Customer Reviews

Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government (Counterpoints: Church Life)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

One of the divisive matters in many churches today is the subject of church polity. In particular, what is the appropriate form of church government? In Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government the editors compile the views of representatives of the four predominant types of church government. Just about every form of church government is some variation of one of these four. The four views discussed are Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Single-Elder Congregationalism, and Plural-Elder Congregationalism.

Arguing for Episcopalianism is Dr. Peter Toon, rector of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor, Diocese of Lichfield, in the Church of England. Arguing the position of Presbyterianism is Dr. L. Roy Taylor the clerk/coordinator of administration of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. Presenting the position of Single-Elder Congregationalism is Dr. Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. And presenting the case for Plural-Elder Congregationalism is Samuel E. Waldron, Ph.D. candidate in systematic theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
A typical chapter starts with one of them presenting their position on their chosen form of church government and why it is the most appropriate one. This presentation is then followed by commentary by each of the people with differing views.

Each presents their case with passion and argues it well. If you want to understand why some churches choose one form of government or why others feel that position is wrong you will find excellent explanations in this book. Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government is highly recommended to anyone interested in this area.

This book should be helpful to anyone seeking to better understand the different views of church government. It follows the classic Counterpoints style of having advocates for each of the four positions state their case, and then the other three critique each presentation. There is also a "Closing Remarks" section that provides a final opportunity for each contributor to respond to their critics. This approach allows the reader to examine the varying church government models as explained and defended by people who actually hold the respective views, and to listen in as these scholars interact with and challenge each other. It's proven to be an enlightening approach in other works, and no less so with this book.

The book begins with a readable introduction to the topic by the editor Steven Cowan. This section is thorough, but concise, getting right to the point. I thought this was very well-written, a pleasure to read, and serves to draw the reader into the discussion.

Fairly quickly, we get an idea of the dividing lines between the various views. Peter Toon (presenting Episcopalianism) doesn't spend much time defending his view scripturally. He feels that the Bible doesn't give us a definitive model of church government. He also believes that the early history of the church was providentially guided by the Holy Spirit, and is thus an authoritative guide for later generations. All of the other participants note the lack of biblical support for Toon's view---even noting that it contradicts the New Testament's equating the terms 'elder/presbyter' and 'bishop/overseer/episcopos' as referring to the same office. This is an important issue because the other three all claim that Scripture does, in fact, teach a definite model of church polity. All three of Toon's fellow contributors question the acceptance of church history as authoritative, and some wonder why Toon stops at the first five centuries. They also challenge Toon with the historical fact of unorthodox practices and beliefs that crept into the early church. (Why accept some historical developments as divinely guided and authoritative, but not all?) Toon places a lot of weight on the church's supposed determination of the canon of Scripture. In my opinion, he mischaracterizes both the nature of canon and the process of recognizing and affirming the biblical canon.

L. Roy Taylor presents Presbyterianism. It was interesting to see how much of his view was colored by, possibly even dependent on, his covenantal theology. During the course of his chapter, he gives a fairly extensive overview of church history (managing to sneak in a little support for his eschatological views, and stacking the deck against his opponents). A primary division between Taylor and the two Congregationalists (Patterson and Waldron) is the extent to which the early churches were connected. Taylor sees biblical principles requiring organization, authority, and accountability beyond the local congregation. Patterson and Waldron see the New Testament churches as autonomous, but voluntarily interdependent (in spirit, not in any official capacity). The only text to which Taylor can point for definitive support of this extra-congregational system of church courts is Acts 15. Waldron protests that this declaration was authoritative to the other churches specifically because of its apostolic nature, a setting which is historically unique and unrepeatable after the late first century. Patterson questions where these courts of Presbyterianism are clearly found in Scripture.

Paige Patterson's chapter is titled "Single-Elder Congregationalism," but could be more accurately described as 'primary-elder Congregationalism' (as Waldron notes in his response). This is very similar to the monoepiscopacy (elders plus single bishop leading each church) that led to a full-fledged episcopal model in the late second century. Patterson doesn't have a problem with a church having multiple elders as long as there is one primary pastor. I was surprised by the lack of a robust case from Patterson. There seemed to be a tremendous amount of appeal to history and tradition, while claiming to be establishing the NT pattern. While he allows for the possibility of churches adding multiple elders, he assumes that the NT churches began with one elder and added more as needed. He also seems to assume that many of the NT churches still had only one elder. This appears to me a real stretch since no passage confirms any of this. Waldron claims that Patterson is merely defending the status quo, and this seems to ring true, at least regarding the distinctive role of the pastor.

