Order
Church order is another hot topic in ecumenical debate. Very few churches share exactly the same kind of order and nearly all of them consider the way their church is organized to be the “right” way. Because I believe most of this debate to be useless, there will not be much commentary on how the church “ought” to be structured, but as a way to help laypeople understand some of the major differences that do exist, here are the three major structures of church government.
Episcopal
There is a denomination in America called the Episcopal Church; however, there are churches that have Episcopal forms of church government outside of this denomination. This form of government has been the predominant one throughout the history of the church, being used by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church (of which the Episcopal Church in America is a part).
Episcopal church government simply means that government is primarily by bishops (the word Episcopal comes from the Greek word επισκοπος which means overseer). Bishops are the highest administrative office and wield the most power over how things are done. Historically, the church has held councils of large numbers of bishops to make church-wide decisions (such as the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon). In any particular area, the bishop is where final authority rests.
The United Methodist Church fits into this category but in a modified form. Whereas in most episcopally governed churches, bishops are considered a third order, in the United Methodist Church, this is not the case. Traditionally, one is ordained as a deacon, then ordained as a priest or elder, then ordained once again as a bishop. This means that, once one is ordained as a bishop they are no longer an elder; they have left that behind just as they left their lay status behind when they were ordained in the first place. The United Methodist Church does not ordain bishops, but consecrates them to a particular office. Bishops are not “higher” than elders, but they do fill an important office.
The advantage of episcopal church government is that it is somewhat streamlined. Everyone knows where authority lies and to whom they are to appeal. As the church is structured from “the top down,” as it were, it can make decisions quickly and efficiently. The disadvantage it has is that it places the power in the hands of a few. If the few are particularly qualified and effective, things go well (just like, throughout history, it was in a land where there was a good king). If they are ill qualified, on the other hand, it can be extremely problematic.
Presbyterian
Once again, there is a denomination that bears the name “Presbyterian,” but there are other churches, such as the Reformed Church of America, the Church of Scotland, and others, that have a Presbyterian government. As the name implies (Presbyterian comes from the Greek word πρεσβυτερος, meaning elder), presbyterian churches are governed by elders. These elders include the various ministers of word and sacrament, who are called “teaching elders,” but it is not limited to them. The governing body of the local church is made up of members who are elected as elders. These people are eligible to participate in various assemblies to make decisions that affect larger portions of the church.
Another note regarding the United Methodist Church is in order, partly because it is the denomination to which I belong, partly because it has such unusual polity. It could be argued that, though it is governed by bishops, the United Methodist Church practices presbyterian ordination. The final decision of whether to ordain someone is not made by the bishop, but the board of ordained ministry, a group of ordained pastors (in the United Methodist Church, pastors are ordained as elders). The bishop functions as the chief elder in the ordination, but is accompanied by a group of elders in the actual act of ordination.
Congregational
There are many churches that operate with congregational forms of church government including about any church with “congregational” in the title, the United Church of Christ, various Baptist churches, and, presumably, most nondenominational churches (it can only be presumed because there is no rule that insists that any nondenominational church uses a particular form of church government. In theory, a pastor of a nondenominational church could have autocratic rule, which would make it more episcopalian than congregational). In this form of government, the congregation is the highest source of authority to which everyone else, including the minister, is ultimately subject.
The main advantage this has is that it is theoretically impossible for the authority of the church to make a decision that is disagreed with by the congregation because the congregation is that authority. This means that each congregation is free to carry out its business as it sees fit. The main disadvantage is effectively the same thing. There are times when local congregations are in the wrong about one or more important issue and, left to themselves, will only perpetuate the error. Accountability to a larger body would be helpful to restrain the tendencies of maverick congregations. As a side note, congregational “denominations” do not function in nearly the same kind of authoritative way that others do. There is tremendous freedom to agree or disagree with official denominational proclamations.
It is difficult to make a case that says that one particular form of church government is the form that is taught and insisted upon by the New Testament (though some have certainly tried to do so). Bishops, elders and congregations are all spoken of as having a say in how the church is run, but none are afforded the kind of supremacy that would seem to lie behind such exclusive claims that a particular form of government is “right” that some people make.
No comments:
Post a Comment