women” for sexual fulfillment and making them perform degrading or painful sexual acts for their husband’s enjoyment. Worse, it’s all demanded in the name of “wifely submission”. Doesn’t Peter say something about God not hearing the prayers of men who mistreat their wives?
• Domestic abuse remains a problem, again under the name of “submission”. Pastors often side with abusive husbands against the wives, and they send abused women home into more abuse. Some pastors have even said that wives who die from abuse will die for God’s glory. How sick! Jesus Christ already died for the abuser’s sin. An abused woman’s blood can do nothing when Christ’s blood has been rejected.

Sehlat asked, “When does a man ever have the right to trump God?” And my answer would be a heartfult “never” with the qualification of asking, are we really sure we’re trumping God?

How we distinguish between the voice of God and the voice of our own desires, or even the voice of the enemy’s temptation, is a critical issue of the Christian life! We are told to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21), to be completely humble and gentle, to be be patient, bearing with one another in love (Ephesians 4:2). Too many leaders take these verses out of context, forgetting that they should be in submission themselves - accountable to other leaders outside of their own circles of influence (hence why denominational structures are a good thing) and to other men and women in the community of faith. Leaders should model the Christian life for those they are leading, and if an appropriate example is set, others will be more likely to follow their lead. If a leader is in submission, and accountable to someone else then I have a place to go to where decisions can be verified. The extra sets of eyes scrutenizing the issue will help to discern the difference of who’s voice is being heard. We need to operate with a policy of walking in the light - open, transparent and accountable relationships of mututal submission - at all times (1 John 1:5-10).

Obviously I am thinking in a fairly optimistic and fair-weather manner here. People’s ego always manages to muddy the waters!

I was loafing around a friend’s livejournal and came across a link to the IRC Bible. I couldnt resist reading the account of creation:

* Jehova has joined #tohuwabohu
Let there be light.
…
Well, let’s call the light day, and the darkness night.
Yes…
well, enough for today
* Jehova has left #tohuwabohu
* Jehova has joined #tohuwabohu
Mornin
Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters
Now… let’s call the firmament… erm, Heaven!
Yes…
nn
* Jehova has left #tohuwabohu
* Jehova has joined #tohuwabohu
mornin
Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear
k
the dry stuff will be land, and the wet stuff sea
uhm…
Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth
heh
short day
ron
* Jehova has left #tohuwabohu
* Jehova has joined #tohuwabohu
mornin
Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and for some other stuff
* Jehova sings: Here comes the sun…
du du du du
And I say, it’s alright…
ron
* Jehova has left #tohuwabohu
* Jehova has joined #tohuwabohu
mornin
Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens
And don’t eat eachoth…
Boring little buggers.
Ah, Be fruitful and multiply!
* Jehova sits back
ron
* Jehova has left #tohuwabohu
* Jehova has joined #tohuwabohu
Mornin
They’re still boring
Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds
yes, pretty little animals
Now, we only need a man
One man to rule them all
One man to find them
One man to bring them and in dar…
well, you catch my drift
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; yada yada yada
ron
* Jehova has quit IRC (signed off)

I seem to remember a similar thing being written using AIM / Yahoo / MSN rather than IRC but the sentiment is simlar.

Transylvania (map | info)

A historical region of western Romania bounded by the Transylvanian Alps and the Carpathian Mountains. Part of the Roman province of Dacia after A.D. 107, it was later overrun by Germanic peoples and came under Hungarian rule in 1003. Transylvania passed to various powers over the following centuries and finally became part of modern-day Romania after World War II.

In the context of the current VLI course teaching us about domestic and cross-cultural evangelism, I thought the following quote I ran across was an interesting viewpoint from the other side of the issue

As I have always said, missionaries are infernal nuisances who ought to be kept at home — dull, solemn asses without scientific acumen or historical perspective …

H.P. Lovecraft, September 1925

All the more reason, I suppose, that folks should be well trained and earn the right to preach the gospel by being credible in their day-to-day lives. That, or we’ll open ourselves to the accusation that Lovecraft makes, namely being “dull, solemn asses without scientific acumen or historical perspective”