Samuel Waldron presents "Plural-Elder Congregationalism." The difference between the two Congregationalists involves the plurality of elders, the parity between the elders, and the appropriateness of distinguishing a pastor from the other elders. Waldron convincingly (to me) establishes a consistent biblical pattern of each church being led by a plurality of elders. This is such a strong pattern, supported by many related passages, that Waldron feels that, while not sinful, it is abnormal and unhealthy for a church to be led by a single elder and that this is a situation that would need to be rectified. He also argues exegetically against the Presbyterian distinction between teaching elders and ruling elders. While he allows for diversity of gifting, influence, and extent of ministry among the elders---even to the point of a de facto first among equals---he points out that there is no biblical support for setting apart one elder and giving him an office (e.g. senior pastor) in distinction to the other elders. He challenges both Taylor and Patterson that if they are willing to distinguish between elders and a pastor despite both of them teaching that Scripture equates the two, how can they criticize Episcopalians for distinguishing between elders and a bishop in the same manner?

Waldron begins his chapter with a very helpful explanation of the two aspects of Congregationalism: the autonomous nature of churches, and the democratic involvement of the congregation in making decisions. I appreciate this because there seems to be a lot of confusion today regarding the exact nature of Congregationalism. Waldron frequently uses the word 'democratic' to describe congregational involvement, and this will be off-putting to some (as it was to me). However, he clarifies that he is using the word hesitantly, and both he and Patterson warn against the extremely democratic form of Congregationalism with which many readers will be most familiar. Waldron repeatedly refers to the "consent" of the congregation, which will be much more palatable to some. What he and Patterson seem to be advocating in their Congregationalism is a process where the elders lead the church in arriving at a consensus regarding the will of Christ for His church. I think this could be a healthy corrective for churches that practice an overly democratic model, and a healthy challenge to those, like myself, who have avoided what we though of as Congregationalism because of the abuses and weaknesses of the extreme democratic approach. This aspect of the discussion in this book was thought-provoking to me in a way that I didn't expect.

As mentioned, the contributors are given a final closing to respond to their fellow writers and to make their case one last time. This gave a nice sense of completion to the book, but it didn't really add any new insights.

I think this book is a wonderful resource, and I warmly recommend it. We plan to use it as part of our in-house pastoral training program.

What does the Bible say about Church government? Is there such a thing as a "Biblical" Church government, and if so, what is it?

"Who runs the Church" addresses these issues. It contains contributions from four authors, each defending a different view of Church polity. All four are Protestants, but there the similarity ends. Peter Toon, a minister in the Church of England, argues in support of episcopalianism. The Presbyterian L. Roy Taylor defends presbyteranism (of course), while the Southern Baptists Paige Patterson and Samuel E. Waldron both believe that congregationalism is the correct position. Patterson believes that the congregation should be led by a single elder, while Waldron supports a plural-elder system.

Toon's argument for the episcopate is largely based on the first five centuries of Church history and tradition, rather than on the New Testament. He does believe that the seeds of an episcopalian system are present already in the New Testament writings, but concedes that a fully evolved episcopalianism belongs to the patristic period. However, Toon doesn't see this as a problem, since the canon of Scripture and the main creeds are also products of this period. If Christians accept this, why not accept a Church led by bishops?

By contrast, Taylor, Paige and Waldron attempt to prove their preferred forms of Church government by direct appeals to the New Testament (Taylor also mentions the Old Testament). They believe that the Reformation restored the true Biblical foundations of the Church, and therefore place less emphasis on the patristic age. They spend more time discussing Reformed or Baptist history.

There is a certain amount of frustration visible in the contributions. The difference between Toon on the one hand and the three other writers on the other is an obvious great divide. Toon feels that the Presbyterians and Baptists don't take Church history seriously enough, while his opponents accuse him of downplaying the Bible. The book does give a good overview of the differences between episcopalianism, presbyterianism and congregationalism. Frankly, I didn't realize that these issues were still *this* contentious. I tend to associate "Biblical" conflicts over church government with the English Civil War!

I'm not a Christian, so in that sense I don't care who "wins" a debate like this. Besides, I don't think the question can be solved. The church described in the New Testament had a unique form of organization which was neither "episcopalian", "presbyterian" nor "congregationalist" in the latter senses of these terms. In many ways, the early Church was marked by a *lack* of organization. It was dependent on peripatetic, charismatic leadership figures. This obviously rules out dioceses or archbishoprics, but also Presbyterian general assemblies. But nor is it congregationalism, since the apostles obviously expected to be obeyed by the faithful, and often ordained elders when they planted new congregations.

