Skip to main content

The Church - The Church's Government


Many people mistakenly think of the Church as an organization. This understanding of the Church is mistaken because it is inconsistent with what Scripture says about the Church. Rather than an organization, the New Testament clearly teaches that the Church is a living organism of which Christ is the Head giving direction to believer’s who are His Body. Yet as a living organism, all local congregations or assemblies must be governed.

Three types of church government emerged:
(1) Episcopal. Under this type of government, bishops govern local congregations; typically one bishop will govern a group of congregations. The simplest form of this type of church government can be found in the Methodist church while the more complex form can be found in the Roman Catholic Church. This type of church government is not seen in the first century, it originated in the second century. Proponents point to James, Timothy, and Titus for biblical support.
(2) Presbyterian. In this form of government, a plurality of elders (the session) governs the local congregation. The elders are elected by the people, therefore the elders represent the people, and it is a representative form of government. Above the session is the presbytery which is made up of all the teaching elders (ordained ministers) and one ruling elder (lay elected elder) from each congregation in a district. Above the presbytery is the synod and above the synod the general assembly which is the highest court in this form of government. Both the synod and the general assembly are comprised of ministers and ruling elders. There is very strong biblical evidence that supports this form of church government in terms of a plurality of elders; however, the New Testament says nothing about such organization beyond the local congregation.
(3) Congregational. In this form of government, the authority rests on the entire local congregation rather than on someone who is appointed or elected to represent them as in the presbyterian form of government. These local churches are autonomous; meaning no authority outside that local body of believer’s has any power over that church. These churches are also democratic, meaning all believers who belong to that particular church make the decisions that guide and govern it. There is strong biblical support for this form of government in the New Testament since we find many passages that clearly indicate that all members of local congregations should be involved in the decision-making process (Acts 6:3-5; 11:22; 14:23; 15:25; 1 Cor. 5:12; 2 Cor. 2:6-7; 8:19; 2 Thess. 3:14; 1 John 4:1).

Since elements of both the presbyterian and congregational forms of government find strong support in the New Testament, perhaps the best form of church government would be the combining or bringing together of those elements that have strong biblical support. For example, there is no doubt that the local churches in the New Testament were governed by a plurality of elders (presbyterian form of government), on the other hand, the New Testament also shows that these local churches had no outside authority with power over them, in other words, they were clearly autonomous and democratic (congregational form of government).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Inspired, Infallible, and Inerrant Word

  All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16).   Our primary and final safeguard against false teaching is the Word of God. Verses 16 and 17 of 2 Timothy 3 are among the most important and significant in all the New Testament. They clearly declare the Source of Scripture and thus the Scripture’s authority. Second Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:21 for the basis for our conviction that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. Paul points out three important truths here: First, all Scripture is God-breathed. When Paul writes in that all Scripture is inspired , he is saying that the entire Bible and every word in it originates with God. Tom Constable correctly states that the Bible “does not merely contain the Word of God or become the Word of God under certain conditions. I...
Post a Comment
Read more

Key Figures in the Tribulation (Part 3)

  His Career      The career of the Antichrist can be broken down into four stages. These stages or phases characterize his progression and ultimately his demise. Prior to the Tribulation     According to Daniel 7, the Antichrist ( “ little horn” ) will come out of the revived Roman empire which means that he is coming from the West. At this stage, he will most likely be the political leader of a powerful western country, powerful enough to enter into a covenant with Israel and guarantee her safety. The restored Roman empire will result from the coming together of a western federation of nations, which appears to take place after the beginning of the tribulation. We may very well be witnessing the initial stages of this prophecy as we witness the coming together of many western European countries who have forged a federation or union socially, politically, and economically.      According to Revelation 6:2, early in the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Her Past, Present, and Future: Understanding the Role of Israel in History (Part 4)

  The Palestinian (Land) Covenant      Four crucial aspects of the covenant amplify the land aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. First, from the beginning of the covenant relationship, God promised Abraham land (e.g., Genesis 12:1; 13:14-17; 15:7; 17:7-8). The land covenant not only reaffirms God’s commitment to give Israel the promised land, but it develops and adds important truths related to the land (e.g., Numbers 34:1-12; Deuteronomy 30:1-10). Second, the land covenant is an unconditional covenant since it is an elaboration of the land aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. Nothing, not even Israel’s rebellion and disobedience could nullify the covenant. Yes, Israel’s sin caused them to lose the right to live on the land, but the covenant has not been set aside. Any conditions were connected to the receiving or losing of blessing, not the fulfillment of the covenant promise.      Some argue that Deuteronomy 30:1-3 makes the covenant conditi...
Post a Comment
Read more