Just for the fun of it, I browsed Acts and some of the Pauline letters to see what could be gleaned from them about church government. It's obvious that the apostles are considered the leaders. But who exactly is an apostle? In Acts 1, the apostles seem to be the original twelve disciples of Jesus, minus the traitor Judas Iscariot. Peter gathers 120 believers to appoint a new apostle in place of Judas. Congregationalists take this to mean that the early Church was congregational, since *all* believers participated in the selection of a new apostle. But does it? In the rest of the New Testament, the term "apostle" does not refer to the twelve disciples alone. Paul was an apostle. He wasn't part of the twelve. Nor was Jacob, the brother of Jesus. Junia and Andronicus were also apostles. They weren't part of the twelve either. Jacob must have been present at the meeting of the 120 believers. It's possible that Junia and Andronicus were present as well, since Paul says they were in Christ before him. Thus, the broader definition of apostle is anyone who met Jesus in the flesh (or, in the unique case of Paul, the heavenly Jesus). But this would make *all* the 120 original believers apostles, since presumably they had all known Jesus personally! After all, the meeting which appointed Matthias the successor of Judas took place shortly after the (supposed) ascension of Jesus. Thus, this wasn't a meeting of your average Baptist congregation. It was a gathering of apostles (in the broader sense of the term). This would have given it the necessary authority to appoint a new member of the Twelve. Besides, the actual number of believers may have been larger than the obviously symbolic number 120. Paul claims that the resurrected Jesus once showed himself to 500 believers at once!

In Acts 6, the congregation does appoint ministers often regarded as deacons, including Stephen. However, deacons are more lower-ranking than elders. Also, the decision of the congregation is approved by the apostles by the laying on of hands.

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul instructs a congregation to expel an erring member. This sounds like congregationalism: all believers as a collective have the right and duty to uphold Church discipline. However, Paul also says that he is present "in spirit" at the meeting of the congregation, and that he has "already condemned" the sinner in question. It sounds as if Paul is demanding that the congregation rubber stamps a decision already reached by Paul himself in absentia.

An even trickier question concerns the prophets. The New Testament repeatedly mentions prophets in the early Church. Paul even gives women the right to prophesy. The prophets obviously had some status within the Ur-Church. But who appointed them? This is never explained, but judging by the context, they were self-appointed. This would have created an almost "anarchic" situation, in which anyone could step forward and claim the mantle of a prophet. On the other hand, the apostles obviously had the right to rebuke the prophets. Paul rebukes unruly prophets in 1 Cor 14. John (or a writer claiming to be John) rebukes the false prophet Jezebel in Revelation, on behalf of Christ himself, no less.

Finally, there is the famed Council of Jerusalem (described in Acts 15) at which the mother church in Jerusalem reached a decision binding on all Christian congregations. The council consisted of both "apostles" and "elders". It's not clear how the elders had been appointed. By the apostles? However, they are clearly equal with the apostles at the council. The decisions of the council were considered binding on the entire Church, although no other congregation sent delegates to the council. This, then, is something as curious as a kind of "collective papacy"!

What about single elders or plural elders? Usually, the Church leadership seems to have been collective. The apostles are, of course, a collective. When Paul and Barnabas were appointed missionaries, the decision was taken collectively by the Church leadership at Antioch, described as "prophets and teachers". Priscilla and Aquila are always mentioned in tandem. But note the seven letters in Revelation, which seem to imply a single elder or even bishop (if the "angel" is taken to be a symbol of an actual person).

The Apostolic Fathers are also contradictory. Clement of Rome says that after the age of the apostles, bishops and deacons were selected by "men of repute with the consent of the whole Church". It's not clear who the "men of repute" might be. Nor is it clear to me what "consent of the whole Church" means, since Clement opposes the "sedition" at Corinth, during which the Corinthian Christians overthrew its presbyters (or bishops). Clement apprently feels he has the right to intervene in the proceedings of another congregation! Another kind of tension exists in the Didache, which recognizes apostles as the supreme leaders, while nevertheless giving the congregation the right to test whether a visiting apostle really is an apostle or not. And finally, there is Ignatius, who defends the rule of a single, male bishop over the congregation. This system eventually won out and became the standard one.

It would seem that the earliest Church had a somewhat improvisational organization, hardly surprising given the small number and scattered character of the Christian believers at this time. After the death of the apostles, the question became who should inherit their authority? No clear answer is given in the New Testament, so we may safely predict that the question "who runs the church" will continue to saw dissension...